Zoning of Nature Tourism Parks Based on Ecological and Socio-Economic Sensitivity: Case Study of Grojogan Sewu Nature Tourism Park
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24256/kharaj.v8i2.9582Keywords:
ecological sensitivity, socio-economic sensitivity, spatial planning, conservation management, nature tourismAbstract
Grojogan Sewu Nature Tourism Park, covering an area of 64,124 hectares, has undergone environmental and spatial changes that no longer align with its original management zoning plan. This study aims to redesign the management blocks based on ecological and socio-economic sensitivities through the use of spatial multi-criteria evaluation combined with a hierarchical decision-making process and geographic information system-based analysis. The objectives of the study are to determine management zones using ecological sensitivity criteria, including vegetation cover, land cover, slope classification, geological sensitivity, and distribution of flora and fauna. Additionally, socio-economic sensitivity is assessed using criteria such as accessibility to potential areas of utilization, zones of tourism activities, and water resource usage areas. The findings of this study indicate a revised spatial division of the nature park into two main management blocks: the protection block and the utilization block. The protection block accounts for approximately 36,966 hectares or 57.65 percent of the total area, while the utilization block comprises about 27,158 hectares or 42.35 percent. The proposed zoning scheme is expected to support effective conservation strategies and enhance integrated spatial planning for sustainable nature tourism management in Grojogan Sewu
References
1. Erdi, M.A., E. Fataei, M.E. Ramezani, dan H. R. Nakhjavani. 2017. “Spatial-Systematic Analysis Approach for Conservation Purposes.“ Journal of Wildlife and Biodiversity. 1 (1): 37-46. Doi:10.22120/jwb.2017.27578.
2. Farizal, A. 2001. Analisis Perencanaan Penataan Kawasan Suaka Margasatwa Gunung Tunggangan, Sragen, Jawa Tengah Dengan Pendekatan Sensitivitas Ekologis Dan Tekanan Ekologis Menggunakan Sistem Informasi Geografis (SIG). Tesis. Semarang: Sekolah Pascasarjana Universitas Diponegoro.
3. Geneletti, D. (2002). Ecological evaluation for environmental impact assessment. Ecological Engineering, 16(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-8574(00)00173-1.
4. Hamidun, M.S. 2012. Zonasi Pengelolaan Taman Nasional Dengan Pendekatan Ekowisata (Kasus Calon Taman Nasional Nantu-Boliyohuto di Provinsi Gorontalo). Desertasi. Bogor: Sekolah Pasca Sarjana. Institut Pertanian Bogor.
5. Istiadi Y. 2014. Pengaruh Strategi Karyawisata Dan Sensitivitas Ekologis Terhadap Apresiasi Siswa Tentang Pelestarian Satwa. EDUSAINS. 6(02):186 – 190.
6. Kou, G., Ergu, D., Lin, C., & Chen, Y. (2016). Pairwise comparison matrix in multiple criteria decision making. Technological and economic development of economy, 22(5), 738-765.
7. Kunarso, A., T.A.A. Syabana, S. Mareti, F. Azwar, T. Kharis, dan Nuralamin. 2019. “Analisis Spasial Tingkat Kerusakan Kawasan Suaka Margasatwa Padang Sugihan Sumatera Selatan.” Jurnal Penelitian Hutan dan Konservasi Alam. 16(2): 191-207.
8. Malczewski, J. (1999). GIS and multicriteria decision analysis. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
9. Malczewski, J., & Rinner, C. (2015). Multicriteria decision analysis in geographic information science. New York: Springer.
10. Mizobuchi, H. (2017). Measuring socio-economic factors and sensitivity of happiness. Journal of Happiness Studies, 18, 463-504.
11. Phillips, A. (2002). Management guidelines for IUCN Category V protected areas: Protected Landscapes/Seascapes. IUCN.
12. PP No.6 tahun 2007. Peraturan Pemerintah RI Nomor 6 Tahun 2007 tentang Tata Hutan Dan Penyusunan Rencana Pengelolaan Hutan, Serta Pemanfaatan Hutan. Jakarta: Pemerintah Republik Indonesia.
13. Rathore, A., Kumar, A., & Patidar, N. P. (2023). Techno-socio-economic and sensitivity analysis of standalone micro-grid located in central India. International Journal of Ambient Energy, 44(1), 1490-1511
14. Royana, R. 2013. Panduan Kelestarian Ekosistem untuk Pemanfaatan Panas Bumi. Jakarta: WWF-Indonesia.
15. Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process: Planning, priority setting, resource allocation. New York: McGraw-Hill.
16. Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Services Sciences, 1(1), 83–98. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSSCI.2008.017590.
17. UU No.41 tahun 1999. Undang-Undang (UU) nomor 41 tahun 1999 tentang Kehutanan. Jakarta: Pemerintah Republik Indonesia.
18. Vandergeest, P., & Peluso, N. L. 1995. Territorialization and state power in Thailand. Theory and society, 385-426.
19. Vandergeest, Peter. 1996. Mapping Nature: Territorialization of Forest Rights in Thailand. Society & Natural Resources: An International Journal, 9:2, 159-175.
20. Zhang, X., Z. Wang, dan J. Lin. 2015. “GIS Based Measurement and Regulatory Zoning of Urban Ecological Vulnerability.” Sustainability. 7: 9924-9942. doi:10.3390/su7089924
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Citation Check
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Evi Heriyaningtyas, Maryono Maryono; Fuad Muhammad
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. In line with the license, authors are allowed to share and adapt the material. In addition, the material must be given appropriate credit, provided with a link to the license, and indicated if changes were made. If authors remix, transform or build upon the material, authors must distribute their contributions under the same license as the original.
