280

Development of Local Institutions towards on Participationand Communication Model in the United Kingdom

Eko Priyo PurnomoFakultas Ilmu Sosial dan Ilmu Politik Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta (UMY)

Jl. Lingkar Selatan, Kasihan, Bantul DIY 55183Telp +62 274 387656, Fax. +62 274 387646/e-mail: eko@umy.ac.id

Abstract

This research aims is to describe the stakeholder involvement and elaborate the commu-nication models that have been used in this project. The main issue are the institutional partici-pation and communication models towards the community project. There are several issues todeal with the sustainable local institution. First of all, a legal mechanism that can establish ruleand law enforcement. Secondly, capacity building that makes the local community can build anequal relationship with other stakeholders such as the local government and buyers. Thirdly isthe institutional transparency that supports the information-equality system amongst stakeholdersin the community. It can be showed by the stakeholders’ communication model. The last one isflexibility and adaptive on cooperative partnership. Using the Qualitative method as the mainumbrella of this research, and the research use several methods to gather the data such as eth-nography and a participatory approaches; the data was analyzed using qualitative methods.The observation and in-depth interviews were conducted at a selected group in Leeds, UnitedKingdom whose the case study of the Bardon Grange Allotment Project (BGAP) was initiatedby Leeds Student Union (LSU). This organisation was selected because they already implementedthe local project and established some local initiative.

Abstrak

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mendeskripsikan keterlibatan para pemangku kepentingan danmengelaborasi model komunikasi yang telah digunakannya. Partisipasi adalah istilah yang sangat populerdan nilai yang berhubungan dengan pengembangan serta implementasi kebijakan pada level lokal, nasionaldan internasional. Ada beberapa isu untuk melihat pengembangan komunitas secara lestari danberkelanjutan. Pertama, sebuah mekanisme kelembagaan yang dapat membuat aturan dan penegakanaturan tersebut. Kedua, peningkatan kapasitas yang membuat masyarakat setempat dapat membangunhubungan yang setara dengan para pemangku kepentingan lain seperti pemerintah daerah dan pembeli.Ketiga adalah transparansi kelembagagan yang mendukung sistem informasi dan kesetaraan antarapemangku kepentingan di masyarakat. Hal ini dapat ditunjukkan dengan melihat model komunikasipara pemangku kepentingan yang digunakan. Isu yang terakhir adalah tingkat fleksibilitas dan adaptifdari komunitas tersebut. Metode kualitatif sebagai metode dalam penelitian ini. Penelitian ini menggunakanmetode untuk mengumpulkan data, seperti etnografi dan pendekatan partisipatif. Data dianalisismenggunakan metode kualitatif. Observasi dan wawancara mendalam dilakukan di kelompok masyarakatyang dipilih dan terletak di Leeds, Inggris. Sebagai sebuah studi kasus adalah Proyek Bardon Grange(Bardon Grange Allotment Project), sebuah lembaga yang diprakarsai oleh Leeds Student Union (LSU).Organisasi ini dipilih karena mereka telah mengimplementasikan kerja berbasis lokal dan mereka telahmembentuk beberapa inisiatif lokal.

Key words: institutions, stakeholders, participation and communication models.

281

Introduction

Ostrom (1999) claims that institutions havewidely definition and various concept are basedon behavioural rules, norms and strategies(Ostrom et al. 1999); This can be through formalinstitutions such as government laws constitutionand statutes, and informal institutions such as codeof conducts, norms relationships and social ex-pectation (Quinn et al. 2007; Smajgl and Larson2007). The terms of institutionalism on resourcesmanagement, scientists argue that local institutionscan effectively control, maintain and manage theresources sustain (Agrawal 2001; Behera andEngel 2006; Bischoff 2007; Futemma et al. 2002).It means that stakeholders can be successful forusing and managing their resources if they can meettheir institutions with its contexts (Ostrom 2008).Different contexts and cultures can create differ-ent institutions because the same rule cannot beimplemented in different social context (Agrawal2001). Therefore, developing of effective local in-stitutions should rely on the local contexts and cul-tures. A specific institution with precise context isthe best way to deal with resources environmentalissues.

There are several reasons why the localinstitutions are required to use resources sustain-ably. Firstly, government policies are failing be-cause they lack resources such as money and hu-man resources for supporting of their goals money(FAO 2007). Secondly, a local self organisationis more precise and conductive to solve the com-mon resources dilemma and create sustainablenatural resources (Agrawal 2001; Ostrom et al.1999). Thirdly, most of the policies are based ontextbook and they do not down to earth so thebest one to solve is to understand of the local con-texts (Fairhead and Leach 1996). Fourthly, Par-ticipation is the paramount issue that has beenspread in the world as a solution to re-distributeand re-allocate the resources (McAllister et al.2007; Nygren 2005). For instance, the formal gov-ernments need some loans for supporting theirprogram even failed and then they are trapped indebt (McAllister et al. 2007). On the other hand,many communities who realize their local wisdomand knowledge can maintain the forest resourcessustainability (Fairhead and Leach 1996).

On the other contexts, During the 1970sand 1980s, there was an expanding number ofNGOs across the globe and the rapidly increasingnumber reveals an explosion of environmental ac-tivists and issues (J. Doyle et al. 2008). For ex-ample, the number of Greenpeace members wasa dramatic increase from 1.4 million to 6.65 mil-lion between 1985 and 1990 (D. Doyle 1991)whilst the Green NGOs are part of new socialmovements and also the idea of a participationcommunity. They propose and exemplify how theenvironment can be managed in a sustainable andparticipatory way.

Participation is a very popular term and avalue that relies on the development and imple-mentation of local, national and international poli-cies. It seems that participation of the communityor institutions is very important to createsustainability of the environment. It reflects thatparticipation is one important contributor for sup-porting sustainability, efficiency, and effectivenessof development of rural community. In otherwords, sustainable agriculture requires partici-pation that can be demanding of actor aware-ness and capacity building (Lele 1991). And thenparticipation in this essay will be analysed bystakeholder analysis. Besides, improving thelocal institutions that supports for decentraliza-tion and participation of natural resource man-agement is an appropriate way to re-allocatethe resources

Besides, improving the local institutions thatsupports for decentralization and participation ofnatural resource management is an appropriateway to re-allocate the resources but it cannot guar-antee the resources sustainable. It cannot arrangethe community behaviour alone and it needs sev-eral requirements (Barrett et al. 2005; Nygren2005). First of all, a legal mechanism that can es-tablish rule and law enforcement. Secondly, ca-pacity building that makes the local community canbuild an equal relationship with other stakeholderssuch as the local government and buyers. Thirdly,is the institutional transparency that supports theinformation-equality system amongst stakeholdersin the community and it can be showed by thestakeholders’ communication model. The last oneis flexibility and adaptive on cooperative partner-ship.

Purnomo, Development of Local Institutions towards on Participation and ...

282

The goal of this essay, based on the casestudy of the Bardon Grange Allotment Project(BGAP) that was initiated by Leeds Student Un-ion (LSU) in January 2009, is to understand thestakeholder involvement and elaborate the com-munication models that have been used in thisproject. It could be important to understand thestakeholders if we want to explain the communityparticipation that arose on this project. And also itis necessary to measure the model of communica-tion that chosen by stakeholders on their relation-ship amongst them if we want to know the valuesand knowledge of these stakeholders as well.

Therefore, this essay will be divided intofour parts that attempt to answer the question ofwho the main actors that lead this project are, andthen to what extent the stakeholder can contributeenvironmental sustainability. Also the question ‘howdo the stakeholders communicate which can sup-port to sustainability?’. First of all, it will offer in-troduction to the background of this essay. Sec-ondly, it will explain the method that has been cho-sen to gather, reduce and analyze the data. Thirdly,it will elaborate and describe the data analysis, andthe last part will conclude and suggest what thestakeholder pattern reveals about this project andindicators that can be useful for further research.

Theoretical Framework

According to the community property re-gime, the perspective has been emerged as an al-ternative approach on management of the com-mons. There are some criticisms on the privateproperty regime’s view. In terms of individualisticand economic actors, Angus suggests that Hardin’sargument started with the unproven argument whichis that every herdsman always wants to enlargetheir herds, but even if the herdsman wanted tobehave like Hardin’s assumption, he could not doit unless certain conditions existed (Angus 2008).Also, Angus said that Hardin mistreated the termof self-regulation by the communities involved(Angus 2008). In addition, self-regulation proc-esses such as those that occur in the communitycan reduce the over use of land (Angus 2008).Besides, all stake holders can create an internalrule which makes clear what, when and how toproduce the best crops. By cooperating with each

other, they can manage to provide for the com-mons (Libecap 2009). It seems that even if peo-ple are rational and have an economic perspec-tive, they have to consider their belief and those ofothers.

In terms of cooperation, Barclay, who con-ducted an experiment where people played somegames and models using resources, argues thatcooperation and coalition in reciprocal altruism areintegrated in human relations and it can lead toimmense benefit and reduce costs (Barclay 2004).In the other words, human behaviour respondsappropriately to prevailing conditions in the socialand environment. So, herdsman will use commonsproperty in ways that lead either to overuse orsustainability depending on the circumstances.Neither Hardin’s conclusions nor management isinevitable (Berkes and International Union forConservation of Nature and Natural Resources.1989).

In terms of communication, a communitywho uses communication effectively can createseveral conditions such as reaching higher ben-efits and developing their goals faster than com-munities which are less good at communication(Bischoff, 2007). It is clear that every people inthe community who wants to use the commonsproperty should ask and communicate with eachother. For example, in Indonesian society, it is well-known a Hak Ulayat. The Hak Ulayat, calledthe customary right, is a statute or local norms thatevery community member should follow the rulewhen they want to plant, seed or cultivate any-thing in some community area. According to thisterms (Hak ulayat), the land belongs to the localcommunity but every member can utilises as muchas following to the community rule (IDLO 2010).As a result, the resources can be managed in sus-tainable ways and the community can utilise thefield as well.

In conclusion, communities and individualas a resources user have characteristic faiths whichcreate people and community more aware to main-tain resources with sustainable ways. Besides,collective action can lead to successful managingresources and allocate of resources (Mukhija2005). On the other hand, we should consider thatcommunity rights will be managed properly and itcould minimise anarchism on commons. It is clear

Jurnal Ilmu Komunikasi, Volume 8, Nomor 3, September - Desember 2010, halaman 280 - 288

283

that the community can involve in the resources asmuch as they can manage their institution and thisis the base of the community property regime per-spective.

Stakeholders mean many actors who areinvolved in the event or activity and those whohave an interest or requirements from it for them-selves. The term of stakeholder comes fromHabermas, who thought that it could be used toelaborate on the path between communicative ra-tionality, which is people seeking to reach under-standing and cooperation to solve their problem,and instrumental rationality on communicative ac-tion, which is people reaching the goal by controland changing the reality (Lawson et al. 2007). Andthen, this term has been expanded by some scien-tists such as Mitchell (1997) and Fletcher (2003)where they develop, identify and also define whoand how to do the SHA (Fletcher 2003; Mitchell1994).

Moreover, the SHA has been expandingacross the world, implemented by business organi-sations, local, national and international institutions.The SHA has been understood as a process whichidentifies individuals, group, and organisations whoare affected by it or can affect part of events, in-cluding nonhuman, non-living entities and futuregenerations (Reed et al. 2009). Reed also sug-gests that development of natural resources re-quires understanding the different perspective ofthe actors involved (Reed et al. 2009).

Therefore, the SHA in this essay can bedivided into several indicators (Figure 1) that isadopted from some scientists (Lele 1991;Lillemets 2003). Firstly, inclusivity is believed tobe a tool to analyse many groups and actors whoare involved in the phenomenon. Secondly, em-powerment is a value that can encourage and em-

power marginal actors such as women, childrenand low-structured society. Thirdly, developmentof networking has been created to link betweeninternal and external stakeholders of the organisa-tion. The last one is a model of communicationwhich is how the stakeholders communicate witheach other and how the flow of information hasbeen used.

Research Method

Qualitative method is the main umbrella ofthis research which has been used to carry outand also analyse the data (Diagram 1). Qualitativeresearch involves the studied use and collection ofa selection of empirical materials such as a casestudy, personal experiences, observation (Denzin2000). Moreover, this research will use a casestudy analysis. The case study analysis is usefulfor studying human affairs because it is down-to-earth and learns from the empirical (Stake 2006).Because it is a case study, the main concern maybe with understanding the case itself, with no in-terest in the theoretical and generalisation (Gommet al. 2000). However, this method is able to ex-plain and it can try to do one or both of these(Gomm et al. 2000).

The study area that has been selected isthe BGAP. It belongs to the University of Leeds’splant nurseries and is placed next the Oxley Hallsof residence in Headingly. The staffs at the projecthave encouraged their participants to use a patchof ground for growing fruit and veg. There is areasonably large poly tunnel and use of some ofthe heated greenhouses for germinating seeds, untilit is warm enough to plant them outside (Group’sFacebook, 2010 and interview, 2010). In addi-tion, the BGAP aims to exhibit to students and

Figure 2: Research Procedures

Theory

Research Goals

Data Analysis

Hypothesis

Data Collection

Sample Selection

Qualitative ResearchProcess

Figure 1: Theoretical framework on Local Community Activities

Purnomo, Development of Local Institutions towards on Participation and ...

284

local people how to cultivate organic fruit and vegas well. The project was established in January2009 and is coordinated by the LSU volunteeringand community office. Currently the project onlyhas a few members and the LSU would really liketo find more volunteers so they attempt to cam-paign and recruit more participants. Therefore, itwill be an interesting project that has collabora-tion between participation of local people and en-vironmental issues.

Two types of data were collected. First ofall, secondary data is data that comes from otherresearchers or other institutions (Denzin 2000). Theresearcher collected documents, photos and lit-erature which relate to land management, SHA,and historical patterns of landscape change not onlyin theory but also practice. It is useful to examinethe relationship between the changing local socialand political relations that lead to how people con-trol land and vegetation and then to elaborate onhow the stakeholders communicate with each other(Fairhead and Leach 1996).

The second data that was collected wasprimary data. It is original data collected by theresearchers themselves; this research used semi-structured interview, or interviews with a cross-section of stakeholders to check focus group data.And then it is applied by snow-ball sampling tofind the interviewees, whereby individuals frominitial stakeholder categories were interviewed, andthen they recommended the next respondents. Inaddition, the respondents of the research were theproject manager, the officer, the member of thisproject and the local people. The chosen respond-ents attempt to represent the stakeholders involvedin the BGAP. This researcher also conducted ob-servation at the same time which is useful to un-derstand the culture and the way of life of the com-munity because Winchester said that people havetheir own words that can be used to tell us theirexperiences and attitudes but they may be alert totheir social structure and position (Hay 2005).

Therefore, this research has some limita-tions such as the limited data and respondents, timeallocation and representation. Relating to themethod, this is not appropriate if the researchwants to develop generalisations and also it is lim-ited due to data and respondents. Secondly, time

allocation, as the research has been conductedduring the holiday and severe weather affected thedata so it was not an ideal time to carry out theresearch. Thirdly, snow-ball sampling showedsome weaknesses such as the respondents have arelation to each other so this could create a biasvalue and perception in this data (Hay 2005; Reedet al. 2009).

Result and Analysis

There are several issues relating thisproject that were found during the research. Thesematters attempt to answer the research questions,find the research objectives and also to understandthe main context of these projects relayed throughSHA.

Inclusivity will be explained by some ap-proaches that are used to describe the data. Firstof all, it can be asked, is this organization open orclosed? (Express.anu 2010). An open organiza-tion relates to the organization that makes it easyto become a member and a closed-organisation isone that is not easy to interact with or become anew member(Express.anu 2010). Secondly, is ita bureaucratic procedural or flexible organization?The bureaucratic organization refers to one thatinvolves a lot of complicated official rules and proc-esses. And then flexible refers to an organizationwhich can adapt its environment and change itsrule to synchronise with its environment (Anderson1999; James 2003).

The project clearly wants to educate peo-ple to be aware of organic fruits and vegetables.The officer and member argue that producingknowledge and spreading their value to societymeans leading by example. Many ideas have beenpublished about planting and consuming organicfruits but this is less effective so the best idea is toexhibit directly and invite people to join in. Relat-ing to this belief, the project is an open organisa-tion and it is easy to participate. It does not careabout gender, race, and social political backgroundof the stakeholder.

The participants who engage with theproject have different backgrounds and identities.As a member commented “Women are as wel-come to get involved as men” (Member Interview,

Jurnal Ilmu Komunikasi, Volume 8, Nomor 3, September - Desember 2010, halaman 280 - 288

285

2010). Besides, there are no fees, no requirementsand no procedures if anyone wants to become amember of the program. In other words, the par-ticipants just pay with their commitment to join(Officer Interview, 2010). As a result, membersare so diverse and heterogeneous. It seems thatthis project’s philosophy is to be open-minded andconcerned about participation issues.

Currently, the BGAP are looking for a newleader or a coordinator who can lead, create theprogram, find the funding and discover more ideas.They advertise on the portal and LSU website.Also, the requirements are quite general and theLUU just posted what the responsibilities and du-ties are. It is evidence that the BGAP is used to anopen organization because they can receive eve-ryone without looking at their background, not onlyfor members but also in recruiting a coordinator.

The BGAP is a flexible and adaptable or-ganisation as well. This is not only because it is anew organization but also due to the commitmentof their stakeholders. The stakeholders understandthe consequence of being a voluntary organiza-tion. The volunteers should adapt to their environ-ment because the main value of voluntary serviceis to be a willing participant and without beingforced.

In terms of empowering issues, there aresome data that can be sought. The officer saysthat there are lots of programs on television abouthealthy lifestyle, and they demonstrate to peoplehow to plant organic vegetables, how they growlots of fruit as an example (Officer, Interview,2010). Nevertheless, it is quite difficult to educatepeople from television so the best way is showthem directly (Picture 1). Therefore, the BGAP isuseful as it encourages people to grow vegeta-bles, which they may not have had a chance to dobefore. It provides the chance to learn new skills,make new friends, and learn about the importanceof organic and locally produced food. It also usesland in a productive way, and will hopefully in fu-ture provide a source of local food for the univer-sity. In addition, this program offers support tomarginal society, such as women and children.While opportunities for children to get involvedhave yet to be implemented, discussions on hav-ing some events for the local school children to

attend the site to get involved in the project areongoing. It is clear that through stakeholder con-sent marginal society can get involved in the project.

Moreover, this project contributes to theuniversity community, through providing a newsocial activity, and a chance to get involved in foodgrowing and also the local community gets addi-tional support for underrepresented groups suchas women and children. The project also givespeople the opportunity to get involved if they workat the union, and their friends and family too. Al-though some of the programs are not implementedyet, most of the stakeholders agree to re-designit. They want to create a program in which chil-dren can visit this place.

This project has a regular meeting everyWednesday and then they also have another meetingonce a month on Saturday. In the meeting, theydiscussed and evaluated everything that was donelast month. And then they will make plans for whatthe stakeholders want to do and plant next month.The regular meeting is important because it showsthat the project has a mechanism where every ac-tor can contribute and share their beliefs and ideas.In addition, every student, staff member and peo-ple who are interested in this program can joinand be present at the meeting. It seems that theproject recognizes stakeholder legitimacy is mostvaluable for sustainability in this program.

Networking with other organizations canbe useful for building contacts and also it can helpto spread the project’s ideas. Regarding this is-sue, there are several organizations that are con-nected, such as LSU, Niels Corfield (organicgrower), Green Action Coop, and the NUS (Na-tional Union of Students) a voluntary membershiporganization for students. As a result, there aresome activities that have been created and somesupport that has been received. For example,some of the lettuces they grew last year were putin some burgers at a barbeque at the Terrace atthe LUU, and also at the Arch (the bar at LUU).They have also been involved in Unity Day, anevent in Hyde Park. For these events they receivedmoney and equipment from the NUS, Leeds Lifeand LUU. Networking is a crucial issue if the or-ganization wants to survive and also expand theiridea.

Purnomo, Development of Local Institutions towards on Participation and ...

286

Communication model

The style of communication is divided intotwo parts, informal and formal communication(Griffin 2009; Miller 2005). The informal com-munication arises from non-formal channels, suchas impersonal relationships. There are some char-acteristics of informal communication. It does notcome from authority; it is created during personalrelationships amongst members of the organisa-tion; it happens at times of personal need. Under-standing of informal communication is useful toanalyse who the keeper and follower in the or-ganisation are and then it can be used to describehow deep the relationships are between stake-holders. Moreover, the opposite of informal com-munication is formal communication, which is com-munication using a channel, such as a meeting. Itcan be legal or procedural. Understanding of theseterms is a good way to analyse how well-man-aged a project is and then to know who the re-sponsible person in the institution.

During the interview and observation, mostof the stakeholders used informal communication.They shared their opinion and also they found theproject using informal communication. The infor-mation about the project and meeting agenda arespread through informal channels such asFacebook and mobile text message. The membersays that he joined because he saw on the group’sFacebook page and also on the university Portal(member interview, 2010). Besides, the formalcommunication is less useful to distribute the in-formation among members. The officer usually usesthe weekly (on Wednesday) and monthly meeting(on Saturday) to share any information. On thispoint, this project has a regular meeting that canbe a place where all stakeholders share and getinformation. The information that has been dis-cussed come from not only from inside stake-holders but also outside stakeholders.

Another analytical perspective on commu-nication issues is about the flow of information.This means a study about where the informationcomes from and whether it is segregated by topdown or bottom up models (Griffin 2006;Littlejohn and Foss 2008). There are two kindsof approach. Firstly is the downward communi-

cation which is the way where the informationcomes from the organisation leader. Secondly isthe upward communication which is the way wherethe information comes from the organisation mem-bers and this model is a relatively participatorymodel. In this case, the information usually comesfrom the officer and the union. This assumption issupported by a member who said “I think one ofthe things is that information is coming in on thisissue originally from the officer” (member inter-view, 2010).Therefore, it is clear that downwardflow information is dominant in this organization/project. In addition, this project can be looked atcompletely on the table 3.

Conclusion

Participation is a popular term not only withpolitics but also for environmental issues and thisperspective can be important to develop sustain-able resources. The research that has been doneis to analyse that perspective using SHA wherethe research has been conducted on the local com-munity project. During the research on BGAP, thecase has shown that participation amongststakeholders happened smoothly. Using SHA, itis clear that there are several stakeholders involvedin this project, such as the LUU, The officer, themembers, and the local community. Moreover, thetwo main stakeholders who affected this projectare the LUU and the officer.

In term of the communication model,stakeholders usually use informal communicationsuch as informal meeting. It can be realized be-cause the organisation is a voluntary activity. Theinformation flow is down ward model where thecommittees share the information to the memberactively. The case study has some weaknesses interms of method and representative issue such asthe SHA has been used less to carry out categori-sation of stakeholders so the stakeholders cannotbe analysed properly. And then the respondentsor participants who attended in the interview aretoo few so it is difficult to create generalisationsand analyse deeply. However, this research at-tempts to develop some indicators that can beuseful for future research on sustainability on acommunity project using SHA.

Jurnal Ilmu Komunikasi, Volume 8, Nomor 3, September - Desember 2010, halaman 280 - 288

287

References

Agrawal, Arun, 2001, ‘Common property institu-tions and sustainable governance of re-sources’, World Development, 29 (10).

Anderson, P., 1999, ‘Complexity Theory and Or-ganization Science’, Journal Organiza-tion Science, 10 (3).

Angus, Ian, 2008, ‘the Myth of the Tragedy of theCommons’, the monthly review.

anonim ‘http://basiccollegeaccounting.com/test-questions-on-management-organization-behavioralbusiness-management/’,accessed 20 May 2010.

Barclay, P., 2004, ‘Trustworthiness and competi-tive altruism can also solve the “tragedy ofthe commons”’, Evolution and HumanBehavior, 25 (4).

Barrett, C. B., Lee, D. R., and McPeak, J. G.,2005, ‘Institutional arrangements for ruralpoverty reduction and resource conserva-tion’, World Development, 33 (2).

Behera, B. and Engel, S., 2006, ‘Institutionalanalysis of evolution of joint forest man-agement in India: A new institutional eco-nomics approach’, Forest Policy andEconomics, 8 (4), 350-62.

Berkes, Fikret and International Union for Con-servation of Nature and Natural Re-sources, 1989, Common property re-sources : ecology and community-basedsustainable development, BelhavenPress, London, New York.

Bischoff, I., 2007, ‘Institutional choice versus com-munication in social dilemmas - An experi-mental approach’, Journal of EconomicBehavior & Organization, 62 (1).

Denzin, Norman K and Lincoln, Yvonna S., 2000,Handbook of Qualitative Research 2,Thousand Oaks, California.

Doyle, D., 1991, ‘Sustainable Development -Growth without Losing Ground’, Journalof Soil and Water Conservation, 46 (1).

Doyle, J., Armstrong, R., and Waters, E., 2008,‘Issues raised in systematic reviews ofcomplex multisectoral and communitybased interventions’, Journal of PublicHealth, 30 (2).

Fairhead, James and Leach, Melissa, 1996,Misreading the African landscape : so-ciety and ecology in a forest-savannamosaic, African studies series 90, Cam-bridge University Press, Cambridge, NewYork.

FAO, 2007, ‘State of the World’s Forests’, Foodand Agriculture Organization of the UnitedNations, Rome, Italy.

Fletcher, A., et al, 2003, ‘Mapping stakeholderperceptions for a third sector organization’,Journal of Intellectual Capital 4(4).

Futemma, C., et al., 2002, ‘The emergence andoutcomes of collective action: An institu-tional and ecosystem approach’, Societyand Natural Resources, 15 (6).

Gomm, Roger, Hammersley, Martyn, and Foster,Peter, 2000, Case study method : keyissues, key texts, Thousand Oaks, Calif.:SAGE, London .

Griffin, Emory A., 2006, A first look at commu-nication theory (6th edn.), McGraw-Hill,Boston.

———, 2009, A first look at communicationtheory (7th edn.), McGraw-Hill HigherEducation, Boston.

Hay, Ian, 2005, Qualitative Research Methodsin Human Geography (2 edn.; Qualita-tive Research Methods in Human Geog-raphy: Oxford University Press).

Idlo, 2010, ‘Customary Right to Land’,<ht t p: / /www. id lo . int /docNews/Customary%20right%20to%20land.pdf>,accessed 23 March 2010.

James, R., 2003, ‘Community-based participatoryresearch for health’, Australian and NewZealand Journal of Public Health, 27 (6).

Lawson, Clive, Latsis, John, and Martins, Nuno,2007, Contributions to social ontology,Routledge studies in critical realism;Abingdon, Oxon, Routledge, New York.

Lele, S. M., 1991, ‘Sustainable Development - aCritical-Review’, World Development,19 (6).

Libecap, G. D., 2009, ‘The tragedy of the com-mons: property rights and markets as so-lutions to resource and environmentalproblems’, Australian Journal of Agri-

Purnomo, Development of Local Institutions towards on Participation and ...

288

cultural and Resource Economics,53 (1).

Lillemets, Krista, 2003, Exploring participation:Waste management cases in two favelasof Rio de Janeiro, Instituto Brasileiro deInovações em Saúde Social (IBISS), Riode aneiro, Brazil.

Littlejohn, Stephen W. and Foss, Karen A., 2008,Theories of human communication (9thedn.), Thomson/Wadsworth, Belmont,CA.

McAllister, R. R. J., Smajgl, A., and Asafu-Adjaye, J., 2007, ‘Forest logging and in-stitutional thresholds in developing south-east Asian economies: A conceptualmodel’, Forest Policy and Economics,9 (8).

Miller, Katherine, 2005, Communication theo-ries : perspectives, processes, and con-texts (2nd edn.), McGraw-Hill, Boston.

Mitchell, B., 1994, ‘Sustainable Development atthe Village Level in Bali, Indonesia’, Hu-man Ecology, 22 (2).

Mukhija, V., 2005, ‘Collective action and prop-erty rights: A planner’s critical look at thedogma of private property’, InternationalJournal of Urban and Regional Re-search, 29 (4),.

Nygren, A., 2005, ‘Community-based forest man-agement within the context of institutionaldecentralization in Honduras’, World De-velopment, 33 (4).

Ostrom, 2008, ‘Tragedy of the Ecological Com-mons’, Encyclopedia of Ecology.

Ostrom, et al., 1999, ‘Sustainability - Revisitingthe commons: Local lessons, global chal-lenges’, Science, 284 (5412).

Quinn, C. H., et al., 2007, ‘Design principles andcommon pool resource management: Aninstitutional approach to evaluating com-munity management in semi-arid Tanzania’,Journal of Environmental Manage-ment, 84 (1).

Reed, M. S., et al., 2009, ‘Who’s in and why?A typology of stakeholder analysis meth-ods for natural resource management’,Journal of Environmental Manage-ment, 90 (5).

Smajgl, Alex and Larson, Silva, 2007, Sustain-able resource use : institutional dynam-ics and economics, Sterling, VA:Earthscan, London.

Stake, Robert E., 2006, Multiple case studyanalysis, The Guilford Press, New York,London.

Jurnal Ilmu Komunikasi, Volume 8, Nomor 3, September - Desember 2010, halaman 280 - 288