A Social Forestry Business Framework for Revitalizing Stagnant Forest Farmer Groups: A Case Study of Central Java, Indonesia

A Social Forestry Business Framework for Revitalizing Stagnant Forest Farmer Groups: A Case Study of Central Java, Indonesia | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article A Social Forestry Business Framework for Revitalizing Stagnant Forest Farmer Groups: A Case Study of Central Java, Indonesia Muhammad Abdul Rahman Subrata, San Afri Awang, Ris Hadi Purwanto, and 3 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9098279/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 9 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Many forest farmer groups (FFGs) in Indonesia experience stagnation after obtaining social forestry permits, largely due to the absence of an operationalized social forestry business framework at the site level. Using a pragmatic research paradigm through a complex mixed-method Participatory Action Research approach, this study aims to develop a social forestry business framework capable of simultaneously addressing key challenges faced by FFGs, including: (1) improving farm household income through more efficient marketing schemes; (2) strengthening institutional capacity within FFGs; and (3) ensuring compliance with Non-Tax State Revenue (NTSR) obligations. This research was conducted in Wono Makmur Forest Farmer Group (Wono Makmur FFG), Boyolali Regency, Central Java, Indonesia, which obtained a Social Forestry Forest Management Permit under the Community Forestry scheme in 2017. According to the Indonesian government database in 2023, the group represents the oldest FFG in Boyolali while also recording the lowest productivity compared with neighboring groups. The study was implemented over a three-year period from early 2023 to early 2026. The resulting framework produces a form of local episteme that enables FFG members to independently diagnose group challenges, address them through participatory mechanisms, and design more efficient forest-product marketing channels while meeting NTSR obligations through an integrated village market system. Although the framework effectively addresses the challenges faced by FFGs, achieving a genuinely participatory consensus requires a relatively long process because it must accommodate the aspirations of all group members and relevant stakeholders. Participatory Action Research (PAR) business framework consensus forest farmer group (FFG) Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Introduction Social forestry has emerged as a contemporary paradigm in forest governance in Indonesia, positioning local forest communities as primary actors in the management of forest resources (Erbaugh 2019 ). This paradigm emphasizes a participatory, bottom-up approach aimed at improving community livelihoods while simultaneously ensuring the sustainability of forest management (Fisher et al. 2019 ). Through the support of facilitators from non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the Regional Forestry Service (Cabang Dinas Kehutanan,CDK), academic institutions, donor agencies, and the central government, communities are granted legal access to locally grounded forest management practices, expected to simultaneously strengthen ecological, economic, and social dimensions (Awang et al. 2022 ). As of February 2026, social forestry permits within Forest Areas with Special Management (Kawasan Hutan Dengan Pengelolaan Khusus,KHDPK) covered 8.3 million hectares and involved more than 1.4 million households (Director General of Social Forestry and Environmental Partnership 2026 ). At the macro level, this policy has the potential to reduce land tenure inequality, enhance the welfare of local forest communities, and increase Non-Tax State Revenue (NTSR) from both timber and non-timber forest products (Nurfatriani et al. 2015 ). Despite its policy expansion, social forestry implementation remains constrained by structural and institutional challenges, including tenure insecurity, limited human resource capacity, weak institutional governance, and underdeveloped downstream value chains and forest product business management (Maring 2022 ). KHDPK management is largely implemented in state forest areas formerly managed by state-owned forestry enterprises in Java. However, boundary delineation processes in several locations are still ongoing, generating divergent interpretations and increasing the potential for competing land claims and tenure conflicts (Awang 2003 ; Nugroho et al. 2024 ). Uneven administrative and technical capacities, coupled with limited managerial and entrepreneurial competencies at the group level, significantly constrain the performance of FFGs. These limitations are particularly evident in their ability to meet institutional, administrative, and fiscal obligations to the state. Such conditions indicate that social forestry challenges are not merely technical production issues but are deeply embedded in institutional and governance dimensions. Therefore, facilitation efforts must move beyond production-oriented technical assistance to encompass institutional strengthening, financial governance, and the development of adaptive and sustainable business models (Sirimorok et al. 2024 ). Participatory Action Research (PAR) is a research approach widely employed to promote social change through the active involvement of communities throughout the entire research and action cycle (Bradbury 2015 ). PAR positions researchers and communities as equal subjects in the process of social transformation, enabling complementary interactions between scientific knowledge and local experience (Kitagawa 2023 ; Salman and Ramsis 2025 ). This approach is grounded in the pragmatist tradition, which prioritizes the achievement of transformative social outcomes over dichotomous methodological debates between qualitative and quantitative paradigms (Lykes and Mallona 2008 ; Sendal et al. 2018). A growing body of literature highlights the effectiveness of Participatory Action Research (PAR) in advancing community well-being across diverse contexts, including agrosilvopastoral intensification in Indonesia, food security strengthening in North Africa, women’s empowerment in disaster risk reduction in Nepal, community-based peatland restoration in Indonesia, climate adaptation among smallholder farmers in Ghana and Zimbabwe, and water resource management in South Africa (Subrata et al. 2022 ; Hlungwani et al. 2025 ; Ruszczyk et al. 2020 ; Purnomo et al. 2024 ; Mapfumo et al. 2013 ; Hove et al. 2023 ). Participatory Action Research (PAR) has generated significant contributions to social forestry in Indonesia, particularly in resolving sensitive issues such as participatory land mapping and fostering consensus within multi-stakeholder collaborative planning processes in Bulukumba, South Sulawesi (Fisher et al. 2017 ). Despite these contributions, the majority of PAR studies remain issue-specific, while FFGs in practice confront intertwined economic, institutional, administrative, and business management challenges. The flexible and inclusive nature of Participatory Action Research (PAR), which integrates diverse knowledge to achieve pragmatic outcomes, offers strong potential for developing a social forestry business framework capable of addressing multiple challenges within FFGs. However, its application in the social forestry context of Java remains largely unexplored. Building on this background, this study piloted the formulation of a social forestry business framework through the Wono Makmur FFG in Boyolali Regency. The group was purposively selected because it is the oldest FFG in the regency and demonstrates the lowest productivity among four comparable neighboring FFGs. The successful formulation of this business framework is expected to be replicable across other FFGs facing similar or less complex challenges. Beyond facilitating problem-solving at the group level, this study proposes a consensus-based and cyclic learning-oriented social forestry business framework as a conceptual contribution to the literature on social forestry governance. This study was designed to address three main research questions: (1) How do members of the FFG collectively construct agreement regarding the challenges faced by the group?; (2) How can relevant stakeholders build consensus in developing action plans, executing collective actions, and conducting evaluations based on mutually agreed problem definitions?; (3) How are these processes collectively understood as a cyclical learning mechanism within a social forestry business framework, functioning as a shared episteme within the group? Methods This study employed Participatory Action Research (PAR), integrating both qualitative and quantitative approaches based on data and information collected through field research conducted from January 2023 to 21 January 2026 at the Wono Makmur FFG in Klego Subdistrict, Boyolali Regency (Fig. 1 ). The Wono Makmur FFG was granted a Community Forestry, Social Forestry Utilization Permit under Decree No. SK.5842/MENLHK-PSKL/PKPS/PSL.0/10/2017, formally handed over by the 7th President of Indonesia, Joko Widodo, on 4 November 2017. In 2023, the permit was upgraded to a Community Forestry Management License under Decree No. SK.10973/MENLHK-PSKL/PKPS/PSL.0/9/2023. According to Regulation of the Minister of Environment and Forestry No. 4 of 2023, a Community Forestry Management License represents a form of legal tenure granted by the Minister to individuals, forest farmer groups, associations of forest farmer groups, or local community cooperatives, authorizing them to manage and utilize forests within both protected and production forest areas. The Community Forestry Management License aims to improve local livelihoods, sustain environmental balance, and strengthen socio-cultural dynamics within forest-adjacent communities. Under the two decrees, the Wono Makmur FFG is authorized to manage 56 hectares of forest area and comprises 69 active member households. The Wono Makmur FFG was purposively selected as the study site because, at the time of the research, it had no registered production commodities (0) in the Social Forestry Business Group Information System. This situation reflects a discrepancy between the intended objectives of the Community Forestry Management License and its practical implementation at the group level, thus warranting in-depth investigation. To answer the three research questions, this study adopted a participatory action research (PAR) approach to facilitate: (1) the identification and validation of key challenges faced by the FFG through engagement with group members and stakeholders; (2) collective decision-making in designing, implementing, and evaluating action programs; and (3) critical reflection on these processes to construct shared group values as an epistemic foundation for social forestry business management in the Wono Makmur FFG. The PAR framework applied in the Wono Makmur FFG employed a complex mixed-method design that combined quantitative and qualitative methods (Shearn et al. 2021 ). This methodological design entailed the use of multiple data collection and analysis techniques. These techniques were implemented sequentially across distinct stages, as presented in Fig. 2 . To address the first objective, data were obtained through unstructured observations and focus group discussions (FGDs) involving six purposively selected informants recommended by the FFG leader. This stage provided contextual understanding of the research setting and assessed household economic conditions using food-security indicators based on Engel’s Law. The contextual data were analyzed using thematic analysis, a flexible qualitative approach for identifying and interpreting patterns within qualitative datasets (Braun and Clarke 2008 , 2021 ). In parallel, the welfare of FFG member households was quantitatively evaluated using the Engel coefficient, expressed in the following formula. $$E=\frac{F}{Y}$$ Where E represents the Engel coefficient; F denotes household food expenditure; and Y refers to total household income. According to Engel’s Law, a lower Engel coefficient indicates a higher level of household welfare (Houthakker 1857). The findings from the thematic analysis and the Engel coefficient assessment were discussed in the first focus group discussion (FGD 1), attended by the research team, FFG board members, and selected member representatives. Consensus analysis was applied to examine agreement and disagreement among stakeholders through iterative dialogue and negotiation (Innes and Booher 2018 ). The discussion produced a shared consensus on the group’s main challenges and strategic actions to address them. To address the second research objective, data were collected through a perspective census, FGD 2, and a working meeting. The perspective census was administered to all 69 active members to examine their responses to the consensus reached in FGD 1. In addition to the perspective census, a socio-economic census was conducted and subsequently analyzed using univariate statistical methods to establish a statistical profile of the Wono Makmur FFG members. Univariate statistical analysis is a descriptive method employed to examine and summarize the characteristics of individual variables through measures of central tendency, variability, and distributional properties (Field 2018 ; Agresti and Finlay 2009 ). Census findings were discussed in FGD 2 involving FFG leaders, member representatives, researchers, and a facilitator from CDK III Central Java. The forum reached consensus on strategic priorities derived from the statistical results and translated them into a structured technical work plan for the FFG social forestry business model. The agreement was subsequently institutionalized through a formal working meeting that defined program responsibilities, resource allocation, implementation schedules, and monitoring–evaluation mechanisms endorsed by all stakeholders. To fulfill the third objective, the epistemic consolidation was institutionalized through the formal endorsement of the social forestry business framework. The inauguration was attended by FFG board members and general members, village officials, representatives of CDK III Central Java, the research team, agroforestry commodity off-takers, and other relevant stakeholders, thereby reinforcing shared values and collective commitment. A comprehensive summary of the data collection techniques, categories of respondents or informants, analytical methods, and resulting outputs is presented in Table 1 . Table 1 Summary of data collection techniques, respondents, analysis, and outputs Objective Data Collection Technique Respondents/ Informants Analysis Outputs 1 Unstructured Observation Purposively selected informants around the research site (6 informants) 1. Thematic analysis 2. Descriptive analysis (Engel’s Law). 1. Description of the research setting 2. Food security index and socio-economic conditions FGD 1 Research team, FFG members, FFG management board Consensus analysis of research setting and food security index Consensus on FFG constraints and challenges and proposed solutions Census All FFG members and board members Descriptive univariate statistical analysis Statistical profile of socio-economic conditions and members’ perspectives 2 FGD 2 Research team, FFG board members, CDK representatives, selected FFG members Consensus analysis of socio-economic statistics and members’ perspectives Consensus on strategic issues and formulation of a technical work plan for the FFG social forestry business model Working Meeting Research team, CDK representatives, FFG board, FFG members Dissemination and operational consolidation of strategic consensus Assignment of program coordinators, funding schemes, implementation schedules, monitoring and evaluation 3 Formal Inauguration of the Social Forestry Business Framework Village officials, CDK representatives, FFG board members, FFG members, agroforestry commodity off-takers Ceremonial consolidation of consensus and reporting of collective action progress Action plan report, evaluation report, and formal endorsement of the FFG business model episteme Result Unstructured Observation Unstructured observation served as the entry point of the mixed-method design (Creswell and Creswell 2018 ), enabling researchers to develop an initial contextual understanding of the study area. This stage provided descriptive insights into the physical environment, community atmosphere, and socio-economic conditions of local households (Fetters and Rubinstein 2019 ). Observations showed that communities surrounding the Wono Makmur FFG predominantly rely on agrarian livelihoods, cultivating both state forest land and private forest plots. Households also commonly raise small-scale livestock such as poultry, cattle, and goats. Maize is the main crop during the rainy season and is typically planted twice. Cassava is cultivated as a secondary crop with an annual harvest. Agricultural activities largely stop during the dry season due to limited rainfall, locally known as “bero.” Field activities also include collecting livestock forage throughout the year. Many households additionally engage in off-farm work such as trading, mechanical repair, construction labor, and tailoring. Infrastructure conditions indicate that most houses are traditional wooden limasan structures with bamboo roof frames and clay tiles, while household water supply mainly depends on privately owned wells with electric pumps. Community life in the study area is supported by several public facilities, including mosques, a village hall, electricity from the national grid, concrete village roads, and small local shops. Social relations emphasize communal harmony and collective solidarity, with strong respect for established local leaders. Residents generally comply with leadership guidance and display the cultural value of nrimo , a Javanese principle of accepting existing circumstances and authority. Social interactions therefore tend to reflect a hierarchical structure in which leaders formulate norms and directives while residents largely follow them, even when these decisions do not entirely reflect individual preferences. Household economic conditions were assessed using Engel’s Law food security analysis, an approach employed by FAO that compares monthly food expenditure with total household expenditure (Clements and Ji 2018; Chavas 2017 ).The resulting ratio is presented in Table 2 . Table 2 Engel’s Law Index of Wono Makmur FFG Members No Respondent Food Expenditure (FE) Total Expenditure (TE) FE/TE (%) 1 Respondent 1 Rp 1,500,000 Rp 3,407,500 44.0 2 Respondent 2 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 8,045,833 24.9 3 Respondent 3 Rp 1,500,000 Rp 3,324,167 45.1 4 Respondent 4 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 2,047,500 97.7 5 Respondent 5 Rp 2,000,000 Rp 2,192,917 91.2 6 Respondent 6 Rp 2,500,000 Rp 9,468,750 26.4 Mean 54.9 According to the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), there are four levels of household food security based on Engel’s Law: severe, moderate, mild, and no food insecurity (Marchetti and Secondi 2022 ). The detailed classification is presented in Table 3 . Table 3 Engel’s Law Classification Class Range (FE/TE %) Description > 70% Severe food insecurity 50%-70% Moderate food insecurity 40–50% Mild food insecurity < 40% No food insecurity Based on the national socio-economic survey classification, the average food security level of the Wono Makmur FFG was 54.9%, placing it in the moderate food insecurity category. Among the respondents, 33.3% were classified as food secure, 33.3% as experiencing mild food insecurity, and the remaining 33.3% as facing severe food insecurity. The findings from this unstructured observation were subsequently validated with stakeholders, particularly FFG board members and group members, through the FGD 1 forum. FGD 1 FGD 1 was held on July 25, 2025, and was initiated by the research team to validate findings from prior unstructured observations with relevant stakeholders. The discussion aimed to establish a shared understanding of the key challenges faced by the FFG) and to generate potential solutions. During the session, researchers presented observational findings describing the visual environment, community atmosphere, and the social and economic conditions of Wono Makmur FFG. FGD 1 resulted in six key agreements, as follows: (1) Confirmation of the unstructured observation findings concerning visual, environmental, and socio-economic conditions; (2) Verification of the Engel’s Law coefficient (54.9%), indicating that FFG households remain economically vulnerable, with an average level of moderate food insecurity; (3) Consensus that the primary challenge facing the FFG is the stagnation of member contributions to the group fund; (4) Agreement to formulate a social forestry business framework that simultaneously supports member welfare and institutional strengthening through group contributions; (5) Collective reflection to be communicated in the subsequent FGD 2; and (6) A socio-economic census and a perception survey conducted by the research team on points 3 and 5 to inform the development of the social forestry business framework for discussion in FGD Socio-Economic Census and Perspective Census During the reflection phase following FGD 1, two new policy incentives from the Indonesian Ministry of Forestry were identified: (1) Ministerial Decree No. SK.10973/MENLHK-PSKL/PKPS/PSL.0/9/2023, which enables the transformation of Social Forestry Utilization Permit into Community Forestry Management Permits; and (2) Ministerial Circular Letter No. SE.6/MENHUT/SETJEN/KUM.02/7/2025, which introduces the removal of levies and taxes previously imposed on forest farmer groups. Building on these two policy incentives, the regulatory changes eliminate farmers’ obligation to share revenues from agricultural and agroforestry activities with the former forest concession holder, Perum Perhutani. At the same time, the Ministerial Circular abolishes regional levies and local taxes, leaving variable-based NTSR as the sole fiscal obligation payable to the state. A focused discussion on these two policy incentives was undertaken involving the social forestry facilitator from CDK III Central Java, FFG board representatives, and the research team. The deliberation generated the following key outcome: FFG members are no longer required to pay high group contributions because the obligation to pay Land and Building Tax (LBT) has been removed, leaving only the variable-based NTSR obligation. Therefore, the fixed annual payment of Rp 40/m²/year (covering LBT, infrastructure contributions, and incidental FFG activity fees) can be relaxed in accordance with the Ministerial Circular. Through the integrated village market scheme, FFG members can carry out commodity trading while simultaneously fulfilling their NTSR obligations and group contributions within a single integrated transaction point. Within a centralized marketing scheme, farmers may delegate price negotiation to the FFG board, the certified NTSR Technical Officer, and the CDK III facilitator. Prices would be determined through a competitive auction mechanism involving off-takers, with the objective of securing optimal market value for farmers. A comprehensive socio-economic census was undertaken to consolidate and update the group’s membership database. Members’ perspectives concerning points (1) and (2) were systematically gathered alongside the socio-economic census to capture their evaluations of the previous contribution scheme and the proposed integrated village market model. These findings are intended to inform a more in-depth deliberation during FGD 2. Issue (3) will be addressed in greater detail during FGD 2. The transition of obligations from the IPHPS decree to the HKm management permit will be clarified by the CDK III Central Java facilitator in FGD 2. The proposed scheme for variable harvest-based contributions to the FFG will also be deliberated in FGD 2. The results of the socio-economic census will not be discussed further in this paper but will instead be used by the FFG to strengthen its membership database. Meanwhile, the results of the perspective census regarding the relaxation of membership contributions based on the latest Ministerial Circular, as well as the idea of establishing an integrated village market, are presented in Table 4 and Table 5. The census was conducted from 19 September 2025 to 20 September 2025. The aggregated responses are summarized in Table 4 . Table 4 Members’ perspectives on the former contribution scheme No Perspective on Objection Number (persons) Percentage (%) 1 No Objection 39 56.5 2 Objection 25 36.2 3 Not Yet/Not Charged 5 7.3 Total 69 100 Based on Table 4 , it is evident that 36.2% of FFG members objected to paying the mandatory contribution for the following reasons: (1) the contribution rate was perceived as higher than that imposed during the previous management regime under Perum Perhutani; (2) prevailing household economic constraints; and (3) the limited productivity of cultivated plots, which reduced members’ capacity to meet fixed financial obligations. Approximately 56.5% of members indicated no objection to the contribution scheme. Their acceptance was primarily grounded in three considerations: (1) the allocated cultivation plots were perceived to generate additional income through agricultural yields; (2) the contribution rate had been collectively agreed upon through internal deliberation; and (3) the full appropriation of harvest outputs by individual landholding members provided sufficient economic incentive to comply with the fixed contribution requirement. In addition, 7.3% of community forest management permit holders were exempted from contribution payments, as they were not actively cultivating their allocated plots. This condition was attributed to several structural constraints: (1) the dominance of mature teak stands, which limited opportunities for intercropping or diversification; (2) suboptimal soil fertility; and (3) insufficient capital resources to undertake land management activities. The principal constraints faced by FFG members include: (1) contribution fees that exceed those applied during the Perum Perhutani management period; (2) limited capital for farm operations; and (3) cultivation areas largely dominated by teak stands, restricting opportunities for crop diversification. Findings from the perspective assessment indicate unanimous (100%) support among FFG members for the establishment of a FFG, based integrated village market to facilitate agroforestry commodity marketing and the fulfillment of financial obligations to both the State and the FFG. The underlying rationales include: (1) The market would enable members to sell their harvests at more profitable prices; (2) It provides greater price certainty through FFG coordination; and (3) It creates opportunities to expand demand for diversified agroforestry products. FGD 2 FGD 2 was held on November 17, 2025, focusing on the results of the perception census regarding group contributions and the proposed establishment of a village market. The forum produced several agreements. First, the mandatory contribution stipulated in the FFG bylaws (IDR 40/m²/year) was abolished in response to member concerns and the Ministerial Circular. Second, NTSR payments were delegated to a certified technical officer within the FFG. Third, a new group contribution was introduced at 1% of the official NTSR reference price for each agroforestry commodity. Fourth, an integrated village market at the FFG secretariat will function as a trading hub for agroforestry products and facilitate payments of both NTSR and group contributions every Javanese market day (Pon). Additional funding needs will be addressed through proportional incidental contributions decided collectively. The NTSR technical officer will also serve as an intermediary for commodity auctions with offtakers and manage the group fund derived from the 1% contribution. Infrastructure development will rely on community mutual cooperation and non-binding grants. Finally, regular meetings will be reactivated and the FGD 2 agreements will be formally disseminated to all FFG members through a working meeting. Members’ Working Meeting A FFG working meeting was convened on December 26, 2025 to reactivate routine member meetings and disseminate key institutional information. The primary agenda included (1) the socialization and verification of agreements reached during FGD 2, including an explanation of the deliberative process that produced these outcomes, and (2) clarification of the changes in rights and obligations following the issuance of the community forest management permit. Forum participants expressed strong support for the FGD 2 outcomes. Members agreed to proceed with the development of infrastructure for the proposed integrated village market, designed to enhance member welfare while facilitating payments of NTSR and group contributions. Construction of the market infrastructure was initiated through voluntary community contributions and implemented collectively through mutual cooperation. The community forest management permit also introduced several important institutional changes. First, the FFG is now authorized to manage the forest area independently without revenue-sharing obligations with the former concession holder, Perum Perhutani. Second, timber and non-timber harvests derived from government seedling assistance are fully owned by the participating farmers. Third, the only financial obligation to the state is the payment of NTSR in accordance with national regulations. These policy incentives were positively received and collectively endorsed by all FFG members. Consolidating the Social Forestry Business Framework Prior to the official inauguration, several physical and infrastructural developments were completed. These included the procurement of digital weighing equipment, road reinforcement to improve truck access for transporting agroforestry commodities, the construction of culverts to facilitate vehicle circulation into the FFG area designated as the village market hub, and the establishment of two supporting infrastructure units for productive equipment provided through assistance from CDK III Central Java. At the time of writing, one key activity remained pending: the inaugural transaction of agroforestry commodities. This first transaction is scheduled for late March 2026, when maize, one of the primary agroforestry commodities of Wono Makmur FFG, is expected to be ready for market. The event is anticipated to represent a significant milestone in the implementation of the Wono Makmur FFG Social Forestry Business Framework and will involve village authorities, representatives from CDK III Central Java, FFG members and leaders, the research team, commodity off takers, and other relevant stakeholders. Discussion Theoretical Contribution This study advances a conceptual framework for social forestry business management. Specifically, Objectives 1, 2, and 3 are not discrete stages but form an iterative and mutually reinforcing cycle. Conceptually, this dynamic process can be illustrated as follows: The proposed framework draws on the principles of PAR, which conceptualizes social change as an epistemic process that unfolds through sequential stages. However, classical PAR literature (Bradbury 2015 ) suggests that: PAR is commonly conceptualized as a spiral cycle consisting of planning, action, observation, reflection, and replanning. In classical formulations, the sequence illustrated in Fig. 3 is treated as a single cycle rather than a phase containing multiple nested cycles. While this approach is effective for addressing a single research problem, it becomes less practical for resolving multiple challenges simultaneously because it requires broader iterations that demand additional time and resources. Building on this limitation, the proposed social forestry business framework embeds PAR within each operational stage, whereby every process represented in Fig. 3 may involve one or more PAR cycles to generate stakeholder consensus. The problem identification stage involves three key steps undertaken jointly by researchers and stakeholders: unstructured observation, validation of thematic analysis findings, and the establishment of consensus regarding the key challenges faced by the FFG. When consensus is not achieved, the iterative cycle comprising observation, thematic analysis, validation, and FGD deliberation is repeated until agreement emerges. Such sequential consensus-building represents a methodological innovation in the proposed social forestry business planning framework derived from PAR. Each consensus outcome serves as the input for the subsequent stage, enabling a structured and participatory progression of social change processes. Participatory legitimacy is ensured through perspective censuses that validate FGD outcomes across all FFG members. The interlinked input–output relationships among stages allow the process to be systematically visualized, as illustrated in Figs. 4 and 5 . The outcomes of Objective 2 (Fig. 5 ) were collectively reflected upon by stakeholders to evaluate their impacts on the FFG. When benefits are widely acknowledged, the processes are synthesized into a local episteme guiding the social forestry business framework. If impacts remain contested, earlier stages are revisited or refined. This evaluation stage is illustrated in Fig. 6 . Process Dynamic Negotiation as a Central Mechanism Local forest communities, represented in this study by members of Wono Makmur FFG are the intended beneficiaries of Indonesia’s social forestry programs under both the social forestry scheme and the community forestry management permit. Nevertheless, these benefits have not yet been fully realized. The group faces several concurrent challenges, including: (1) stagnation of annual membership contributions; (2) the suspension of routine member meetings for eight years; (3) unfulfilled administrative and NTSR obligations; and (4) the absence of a financially viable business model compared with the previous management arrangement. This situation reflects a broader structural challenge that may also occur in other social forestry sites beyond Wono Makmur FFG. Following the issuance of the management decree, the FFG leadership faced uncertainty regarding the practical and strategic steps required for implementation. At the site level, the group required a clear yet operational framework capable of guiding internal coordination, mobilizing resources, identifying strategic options, ensuring regulatory compliance, and strengthening value-chain development. Such a framework is crucial for translating social forestry policy mandates into measurable welfare outcomes. However, the absence of a standardized yet adaptable business framework from the government has constrained efforts to strengthen the financial autonomy of FFG institutions. Building on prior successful implementation of PAR in Yogyakarta, Indonesia (Subrata et al. 2022 ), the research team initiated engagement and negotiation with the leadership of Wono Makmur FFG to collaboratively develop a social forestry business framework for the long-inactive group. The collaboration resulted in two targeted outputs: (1) the development of a locally grounded episteme of a social forestry business framework for Wono Makmur FFG; and (2) an empirical pilot project demonstrating the framework’s applicability and reliability for other community forest groups facing similar or less complex challenges. Cultivating Aspirational and Participatory Governance A collective business framework requires participatory and egalitarian principles to function effectively. This implies that the aspirations of all FFG members must be incorporated to reach a consensus approaching a Pareto-optimal allocation, where no party’s welfare can be improved without disadvantaging another (Buchanan 1962 ). However, qualitative studies relying solely on FGDs may fail to generate effective collective action because discussions are often dominated by actors with greater influence (Alam et al. 2025 ). A similar pattern occurred in Wono Makmur FFG, where membership contributions were paid only once in 2017 and subsequently stagnated, despite the group bylaws having been formulated through an FGD process. The local community culture norms emphasizing communal harmony and deference to community leaders contributed to biased outcomes in the FGD process. Although FFG leaders considered the contribution rates to have been collectively agreed upon, many members refrained from expressing dissent as a sign of respect for local authorities. After two rounds of contributions were collected to finance forest access road infrastructure, some members raised concerns because the fees exceeded those previously paid under the former forest manager, Perum Perhutani. This comparison created a lasting gap between FFG leaders and members, and the issue was never formally revisited. The resulting social distance became a key factor behind the prolonged inactivity of the FFG, including the absence of routine meetings and the neglect of administrative and financial obligations. The stagnation of contributions therefore reflects a combination of social norms, financial constraints indicated by the Engel index, and collective memory of lower past fees. The limited FGD recognized these conditions and served as a forum to generate potential strategies for revitalizing the FFG. Ideas generated during the discussion were subsequently communicated to all members through a perspective census to ensure that each analytical step remained participatory. This approach was adopted to reduce biases commonly observed in FGD settings, where members with limited influence may hesitate to voice their views publicly. Through this mechanism, collective decisions are expected to approach the principle of Pareto-optimal fairness. Each stage in the process must therefore achieve consensus before advancing to the next phase. When consensus is not reached, the stage is repeated through iterative cycles to preserve a systematic and sequential decision-making process. Participatory Action Planning and Implementation Framework PAR is a highly adaptive and flexible research method (Sterckx et al. 2021 ). This approach is outcome-oriented and does not rigidly debate the methods or strategies used to achieve shared goals (Feekery 2024 ). The primary concern of PAR in addressing problems is ensuring active participation of all group members in contributing toward the achievement of those goals (Benjamin-Thomas et al. 2018 ). In other words, PAR is capable of overcoming field-level constraints by utilizing available resources and is also able to accommodate incentives and opportunities to accelerate the attainment of collective objectives (De Oliveira 2023 ). The reliability of the PAR approach became evident in addressing the second research objective, particularly when FFG received policy incentives through the community forest management permit decree and a Ministerial Circular removing financial obligations beyond NTSR. Census findings indicate that 36.2% of members considered the previous contribution scheme burdensome. The critical issue was that contributions were determined using a fixed cost per hectare per year, while harvest yields were uncertain and members faced economic constraints reflected in the Engel index. To reduce members’ financial burden, FFG management proposed adopting a variable contribution scheme aligned with the NTSR system, with a 1% levy allocated to the group fund. For maize, NTSR is set at 3% per ton based on a benchmark price of Rp1,000,000 (Republic of Indonesia 2024 ). Consequently, farmers pay 3% for NTSR and 1% for the FFG contribution, equivalent to Rp30,000 and Rp10,000 per ton, respectively. Given the market price of Rp6,000/kg in 2025, one ton of maize generates Rp6,000,000 in revenue, while total financial obligations amount to only Rp40,000. Assuming one ton of maize is produced from 0.5 ha, the previous contribution scheme of Rp40/m²/year required farmers to pay Rp200,000 annually, regardless of production outcomes. Under the revised system, contributions are linked to output, amounting to Rp40,000 per harvest or Rp80,000 for two harvests annually. This adjustment reduces the financial burden by Rp120,000, representing roughly a 250% improvement compared with the previous arrangement. Although the Rp80,000 obligation remains slightly higher than the former land tax imposed by Perum Perhutani (approximately Rp10/m²/year or Rp50,000 per 0.5 ha), farmers now benefit from greater autonomy in determining cropping patterns and enjoy more secure land management rights through a 35-year tenure. Beyond deliberations on NTSR and internal group contributions, the discussion also proposed the development of an integrated village market as a mechanism to strengthen farmers’ price protection. Previously, farmers in Wono Makmur FFG functioned primarily as price takers with limited bargaining capacity. The proposed system introduces an auction-based pricing mechanism, coordinated by FFG management in collaboration with NTSR officers through a WhatsApp group to collect real-time information on harvest availability. These data are then disseminated to digital marketplaces or potential off-takers, enabling commodities to be traded through an open bidding process that encourages competitive pricing. Transactions are centralized at the integrated village market, where off-takers make direct payments, from which NTSR obligations and a 1% contribution to the FFG fund are deducted. The agreements formulated in FGD 2 were subsequently endorsed in the members’ meeting, determining the market’s physical location at the FFG secretariat, infrastructure priorities, program responsibilities, funding sources, and construction timeline. As of 30 January, the physical infrastructure had been completed, with the first maize transaction expected in late March 2026. Local Episteme The stages of problem identification, action planning, implementation, and evaluation were implemented through a cyclical PAR process. This collaborative learning trajectory has positioned Wono Makmur FFG in its most progressive state since obtaining the community forest management permit. The process demonstrates that organizational advancement depends on the equitable accommodation of members’ interests. Previous stagnation emerged because the concerns of approximately 36.2% of members who perceived the contribution scheme as burdensome were not articulated during the FGD that formulated the group bylaws, gradually widening the gap between members and management. The seven-year organizational inactivity was eventually overcome when members’ perspectives were systematically captured through the census and used to inform corrective strategies. The revitalization of Wono Makmur FFG marks a collective achievement for multiple stakeholders. The research contributes a refined social forestry business framework that extends classical PAR theory. FFG management secured a participatory and sequential mechanism for NTSR and internal contributions, while members gained price assurance and reduced financial burdens. The program’s progress also reflects effective facilitation by CDK III Central Java. Despite potential future challenges, the framework offers an adaptive basis for addressing emerging issues. Conclusion The social forestry business framework was developed through refinement of the PAR approach after three years of research in Wono Makmur FFG. The research team reflected that the classical PAR cycle has limitations in addressing complex organizational problems. Although its reliability has been proven in facilitating social change with a single objective, its application to resolve multiple problems simultaneously requires further development. Therefore, a sequential and detailed approach was designed to unravel the complexity of issues in Wono Makmur FFG. The framework follows several steps: (1) identifying priority problems; (2) developing a visual representation of the macro PAR stages (first layer); (3) detailing PAR processes within each stage (second layer); (4) resolving second-layer processes sequentially until consensus is reached at the macro level; (5) proceeding iteratively to the next macro stage; and (6) achieving consensus on action plans, collective action, and the local episteme of the social forestry business framework. The proposed social forestry business framework constitutes a novel contribution with potential applicability to other FFG experiencing similar challenges. Nevertheless, the iterative structure presented in this study should not be viewed as rigid. Adaptations may be introduced to accommodate the contextual conditions of individual FFG. While the framework demonstrates the capacity to address organizational problems, its implementation requires sustained commitment and patience from both researchers and community members, given that PAR-based research typically unfolds over extended, multi-year processes. Declarations Acknowledgments The author gratefully acknowledges the Indonesian Education Scholarship (BPI) and the Center for Financing and Assessment of Higher Education (PPAT) for funding this research, and the Doctoral Program, Faculty of Forestry, Universitas Gadjah Mada, for academic support. Appreciation is extended to Wono Makmur FFG, CDK III Central Java, local governments, and research assistants for their support. Author Contributions Subrata M.A.R: Conceptualization, Methodology, Fieldwork and Data Collection, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Writing – Original Draft; Awang S.A: Supervision, Methodology Validation, Writing – Review & Editing; Purwanto R.H: Review, Sustainable Business Management Perspective; Asihwarya S: Literature Review, Reference Management; Wulandhanik A: Language Editing, Manuscript Preparation; Andayani W: Marketing Analysis, Writing, Review, and Editing. Funding This study was funded by the Indonesian Education Scholarship (BPI) and The Center for Financing and Assessment of Higher Education (PPAT) Data availability The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request Conflict of interest The authors report that there are no competing interests to declare. References Agresti A, Finlay B (2009) Statistical methods for the social sciences (4th ed.). Pearson, New Jersey Alam MS, Asmawi A, Fatema S (2025) Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) for qualitative and mixed-method approaches: principles, applications, and key considerations. Integrated Journal for Research in Arts and Humanities 5(4):51-56. https://doi.org/10.55544/ijrah.5.4.8 Awang SA (2003) Politik kehutanan masyarakat. CCSS, Yogyakarta Awang SA, Nugraheni BLY, Khuriyati SF, Nugroho RSA, Chrismastuti AA, Nugrahedi R., Putranti C (2022) Gerakan masyarakat perhutanan sosial di jawa. universitas katolik soegijapranata, Semarang Benjamin-Thomas TE, Corrado AM, McGrath C, Rudman DL, Hand C (2018) Working towards the promise of participatory action research: learning from ageing research exemplars. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918817953 Bradbury H (2015) The SAGE handbook of action research. Sage Publications Ltd, https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473921290 Braun V, Clarke V (2008) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2):77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Braun V, Clarke V (2021) Thematic analysis: A practical guide. Sage Publications Ltd, London. Buchanan JM (1962) The relevance of pareto optimality. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 6(4):341–354. http://www.jstor.org/stable/172611 Clements KW, Si J (2018) Engel’s Law, diet diversity, and the quality of food consumption. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 100(1):1–22. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aax053 Chavas J (2017) On food security and the economic valuation of food. Food Policy, 6, 58–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2017.03.008 Creswell JW, Poth CN (2018) Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage, Los Angeles Creswell JW, Creswell JD (2018) Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach. Sage, Los Angeles De Oliveira B (2023) Participatory action research as a research approach: advantages, limitations and criticisms. Qualitative Research Journal 23(3):287–297. https://doi.org/10.1108/qrj-08-2022-0101 Director General of Social Forestry and Environmental Partnership (2026) goKUPS: Social forestry statistics. https://gokups.hutsos.kehutanan.go.id. Accessed 2 February 2026 Erbaugh JT (2019) Responsibilization and social forestry in Indonesia. Forest Policy and Economics 109 (102019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.102019 Feekery A (2024) The 7 C’s framework for participatory action research: inducting novice participant-researchers. Educational Action Research 32(3):332–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2023.2234417 Fetters MD, Rubinstein EB (2019) The 3 cs of content, context, and concepts: a practical approach to recording unstructured field observations. Ann Fam Med 17(6):554-560. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2453 Field A (2018) Discovering statistics using ibm spss statistics (5th ed.). Sage, Los Angeles Fisher MR, Workman T, Mulyana A, Balang Institute, Moeliono M, Yuliani EL, Colfer JPC, Adam UEB (2017) Striving for PAR excellence in land use planning: Multi-stakeholder collaboration on customary forest recognition in Bulukumba, South Sulawesi. Land Use Policy 99:102997. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.09.057 Fisher MR, Dhiaulhaq A, Sahide MAK (2019) The politics, economies, and ecologies of Indonesia’s third generation of social forestry: An introduction to the special section. Forest and Society 3(1):152–170. https://doi.org/10.24259/fs.v3i1.6348 Hlungwani C, Nxasane BH, Kunene TR, Shabane ML, Ighodaro ID, Popoola OO, Nkonki-Mandleni B (2025) Collaborating for Social impact: enhancing food security through participatory action research. Asian Journal of Dairy and Food Research 44(6):1037-1044. https://doi.org/10.18805/ajdfr.DRF-520 Houthakker HS (1957) An International Comparison of Household Expenditure Patterns, Commemorating the Centenary of Engel's Law. Econometrica, 25(4):532-551. https://doi.org/10.2307/1905382 Hove J, Mabetha D, van der Merwe M, Twine R, Kahn K, Witter S, D’Ambruoso L (2023) Participatory action research to address lack of safe water, a community-nominated health priority in rural South Africa. PLoS ONE, 18(7):e0288524. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288524 Innes JE, Booher DE (2018) Planning with complexity: An introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315147949 Kitagawa K (2023) Researcher positionality in participatory action research for climate justice in indigenous communities. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22:1-5. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231205178 Lykes M, Mallona A (2008) Towards transformational liberation: participatory and action research and praxis. In Reason P, Bradbury H (Eds.) Towards transformational liberation: Participatory and action research and praxis (2nd ed pp 106-120). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848607934.n13 Mapfumo P, Adjei-Nsiah S, Mtambanengwe F, Chikowo R, Giller KE (2013) Participatory action research (PAR) as an entry point for supporting climate change adaptation by smallholder farmers in Africa. Environmental Development 5:6–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2012.11.001 Marchetti S, Secondi L (2022) The Economic Perspective of Food Poverty and (In)security: An Analytical Approach to Measuring and Estimation in Italy. Soc Indic Res 162(3):995-1020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-021-02875-5 Maring P (2022) Conflict transformation and collaboration in developing social forestry in Flores, Indonesia. Forest and Society 6(1):40-66. http://dx.doi.org/10.24259/fs.v6i1.13199 Neuman WL (2014) Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (7th ed.). Pearson, Harlow Nugroho AP, Sunito MA, Kinseng RA (2024) land tenure conflicts in forest areas of muara gembong, bekasi regency. Journal of Natural Resources and Environmental Management, 15(3):448-459.https://doi.org/10.29244/jpsl.15.3.448 Nurfatriani F, Darusman D, Nurrochmat DR, Yustika AE, Muttaqin MZ (2015) Redesigning Indonesian forest fiscal policy to support forest conservation. Forest Policy and Economics 61(2015):39-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2015.07.006 Purnomo H, Puspitalok, D, Okarda B, Andrianto A, Sutikno S, Muhammad A, Basuki I, Jalil A, Yesi, Prasetyo P, Tarsono, Zukardi, Kusumadewi SD, Komarudin H, Dermawan A, & Brady MA (2024) Community-based fire prevention and peatland restoration in Indonesia: A participatory action research approach. Environmental Development 50:100971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2024.100971 Republic of Indonesia (2024) Government Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia Number 36 of 2024 concerning types and tariffs of non-tax state revenue. Government of Indonesia, Jakarta Ruszczyk HA, Upadhyay BK, Kwong YMC, Khanal O, Bracken LJ, Pandit S, Bastola R (2020) Empowering women through participatory action research in community-based disaster risk reduction efforts. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 101763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101763 Salman MY, Ramsis N (2025) Use of participatory action research (PAR) to developparticipatory monitoring, evaluation, and learning practices. Development in practice 35(8):1334-1341. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2025.2511965 Shearn K, Brook A, Humphreys H, Wardle C (2021) Mixed methods Participatory Action Research to inform service design based on the Capabilities Approach, in the North of England . Children & Society 2022(36):450–471. https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12496 Sendall MC, McCosker LK, Brodie A, Hill M, Crane P (2018) Participatory action research, mixed methods, and research teams: learning from philosophically juxtaposed methodologies for optimal research outcomes. BMC Med Res Methodol 18:167. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0636-1 Sirimorok N, Sahide MAK, Herrawan H, Fatirachmat F, Maryudi A (2024) Linking commoning with social forestry: An Indonesian case. Trees, Forests and People 18:(100737). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2024.100737 Sterckx A, Van den Broeck K, Remmen R, Dekeirel K, Hermans H, Hesters C, Daeseleire T, Broes V, Barton J, Gladwell V, Dandy S, Connors M, Lammel A and Keune H (2021) Operationalization of one health burnout prevention and recovery: participatory action research-design of nature-based health promotion interventions for employees. Front. Public Health 9:720761. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.720761 Subrata MAR, Riyanto S, Andayani W, Awang SA, Dewi GK (2022) Analysis of intensified agrosilvopastoral farming in Wiladeg Village, Karangmojo Sub-district, Gunungkidul Regency, Yogyakarta Province, Indonesia. Jurnal Ilmu Kehutanan, 16(2):184-197. https://doi.org/10.22146/jik.v16i2.1865 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 07 Apr, 2026 Reviews received at journal 28 Mar, 2026 Reviews received at journal 27 Mar, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 18 Mar, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 17 Mar, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 16 Mar, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 12 Mar, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 12 Mar, 2026 First submitted to journal 11 Mar, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9098279","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":607625559,"identity":"6f3a8551-c199-4dc3-b4f9-2ff9906207c8","order_by":0,"name":"Muhammad Abdul Rahman Subrata","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Gadjah Mada University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Muhammad","middleName":"Abdul Rahman","lastName":"Subrata","suffix":""},{"id":607625560,"identity":"1bcd2106-5f57-4cf2-b60d-2f462d403645","order_by":1,"name":"San Afri Awang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Gadjah Mada University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"San","middleName":"Afri","lastName":"Awang","suffix":""},{"id":607625561,"identity":"b93c6a0f-e229-4211-83f2-d09838d18268","order_by":2,"name":"Ris Hadi Purwanto","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Gadjah Mada University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ris","middleName":"Hadi","lastName":"Purwanto","suffix":""},{"id":607625562,"identity":"efe33f8f-79e0-43a3-8604-d76a12d86149","order_by":3,"name":"Shita Aiswarya","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Gadjah Mada University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Shita","middleName":"","lastName":"Aiswarya","suffix":""},{"id":607625563,"identity":"2aee35db-b913-496f-90a3-17e378111fc8","order_by":4,"name":"Alvera Wulandhanik","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Indonesian Agrosilvopastoral Research Center","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Alvera","middleName":"","lastName":"Wulandhanik","suffix":""},{"id":607625564,"identity":"1b2e5441-c593-4f40-827e-75d988933f41","order_by":5,"name":"Wahyu Andayani","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Gadjah Mada University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Wahyu","middleName":"","lastName":"Andayani","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-03-11 22:08:36","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9098279/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9098279/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":104887768,"identity":"bc5bd8d0-9534-453d-84ad-8d8780aa8a95","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-18 10:12:38","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":957995,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003estudy site map of the Wono Makmur FFG\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9098279/v1/fb4df56bdcb7a362241b59d1.png"},{"id":104887805,"identity":"eed81b1b-9386-4934-9dbe-0256466e1ecd","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-18 10:12:40","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":84320,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eFlow of Data Collection Techniques, Respondents, Analytical Procedures, and Outputs\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9098279/v1/ac5e4cdae713021cd1d4734e.png"},{"id":104887724,"identity":"c974f153-3de5-4c64-a0b9-048431f654be","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-18 10:12:36","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":101941,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe cyclical model of the social forestry business framework\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9098279/v1/2bef38a97e63776d674345cb.png"},{"id":104887890,"identity":"9a97bca2-dca2-496f-a184-e94e71e8cc58","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-18 10:12:51","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":79122,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eDetailed par process in the problem identification consensus stage\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9098279/v1/1c35c278756a29bceece3fcf.png"},{"id":104887844,"identity":"2a5c7770-af6b-46e8-a4be-46b64e16cbc2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-18 10:12:42","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":103058,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eDetailed par process in the action planning and collective action stage\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9098279/v1/c45f27965abe97a744cf26dd.png"},{"id":104887773,"identity":"d058df48-a520-418b-a147-062769ff3517","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-18 10:12:38","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":93444,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eDetailed par process in the reflection and evaluation of the framework episteme\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9098279/v1/96af3f467dd2b9b363ce9d82.png"},{"id":105033977,"identity":"2d88c2ab-317b-46c1-b1f9-63d5c5cfce05","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-20 07:22:20","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":2050542,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9098279/v1/f5c541de-3041-4ec2-941a-515b1df5c540.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"A Social Forestry Business Framework for Revitalizing Stagnant Forest Farmer Groups: A Case Study of Central Java, Indonesia","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eSocial forestry has emerged as a contemporary paradigm in forest governance in Indonesia, positioning local forest communities as primary actors in the management of forest resources (Erbaugh \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). This paradigm emphasizes a participatory, bottom-up approach aimed at improving community livelihoods while simultaneously ensuring the sustainability of forest management (Fisher et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Through the support of facilitators from non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the Regional Forestry Service (Cabang Dinas Kehutanan,CDK), academic institutions, donor agencies, and the central government, communities are granted legal access to locally grounded forest management practices, expected to simultaneously strengthen ecological, economic, and social dimensions (Awang et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). As of February 2026, social forestry permits within Forest Areas with Special Management (Kawasan Hutan Dengan Pengelolaan Khusus,KHDPK) covered 8.3\u0026nbsp;million hectares and involved more than 1.4\u0026nbsp;million households (Director General of Social Forestry and Environmental Partnership \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2026\u003c/span\u003e). At the macro level, this policy has the potential to reduce land tenure inequality, enhance the welfare of local forest communities, and increase Non-Tax State Revenue (NTSR) from both timber and non-timber forest products (Nurfatriani et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite its policy expansion, social forestry implementation remains constrained by structural and institutional challenges, including tenure insecurity, limited human resource capacity, weak institutional governance, and underdeveloped downstream value chains and forest product business management (Maring \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). KHDPK management is largely implemented in state forest areas formerly managed by state-owned forestry enterprises in Java. However, boundary delineation processes in several locations are still ongoing, generating divergent interpretations and increasing the potential for competing land claims and tenure conflicts (Awang \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e; Nugroho et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Uneven administrative and technical capacities, coupled with limited managerial and entrepreneurial competencies at the group level, significantly constrain the performance of FFGs. These limitations are particularly evident in their ability to meet institutional, administrative, and fiscal obligations to the state. Such conditions indicate that social forestry challenges are not merely technical production issues but are deeply embedded in institutional and governance dimensions. Therefore, facilitation efforts must move beyond production-oriented technical assistance to encompass institutional strengthening, financial governance, and the development of adaptive and sustainable business models (Sirimorok et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipatory Action Research (PAR) is a research approach widely employed to promote social change through the active involvement of communities throughout the entire research and action cycle (Bradbury \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). PAR positions researchers and communities as equal subjects in the process of social transformation, enabling complementary interactions between scientific knowledge and local experience (Kitagawa \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Salman and Ramsis \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). This approach is grounded in the pragmatist tradition, which prioritizes the achievement of transformative social outcomes over dichotomous methodological debates between qualitative and quantitative paradigms (Lykes and Mallona \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Sendal et al. 2018). A growing body of literature highlights the effectiveness of Participatory Action Research (PAR) in advancing community well-being across diverse contexts, including agrosilvopastoral intensification in Indonesia, food security strengthening in North Africa, women\u0026rsquo;s empowerment in disaster risk reduction in Nepal, community-based peatland restoration in Indonesia, climate adaptation among smallholder farmers in Ghana and Zimbabwe, and water resource management in South Africa (Subrata et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Hlungwani et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Ruszczyk et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Purnomo et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Mapfumo et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Hove et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipatory Action Research (PAR) has generated significant contributions to social forestry in Indonesia, particularly in resolving sensitive issues such as participatory land mapping and fostering consensus within multi-stakeholder collaborative planning processes in Bulukumba, South Sulawesi (Fisher et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Despite these contributions, the majority of PAR studies remain issue-specific, while FFGs in practice confront intertwined economic, institutional, administrative, and business management challenges. The flexible and inclusive nature of Participatory Action Research (PAR), which integrates diverse knowledge to achieve pragmatic outcomes, offers strong potential for developing a social forestry business framework capable of addressing multiple challenges within FFGs. However, its application in the social forestry context of Java remains largely unexplored.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBuilding on this background, this study piloted the formulation of a social forestry business framework through the Wono Makmur FFG in Boyolali Regency. The group was purposively selected because it is the oldest FFG in the regency and demonstrates the lowest productivity among four comparable neighboring FFGs. The successful formulation of this business framework is expected to be replicable across other FFGs facing similar or less complex challenges. Beyond facilitating problem-solving at the group level, this study proposes a consensus-based and cyclic learning-oriented social forestry business framework as a conceptual contribution to the literature on social forestry governance. This study was designed to address three main research questions: (1) How do members of the FFG collectively construct agreement regarding the challenges faced by the group?; (2) How can relevant stakeholders build consensus in developing action plans, executing collective actions, and conducting evaluations based on mutually agreed problem definitions?; (3) How are these processes collectively understood as a cyclical learning mechanism within a social forestry business framework, functioning as a shared episteme within the group?\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study employed Participatory Action Research (PAR), integrating both qualitative and quantitative approaches based on data and information collected through field research conducted from January 2023 to 21 January 2026 at the Wono Makmur FFG in Klego Subdistrict, Boyolali Regency (Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). The Wono Makmur FFG was granted a Community Forestry, Social Forestry Utilization Permit under Decree No. SK.5842/MENLHK-PSKL/PKPS/PSL.0/10/2017, formally handed over by the 7th President of Indonesia, Joko Widodo, on 4 November 2017. In 2023, the permit was upgraded to a Community Forestry Management License under Decree No. SK.10973/MENLHK-PSKL/PKPS/PSL.0/9/2023. According to Regulation of the Minister of Environment and Forestry No. 4 of 2023, a Community Forestry Management License represents a form of legal tenure granted by the Minister to individuals, forest farmer groups, associations of forest farmer groups, or local community cooperatives, authorizing them to manage and utilize forests within both protected and production forest areas. The Community Forestry Management License aims to improve local livelihoods, sustain environmental balance, and strengthen socio-cultural dynamics within forest-adjacent communities. Under the two decrees, the Wono Makmur FFG is authorized to manage 56 hectares of forest area and comprises 69 active member households.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Wono Makmur FFG was purposively selected as the study site because, at the time of the research, it had no registered production commodities (0) in the Social Forestry Business Group Information System. This situation reflects a discrepancy between the intended objectives of the Community Forestry Management License and its practical implementation at the group level, thus warranting in-depth investigation. To answer the three research questions, this study adopted a participatory action research (PAR) approach to facilitate: (1) the identification and validation of key challenges faced by the FFG through engagement with group members and stakeholders; (2) collective decision-making in designing, implementing, and evaluating action programs; and (3) critical reflection on these processes to construct shared group values as an epistemic foundation for social forestry business management in the Wono Makmur FFG.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe PAR framework applied in the Wono Makmur FFG employed a complex mixed-method design that combined quantitative and qualitative methods (Shearn et al. \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). This methodological design entailed the use of multiple data collection and analysis techniques. These techniques were implemented sequentially across distinct stages, as presented in Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo address the first objective, data were obtained through unstructured observations and focus group discussions (FGDs) involving six purposively selected informants recommended by the FFG leader. This stage provided contextual understanding of the research setting and assessed household economic conditions using food-security indicators based on Engel\u0026rsquo;s Law. The contextual data were analyzed using thematic analysis, a flexible qualitative approach for identifying and interpreting patterns within qualitative datasets (Braun and Clarke \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). In parallel, the welfare of FFG member households was quantitatively evaluated using the Engel coefficient, expressed in the following formula.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Equa\" class=\"Equation\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"mathdisplay\" id=\"FileID_Equa\" name=\"EquationSource\"\u003e$$E=\\frac{F}{Y}$$\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhere \u003cem\u003eE\u003c/em\u003e represents the Engel coefficient; \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e denotes household food expenditure; and \u003cem\u003eY\u003c/em\u003e refers to total household income. According to Engel\u0026rsquo;s Law, a lower Engel coefficient indicates a higher level of household welfare (Houthakker 1857).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe findings from the thematic analysis and the Engel coefficient assessment were discussed in the first focus group discussion (FGD 1), attended by the research team, FFG board members, and selected member representatives. Consensus analysis was applied to examine agreement and disagreement among stakeholders through iterative dialogue and negotiation (Innes and Booher \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). The discussion produced a shared consensus on the group\u0026rsquo;s main challenges and strategic actions to address them.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo address the second research objective, data were collected through a perspective census, FGD 2, and a working meeting. The perspective census was administered to all 69 active members to examine their responses to the consensus reached in FGD 1. In addition to the perspective census, a socio-economic census was conducted and subsequently analyzed using univariate statistical methods to establish a statistical profile of the Wono Makmur FFG members. Univariate statistical analysis is a descriptive method employed to examine and summarize the characteristics of individual variables through measures of central tendency, variability, and distributional properties (Field \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Agresti and Finlay \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Census findings were discussed in FGD 2 involving FFG leaders, member representatives, researchers, and a facilitator from CDK III Central Java. The forum reached consensus on strategic priorities derived from the statistical results and translated them into a structured technical work plan for the FFG social forestry business model. The agreement was subsequently institutionalized through a formal working meeting that defined program responsibilities, resource allocation, implementation schedules, and monitoring\u0026ndash;evaluation mechanisms endorsed by all stakeholders.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo fulfill the third objective, the epistemic consolidation was institutionalized through the formal endorsement of the social forestry business framework. The inauguration was attended by FFG board members and general members, village officials, representatives of CDK III Central Java, the research team, agroforestry commodity off-takers, and other relevant stakeholders, thereby reinforcing shared values and collective commitment. A comprehensive summary of the data collection techniques, categories of respondents or informants, analytical methods, and resulting outputs is presented in Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\" class=\"fr-table-selection-hover\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSummary of data collection techniques, respondents, analysis, and outputs\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eObjective\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eData Collection Technique\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRespondents/ Informants\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAnalysis\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOutputs\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUnstructured Observation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePurposively selected informants around the research site (6 informants)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1. Thematic analysis\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2. Descriptive analysis (Engel\u0026rsquo;s Law).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1. Description of the research setting\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2. Food security index and socio-economic conditions\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cp\u003eFGD 1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Taba\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResearch team, FFG members, FFG management board\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConsensus analysis of research setting and food security index\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConsensus on FFG constraints and challenges and proposed solutions\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCensus\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAll FFG members and board members\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDescriptive univariate statistical analysis\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStatistical profile of socio-economic conditions and members\u0026rsquo; perspectives\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFGD 2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResearch team, FFG board members, CDK representatives, selected FFG members\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConsensus analysis of socio-economic statistics and members\u0026rsquo; perspectives\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConsensus on strategic issues and formulation of a technical work plan for the FFG social forestry business model\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cp\u003eWorking Meeting\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tabb\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResearch team, CDK representatives, FFG board, FFG members\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDissemination and operational consolidation of strategic consensus\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAssignment of program coordinators, funding schemes, implementation schedules, monitoring and evaluation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFormal Inauguration of the Social Forestry Business Framework\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVillage officials, CDK representatives, FFG board members, FFG members, agroforestry commodity off-takers\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCeremonial consolidation of consensus and reporting of collective action progress\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAction plan report, evaluation report, and formal endorsement of the FFG business model episteme\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Result","content":"\u003ch2\u003eUnstructured Observation\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eUnstructured observation served as the entry point of the mixed-method design (Creswell and Creswell \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), enabling researchers to develop an initial contextual understanding of the study area. This stage provided descriptive insights into the physical environment, community atmosphere, and socio-economic conditions of local households (Fetters and Rubinstein \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Observations showed that communities surrounding the Wono Makmur FFG predominantly rely on agrarian livelihoods, cultivating both state forest land and private forest plots. Households also commonly raise small-scale livestock such as poultry, cattle, and goats. Maize is the main crop during the rainy season and is typically planted twice. Cassava is cultivated as a secondary crop with an annual harvest. Agricultural activities largely stop during the dry season due to limited rainfall, locally known as “bero.” Field activities also include collecting livestock forage throughout the year. Many households additionally engage in off-farm work such as trading, mechanical repair, construction labor, and tailoring. Infrastructure conditions indicate that most houses are traditional wooden \u003cem\u003elimasan\u003c/em\u003e structures with bamboo roof frames and clay tiles, while household water supply mainly depends on privately owned wells with electric pumps.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCommunity life in the study area is supported by several public facilities, including mosques, a village hall, electricity from the national grid, concrete village roads, and small local shops. Social relations emphasize communal harmony and collective solidarity, with strong respect for established local leaders. Residents generally comply with leadership guidance and display the cultural value of \u003cem\u003enrimo\u003c/em\u003e, a Javanese principle of accepting existing circumstances and authority. Social interactions therefore tend to reflect a hierarchical structure in which leaders formulate norms and directives while residents largely follow them, even when these decisions do not entirely reflect individual preferences. Household economic conditions were assessed using Engel’s Law food security analysis, an approach employed by FAO that compares monthly food expenditure with total household expenditure (Clements and Ji 2018; Chavas \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).The resulting ratio is presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003ctable id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEngel’s Law Index of Wono Makmur FFG Members\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRespondent\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFood Expenditure (FE)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal Expenditure (TE)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFE/TE (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRespondent 1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRp 1,500,000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRp 3,407,500\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e44.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRespondent 2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRp 2,000,000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRp 8,045,833\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e24.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRespondent 3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRp 1,500,000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRp 3,324,167\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e45.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRespondent 4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRp 2,000,000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRp 2,047,500\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e97.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRespondent 5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRp 2,000,000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRp 2,192,917\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e91.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRespondent 6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRp 2,500,000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRp 9,468,750\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e26.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e54.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cp\u003eAccording to the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), there are four levels of household food security based on Engel’s Law: severe, moderate, mild, and no food insecurity (Marchetti and Secondi \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). The detailed classification is presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003ctable id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEngel’s Law Classification\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eClass Range (FE/TE %)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescription\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt; 70%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSevere food insecurity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e50%-70%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModerate food insecurity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e40–50%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMild food insecurity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt; 40%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo food insecurity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cp\u003eBased on the national socio-economic survey classification, the average food security level of the Wono Makmur FFG was 54.9%, placing it in the moderate food insecurity category. Among the respondents, 33.3% were classified as food secure, 33.3% as experiencing mild food insecurity, and the remaining 33.3% as facing severe food insecurity. The findings from this unstructured observation were subsequently validated with stakeholders, particularly FFG board members and group members, through the FGD 1 forum.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3\u003eFGD 1\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eFGD 1 was held on July 25, 2025, and was initiated by the research team to validate findings from prior unstructured observations with relevant stakeholders. The discussion aimed to establish a shared understanding of the key challenges faced by the FFG) and to generate potential solutions. During the session, researchers presented observational findings describing the visual environment, community atmosphere, and the social and economic conditions of Wono Makmur FFG.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFGD 1 resulted in six key agreements, as follows: (1) Confirmation of the unstructured observation findings concerning visual, environmental, and socio-economic conditions; (2) Verification of the Engel’s Law coefficient (54.9%), indicating that FFG households remain economically vulnerable, with an average level of moderate food insecurity; (3) Consensus that the primary challenge facing the FFG is the stagnation of member contributions to the group fund; (4) Agreement to formulate a social forestry business framework that simultaneously supports member welfare and institutional strengthening through group contributions; (5) Collective reflection to be communicated in the subsequent FGD 2; and (6) A socio-economic census and a perception survey conducted by the research team on points 3 and 5 to inform the development of the social forestry business framework for discussion in FGD\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3\u003eSocio-Economic Census and Perspective Census\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eDuring the reflection phase following FGD 1, two new policy incentives from the Indonesian Ministry of Forestry were identified: (1) Ministerial Decree No. SK.10973/MENLHK-PSKL/PKPS/PSL.0/9/2023, which enables the transformation of Social Forestry Utilization Permit into Community Forestry Management Permits; and (2) Ministerial Circular Letter No. SE.6/MENHUT/SETJEN/KUM.02/7/2025, which introduces the removal of levies and taxes previously imposed on forest farmer groups.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBuilding on these two policy incentives, the regulatory changes eliminate farmers’ obligation to share revenues from agricultural and agroforestry activities with the former forest concession holder, Perum Perhutani. At the same time, the Ministerial Circular abolishes regional levies and local taxes, leaving variable-based NTSR as the sole fiscal obligation payable to the state. A focused discussion on these two policy incentives was undertaken involving the social forestry facilitator from CDK III Central Java, FFG board representatives, and the research team. The deliberation generated the following key outcome:\u003c/p\u003e\u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eFFG members are no longer required to pay high group contributions because the obligation to pay Land and Building Tax (LBT) has been removed, leaving only the variable-based NTSR obligation. Therefore, the fixed annual payment of Rp 40/m²/year (covering LBT, infrastructure contributions, and incidental FFG activity fees) can be relaxed in accordance with the Ministerial Circular.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eThrough the integrated village market scheme, FFG members can carry out commodity trading while simultaneously fulfilling their NTSR obligations and group contributions within a single integrated transaction point.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eWithin a centralized marketing scheme, farmers may delegate price negotiation to the FFG board, the certified NTSR Technical Officer, and the CDK III facilitator. Prices would be determined through a competitive auction mechanism involving off-takers, with the objective of securing optimal market value for farmers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eA comprehensive socio-economic census was undertaken to consolidate and update the group’s membership database.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eMembers’ perspectives concerning points (1) and (2) were systematically gathered alongside the socio-economic census to capture their evaluations of the previous contribution scheme and the proposed integrated village market model. These findings are intended to inform a more in-depth deliberation during FGD 2.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eIssue (3) will be addressed in greater detail during FGD 2.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe transition of obligations from the IPHPS decree to the HKm management permit will be clarified by the CDK III Central Java facilitator in FGD 2.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe proposed scheme for variable harvest-based contributions to the FFG will also be deliberated in FGD 2.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe results of the socio-economic census will not be discussed further in this paper but will instead be used by the FFG to strengthen its membership database. Meanwhile, the results of the perspective census regarding the relaxation of membership contributions based on the latest Ministerial Circular, as well as the idea of establishing an integrated village market, are presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e and Table\u0026nbsp;5. The census was conducted from 19 September 2025 to 20 September 2025. The aggregated responses are summarized in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003ctable id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMembers’ perspectives on the former contribution scheme\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePerspective on Objection\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNumber (persons)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePercentage (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo Objection\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e39\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e56.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eObjection\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e36.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNot Yet/Not Charged\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e69\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cp\u003eBased on Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, it is evident that 36.2% of FFG members objected to paying the mandatory contribution for the following reasons: (1) the contribution rate was perceived as higher than that imposed during the previous management regime under Perum Perhutani; (2) prevailing household economic constraints; and (3) the limited productivity of cultivated plots, which reduced members’ capacity to meet fixed financial obligations.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eApproximately 56.5% of members indicated no objection to the contribution scheme. Their acceptance was primarily grounded in three considerations: (1) the allocated cultivation plots were perceived to generate additional income through agricultural yields; (2) the contribution rate had been collectively agreed upon through internal deliberation; and (3) the full appropriation of harvest outputs by individual landholding members provided sufficient economic incentive to comply with the fixed contribution requirement.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn addition, 7.3% of community forest management permit holders were exempted from contribution payments, as they were not actively cultivating their allocated plots. This condition was attributed to several structural constraints: (1) the dominance of mature teak stands, which limited opportunities for intercropping or diversification; (2) suboptimal soil fertility; and (3) insufficient capital resources to undertake land management activities.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe principal constraints faced by FFG members include: (1) contribution fees that exceed those applied during the Perum Perhutani management period; (2) limited capital for farm operations; and (3) cultivation areas largely dominated by teak stands, restricting opportunities for crop diversification.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFindings from the perspective assessment indicate unanimous (100%) support among FFG members for the establishment of a FFG, based integrated village market to facilitate agroforestry commodity marketing and the fulfillment of financial obligations to both the State and the FFG. The underlying rationales include: (1) The market would enable members to sell their harvests at more profitable prices; (2) It provides greater price certainty through FFG coordination; and (3) It creates opportunities to expand demand for diversified agroforestry products.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3\u003eFGD 2\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eFGD 2 was held on November 17, 2025, focusing on the results of the perception census regarding group contributions and the proposed establishment of a village market. The forum produced several agreements. First, the mandatory contribution stipulated in the FFG bylaws (IDR 40/m²/year) was abolished in response to member concerns and the Ministerial Circular. Second, NTSR payments were delegated to a certified technical officer within the FFG. Third, a new group contribution was introduced at 1% of the official NTSR reference price for each agroforestry commodity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFourth, an integrated village market at the FFG secretariat will function as a trading hub for agroforestry products and facilitate payments of both NTSR and group contributions every Javanese market day (Pon). Additional funding needs will be addressed through proportional incidental contributions decided collectively. The NTSR technical officer will also serve as an intermediary for commodity auctions with offtakers and manage the group fund derived from the 1% contribution. Infrastructure development will rely on community mutual cooperation and non-binding grants. Finally, regular meetings will be reactivated and the FGD 2 agreements will be formally disseminated to all FFG members through a working meeting.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMembers’ Working Meeting\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eA FFG working meeting was convened on December 26, 2025 to reactivate routine member meetings and disseminate key institutional information. The primary agenda included (1) the socialization and verification of agreements reached during FGD 2, including an explanation of the deliberative process that produced these outcomes, and (2) clarification of the changes in rights and obligations following the issuance of the community forest management permit.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eForum participants expressed strong support for the FGD 2 outcomes. Members agreed to proceed with the development of infrastructure for the proposed integrated village market, designed to enhance member welfare while facilitating payments of NTSR and group contributions. Construction of the market infrastructure was initiated through voluntary community contributions and implemented collectively through mutual cooperation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe community forest management permit also introduced several important institutional changes. First, the FFG is now authorized to manage the forest area independently without revenue-sharing obligations with the former concession holder, Perum Perhutani. Second, timber and non-timber harvests derived from government seedling assistance are fully owned by the participating farmers. Third, the only financial obligation to the state is the payment of NTSR in accordance with national regulations. These policy incentives were positively received and collectively endorsed by all FFG members.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3\u003eConsolidating the Social Forestry Business Framework\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003ePrior to the official inauguration, several physical and infrastructural developments were completed. These included the procurement of digital weighing equipment, road reinforcement to improve truck access for transporting agroforestry commodities, the construction of culverts to facilitate vehicle circulation into the FFG area designated as the village market hub, and the establishment of two supporting infrastructure units for productive equipment provided through assistance from CDK III Central Java.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAt the time of writing, one key activity remained pending: the inaugural transaction of agroforestry commodities. This first transaction is scheduled for late March 2026, when maize, one of the primary agroforestry commodities of Wono Makmur FFG, is expected to be ready for market. The event is anticipated to represent a significant milestone in the implementation of the Wono Makmur FFG Social Forestry Business Framework and will involve village authorities, representatives from CDK III Central Java, FFG members and leaders, the research team, commodity off takers, and other relevant stakeholders.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eTheoretical Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study advances a conceptual framework for social forestry business management. Specifically, Objectives 1, 2, and 3 are not discrete stages but form an iterative and mutually reinforcing cycle. Conceptually, this dynamic process can be illustrated as follows:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe proposed framework draws on the principles of PAR, which conceptualizes social change as an epistemic process that unfolds through sequential stages. However, classical PAR literature (Bradbury \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) suggests that: PAR is commonly conceptualized as a spiral cycle consisting of planning, action, observation, reflection, and replanning. In classical formulations, the sequence illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e is treated as a single cycle rather than a phase containing multiple nested cycles. While this approach is effective for addressing a single research problem, it becomes less practical for resolving multiple challenges simultaneously because it requires broader iterations that demand additional time and resources. Building on this limitation, the proposed social forestry business framework embeds PAR within each operational stage, whereby every process represented in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e may involve one or more PAR cycles to generate stakeholder consensus.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe problem identification stage involves three key steps undertaken jointly by researchers and stakeholders: unstructured observation, validation of thematic analysis findings, and the establishment of consensus regarding the key challenges faced by the FFG. When consensus is not achieved, the iterative cycle comprising observation, thematic analysis, validation, and FGD deliberation is repeated until agreement emerges.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSuch sequential consensus-building represents a methodological innovation in the proposed social forestry business planning framework derived from PAR. Each consensus outcome serves as the input for the subsequent stage, enabling a structured and participatory progression of social change processes. Participatory legitimacy is ensured through perspective censuses that validate FGD outcomes across all FFG members. The interlinked input\u0026ndash;output relationships among stages allow the process to be systematically visualized, as illustrated in Figs.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e and \u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe outcomes of Objective 2 (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e) were collectively reflected upon by stakeholders to evaluate their impacts on the FFG. When benefits are widely acknowledged, the processes are synthesized into a local episteme guiding the social forestry business framework. If impacts remain contested, earlier stages are revisited or refined. This evaluation stage is illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eProcess Dynamic\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eNegotiation as a Central Mechanism\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eLocal forest communities, represented in this study by members of Wono Makmur FFG are the intended beneficiaries of Indonesia\u0026rsquo;s social forestry programs under both the social forestry scheme and the community forestry management permit. Nevertheless, these benefits have not yet been fully realized. The group faces several concurrent challenges, including: (1) stagnation of annual membership contributions; (2) the suspension of routine member meetings for eight years; (3) unfulfilled administrative and NTSR obligations; and (4) the absence of a financially viable business model compared with the previous management arrangement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis situation reflects a broader structural challenge that may also occur in other social forestry sites beyond Wono Makmur FFG. Following the issuance of the management decree, the FFG leadership faced uncertainty regarding the practical and strategic steps required for implementation. At the site level, the group required a clear yet operational framework capable of guiding internal coordination, mobilizing resources, identifying strategic options, ensuring regulatory compliance, and strengthening value-chain development. Such a framework is crucial for translating social forestry policy mandates into measurable welfare outcomes. However, the absence of a standardized yet adaptable business framework from the government has constrained efforts to strengthen the financial autonomy of FFG institutions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBuilding on prior successful implementation of PAR in Yogyakarta, Indonesia (Subrata et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), the research team initiated engagement and negotiation with the leadership of Wono Makmur FFG to collaboratively develop a social forestry business framework for the long-inactive group. The collaboration resulted in two targeted outputs: (1) the development of a locally grounded episteme of a social forestry business framework for Wono Makmur FFG; and (2) an empirical pilot project demonstrating the framework\u0026rsquo;s applicability and reliability for other community forest groups facing similar or less complex challenges.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCultivating Aspirational and Participatory Governance\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA collective business framework requires participatory and egalitarian principles to function effectively. This implies that the aspirations of all FFG members must be incorporated to reach a consensus approaching a Pareto-optimal allocation, where no party\u0026rsquo;s welfare can be improved without disadvantaging another (Buchanan \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1962\u003c/span\u003e). However, qualitative studies relying solely on FGDs may fail to generate effective collective action because discussions are often dominated by actors with greater influence (Alam et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). A similar pattern occurred in Wono Makmur FFG, where membership contributions were paid only once in 2017 and subsequently stagnated, despite the group bylaws having been formulated through an FGD process.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe local community culture norms emphasizing communal harmony and deference to community leaders contributed to biased outcomes in the FGD process. Although FFG leaders considered the contribution rates to have been collectively agreed upon, many members refrained from expressing dissent as a sign of respect for local authorities. After two rounds of contributions were collected to finance forest access road infrastructure, some members raised concerns because the fees exceeded those previously paid under the former forest manager, Perum Perhutani. This comparison created a lasting gap between FFG leaders and members, and the issue was never formally revisited. The resulting social distance became a key factor behind the prolonged inactivity of the FFG, including the absence of routine meetings and the neglect of administrative and financial obligations. The stagnation of contributions therefore reflects a combination of social norms, financial constraints indicated by the Engel index, and collective memory of lower past fees.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe limited FGD recognized these conditions and served as a forum to generate potential strategies for revitalizing the FFG. Ideas generated during the discussion were subsequently communicated to all members through a perspective census to ensure that each analytical step remained participatory. This approach was adopted to reduce biases commonly observed in FGD settings, where members with limited influence may hesitate to voice their views publicly. Through this mechanism, collective decisions are expected to approach the principle of Pareto-optimal fairness. Each stage in the process must therefore achieve consensus before advancing to the next phase. When consensus is not reached, the stage is repeated through iterative cycles to preserve a systematic and sequential decision-making process.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eParticipatory Action Planning and Implementation Framework\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003ePAR is a highly adaptive and flexible research method (Sterckx et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). This approach is outcome-oriented and does not rigidly debate the methods or strategies used to achieve shared goals (Feekery \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). The primary concern of PAR in addressing problems is ensuring active participation of all group members in contributing toward the achievement of those goals (Benjamin-Thomas et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). In other words, PAR is capable of overcoming field-level constraints by utilizing available resources and is also able to accommodate incentives and opportunities to accelerate the attainment of collective objectives (De Oliveira \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe reliability of the PAR approach became evident in addressing the second research objective, particularly when FFG received policy incentives through the community forest management permit decree and a Ministerial Circular removing financial obligations beyond NTSR. Census findings indicate that 36.2% of members considered the previous contribution scheme burdensome. The critical issue was that contributions were determined using a fixed cost per hectare per year, while harvest yields were uncertain and members faced economic constraints reflected in the Engel index.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo reduce members\u0026rsquo; financial burden, FFG management proposed adopting a variable contribution scheme aligned with the NTSR system, with a 1% levy allocated to the group fund. For maize, NTSR is set at 3% per ton based on a benchmark price of Rp1,000,000 (Republic of Indonesia \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Consequently, farmers pay 3% for NTSR and 1% for the FFG contribution, equivalent to Rp30,000 and Rp10,000 per ton, respectively. Given the market price of Rp6,000/kg in 2025, one ton of maize generates Rp6,000,000 in revenue, while total financial obligations amount to only Rp40,000.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAssuming one ton of maize is produced from 0.5 ha, the previous contribution scheme of Rp40/m\u0026sup2;/year required farmers to pay Rp200,000 annually, regardless of production outcomes. Under the revised system, contributions are linked to output, amounting to Rp40,000 per harvest or Rp80,000 for two harvests annually. This adjustment reduces the financial burden by Rp120,000, representing roughly a 250% improvement compared with the previous arrangement. Although the Rp80,000 obligation remains slightly higher than the former land tax imposed by Perum Perhutani (approximately Rp10/m\u0026sup2;/year or Rp50,000 per 0.5 ha), farmers now benefit from greater autonomy in determining cropping patterns and enjoy more secure land management rights through a 35-year tenure.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBeyond deliberations on NTSR and internal group contributions, the discussion also proposed the development of an integrated village market as a mechanism to strengthen farmers\u0026rsquo; price protection. Previously, farmers in Wono Makmur FFG functioned primarily as price takers with limited bargaining capacity. The proposed system introduces an auction-based pricing mechanism, coordinated by FFG management in collaboration with NTSR officers through a WhatsApp group to collect real-time information on harvest availability. These data are then disseminated to digital marketplaces or potential off-takers, enabling commodities to be traded through an open bidding process that encourages competitive pricing. Transactions are centralized at the integrated village market, where off-takers make direct payments, from which NTSR obligations and a 1% contribution to the FFG fund are deducted.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe agreements formulated in FGD 2 were subsequently endorsed in the members\u0026rsquo; meeting, determining the market\u0026rsquo;s physical location at the FFG secretariat, infrastructure priorities, program responsibilities, funding sources, and construction timeline. As of 30 January, the physical infrastructure had been completed, with the first maize transaction expected in late March 2026.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eLocal Episteme\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe stages of problem identification, action planning, implementation, and evaluation were implemented through a cyclical PAR process. This collaborative learning trajectory has positioned Wono Makmur FFG in its most progressive state since obtaining the community forest management permit. The process demonstrates that organizational advancement depends on the equitable accommodation of members\u0026rsquo; interests. Previous stagnation emerged because the concerns of approximately 36.2% of members who perceived the contribution scheme as burdensome were not articulated during the FGD that formulated the group bylaws, gradually widening the gap between members and management. The seven-year organizational inactivity was eventually overcome when members\u0026rsquo; perspectives were systematically captured through the census and used to inform corrective strategies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe revitalization of Wono Makmur FFG marks a collective achievement for multiple stakeholders. The research contributes a refined social forestry business framework that extends classical PAR theory. FFG management secured a participatory and sequential mechanism for NTSR and internal contributions, while members gained price assurance and reduced financial burdens. The program\u0026rsquo;s progress also reflects effective facilitation by CDK III Central Java. Despite potential future challenges, the framework offers an adaptive basis for addressing emerging issues.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe social forestry business framework was developed through refinement of the PAR approach after three years of research in Wono Makmur FFG. The research team reflected that the classical PAR cycle has limitations in addressing complex organizational problems. Although its reliability has been proven in facilitating social change with a single objective, its application to resolve multiple problems simultaneously requires further development. Therefore, a sequential and detailed approach was designed to unravel the complexity of issues in Wono Makmur FFG. The framework follows several steps: (1) identifying priority problems; (2) developing a visual representation of the macro PAR stages (first layer); (3) detailing PAR processes within each stage (second layer); (4) resolving second-layer processes sequentially until consensus is reached at the macro level; (5) proceeding iteratively to the next macro stage; and (6) achieving consensus on action plans, collective action, and the local episteme of the social forestry business framework.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe proposed social forestry business framework constitutes a novel contribution with potential applicability to other FFG experiencing similar challenges. Nevertheless, the iterative structure presented in this study should not be viewed as rigid. Adaptations may be introduced to accommodate the contextual conditions of individual FFG. While the framework demonstrates the capacity to address organizational problems, its implementation requires sustained commitment and patience from both researchers and community members, given that PAR-based research typically unfolds over extended, multi-year processes.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgments\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThe author gratefully acknowledges the Indonesian Education Scholarship (BPI) and the Center for Financing and Assessment of Higher Education (PPAT) for funding this research, and the Doctoral Program, Faculty of Forestry, Universitas Gadjah Mada, for academic support. Appreciation is extended to Wono Makmur FFG, CDK III Central Java, local governments, and research assistants for their support.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor Contributions\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eSubrata M.A.R: Conceptualization, Methodology, Fieldwork and Data Collection, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Writing \u0026ndash; Original Draft; Awang S.A: Supervision, Methodology Validation, Writing \u0026ndash; Review \u0026amp; Editing; Purwanto R.H: Review, Sustainable Business Management Perspective; Asihwarya S: Literature Review, Reference Management; Wulandhanik A: Language Editing, Manuscript Preparation; Andayani W: Marketing Analysis, Writing, Review, and Editing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThis study was funded by the Indonesian Education Scholarship (BPI) and The Center for Financing and Assessment of Higher Education (PPAT)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData availability\u003c/strong\u003e The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConflict of interest\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThe authors report that there are no competing interests to declare.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAgresti A, Finlay B (2009) Statistical methods for the social sciences (4th ed.). Pearson, New Jersey\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlam MS, Asmawi A, Fatema S (2025) Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) for qualitative and mixed-method approaches: principles, applications, and key considerations. Integrated Journal for Research in Arts and Humanities 5(4):51-56. https://doi.org/10.55544/ijrah.5.4.8\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAwang SA (2003) Politik kehutanan masyarakat. CCSS, Yogyakarta \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAwang SA, Nugraheni BLY, Khuriyati SF, Nugroho RSA, Chrismastuti AA, Nugrahedi R., Putranti C (2022) Gerakan masyarakat perhutanan sosial di jawa. universitas katolik soegijapranata, Semarang\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBenjamin-Thomas TE, Corrado AM, McGrath C, Rudman DL, Hand C (2018) Working towards the promise of participatory action research: learning from ageing research exemplars. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918817953\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBradbury H (2015) The SAGE handbook of action research. Sage Publications Ltd, https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473921290 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBraun V, Clarke V (2008) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2):77\u0026ndash;101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBraun V, Clarke V (2021) Thematic analysis: A practical guide. Sage Publications Ltd, London.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBuchanan JM (1962) The relevance of pareto optimality. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 6(4):341\u0026ndash;354. http://www.jstor.org/stable/172611\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClements KW, Si J (2018) Engel\u0026rsquo;s Law, diet diversity, and the quality of food consumption. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 100(1):1\u0026ndash;22. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aax053\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChavas J (2017) On food security and the economic valuation of food. Food Policy, 6, 58\u0026ndash;67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2017.03.008\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCreswell JW, Poth CN (2018) Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage, Los Angeles\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCreswell JW, Creswell JD (2018) Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach. Sage, Los Angeles\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDe Oliveira B (2023) Participatory action research as a research approach: advantages, limitations and criticisms. Qualitative Research Journal 23(3):287\u0026ndash;297. https://doi.org/10.1108/qrj-08-2022-0101\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDirector General of Social Forestry and Environmental Partnership (2026) goKUPS: Social forestry statistics. https://gokups.hutsos.kehutanan.go.id. Accessed 2 February 2026\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eErbaugh JT (2019) Responsibilization and social forestry in Indonesia. Forest Policy and Economics 109 (102019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.102019\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFeekery A (2024) The 7 C\u0026rsquo;s framework for participatory action research: inducting novice participant-researchers. Educational Action Research 32(3):332\u0026ndash;347. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2023.2234417\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFetters MD, Rubinstein EB (2019) The 3 cs of content, context, and concepts: a practical approach to recording unstructured field observations. Ann Fam Med 17(6):554-560. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2453\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eField A (2018) Discovering statistics using ibm spss statistics (5th ed.). Sage, Los Angeles\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFisher MR, Workman T, Mulyana A, Balang Institute, Moeliono M, Yuliani EL, Colfer JPC, Adam UEB (2017) Striving for PAR excellence in land use planning: Multi-stakeholder collaboration on customary forest recognition in Bulukumba, South Sulawesi. Land Use Policy 99:102997. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.09.057\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFisher MR, Dhiaulhaq A, Sahide MAK (2019) The politics, economies, and ecologies of Indonesia\u0026rsquo;s third generation of social forestry: An introduction to the special section. Forest and Society 3(1):152\u0026ndash;170. https://doi.org/10.24259/fs.v3i1.6348\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHlungwani C, Nxasane BH, Kunene TR, Shabane ML, Ighodaro ID, Popoola OO, Nkonki-Mandleni B (2025) Collaborating for Social impact: enhancing food security through participatory action research. Asian Journal of Dairy and Food Research 44(6):1037-1044. https://doi.org/10.18805/ajdfr.DRF-520\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHouthakker HS (1957) An International Comparison of Household Expenditure Patterns, Commemorating the Centenary of Engel\u0026apos;s Law. Econometrica, 25(4):532-551. https://doi.org/10.2307/1905382\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHove J, Mabetha D, van der Merwe M, Twine R, Kahn K, Witter S, D\u0026rsquo;Ambruoso L (2023) Participatory action research to address lack of safe water, a community-nominated health priority in rural South Africa. PLoS ONE, 18(7):e0288524. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288524\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eInnes JE, Booher DE (2018) Planning with complexity: An introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315147949\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKitagawa K (2023) Researcher positionality in participatory action research for climate justice in indigenous communities. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22:1-5. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231205178\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLykes M, Mallona A (2008) Towards transformational liberation: participatory and action research and praxis. In Reason P, Bradbury H (Eds.) Towards transformational liberation: Participatory and action research and praxis (2nd ed pp 106-120). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848607934.n13\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMapfumo P, Adjei-Nsiah S, Mtambanengwe F, Chikowo R, Giller KE (2013) Participatory action research (PAR) as an entry point for supporting climate change adaptation by smallholder farmers in Africa. Environmental Development 5:6\u0026ndash;22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2012.11.001 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMarchetti S, Secondi L (2022) The Economic Perspective of Food Poverty and (In)security: An Analytical Approach to Measuring and Estimation in Italy. Soc Indic Res 162(3):995-1020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-021-02875-5\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMaring P (2022) Conflict transformation and collaboration in developing social forestry in Flores, Indonesia. Forest and Society 6(1):40-66. http://dx.doi.org/10.24259/fs.v6i1.13199\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNeuman WL (2014) Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (7th ed.). Pearson, Harlow\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNugroho AP, Sunito MA, Kinseng RA (2024) land tenure conflicts in forest areas of muara gembong, bekasi regency. Journal of Natural Resources and Environmental Management, 15(3):448-459.https://doi.org/10.29244/jpsl.15.3.448\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNurfatriani F, Darusman D, Nurrochmat DR, Yustika AE, Muttaqin MZ (2015) Redesigning Indonesian forest fiscal policy to support forest conservation. Forest Policy and Economics 61(2015):39-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2015.07.006\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePurnomo H, Puspitalok, D, Okarda B, Andrianto A, Sutikno S, Muhammad A, Basuki I, Jalil A, Yesi, Prasetyo P, Tarsono, Zukardi, Kusumadewi SD, Komarudin H, Dermawan A, \u0026amp; Brady MA (2024) Community-based fire prevention and peatland restoration in Indonesia: A participatory action research approach. Environmental Development 50:100971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2024.100971\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRepublic of Indonesia (2024) Government Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia Number 36 of 2024 concerning types and tariffs of non-tax state revenue. Government of Indonesia, Jakarta\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRuszczyk HA, Upadhyay BK, Kwong YMC, Khanal O, Bracken LJ, Pandit S, Bastola R (2020) Empowering women through participatory action research in community-based disaster risk reduction efforts. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 101763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101763\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSalman MY, Ramsis N (2025) Use of participatory action research (PAR) to developparticipatory monitoring, evaluation, and learning practices. Development in practice 35(8):1334-1341. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2025.2511965\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShearn K, Brook A, Humphreys H, Wardle C (2021) Mixed methods Participatory Action Research to inform service design based on the Capabilities Approach, in the North of England\u003cem\u003e. \u003c/em\u003eChildren \u0026amp; Society 2022(36):450\u0026ndash;471. https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12496\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSendall MC, McCosker LK, Brodie A, Hill M, Crane P (2018) Participatory action research, mixed methods, and research teams: learning from philosophically juxtaposed methodologies for optimal research outcomes. BMC Med Res Methodol 18:167. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0636-1\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSirimorok N, Sahide MAK, Herrawan H, Fatirachmat F, Maryudi A (2024) Linking commoning with social forestry: An Indonesian case. Trees, Forests and People 18:(100737). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2024.100737\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSterckx A, Van den Broeck K, Remmen R, Dekeirel K, Hermans H, Hesters C, Daeseleire T, Broes V, Barton J, Gladwell V, Dandy S, Connors M, Lammel A and Keune H (2021) Operationalization of one health burnout prevention and recovery: participatory action research-design of nature-based health promotion interventions for employees. Front. Public Health 9:720761. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.720761\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSubrata MAR, Riyanto S, Andayani W, Awang SA, Dewi GK (2022) Analysis of intensified agrosilvopastoral farming in Wiladeg Village, Karangmojo Sub-district, Gunungkidul Regency, Yogyakarta Province, Indonesia. Jurnal Ilmu Kehutanan, 16(2):184-197. https://doi.org/10.22146/jik.v16i2.1865\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"small-scale-forestry","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"ssfo","sideBox":"Learn more about [Small-scale Forestry](http://link.springer.com/journal/11842)","snPcode":"11842","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/ssfo/default2.aspx","title":"Small-scale Forestry","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"Participatory Action Research (PAR), business framework, consensus, forest farmer group (FFG)","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9098279/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9098279/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"Many forest farmer groups (FFGs) in Indonesia experience stagnation after obtaining social forestry permits, largely due to the absence of an operationalized social forestry business framework at the site level. Using a pragmatic research paradigm through a complex mixed-method Participatory Action Research approach, this study aims to develop a social forestry business framework capable of simultaneously addressing key challenges faced by FFGs, including: (1) improving farm household income through more efficient marketing schemes; (2) strengthening institutional capacity within FFGs; and (3) ensuring compliance with Non-Tax State Revenue (NTSR) obligations. This research was conducted in Wono Makmur Forest Farmer Group (Wono Makmur FFG), Boyolali Regency, Central Java, Indonesia, which obtained a Social Forestry Forest Management Permit under the Community Forestry scheme in 2017. According to the Indonesian government database in 2023, the group represents the oldest FFG in Boyolali while also recording the lowest productivity compared with neighboring groups. The study was implemented over a three-year period from early 2023 to early 2026. The resulting framework produces a form of local episteme that enables FFG members to independently diagnose group challenges, address them through participatory mechanisms, and design more efficient forest-product marketing channels while meeting NTSR obligations through an integrated village market system. Although the framework effectively addresses the challenges faced by FFGs, achieving a genuinely participatory consensus requires a relatively long process because it must accommodate the aspirations of all group members and relevant stakeholders.","manuscriptTitle":"A Social Forestry Business Framework for Revitalizing Stagnant Forest Farmer Groups: A Case Study of Central Java, Indonesia","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-03-18 10:10:16","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9098279/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2026-04-07T07:02:07+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-03-28T14:03:15+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-03-27T14:25:03+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"283593782732811799289538261998754523993","date":"2026-03-18T15:42:28+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"82255950007081299234802028262097601075","date":"2026-03-17T13:00:52+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-03-16T13:44:25+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-03-12T06:37:17+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-03-12T06:36:50+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Small-scale Forestry","date":"2026-03-11T21:56:37+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"small-scale-forestry","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"ssfo","sideBox":"Learn more about [Small-scale Forestry](http://link.springer.com/journal/11842)","snPcode":"11842","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/ssfo/default2.aspx","title":"Small-scale Forestry","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"c572853e-7c5c-424a-a561-4f669c7ac889","owner":[],"postedDate":"March 18th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-11T12:19:28+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-03-18 10:10:16","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9098279","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9098279","identity":"rs-9098279","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}