Forest Cover Change and Vulnerability of Gunung Merbabu

International Institute for Geo-Information

Science and Earth Observation

Enschede – The Netherlands

Double Degree Program

Urban and Regional Planning

Gadjah Mada University, Jogjakarta Indonesia

Forest Cover Change and Vulnerability

of Gunung Merbabu National Park

Kristina Dewi

September 2009

Forest Cover Change and Vulnerability

of Gunung Merbabu National Park

By

Kristina Dewi

Thesis submitted to the International Institute for Geo-information Science and Earth Observation

and Gadjah Mada University in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of

Science in Geo-information Science and Earth Observation, Specialisation Natural Resources

Management and Urban and Regional Planning,

Thesis Assessment Board

Chairman : Dr. YA Yousif Hussin

(Department of Natural Resources, ITC)

External Examiner : Dr Leksono Probo Subanu

(Gadjah Mada University)

Internal Examiner : Ms.Ir. L.M Louise Van Leuwen


Supervisors : Ms.Ir.L.M Louise Van Leuwen


Dr. YA Yousif Hussin


Dr Bakti Setiawan

(Department of Urban and Regional Planning, UGM)

International Institute for Geo-Information

Science and Earth Observation

Enschede – The Netherlands

Double Degree Program

Urban and Regional Planning

Gadjah Mada University, Jogjakarta Indonesia

Disclaimer

This document describes work undertaken as part of a programme of study at the International

Institute for Geo-information Science and Earth Observation. All views and opinions expressed

therein remain the sole responsibility of the author, and do not necessarily represent those of the

institute.

i

Abstract

The latest research conducted by Forestry Research Center indicates that the forest cover of Gunung

Merbabu National Park (GMNP) now is only 30 % of the whole area of the park (Balai Penelitian

Kehutanan Solo, 2007). Current activities, such as fuel wood collecting and illegal cutting for charcoal

combined with forest fire as natural event, has lead to forest cover loss in GMNP. However, the

process of land cover change and the area that is at risk of being deforested is still poorly

understood. This study aims to use of remote sensed data to detect the forest cover change using

change detection method over the period 1991-2007 and to define areas vulnerable to

deforestation. This information is expected to support the Management Plan of GMNP. Land cover

types of GMNP were classified and their temporal change was evaluated. Maximum likelihood

classification showed an overall accuracy 79.30 % for the 2007 images. Kappa coefficient associated

with the classification for image 2007 was 0.69. Land cover types revealed significant temporal

changes in classification maps between 1991, 2003 and 2007. The rate of deforestation in the

periods 1991 to 2003 and 2003 to 2007 is 1, 25 % and 3% per year respectively. Decrease in the

number of forest (49.86 %) was associated with the increase of shrub grass (42.4%). The observed

trends indicate increasing deforestation during the 2003 – 2007 period. Deforestation hotspots

cover 9.84 % of the whole of GMNP’s area. Forest fire is considered the main cause of deforestation

in GMNP. The area vulnerable to deforestation was identified according to both the park

management and local people’s points of view, namely: (1). Accessibility, (2) Safe from

ranger/management, and (3) Close to existing agriculture. These factors were analyzed using Multi

Criteria Analysis. 12.58 % of GMNP area is vulnerable to deforestation. The land cover change and

vulnerability maps were used to update the Proposed Zoning System of GMNP and come up with an

Updated zoning system. Special zone 1 (33.8 ha) and Special zone 2 (188.54 ha) are new zones in the

Updated Zoning System. Special zone 1 is the areas that need highest attention due to high

vulnerability to deforestation and deforestation hotspot area as well. The research suggests further

study to analyse the impact of mountaineering to the preservation of GMNP.

Key words: Gunung Merbabu National Park, Land cover change, vulnerability

ii

Acknowledgements

Alhamdulilahi Rabbil Alamin, all praises belong to Allah SWT, the Most Merciful. Only with His will I

got a lot of help, support and encouragement from both individual and organization, so that I could

finish my study in the International for Geo Information and Earth Observation (ITC). For that, I

would like to sincere express my gratitude to those who help me in accomplishing this thesis.

First and foremost, I would give many great full and appreciate to my first supervisor, Ms.Ir. L.M

Louise Van Leuwen, for her guidance, good comment and rich discussion all along the thesis. My

thanks also go to my second supervisor Dr. YA Yousif Hussen and Dr. Bakti Setiawan for their

constructive input for improvement.

Many appreciation and thank to Dr Michael Weir, Course Director NRM, who always guiding me and

give valuable suggestion so that I could go trough my hard time in ITC. Many thanks also go to all

staff in NRM Departement who gave me very nice academic atmosphere. Many appreciations go to

Course Director of Urban and Regional Planning Gadjah Mada University, Bp Bakti Setiawan, and all

the staffs who support me during my study in MPKD UGM.

I would like to acknowledge to Netherlands Government trough StuNED fellowship programme and

NESO Indonesia for giving me a great opportunity to study in Netherlands, to Balai TN Gunung

Merbabu, Ministry of Forestry for study leave permission and support during my study and to

Pusbindiklatren-Bapenas for the scholarship during my study in Gadjah Mada University as part of

Double Degree Program.

I am grate full to my cluster mates, Sigit and Erwinda, for helping and sharing all the good and hard

moment together. My appreciation goes to Pak Dosen JMS who patiently assist me and to dik Inta

for having a look on my thesis, give constructive comment and for always listening me. To all my

NRM class mates, thanks for being my friend and good luck for all of you. To my Indonesian fellow

whom I can not mention one by one, thank you for being my family when I am away from home and

to all Double Degree mates, thank you for always support each other.

Finnaly, I would like to dedicate my thesis to my family, to Daddy for the remote encouragement and

constant concern; to my angels anindya and calysta for their patience; to Bapak dan Ibu for always

praying for my success; and to my sisters for loving and caring me.

Kristina Dewi

Enschede, The Netherland

September, 2009

iii

I dedicate this piece of work for my Father “Bapak Tawino Trisno Raharjo”

v

Table of contents

Abstract .....................................................................................................................................................i

Acknowledgements..................................................................................................................................ii

Table of contents......................................................................................................................................v

List of figures ..........................................................................................................................................vii

List of tables .......................................................................................................................................... viii

1. Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Background ............................................................................................................................ 1

1.1.1. Forest Degradation and the Consequences on carbon Cycle ......................................... 2

1.1.2. Vulnerability and Local people’s needs........................................................................... 4

1.1.3. Current Mitigation Initiatives: Climate Change Related project in GMNP ..................... 5

1.2. Problem Statement................................................................................................................ 5

1.3. Justification of the research .................................................................................................. 6

1.4. Research Objectives............................................................................................................... 7

1.5. Research Questions: .............................................................................................................. 7

1.6. Conceptual Framework.......................................................................................................... 7

2. Concepts and Definitions ................................................................................................................ 9

2.1. Land Cover and Land Use....................................................................................................... 9

2.2. Land Cover and Land Use Change.......................................................................................... 9

2.3. Deforestation....................................................................................................................... 10

2.4. National Park Management................................................................................................. 10

2.5. Image Classification ............................................................................................................. 11

2.6. Change Detection ................................................................................................................ 11

2.7. Multi Criteria Analysis.......................................................................................................... 12

2.8. Vulnerability......................................................................................................................... 12

2.9. Hotspots............................................................................................................................... 13

2.10. Carbon Cycle and Climate Change....................................................................................... 13

3. Method and Materials .................................................................................................................. 15

3.1. Study Area............................................................................................................................ 15

3.1.1. Location ......................................................................................................................... 15

3.1.2. Climate and Soil............................................................................................................. 17

3.1.3. Social Economic Situation ............................................................................................. 17

3.1.4. Forest Resources ........................................................................................................... 17

3.2. Materials .............................................................................................................................. 18

3.2.1. Imageries ....................................................................................................................... 18

3.2.2. Maps.............................................................................................................................. 18

3.2.3. Other Data..................................................................................................................... 18

vi

3.2.4. Software ........................................................................................................................ 19

3.3. Research Method................................................................................................................. 19

3.4. Pre Field Work...................................................................................................................... 20

3.5. Field Work ............................................................................................................................ 20

3.6. Post Field work..................................................................................................................... 20

3.6.1. Post Field Interview....................................................................................................... 20

3.6.2. Image Classification....................................................................................................... 20

3.6.3. Land Cover Reclassification ........................................................................................... 21

3.6.4. Accuracy Assessment .................................................................................................... 21

3.6.5. Change Detection .......................................................................................................... 22

3.6.6. Criteria for Vulnerable Area .......................................................................................... 23

4. Result ............................................................................................................................................. 25

4.1. Land Cover Classification ..................................................................................................... 25

4.1.1. Land Cover Map............................................................................................................. 25

4.1.2. Accuracy Assessment .................................................................................................... 28

4.2. Land Cover Change Analysis ................................................................................................ 29

4.3. Hotspot Area ........................................................................................................................ 33

4.4. Resource Utilization ............................................................................................................. 34

4.5. Vulnerable Area ................................................................................................................... 37

4.5.1. Criteria for Vulnerable Land .......................................................................................... 37

4.5.2. Criteria Scoring .............................................................................................................. 38

4.5.3. Assessing Weight by Ranking Sum Procedure for Determining Vulnerability .............. 43

4.6. Zoning System...................................................................................................................... 45

4.6.1. Distribution of Deforestation Hotspot .......................................................................... 46

4.6.2. Distribution of Vulnerability to Deforestation .............................................................. 47

4.6.3. Zoning System Update .................................................................................................. 47

5. Discussion ...................................................................................................................................... 51

5.1. Land Cover and Change Mapping ........................................................................................ 51

5.2. Vulnerable area of GMNP .................................................................................................... 52

5.3. Zoning Recommendation..................................................................................................... 54

5.4. Mitigation Program.............................................................................................................. 55

5.5. Limitation of the Research................................................................................................... 56

6. Conclusion and Recomendation.................................................................................................... 57

6.1. Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 57

6.2. Recomendations .................................................................................................................. 58

References............................................................................................................................................. 59

Appendices ............................................................................................................................................ 63

Appendix 1. Checklist For Guiding Interview and FGD with local people......................................... 63

Appendix 2. List of Interview Question for Government and Local Leader. .................................... 64

Appendix 3. FGD Result ..................................................................................................................... 65

Appendix 4. List of Question for Vulnerable Criteria ........................................................................ 67

Appendix 5. Sufficiency of Resources from GMNP ........................................................................... 71

vii

List of figures

Figure 1 Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................................. 8

Figure 2. A Cartoon of the Global Carbon Cycle. .................................................................................. 13

Figure 3. Major components needed to understand the climate system and climate change. .......... 14

Figure 4. Gunung Merbabu National Park (GMNP) .............................................................................. 15

Figure 5. Research Method ................................................................................................................... 19

Figure 6. Post Classification Land Cover Change Detection.................................................................. 22

Figure 7. Land Cover Map 1991 ........................................................................................................... 26

Figure 8. Land Cover Map 2003 ............................................................................................................ 26

Figure 9. Land Cover Map 2007 ............................................................................................................ 27

Figure 10. Land Cover Dynamic during 1991 – 2003 – 2007 ................................................................ 30

Figure 11. Land Cover Change 1991-2003 ............................................................................................ 32

Figure 12. Land Cover Change 2003-2007 ............................................................................................ 32

Figure 13. Land Cover Change 1991- 2007 ........................................................................................... 34

Figure 14. Distance from Settlement Map............................................................................................ 39

Figure 15. Slope Map Class.................................................................................................................... 40

Figure 16. Distance from Road Path ..................................................................................................... 41

Figure 17. Viewshed of GMNP .............................................................................................................. 42

Figure 18. Agricultural Expansion Map ................................................................................................. 43

Figure 19. Vulnerability Map of GMNP ................................................................................................. 44

Figure 20. Proposed Zoning System from Management Plan of GMNP .............................................. 46

Figure 21. Updated Zoning System of GMNP ....................................................................................... 48

viii

List of tables

Table 1 Forest Figures in Indonesia (Ministry of Forestry, 2006) ........................................................... 2

Table 2 Forest Covers Change in Indonesia (1985-1997) ....................................................................... 3

Table 3 Land Cover of GMNP ................................................................................................................ 16

Table 4 Remotely Sensed Data............................................................................................................. 18

Table 5 Availability Map ........................................................................................................................ 18

Table 6 Land Cover Class ....................................................................................................................... 21

Table 7 Description of Land Covers Classes .......................................................................................... 25

Table 8 Land Cover Area........................................................................................................................ 27

Table 9 Error Matrix for the Land Cover 2007 ...................................................................................... 28

Table 10 Total Accuracy Assessment for the Land Cover 2007. ........................................................... 28

Table 11 Kappa (K^) Statistics for the Land Cover 2007 ....................................................................... 29

Table 12 Magnitude of Change in Land Cover ...................................................................................... 30

TableTable 13 Change Matrix Land Cover 1991 - 2003 ........................................................................ 31

TableTable 14 Change Matrix Land Cover 2003 – 2007 ....................................................................... 31

Table 15 Reclassification of Forest to Land Cover Change Classes....................................................... 31

Table 16 Land Cover Changes Detected by Post Classification............................................................ 33

Table 17. Land Cover Change 1991-2007.............................................................................................. 33

Table 18. Resource Utilization by Local People .................................................................................... 35

Table 19 Summarize people‘s perception of National Park.................................................................. 37

Table 20 Criteria and Attributes............................................................................................................ 37

Table 21 Distance to Settlement........................................................................................................... 38

Table 22 Slope Criteria .......................................................................................................................... 39

Table 23 Road Path Criteria................................................................................................................... 40

Table 24 Viewshed Criteria ................................................................................................................... 41

Table 25 Distance to existing agriculture.............................................................................................. 42

Table 26 Ranking Sum Weight for determining Vulnerability to Deforestation................................... 43

Table 27 Distribution of Vulnerable Area.............................................................................................. 44

Table 28 Area per Zone ......................................................................................................................... 45

Table 29 Area of Deforestation Hotspot by Zoning System Proposed ................................................. 46

Table 30 Area of Vulnerability to Deforestation by Zoning System Proposed ..................................... 47

Table 31 Updated Zones....................................................................................................................... 48

Table 32 Area per Zone of Updated Zoning System ............................................................................. 49

FOREST COVER CHANGE AND VULNERABILITY OF GUNUNG MERBABU NATIONAL PARK

1

1. Introduction

1.1. Background

Conversion of land cover from forest to non forest is one the burning issues currently challenging our

globe. In the 1990s, every year 0.38 percent of the world’s forests were converted to other land uses

(i.e. deforested) (FAO, 2001). The conversion is mainly to agricultural land and commonly taken

place in the tropics. Global estimates of tropical deforestation range from 69 million ha per year in

the early 1980s to 165 million ha per year in the late 1980s (Skole, 1993.). This shows that

deforestation tripled within a decade and how the rate is highly alarming and devastating. The

impacts of deforestation include loss of biodiversity, reduced water cycling (and rainfall), and

contributions to global warming (Fearnside and Philip, 2005).

However, even though such a loss has still continued at an alarmingly high rate – about 13 million

hectares per year, a report by the FAO (2006) shows a reduction in the net loss of forest areas in the

years 2000 to 2005. According to the report, there is forest planting, landscape restoration and

natural expansion of forests in developed countries. Because of such activities, the net change in

forest area has decreased from –8.9 million hectares per year in the period 1990–2000 to an

estimated –7.3 million hectares per year (an area about the size of Sierra Leone or Panama) in the

period 2000–2005. However, these activities have exclusively taken place in developed western

countries and thus there is forest expansion - not loss - in Europe (Van Gils et al., 2008).

Such trends in land use and land cover change significantly affect the degree to which countries and

regions are vulnerable to climate change. Moreover, it also affects the benefits obtained from

forests and forest products. As an example, almost 17–25% of the carbon emission by

anthropogenic factors causes deforestation(Strassburga et al., 2009). Furthermore, the majority of

rural households in developing countries meet part of their subsistence and income needs from

forest. The sectors of the economy to which land use and land cover are most critical such as

agriculture, livestock, and forest products are among those most sensitive to climate variation and

change (Meyer, 1995).

As a developing tropical country, deforestation is increasing over time in Indonesia. In line with

forests loss, Indonesia lost biodiversity, wood supply, income, and various ecosystem services

(Forest Watch Indonesia, 2002 ).

Various factors are causing deforestation in Indonesia. One of them is the change of forest

designation to other land purposes such as estate crops, agriculture land, human settlements and

transmigration. Deforestation is caused not only by human activity, but also by natural events like El-

Nino in 1997, which is assumed as the main trigger of forest fire that also contributes to

deforestation. The 1997-98 El Niño that had effects of large-scale forest fires in Indonesia during


2

1997-1998 that were unprecedented, damaging more than 9.7 million ha of forest area (Asian

Development Bank (ADB) and National Development Planning Agency (BAPPENAS), 1999).

1.1.1. Forest Degradation and the Consequences on carbon Cycle

Land Use and land Cover is a key element in the study of global change (Henderson-Sellers and

Pitman, 1992). Each category of land cover change is associated with a number of environmental

consequences that can affect the global carbon cycle (Meyer and Turner, 1994). A study of

Sumarwoto, et al. (2003) indicates that forest degradation has impact on : environmental (decrease

of water absorption, decrease of water sequestration, decrease of biodiversity, global climate

change and erosion); economics (decrease of plywood export, decrease of government revenue and

stagnant economic growth); social (increase of poverty, local community conflicts, forest

encroachment); political (overlapping forestry’s law and policy) and institutional (overlapping land

authority, law and policy among government agencies).

Indonesia is a country with forest land about 60 % of the country area. However Indonesia is one of

the countries with highest rates of tropical forest loss in the world. The rate of forest loss is

increasing over time. About 1 million ha of forests per year were cleared in 1980s, and this figure

rose to around 1.7 million ha per year in the early 1990s and increased again in 1996, to an average

of 2 million ha per year (Forest Watch Indonesia, 2002 ). The extent area of land cover inside and

outside the forest area in 2005 is 187.913 million ha as shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Forest Figures in Indonesia (Ministry of Forestry, 2006)

Forest Area (1,000 Ha)

Permanent Forest

Conservation

Area

Protected

Forest

Limited

Production

Forest

Production

Forest

Conversion

Forest

Other

uses

Total

(1,000 ha)

Forest 14,365 22,101 18,180 20,624 10,693 7,960 93,924

Non Forest 4,009 5,622 5,765 23,639 11,057 44,163 83,255

Data

Deficiency

1,502 2,328 1,712 1,995 981 2,216 10,734

Total 19,876 30,051 25,656 35,258 22,731 54,339 187,913

The estimated forest cover change by region in Indonesia for the period 1985 – 1997 is described in

Table 2 (Source : FWI/GFW, 2002).


3

Table 2 Forest Covers Change in Indonesia (1985-1997)

Forest cover (ha) Forest cover

change (ha) Island

1985 1997 1985-1997

Annual

Change

Rate (%)

Sumatra 22,938,825 16,430,300 -6,508,525 -2.15

Java 1,274,600 1,869,675 595,075 3.60

Bali 96,450 76,700 -19,750 -1.50

Nusa Tenggara 686,775 450,450 -236,325 -2.60

East Timor 374,400 9,850 -364,550 -7.46

Kalimantan 39,644,025 29,637,475 -10,006,550 -1.92

Sulawesi 11,192,950 7,950,900 -3,242,050 -2.23

Maluku 5,790,800 5,820,975 30,175 0.07

Irian Jaya 35,192,725 33,382,475 -1,810,250 -0.38

Total 117,191,550 95,628,800 -21,562,750 -1.38

Deforestation also occurred in protected areas that are established to limit the extent of land use

conversions within delineated areas. A protected area is often located in a hotspot of biodiversity

and is assumed to be large enough areas to protect endangered species. However, the simple

delineation of park boundaries itself is insufficient to guarantee the preservation of ecosystem

(Verburg et al., 2006.) and forest loss in Indonesia even has occurred in protected areas such as in

National Parks. For example, Gunung Palung in Borneo and Bukit Barisan Selatan in Sumatra are

among those National Parks with devastating forest loss. Deforestation rate of Bukit Barisan National

Park, based on the data from Wildlife Conservation Society and Bukit Barisan Selatan Agency 2008,

steadily increased from 9.4% in 1985 to average 15.6 % in 1997 and reached 20.8% in year 2006 .

The total forest cover change in protected areas between 2000 and 2005 was 127,481 ha. Losses in

National Parks were 27,606 ha (5,521 ha per year), 19,071 ha in Other Conservation Areas (3,814 ha

per year) and 80,804 ha in Protection forest (16,161 hectares per year). Losses in conservation

forests were fairly consistent, but losses in protection forests increased steadily from 4,751 ha in

2000/1 to 39.995 ha in 2004/5 (IFCA, 2007).

Forest in Indonesia is the third largest area of forest in the world and plays in an important role in

global climate change through carbon sequestration. The sources of carbon stocks come from forest

cover (including peatland forest), woodland, agroforestry, plantation, fallow land, grassland, shifting

cultivation/garden, housing compound and surrounding, and mixed unproductive lands. About 24

billion tons of Carbon stock (BtC) are stored in the various land uses, 80 % of which (about 19 BtC)

are in the forest cover (Ministry of Environment, 2007).

Deforestation affects the global climate both by releasing the carbon stored in the living plants and

soil and by altering physical properties on planet surface. Data from the Indonesian Ministry of


4

Forestry stated, almost half of forest area have been in poor and degraded conditions (Ministry of

Forestry, 2006b). Indonesia is considered as one of the top three Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emitters

due to land use change and deforestation. As estimated by the IPCC (Houghton 2003 cited in

Baumert et al. 2005), from total emission 3,014 million tons Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (MtCO2e)

per year, about 2,563 MtCO2e is from the forestry sector and this is mostly from deforestation.

1.1.2. Vulnerability and Local people’s needs

The increase in human population in the world causes increasing demand for those basic needs such

as food, water, fuel and shelter. Such a situation has forced people to utilize the natural resources

for their daily needs and triggers the over-exploitation of natural resources, including forest

resources. Quite often the exploitation causes environmental problems such as floods, droughts,

landslides, forest fire and water contamination.

Forest is one of resources that are heavily over exploited. Globally, land cover today is altered

principally by direct human use: by agriculture and livestock raising, forest harvesting and

management, and urban and suburban construction and development (Meyer, 1995). Furthermore

Geist and Lambin (2002) noted that tropical forest are disappearing as the result of many pressures,

both local and regional, acting in various combination in different geographical location.

In the case of the Amazon Basin, the causes of to the deforestation problems are related to the

social and economic growth of the region. Due to the growing need for food, there is an increasing

demand for arable land. As a result, forests are cleared for agriculture. This was made easier with a

demanding market (Fearnside and Philip, 2005). Similarly, in Indonesia, the growing demand to

satisfy the need for food production and other activities related to economic development resulted

in deforestation and forest fragmentation (Sunderlin and Resosudarmo, 1997).

The World Bank's Forest Strategy noted: “More than 1.6 billion people worldwide depend in varying

degrees on forests for their livelihoods. About 60 million indigenous people are almost wholly

dependent on forests. Some 350 million people who live within or adjacent to dense forests depend

highly on them for subsistence and income” (Vedeld P. et al., 2007).

In the Indonesian context, forest ecosystems also provide homes and sources of livelihood for a

majority of the indigenous peoples. Based on FWI/GFW data (2002) tens of millions of people in

Indonesia depend on the forest. They collect forest products for their daily needs or work in the

wood-processing sectors (Barber and Matthews, 2002 ).

Many activities and policies have been carried out by communities and policy makers to try to fulfil

the increasing demands for resources. Combined with natural events, this often leads to change in

the existing forest and creates vulnerable areas in the forest. As a result, Indonesia’s forest land is

now in an alarming condition. This vulnerability is also affected by climate change. Observation of

climate change in Indonesia resulted mean annual temperature has increased by about 0.3 ºC and

projected warming from 0.2 to 0.3ºC per decade, and overall annual precipitation has decreased by

2 to 3 % (Hulme and Sheard, 1999). Predicted impacts of this are that in the future Indonesia will


5

become dryer than before. This in turn has a consequence on the vulnerability of the forest by

enhancing dieback, pest attack, forest fire and droughts.

1.1.3. Current Mitigation Initiatives: Climate Change Related project in GMNP

Indonesia is considered as a vulnerable country to impact the climate change as Indonesia is an

archipelago country with 17,500 islands; it has a very long coast of about 80,000 km, high population

density and high levels of biodiversity. Climate change effects such as sea level rise, ocean warming,

increase temperature, increase rainfall, increase evaporation and increase tropical storms give

several impacts to Indonesia. The Ministry of Environment (2007) noted disappearing small islands,

salt water intrusion, decline of fishery harvest, lost biodiversity, increase fire risk, floods and land

slides, changing in planting seasons, food and water scarcity, drought and transport vulnerability are

the impacts of climate change.

The importance of forests has also been widely accepted regarding the occurrence of natural

disasters related to deforestation, such as flooding and landslides. Of all disasters in Indonesia in the

period 1997-2007, about 50% were due to drought, flood, landslide, wild fires and wind storm and

are directly related to climate change. Of all the disasters in Indonesia, 68.3 % of affected people, 7.9

% of total deaths, and 25.1 % of total property damage is due to events resulting from climate

change (Pribadi, 2008). Furthermore, during the El Nino years, eight reservoirs in Java produced

electricity below normal capacities. The limited supply of water caused people and industry to use

deep ground water resources and so create areas vulnerable to flooding and salt water intrusion

(Hastuti, 2008)

In Central Java, a current and on-going initiative is the Environmental Service Program (ESP) that

aims to improve understanding of the role that forest can play in mitigating climate change. One of

the objectives of ESP is to strengthen biodiversity conservation through improving understanding

and appreciation for the linkage between protected and forested areas and the delivery of key

environmental services. Over its five year term, ESP will bring improved local management to 82,000

ha of high conservation value forest and facilitate the rehabilitation of 35.000ha of degraded forest

in important watershed areas (USAID, 2008). Central Java Province where Gunung Merbabu

National Park (GMNP) is located, is among the five ESP project sites in Indonesia. ESP is conducting

several conservation activities with community who live in adjacent with GMNP especially in

Magelang District.

1.2. Problem Statement

The latest research conducted by Forestry Research Center in 2007 indicates that the forest cover of

GMNP now is only 30 % left over the whole area (Balai Penelitian Kehutanan Solo, 2007). Current

activities such as fuel wood collecting, forest fire and illegal cutting for charcoal became a problem

which leads to forest cover loss in GMNP.

Forest fire is one of the common events and is among top threat to forest in GMNP. The forest land

that has been lost because of fire is estimated to be about 45 ha in 1999, 463 ha in 2006, 10 ha in

2007 and 12.7 ha in 2008. The main causes were shrub/grass natural fire and land clearing for


6

agricultural purpose. Cutting and burning trees and consequently changing the land use results in

the emission of the carbon stored in the forests and in the underlying soils.

To avoid and reduce further deforestation, management of GMNP should know where the

deforestation areas are and assess areas that are susceptible and vulnerable to further

deforestation. Furthermore, up to now the zoning system for management of GMNP has not yet

been established so the distribution of area for allowable activities within the park has not yet

defined and delineated. However the zoning of national parks into core zone, wilderness zone,

intensive use zone and other zones which include traditional, religious, historical and cultural zones

for management purpose have been mentioned in the regulation of Ministry of Forestry of Indonesia

(Ministry of Forestry, 2006a).

Generally there is a gap of knowledge on land cover change and area that are not only risk of being

deforested but also where deforestation has serious consequences, such as along rivers, hill tops and

steep slopes. In this regard, this research aims to make use of remote sensed data and detect the

forest cover change and define deforestation hotspots using change detection method over the

period 1991-2007, define vulnerable area for supporting Management Plan of GMNP and decide

appropriate mitigation options.

1.3. Justification of the research

Lambin (1994) emphasized the importance of investigating land cover dynamic as a baseline

requirement for sustainable management of natural resources. The knowledge of “where are the

changes” and “what are causes of the changes” is important for the formulation of appropriate

management strategies and to decide where the action should be taken.

GIS is an important tool to analysis the data derived from remote sensed images and to investigate

the impact of land cover change on regional sustainable development. It is also helpful to indicate

where the change has happened and to estimate the probable causes over large areas. Thus, this

tool can also be used to model areas that are vulnerable to further deforestation.

Land cover change detection is important for GMNP because it provides a fundamental input for

planning, management and environmental studies such as landscape dynamics or natural risks and

impacts (Europian Comission, 1998). It can be used to identify areas that have experienced many

rapid changes and areas where changes lead to high risk of degradation (e.g. on slopes). This

information is essential for the development of the zones and the management of these zones.

Moreover Land cover change information, study of local community and information of vulnerable

area in GMNP are not only important input for the management plan of GMNP but also for regional

planning of Semarang, Boyolali and Magelang Regencies as stake holders of GMNP’s collaborative

management. It can be useful for decision makers to formulate rational programs in land

management and policy planning.


7

1.4. Research Objectives

General objective

The general research objective of this study is to develop a recommendation for the Management

Plan based on forest cover change detection and degree of vulnerability to deforestation.

Specific Objectives

The specific objectives of this research are to:

1. assess land cover change in GMNP between 1991 and 2007

2. identify vulnerable areas of within GMNP

3. based on vulnerability and the presence of deforestation hotspots, update the system of zoning

4. suggest improvements for the management plan of GMNP based on this zoning.

1.5. Research Questions:

1. Where are the deforestation hotspots in GMNP?

2. What are the criteria for identifying vulnerable areas?

3. Where are the vulnerable areas of GMNP?

4. How do the local people use the resource of GMNP?

5. How does the zoning of GMNP looks like after taking hotspot and vulnerable areas into

consideration and how will this affect the local population’s use of the forest resources?

6. How does the program of GMNP contribute in protecting valuable forest and storing carbon

stock in GMNP?

1.6. Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework of this research incorporates the dynamics of land cover. The driving

force is growth of human population that leads to the increasing demands for those basic needs

namely, food, water, fuel and shelter. This condition has forced people to utilize the natural

resources for their daily needs and triggered the over-exploitation of natural resources, including

forest resources. To fulfil these demands, many activities that have been done by people that lead

to the change in the existing land cover. In this research scheme, the demand of forest resource

combined with natural events such as forest fire and global climate change that predict Indonesia

will become dryer than before finally leading to vulnerability of GMNP.

As decision makers, GMNP agency has the responsibility to change adverse condition due to this

change by Management Improvement of GMNP. The flowchart in Figure 1 below shows the

conceptual framework of this research.


8

Figure 1 Conceptual Framework

Increasing temperature due

to enhance green house

gasses

Global Climate

Climate Change

Indonesia Dryer than

before

Possible impact on GMNP

Driving Force

Population Growth

Increasing demand of

resources

Forest (GMNP)

Biophysical response:

Forest Change

Vulnerable

Human Response:

Management Improvement of GMNP

Natural events


9

2. Concepts and Definitions

2.1. Land Cover and Land Use

Land cover can be defined as a physical state of the land (Meyer and Turner, 1994). The term land

cover originally referred to the kind and state of vegetation, such as forest or grass cover. But,

currently, it has been broadened in subsequence usage to include human structures such as building

or pavement and other aspects of natural environment such as soil type, biodiversity, and surface

and ground water (Meyer, 1995).

Land Use on the other hand is defined as “the arrangement, activities and inputs that people

undertake on a certain land cover type” (FAO, 2000) . It reflects human activities such as the use of

the land like industrial zone, residential zone, and agricultural fields while land cover considers

objects present on the earth surface without considering their functions and utilizations of the area

(Di Gregorio and Jansen, 1998). Furthermore different land use classes can be composed of same

land cover classes.

Concepts concerning land cover and land use activity are closely related and in many cases have

been used interchangeably. The purposes for which lands are being used commonly have associated

types of cover, whether they be forest, agricultural, residential, or industrial (Anderson et al., 2001).

In the context of forest management, Ministry of Forestry of Indonesia categorize Forest functions in

the land use plan as follows:

1. Conservation Forests,

2. Protection forests,

3. Production forests (Production Forest, Limited Production Forest, and Converted Production

Forest) and

4. Other land use.

2.2. Land Cover and Land Use Change

Lamptey et al. (2005) describes a land cover change as a quantitative change in the area of a given

type of land cover. In other words land cover change is the conversion or modification from one

cover to another type. Furthermore, Meyer and Turner (1994) differentiate Land Cover change into

two categories. These are Conversion from one land cover to another, e.g. from forest to grassland

and conversion within one category, e.g. from dense forest to open forest. Similarly, they also

defined Land use change as the alteration of the way humans use land.

Land use affects land cover and changes in land cover affect land use. Even though they are affecting

each other, a change in one may not necessarily mean change in the other. Changes in land cover by

land use may not necessarily imply degradation of the land. However, according to Meyer and


10

Turner (1994), many shiftings in land use patterns driven by a variety of social causes, result in land

cover changes that affects biodiversity, water and radiation budgets, trace gas emissions and other

processes that come together to affect climate and biosphere. Land cover can be altered by forces

other than anthropogenic. Natural events such as weather, flooding, fire, climate fluctuations, and

ecosystem dynamics may also initiate modifications upon land cover (Meyer, 1995).

2.3. Deforestation

Base on most definitions, deforestation occurs when forest is converted to another land cover or

when the tree canopy cover falls below a minimum percent threshold (10% for the FAO definition).

Forest degradation is defined as a process leading to a temporary or permanent deterioration in the

density or structure of vegetation cover or its species composition, and thus to a lower productive

capacity of the forest. (Lepers et al., 2008 ).

Ministry of Forestry of Republic of Indonesia defines deforestation as ”conversion of forestland into

non-forestland” such as agricultural lands, estate crops or human settlements as the main function

of the forest vanished. Forest degradation is “a decrease in forest quality as indicated by its decrease

in forest cover, and biomass”, such as changes of primary to secondary forests so there is a decrease

in crown cover, biodiversity and forest function although the forest vegetation cover still exists

(Ministry of Forestry, 2006b). The definition of deforestation in this research is the changing of forest

to other land cover.

2.4. National Park Management

In Indonesia, conservation area is set into several categories based on function including

conservation forest and protection forest. Conservation forest is divided into three categories,

namely National Park, Strict Nature Reserve, and Natural Tourism Forest. The management of

conservation forest is the responsibility of central government under Ministry of Forestry. At

present, only National Parks have management at national level, namely the National Park

Agency (Balai Taman Nasional), for other categories of conservation forest are carried out at

provincial level under coordination of the Natural Resources Conservation Office (BKSDA).

IUCN stated that a forest area could be said to be “National Park”, if the area has criteria:

(1) undamaged ecosystem or intact ecosystem, (2) healthy fauna and flora and high value habitat,

hich is suitable for research, education, and recreation,(3) good policy for combating illegal activity,

land acquisition, and to preserve sustainable flora, fauna, and landscape condition, and (4) regulation

pattern for research, education and recreation activities.

National parks are managed to protect life-supporting system, to preserve species of plant and

animals and to promote the sustainable use of biological resources and the ecosystem. Based on

the law of Republic Indonesia Number 41 year 1999 concerning Forestry, National Park areas have

been arranged into three zones, as follows:


11

a. Core Zone (Zona inti); it is a part of national park area which is absolutely obliged to protect. On

the other hand, this area is a free area that cannot be changed. Human activities done must be

through special permit for interest of education and research activity. This area is defined as

“limited development area” with no infrastructure except for inspection line, security post, and

watchtowers.

b. Wilderness Zone (Zona Rimba); it is a part of national park area that has wilderness zone. This

zone is place for wild fauna habitat, exploration area, and finding food.

c. Utilization Zone; it is centre of recreation area, research area. In this zone, limited activities such

as research activity, tourism forest, fauna and flora rehabilitation, natural and eco tourism,

camping area, etc. may be developed.

Up to now Indonesia has 50 National Parks, consisting of 43 terrestrial National Parks covering

around 12.401.949, 47 ha and 7 Marine national Pak covering about 4.045.049, 00 ha.

2.5. Image Classification

According to Jensen (1996) image classification is the process of assigning pixels to classes. Kerle et

al (2004) stated that the process of image classification typically involves five steps: selection and

preparation of image data; definition of the clusters in the feature space; selection of classification

algorithm; running the actual classification; and validation the result.

There are two types of images classification, namely Unsupervised and Supervised Classification.

Supervised classification requires that the operator familiar with the area of interest, because in this

method the operator defines the spectral characteristic of the classes by identifying sample areas

(training areas). A supervised classification can be carried out by following three steps:

1. The number and nature of the information classes, and collect sufficient and representative

training Data for each class,

2. Estimate the required statistical parameters from the training data, and

3. Use an appropriate decision rule (Brandts et al., 2009).

In unsupervised classification, clustering algorithm is used to partition the feature space into a

number of clusters. The main purposed of unsupervised classification is produce spectral groupings

base on certain spectral similarities (Kerle et al., 2004). Supervised approach is preferred by most

researchers because it generally gives more accurate class definitions and higher accuracy than the

unsupervised approach (Brandts et al., 2009).

2.6. Change Detection

According to Singh (1989), Change detection technique is “the process of identifying differences in

the state of an object or phenomenon by observing it at different time”. Change detection is applied

to compare and contrast the two images with symmetrical positions, and use image-handling

technique to analyze the reformed area.

Many change detection methods have been developed and can widely be categorized into: spectral

change detection approach and post classification (Singh, 1989). Spectral change detection


12

technique rely on principle that land cover changes result in persistent changes in spectral signature

of the affected land surface (Chen, 2000), while post classification method is the most

straightforward method of change detection. It involves the overlay (or “stacking”) of two or more

classified images. Change areas are simply those areas which are not classified the same at different

times (Jensen, 1996).

The Post Classification method is widely used for change detection purposes. The advantage of this

method is that method can provide “from-to” information. Another advantage is can produce a map

for each time period. However the disadvantage of this method depends on the classification of

individual images and requires two classifications (Jensen, 1996). In this method two images from

different dates are classified and labeled. The area of change is then extracted through direct

comparison of the classification result (Lunetta and Elvidge, 1999).

2.7. Multi Criteria Analysis

Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) is a decision-making tool developed for complex multi-criteria

problems that include qualitative and/or quantitative aspects of the problem in the decision-making

process. The MCA process principally involves two parts, i.e. : (1) selection and structuring of criteria

and (2) assessment of scores or factual performance (Voogd, 1983).

Center for International Forestry Research (1999) noted that the two simplest MCA methodologies

are Ranking and Rating. Ranking involves assigning each decision element a rank that reflects its

perceived degree of importance relative to the decision being made. The decision elements can then

be ordered according to their rank (first, second etc.). Rating is similar to ranking, except that the

decision elements are assigned ‘scores’ between 0 and 100. The scores for all elements being

compared must add up to 100. Thus, to score one element high means that a different element must

be scored lower.

2.8. Vulnerability

Vulnerability is broadly defined in the risk analysis and hazard assessment literature as the potential

of loss (Dilley and Boudreau, 2001). Ii et al. (2003) defined vulnerability as “the degree to which a

system, sub system, or system component is likely to experience harm due to exposure to hazard,

either a perturbation or stress/stressor”.

Vulnerable area is defined as “area that is subject to threatening processes and is likely to become

endangered unless the threatening factors cease to operate” (http://www.semide.net). In this study

vulnerable area means area that vulnerable to change from forest to others. Hence, the vulnerability

of this study is area of GMNP that likely to be deforested.


13

2.9. Hotspots

Deforestation hotspots, particularly those kinds that are human-induced, were identified following

Veldkamp and Lambin (2001). According to the authors these areas tend to concentrate in certain

places. In this study, areas in GMNP that experience change from forest cover type in 1991 to others

in 2003 and continues in 2007 were also considered as areas with persistent deforestation and thus

defined as hotspot areas. The aim of hotspot identification is to investigate vulnerable areas and to

use it as guide for setting of priorities for conservation efforts, to warrant special attention (Müller

and Mburu, 2009).

2.10. Carbon Cycle and Climate Change

The movements of carbon, the carbon exchanges between reservoirs, occur because of various

chemical, physical, geological, and biological processes. The reservoirs include atmosphere, oceans,

biosphere and geosphere. The global carbon budget is the balance of the exchanges (incomes and

losses) of carbon between these carbon reservoirs or between one specific loop (e.g., atmosphere

↔ biosphere) of the carbon cycle. An examination of the carbon budget of a pool or reservoir can

provide information about whether the pool or reservoir is functioning as a source or sink for carbon

dioxide. Thus, carbon cycle is determined by “the movement of carbon, in its many forms,

between the atmosphere, oceans, biosphere and geosphere” as describe in Figure 2 below

(Harrison, 2003).

.

Figure 2. A Cartoon of the Global Carbon Cycle.

Pools (in black) are gigatons (1Gt = 1x109 Tons) of carbon, and fluxes (in purple) are Gt carbon

per year. Illustration courtesy NASA Earth Science Enterprise.

Carbon exists in the Earth’s atmosphere primarily as the gas carbon dioxide (CO2). Although it is a

small percentage of atmosphere, it plays an important role in supporting life. The overall

atmospheric concentration of these greenhouse gases has been increasing in recent decades. Trees

convert carbon dioxide into carbon during photosynthesis, releasing oxygen in the process. This

process is most prolific in relatively new forests where tree growth is still rapid.


14

Carbon is the fourth most abundant element in the universe, and is essential for life on earth. Every

organism needs carbon either for structure, energy, or, as in the case of humans, for both. This cycle

consists of several storage pools of carbon (black text in figure 2) and the processes by which the

various pools exchange carbon (purple arrows and numbers). If more carbon enters a pool than

leaves it, that pool is considered a net carbon sink. If more carbon leaves a pool than enters it, that

pool is considered net carbon source. The global carbon cycle, one of the major biogeochemical

cycles, can be divided into geological and biological components. The geological carbon cycle

operates on a time scale of millions of years, whereas the biological carbon cycle operates on a time

scale of days to thousands of years (Harrison, 2003).

Climate change defined by The Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in its article 1 as

“change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the

composition of global atmosphere and which in addition to natural climate variability observed over

comparable time periods”. Climate change is evident in both a change in average temperature and

rainfall, as well as change in frequency and severity of extreme weather events, such as frost, heat

waves, drought and floods (IPCC, 2001).

Figure 3 illustrates the range and complexity of the climate system elements that must be

considered in addressing short- and long-term climate change issues.

Figure 3. Major components needed to understand the climate system and climate change.

(www.climatescience.gov/.../vision/overview.htm)

The figure shows factors that are contributing to global warming. It shows how land cover change

(deforestation), fossil fuel burning and different green houses gases, which includes carbon dioxide

and water vapour, that are released to the atmosphere resulting in change in change of atmospheric

composition and climate variability and change.


15

3. Method and Materials

3.1. Study Area

3.1.1. Location

The study is conducted in Gunung Merbabu National Park (GMNP), which lies between latitude 7 °

27’ 13” S and longitude 110°26’22” E with maximum height 3,142 m asl. It covers an area of ± 5,725

ha and located in Central Java Province, Indonesia. GMNP shares its borders with Boyolali Regency to

the East and South, Magelang Regency to the West and Semarang Regency to the North.

GMNP is among the newest National Park in Indonesia which officially established in 2004, according

to Ministry of Forestry Decree 135/Kpts-II/2004. Initially, the Merbabu Forest area was managed by

Perhutani (Forest State Owned Company) and currently is managed by Gunung Merbabu National

Park Agency called Balai Taman Nasional Gunung Merbabu (BTNGM). Thus, it is managed under the

Ministry of Forestry of Indonesia. Before the status was declared as National Park, it was stated as

Protected Forest covering 5718.5 ha and partly stated as Natural Recreation Area covering 6.5 ha

which is located in Semarang Regency.

Figure 4. Gunung Merbabu National Park (GMNP)


16

There are two peaks of Merbabu Mountain, namely Puncak Syarif (3,119 m asl) and Puncak

Kenteng Songo (3,142 m asl). These Peaks can be reached from Kopeng, Salatiga Regency

(Tekelan Track) with the distance about 6.25 km.

One of the forestry research centers nearby, Balai Penelitan Kehutanan Solo, in its research

in 2008 reported that the GMNP is mainly dominated by shrub. According to the research,

this shrub land spreads from the middle to the top slope of the mountain. The presence of

some grasses on the top part of the slope region is also included in the report.

Generally land use in Merbabu Mountain can be categorized into two groups:

(1) Irigated Rice field on the western slopes, with plenty springs and permanent rivers.

Forest are dominated by dense pines with shrub on the peak of the slope.

(2) Maize and tobacco plants on the eastern of the slope, with small springs. The forest area

is dominated by Pines with very small shrub on the peak of the slope.

The study conducted by Balai Penelitan Kehutanan Solo (Forestry Research Center) indicates

the land cover of GMNP and enclave area as described in table 1. Enclave area is the villages inside

the National Park before this National Park is established.

Table 3 Land Cover of GMNP

No Land Cover Location Area (ha) Total/ha

1 Shrub Enclave 23

2 Forest Enclave 147

3 Settlement Enclave 19

4 Grass Enclave 4

5 Un irrigated Rice field Enclave 165 359

1 Shrub GMNP 2,575

2 Forest GMNP 1,935

3 Settlement GMNP 38

4 Grass GMNP 1,066

5 Un irrigated Rice field GMNP 126

6 Dry land GMNP 337 6,076

Total Area: GMNP – Enclave 5,717

(Source : Balai Penelitian Kehutanan Solo, 2007)


17

3.1.2. Climate and Soil

The climate classification proposed by Schmidt and Ferguson is the most widely used in Indonesia

(Laumonier, 1997). Based on this classification, GMNP’s area categorizes as wet climate (zone B)

with a value of Q = 31.42% . Q value is the number of dry months over the number of wet months.

The annual rainfall in the area is 2000-3000 mm per year, while the average annual temperature

ranges between 17⁰ C to 30⁰C.

There are five types of soil in Merbabu. These are Latosol, Regosol, Litosol, Organosol and Renzina.

However, the predominant soil type which dominates the entire park is Latosol. Latosol Soil is a soil

type characterized by its rich iron, alumina or silica content. It is commonly formed in tropical

woodlands under very humid climate where there is relatively high temperature.

3.1.3. Social Economic Situation

There are 37 villages, 7 sub districts and 3 regencies with approximately 116,385 people and 31,725

household living surrounding the national park. These people have more or less the same standard

of living and socio-economic status. Roughly 87, 47% of the local people earn their living through

farming rice, vegetables such as onion leaves, potato, cabbage, maize and celery, and fruits such as

strawberry. Furthermore, almost every household has livestock such as cows and goats. There are

about ± 28,300 cows and 9,408 goats distributed among the villages around GMNP (Balai Taman

Nasional Merbabu, 2008).

The average agricultural land that possessed by local people is not more than 1 hectare per

household with the average per capita income less than 1,000,000 rupiah (100 USD) per month.

3.1.4. Forest Resources

The vegetation type in this park has been generally divided into Low mountain forest (1000-1500

masl), High Mountain Forest (1500-2400 masl) and Sub Alpine mountain forest (2400-3142 masl).

GMNP hosts a lot of floral and faunal life. Some of the plant species which are found in the park are

Pinus merkusii, Acacia decurens, Schima noronhae, Albizia montana, Quercus sp, Engelhardia serrata

and Podocarpus sp. There also mammal such as Herpates javanica (Java Civet) and Macaca

fascicularis (Long Tail Monkey).

Based on the Aves Inventory (Balai Taman Nasional Merbabu, 2007) by GMNP’s agency, 52 species

of birds were found in GMNP such as Pycnonotus aurigaster, Lanius schach, Picoides macei,

Dichrurus leuchopeus, Pericrocotus miniatus, Halcyon cyanoventris, Streptopeli chinensis,

Tracypithecus auratus, Spizaetus bartelsi, Ictinaetus malayanensis, Corvus enca, Falco sp, Zoosterops

montanus and Parus mayor which are residing in the national park.

Up till now, there is no study studies have been carried out on the vulnerability of these resources,

particularly for national park that is considered as one of the newest national park in Indonesia. That

is the reason why GMNP is chosen as study area for this research


18

3.2. Materials

3.2.1. Imageries

Images used for this study are presented in Table 4

Table 4 Remotely Sensed Data

Images Resolution Date Acquisition Source

Landsat TM 1991 30 meter 28 -06-1991 http://glovis.usgs.gov/

Aster 2003 15 meter 30-06-2003 ITC

SPOT 2007 20 meter 17-01-1997 Ministry of Forestry

ALOS 2008 10 meter 28-06-2008 Ministry of Forestry

3.2.2. Maps

Maps used in this research are listed in Table 5. The Maps were collected from National Coordinating

Agency for Survey and Mapping (Bakosurtanal), GMNP office and Forestry Research Center.

Table 5 Availability Map

No Map Year Source

1 Road Map 2000/2001 National Coordinating Agency for Survey

and Mapping (Bakosurtanal)

2 River map 2000/2001 National Coordinating Agency for Survey


3 Settlement Map 2000/2001 National Coordinating Agency for Survey


4 Administrative Map 2000/2001 National Coordinating Agency for Survey


5 Land Cover Map 2007 Forestry Research Center (Balai Penelitian

Kehutanan Solo), Ministry of Forestry

6 GMNP Map 2006 Ministry of Forestry

7 Zoning Map of GMNP 2006 GMNP office, Ministry of Forestry

3.2.3. Other Data

b. Statistic Data

c. Primary Data Data collected in FGD Pogalan Village July 2008

d. Primary Data collected through In depth Interview July and August 2008

e. Secondary Data, RRA of Social Economic of GMNP from BKSDA Jateng, published 2006


19

3.2.4. Software

Software used in this research for data processing are: ERDAS Imagine 9.1, Arc GIS 9.2 and MS Office.

3.3. Research Method

Overall flow chart of this study is described in Figure 5.

Image 1991, 2003, 2007, 2008

Image Preprocessing

Image

georeferenced

Classification

Tentative Land Cover

MapGround Check

Land Cover 91, 03, 07

Change Detection Analysis

Change Map 1991-2007

Reclassification

Deforestation hotspot

Vulnerable Criteria

Interview management and

stake holders

Multi Criteria Analysis

Vulnerable Area

Proposed Zoning Map

Zoning Analyses

Updated Zoning Map

Focus group Discussion

Interview management and

stake holders

Data Analysis of Interview And

FGD

Resources Utilization

1

5 & 6

3

2

4

Figure 5. Research Method


20

3.4. Pre Field Work

A Spot satellite image acquired in 2007 with a georeference to the coordinate system of the study

area and a projection of WGS 84 and UTM zone of 49 was obtained from Ministry of Forestry,

Indonesia. This image was used as a master image to georeference other images; Landsat image

1991, Aster 2003, SPOT 2007 and ALOS 2008. River junction and cross road were used as well, as a

ground control points.

Stratification of the study area, preparation of the sampling design, interviewing and FGD schedule,

field observation sheets and organization of field equipment and logistics were also done in this

phase.

3.5. Field Work

Field work was carried out on July and August 2008 in Magelang District area to collect data for land

cover classification. For these purpose 118 sample points were randomly selected and points on

land cover and vegetation types were collected. For completing the training sample, data which

were made from field work on July 2007 by technical staff of GMNP was used.

Field work related to natural resource utilization by local peoples was also conducted in one of the

adjacent villages, Pogalan, Magelang Regency.

To collect the information about local people’s activities and resource utilization that leads to

deforestation, a Focus Group Discussion was held from 29 to 30 July 2008. Similar discussion was

also held with the National Park Management and four local leaders for more and detail information.

Moreover, a semi-structure interview was carried out with randomly selected 31 local peoples that

came to the park. Their activities and concurrent resource utilization in the national park were also

followed up and recorded. The question that were prepared for the Interview and focus group

discussion are found as appendix to this thesis (appendix1 and 2, respectively).

3.6. Post Field work

3.6.1. Post Field Interview

To obtain the additional information, to set the criteria for vulnerability and to seek interpretation

for some of the results, additional post fieldwork interviews were carried out to the management of

the park, head of ESP (Environmental Service Program) that doing the project surrounding GMNP,

Local NGO and local people by telephone. The interview was based on questions in appendix 6.

3.6.2. Image Classification

A supervised Image classification was carried out using ERDAS 9.1 with maximum likelihood

algorithm. To produce the classification map of 2007, cloud cover on the image is considered as a

constraint. Hence, the classification was based on the combination of two images, 2007 and 2008, in

order to increase the cloud free area. In order to obtain the cloud free area, these images were


21

individually classified using a supervised classification in ERDAS Imagine software, maximum

likelihood algorithm. Before performing the classification, the clouds and its shadows were masked.

Selection of training areas was based on the ground truth points obtained from field. To combine the

two images, both classified images were imported into the ArcGIS 9.1 software and were vectorized.

Polygons representing the clouds and its shadows of the 2007 image were erased using the ERASE

tool. Then, the created empty polygons (erased part) in the 2007 land cover were filled in by their

correspondent values of the land cover of 2008. The final result was a land cover of 2007 with parts

of 2008 land cover in the clouds areas of 2007. The few parts that had clouds on both images were

classified as cloud.

Based on land cover map 2007 from Forestry Research Center, the land cover classes of GMNP were

categorized as: Forest, Grass, Shrub, Un irrigated Rice Field, Dry Land and Settlement. However,

grass and shrubs had similar tone on the images and thus recoded as same class, Shrub grass. For

similar reason, the rice field and dry land were also recorded as crops in the classified map of 2007

(Table 3).

Table 6 Land Cover Class

Classes from Land Cover Recode

Forest Forest

Grass

Shrub

Shrub Grass

Rice Field

Dry Land

Crop

Settlement Settlement

The same classification technique was applied for Aster Image 2003 and Landsat 1991 but without

cloud masking since both images are cloud free in study area.

3.6.3. Land Cover Reclassification

The objective of the classification was to discriminate between forest and non forest, followed by

analyzed the changes. Thus, the classified land cover maps were reclassified into two categories as

follows:

“Forest” : Forest

“Shrub Grass”, “Crop”, Settlement” : Non Forest

3.6.4. Accuracy Assessment

Accuracy assessment is an important element of land cover mapping that offers a guide to the map

quality, reliability, implication to users and insight into the thematic uncertainty (Treitz, 2004).


22

For the quantitative accuracy assessment of the image classification, Kappa statistic was applied.

Image SPOT image 2007 was assessed using 132 references points from field data provided by

GMNP’s technical staff combined with 124 references from the visualization of the area on Google

Earth in the same year (2007).

Accuracy assessments were not carried out for the image of 1991 and 2003 because of the lack of

concurrent field point data for both images.

3.6.5. Change Detection

The change detection in this study was based on post classification comparison of independently

classified land cover maps of land cover map 1991, land cover map 2003 and land cover map 2007.

After carrying out the classification using ERDAS, the classified maps were vectorized (polygonized)

and then exported to Arch GIS for change detection process. The vectorized classified images were

overlaid using ArcGIS 9.2 to quantify and determine the changes over time. The overlay operation

was used to investigate the Land cover change from one class to another for two periods, the period

from 1991 to 2003 and from 2003 to 2007. This output table was then exported as DBF table and

further processed in Excel. The over flow chart of the methods followed is presented in Figure 6.

Figure 6. Post Classification Land Cover Change Detection.

Change Detection

Land Cover Change Map 1991-2007

Land Cover Map

1991

Land Cover Map

2003

Land Cover Map

2007

GIS Overlay GIS Overlay

Output Table

1991-2003 Output Table

2003-2007

Land Cover Change

1991-2003

Land Cover Change

2003-2007


23

This study also calculated deforestation rate of GMNP. Deforestation rate per year was calculated

using equation (Puyravaud, 2003) below:

R : (1/(t2-t1)) x ln (A2/A1)

Where A1 and A2 are the forest cover at t1 and t2 respectively

3.6.6. Criteria for Vulnerable Area

The analysis of vulnerability to deforestation applied in this research consists of two basic steps.

Firstly the criteria causing deforestation are determined. Secondly, several approaches to Multi

Criteria Evaluation Analysis in a GIS Environment and these approaches are evaluated in finding the

area vulnerable to deforestation.

The assessment approach for determining the vulnerability areas using Multi Criteria Evaluation

technique in GIS environment including the following steps (G. Yalcin and Akyurek, 2004) :

1. The assessment of vulnerability structure

Vulnerability structure assessment is used to determine the factors affecting deforestation (change

from forest to non forest). Here, judgment by expert knowledge can be applied (G. Yalcin and

Akyurek, 2004). The factors were obtained from the interviews with Park management of GMNP,

local people and local leader. These factors are used as criterion individually. Criteria are the

measurements scale on which various aspects of the performance of alternatives are measured to

ensure that objective of the decision problem is met a best way (Voogd, 1983).

2. Producing Map

For managing, producing, analyzing and combining spatial data, A Geo Information System (GIS)

application is used. GIS is a powerful tool to support the solution of complex spatial problems and

give conceivably alternative solution for the decision maker (Burrough, 1986)

3. Cartographic Modeling

The function of cartographic modeling is to produce and combined spatial data that describe the

causing factor (vulnerability to deforestation). The criterion values for each criterion maps were

weighted according to the estimated significance to bring on the vulnerabilities. Factors influencing

vulnerability to deforestation base on interview data.


24

The assessment procedure for vulnerability of GMNP to deforestation can be implemented as

follow:

1. Prepare criteria maps by assigning criterion score and classify the data map.

2 Criteria maps of each theme are overlaid according to the assigned priorities. Each criterion

has different weights.

The use of a weighting method requires information on the relative importance of each factor

involved factor need to be assign. The method for assessing the importance of weights was rank

sum, which is calculated according to the following formula(Malczewski, 1999).

( )( )∑ +−

+−=

1

1

k

jj

rn

rnw

Where wj is the normalized weight for the jth criterion, n is the number of criteria under

consideration (k = 1,2,…..,n), and rj is the rank position of the criterion. Each criterion is weighted (n-

rj+1) and then normalized by the sum of all weight ∑(n-rk+1).

The vulnerability Map was created using Weighted Overlay Operation Arc GIS 9.2. The degree of

vulnerability was categorized into three classes: Low Vulnerable, Medium Vulnerable and High

Vulnerable. All areas that are likely to be deforested are vulnerable and need attention, but it is the

hotspots in or near vulnerable areas that need the highest attention.

Criterion map 1

Criterion map 2

Criterion map 3

Criterion map 4

Criterion map 5

Assigning

Weights

Weight of Criterion map 1





Map overlay

Vulnerability Map

Criterion 1

Criterion 2

Criterion 3

Criterion 4

Criterion 5

Criterion map 1

Criterion map 2

Criterion map 3

Criterion map 4

Criterion map 5

0-10 Assigning scores per

criterion at a scale


25

4. Result

4.1. Land Cover Classification

4.1.1. Land Cover Map

The three thematic maps in Figures 7, 8 and 9 show land cover types of GMNP in year 1991, 2003

and 2007 respectively. A total of 5 (five) land cover types are displayed, namely: crop; forest,

settlement, shrub grass and cloud. The description of land cover classes are describe in table 7.

Table 7 Description of Land Covers Classes

Land Cover Description

Crop Areas that covered by upland field and horticultural farm.

Upland field (tegalan/ladang) is mainly used for growing rain field paddy

(sawah tadah hujan) and agro-forestry system (tumpang sari) for

seasonal. This system mainly depends on the distribution of seasonal

rainfall.

Horticultural farm covered by onion leave, tomato, maize, string bean, red

pepper etc.

Forest Areas that predominantly covered by three with close canopies cover.

Forest cover dominated by Pinus mercusii and other trees such as Acacia

decurens, Schima noronhae and Albizia Montana.

Settlement Areas with residential structure and/or constructed material including

housing yard.

Shrub grass Areas that are dominated by shrubs and/or grasses.

Shrubs are including edelweiss, kirinyu, kerisan, krenseng, pakis, alang-

alang, kringgis, strawberry gunung, sengganen, sapen, etc.

Grasses are including many types of grasses namely : rumput banyon,

rumput benggolo, rumput gajah, rumput irengan and rumput kadut.

Cloud Areas in the image that was covered by clouds and its associated shadow


26

Figure 7. Land Cover Map 1991



27


The image acquired in 1991 has cloud cover 4.65 ha (0.08%) out of 5793.38 ha, while the image

acquired in 2003 is totally cloud cover free. On the other hand, image acquired in 2007 has 360.967

ha cloud area (6.23%). For change detection analysis the cloud is omitted and not consider in

calculation of the change. As a result, after subtraction of cloud (365.62), the total area becomes

5427.77 ha for all these images.

The table area of each land cover area is presented in Table 8 below

Table 8 Land Cover Area

Land Cover 1991 % 2003 % 2007 %

Crop 294.18 5.42 635.28 11.70 423.56 7.80

Forest 3954.61 72.86 3366.27 62.02 3107.84 57.26

Settlement 16.11 0.30 8.81 0.16 20.87 0.38

Shrub grass 1162.88 21.42 1417.41 26.11 1875.49 34.55

Total 5427.77 100 5427.77 100 5427.77 100


28

4.1.2. Accuracy Assessment

Accuracy assessment for land cover map acquired in 2007 was performed based on error matrix in

Table 9

Table 9 Error Matrix for the Land Cover 2007

Classified data Unclassified Forest Shrub

grass

Settlement Crop Total

Unclassified 3 3 6 0 5 17

Forest 0 80 8 1 2 91

Shrub grass 0 22 88 3 0 113

Settlement 0 0 0 6 0 6

Crop 0 3 0 0 26 29

Total 3 108 102 10 33 256

Apart from overall accuracy and Kappa statistics, producer and user accuracy indices were also

calculated. The total Accuracy report for the classification of SPOT 2007 is presented in Table 10 and

the Kappa Statistic is presented in Table 11.

Table 10 Total Accuracy Assessment for the Land Cover 2007.

Class name Reference

Total

Classified Total Number of

Correct

Producer’s

Accuracy

User’s

Accuracy

Unclassified 3 17 3 - -

Forest 108 91 80 74.07% 87.91%

Srub grass 102 113 88 86.27% 77.88%

Settlement 10 6 6 60.00% 100.00%

Crop 33 29 26 78.79% 89.66%

Total 256 256 203

Overall accuracy 79.30 %


29

Table 11 Kappa (K^) Statistics for the Land Cover 2007

Kappa Statistics: 0.6853

Conditional Kappa for each Category:

Class Name Kappa

Unclassified 0.1667

Forest 0.7909

Srub grass 0.6322

Settlement 1.0000

Crop 0.8812

The class “shrub grass” has the highest producer accuracy which is 86.27%, followed by crop and

forest while the class settlement has the least. It implies that shrub grass has the highest probability

of a reference site being correctly classified. It is calculated by dividing the total number of correctly

classified pixels for a class by the total number of reference sites for that class.

However, when it comes to user’s accuracy, the reverse works. The class “settlement” has the

highest which is 100% and it is followed by Crop and Forest. In this case, the class shrub grass has the

least accuracy. It implies that settlement has the highest probability that a pixel on the map actually

represents that category on the ground. It is calculated by dividing the number of correct accuracy

sites for a category by the total number of accuracy assessment sites that were classified in that

category.

The overall accuracy achieved is 79.30 %, while the Kappa coefficient is 0.69. From the Kappa

coefficient it implies that 69% of the classification agrees with reference data. However no accuracy

assessment was made for Land Cover map 1991 and 2003 because of the lack of reference data.

4.2. Land Cover Change Analysis

The change detection that has been carried out clearly shows the decrease in the spatial extent (or

area) of the forest cover over time while the class shrub grass is increasing and the class settlment

remains more or less constant. The class of crop has shown remarkable increase (417.8 ha) in the

years from 1991 to 2003 while the reverse is true for the years from 2003 to 2007 (-333.33 ha). The

overall temporal dynamics of each of the classes is presented in Figure 10. The magnitude of the

area of each of the classes at different times is also presented in Table 12.


30

Figure 10. Land Cover Dynamic during 1991 – 2003 – 2007

Table 12 Magnitude of Change in Land Cover

Area (ha) Magnitude (ha) Change per period (%) Land cover

1991 2003 2007 1991-

2003

2003-

2007

1991-

2007

1991-

2003

2003-

2007

1991-

2007

Crop 294.18 635.28 423.56 341.11 -211.72 129.39 28.63 22.41 7.62

Forest 3954.61 3366.27 3107.84 -588.34 -258.44 -846.77 -49.39 -27.35 -49.86

settlement 16.11 8.81 20.87 -7.30 12.07 4.77 -0.61 1.28 0.28

shrub grass 1162.88 1417.41 1880.14 254.53 462.73 717.26 21.37 48.97 42.24

As can be seen from Figure 10 and Table 12 there was a continuous decrease in the forest cover in

the study area. In year 1991, about 3954.61 ha or 72.86 % GMNP was forested area. But, this figure

has decreased to 3366.27 ha in the year 2003 and continued to decline in year 2007 turn into 3107.84

ha or 57.26 %. Generally, the forest area shows the general trend of decrease over the two periods

with the change 49.39 % and 27.35 % respectively.

On the other hand, the area of Crop land increased with the rate of 13.91 % during the first period

(1991-2003) and decreased with the rate of 1.33 % in the second period (2003-2007). But, shrub

grass shows increment in both periods. It has increased with the rate 2.63% and 1.31% in the first

and second period, respectively. Change Matrix Land Cover 1991-2003 and Land Cover 2003-2007

are presented in Table 13 and 14 respectively.


31

TableTable 13 Change Matrix Land Cover 1991 - 2003

2003 1991

crop forest settlement shrub grass Total

crop 104.27 101.83 2.71 85.37 294.18

forest 316.12 2752.86 3.67 881.95 3954.61

settlement 1.86 4.65 1.13 8.46 16.11

shrub grass 213.04 506.92 1.29 441.62 1162.88

Total 635.28 3366.27 8.81 1417.41 5427.77

TableTable 14 Change Matrix Land Cover 2003 – 2007

2007 2003

crop forest settlement shrub grass Total

crop 85.75 275.85 4.59 269.10 635.28

forest 190.90 2237.76 6.64 930.98 3366.27

settlement 1.49 2.37 0.90 4.05 8.81

shrub grass 145.01 588.97 8.75 674.68 1417.41

Total 423.14 3104.95 20.87 1878.81 5427.77

To focus on the changing from forest to non forest and the other way around, the already classified

Land cover maps were reclassified into two land cover classes, forest and non forest. In this case, the

class forest remained forest while the other classes that are crop, settlement and shrub grass are

merged together and considered as non forest. This was followed by change detection analysis.

The change from Forest to Non Forest is classified as Deforestation, while the change from non

forest from forest is called Rehabilitation. The Land Cover Change Class is presented in Table 15.

Table 15 Reclassification of Forest to Land Cover Change Classes

First Class Second Class Land cover change

Forest Non Forest Deforestation

Non Forest Forest Rehabilitation

Forest Forest

Non Forest Non Forest No Change

Post Classification Change Map period 1991 to 2003 and period 2003-2007 is presented in Figure 11

and 12 and the distribution of land cover change detected is described in Table 16.


32

Figure 11. Land Cover Change 1991-2003

Figure 12. Land Cover Change 2003-2007


33

Table 16 Land Cover Changes Detected by Post Classification

changes 1991-2003 (ha) % 2003-2007 (ha) %

deforestation 1201.75 22.14 1128.52 20.79

no change 3612.62 66.56 3432.07 63.23

rehabilitation 613.41 11.30 867.19 15.98

Total 5427.77 100 5427.77 100

It can seen from the table 16 that the deforestation area in the years 1991-2003 was 1201.75 ha,

while from 2003 to 2007 it was 1128.52 ha. Rehabilitation on the other hand was 613.41 ha in years

1991 to2003 and increased to 867.19 hectares from years 2003 to 2007.

Deforestation rate also calculated during period 1991 to 2003 and 2003 to 2007. Base on calculation

using equation derived by Puyravaud (2003) as mentioned in sub chapter 3.6.5, the deforestation

rate for period 1991-2003 is 1,25 % per year and increase to 3% in period 2003 - 2007 per year.

4.3. Hotspot Area

The areas that are considered as hot spot are those areas where there was forest earlier i.e in 1991

then become non more forest in the years 2003 and 2007.

Areas with forest in all the three dates and non forest in all three dates are considered as no change.

There also some areas which show change from forest in 1991 to non forest in 2003 and back to

forest in 2008. These areas are considered as rehabilitation 1 while areas which used to be non

forest in 1991 and 2003 but changed to forest in 2007 are considered as rehabilitation 2. The area

per change category is presented in table 17.

Table 17. Land Cover Change 1991-2007

Land cover

1991

Land cover

2003

Land cover

2007 Category Area (ha) %

Forest Non Forest Non Forest Deforestation hotspot 534.29 9.84

Forest Forest Non Forest Recent

deforestation1 822.51 15.15

Non Forest Forest Non Forest Recent

deforestation2 306.01 5.64

Non Forest Forest Forest Rehabilitation 307.40 5.66

Forest Non Forest Forest Recent rehabilitation1 667.46 12.30

Non Forest Non Forest Forest Recent rehabilitation2 199.73 3.68

Forest Forest Forest No change 1930.36 35.56

Non Forest Non Forest Non Forest No change 660.02 12.16

Total 5427.77 100


34

Figure 13. Land Cover Change 1991- 2007

The total deforestation hotspot in GMNP is about 534.29 ha. This area has been deforested since

2003, and the condition remains the same in 2007. The hotspot area is recommended as

Rehabilitation area in the zoning system of GMNP.

4.4. Resource Utilization

Interview with 30 respondents (Local people) regarding natural resource utilization by local people

resulted data are describe in Table 18. The answers from respondent seem to indicate that people

will not deforest more because they only take resource traditionally. Moreover they use the

resource only for daily need. Even though the resources are still enough in wet season, from their

interview, they claimed that they realize the fact that natural resource decreases over time.

Moreover in dry season water cannot full fill their need, and grass also is almost not enough. Thus,

they have to travel further to obtain the grass to fulfill their need.


35

Table 18. Resource Utilization by Local People

Sufficiency Resources Purpose

Wet season Dry season

The way taken

Grass 46% for feeding cow

43% for feeding goat

11% for both cow and

goat

86 % suff

10% not suff

3 % suff but

decrease

50 % suff

47 % not suff

3 % suff but

decrease

Traditionally

Water Daily necessity

agricultural land

70 % suff

21% not suff

6 % suff but

decrease

3 % no idea

21 % suff

70% not suff

6 % suff but

decrease

3 % no idea

Piping

Fuel wood Cooking 90 % suff

0 % not suff

7 % suff but

decrease

3 % no idea

83 % suff

0 % not suff

14 % suff but

decrease

3 % no idea

Take small dry

branch

*suff : sufficience

Similarly, Focus Group Discussion gives nearly same result (Appendix 5). However, from

management point of view, there is some remark as follow:

1. In some cases, people burn land for planting new grass.

2. They make charcoal in the forest

3. They use fuel wood not only for cooking but also for heating

4. There is land encroachment for agriculture.

Burning land for the purpose of planting grass and charcoal making may lead to forest fires and

deforestation. In the same way, land encroachment for agriculture also has its own role to the

deforestation of GMNP. The way people use fuel wood as heating also indicates that people will

deforest more. All these factors most likely will results in deforestation of GMNP.

Regarding local people’s perception to the natural resource, from all respondents interviewed, only

10 % who understand what National Park is. Most of them perceive conservation as protecting

water. It means that water is the most important resource that they depend on to the National Park.

Even though most of them do not understand the definition of National Park but they understand


36

how to assure GMNP. Most of them were answering not cutting the trees and planting trees as the

way to protect GMNP. They also participate in protecting GMNP especially in their grass area (the

place that they used to collect grass). The local people perception of conservation of GMNP is

presented in Table 19.


37

Table 19 Summarize people‘s perception of National Park

Question Answer Percentage

What is National Park? government forest 10%

government forest with zoning system 17%

i don’t know

73%

What is conservation? protect water 94%

protect water and animal inside 3%

protect water and other resource inside 3%

not cut trees 70% How to assure National Park?

planting trees 3%

planting trees and not cut 10%

protect forests and planting trees 10%

not cut trees and not hunting animal 3%

not cut trees, plant trees and not hunting

animal

3%

What is your participation for

GMNP planting trees

56%

planting trees in grass area 38%

not cut the trees and not hunting animal 3%

participate rehabilitation program n awareness 3%

4.5. Vulnerable Area

4.5.1. Criteria for Vulnerable Land

Criteria of areas that vulnerable to deforestation were developed from Interviews with GMNP

Management, Local People and NGO’s. The list of questions is attached in Appendix 6.

Criteria and Indicators are presented in Table 20.

Table 20 Criteria and Attributes

Criteria Attributes

Accessibility 1.Local People Access (distance from settlement)

2.Slope

Safe from Ranger/management 1.Distance to patrol strip

2.Viewshed


38

Close to existing agriculture 1.Distance to existing agriculture

4.5.2. Criteria Scoring

Scoring of the criteria is based on the degree of vulnerability. It ranges from 0 to 10 that represent

the lowest vulnerable to the highest vulnerable. The score was determined using expert knowledge

by discussing with management of GMNP.

1. Distance to Settlement

The interview with the local people and management of GMNP indicates the local people travel for a

maximum of 2000 m to collect forest resources, especially grass and fuel wood. Thus, distance

portioned scoring is made as follows. Areas within 500 m from settlement is considered as highly

vulnerable and thus the highest score, 10, is give while the distance more than 2000 m from

settlements is considered very far and the least score 2 is assigned (Table 21).

Table 21 Distance to Settlement

Criteria Score

0-500 m 10

500-1000 m 8

1000-1500 m 6

1500 – 2000m 4

> 2000 m 2

Multiple Range Buffer was used to classify the area within 2 km. Distance from settlement

was derived from settlement map and road map as presented in Figure 14.


39

Figure 14. Distance from Settlement Map

2. Slope

A slope map was made by portioning the slopes into different slope classes based on the information

obtained from the Ministry of Forestry called Tata Guna Hutan Kesepakatan (TGHK). Areas with

slope more than 40% are less accessible and thus considered less susceptible to deforestation so

that so score 2 is given. However, slope below 8 % is the most interesting area for activities in the

park due easily accessibility, hence score 10 is given. Scoring for other slope classes are presented in

table 22 as follow.

Table 22 Slope Criteria

Criteria Class Score

0 – 8 % Flat 10

8 – 15 % Undulating 8

15 – 25 % Moderately steep 6

25 -40 % Steep 4

> 40 % Very Steep 2


40

Figure 15. Slope Map Class

3. Distance from Road Path

Areas further from roads are less likely to be seen by to rangers thus there will be more illegal

activities and less control. Base on interview with management of GMNP, two hundred meters

around the road/path considered as controllable areas. However areas more than 200 m from the

road path are considered vulnerable area so score 10 is given (Table 23). This includes 100 m to both

sides of the roads. The Map of the distance from road path is presented in Figure 16.

Table 23 Road Path Criteria

Criteria Class Score

0-200 m Controllable 0

>200 m Un controllable 10


41

Figure 16. Distance from Road Path

4. Viewshed

Viewshed Map (Figure 17) was also generated from Digital Elevation Model (DEM) and Road Map to

clearly identify areas that are visible and not visible to the rangers from the existing road/path. The

visible area is considered not vulnerable while the visible from road is vulnerable area because the

area is less of control from ranger/ management. Hence, score 10 is assigned for the not visible area

(Table 24)

Table 24 Viewshed Criteria

Criteria Score

Visible from road 0

Not Visible from road 10


42

Figure 17. Viewshed of GMNP

5. Distance to Existing Agriculture

Agricultural land expansion by local people in GMNP is mainly taking place within 200 m distance

around the already existing agricultural land. This value is derived from interview that people mostly

impossible expand their land more than 200 m. Within 100 m from the existing agriculture is

consider the high vulnerable so score 10 is given, while the area within 100-200 m from the existing

agriculture is less vulnerable so that score 5 is given (Table 25)

Table 25 Distance to existing agriculture

Criteria Score

0-100 m 10

100-200 m 5

Agriculture expansion map is derived from land cover crop and buffered using the criteria above as

presented in Figure 18.


43

Figure 18. Agricultural Expansion Map

4.5.3. Assessing Weight by Ranking Sum Procedure for Determining Vulnerability

The ranking sum weight of all criteria is showed in Table 26. A serial straight rank was given to all

criteria based on its importance. As mention in sub chapter 3.7.6, the weight and normalize weight

was calculated using Malczewski’s method.

Table 26 Ranking Sum Weight for determining Vulnerability to Deforestation

Rank Sum Criterion Straight Rank

Weight (n-rj+1) Normalized Weight

Distance to settlement 1 5 0.33

Slope 3 3 0.20

Distance from road

path

5

1 0.07

View shed 4 2 0.13

Distance to existing

agriculture

2

4 0.27

15 1.000

After obtaining the weight for each criteriion, weighting overlay operation using GIS was applied and

resulted with vulnerability map. The result of vulnerable area of GMNP using SMCE for criteria above

is presented in Figure 19. The degrees of vulnerability were classified into four classes namely: High


44

Vulnerable, Medium, Low and not vulnerable. These four classes represented by colors that are red

for high, brown for medium, light brown for low and light peach for not vulnerable area.

Figure 19. Vulnerability Map of GMNP

Areas vulnerable to deforestation are generally found in the fringes of National Park as shown in

Table 22. About 3.87 % of GMNP’s area is categorized as high vulnerable, while 7.6% is medium and

1.1% or 58.55 ha is low vulnerable. The rest of that is categorized as not vulnerable to deforestation.

Table 27 Distribution of Vulnerable Area

Class Area (ha) %

High vulnerable 224.46 3.87

Medium vulnerable 442.44 7.64

Low vulnerable 58.55 1.01

Not vulnerable 5067.46 87.48

Total 5792.91 100

If consider deforestation hotspot, 16. 38 % or 88.51 ha of hotspot area are located in vulnerable

area. About 33.08 ha deforestation hotspot is located in high vulnerable area, while 52.46 ha and

1.98 are situated in medium and low vulnerable area respectively.


45

The vulnerable area is all areas that likely to be deforested and need attention in management.

However, if hotspots located in or near vulnerable areas it needs the highest attention for

management and suggested as a special zone in zoning system of GMNP.

4.6. Zoning System

As described in introduction part, up to now GMNP does not have fixed zoning system. The only

available zoning is proposal zoning from long term management plan of GMNP. The zoning system

was created in 2006 and still need improvement before applied by management of GMNP.

Proposed Zoning System of GMNP consist of seven zones, namely Zona Inti (Core Zone), Zona Rimba

( Wilderness Zone), Zona Cagar Alam (Nature Reserve Zone), Zona Pariwisata (Tourism Zone), Zona

Rehabilitasi (Rehabilitation Zone) and Zona LMDH (LMDH Zone). LMDH stand for Lembaga

Masyarakat Desa Hutan, a local organization of communities around the forest. This organization

was created since Merbabu Forest Area was managed by Perhutani. In that period there was

cooperation between communities (via LMDH) with management of Perhutani. Perhutani allowed

LMDH to manage some area and obtain the benefit of that area except the trees. The Proposed

Zoning System of GMNP and the distribution of the zones are presented in figure 20 and Table 28

respectively.

Table 28 Area per Zone

Zone Area (ha)

Core zone 1 238.25

Core Zone 2 841.61

Wilderness zone 3731.49

LMDH zone 603.85

Nature Reserve 5.30

Rehabilitation zone 289.63

Tourism Zone 82.78

Total 5792.91


46

Figure 20. Proposed Zoning System from Management Plan of GMNP

4.6.1. Distribution of Deforestation Hotspot

The result of deforestation hotspot identification and assessment of the areas vulnerable to

deforestation can be used for updating the proposed zoning system. Deforestation hotspot of GMNP

distributes in all zones as seen in Table 29. The highest proportion found in the wilderness zone,

followed by core zone. The least hotspot is observed in Natural Reserve Zone.

Table 29 Area of Deforestation Hotspot by Zoning System Proposed

Zone Area(ha)

Wilderness 290.59

Core 2 165.45

LMDH 48.97

nature Reserve 0.22

Rehabilitation 28.10

Tourism 0.95

Total Hotspot 534.28


47

4.6.2. Distribution of Vulnerability to Deforestation

The high and medium vulnerable areas are mostly found in wilderness zone followed by LMDH Zone.

However none of the high vulnerable areas are situated in the core zone and Nature Reserve Zone.

Similarly, the highest proportion of Low vulnerable is in wilderness zone followed by Rehabilitation

Zone and Core Zone 2.

The not vulnerable area is distributed in all zones. The highest percentage of not vulnerable area is in

the Core Zone 2 followed by Wilderness Zone. The complete data are described in Table 30.

Table 30 Area of Vulnerability to Deforestation by Zoning System Proposed

Vulnerable Class Zone

high medium low not vulnerable

Core zone1 0 0 0 238.25

Core zone2 0 14.83 10.07 814.198

Wilderness 169.99 358.47 37.68 3166.69

NR 0 0.096 0 5.21

Tourism 1.79 5.92 0.05 75.21

Rehabilitation 1.89 7.91 10.26 269.71

LMDH 48.48 56.52 1.78 497.91

Total 222.15 443.74 59.84 5067.18

4.6.3. Zoning System Update

Using the result of deforestation hotspot and Vulnerability to deforestation, it shows that there is a

need to update the proposed zoning system. As the deforestation hotspot is highly exposed to

deforestation, thus it needs more attention in management. This area needs much attention and

one of urgent action for this area is rehabilitation. Hence the deforestation hotspot is considered as

Rehabilitation Zone in the new zoning system (Updated Zoning System).

Vulnerable classes that resulted from vulnerability analysis also can be used to update the proposed

zoning system. The high vulnerable areas are the area where there is high risk of deforestation.

Hence, this area should be strictly protected. Hotspot areas which are located in high vulnerable area

consider the area that need the highest attention and are categorized as Special Zone 1 in Updated

Zoning System. High vulnerable areas which are located in previous core zone are still kept as core

zone; however the high vulnerable area outside core zone is re classed as Special Zone 2. Medium,

low and not vulnerable areas are belonging to others zones.

The update Proposed Zoning System is presented in Figure 21. Zoning system update consists of

eight classes (Table 31), with two new classes, namely special zone 1 and special zone2. However the

PHBM organisation does not exist anymore so the PHBM zone is categorized as Utilization zone. The

core zone 1 and core zone 2 also classified as core zone. The areas per zone are described in Table

32.


48

Table 31 Updated Zones

Proposal zone Update Zone

Core Zone 1

Core Zone 2 Core Zone

Wilderness Zone Wilderness Zone

Nature Reserve Zone Nature Reserve Zone

Rehabilitation Zone Rehabilitation Zone

Tourism Zone Tourism Zone

LMDH Zone Utilization Zone

Special Zone 1

Special Zone 2

Figure 21. Updated Zoning System of GMNP


49

Table 32 Area per Zone of Updated Zoning System

Zone Area (ha)

Core 1079.86

Wilderness 3297.48

nature reserve 5.58

Rehabilitation 596.48

special zone 1 33.08

special zone 2 188.54

Tourism 80.29

Utilization 511.60

Total 5792.91


51

5. Discussion

5.1. Land Cover and Change Mapping

The land cover classification of three images in year 1991, 2003 and 2007 underpinned the

fulfillment of the first research objective that is to asses land cover in GMNP between 1991 and

2007. The classified images of 1991, 2003 and 2007 were key tools in monitoring of land cover

change in GMNP. The quality of classification is assessed by the accuracy assessment. A good

accuracy in land cover mapping is if achieve 80-85% for overall accuracy (Treitz, 2004). The 79.30 %

overall accuracy recorded for the classification of the SPOT image 2007 of the study area was only

slightly lower than the standard. Further analysis with Kappa statistic revealed that only 69 % of the

whole classification was in agreement with the reference data used for the assessment. Kappa

statistic at this level is considered moderate (Viera and Garrett., 2005) . However, assessment of

land cover map 1991 and 2003 is not reported due to the unavailability of reference data for these

dates.

The classified images of 1991, 2003 and 2007 show the dynamics of land cover of GMNP (Figures

7,8,9). In all these land cover maps, Forest are the most dominant land cover type having an area of

3954.61 ha, 3366.27 ha and 3107.84 ha in 1991, 2003 and 2007, respectively. The size of forest

show how this dominant cover type is decreasing over time and how the net forest loss is higher

than forest expansion (rehabilitation). On the contrary, the shrub grass class has shown increasing

from 1162.88 ha to 1875.49 ha in the years from 1991 to 2007.

The result obtained in this study regarding forest loss agrees with information obtained from park

management (fieldwork interview result). It mentioned that there are changes in forest cover of

GMNP; however the changes are not so dramatic. Similarly, research in another National Park,

Gunung Palung National Park, Kalimantan Indonesia, showed that forest cover of Gunung Palung

National Park decreased over time by 18,675 ha (18.7 %) at an average rate of 1.6% per year from

1992 to 2004 (Zamzany, 2008).

Settlement class is much lower in 2003 than in both year 1991 and 2007 which more or less equal.

This probably is an classification error.

During 1991-2003, 22.14 % of the total area was experiencing forest cover loss, on the other hand

forest cover increase 11.30 % due to rehabilitation. The disappearing of forest during this period is

mainly happened in the areas which are close to the border of GMNP, the roads and in areas that are

near to the enclave area (Figure 11). Even though, rehabilitation program from Ministry of Forestry

and local government are contributing in forest cover expansion, it needs more effort to balance it

with the amount of forest of loss.


52

During the years from 2003 to 2007, there is relatively less forest loss (20.79 %). Some of the area

deforested in the first period (1991 – 2003) is already rehabilitated. However, forest cover lost still

occur in other part of GMNP’s area. One of the cause of forest cover loss in this period include the

forest fire events that happened in 2006 and 2007. GMNP Agency noted that forest fire in year 2006

resulted in a loss about 463 ha of forest in Ampel Boyolali and Getasan Semarang. Another forest

fire event in 2007 was happened in Blok Pentur and Blok Jurang Bangkai, Selo Boyolali. Unlike the

previous fire that made significant deforested area, this fire only caused about 10 ha area of forest

loss. The damage that’s caused by forest fire in GMNP still seem to continue. GMNP Agency reported

seven small scale forest fire events happened in 2008 (July 22, July 24, July 28, August at 10.00 pm,

august at 14.00 am September 16 and September 21). These events resulted in total loss about 5 ha

forest in GMNP.

Forest expansion in this period increased into 15.98 % due to the rehabilitation program to the

increase forest expansion for park. In year 2003 Ministry of Forestry launched National

Rehabilitation Program called GERHAN (Gerakan Rehabilitasi Hutan dan Lahan). About 7000 ha/ year

of land and forest were planted (Ministry of Forestry, 2007) to increase the forest cover. In addition

to GMNP, other agencies, namely Dinas Kehutanan Propinsi Jawa Tengah (Forestry Agency Central

Java Province), Dinas Kehutanan Magelang (Forestry Agency Magelang Regency), Dinas Kehutanan

Boyolali (Forestry Agency Boyolali Regency), Dinas Kehutanan Semarang (Forestry Agency Semarang

Regency) and Perhutani (Forest State Owned Company) have been involved in the program since

GMNP is managed by collaborative management (Ministry of Forestry, 2004). These agencies

participate in management of GMNP by allocated fund every year, for instance Perhutani

rehabilitated 63,7 ha area of GMNP in 2006, 61,7 ha in 2007 and 6,5 ha in 2008 (Perhutani, 2008).

Other Forestry agencies also support rehabilitation program in TNMB by providing seed and be

planted inside and around GMNP. Local people participate in this rehabilitation action (Fieldwork

Interview, July 2008).

Even though the rehabilitation program continues running, Figure 13 shows the area where there

was forest earlier in 1991 but no more forest in the years 2003 neither in the year 2007

(deforestation hotspot). The total deforestation hotspot area is 534.29 ha or about 10 % of total

area of the national park. Some of the hotspot area located in the former forest fire location in year

2006 and 2007 and the other located near the border of GMNP. For the hotspot located in the

former forest fire location, it considered that the fire destroy the rehabilitation program which

already done after 2003.

5.2. Vulnerable area of GMNP

Accessibility, safe from ranger/management, and close to agriculture are the criteria of vulnerability

to deforestation of GMNP. Previous studies confirm that accessibility is an important factor in

determining deforestation (Mertens and Lambin, 2000). It has been proved as well as in GMNP.

Ludeke et al. (1990) also proved in his study that deforestation is highly related to proximity to road

and settlement.


53

A multi-criteria analysis system was used for producing vulnerability maps to deforestation (change

from forest to non forest) in GMNP. The importance of weight was assessed by rank method. This is

the simplest method to asses the importance of weight is to arrange them in rank order

(Malczewski, 1999). Straight rank order (importance=1, second importance=2, etc.) was applied. The

score for each criteria that gathered by interview with stake holder were ranging from 0 – 10, where

0 is not vulnerable and 10 is the most vulnerable. Both ranking of the importance of weight and

scoring of the criteria were arranged base on interview with stake holder and literature review.

Stake holder who involved in developing criteria for vulnerable area to deforestation were:

Management of GMNP (Head Office of GMNP, Staffs, and Ranger), Local leader (Head of local

organization that concern to the conservation of GMNP, namely Forum REMBUG) and Head of

Environmental Service Program (ESP) Project that lead conservation projects in Jogjakarta and

Central Java including GMNP’s area.

According to the Vulnerability Map, 12.58 % area of GMNP is vulnerable to deforestation. To protect

the GMNP from continuing forest cover loss, Management of GMNP should give more attention in

the area that vulnerable to deforestation. Areas that are considered as highly vulnerable to

deforestation are mostly located at the border of GMNP (Figure 19). Furthermore, some high

vulnerable areas also located in the forest border. This fact in line with the study of Ludeke et

al.(1990) showed that forest borders have probability to be deforested. Furthermore Ludeke et

al.(1990) also stated that from the experience it shown that deforestation tends to start from the

edge of existing forest.

The high vulnerable areas are also found in the North, part of Semarang Regency, where there are

hotspots of deforestation. These areas become high vulnerable because they are close to

settlements and not located in steep areas so they have very high accessibility. The existing

agriculture in enclave area in addition also contributes to the degree of vulnerability. Local people

tend to extend their agricultural land to GMNP’s area because of the limitation of their agricultural

area. The boundary of GMNP and agricultural land is not clearly seen, hence become the reason for

expansion. In some cases people try to move the park border and extend their land, moreover in

some cases people throw away the border markers (Fieldwork Interview, July 2008). Because of that,

the GMNP’s boundary should be well disseminated to local people to decrease illegal activities such

as the agricultural expansion.

We consider the fact that Indonesia is projected to become dryer than before, this condition also

lead to vulnerable for deforestation of GMNP. Warmer and dryer conditions are partly responsible

for reduction of forest productivity and the increased forest fire. As GMNP always experiences

forest fire during dry season, consequently the management of GMNP should pay attention to the

upcoming dryer condition. Fire Point monitoring should be done regularly by GMNP Agency.

Furthermore awareness of the forest fire protection in GMNP also should be disseminated to the

people who go mountaineering in the park. They need to be reminded about the importance to

protect GMNP from forest fire.


54

5.3. Zoning Recommendation

Pursuant to the Act No. 5 year 1990 concerning Conservation of living resources and their

ecosystem, the function of National Park is for scientific, education, support of plant propagation

and animal breeding, tourism, and recreational purposes which managed by zoning system.

The zoning system of GMNP is one of the ways to achieve the target management of National Park,

i.e.: (1) Protection of the perfection of the habitat and the ecosystem, (2) Protection of the

preservation of protected plants and animals, (3) Protection of the hydrologic and environmental

function, (4) Realization of nature tourism pursuant to the community’s participation and potential

around there, (5) Realization of educational activity and research in supporting management activity

and (6) Increasing observation of community to management of area (Widada et al., 2006).

Based on the law of Republic Indononesia Number 41 year 1999 concerning Forestry, National Park

areas have been arranged into three zones, namely core zone, wilderness zone and utilization zone.

However pursuant to the Forestry Ministers Regulation No.: P.56/Menhut-II/2006 concerning

National Park Zoning Guides, other zones and or special zones still can be created such as traditional

zone; religion zone; history and culture zone.

In case of GMNP, the propose zoning system consist of Core Zone1, Core Zone2, Wilderness Zone,

Nature Reserve Zone, Tourism Zone, Rehabilitation Zone and LMDH Zone. These zone are modified

from three main zone as stated in law of Republic Indonesia Number 41 year 1999 concerning

forestry as follow:

Core Zone : “Core Zone1”, “Core Zone2”

Wilderness Zone : “Wilderness Zone”

Utilization Zone : “Nature Reserve Zone”, “LMDH Zone”, “Rehabilitation Zone”,

“Tourism Zone”

The vulnerability and land cover change maps take into account the updated zoning system and

result in eight zones. However, since the area officially became a National Park, the LMDH

automatically does not exist anymore. Therefore, the LMDH zone is changed to utilization zone. In

the zoning update, the rehabilitation zone increases to about 251.42 ha after adding the

deforestation hotspot. However the hotspots located in Core Zone1 and Core Zone2 remain

categorized as Core Zone.

The Core Zone is commonly referred to as sanctuary zone and is part of the National Park area which

must be absolutely protected. Therefore, there cannot be any existence of any change by human

activity (Ministry of Forestry, 2006a). This zone functions as a protected place and breeding area for

wild animals in GMNP, This zone may not be visited by public, except for the agenda of research. The

wilderness zone is the buffer of the core zone. Limited activities, such as forest inventory and

research for supporting management plan, are allowed in this zone. The Nature Reserve zone in the

study area contains sacred graves that existed before the park was established. In the opinion of the

local people, the cemetery is sacred, so at certain times people come to visit this cemetery. The

function of the Rehabilitation Zone is to recover the disturbed ecosystem of GMNP, while the


55

Tourism Zone is the area of GMNP that can be used as a recreation area. GMNP has a famous tourist

destination called Kopeng in Semarang Regency. Other potential recreation areas are the Semuncar

and Cipendok waterfalls that have not been exploited for tourism. Local people still can traditionally

collect the resource in the Utilization zone.

In this research, deforestation hotspots and vulnerable areas are identified and categorized as

Special Zones that need highly concern on management. Special Zone 1 is the area that needs the

highest interest because this part is an area that high vulnerable to deforestation and the hotspot of

deforestation as well. The land cover of special zone 1 dominated by Crop and Shrub grass while land

cover type of Special Zone 2 is almost equally dominated by forest and shrub grass. Both Special

Zone 1 and Special zone 2 need high attention in management, however number of constraints such

as fund availability and human resources force management to make priority. Hence, the

management should give the high attention to special zone.

Zoning system of GMNP will give implication to local community in term of their activity in the park.

If GMNP agency starts applying the zoning system, local people still can access in certain part of the

park especially in utilization zone for collecting grass and fuel wood. Beside that people also can

access nature reserve and tourism zones. The accessibility actually will not be stopped but it will be

managed. After having zoning system, GMNP agency will produce further regulation in zoning

system implementation.

5.4. Mitigation Program

The high rate of deforestation and its contribution to climate change, combined with the overall

benefits of the country’s tropical rainforest, have generated great demand and pressure for its

conservation from the global community. The prevention of deforestation and promotion of

rehabilitation have often been cited as strategies to slow the climate change. Avoiding deforestation

can play an important role in reducing future green house gas concentrations in the atmosphere.

However, in the prevention of deforestation, the management should be considered the needs of

local people who depend on forest resource. (Bentinck, 2000) stated that the site and situation in

which households reside, influence their occupational pattern to some extent, so we can assume

that human behaviour in order to manage their livelihood may be determined by their site and

situation. The livelihood of the people who live surrounding National Park will mostly related to the

national park resources.

This is in line with the development of forest in Indonesia which is intended for give optimal

advantage for community welfare by keeping the sustainability and continuity of its function.

According to Wiratno (2001), the activity of forest management should consider the balance of three

aspects, that is economic aspect, the social aspect and the ecological aspect. In balance and

together, these three aspects form the basis of sustainable forest management.

Furthermore, according to IPCC (1996) improvement of forest management through appropriate

management such as protection against fire is one of strategy to reduce Green House Gas


56

concentration. Another strategy is extending forest cover by rehabilitation programs. Those

programs can be accommodated in GMNP’s areas that are managed by zoning system. Hence,

zoning system is one of strategies that contribute to reduce Green House Concentration in GMNP by

still considering local people needs. Utilization zone gives space for local people to collect resources

needed through certain regulation in order to keep the sustainability of the forest. Rehabilitation is

not only done by GMNP agency but also other local government institutions and Environmental

Service Programs (ESP). The sites programs of ESP include six villages that are located in adjacent of

GMNP, that are: Pogalan, Banyusidi, Wulung Gunung, Kenalan, Jambe Wangi and Gondangsari

village.

ESP promotes improvement of water resource management with several conservation programs,

such as Supporting Conservation Village and Spring Protection Program. Local people enthusiastically

agreed to participate in that program since they realize that water is the most important resource

obtain from forest and the availability getting decrease especially in dry season. ESP facilitates local

people to conserve GMNP’s forest and their village by providing funds for conservation activities

such as the Rehabilitation Program.

Besides protect existing forest and rehabilitation program, forest fire prevention is important activity

as well to protect valuable forest and store carbon stock in GMNP. GMNP Agency collaborated with

local people can formed Forest Fire Protection, namely Masyarakat Peduli Api. This cooperation is

important to prevent forest fire occurrences in GMNP that indicated as the main cause of the change

from forest to non forest. Furthermore, Illumination program (penyuluhan) should be done to widely

inform the function of National Park and the related regulations, so that can increase the knowledge

and awareness of the local people to conserve the park.

5.5. Limitation of the Research

The research proceeded fairly well, but a number of obstacles were encountered during the

research. These include:

a. The lack of multi temporal satellite data for GMNP without cloud cover

b. Non-uniformity sensor of satellite data set influence the spectral resolution of classified image.

c. Lack of reference data that would allow accuracy check of the generated land cover maps for

1991 and 2003

d. Time research limitation caused insufficient ground truth data, so that data from Google earth

in the same year was used.

e. Sensitivity analysis as one way to assess quantitatively the impact of the data quality for the

vulnerability analysis was not carry out because of the time limitation. Sensitivity analysis is

Malczewski (1999) defined sensitivity analysis as “how sensitive the choices to the changes in

the inputs of the analysis, which leads to uncertainty and it concern with the way in which

errors in a set of input data affect the error in final output”.


57

6. Conclusion and Recomendation

6.1. Conclusions

1. Related to Research Question 1, “Deforestation hotspot of GMNP”

a. In GMNP, forest is decreasing over time and the net forest loss is higher than forest

expansion (rehabilitation).

b. About 22.14 % forest deforested during 1991 – 2003 and decrease about 20.79 % in

period 2003 – 2007.

c. During 1991-2003, forest cover increase 11.30 % and continue increase to the number

15.98 %

d. The rate of deforestation period 1991 to 2003 and 2003 to 2007 most likely 1,25 % per

year and 3% per year respectively

e. Forest fire is considered as the main cause of deforestation in GMNP.

f. Deforestation hotspot in GMNP is covering 534.29 ha or about 9.84 % of the whole

GMNP’s area.

2. Related to Research Question 2, “Criteria for Vulnerable Area to deforestation”

a. The criteria for vulnerable area to deforestation was built based on management and

local people’s point of view

b. The criteria of vulnerable area to deforestation are: (1). Accessibility, (2) Safe from

ranger/management, and (3) close to existing agriculture land.

3. Related to Research Question 3, “Vulnerable Area to deforestation”

a. 12.58 % area of GMNP is vulnerable to deforestation. The vulnerability is categorized as

high, medium and low vulnerable with the percentage 3.87%, 7.64% and 1.01%

respectively.

b. The high vulnerable area that located in the hotspot area needs the highest attention in

management. This area covers 33.08 ha

4. Related to Research Question 4, “Resource utilization by local people”

a. Traditionally there are three main resources that used by local people from GMNP

namely water, fuel wood and grass.

b. Charcoal production considered as the activity done by local people that lead to

deforestation.

5. Related to Research Question 5, “Updated Zoning System after taking into account the land

cover change and vulnerability maps”

a. The Updated Zoning system is updated zone from proposed zoning system with

consideration of land cover change and vulnerable to deforestation maps.


58

b. Special zone 1 (33.08 ha) and Special zone 2 (188.54 ha) are new zones in the Updated

Zoning System. Special zone 1 is the areas that need highest attention due to its high

vulnerability to deforestation and deforestation hotspot area as well.

6. Related to Research Question 6, “Protecting valuable forest and storing carbon stock”

a. Zoning system is one of mitigation program that prevent the deforestation and

protecting carbon stock of GMNP.

b. Stake holders participate in is needed in Rehabilitation and Forest Fire prevention in

GMNP.

6.2. Recomendations

1. This study can be improved by perceive at other time series images.

2. Further study should be done to analyse the impact of mountaineering to the preservation

of GMNP


59

References

ANDERSON, R. J., HARDY, E. E., ROACH T, J. & WITMER, E. R. (2001) A Land Use And Land Cover

Classification System For Use With Remote Sensor Data. Geological Survey Professional

Paper 964.

ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK (ADB) & NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLANNING AGENCY (BAPPENAS)

(1999) Causes, Extent, Impact and Cost of 1997-98 Fires and Drought. Jakarta.

BALAI PENELITIAN KEHUTANAN SOLO (2007) Kajian Kriteria dan Penetapan Zonasi Taman Nasional

Merbabu.

BALAI TAMAN NASIONAL MERBABU (2007) Laporan Pelaksanaan Kegiatan Inventarisasi Aves tahun

2007 oleh Balai Taman Nasional Gunung Merbabu.

BALAI TAMAN NASIONAL MERBABU (2008) Pengelolaan Taman Nasional Gunung Merbabu dan

Pemberdayaan Masyarakat Daerah Penyangga. Sosialisasi Pembangunan Derah Penyangga

TN Merapi dan TN Merbabu. Unpublish.

BARBER, C. V. & MATTHEWS, E. (2002 ) The State of The Forest : Indonesia. World Resources

Institute.

BENTINCK, J. V. (2000) Unruly Urbanization on Delhi’s Fringe: Changing Patterns of Land Use and

Livelihood.

BRANDTS, T., M, P. & MATHER (2009) Classification Methods For Remotely Sensed Data, Tailor &

Francis Group .LLC.

BURROUGH, P. (1986) Principles of Geographical Information Systems for Land Resource Assessment,

New York: Oxford University Press.

CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL FORESTRY RESEARCH (1999) Guidelines for Applying Multi-Criteria

Analysis to the Assessment of Criteria and Indicators. Jakarta, Center for International

Forestry Research (CIFOR).

CHEN, X. (2000) Using Remote Sensing and GIS to analyze Land Cover Change and its impacts on the

regional sustainable development. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 23(1), 107-114.

DI GREGORIO, A. & JANSEN, L. J. M. (1998) Land Cover Classification System (LCCS): Classification

Concepts and User Manual. . Environment and Natural Resources Service, GCP/RAF/287/ITA

Africover - East Africa Project and Soil Resources, Management and Conservation Service. .

DILLEY, M. & BOUDREAU, T. E. (2001) Coming to terms with vulnerability: a critique of the food

security definition. Food Policy, 26, 229-247.

EUROPIAN COMISSION (1998) Remote Sensing of Mediterranean Desertification and Environmental

Changes Luxembourg.

FAO (2000) Land Cover Classification System (LCCS) : Classification, Concept and User Manual.

FAO (2001) Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000: main report.

FAO (2006) Global forest resources assessment 2005.

FEARNSIDE & PHILIP, M. ( 2005) Deforestation in Brazilian Amazonia: History, Rates, and

Consequences. Special Section Conservation Biology, 19, 680-688.

FOREST WATCH INDONESIA (2002 ) The State of The Forest : Indonesia. Bogor, Indonesia, Forest

Watch Indonesia and Washington DC: Global Forest Watch.

G. YALCIN & AKYUREK, Z. (2004) ANALYSING FLOOD VULNERABLE AREAS WITH MULTICRITERIA

EVALUATION. ISPRS Congress 2004. Istanbul Turkey, ISPRS.

GEIST, H. J. & LAMBIN, E. F. (2002) Proximate causes and underlying driving force of tropical

deforestation. Bioscience 52, 143-150.

HARRISON, J. A. (2003) The Carbon Cycle: What Goes Around Comes Around. Visionlearning Vol.

EAS-2 (3), 2003.

60

HASTUTI, U. T. (2008) Mainstreaming Climate Change Into Development Planning. Kick-off Meeting

off Asia Pasific Gateway to Climate Change and Development. Bangkok, Thailand.

HENDERSON-SELLERS, A. & PITMAN, A. J. (1992) Land Surface schemes for future climate model:

specification, aggregation, and heterogeneity Journal of Geophysical Research.

HTTP://WWW.SEMIDE.NET Environmental Terminology and Discovery Service (ETDS)

HULME, M. & SHEARD, N. (1999) Climate Scenario for Indonesia.

IFCA (2007) REDD Methodology and Strategies, Summary for Policymakers. UN Climate Change

Conference 2007.

II, B. L. T., KASPERSON, R. E., MATSON, P. A., MCCARTHY, J. J., CORELL, R. W., CHRISTENSEN, L.,

ECKLEY, N., KASPERSON, J. X., LUERS, A., MARTELLO, M. L., POLSKY, C., PULSIPHER, A. &

SCHILLER, A. (2003) A Framework for Vulnerability Analysis in Sustainability Science.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 100, 8074-

8079.

IPCC (1996) Climate Change. Impact, Adaptation and Mitigation of Climate Change: Scientific-

Technical Analysis, Cambridge University Press.

IPCC (2001) Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability-Annexes. Prepared by IPCC

Working Group II.

JENSEN, J. R. (1996) Introductory Digital Processing, New Jersey, Trentice Hall.

KERLE, N., L.F.JANSSEN, L. & HUURNEMAN, G. C. (2004) Principles of Remote Sensing, Enschede The

Netherland, ITC.

LAMPTEY, B. L., BARRON, E. J. & POLLARD, D. (2005) Impacts of agriculture and urbanization on the

climate of the Northeastern United States. Global and Planetary Change, 49, 203-221.

LAUMONIER, Y. (1997) The Vegetation and Physiography of Sumatra. Geobotany ed.

LEPERS, E., LAMBIN, E. F., JANETOS, A. C., DEFRIES, R., ACHARD, F., RAMANKUTTY, N. & SCHOLES, R.

J. ( 2008 ) A Synthesis of Rapid Land-Cover Change Information for the 1981-2000 period.

Remote Sensing of Environment, 112 2495-2513.

LUDEKE, A. K., MAGGIO, R. C. & REID, L. M. (1990) An analysis of anthropogenic deforestation using

logistic regression and GIS. Journal of Environmental Management, 31, 247-259.

LUNETTA, R. & ELVIDGE, C. (1999) Remote Sensing Change Detection : Environmental Monitoring

Mehodsand Applications London, Taylor and Francis Ltd.

MALCZEWSKI, J. (1999) GIS and Multicriteria Decission Analysis Canada, John Wiley & Son, Inc.

MERTENS, B. & LAMBIN, E. (2000) Land Cover Change Trajectories in Southern Cameroon. Annals of

the Association of American Geographers, 90, 467-494.

MEYER, W. B. (1995) Past and Present Land Use and Land Cover in the USA. Consequences, Volume 1

MEYER, W. B. & TURNER, B. L. (1994) Global Land-Use and Land Cover Change: An Overview. IN II, B.

L. T. & MEYER, W. B. (Eds.) Change in Land Use and Land Cover. Cambridge, University Press.

MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT (2007) Indonesia Country Report, Climate Variability and Climate

Change and Their Implication, Goverment of Republic of Indonesia. Jakarta.

MINISTRY OF FORESTRY (2004) SK.135/Menhut-II/2004 Tentang Perubahan Fungsi Kawasan Hutan

Lindung dan Taman Wisata Alam Pada Kelompok Hutan Gunung Merbabu Menjadi Taman

Nasional Merbabu.

MINISTRY OF FORESTRY (2006a) Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor: P.56/Menhut-II/2006 Tentang

Pedoman Zonasi Taman Nasional.

MINISTRY OF FORESTRY (2006b) Statistik Kehutanan. Jakarta, Ministry of Forestry of Republic of

Indonesia.

MINISTRY OF FORESTRY (2007) Resume Data Informasi Rehabilitasi Hutan dan Lahan Tahun 2007.

MÜLLER, D. & MBURU, J. (2009) Forecasting hotspotsnext term of forest clearing in Kakamega

Forest, Western Kenya. Forest Ecology and Management, 257, 968-977.

PERHUTANI (2008) Kebijakan Perum Perhutani dalam Pengelolaan Kolaboratif TN.G Merapi-TN.G.

Merbabu.


61

PRIBADI, K. S. (2008) Climate Change Adaptation Research In Indonesia. Center For Disaster

Mitigation, ITB.

PUYRAVAUD, J.-P. (2003) Standardizing the calculation of the annual rate of deforestation. Forest

Ecology and Management, 177, 593-596.

SINGH, A. (1989) Digital Change Detection Techniques Using Remotely Sensed Data International

Journal of Remote Sensing, 10, 989-1003.

SKOLE, D., AND C. TUCKER. (1993.) Tropical deforestation and habitat fragmentation in the Amazon:

Satellite data from 1978 to 1988. . Science, 260.

SOEMARWOTO, O., IDA A. & CAROL D (2003) Kemana Harus Melangkah? Masyarakat, Hutan dan

Perumusan Kebijakan di Indonesia. Jakarta.

STRASSBURGA, B., TURNERA, K., FISHERA, B., SCHAEFFERB, R. & ANDREW LOVETTA, A. (2009)

Reducing emissions from deforestation-The “combined incentives” mechanism and empirical

simulations. Global Environmental Change, 19, 265-278.

SUNDERLIN, W. D. & RESOSUDARMO, I. A. P. (1997) Laju dan Penyebab Deforestasi di Indonesia:

Penelaahan Kerancuan dan Penyelesaiannya. 9 (I).

TREITZ, P. (2004) Remote sensing for mapping and monitoring land-cover and land-use change.

Progress in Planning, 61, 267-267.

USAID (2008) U.S Activities in Indonesia Related To Global Climate Change. Summer/Fall

VAN GILS, H., BATSUKH, O., ROSSITER, D., MUNTHALI, W. & LIBERATOSCIOLI, E. (2008) Forcasting The

Pattern and Pace of Fogus Forest Expansion in Majella National Park, Italy Applied

Vegetation Science, 11, 539-546.

VEDELD P., A. ANGELSEN, J. B., E. SJAASTAD & ., G. K. B. (2007) Forest environmental incomes and

the rural poor. Forest Policy and Economics 9, 869-879.

VELDKAMP, A. & LAMBIN, E. (2001) Predicting Land Use Change. Agriculture, Ecosystems &

Environment, 85, 1-6.

VERBURG, P. H., K. P. OVERMARS, , M. G. A. HUIGEN, W. T. D. G. & VELDKAMP., A. A. (2006.) Analysis

of the effects of land use change on protected areas in Philippines. . Applied Geography 26: ,

153-173.

VIERA, M. A. J. & GARRETT., J. M. (2005) Understanding Interobserver Agreement: The Kappa

Statistic. Research Series.

VOOGD, H. (1983) Multicriteria evaluation for urban and regional planning, London, Pion Limited.

WIDADA, MULYATI S & KOBAYASHI S (2006) Sekilas Tentang Konservasi Sumber Daya Alam dan

Ecosystemnya. DITJEN PHKA_JICA.

WIRATNO (2001) Berkaca di cermin retak : refleksi konservasi dan implikasi bagi pengelolaan taman

nasional / Wiratno ... [et al.], Boyolali, Indonesia :, FOReST Press.

ZAMZANY, F. (2008) Process of Deforestation and Agricultural Expansions in Gunung Palung National

Park, West Kalimantan, Indonesia. University of Tsukuba.

62


63

Appendices

Appendix 1. Checklist For Guiding Interview and FGD with local people

I. Kind of Resources that community obtain from GMNP

What are GMNP’s resources that community obtains?

II. The Ammount of Natural Resources community obtain from GMNP

1. How are they collected the resources?

2. How the community defines sufficient of resources for them?

3. How community conducting the monitoring system for resources utilization?

III. The activities of local people within GMNP

1. What are your activities within the GMNP?

2. What is the community perception for regulation of community activity within National

Park?

3. How often GMNP’s Staff conduct some extention about regulation of national park in

your village?

IV. The location of community activities within GMNP

1. What is National Park according to your perceive?

2. How you distinguish GMNP boundaries?

3. What are your perception about conservation of GMNP?

4. How the community involve in concerning conservation of GMNP?

V. Zoning system as community perceive

1. Base on your opinion, who are taking role in managing GMNP?

2. Base on your opinion, what is zoning system of GNMNP that you perceive?

3. How do you participate in plan of GMNP Management?

64

Appendix 2. List of Interview Question for Government and Local Leader.

.

Name of the interviewee

Position in organization

Address

Date and time of

interview

I. What activities are local people do in GMNP?

1. What is your organization program in order to achieve community welfare?

2. What are the programs of your organization that including community participation?

3. Do you have any policy to implement collaborative management of GMNP?

4. Do community understand the function of National Park?

5. Has the forest always been like that or what changes have been observed?

6. What do you think caused the changes?

7. Does community have local wisdom concerning conservation? If the answer is yes,

please specify

II. Where are the activities done?

1. How the community takes benefit from natural resources of GMNP?

2. Are there areas where collection is restricted?

3. Are there any rules governing the resource use?

4. In what purposes does the community do their activities within GMNP?

III. What kind of zoning system is appropriate as community in study area perceive?

1. Do community know zoning system of GMNP?

2. Who manage the zoning system plan of GMNP?

3. What method is used for zoning system of GMNP?

4. Do community involved in creating zoning system of GMNP?


65

Appendix 3. FGD Result

No Topic Group 1 Group 2 Group 3

I Types of Resources that community obtain from GMNP

1 NR from GMNP used by

community

1. Grass for feeding

cow

2. firewood

3. water for daily

necessity


cow

2. firewood

3. water for daily

necessity


cow

2. firewood

3. water for daily

necessity

II The amount of Natural Resource

1 Sufficiency of natural

resources (NR)

Water Resource is

getting decrease day

by day. In dry session,

water and not

adequate

Natural resource from

GMNP is enough.

In dry season water

and grass are not

adequate

2 How to get NR 1. grazing

traditionally

2. Ngrencek

(collect dry small

branch)

3. Using pipe for

flowing water

1. grazing

2. traditionallysome

people are not so

brave to ngrencek

, because they

heard that they

will be arrested.

3. Using pipe for

flowing water

1. grazing

traditionally

2. Ngrencek

(collect dry small

branch)

3. Using pipe for

flowing water

3 Monitoring of NR conducted

by community

Each household has

their own grass area,

they are not allow to

collect grass in other

areas

Not allow to collect

grass in other areas

Not allow to collect

grass in other areas

III The activities of local people within GMNP

1 Activities in GMNP Just for collect grass

and firewood.

Planting grass, and

planting trees in

grazing area

Just for collect grass

and firewood. But

sometimes strange

people are hunting

animal in GMNP

2 Perception of regulation of

community activity

Not allow to cut the

trees and have to

protect the forest

Who cut the trees

and hunt animal will

be arrested

Illegal logging is not

permitted

3 Illumination from GMNP

staff

Once, but from ESP

(environmental

Service Program), not

from Official of GMNP

Never Once (Ranger from

GMNP), ask people to

plant trees to avoid

landslide

IV Location of activities

1 What is National Park A Park in Merbabu

area. People not

allow cut trees and

hunt

A park function to

preserve water

resource

A park where

preserve endemic

trees and planting

more trees

66

No Topic Group 1 Group 2 Group 3

2 GMNP boundaries A boarder of GMNP is

Pal

Pal, river and ravine Pal

3 Perception of conservation Conservation means

Conserve water. So

we have to conserve

the forest (GMNP)

Conserve water

resource

Conserve water

resource

4 How community involve in

conservation

Plant more trees to

conserve water

resource

Planting trees Planting trees

V Zoning System

1 Who are managing of GMNP Community and

GMNP official

GMNP official Community and

GMNP official

2 Zoning System Community hope

they still allow to

collect grass and

firewood in GMNP

GMNP divided into

some parts, for water

resource protection

and for grass area

Share forest product

between GMNP and

community

3 Participating in management

plan of GMNP

No No No


67

Appendix 4. List of Question for Vulnerable Criteria

1. Management’s point of view

1. What are the problems in management of GMNP?

Head of GMNP Open area because of forest fire, cyclone and illegal logging

Animal disturbance (Macaca fascicularis /Long Tail Monkey disturbs

crop land because of un sufficient woof

Fern collecting because the booming of decorative plant in 2008

Illegal Hunting for some species of birds (pleci, rengganis)

Small scale stone mining for public facility reason

Forest fire, mostly because of the dereliction of charcoal activities,

grass collection and visitor activities.

Fuel wood collecting by cutting branch

Direct water piping from the spring

Vandalism

Head section of Magelang District Encroachment for seasonal crop such as cabbage, tomato, mustard

greens and onion leaf (Moving the boundary mark)

Illegal logging such as Pines for fuelwood and Acacia for charcoal.

Pinus ditebang utk kayu bakar, akasia untuk arang. Forest fire

(charcoal processing)

Head section of Boyolali/ Semarang

District

GMNP’s Boundary is not clear, local people don’t have clear

knowledge about the border between GMNP area and other area.

Charcoal processing in GMNP lead forest fire

Field staff/Ranger Forest fire

2. What are the main causes of deforestation in GMNP?

Head of GMNP (Mr Harjoto) Forest fire especially in 2006, hurricanes cause felt forest, illegal

logging and agricultural expansion in small scale. Low income and

small agricultural land lead the expansion. Another reason is

because agriculture as the only source of income. Furthermore,

boarder mark also not clears.

Head section of Magelang

District

forest fire, illegal logging especially pines for fuel wood and acacia

for charcoal, agricultural expansion


District

Forest fire, and illegal logging but in small scale

Field staff/Ranger Forest fire 2006 in Boyolali and Semarang Regency

68

3. What are the activities consider leading deforestation in GMNP

Head of GMNP Charcoal production, fuel wood and grass collection, and mountain

climb activity. All the activities leading forest fire


District

charcoal production, mountain climbers and land clearing( cut and

burn )

Head section of Boyolali/

Semarang District

2 versions: mountain climbing and grass collection. They burn the

land for getting new grass.

Field staff/Ranger Very small scale illegal logging and encroachment. Agriculture land

conflict in the boarder of National Park.

4. What are the efforts to reduce the deforestation in GMNP?

Head of GMNP + Hartojo Socialization, Community Development such as training on Clearing

Land Without Burning /PLTB (Pembukaan Lahan Tanpa Bakar) and

program “Masyarakat Peduli Api” that community actively

participate in forest fire program.

For every violation, they have to plant a number of trees. For Illegal

logging: 50 trees for each cut tree.


District

Socialization


District

Boundary Socialization, forest fire patrolling

Field staff

Socialization

5 Where the area reported experience degradation

Head of GMNP Getasan, Banyusidi,


District

enclave area; boundary conflict in Selo; local people move the

border sign, rest area for mountain climbers


District

Kecamatan Selo Sub District , but relatively small (in 2008)

Field staff/Ranger Semarang and Boyolali,


69

Community’s point of view

1. What are the main causes of deforestation in GMNP?

Head of Forum Rembug (Local Organisation) No deforestation in GMNP. Forest lost in GMNP only

for public facility such as road and grave. Forest fire

often occurs in GMNP but not causing deforestation.

Local NGO Forest fire, fuel wood collection and illegal logging.

But my organization makes collaboration with ESP on

rehabilitation program.

Head of Pogalan Village It used to be Illegal logging for charcoal in other area

(not in pogalan village)

Forest fire

Sudiar Illegal logging from people outside the villages, forest

fire

2. What products are people take from GMNP?

Head of Forum Rembug (Local Organisation) Only take grass for cattle, fuel wood and water

Local NGO Water, grass, fuel wood, decorated plant and birds

Head of Pogalan Village grass for cattle, fuel wood and water

Sudiar grass for cattle, fuel wood and water

3. Where people take the forest product?

Head of Forum Rembug (Local Organisation) Take the grass in their “area’’in the forest have been

heritage in family, take fuel wood everywhere as they

find dry branch and take water by piping from the

spring

Local NGO In every accessible places in GMNP , now they have to

walk further to get the fuel wood

Head of Pogalan Village Take grass in their own “area” , take water from the

spring by piping and fuel wood everywhere

Sudiar Take grass in their own “area” , take water from the

spring by piping and fuel wood everywhere

4. How far people go to the forest for taking forest product?

Head of Forum Rembug (Local Organisation) Maxmimum 2 km

Local NGO Around 2 hours, and mostly twice a day

Head of Pogalan Village 2 - 3 hours

Sudiar More or less 2 km (2 hours)

Field staff/Ranger About 2 km

70

5. What are the barriers of collecting forest product?

Head of Forum Rembug (Local Organisation) Ranger, slope, accessibility

Local NGO Physical ability, ranger, slope

Head of Pogalan Village Accessibility

Sudiar Accessibility

How they do select the field?

Head of Forum Rembug (Local Organisation) Flat area and save from ranger monitoring.

Local NGO Near their land, high accessibility

Head of Pogalan Village No encroachment

Sudiar Near their land

Do you have field in the forest?

Head of Forum Rembug (Local Organisation) No, I don’t have. Some people still have field in

Boyolali

Local NGO Some people have but not too large, but I don’t

Head of Pogalan Village No, I don’t have, neither local people in Pogalan

village

Sudiar I don’t have, and I don’t know the others

ESP’s point of view

Question Answer

What are the main causes of deforestation in GMNP? Economic aspect (livelihod of local communities; need

to increase socialization and conservation campaign

by working with local communities, local government,

local ngos; patroling)

What are the activities consider leading deforestation

in GMNP

economic aspects and new establishment of GMNP

What are the efforts (program of ESP) to reduce the

deforestation in GMNP?

community-based / participatory planning process,

developing watershed management plans,

conservation working group with local government &

community forums, pride conservation campaign,

develop village or local policy


71

Appendix 5. Sufficiency of Resources from GMNP

Table resource’s sufficiency

interviewee Grass Fuelwood Water

WS DS WS DS WS DS

1 + + + + - -

2 + - + + + -

3 + + 0 0 0 0

4 + + +^ +^ - -

5 + - + + +^ +^

6 + + + + + +^

7 + - + + + -

8 + - + + + -

9 + - + + + -

10 + - + + + -

11 + + +^ +^ + -

12 + + + + + +

13 +^ +^ +^ +^ - -

14 - + + + - -

15 - + + + - -

16 + + + + - -

17 + + + + + +

18 + + + + + +

19 + + + + + +

20 + - + + + -

21 + - + + + -

22 + - + + + -

23 + - + + + -

24 + - + + + -

25 + + +^ +^ +^ -

26 + - + + + -

27 - + + + -

28 + + + + + +

29 + + + + + +

30 + - + + + -

+ : sufficient

_ :not sufficient

^ : decrease

0 : no idea

WS : wet season

DS : dry season

Documents

Forest Cover Change and Vulnerability of Gunung Merbabu