Mainstreaming Ecosystem Services from Indonesia’s Remaining Forests

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Just, Mohammed, Forest, Natural, Range, Surya, Change, New, Resources, Doi, June, Brin, Hadi, Work, Basel, Raya, Setiawan, Life, Hunger, Vic, Hendra, Mega, Selatan, Jawa, Fajri, Million, Alamgir, Notaro, West, Maps, Ansari, Development, Putri, Dss, Ogi, Carbon, Land, September, Mohamad, Tri, Markus, Allo, Nugroho, Under, Java, Flood, Timber, Melbourne, Muin, Gunawan, State, Jalan, Open, Energy, Culture, Play, Wahyudi, Area, Mimi, Centre, Role, Indra, Subroto, Home, Cover, Barat, Baral, Goal, Strong, Wira, Tel, Good, Nation, Sandra, Core, Fitri, Focus, Retno, Pusat]

Citation: Nugroho, H.Y.S.H.; Nurfatriani, F.; Indrajaya, Y.; Yuwati, T.W.; Ekawati, S.; Salminah, M.; Gunawan, H.; Subarudi, S.; Sallata, M.K.; Allo, M.K.; et al Mainstreaming Ecosystem Services from Indonesia’s Remaining Forests Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 12124 https://doi.org/10.3390/su 141912124 Academic Editors: Mohammed Alamgir and Sandra Notaro Received: 29 June 2022 Accepted: 17 September 2022 Published: 25 September 2022 Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations Copyright: © 2022 by the authors Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/) sustainability Review Mainstreaming Ecosystem Services from Indonesia’s Remaining Forests Hunggul Yudono Setio Hadi Nugroho 1, * , Fitri Nurfatriani 2 , Yonky Indrajaya 1 , Tri Wira Yuwati 1 , Sulistya Ekawati 3 , Mimi Salminah 2 , Hendra Gunawan 1 , Subarudi Subarudi 4 , Markus Kudeng Sallata 1 , Merryana Kiding Allo 1 , Nurhaedah Muin 1 , Wahyudi Isnan 1 , Indra Ardie Surya Liannawatty Purnamawan Putri 1 , Retno Prayudyaningsih 5 , Fajri Ansari 1 , Mohamad Siarudin 1 , Ogi Setiawan 1 and Himlal Baral 6,7 1 Research Center for Ecology and Ethnobiology, National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN), Jalan Raya Jakarta-Bogor Km 46, Cibinong 16911, Jawa Barat, Indonesia 2 Directorate of Environment, Maritime, Natural Resources, and Nuclear Policy, Deputy of Development Policy, National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN), Gedung B.J. Habibie, Jl. M.H. Thamrin No. 8, Jakarta Pusat, Jakarta 10340, Indonesia 3 Research Centre for Society and Culture, National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN), Jl. Gatot Subroto No. 10, Mampang Prapatan Jakarta Selatan, Jakarta 12710, Indonesia 4 Research Center for Population, National Research and Innovation Agency, JL. Gatot Subroto No. 10, Mampang Prapatan Jakarta Selatan, Jakarta 12710, Indonesia 5 Research Centre for Applied Microbiology, National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN), Jalan Raya Jakarta-Bogor Km 46, Cibinong 16911, Jawa Barat, Indonesia 6 Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor 16115, West Java, Indonesia 7 School of Ecosystem and Forest Science, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia * Correspondence: hunggul.yudono.setio.hadinugroho@brin.go.id; Tel.: +62-811-409-3999 Abstract: With 120 million hectares of forest area, Indonesia has the third largest area of biodiversityrich tropical forests in the world, and it is well-known as a mega-biodiversity country. However, in 2020, only 70 percent of this area remained forested. The government has consistently undertaken corrective actions to achieve Sustainable Development Goal targets, with a special focus on Goals #1 (no poverty), #2 (zero hunger), #3 (good health and well-being), #7 (affordable and clean energy), #8 (decent work and economic growth), #13 (climate action), and #15 (life on land). Good environmental governance is a core concept in Indonesia’s forest management and includes mainstreaming ecosystem services as a framework for sustainable forest management. This paper analyzes efforts to mainstream Indonesia’s remaining forest ecosystem services. We review the state of Indonesia’s forests in relation to deforestation dynamics, climate change, and ecosystem service potential and options and provide recommendations for mainstreaming strategies regarding aspects of policy, planning, and implementation, as well as the process of the articulation of ecosystem services and their alternative funding Keywords: value articulation; sustainable financing; DSS; spatial assessment 1. Introduction Forests, which, at just over 4 billion hectares, cover nearly one-third of Earth’s land area [ 1 ], play an important role in the global carbon cycle [ 2 ] and are home to a significant portion of the world’s terrestrial biodiversity [ 3 ]. Forests also provide a wide range of other ecosystem services, including supporting services, such as nutrient cycling and soil formation [ 4 – 7 ]; provisioning services, such as food [ 8 ], timber [ 9 ], and medicinal plants [ 10 , 11 ]; and regulating services, such as erosion control [ 12 ], flood mitigation [ 13 ], water and air purification [ 14 – 16 ], pollination [ 17 ], and pest and disease control [ 18 , 19 ]. The Government of Indonesia has implemented new measures to improve the sustainability of the nation’s forests. The number of forest-related policies has increased Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 12124. https://doi.org/10.3390/su 141912124 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Redd, Peer, Time, Aid, Market, Pro]

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 12124 2 of 39 significantly over time. These focus primarily on improving forest protection and monitoring, ecosystem services, and biodiversity conservation; determining financial policies for forest-related activities; and restructuring forest-related organizations [ 20 ]. Management can become very challenging when multiple ecosystem services, some of which are contradictory, coexist in one landscape. The management process requires the identification of policies, regulations, market conditions, and objectives for integrated ecosystem services’ management [ 21 ]. These policies underwent significant changes between 2011 and 2016 when international pressure and financial support were applied to restrict illegal timber, promote climate pledges and agreements to reduce carbon emissions, and provide conditional aid for REDD+ activities [ 20 ]. The Government of Indonesia has commenced corrective actions to manage the country’s remaining forests and achieve Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). One such action involves the mainstreaming of ecosystem services as a framework for sustainable forest management The linkages between forest ecosystem services and SDGs are presented in Figure 1 below Sustainability 2022 , 14 , x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 41 [10,11]; and regulating services, such as erosion control [12], flood mitigation [13], water and air purification [14–16], pollination [17], and pest and disease control [18,19]. The Government of Indonesia has implemented new measures to improve the sustainability of the nation’s forests. The number of forest-related policies has increased significantly over time. These focus primarily on improving forest protection and monitoring, ecosystem services, and biodiversity conservation; determining financial policies for forest-related activities; and restructuring forest-related organizations [20]. Management can become very challenging when multiple ecosystem services, some of which are contradictory, coexist in one landscape. The management process requires the identification of policies, regulations, market conditions, and objectives for integrated ecosystem services’ management [21]. These policies underwent significant changes between 2011 and 2016 when international pressure and financial support were applied to restrict illegal timber, promote climate pledges and agreements to reduce carbon emissions, and provide conditional aid for REDD+ activities [20]. The Government of Indonesia has commenced corrective actions to manage the country’s remaining forests and achieve Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). One such action involves the mainstreaming of ecosystem services as a framework for sustainable forest management. The linkages between forest ecosystem services and SDGs are presented in Figure 1 below. Figure 1. Linkages between ecosystem services and SDGs. Figure 1. Linkages between ecosystem services and SDGs This review paper describes the mainstreaming of ecosystem services (ES) in forest management in Indonesia as a manifestation of the government’s policy of changing the forest management paradigm from one of exploitation to a pro-conservation approach. This paper consists of five sections. Sections 2 and 3 of this paper depict the states of Indonesia’s forests and their potential services, illustrating the significant value of Indonesia’s remaining forests today, as well as the future challenges. Section 4 analyzes the government’s

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Law, Four, Level, Better, Gas, Rules, Set, Pes, Loss, Show, Main, Large, Asia, Areas, Fell, High, Pacific, Fall, Rate, Take, Green, Chen, Lower, Oil, Factor, Rising, Trading]

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 12124 3 of 39 efforts in optimizing ecosystem services as an important factor in mitigating and adapting to climate change through policy support instruments, including renewable energy development, carbon trading, green economy, ecotourism, and forest ecosystem management with communities through social forestry. Section 5 highlights four important elements involved in mainstreaming ecosystem services in Indonesia, namely: (1) the development of a payment for ecosystem services (PES) scheme; (2) the utilization of a decision support system (DSS) (3); ES value articulation; and (4) sustainable funding as an incentive This paper is based on the results of the authors’ research and experiences, as well as a literature review involving finding, reviewing, and evaluating relevant materials and synthesizing all information obtained. The materials reviewed include national and international research papers, research reports, rules and policies, and relevant books and scientific publications concerning ecosystem services 2. The State of Indonesia’s Forests Located between two continents, Asia and Australia, and between two oceans, the Indian and the Pacific, Indonesia has extremely high levels of biodiversity and endemicity. It is also the largest archipelagic country in the world, with more than 17,000 islands. Sixty-four percent, or 120 million hectares, of the land in Indonesia is designated as state forest area [ 22 ]. For more than four decades, forest resources have been important in driving Indonesia’s economic development. From 1966 to the late 1980 s, Indonesia was the largest exporter of logs in the world and then the world’s largest producer of plywood. Timber was the second largest contributor to the Indonesian economy after oil and gas in the years immediately following the fall in oil prices in the 1980 s. However, it was not until the 1980 s that researchers began to take notice of deforestation in the region. The various activities identified as drivers of deforestation include the increased exploitation of natural forests in concessions; the conversion of forest area to other uses, such as agriculture, mining, and estate crops; migration; illegal encroaching; and forest fires [ 23 ]. Indonesia had the highest rate of annual primary natural forest loss in the tropics [ 24 , 25 ], reaching the greatest level of 3.51 million hectares annually between 1996 and 2000 [ 26 ], during which time large forest fires occurred From 2002 to 2011, the rate of deforestation fell, which was accompanied by a decline in the occurrence of forest and land fires and a reduction in some of the excesses that followed the decentralization of forest management. Between 2011 and 2015, the average annual deforestation rate increased to 0.82 million hectares. Among the main causes of this deforestation were the 2015 wildfires. The annual deforestation rate for 2015 to 2016 was lower at 0.63 million hectares. This fell further to 0.44 million hectares between 2017 and 2018, before rising again to 0.46 million hectares between 2018 and 2019 [ 26 ]. To address the causes of deforestation and forest degradation, Indonesia has enacted and implemented various policies, including a moratorium on issuing new concession permits on areas of natural forest and peatlands. Spatially explicit temporal analyses of forest loss from 2001 to 2017 by Chen, et al. [ 27 ] show an average annual forest loss rate of 0.091 million hectares for 2001–2011 across the whole of Indonesia, slowing to 0.001 million hectares annually for 2012–2017 following the onset of the moratorium in 2011. Other policies include providing land to communities; resolving land-use conflicts; monitoring environment permits and law enforcement; reducing greenhouse gas emissions; encouraging partnerships between communities, timber concession (IUPHHK) holders, and forest management units (FMUs) to prevent forest and land fires through the establishment of fire brigades; better management of peatland ecosystems; forest landscape restoration involving communities in the management of forests and protected areas through forestry programs; and achieving sustainable forest management (SFM) through the mandatory certification of forests and forest products. In addition, there has been a paradigm change based on a new set of business configurations for the management of production forest resources, with a

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Bau, Human, Carrion, Day, Low, Risk, Net, Long, Agreement, Slow, Paris, Aimed, Alter, Flora, Major, Sense, Heritage, Cost, Place, Balance, Non, Birds, Flower, Rich, Target, Peak, Goi]

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 12124 4 of 39 more diverse set of forest-based businesses, including food, renewable energy, ecotourism, agroforestry, non-timber forest products (NTFPs), and environmental services The Government of Indonesia (GoI) has ratified the Paris Agreement (PA) and committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 29% unilaterally and 41% with international cooperation compared to a business-as-usual (BAU) scenario by 2030. The low-carbon scenario compatible with the Paris Agreement target (LCCP) presented by the GoI outlines a long-term vision for creating low-carbon, climate-resilient development. Under the LCCP, emissions from the energy sector will slow down, and the previously net-emitting forestry and other land-use (FoLU) sector will become a net sink by 2030. Under this scenario, greenhouse gas emissions should peak at 1240 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO 2 e) by 2030, before progressively declining to 540 MtCO 2 e by 2050, with net zero emissions anticipated by 2060 [ 28 ]. Spatial template analysis results show that 10.48 million hectares of natural forest across the various forest functions and outside the forest area are at high risk of deforestation [ 28 ]. Under the LCCP scenario, as only 6.8 million hectares of natural forest can be converted before 2050, natural forest conversion needs to be kept as low as possible in order for Indonesia to achieve its net zero emissions target 3. Ecosystem Services Potential of Indonesia’s Forests Forest ecosystems provide society with a wide range of services. However, many of these ecosystem services are either undervalued or have no financial value at all. Numerous ecosystem structures and functions are being fundamentally undermined as a result of the frequent emphasis on immediate financial returns in day-to-day decisions [ 29 , 30 ]. Understanding the trade-offs between ecosystem services is critical to planning strategic and cost-effective interventions [ 31 ]. However, finding the optimum balance between extraction from a forest ecosystem for one ES and the sustainable provision of others remains a major challenge for forest managers and policymakers [ 32 ]. Sustainable forest management is aimed at enhancing biodiversity levels and supporting the provision of forest services Ecosystem services have been popularized and formalized through the United Nations Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2004, which defined four categories of ecosystem services that contribute to human well-being, each underpinned by biodiversity. These are provisioning services, regulating services, supporting services, and cultural services [ 29 ]: • Provisioning services are the products obtained from ecosystems for the benefit of humans, including food and fiber; fuel; genetic resources; biochemicals, natural medicines, and pharmaceuticals; ornamental resources; and fresh water [ 29 ]; • Regulating services are ES that protect the Earth from disasters, such as floods, landslides, and disease, and ensure the implementation of ecosystem protection services and the provision of other ES [ 29 ]; • Supporting services are defined as intermediate services generated through the ecosystem’s internal functions, which neither deliver any products nor alter any environmental conditions that people can use instantaneously [ 33 ]; • Cultural services are defined as the non-material benefits people obtain from ecosystems through spiritual and religious enrichment, cognitive development, recreation and ecotourism, aesthetics, inspiration, education, a sense of place, and cultural heritage [ 29 ]. 3.1. Supporting Services 3.1.1. Habitat Provisioning Indonesia’s tropical forests play an essential role in providing habitats for rich biodiversity, from both flora and fauna to low-level life forms such as microbes. Indonesia’s forests are habitats for a multitude of rare and protected species, such as the carrion flower ( Amorphophallus titanium Becc) [ 34 ], Agathis borneensis [ 35 ], Dipterocarpus spp. [ 36 ], and Nepenthes spp. [ 37 ]. In addition, the majority of Indonesia’s forests are biodiversity hotspots for primates, butterflies, birds, and others [ 38 – 42 ].

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Bear, Sugar, Fish, Plant, Buhler, List, Act, Evidence, Gene, Tiger, Bird, Vital, Pine, Fruit, Mango, Aceh, Gardens, Taro, Genes, Coffee, Rat, Red, Living, Ssp, Due, Goods, Cane, Javan, Knowledge, Hawk, Rhino, Study, Durian, Small, Quality, Eagle, Bos, Bali]

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 12124 5 of 39 Indonesia’s tropical forests also constitute habitats for endemic wildlife classified as rare and protected, including the Sumatran elephant [ 43 , 44 ]; the Sumatran tiger [ 45 ]; the Sumatran rhino [ 46 ]; the Javan rhino [ 47 ]; marsupials, such as the bear cuscus [ 48 ]; small mammals, such as Nycticebus javanicus , Cynocephalus variegates , Petaurista peturista , and Petinomys sp. [ 49 ]; and rare and protected endemic primates, such as orangutans and proboscis monkeys [ 50 ]. Its forest areas are also habitats for birds, such as the Javan hawk eagle [ 51 ]; rare and protected reptiles, such as Leucocephalon yuwonoi [ 52 ]; and endemic fish, such as Melanotaenia arfakensis [ 53 ], as well as for a diversity of fungi [ 54 – 56 ] and bacteria [ 57 – 59 ]. History also records several wildlife species that have become extinct due to the loss of functioning habitats in various forest ecosystems in Indonesia. The IUCN Red List lists various extinct species in Indonesia, including: Panthera tigris ssp sondaica (Javan tiger), Panthera tigris ssp balica (Bali tiger), Macrobrachium leptodactylus (freshwater shrimps), and Coryphomys buehleri (Buhler’s rat) [ 60 ]. 3.1.2. Protection of Germplasm Studies on germplasm in Indonesia are limited to the types of plants and animals used by communities; for example, sugar cane [ 61 ], Indonesian taro ( Colocasia sp.) [ 62 ], and Aceh cattle [ 63 ]. However, Indonesia’s tropical forests play essential roles as the source of, and in storing and protecting, germplasm and genetic diversity in various genes between and within species populations. The high diversity of niches found in tropical forests results in the high endemicity of Indonesia’s biodiversity. Therefore, Indonesia’s forests also act as gene pools for many endemic species not found elsewhere on Earth. This wealth can support the development of various cultivars that can adapt well to the tropical conditions in Indonesia and become gene pools for developing commercial crops and livestock The majority of studies on germplasm originating from Indonesian forests focus more on the role of forests as sources of plant germplasm for non-timber forest product plant species [ 64 ]; medicinal plant species [ 65 , 66 ]; plant species as food sources [ 67 , 68 ]; and fruit plants, such as mango [ 69 ] and durian [ 70 ], as well as sources of germplasm for ornamental plant species, such as orchids [ 71 , 72 ]. Though relatively sparse, several studies have looked at the role of forests in animal species germplasm, especially certain bird species [ 73 ], as well as Bos javanicus [ 74 ] and Dicerorhinus sumatrensis [ 75 ]. 3.1.3. Soil Formation Very few studies have focused specifically on researching supporting services for soil formation. However, some have provided information on forests’ essential role in soil formation. One study, for example, compared the soil quality of natural forest, pine forest, and grassland land-cover types in the Curug Cilember sub-watershed [ 76 ]. In addition, several studies have examined changes in soil physical properties due to changes in forest land cover or forest degradation. Examples include changes in soil physical properties due to land cover changes in candlenut forest, agroforestry land, and secondary forest [ 77 ]; in forests converted to monoculture coffee plantations [ 78 , 79 ] or mixed gardens [ 80 , 81 ]; and in physical properties and soil fertility due to fires in forested areas [ 82 – 84 ]. Although these studies do not explicitly mention the role of forest ecosystems in soil formation in regard to ecosystem services, they have contributed to knowledge about the roles and functions of forest ecosystems in protecting soils and provided scientific evidence of reductions in soil quality when there are changes to or a decline in the quality of a forest ecosystem Soil is the foundation of terrestrial ecosystems. Soil and its functions are essential for the provision of ecosystem goods and services [ 85 ], including food and biomass production; habitats for living things and gene pools (biodiversity); air and climate regulation; energy supply; and carbon pools [ 86 – 90 ]. Consequently, soil formation as an ecosystem service is vital for the sustainability of an ecosystem’s functions.

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Foods, Trees, Floor, Western, Key, North, Peat, East, Parent, Central, Turn, Diet, Rain, Year, Palm, Web, Mount, Plays, Idr, Siak, Apit]

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 12124 6 of 39 Soil formation is the result of a complex network of biological, chemical, and physical processes. It is influenced by relief (terrain), parent material, climate, geography, and organisms [ 86 , 91 ]. Biological activity in soil formation mainly involves the roles of organisms, especially microbes [ 92 ]. The presence of decomposer microbes (bacteria and fungi) affects the rate of decomposition [ 93 , 94 ] and has an impact on the formation of topsoil A study in Sumatra showed that microbial biomass (bacteria and fungi) and amoeba densities were higher in tropical rain forests than in rubber and oil palm plantations and affected rates of litter decomposition [ 95 ]. In Central Kalimantan, natural peat swamp forests showed higher species richness for microbial, decomposers such as Acidobacteria, Actinobacteria, and Proteobacteria, than disturbed peat forests [ 96 ]. Abundant microbial decomposers, including Bacillus, Plesiomonas, Corynebacterium, Enterobacteria, Aeromonas, Micrococcus, and Clostridium, were also found in mangrove forest sediments in North Kalimantan [ 97 ]. The major kinds of soil microbial decomposers (Bacillus, Aspergillus, Pseudomonas, and Streptomycetes) were also more abundant in the secondary forest than in other land-cover types on the western slope of Mount Bromo [ 98 ]. As the presence of these decomposer microbes in various forest types certainly plays a crucial role in carbon and nitrogen cycles in soil formation, microbial communities can be considered architects of soil and many ecosystem services linked to forest ecosystems 3.1.4. Soil Fertility and Nutrient Cycling Soil fertility plays a vital role in forest ecosystems. Forest soil fertility affects the growth and development of trees, which in turn impacts forest functions, including food provision, carbon sinks, regulating water systems, etc. [ 99 , 100 ]. As soil fertility always relates to the availability of nutrients that can guarantee plant growth, nutrient cycling can maintain soil fertility [ 101 ]. Nutrient cycling is a key ecosystem service that contributes to supporting life on Earth [ 102 ]. Thus, soil fertility and nutrient cycling affect the provision of other ES that support human existence. A valuation of soil fertility and nutrient cycles in tropical forests in East Kalimantan showed a benefit value of USD 214,000 per year [ 103 ]. Microorganisms (bacteria, fungi, actinomycetes, etc.) play a key role in soil fertility, including its maintenance, and they are also critical mediators of this ecosystem service. Some prominent nutrient cycling processes include nitrogen fixation by rhizobacteria [ 104 , 105 ]; phosphorus acquisition by mycorrhizal fungi and phosphate-solubilizing bacteria [ 106 , 107 ]; and litter decomposition and mineralization by decomposer bacteria [ 108 ]. The existence and diversity of these soil microbes in forest soils directly affects plant diversity, ecosystem variability, and productivity When evaluated, the availability of nitrogen and phosphate in the soil due to the nutrient-cycling process involving microbes provides considerable economic value. One study showed the beneficial value of nitrogen and phosphate availability in the soil in Ethiopian grasslands to be USD 102 per hectare annually [ 109 ]. The nutrient cycle, as a major function of mangrove ecosystems, is very important for the production of nutrition, which also contributes to the stability of the food web. One study showed the economic value of a mangrove ecosystem in Sungai Apit Sub-district, Siak District, Riau Province, Indonesia, as a nutrient feeder to be IDR 767,350,075 annually [ 110 ]. Likewise, soil organic carbon from the decomposition of litter on the forest floor also has significant value. One study showed the soil organic carbon value in the Pinus densiflora forest on Mount Namsam, Seoul, to be KRW 19,467,000 per hectare [ 111 ]. 3.2. Provisioning Services 3.2.1. Foods Food and diet are rooted in the context of geographical, cultural, and socio-economic diversity [ 112 ]. Indonesian forests provide sources of nutrition, including essential carbohydrates, vitamins, minerals, and fiber [ 113 ]. In addition, forest foods are often involved in cultural ceremonies or traditional rituals [ 114 ].

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Kiri, Longa, Lombok, Roots, Nusa, Seem, Canna, Vines, Bark, Malay, Table, Cuisine, Flowers, Cepa, Still, Moyo, Parts, Tree, Common]

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 12124 7 of 39 Studies on food ethnobotany in various regions throughout Indonesia (Table 1 ) only describe a portion of the food potential provided by forests in Indonesia, considering that the use of forest products as food is still largely underreported. Species used by communities for food can come in the form of trees, shrubs, herbs, vines, and fungi. People use such species for staple foods, secondary foods, spices and seasoning, fruits, vegetables, and beverage ingredients The plant parts used for foods are diverse and include fruits, leaves, flowers, stems, seeds, tubers, roots, and rhizomes. Fresh fruits seem to be the major parts used for direct consumption. Several well-known species commonly reported in almost all Indonesian regions include Lansium parasitum , Durio zibethinus , Nephelium lappaceum , Lansium domesticum , and Artocarpus heterophyllus [ 115 – 117 ]. Other species also reported in specific regions include Averrhoa carambola in Central Sulawesi [ 115 ]; Garcinia atroviridis , Molineria latifolia , Baccaurea motleyana , and Baccaurea motleyana in Kampar Kiri Hulu, Riau [ 116 ]; and Streblus asper , Protium javanicum , and Phyllanthus acidus in West Nusa Tenggara [ 118 ]. Species consumed both as fresh fruits and seeds include Artocarpus spp. ( A. altilis , A. elasticus , A. integer ) and Durio zibethinus [ 113 ]. Tuber species are among the carbohydrate-rich plants consumed in many Indonesian regions. In Central Sulawesi, people are familiar with consuming Manihot esculenta , Ipomea batatas , and Calocasia monlalon [ 115 ]. People on Moyo island, West Nusa Tenggara even consume Dioscorea hispida , Xanthosoma sagittifolium , and Manihot esculenta as their staple foods, in addition to other non-tuber plants, such as Cycas rumphii and Inocarpus fagifer [ 118 ]. People in Papua also consume the tubers of Ipomoea batatas , Xanthosoma viollaceum and Canna edulis as their staple and alternative foods [ 119 ]. The leaves of herbs commonly consumed as vegetables include Calamus sp. and Diplazium esculentum among Malay communities in Riau [ 116 ] and Brassica oleracea , Ocimum basilicum , and Sauropus androgynus in Lombok [ 120 ]. Vegetables from some plant species are also common in Sundanese and Javanese communities, where they are usually consumed in the form of fresh leaves called “ lalab ” or “ lalab atah ”. Among such species are Helicia robusta , Schefflera aromatica , and Symplocos fasciculata [ 121 ]. Various parts of plants are traditionally utilized for spices, seasoning, and condiments People have been familiar for generations with using well-known herbs, such as the bulbs of Allium sativum and Allium cepa ; rhizomes of zingiberaceae (e.g., Zingiber officinale , Curcuma longa , and Alpinia galanga ); and fruits of Amomum uliinosum [ 116 , 122 ]. In addition, tree parts also used in the cuisine of Indonesian communities include the fruits of Tamarindus indica [ 118 ], Myristica fragrans , Sindora sumatrana [ 120 ], Litsea cubeba [ 113 ], Aleurites moluccanus , and Garcinia atroviridis [ 122 ]; the leaves of Syzygium polyanthum [ 120 ] and Premna serratifolia [ 122 ]; the stems of Sesamum indicum [ 118 ] and Alyxia stellata [ 120 ]; the bark of Cinnamomum verum [ 120 ]; the seeds of Sesamum indicum [ 118 ]; and the flowers of Syzygium aromaticum [ 120 ]. Some of these tree species have been domesticated, with their products becoming widely commercialized in markets.

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Utami, South, Local, Rosalia, Wild, Madjid, Sukabumi, Mulu, Matthews, Prasetyo, Ashrafuzzaman, Staples, Jumari, Siregar, Sasak, Purwanto, Ilman, Hakim, Kaili, Rahayu, Panjang, Location, Sigi, Young]

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 12124 8 of 39 Table 1. Examples of traditional uses of forest foods based on ethnobotanical studies in various regions in Indonesia No. No. of Species/Families Location Users Habitus Parts Used Uses Plant Category Source 1 56 species, 19 families South Aceh District, Aceh Province Local communities Trees Fruits, young shoots, seeds Secondary food, fruits, vegetables, spices, beverages Wild and cultivated Suwardi, Zidni Ilman, Tisna, Syamsuardi, and Erizal [ 113 ] 2 85 species, 37 families Pasaman District, West Sumatra Province Minangkabau and Mandailing communities Trees, shrubs Fruits, leaves, seeds, stems/shoots tubers, flowers Starchy staples, fresh fruits, vegetables Wild Pawera, et al. [ 123 ] 3 76 species, 35 families Kampar Kiri Hulu, Riau Province Malay communities Trees, shrubs, herbs Fruits, stems, rhizomes, leaves, bulbs Secondary food ingredients, vegetables, fruits, spices Wild and cultivated Susandarini, Khasanah, and Rosalia [ 116 ] 4 39 species Lowland forest of Sukabumi, West Java Province Local communities Trees, shrubs, herbs Fruits, leaves, tubers Secondary food, fresh fruits, vegetables Wild and cultivated Rahayu, Susiarti, and Sihotang [ 121 ] 5 19 species Pulau Panjang Protection Forest, Jepara, Central Java Province Local communities Trees, shrubs Fruits, tubers, leaves, shoots Fresh fruits, vegetables, seasoning Wild Utami [ 124 ] 6 21 species Kampung Birang and Kampung Merabu of Berau District, East Kalimantan Province Local communities Trees Fruits, leaves, young leaves Secondary food, fresh fruits, vegetables Wild and cultivated Hartoyo, Supriyanto, Siregar, Theilade, and Prasetyo [ 117 ] 7 111 species, 43 families Lombok island, West Nusa Tenggara Province Ethnic Sasak communities Trees, shrubs, herbs, vines, fungi Fruits, stems, tubers, leaves, flowers, seeds, bulbs Secondary food, fruits, vegetables, spices, beverages Wild, semicultivated, cultivated Sukenti, Hakim, Indriyani, Purwanto, and Matthews [ 120 ] 8 20 species Moyo Island, West Nusa Tenggara Province Ethnic Brangkuah communities Trees, shrubs, herbs Fruits, leaves, tubers, seeds Staple foods, fresh fruits, vegetables, food seasoning Wild and cultivated Trimanto, Danarto, and Ashrafuzzaman [ 118 ] 9 32 species, 20 families Mbeliling Forest Area, East Nusa Tenggara Province Local communities Trees, shrubs, herbs Fruits, stems, tubers, leaves, bulbs Food and drink Wild and cultivated Mulu, et al. [ 125 ] 10 39 species Mantikole village, Sigi District, Central Sulawesi Province Ethnic Kaili Inde communities Trees, shrubs Fruits, bulbs, leaves, roots, rhizomes Staple food, secondary food, fresh fruits, vegetables Wild and cultivated Fathurahman, Nursanto, Madjid, and Ramadanil [ 115 ] 11 53 species, 31 families Menawi village, Yapen District, Papua Province Ethnic Ampari communities Trees, shrubs, fungi Fruits, seeds, flowers, bulbs, leaves, tubers, stems Staple food, secondary food, seasonings, fresh fruits, vegetables, spices, beverage ingredients Wild and cultivated Waroy, Utami, and Jumari [ 119 ]

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Tora, Meet, Rice, Aim, Raw, Pay, Data, Jamu, Post, Grow, Need]

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 12124 9 of 39 However, Indonesia will face food security challenges in the coming decades [ 112 ] and, despite its vast land area, Indonesia imports two million tons of rice from other countries annually [ 126 ]. Therefore, it is important for Indonesia, a country of 271 million people, to integrate ecosystem services into food security plans and poverty reduction strategies [ 127 – 129 ]. The issue of national food security is also included in the global agenda through the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Indonesia’s Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MoEF) is mandated to support national priority program number four, which relates to food, water, energy, and environmental security [ 130 ]. In addition, in 2020, MoEF and the Ministry of National Development Planning (Bappenas) incorporated a 10 year Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP) framework through SCP Indonesia 2020–2030, which includes climate change, water efficiency, and food resources [ 26 ]. To implement its mandate to support food security, MoEF has established major programs, including the Food Estate (FE), Agrarian Land Reform (TORA), and Social Forestry (SF) programs (Table 2 ). Table 2. Government programs in the forestry sector to support food security Program Target Realization Food Estate Establishing food estates in four provinces: Central Kalimantan, Papua, North Sumatra, and South Sumatra The program was underway in 115 villages, 50 sub-districts and two districts/municipalities in the four provinces in 2020 Agrarian Land Reform (TORA) 4.1 million ha 2.6 million ha in 2020 Social Forestry 12.7 million ha 1.7 million ha in 2020 Source: Tabulation of data taken from Ministry of Environment and Forestry [ 26 ]. The government has established the FE program as a leading agenda in its efforts towards post-COVID-19 national economic recovery. FE preparation activities aim to meet four targets, including providing forest area land for food production. By 2020, the FE program was reportedly already underway in 4 provinces (Central Kalimantan, Papua, North Sumatra, and South Sumatra), covering 115 villages, 50 sub-districts, and 2 districts/municipalities [ 130 ]. Although government programs, such as the FE SF programs and agroforestry, are aimed, among other things, at optimizing forests’ capacity to provide food, they need to pay attention to potential associated risks. For example, legalizing the use of protection forests for FE programs has the potential to increase greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation [ 131 ] and wildfires [ 132 ] and threaten native biodiversity through the use of exotic plants [ 133 ]. Therefore, the FE program needs to consider utilizing unproductive lands, maintaining tree-based land cover through agroforestry, and using low-risk local species 3.2.2. Medicines and Biochemicals Many medicines; biocides; food additives, such as alginates; and biological materials are derived from ecosystems [ 29 ]. The use of natural products in the pharmaceutical industry has fluctuated widely. Medicinal plants continue to play an important role in healthcare systems in many parts of the world. Approximately 50% of prescription medicines were originally discovered in plants [ 29 ]. Approximately 80% of the world’s human population relies on traditional medicine, which involves the use of plant extracts [ 134 ]. Rural communities in Indonesia continue to rely on locally prepared indigenous traditional medicines or jamu made from plant materials [ 135 ]. As a country rich in biodiversity, Indonesia has many plant species with potential uses as raw materials for the pharmaceutical industry [ 136 , 137 ]. Around 80% of the world’s medicinal plants grow in Indonesia [ 138 ]. Approximately 30% of the 25,000 plant species in Indonesia’s ecosystems are known to have medicinal properties, while only 4% are cultivated. Indonesia’s 7500 medicinal plant species account for around 10% of the world’s total. The potential value of pharmacochemical medicinal plants in Indonesia is around USD 14.6 billion or more than IDR 150 trillion [ 139 ].

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Log, Choice, Mix, Wood, Europe, Badan, Ever, Comes, Bio, Price, Woody, Able, Seven]

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 12124 10 of 39 Indonesia’s Medicine and Food Supervisory Agency, or Badan Pengawas Obat dan Makanan (BPOM), classifies traditional medicines as jamu , standardized herbal medicines, and scientifically proven phytopharmaca products [ 137 ]. Jamu covers a variety of Indonesian traditional remedies made from natural materials, such as roots, flowers, leaves, and fruits. Around 350 factories produce packaged jamu and export their products to more than a dozen countries in Asia and Europe [ 135 ]. 3.2.3. Biofuels Biofuels refer to fuels in which energy is derived from photosynthesis, including woody materials, plant carbohydrates, vegetable oils, and crop seeds [ 140 ]. Forest biofuel harvesting is an example of a provisioning ecosystem service, and biofuel production from forest biomass will directly or indirectly affect ecosystem services [ 141 ]. The factors affecting biofuel production are biophysical conditions (climate, soil), biofuel choice (species), management (harvested wild or cultivated), and societal factors (biofuel policies, demand, market price). Benefits from biofuels include avoiding the use of fossil fuels, avoiding GHG emissions, and increasing incomes and employment from biofuel production and the consumption of energy generated from biofuels [ 140 ]. Biofuels can contribute to solving global energy and economic crises, both as a sustainable energy source and by promoting economic development, especially in rural areas of developing countries. Bioenergy production is also promoted as an energy security and climate change mitigation strategy [ 142 ]. However, enhancing ecosystem services via biofuel crops may result in environmental impacts (e.g., changes in habitat or biodiversity quality, changes in soil and air quality, changes in water quality and quantity, changes in productivity, and the local introduction or elimination of species) [ 143 ]. Consequently, trade-offs between biofuels and environmental resources are inevitable [ 144 ], though enhancing ecosystem services via biofuels can be achieved through location-specific designs of bioenergy systems [ 143 ]. Tropical forests produce abundant biomass that can be used in the production of biofuels as another potential ecosystem service. This biomass has not been utilized optimally and becomes unprocessed waste. To help reduce dependence on fossil fuels—an ever-depleting resource—using forest biomass for biofuel has the potential to reduce global emissions from forest decomposition processes and from forest fires In the Indonesian context, forest biomass can potentially support the country’s fossilbased and renewable energy mix. The government has set targets for renewables to make up 23% of the energy mix by 2025 and 31% by 2050. The mandatory targets for biofuel use in various sectors are presented in Table 3 . Forestry residues from forest operations in seven large islands in 2014 were predicted to be able to produce almost 300 MW of bioenergy [ 145 ]. Logging waste in native forests creates biomass ranging from 20% to 40% of the intact wood stands [ 146 ]. This biomass comes from tree stumps, broken logs, and remaining tree branches up to 10 cm in diameter. If the average annual log production from Indonesia’s native forests is 28 million m 3 [ 147 ], those native forests also have the potential to produce approximately 11.2 million m 3 of biomass per year, which could be used in biofuel production Meanwhile, based on FAO and Global Forest Resources Assessment datasets, Suntana, et al. [ 148 ] estimated annual forest biomass potential to be 5000 to 11,000 million megagrams (Mg) and then calculated potential bio-methanol production from that forest biomass using three estimations, as presented in Table 3 . Moreover, total biomass potential, including from agriculture, is presented in Figure 2 .

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Park, Ulu, Cen, Bel, Vogt, Alu, Sum, Wes, Itu, Diy, Dry, Agro, Kal, Esi, Lawes, Kalim, Viral, Early, Banten, Watt]

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 12124 11 of 39 Sustainability 2022 , 14 , x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 42 Table 3. The potential of forest biomass and bioethanol production from production forests and other land-use areas with tree cover in Indonesia. Aboveground Biomass (Wet) * (Mg × 1,000,000) Aboveground Biomass (Dry) (Mg × 1,000,000) Amount of Forest Biomass Collected Annually (Dry) (Mg × 1,000,000) Biomass to Biomethanol Conversion Efficiency (%) Total Bio-methanol Produced from Forest Biomass Collected Annually (L × 1,000,000) Total Electrical Energy Produced from Biomass Harvested (Total Gigawatts) 5083 2542 127 25 40,029 41,697 50 80,057 83,393 540 2705 135 25 42,604 44,379 50 85,208 88,758 10,726 5363 268 25 84,467 87,978 50 168,935 175,973 * Aboveground biomass that can be harvested from production forest (natural and plantation forest) and from other land-use areas with tree cover in Mg (Megagrams). Source: Modified from Suntana, Vogt, Turnblom, and Upadhye [148]. Figure 1. Distribution of biomass-based energy potential (MW) by province in Indonesia based on data from [149,150]. 3.2.4. Genetic Material Genetic diversity is one form of biodiversity and encompasses plant, animal, and microbial genetic materials. Genetic diversity in plants, animals, and microbes is important in enhancing ecosystem services. Genetic diversity contributes to agricultural productivity as a source of disease or pest resistance and of higher-yielding varieties/breeds. Genetic diversity helps with climate change impact adaptation through the provision of early-maturing and drought and moisture stress-resistant genotypes. Microbial genetic diversity is vast and widely used in agriculture, industry, food processing, and medicine [151]. Microbial diversity, which represents collections of genes [152], is closely related to ecosystem function. Therefore, microbial genetic diversity is an important environmental service provision of forests in Indonesia. A total of 22 selected isolates of lipolytic bacteria from natural forests in Bukit Duabelas National Park were isolated and identified using a 16 rRNA gene analysis [153]. Enzymes produced by lipolytic bacteria are important in the food, biodiesel, pharmaceutical, and agro-aquaculture industries. As many as 1000 types 1137 2796 923 2061 4157 12 1821 633 1408 218 1 1980 1884 2851 347 183 147 341 193 28 24 198 307 890 150 133 119 1279 1487 1266 947 81 51 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 Aceh No rth S u m atera Wes t Sum atera South S um atera Riau Riau Islands Jambi Be ng k ulu Lampung Bangka Bel itu ng DKI Jakart a Wes t Java Cen tr al Java East Java Banten DIY Bali NTB NTT No rth M alu ku Maluku Wes t Sulawesi Cen tr al Sulawesi South S ulawes i No rth S u law esi South E as t S u lawes i G o rontalo Wes t Kal im antan Cen tr al Kal im antan South Kalim antan East/North Kalim antan Papua Wes t P ap ua Mega watt Figure 2. Distribution of biomass-based energy potential (MW) by province in Indonesia based on data from [ 149 , 150 ]. Table 3. The potential of forest biomass and bioethanol production from production forests and other land-use areas with tree cover in Indonesia Aboveground Biomass (Wet) * (Mg × 1,000,000) Aboveground Biomass (Dry) (Mg × 1,000,000) Amount of Forest Biomass Collected Annually (Dry) (Mg × 1,000,000) Biomass to Bio-Methanol Conversion Efficiency (%) Total Bio-Methanol Produced from Forest Biomass Collected Annually (L × 1,000,000) Total Electrical Energy Produced from Biomass Harvested (Total Gigawatts) 5083 2542 127 25 40,029 41,697 50 80,057 83,393 540 2705 135 25 42,604 44,379 50 85,208 88,758 10,726 5363 268 25 84,467 87,978 50 168,935 175,973 * Aboveground biomass that can be harvested from production forest (natural and plantation forest) and from other land-use areas with tree cover in Mg (Megagrams). Source: Modified from Suntana, Vogt, Turnblom, and Upadhye [ 148 ]. 3.2.4. Genetic Material Genetic diversity is one form of biodiversity and encompasses plant, animal, and microbial genetic materials. Genetic diversity in plants, animals, and microbes is important in enhancing ecosystem services. Genetic diversity contributes to agricultural productivity as a source of disease or pest resistance and of higher-yielding varieties/breeds. Genetic diversity helps with climate change impact adaptation through the provision of earlymaturing and drought and moisture stress-resistant genotypes. Microbial genetic diversity is vast and widely used in agriculture, industry, food processing, and medicine [ 151 ]. Microbial diversity, which represents collections of genes [ 152 ], is closely related to ecosystem function. Therefore, microbial genetic diversity is an important environmental service provision of forests in Indonesia. A total of 22 selected isolates of lipolytic bacteria from natural forests in Bukit Duabelas National Park were isolated and identified using a 16 rRNA gene analysis [ 153 ]. Enzymes produced by lipolytic bacteria are important in the food, biodiesel, pharmaceutical, and agro-aquaculture industries. As many as 1000 types of actinomyces, which are important for global medicine as they are sources of anti-tumor, anti-viral, anti-bacterial, anti-fungal, and anti-protozoa metabolites, have been isolated from

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Borders, Real, Less, Own, Waters, Rivers, Nickel, Lakes, Power, Size, Situ, Back, Right, Flow]

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 12124 12 of 39 various ecosystems in Indonesia [ 154 ]. Bacterial isolation and identification by analysis of the 16 rRNA genes in the rhizosphere of 10 nickel-hyperaccumulator tree species in the nickel-mining area of Halmahera island resulted in 40 bacterial phyla, which indicates that these bacteria play an important role in nickel uptake by hyperaccumulator nickel tree species [ 155 ]. Plant genetic resources for food and agriculture, and crop and crop-associated biodiversity (PGRFA-CCAB), are affected by many factors, including globalization, climate change, desertification, loss of biodiversity, food security, food prices, movement of pests and diseases across borders, use of energy and biofuels, land-use change, poverty, and economic imbalances between developing and industrialized countries [ 156 ]. There are four types of value that can be delivered by ecosystem services: utilitarian, functional, intrinsic, and serependic [ 157 ]. Utilitarian value refers to the benefits derived directly by society from the use of species or their genes as inputs into consumption and production processes. Functional value refers to the contribution made by diversity to supporting ecosystem functions and preserving ecological structure and integrity. Intrinsic value refers to the value that biodiversity has in its own right, and comprises the cultural, social, aesthetic, and ethical benefits of biodiversity. Finally, serependic value refers to the possible future—but unknown—value of biodiversity [ 156 ]. 3.2.5. Fresh Water Water is essential for producing food and energy, and human well-being depends on the products and services provided by water [ 158 ]. Water is fundamental to all ecosystem benefits, including agricultural production. Forests and trees play a critical role in providing adequate water supply for human consumption, agriculture irrigation, and the alimentation of lakes and rivers on which inland fisheries depend, all of which are essential for food security and nutrition [ 159 , 160 ]. Generally, the value of water-flow regulation by forest ecosystems is not realized in situ, but it may be spatially transferred through rivers to other places outside watersheds, such as electricity generated from hydroelectric power plants [ 161 ]. Aquatic ecosystems (rivers, lakes, groundwater, coastal waters, oceans) provide important, directly measurable, valued ecosystem services, such as fish production, water supply, and recreation. Ecosystems also provide regulatory services in the hydrological cycle in watersheds, such as water purification, water retention, and climate regulation. Although these regulatory services are less visible, they must be considered in the sustainable use and management of water resources [ 162 ]. Indonesia has a large and abundant water resource potential [ 163 , 164 ]. Total water availability in Indonesia is 690 × 10 9 m 3 per year, exceeding the country’s demand of 175 × 10 9 m 3 per year [ 165 ]. Indonesia’s water resources cover almost 6% of all water resources on Earth and almost 21% of all water resources in the Asia–Pacific region. However, water availability is not distributed evenly across all regions of Indonesia. The island of Java has 60% of Indonesia’s total population, but only 10% of its water reserves. In contrast, Kalimantan, which has 30% of Indonesia’s water reserves, has only 6% of its population, while Papua has 70% of its water reserves and only 1.3% of its population [ 166 , 167 ]. Java is likely to experience a water crisis due to the imbalance between its water availability and population size [ 167 , 168 ]. 3.3. Regulating Services 3.3.1. Water Regulation Forest ecosystems play a very real role in regulating the hydrological cycle [ 169 ]. The hydrological cycle is the continuous circulation of water from the atmosphere to the Earth’s surface and back to the atmosphere through the processes of condensation, precipitation, evaporation, and transpiration The roles of forest ecosystems in regulating the hydrological cycle are as follows [ 170 ]:

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Drain, Unique, Body, Cop, Matter, Root, Ability, Deep, Person, Junaidi, Cress, Fixed, River, Combat, Glasgow, Season]

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 12124 13 of 39 • Reducing or partially returning water reserves that already exist on Earth through the processes of evapotranspiration and the storing/consumption of water for the formation and growth of vegetation body tissue; • Adding water droplets to the atmosphere; • As a controller for the fall of rain directly to the Earth’s surface through the processes of interception, through flow, and stem flow; • As a reducer of the kinetic energy of water flow on the forest floor through surface resistance from stems at the ground level and due to litter on the ground surface; • As an impetus towards improving the ability of the physical characteristics of soil by absorbing water through root systems, adding organic matter, or increasing biological activity in the soil Community expectations for the role of forest ecosystems in controlling the water cycle remain high. These expectations are based on the large numbers of water sources in and around forest areas, which continue to drain water during the dry season. Suryatmojo [ 171 ] reported that a pine forest area in the Mount Rahtawu watershed in Wonogiri District, Central Java, with a catchment area of 101.79 ha and rainfall ranging from 2900 to 3500 mm/year, is able to produce potential surface water resources of 2,232,000 cubic meters/year. This area is also capable of producing a fixed discharge of 2–67 L/second that is always available for use. From this potential alone, it can be predicted that the pine forest in the area is able to support 900–2000 people around it who, on average, need 122 L of clean water/person/year The role of forest ecosystems in regulating river flow, both flow discharge and sediment discharge, has also been reported by Junaidi and Tarigan [ 172 ], who examined the role of forest ecosystem cover on river flow and sedimentation processes in a watershed The study’s simulations from several scenarios show that a decrease in forest area can increase discharge and surface runoff, whereas an increase in forest area would increase soil infiltration and evapotranspiration 3.3.2. Climate Regulation Forests play a key role in the global carbon cycle, absorbing carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) from the atmosphere, storing it in wood as they grow, and releasing it back into the atmosphere when trees are burned or decomposed. Thus, the forest and land-use sector is unique because it can act as a carbon source or carbon sink. Around 30% of global carbon emissions are caused by deforestation and agricultural practices [ 173 ], which greatly affect the maintenance of climate regulation ecosystem services (CRESs), which are important measures to combat climate change [ 174 ]. Climate regulation is an ecosystem service that regulates the atmosphere’s chemical composition, the ozone layer, rainfall, air quality, temperature patterns, and weather [ 175 ]. Reforestation and afforestation to restore forest cover inside and outside the forest area, respectively, are real examples of combatting climate change [ 174 , 176 , 177 ]. Under its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) following the Paris Agreement in 2016, the Government of Indonesia has pledged to reduce GHG emissions by 29% unconditionally and by up to 41% with international assistance during the 2020–2030 period [ 26 ]. During the COP 26 forum in Glasgow, Indonesia committed to achieving its 2030 NDC target by implementing a low-carbon climate resilience (LCCP) scenario compatible with the Paris Agreement and to becoming a forest and other land-use (FoLU) net sink by 2060, with its main commitments involving reducing deforestation rates, reducing GHG emissions from the forestry sector, and undertaking other concrete climate actions 3.3.3. Erosion Regulation Soil erosion is a natural process that occurs over geologic time, and the majority of erosion-related concerns pertain to accelerated erosion, the natural rate of which has been significantly increased by human activity [ 178 ]. Vegetative cover plays an important role in soil retention and in preventing landslides. In addition, deep-rooted trees and shrubs

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Hunting, Ways, Barrier, Abode, Wisdom, Savanna, Tribe, Peoples, Hold, Sasi, Six, Kaur, Anim, Far, Rise, Arts, Mass, Tana, Believe, Given, Deer, Full, Laws, Grass, Kei]

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 12124 14 of 39 can reduce the occurrence of shallow erosion by strengthening the shallow soil layer and improving drainage [ 179 ]. Trees in forest ecosystems play an important role in reducing the risk of landslides Rows of trees and roots above the soil surface help reduce soil erosion by functioning as an effective barrier to surface runoff, which causes reduced soil-carrying capacity. Conversely, in areas with high rainfall, trees and forests can also increase the risk of landslides by increasing the soil mass load due to subsurface water saturation, especially on very steep slopes 3.4. Cultural Services 3.4.1. Cultural Diversity Indonesia has very diverse forest ecosystems, where each type has given rise to cultures with characteristics that reflect the ecosystems inhabited by their people. For example, ethnic Dayak communities living in swamp forests and peat swamp forest ecosystems in Kalimantan have unique ways of life, habits, beliefs, local wisdom, arts, and customs [ 180 ]. Further examples are the ethnic Marind and Kanuum tribes living around the peat swamp forests and savanna in Wasur National Park, Papua, who have their own distinctive local cultures and a hereditary tradition of burning the savanna during the dry season to stimulate grass regrowth and attract deer to the area [ 181 ]. 3.4.2. Spiritual and Religious Values Forests in Indonesia occupy essential spiritual and religious positions for communities, and especially for indigenous peoples, some of whom still hold the traditional beliefs that certain areas of forest, where entry is forbidden, are sacred and must be protected. One such example is the indigenous Ammatoa community in Kajang adat village, Bulukumba, South Sulawesi, whose distinctive culture and beliefs have kept their customary forest area in pristine condition until today [ 182 ]. In Papua, the Malind-Anim tribe also has sacred ground in the swamp forest area of Wasur National Park. They believe they are forest people created in the forest birthplace of their ancestors [ 183 ]. Ethnic Dayak Ngaju communities in Kalimantan also have spiritual beliefs that involve maintaining forests, which contain sacred places known as Pukung Pahewan , the abode of supernatural spirits [ 184 ]. 3.4.3. Knowledge Systems (Traditional and Formal) The diversity of forest ecosystems in Indonesia gives Indonesian peoples different local knowledge about forest management. Their various customary rules are based on traditional knowledge and local wisdom related to using and conserving forests. Examples include the Dayak Ngaju people, with their Tana’ Ulen system [ 185 ]; the Baduy people, with their Leuweung Kolot forbidden forest [ 186 ]; the Kajang people, with their Rabbang Seppang system [ 182 , 187 ]; and six Bengkulu customary communities, each with their own customary forestry laws called rejang , serawai , pekal , lembak , mukomuko , and kaur [ 188 ], which divide forest landscapes into different use zones Indigenous communities living around Indonesia’s forests also have traditional wisdom in regulating the use of natural resources and hunting. Such arrangements, known as Sasi , regulate hunting times, utilization periods, and catches. Such arrangements are commonly found in peoples inhabiting eastern Indonesia, such as communities in Merauke [ 189 ], the Napan tribe in Papua [ 190 ], and the Kei tribe in southeast Maluku [ 191 ]. Sasi systems are full of conservation value because they prevent overhunting and ensure animals can reproduce 3.4.4. Educational Value Indonesia’s forest area provides a variety of educational values for people living in or around forests and for people living far from forests. For example, knowledge about medicinal plants from various indigenous peoples has been used to enrich traditional and

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Sand, Modern, Gain, Faster, Naga, Camping, Road, Nze, Tourism, Rock, Ocean, Micro, Tours, Era, Gis, Manner, Wind, Serious, Solar]

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 12124 15 of 39 modern Indonesian medicine. Indigenous peoples, including Dayaks [ 192 ], the Naga tribe in West Java [ 193 ], and the Kajang tribe [ 194 ], have diverse knowledge of medicinal plants 3.4.5. Recreation and Ecotourism Ecosystem services in recreation and ecotourism can contribute both directly and indirectly to human well-being. Nahuelhual, et al. [ 195 ] explored experiences that have both physical and psychological effects for tourists. Indonesian forests provide various ecotourism services that accommodate a multitude of activities and experiences within their diverse ecosystems The Pattunuang Asue ecotourism area in Bantimurung Bulusaraung National Park in South Sulawesi, for instance, accommodates adventure tourism, including camping, hiking, and rock climbing [ 196 ]. Savannas, such as those in Baluran National Park and the sand sea in Bromo Tengger Semeru National Park, provide off-road tours for exploration 4. Ecosystem Services for Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation No matter how much we reduce fossil fuel use, changes in climate conditions will continue to affect humans and ecosystems. One proven means for tackling climate change is to invest in nature-based solutions through the development of ecosystem services that not only reduce its impacts but also help with climate change adaptation [ 197 ]. In forest management, Indonesia has taken the initiative to shift from conventional forestry practices to introducing innovative approaches to producing goods and services [ 26 ]. The Government of Indonesia has taken serious steps to facilitate the emergence of a new environmental services sector. Regulations have been issued on tourism services in forest areas (2013), micro-hydropower (2014), the utilization of conservation areas (2014 and 2015), geothermal power (2015), the utilization of ecotourism environmental services in production forest areas, social forestry enterprises (2016), and non-timber forest products (2017) [ 26 ]. This section presents ecosystem service-based activities aimed at climate change mitigation and adaptation that have received government attention through policy support instruments, including renewable energy development, carbon trading, green economy, ecotourism, and forest ecosystem management with communities through social forestry 4.1. Renewable Energy Promotion Official energy statistics from the U.S. Government’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) project a nearly 50% increase in global energy consumption by 2050 due to strong economic growth [ 198 ]. Our dependence on and increasing demand for energy are causing significant changes to the ecosystems we rely on to meet our well-being needs. The challenge is how to meet this demand in a way that does not damage ecosystems Public authorities worldwide are focusing on promoting policies and instruments for using low-carbon renewable energy, which is intrinsically linked to ecosystem services [ 199 ]. The shift to a low-carbon energy era requires sustainable ecosystems that provide renewable energy while maintaining the availability of other ecosystem services [ 200 ]. Indonesia has set a target for new and renewable energy to make up 23% of its primary energy mix by 2025 in order to support the achievement of its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) target of reducing emissions by 29–41% by 2030 and achieving netzero emissions (NZE) by 2060, or faster with international support [ 201 ]. Based on Law No 30/2007 on Energy, renewable energy is defined as the energy that comes from renewable energy sources, including geothermal, wind, bioenergy, solar, hydropower, tidal, and ocean thermal energy conversion [ 202 ]. To support renewable energy development and decision making, interdisciplinary research is needed to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the impacts of renewable energy sources and their dependence on ecosystem services [ 203 , 204 ]. This includes using GIS-based modeling to determine potential sites, assess potential ecosystem services, and determine which parts of ecosystems can be exploited to develop renewable energy in a socially acceptable manner with maximum benefit and minimum risk [ 204 ].

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Step, Pongo, Keep, Basic, Tools, Montreal, Lot, Track, Council, Grant, Run, Itto, Kind, Stocks, Gross, Maximus, Bank, Venter, Ton, Short]

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 12124 16 of 39 4.2. Carbon Incentives for Forest Conservation Tropical deforestation contributes significantly to global warming and atmospheric change [ 205 – 207 ]. Reducing emissions from deforestation as a potential global contribution to controlling climate change was first considered at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’s (UNFCCC) Montreal Conference of the Parties (COP) in 2005 Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation, including the sustainable management of forests and the conservation and enhancement of forest carbon stocks (REDD+), was then included in UNFCCC climate agreement negotiations in Bali, Indonesia, in 2007, and its implementation was eventually included in the 2015 Paris Agreement on Climate Change [ 208 ]. The UNFCCC is considering financing systems for REDD+ in developing nations [ 209 ]. Funding possibilities for potential REDD+-participating countries are divided into two categories: market and non-market financing [ 210 ]. Like any traded commodity, carbon credits are priced primarily by supply and demand. However, some countries party to the UNFCCC want the problem to be solved with traditional grant funding [ 209 ]. Most developing countries need a lot of money and help from institutions to build their capacity to design, implement, and keep track of their national REDD+ programs [ 210 ]. This capacity building and funding should help build and strengthen the institutions that will run the different parts of national REDD+ programs. This is an important non-market step that must come before any REDD+ program can be successful. Grants are the most common kind of financial assistance, followed by loans provided through multilateral, bilateral, and regional cooperation structures The Government of Indonesia has conservatively calculated that it will need roughly USD 247 billion to implement climate change mitigation efforts under its conditional NDC target for 2030 [ 211 ]. In 2020, Indonesia’s Ministry of Environment and Forestry and the World Bank’s Forest Carbon Partnership Facility signed a landmark agreement, releasing up to USD 110 million for Indonesia’s efforts to reduce carbon emissions from deforestation and forest degradation between 2020 and 2025 [ 212 ]. Venter, et al. [ 213 ] estimated that, at carbon prices of USD 10–33 per ton of CO 2 , or USD 2–16 per ton if only cost-effective areas are saved, payments for REDD+ could cover the costs of halting deforestation for oil palm plantations planned for Kalimantan. In addition, payments could conserve the habitats of the Bornean orangutan ( Pongo pygmaeus ) and Borneo pygmy elephant ( Elephas maximus borneensis )—2 of the 40 endangered mammal species living in these planned plantation areas [ 213 ]. 4.3. Green Economy One way to overcome basic problems related to food, water, and energy shortages due to environmental and economic pressures is to internalize ecosystems into decisionmaking tools; for example, integrating the value of economic services into existing economic models and indicators, such as gross national product (GDP) [ 197 ]. The green economy is a development paradigm whose main targets are a low-carbon economy and a shift away from the extractive and short-term development patterns that cause such a variety of problems The implementation of green products in the green industry in Indonesia includes efficiency and effectiveness in the sustainable use of resources, the sustainable use of energy, the use of renewable energy, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions [ 214 , 215 ]. Strategies include campaigning for sustainable forestry development policies in Indonesia (sustainable development) and adherence to international standards, such as sustainable forest management certification from the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO) and from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Indonesia is one of a number of countries with a strong commitment to eradicating illegal logging and timber trading. This commitment has been realized through its establishment of a Timber Legality Verification System (SVLK) [ 216 ] and the application of Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) green product labeling [ 217 ]. The FSC is pro-environment,

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Carry, Rapid, Certified, Lack, Bamboo, Furniture, Positive, Copy]

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 12124 17 of 39 while the SVLK is pro-government and private sector [ 218 ]. FSC certification, an effort to protect natural resources, is given to various timber and non-timber products, including furniture, paper (copy paper, tissue, etc.), food and beverage packaging, bamboo, and environmental services Despite a strong commitment to FSC certification, its implementation is not without challenges [ 219 , 220 ], including a lack of education for communities about forest protection and sustainability, limited regulatory support from the government, incompatibility with current forest conditions, the lack of information on green products, the unavailability of global standards, and the Ministry of Environment and Forestry policy combining SVLK and FSC certification to prevent illegal timber, despite SVLK being mandatory and FSC being voluntary [ 221 – 223 ]. Other obstacles include the fact that FSC-labeled consumer goods from Indonesia generally have relatively little appeal in European countries [ 221 ], and certified products’ prices make them less competitive than non-certified products [ 224 ]. The above constitute significant obstacles to effective, sustainable forest management implementation and suggest the necessity of total commitment from many stakeholders [ 225 ]. 4.4. Ecotourism Ecotourism has become one of the fastest-growing and most dynamic tourism sectors [ 226 ], raising concerns over the ecological and social disruption it can cause, contrary to sustainability. Ecotourism has proven to be an effective concept in the sustainable use of natural resources [ 227 ]; however, more effort should be made to understand the relationships between ecotourism, resource protection, and economic benefits in order to provide input for decision-makers [ 228 ]. Ecotourism activities can increase public awareness, prompting the public to carry out conservation, conserve and protect biodiversity, and improve natural resource management [ 229 ]. The existence of ecotourism in an area can positively impact the economy of the surrounding community [ 230 , 231 ]. The rapid growth of tourism can create opportunities for financing the conservation of tourism areas [ 232 , 233 ]. As community-based ecotourism can achieve desired social outcomes, increase household income and welfare, and have positive impacts on the local ecology, it is in a position to reduce conflicts between conservation and development interests [ 234 , 235 ]. However, ecotourism activities can also have negative impacts on the environment [ 236 ]. In Indonesia, the commercialization of conservation forests for ecotourism has sometimes resulted in environmental degradation and had adverse social impacts with monopolies over management [ 237 ]. Globally, between 2009 and 2013, tourism also contributed to an 8% increase in greenhouse gas emissions from transportation, shopping, and food [ 238 ]. 4.5. Social Forestry The sustainability of forest ecosystem services has a strong relationship with local communities’ dependence on forests. Anthropogenic factors are often the leading causes of forest degradation and can threaten the ecosystem services forests provide [ 239 ]. Sustaining forest ecosystem services is about managing forests in sustainable ways [ 240 ]; determining how to improve the livelihoods of local communities that rely on forest resources; and enhancing the socio-economic benefits of forests for human well-being. Forest ecosystem services can help improve people’s well-being by providing ecological and socio-economic benefits [ 241 , 242 ], such as timber, fodder, fuel, and medicine, as well as water regulation, natural disaster prevention, and ecosystem health The challenge is to manage the livelihood-related activities carried out by local communities to ensure they do not damage forests. Indonesia’s Social Forestry (SF) program is a government policy aimed at seeking economic equity for local communities and indigenous peoples by making land available for them to manage. One form of SF program implementation involves the establishment of social forestry business enterprise groups (KUPS). In 2020, food commodities produced by KUPS included 276,300 tons of fruit, 32,200 tons of

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Element, Map, Humanity, Trigger, Laid, Idea, Tool, Part, Desa, Lies, Honey, Impossible, Free, Legal]

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 12124 18 of 39 coffee, 1500 tons of honey, 2800 tons of palm sugar, and 9700 tons of various other food crops [ 130 ]. SF has been promoted to broaden communities’ legal access to forest resources to improve their well-being while protecting remaining intact forests and restoring degraded forests. The government has committed to allocating around 12.7 million hectares of state forest area for social forestry through community forest ( hutan kemasyarakatan ), village forest ( hutan desa ), community plantation forest ( hutan tanaman rakyat ), customary forest ( hutan adat ), and forest partnership ( kemitraan kehutanan ) schemes, as laid out in its Indicative Social Forestry Allocation Map (PIAPS). By May 2020, the SF program had already covered approximately 4,147,875 hectares and involved 857,819 households [ 26 ]. In protecting ecosystem services, these SF schemes provide significant support to other climate change-related programs in Indonesia, such as low-carbon development and FoLU Net Sink 2030. However, SF implementation still faces social and environmental constraints, including a lack of cooperation between communities, weak organizational management capacity, and various technical issues relating to forest management [ 243 ]. 5. Mainstreaming Strategies In the natural resources management and conservation context, the goal of mainstreaming is to internalize the aim of conserving natural resources into economic sector policies, programs, and development models for the benefit of humanity [ 244 ]. Mainstreaming aims to ensure that conservation and the sustainable use of ecosystems is not only the responsibility of conservation actors but of all stakeholders, from policymakers to business actors and local communities [ 245 ]. There are four elements to a framework for achieving mainstreaming: prerequisites—mandatory elements without which mainstreaming cannot occur; stimuli—external and internal elements that trigger awareness of the need for mainstreaming; mechanisms—real activities aimed at influencing mainstreaming; and measurable outcomes as indicators of mainstreaming effectiveness [ 246 ]. This paper highlights important elements in mainstreaming ecosystem services in Indonesia. The first element is the development of a payment for ecosystem services (PES) scheme as a mandatory element related to socio-economic and institutional prerequisites; the second is sustainable funding as an incentive element; the third is the utilization of a decision support system (DSS); and the fourth is ES value articulation, so that ecosystem services management can be executed and produce measurable outcomes 5.1. PES Mechanisms One of the reasons for the decline in ecosystem services is that people can consume them for free, which removes the incentive to invest in providing more ecosystem services. In addition, ecosystem services such as clear water, clean air, pollination, and climate stabilization are public goods that cannot be restricted to certain groups but are provided to all simultaneously. This inability to limit certain consumables makes it impossible to charge fees to enjoy them. The result is the depletion of ecosystem services. Part of the solution lies in finding ways to make these ecosystem services available at a price commensurate with the value they provide Payments for ecosystem services (PES) are financial incentives given directly to land owners as compensation for better land management, including conservation activities, in providing services from ecosystems that other parties need on a continuous basis [ 247 ]. The main idea of PES is that ecosystem service providers should be compensated by those who benefit from the services produced [ 248 ]. By assigning a value to ecosystem services, it is possible to identify which social and environmental gains and losses from resource exploitation or ecological imbalances result from land-use change [ 249 ]. PES is perceived as a tool for conservation financing [ 250 ]. It has become an economic instrument, as indicated by the payment value of each PES program. The concept of PES is inseparable from the basic idea of building incentives for individuals and communities to protect ecosystem services by rewarding them for any costs incurred in managing and providing those services [ 251 ].

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Seed, Care, Anna, Poor, Giri, Return, Feel, Cash, Success, Pln, Fauzi, Pays, Farmer, Pasha, Laila, Worth]

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 12124 19 of 39 PES schemes have two common forms; namely, voluntary and compulsory. Compulsory schemes involve contracts between conservation agents and landowners. The landowner agrees to manage an ecosystem according to agreed-upon rules and will receive an in-kind or cash payment upon complying with the contract [ 252 ]. This is the definition of PES outlined in Government Regulation No. 46/2017 on Environmental Economic Instruments The PES concept is highly promising, but its implementation is very slow, especially in low-income countries. PES can only work if there is the right culture of giving and taking, wherein service users are encouraged to pay and service providers feel motivated by receiving payments to deliver more services [ 253 ]. Some examples of PES established through agreements between providers and buyers in different regions in Indonesia are presented in Table 4 . Table 4. Some PES programs in Indonesia and their results No. Program The Parties Agreement Result Source 1 River Care Program in the Way Besai watershed, Lampung Farmers as providers of ecosystem services, and PT PLN Lampung’s Besai Hydroelectric Power Plant as user The project goal is to reduce sedimentation by 30% within one year; in return, PT PLN will award micro hydro equipment worth IDR 20 million The community carried out the content of the agreement effectively, with 86% of activities being successful; sediment concentrations fell by 20% Pasha, et al. [ 254 ] 2 PES Mechanism Initiative in the Cidanau watershed Krakatau Titra Industry Inc., upstream farmers in the Cidanau watershed, and Cidanau Watershed Communication Forum as a mediator Industries in downstream areas that utilize Cidanau watershed ecosystem services provide compensation of IDR 1.2–1.75 million per ha per year to several groups of upstream farmers to manage their land in a sustainable manner Improved awareness among farmer groups about planting more trees (more than 12,500 trees on 25 ha) Laila, et al. [ 255 ] 3 Program for water source protection for PDAM Menang, Mataram, West Nusa Tenggara Farmer Water Users Association (P 3 A) and an association of PDAM customers, accompanied by Samdhana PDAM users pay conservation fees for the protection of catchments that provide water sources for Mataram in Lombok 90% of customers are willing to pay conservation fees of IDR 1000–5000/month Fauzi and Anna [ 256 ] 4 Building a mechanism for upstream–downstream relations in water resource conservation in the Citarum watershed (Cikapundung subwatershed) Giri Putri and Surga Air farmer groups with PT Aetra, BPLHD as a facilitator, and LP 3 ES as a companion PT Aetra pays compensation of IDR 40,504,500 in stages for seed procurement and planting activities to two groups of upstream farmers for soil and water conservation activities through planting, maintenance, and other activities related to efforts to preserve watershed functions The program has yet to fully meet the criteria for a sustainable PES mechanism (realistic, voluntary, conditional, and pro-poor) Napitupulu, et al [ 257 ] Pagiola, et al. [ 258 ] identified four factors that are critical to the success of incentivebased programs: ensuring effective demand, flexibility in program design, ensuring the poor can participate, and covering transaction costs.

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Grima, Singh, Cases, Sellers, Toba, Company, Imp, Lake, Scales]

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 12124 20 of 39 The full economic impacts of PES mechanisms for farmers remain unclear. A PES scheme in Cidanau involves PT KTI as the ES buyer, paying IDR 1,200,000 per hectare to farmers as ES providers, with FKDC facilitating its implementation [ 259 , 260 ]. A similar situation applies to a PES scheme in Lake Toba, where five districts surrounding the lake are ES providers, while PT Inalum is the buyer [ 261 ]. A PES scheme in West Lombok involves local water company PDAM’s customers as ES buyers, with each household paying IDR 12,000 per year and each industry paying IDR 36,000 per year to the West Lombok District Government and IMP as providers [ 262 ]. Meanwhile, a PES scheme in Kuningan involving the Kuningan District Government as ES provider and Cirebon City Government as ES user has transactions of IDR 2.65 billion per year [ 263 ]. An analysis of PES implementation in Indonesia shows a number of problems to resolve: unavailability of main and supporting data; methods for PES analysis and economic value calculations; and an institutional system for PES. Suich, et al. [ 264 ] have identified constraining or challenging factors in PES implementation in Indonesia, such as a lack of recognition of potential buyers for ecosystem services, rights and tenure issues for local communities, limited operational programs, and ownership over a relatively small land area Small-scale PES implementation, such as the programs in the Cidanau watershed and West Lombok, provide good examples of increasing community awareness and participation in conservation efforts. Although their payments are low, they do have social, economic, and environmental multiplier effects. The PES program in West Lombok has successfully increased local community awareness to participate in conservation by planting trees in upstream areas [ 262 ]. One technical problem faced by the PES programs in the Cidanau watershed and Lake Toba is determining the water catchment areas that affect the water sources. This technical problem can be resolved for these programs and for all ecosystem services by using spatial analysis. Suich, et al. [ 264 ] identified the main supporting factors for a successful PES scheme in Indonesia as: easily identifiable ecosystem services and service users; long-term support from individuals or institutions to facilitate the scheme; and maintaining and building on relationships between communities and these facilitating institutions Following more than fifteen years of research and development, a research team from the Makassar Environment and Forestry Research and Development Center (BP 2 LHK Makassar) has come up with a watershed-based PES approach through what is known as downscaled PES (Figure 3 ). BP 2 LHK Makassar has designed an incentive scheme for community-based forest management (CBFM) involving micro hydropower (MHP) plants The government, NGOs, and the private sector act as investors paying in-kind contributions in the form of MHP plants to service-providing local communities in forested upstream areas of watersheds. On a watershed scale, villagers are ES providers, while on a smaller scale, they are buyers Based on their comparative study of 40 PES cases from the 1990 s, Grima, Singh, Smetschka, and Ringhofer [ 248 ] stated that a successful PES scheme is one that ensures resource sustainability while at the same time making a positive contribution to people’s livelihoods. In their opinion, the common characteristics of successful PES schemes include: • Ensuring the continuity of supply and quality of resources while making a positive contribution to local livelihoods; • Operating at local and regional scales with time periods of 10–30 years; • Using in-kind contributions in preference to cash payments; • Involving the private sector without intermediaries between buyers and sellers.

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Deal, Join, General]

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 12124 21 of 39 Sustainability 2022 , 14 , x FOR PEER REVIEW 23 of 42 forested upstream areas of watersheds. On a watershed scale, villagers are ES providers, while on a smaller scale, they are buyers. Figure 2. Downscaled PES scheme (formulated based on the authors ’ thoughts for this article). Based on their comparative study of 40 PES cases from the 1990 s, Grima, Singh, Smetschka, and Ringhofer [248] stated that a successful PES scheme is one that ensures resource sustainability while at the same time making a positive contribution to people’s livelihoods. In their opinion, the common characteristics of successful PES schemes include: ● Ensuring the continuity of supply and quality of resources while making a positive contribution to local livelihoods; ● Operating at local and regional scales with time periods of 10 – 30 years; ● Using in-kind contributions in preference to cash payments; ● Involving the private sector without intermediaries between buyers and sellers. Conversely, factors causing PES schemes to fail include inaccuracies in target selection due to different perspectives between stakeholders, and unanticipated trade-offs between social and conservation goals [265]. Unsuccessful PES schemes are characterized, among other things, by the following: their implementation failing to reduce pressures on ecosystems; an absence of added value from payments; no improvements in local livelihoods; and inequitable sharing of benefits [248]. To harmonize social and ecological goals, it is necessary to build agreement on objectives and have flexible mechanisms for achieving those objectives. Government, non-government, and local community stakeholders need to agree in order for a PES scheme ’s poverty alleviation and Figure 3. Downscaled PES scheme (formulated based on the authors’ thoughts for this article) Conversely, factors causing PES schemes to fail include inaccuracies in target selection due to different perspectives between stakeholders, and unanticipated trade-offs between social and conservation goals [ 265 ]. Unsuccessful PES schemes are characterized, among other things, by the following: their implementation failing to reduce pressures on ecosystems; an absence of added value from payments; no improvements in local livelihoods; and inequitable sharing of benefits [ 248 ]. To harmonize social and ecological goals, it is necessary to build agreement on objectives and have flexible mechanisms for achieving those objectives. Government, non-government, and local community stakeholders need to agree in order for a PES scheme’s poverty alleviation and conservation goals to be achievable [ 265 ]. Interestingly, in general, farmers join PES schemes out of awareness and not because of economic incentives [ 266 ]. The effective management of PES programs requires detailed data on the spatial distribution of environmental quality indicators and the potential benefits of activities carried out, especially in agriculture [ 267 ]. The main challenge at the landscape level is determining the optimal allocation and management of the numerous land-use options [ 268 ]. Targeting environmentally sensitive or critical areas within the ecosystem will increase the effectiveness of PES mechanisms [ 269 ]. 5.2. Decision Support System and Spatial Assessment-Based Planning Due to a wide range of ecological characteristics and socio-economic restrictions, forest management needs to deal with multifaceted planning challenges. A robust decision support system (DSS) and spatial assessment are required to identify management options that take into account the wide variety of goals, criteria, and stakeholder interests [ 270 ]. The DSS must also be measurable, reproducible, trustworthy, adaptable, and inexpensive for extensive usage.

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Lopes, Ranking, Cutting, Aries, Field, Videira, Multi, Offer, Esr, Laser, Edge]

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 12124 22 of 39 A DSS is a computer-based system that integrates a database, scientific analysis, modeling, and expert knowledge to implement established concepts and principles to solve decision obstacles. A DSS is concentrated on one of three sub-systems: a database sub-system (e.g., forest landscape characteristics, ecosystem services types); a modelingbased sub-system (e.g., growth and yield modeling, ecosystem services valuation); and a method-based sub-system (e.g., optimizing forest management options) [ 271 ]. Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) is the most implemented technique used in a DSS. An MDCM problem can be solved by first determining the weights of variables, then normalizing those variables and ranking the index based on aggregating the normalized values of variables for different management options and objectives [ 272 ]. Integrating a DSS and spatial assessment through geographic information system (GIS) approaches can help optimize possible trade-offs between different ecosystem services. It can also improve decision-making regarding optimizing ES provision for short-term and long-term ES-based forest management [ 273 ]. GIS uses a wide range of cutting-edge geospatial technologies and data sources from the field of Earth observation. These include remote sensing, terrestrial measurement, unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) tools, a laser scanning system, a multispectral satellite system, new sensors on mobile devices, and the integration of digital cameras and global navigation satellite systems (GNSSs) [ 274 , 275 ]. Moreover, GIS approaches allow a DSS to simultaneously analyze diverse management options on various spatial and temporal scales [ 276 , 277 ]. According to several studies, a multitude of ecosystem-based DSSs exists, with 183 tools listed in the Ecosystem-Based Management (EBM) database [ 278 ]. DSSs that focus on ecosystem services as the basis for management include Artificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services (ARIES), EcoAIM, EcoMetrix, Ecosystem Services Review (ESR), ES Value, Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST), and the Benefit Transfer and Use Estimating Model Toolkit. Integrating MCDM and GIS approaches has been the most frequently used approach in DSSs for ES-based ecosystem management scenarios, such as ecotourism [ 279 ]; the location of biomass energy facilities [ 280 ]; tradeoffs between ES and management goals [ 281 ]; biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and water [ 282 ]; and climate change impacts on multiple forest ecosystem services [ 283 ]. An analytical hierarchy process (AHP) has been the most commonly used technique for calculation, since it provides a rapid and rational workflow under imperfect conditions [ 270 ]. Based on various studies and the roles of existing DSS tools, it can be concluded that DSSs and spatial assessments need to be mainstreamed in ES-based forest management in Indonesia. Generalization, simplification, clearness, abstraction, difficulty, and spatial scale considerations have been recognized as significant factors for the success of a DSS in optimizing ES in a forest management framework. A DSS also needs to provide frameworks that make it possible to consider uncertainties during decision-making processes and offer opportunities for risk assessment [ 284 ]. 5.3. Value Articulation Ecosystem service valuation could help policymakers decide what to do by showing the benefits of managing ecosystems in a sustainable way. However, the valuation techniques used have serious limitations, and many ecosystem services are simply not amenable to valuation using the techniques currently available. Participatory approaches to addressing ES value articulation promote the more comprehensive integration of stakeholder perceptions and values [ 285 , 286 ]. A participatory approach can help by allowing for the more thorough integration of perceptions and values. As the first step in a participatory ES framework, Lopes and Videira [ 285 ] suggested a collaborative scoping process to broaden the scope of ES identification by eliciting the multiple values of ES from the ground up.

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Bullock, Present, Original, Reason, Gifts, End]

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 12124 23 of 39 5.3.1. Economic Value From the economic perspective, direct use-value is traditionally focused on quantifying and analyzing goods and services that produce tangible benefits. However, economists have broadened the scope from the meaning of “economic value” to the use, non-use, existence, inheritance, and indirect option values of ecosystems, including developing techniques for valuing the economic value of ecosystem services [ 287 ]. The purposes of economic valuation are to manage ecosystem services sustainably; to price products of ecosystem services [ 288 ]; to make valuable inputs to decision-makers [ 289 ]; and to provide the right policy options [ 290 , 291 ]. There are many methods available for valuing ecosystem services: contingent valuation [ 292 ]; total economic valuation [ 110 ]; output-based classification [ 293 ]; willingness to pay [ 294 ]; market prices; opportunity costs; and consumer surplus [ 295 ]. The economic valuation of ecosystem services is a growing field of research. There are a wide variety of reasons for, and methods associated with, the economic valuation of ecosystem services. Traditionally, many ecosystem services have been viewed as free gifts from nature to society, or “public goods”, including landscape amenities, watershed services, and carbon storage. For this reason, little attention has been paid to measuring and valuing such ecosystem services in monetary terms. In addition, due to the lack of a monetary value and a formal market, these ES are often overlooked in public and private resource management planning and decision-making. Recent developments in approaches and tools for valuing ES provide a basis for estimating the economic benefits of a wide range of ecosystem services [ 296 , 297 ]. Many ES can be given a monetary value by using economic methods and tools [ 298 ]. Bullock, et al. [ 299 ] suggested that the discount rates used to assess the present value of future benefits and/or the future value of current benefits are a crucial aspect of monetary analysis. Key ecological and economic reasons for valuing ES include: economic incentives for keeping natural resources and also for conservation; providing justification for the allocation of public funding for conservation; and providing a useful step towards institutional innovation, such as payment for ecosystem services (PES) [ 298 , 300 – 303 ]. To this end, the economic valuation of ecosystem services provides a useful tool for justifying set priorities and programs, policies, or actions that protect or restore an ecosystem and its associated services. Common methods for estimating the economic value of ecosystem services are summarized as the market price method, non-market valuation methods, and value transfer (a) Market price method: This method calculates the economic value of ecosystem goods and services that are bought and sold in commercial markets. It can be used to assess changes in the quantity or quality of a good or service (b) Non-market valuation methods: Values for many ecosystem goods and services are not readily captured in market transactions and, thus, require non-market valuation methods, such as travel cost, the hedonic approach, and contingent valuation (c) Value transfer: This is an accepted economic methodology that estimates the economic value of non-market goods or services through work conducted at another site or group of sites [ 304 ]. The “transfer” refers to applying economic values and other information from the original “study site” to a “policy site”. The study used this technique to estimate the economic value of biodiversity and associated services 5.3.2. Social Value Ecosystem services depend on the interrelationships between humans and the environment [ 305 , 306 ] or, more specifically, a set of support, supply, regulatory, and cultural services that provide direct and indirect benefits to everyone [ 29 ]. This has made people more aware of the social value of ecosystem services [ 307 ]. The GIS tool Social Values for Ecosystem Services (SolVES) is used to determine the non-material benefits a community obtains from an ecosystem through spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation, and aesthetic experience [ 29 ], as well as the ecosystem’s various intrinsic, cultural, religious, and historical values [ 308 ]. Such

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Gutman, Capital, Davidson, Trust, Nursery, Foreign, Fiscal, Civil, Bonds]

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 12124 24 of 39 assessments tend to be more difficult than determining ecological and economic values. Social value is strongly influenced by human preferences for nature, so accessibility, actors, and time can affect the effectiveness of the assessment SolVES uses different approaches in different landscapes depending on the objectives to be achieved [ 309 – 311 ] and can also be used to evaluate other ecosystem services [ 312 ]. According to Chintantya [ 313 ], ecosystems play a role in maintaining and enhancing social relations, especially culture. Therefore, ES social criteria need to be integrated with biophysical and economic criteria into systematic regional planning for sustainable ecosystem management [ 314 ]. 5.4. Sustainable Financing The environmental services produced by forest ecosystems have been widely identified. Studies show important ecosystem services, including watershed protection, biodiversity protection, carbon sequestration, wood-based biomass and energy, wild foods, animal-based energy, coastal protection, maintenance of nursery populations and habitats, pollination and seed dispersal, and nature-based recreation and tourism [ 315 ]. As pressures on forests and the environment, coupled with increasing financial limitations [ 316 – 318 ], are making efforts to maintain the provision of these ecosystem services increasingly difficult [ 319 , 320 ], new funding concepts for sustainable ecosystems are needed [ 321 , 322 ]. Sustainable financing concepts require adequate and available sources of funding for longterm management to ensure the prompt allocation to programs with ecosystem protection objectives [ 316 ]. There are several sustainable financing scheme options available for environmental and forest conservation. Funding for environmental protection and management that supports the provision of ecosystem services can come from both domestic and international sources. It can take the form of public funds from government budgets, grants, and foreign loans or non-public funds in the form of private funds, blended finance, state-owned company funds, and funds from philanthropic institutions or NGOs [ 323 – 326 ]. Funding from domestic sources originating from public funds—namely, national APBN and/or regional APBD budgets—can be channeled through a fiscal transfer mechanism from relevant ministry/agency spending, trusteeship institutions, equity participation for stateowned enterprises (BUMN), and/or investment (revolving funds). Environmental funding originating from overseas can take the form of bilateral or multilateral grants, grants from philanthropic institutions, loans and investment funds from the state or the private sector, and performance-based payment funds. This overseas funding can be channeled through intermediary institutions in charge of activities (executing agencies) consisting of ministries and government agencies, international development institutions/partners, regional governments, and trust institutions [ 324 ]. Private sector funding for the environment, both domestic and international, can be derived from investments in other companies; for example, green bonds/ Sukuk . In addition, there is also a blended finance model, where private investment mobilization is supported by subsidies or government capital participation to create projects that are not only business-friendly but also generate social and environmental benefits. Another model is funding from philanthropic institutions, such as family foundations, corporate foundations, civil society organizations, and non-governmental organizations within and outside the country. All of these financial options are outlined in Figure 4 . Gutman and Davidson [ 318 ] discuss funding mechanisms available for biodiversity conservation in providing ecosystem services. These mechanisms are divided into traditional and innovative categories for the local, national, and international levels (Table 5 ).

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Oda, Ngo, Tax, Banks, Goodwill]

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 12124 25 of 39 Sustainability 2022 , 14 , x FOR PEER REVIEW 26 of 41 addition, there is also a blended finance model, where private investment mobilization is supported by subsidies or government capital participation to create projects that are not only business-friendly but also generate social and environmental benefits. Another model is funding from philanthropic institutions, such as family foundations, corporate foundations, civil society organizations, and non-governmental organizations within and outside the country. All of these financial options are outlined in Figure 3. Figure 3. Possible sources of funding to support the provision of sustainable ecosystem services. Gutman and Davidson [318] discuss funding mechanisms available for biodiversity conservation in providing ecosystem services. These mechanisms are divided into traditional and innovative categories for the local, national, and international levels (Table 5). Table 5. Traditional and innovative finance mechanisms for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services. No. Level Traditional Finance Mechanisms Innovative Finance Mechanisms 1 Local o Protected area entrance fees o Tourism-related incomes o Local markets for sustainable rural products o Local NGOs and charities o Local businesses’ goodwill investments o Local markets for all types of ecosystem services (PES) 2 National o Government budgetary allocations o National tourism o National NGO fundraising and fund granting o National businesses’ goodwill investments o Earmarking public revenues o Environmental tax reform o Reforming rural production subsidies o National-level PES o Green lotteries o New goodwill fundraising instruments (internet-based, rounding up, etc.) o Business/public/NGO partnerships o Businesses’ voluntary standards o National green markets o National markets for all types of ecosystem services (PES) 3 International o Bilateral aid o Multilateral aid o Debt-for-Nature swaps o Development banks and agencies o GEF o International NGO fundraising and fund granting o International foundations o Long-term ODA commitments o Environment-related taxes o Other international taxes o Reforms in the international monetary system o Green lotteries o New goodwill fundraising instruments (internet-based, rounding up, etc.) o Business/public/NGO partnerships Figure 4. Possible sources of funding to support the provision of sustainable ecosystem services Table 5. Traditional and innovative finance mechanisms for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services No. Level Traditional Finance Mechanisms Innovative Finance Mechanisms 1 Local # Protected area entrance fees # Tourism-related incomes # Local markets for sustainable rural products # Local NGOs and charities # Local businesses’ goodwill investments # Local markets for all types of ecosystem services (PES) 2 National # Government budgetary allocations # National tourism # National NGO fundraising and fund granting # National businesses’ goodwill investments # Earmarking public revenues # Environmental tax reform # Reforming rural production subsidies # National-level PES # Green lotteries # New goodwill fundraising instruments (internet-based, rounding up, etc.) # Business/public/NGO partnerships # Businesses’ voluntary standards # National green markets # National markets for all types of ecosystem services (PES) 3 International # Bilateral aid # Multilateral aid # Debt-for-Nature swaps # Development banks and agencies # GEF # International NGO fundraising and fund granting # International foundations # International tourism # International businesses’ goodwill investments # Long-term ODA commitments # Environment-related taxes # Other international taxes # Reforms in the international monetary system # Green lotteries # New goodwill fundraising instruments (internet-based, rounding up, etc.) # Business/public/NGO partnerships # Businesses’ voluntary standards # International green markets # International markets for all types of ecosystem services (PES) Source: This table was created by extracting information from Gutman and Davidson [ 318 ]. Enabling conditions are needed to support the implementation of any sustainable financing concept. In determining enabling conditions, we use the policy instrument framework from Krott [ 327 ], which looks at the regulatory, fiscal, and administrative instruments that support policy implementation 5.4.1. Regulatory Instruments A legal basis for funding ecosystem services must be prepared in the form of regulatory instruments. The Government of Indonesia has issued various pieces of legislation that

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Stage, Every, Creation, Mous, Job, Record, Case]

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 12124 26 of 39 could be used as the basis for environmental funding. Law No. 32/2009 on Environmental Management and Protection and Government Regulation No. 46/2017 on Environmental Economic Instruments constitute the formal juridical bases for environmental funding, incentives, and disincentives presented to parties in the provision of environmental services. Government Regulation No. 46/2017 stipulates compensation/reward mechanisms for environmental services between regions and PES between different stakeholders. In addition, as a derivative of Job Creation Law No. 11/2020, Government Regulation No. 23/2021 provides a mandate to the central and regional governments, and other parties, to provide incentives to stakeholders who can restore, maintain, and preserve forests both inside and outside the forest area. As stated by Fauzi and Anna [ 256 ], such regulatory arrangements are necessary for reducing the complexity of the process of paying for environmental services 5.4.2. Administrative Instruments Funding mechanisms for ecosystem services must be flexible and site-specific, and administrative instruments and criteria for ecosystem services that can be funded should accord with a site’s characteristics and needs. In addition, institutional arrangements for agreements between providers and users of ecosystem services either need to be set out in agreements/MoUs or formally institutionalized in local, national, and international regulations [ 328 ]. Finally, it is essential to record every stage in the funding of ecosystem services, from planning, implementation, assessment, and payment to monitoring and evaluation 5.4.3. Fiscal Instruments Finally, it is necessary to have fiscal instruments available to ensure the certainty of funding sources. One solution for doing so could be to integrate sustainable funding for the environment into a government budgeting mechanism. In addition, there need to be complementary sources of sustainable funding for ecosystem services from private sector operators as users and from public funding through government budgets [ 256 , 329 ]. This combination would further strengthen funding certainty for the provision of ecosystem services 6. Conclusions Forest resources have played a significant role in facilitating Indonesia’s economic development for more than five decades. To ensure their sustainability, the Government of Indonesia has implemented new measures to improve the sustainability of the nation’s forests. The number of forest-related policies has increased significantly over time. Mainstreaming ecosystem services is a manifestation of the government’s policy of changing the forest management paradigm from one of exploitation to a pro-conservation approach In the natural resources management and conservation context, the goal of mainstreaming is to internalize the aim of conserving natural resources in economic sector policies, programs, and development models for the benefit of humanity. Mainstreaming aims to ensure that the conservation and sustainable use of ecosystems is not only the responsibility of conservation actors but of all stakeholders, from policymakers to business actors and local communities The required mainstreaming strategy for ecosystem services in Indonesia is divided into four important elements; namely, supporting regulations and policies regarding payments for ecosystem services (PES) as a mandatory element related to socio-economic and institutional prerequisites; an accurate planning system that can be accepted through the use of a decision support system (DSS); the articulation of ES values so that the management of ecosystem services can be carried out and produce measurable results; and sustainable funding as an element of incentives to ensure that implementation is continuous and on-target A key challenge of PES implementation at the landscape level is determining the optimal allocation and management of different land-use options. In this case, the use of DSSs combined with spatial analysis and remote sensing is important and strategic.

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Brazil, Burgess, Eds, Foster, Sci, Duarte, Sanford, Read, Annu, Hort, Betts, Azul, Leal, Cham, Filho, Wall, English, Ideas, Adams, Dlamini, Bhatti, Thank, Levi, Author, Rome, Hum, Springer, Wolf]

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 12124 27 of 39 DSSs can be used to support a more comprehensive understanding of the problem and the development of alternative management options and to project the consequences of different actions The assessment of ecosystem services can help policymakers decide what to do by demonstrating the benefits of managing ecosystems sustainably. A participatory approach to articulating the value of ecosystem services can help promote a more comprehensive integration of stakeholder perceptions and values, starting with bringing out the economic, as well as the social, value of ecosystem services from the ground up At the implementation level, a combination of the private sector and public funding would strengthen funding certainty for the provision of environmental services. The PES concept is highly promising, but its implementation remains rare in Indonesia. Notes taken from several cases of PES implementation in Indonesia have shown weak community capacity, a need for intermediary agents, no discernible increase in farmers’ income, and the need for incentives to encourage participation. To ensure the continuity of ecosystem services through environmental and forest conservation efforts, there are several options for sustainable financing schemes that can be optimized. The sustainable sources of funding come from domestic and international sources in the form of public funds from the government budget, grants, and foreign loans or non-public funds in the form of private funds, blended finance, BUMN funds, and funds from philanthropic institutions or NGOs Author Contributions: Conceptualization: H.Y.S.H.N., F.N., Y.I., T.W.Y., S.E., H.G. and S.S.; Literature review and data analysis: H.Y.S.H.N., F.N., Y.I., T.W.Y., S.E., M.S. (Mimi Salminah), H.G., S.S., M.K.S., M.K.A., N.M., W.I., I.A.S.L.P.P., R.P., F.A., M.S. (Mohamad Siarudin), O.S. and H.B.; Writing original draft: F.N., T.W.Y., S.E., M.S. (Mimi Salminah), M.K.S., M.K.A., N.M., W.I., I.A.S.L.P.P., R.P., F.A., M.S (Mohamad Siarudin) and O.S.; Review and editing: H.Y.S.H.N., Y.I., T.W.Y., M.K.A., M.K.S., N.M., W.I., I.A.S.L.P.P., R.P., F.A., M.S. (Mohamad Siarudin), M.S. (Mimi Salminah), O.S., S.S. and H.B.; Supervision: H.Y.S.H.N., Y.I., F.N., H.G., S.S. and H.B. All authors have shared roles according to their respective disciplines and experiences as major contributors who equally discussed the conceptual ideas and the outline, provided critical feedback on each section, and helped shape and write the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript Funding: The English editing cost and article processing charges were supported by the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) Acknowledgments: The authors thank the anonymous reviewers for their useful comments. We are thankful for the financial support provided by the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) to cover English editing costs and article processing charges. Disclaimer: the opinions and arguments in this paper are solely those of the authors’ and do not reflect the views of CIFOR or the National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN) Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest References 1 FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020 ; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2020. [ CrossRef ] 2 Canadell, J.G.; Raupach, M.R. Managing forests for climate change mitigation Science 2008 , 320 , 1456–1457. [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 3 Betts, M.G.; Wolf, C.; Ripple, W.J.; Phalan, B.; Millers, K.A.; Duarte, A.; Butchart, S.H.M.; Levi, T. Global forest loss disproportionately erodes biodiversity in intact landscapes Nature 2017 , 547 , 441–444. [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 4 Attiwill, P.M.; Adams, M.A. Nutrient cycling in forests New Phytol 1993 , 124 , 561–582. [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 5 Vitousek, P.M.; Sanford, R.L. Nutrient cycling in moist tropical forest Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst 1986 , 17 , 137–167. [ CrossRef ] 6 Foster, N.W.; Bhatti, J.S. Forest ecosystems: Nutrient cycling Encycl. Soil Sci 2006 , 718721 . [ CrossRef ] 7 Šamonil, P.; Kr á l, K.; Hort, L. The role of tree uprooting in soil formation: A critical literature review Geoderma 2010 , 157 , 65–79 [ CrossRef ] 8 Dlamini, C.S. Contribution of Forest Ecosystem Services Toward Food Security and Nutrition. In Zero Hunger ; Leal Filho, W., Azul, A.M., Brandli, L., Özuyar, P.G., Wall, T., Eds.; Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 179–196 9 Burgess, J.C. Timber Production, Timber Trade and Tropical Deforestation Ambio 1993 , 22 , 136–143 10 Begossi, A.; Hanazaki, N.; Tamashiro, J.Y. Medicinal Plants in the Atlantic Forest (Brazil): Knowledge, Use, and Conservation Hum. Ecol 2002 , 30 , 281–299. [ CrossRef ]

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Da Fonseca, Kevan, Lee, Daily, America, Press, Makara, Aylward, Pada, Plan, Jaga, Song, Stolle, Amo, Hassan, Putz, Mooney, Kramer, Soc, Choi, Dasgupta, Gordon, Rutishauser, Wang, Bot, Mari, Urban, Int, Davy, Kappel, Reid, Pros, Kennedy, Masa, Carpenter, Brien, Guedes, Stephen, Taki, Divers, Evol, China, Hansen, August, Brearley, Capistrano, Mansur, Laut, Alam, Coronado, Fonseca, Nikolova, Samson, Rode, Potapov, Johnson, Dietz, Lett, Bunga, Alonso, Kim, Smart, Chopra, Ehrlich, Myers, Chang, Ilieva, Luck, Jones, Jeon, Yavuz, Hidup, Nat, Masy, Serv, Cropper, Dimitrov, Washington, Clim, Sem, Calder, Austin, Chaplin]

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 12124 28 of 39 11 Caniago, I.; Stephen, F.S. Medicinal plant ecology, knowledge and conservation in Kalimantan, Indonesia Econ. Bot 1998 , 52 , 229–250 [ CrossRef ] 12 Vatanda¸slar, C.; Yavuz, M.; Leuchner, M. Erosion Control Service of Forest Ecosystems: A Case Study from Northeastern Turkey. In Smart Geography: 100 Years of the Bulgarian Geographical Society ; Nedkov, S., Zhelezov, G., Ilieva, N., Nikolova, M., Koulov, B., Naydenov, K., Dimitrov, S., Eds.; Key Challenges in Geography; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 443–455 13 Calder, I.R.; Aylward, B. Forest and Floods Water Int 2006 , 31 , 87–99. [ CrossRef ] 14 Lee, H.-H. Estimations on the Water Purification of Forest by Analyzing Water Quality Variations in Forest Hydrological Processes J. Korean Soc. For. Sci 1997 , 86 , 56–68 15 Vilhar, U. Water Regulation and Purification. In The Urban Forest: Cultivating Green Infrastructure for People and the Environment ; Pearlmutter, D., Calfapietra, C., Samson, R., O’Brien, L., Krajter Ostoi´c, S., Sanesi, G., Alonso del Amo, R., Eds.; Future City; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 41–47 16 Song, C.; Lee, W.-K.; Choi, H.-A.; Kim, J.; Jeon, S.W.; Kim, J.S. Spatial assessment of ecosystem functions and services for air purification of forests in South Korea Environ. Sci. Policy 2016 , 63 , 27–34. [ CrossRef ] 17 Taki, H.; Kevan, P.G.; Ascher, J.S. Landscape effects of forest loss in a pollination system Landsc. Ecol 2007 , 22 , 1575–1587 [ CrossRef ] 18 Reid, W.V.; Mooney, H.A.; Cropper, A.; Capistrano, D.; Carpenter, S.R.; Chopra, K.; Dasgupta, P.; Dietz, T.; Duraiappah, A.K.; Hassan, R.; et al Millenium Ecosystem Assessment: Ecosystems and Human Well-Being ; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005; p. 155 19 Ji, L.; Wang, Z.; Wang, X.; An, L. Forest Insect Pest Management and Forest Management in China: An Overview Environ. Manag 2011 , 48 , 1107–1121. [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 20 Erbaugh, J.T.; Nurrochmat, D.R. Paradigm shift and business as usual through policy layering: Forest-related policy change in Indonesia (1999–2016) Land Use Policy 2019 , 86 , 136–146. [ CrossRef ] 21 Baskent, E.Z. A Framework for Characterizing and Regulating Ecosystem Services in a Management Planning Context Forests 2020 , 11 , 102. [ CrossRef ] 22 KKP. Laut Masa Depan Bangsa, Mari Jaga Bersama. Available online: https://kkp.go.id/artikel/12981-laut-masa-depan-bangsamari-jaga-bersama (accessed on 12 August 2022) 23 Sunderlin, W.D.; Pradnja Resosudarmo, I.A Rates and Causes of Deforestation in Indonesia: Towards a Resolution of the Ambiguities ; CIFOR: Bogor, Indonesia, 1996 24 Margono, B.A.; Potapov, P.V.; Turubanova, S.; Stolle, F.; Hansen, M.C. Primary forest cover loss in Indonesia over 2000–2012 Nat Clim. Chang 2014 , 4 , 730–735. [ CrossRef ] 25 Austin, K.G.; Schwantes, A.; Gu, Y.; Kasibhatla, P.S. What causes deforestation in Indonesia? Environ. Res. Lett 2019 , 14 , 024007 [ CrossRef ] 26 Ministry of Environment and Forestry The State of Indonesia’s Forests 2020 ; Ministry of Environment and Forestry: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2021; p. 118 27 Chen, B.; Kennedy, C.M.; Xu, B. Effective moratoria on land acquisitions reduce tropical deforestation: Evidence from Indonesia Environ. Res. Lett 2019 , 14 , 044009. [ CrossRef ] 28 KLHK Operational Plan Indonesia’s FOLU Net Sink 2030 ; Kemeterian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2022 29 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Ecosystems and Human Well-Being ; Island Press United States of America: Washington, DC, USA, 2005; Volume 5 30 Luck, G.W.; Daily, G.C.; Ehrlich, P.R. Population diversity and ecosystem services Trends Ecol. Evol 2003 , 18 , 331–336. [ CrossRef ] 31 Wood, S.L.R.; Jones, S.K.; Johnson, J.A.; Brauman, K.A.; Chaplin-Kramer, R.; Fremier, A.; Girvetz, E.; Gordon, L.J.; Kappel, C.V.; Mandle, L.; et al. Distilling the role of ecosystem services in the Sustainable Development Goals Ecosyst. Serv 2018 , 29 , 70–82 [ CrossRef ] 32 Piponiot, C.; Rutishauser, E.; Derroire, G.; Putz, F.E.; Sist, P.; West, T.A.P.; Descroix, L.; Guedes, M.C.; Coronado, E.N.H.; Kanashiro, M.; et al. Optimal strategies for ecosystem services provision in Amazonian production forests Environ. Res. Lett 2019 , 14 , 124090. [ CrossRef ] 33 Price, C. Regulating and supporting services and disservices: Customary approaches to valuation, and a few surprising case-study results N. Z. J. For. Sci 2014 , 44 , S 5. [ CrossRef ] 34 Achyani, A. Struktur dan komposisi tumbuhan pada habitat bunga bangkai ( Amorphophallus titanium Becc.) di cagar alam pagar gunung kepahiang Bengkulu Biolova 2021 , 2 , 26–33 35 Usmadi, D. Potensi distribusi Agathis borneensis di Provinsi Kalimantan Tengah Proc. Pros Sem Masy Biodiv Indon 2019 [ CrossRef ] 36 Robiansyah, I.; Davy, A.J. Population status and habitat preferences of critically endangered Dipterocarpus littoralis in West Nusakambangan, Indonesia Makara J. Sci 2015 , 19 , 4. [ CrossRef ] 37 Mansur, M.; Brearley, F.Q.; Esseen, P.J.; Rode-Margono, E.J.; Tarigan, M.R.M. Ecology of Nepenthes clipeata on Gunung Kelam, Indonesian Borneo Plant Ecol. Divers 2021 , 14 , 195–204. [ CrossRef ] 38 Myers, N.; Mittermeier, R.A.; Mittermeier, C.G.; da Fonseca, G.A.; Kent, J. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities Nature 2000 , 403 , 853–858. [ CrossRef ]

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Dari, Kubu, Ilir, Nijman, Abdullah, Rantau, Utara, Scholar, Azis, Maj, Setia, Khotimah, Jati, Putra, Fatimah, Daya, Wae, Makila, Kuantan, Muslim, Badak, Gafur, Palu, Ogan, Allan, Ikhwan, December, Ikan, Nasution, Manaj, Hartono, Watson, Ber, Tanah, Firdaus, Wati, Carrasco, Elang, Edwards, Verma, Medan, Symes, Sapi, Mirza, Kura, Batu, Riyanto, Severe, Harimau, Mada, Timur, Taman, Lestari, Median, Kayu, Antara, Hadadi, Baros, Linda, Jenis, Santoso, Yang]

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 12124 29 of 39 39 Meijaard, E.; Nijman, V. Primae hotspots on Borneo: Predictive value for general biodiversity and the effects of taxonomy Conserv Biol 2003 , 17 , 725–732. [ CrossRef ] 40 Putri, I.A. Submontane Forest at Bantimurung Bulusaraung National Park: Hotspot of Bird Diversity and Its Management Conservation J. Penelit. Kehutan. Wallacea 2015 , 4 , 115–128. [ CrossRef ] 41 Persulessy, Y.E.; Putuhena, J. Keragaman dan Populasi Burung Endemik pada Hotspot Kesatuan Pengelolaan Hutan Produksi Wae Sapalewa Seram Utara MAKILA J. Penelit. Kehutan 2020 , 14 , 99–113. [ CrossRef ] 42 Verma, M.; Symes, W.S.; Watson, J.E.; Jones, K.R.; Allan, J.R.; Venter, O.; Rheindt, F.E.; Edwards, D.P.; Carrasco, L.R. Severe human pressures in the Sundaland biodiversity hotspot Conserv. Sci. Pract 2020 , 2 , e 169. [ CrossRef ] 43 Setiasih, G.; Rianti, A.; Takandjandji, M. Potensi vegetasi dan daya dukung untuk habitat gajah Sumatera ( Elephas maximus sumatranus ) di areal perkebunan sawit dan hutan produksi Kecamatan Sungai Menang, Kabupaten Ogan Komering Ilir Ber. Biol 2018 , 17 , 49–64. [ CrossRef ] 44 Abdullah, A.; Japisa, T. Karakteristik habitat gajah Sumatera (Elephas maximus sumatranus Temminck) pada habitat terganggu di ekosistem hutan Seulawah J. Edubio Trop 2013 , 1 , 57–60 45 Hadadi, O.H.; Hartono, H.; Haryono, E. Analisis Potensi Habitat dan Koridor Harimau Sumatera di Kawasan Hutan Lindung Bukit Batabuh, Kabupaten Kuantan Singingi, Provinsi Riau Maj. Geogr. Indones 2015 , 29 , 40–50. [ CrossRef ] 46 Muslim, A.; Nurdjali, B.; Dewantara, I. Studi habitat dan jenis pakan badak Sumatera ( Dicerorhinus sumatrensis ) di Kutai Barat Dan Mahakam Ulu Kalimantan Timur J. Hutan Lestari 2015 , 3 , 6. [ CrossRef ] 47 Putro, H.R. Heterogenitas habitat badak Jawa ( Rhinoceros sondaicus Desm. 1822) di Taman Nasional Ujung Kulon Media Konserv Ed. Khusus 1997 , 1997 , 17–40 48 Sucipto, N Struktur Dan Komposisi Vegetasi Habitat Kuskus Beruang (Ailurop Ursinus) di Kawasan Hutan Desa Peana Kecamatan Pipikoro Kabupaten Sigi ; Universitas Tadulako: Palu, Indonesia, 2020 49 Pranowo, S Kepadatan Mamalia Kecil Nokturnal Arboreal di Kantong Habitat Hutan Kemuning Kabupaten Temanggung ; Universitas Gadjah Mada: Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 2018 50 Kartono, A.P.; Ginting, A.; Santoso, N. Karakteristik Habitat dan Wilayah Jelajah Bekantan di Hutan Mangrove Desa Nipah Panjang Kecamatan Batu Ampar Kabupaten Kubu Raya Provinsi Kalimantan Barat Media Konserv 2008 , 13 . [ CrossRef ] 51 Harisin, Y.A Sebaran dan Penggunaan Habitat Elang Jawa dan Elang Brontok di SPTN I Kuningan, Taman Nasional Gunung Ciremai ; Institut Pertanian Bogor: Bogor, Indonesia, 2021 52 Riyanto, A.; Soemarno, S.; Wawangningrum, H.; Partomihardjo, T. Karakteristik habitat kura-kura hutan Sulawesi berstatus kritis Leucocephalon yuwonoi di Kawasan Sungai Ganonggol Dan Bangkir, Sulawesi Tengah Indones. J. Biol 2006 , 4 , 78354. [ CrossRef ] 53 Perikanan, K.K.d Ikan Air Tawar Langka di Indonesia ; Direktorat Konservasi Kawasan dan Jenis Ikan: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2012 54 Nasution, F.; Prastyaningsih, S.R.; Ikhwan, M. Identifikasi jenis dan habitat jamur makroskopis di Hutan Larangan Adat Rumbio Kabupaten Kampar Provinsi Riau Wahana For. J. Kehutan 2018 , 13 , 64–76. [ CrossRef ] 55 Wati, R.; Noverita, N.; Setia, T.M. Keanekaragaman jamur makroskopis di beberapa habitat Kawasan Taman Nasional Baluran Al-Kauniyah J. Biol 2019 , 12 , 171–180. [ CrossRef ] 56 Kasongat, H.; Gafur, M.A.; Ponisri, P. Identifikasi dan keanekaragaman jenis jamur ektomikoriza pada hutan jati di Seram Bagian Timur Median: J. Ilmu Ilmu Eksakta 2019 , 11 , 39–46. [ CrossRef ] 57 Kiding, A.; Khotimah, S.; Linda, R. Karakterisasi dan kepadatan bakteri nitrifikasi pada tingkat kematangan tanah gambut yang berbeda di kawasan hutan lindung Gunung Ambawang Kabupaten Kubu Raya J. Protobiont 2015 , 4 , 5. [ CrossRef ] 58 Nurrochman, F Eksplorasi Bakteri Selulolitik Dari Tanah Hutan Mangrove Baros, Kretek, Bantul, Yogyakarta ; Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta: Surakarta, Indonesia, 2015 59 Yusnia, E.D.; Gunam, I.B.W.; Antara, N.S. Isolasi dan skrining bakteri selulolitik dari beberapa tanah hutan di Bali J. Rekayasa Dan Manaj. Agroindustri 2019 , 2503 , 488 X. [ CrossRef ] 60 Mongabay. List of Extinct Species in Indonesia. Available online: https://rainforests.mongabay.com/biodiversity/en/indonesia/ EX.html (accessed on 16 June 2022) 61 Widyasari, W.B.; Putra, L.K.; Ranomahera, M.R.R.; Puspitasari, A.R. Historical notes, germplasm development, and molecular approaches to support sugarcane breeding program in Indonesia Sugar Tech 2022 , 24 , 30–47. [ CrossRef ] 62 Prana, M.; Hartati, S.; Prana, T. A study on isozyme variation in the Indonesian taro ( Colocasia spp.) germplasm collection Glob Divers. Taro 2010 , 56–59. Available online: https://scholar.google.co.id/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=g 7 lPA 8 0 AAAAJ&citation_for_view=g 7 lPA 80 AAAAJ:2 osOgNQ 5 qMEC (accessed on 16 June 2022) 63 Mirza, I.; Yusriani, Y.; Azis, A. Plasma nutfah dan pelestarian sapi Aceh. In Proceedings of the Prosiding Seminar dan Kongres Nasional Sumber Daya Genetik, Medan, Indonesia, 12–14 December 2012 64 Febrialdi, A. Kondisi Beberapa Plasma Nutfah Non Kayu Disekitar Hutan Kecamatan Rantau Pandan Muara Bungo J. Sains Agro 2017 , 2 , 11 65 Galingging, R.Y. Potensi plasma nutfah tanaman obat sebagai sumber biofarmaka di Kalimantan Tengah J. Pengkaj. Dan Pengemb Teknol. Pertan 2007 , 10 , 76–83 66 Fatimah, F.; Rahayu, R.; Wiwoho, J.; Firdaus, S.U.; Pujiyono, P.; Marimin, M.; Ariyanto, D.P.; Pramono, A. Genetic diversity of eucalypts for germplasm conservation in Forest Area with the Special Purpose of Mount Bromo, Karanganyar, Indonesia Biodivers. J. Biol. Divers 2021 , 22 , 13. [ CrossRef ]

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Sifat, Bane, Aur, Kopi, Guna, Mayer, Aini, Silver, Lal, Kusuma, Malysheva, Rimba, Nayak, Bul, Berlin, Waldi, Malang, Perez, Diana, Benner, Greiner, Germany, Uji, Dav, Alami, Orchid, Sun, Batang, Smith, Keller, Aman, Herman, Wardah, Hirose, Dixon, Acacia, Noro, Fischer, Kimia, Rec, Kanan, Alih, Nave, Talukder, Dalam, Semi, Edwin, Kooistra, Rahmawati, Ardian, Auri, Pangan, Balai, Anggara, Kandis]

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 12124 30 of 39 67 Berding, N.; Koike, H. Germplasm conservation of the Saccharum complex: A collection from the Indonesian archipelago Hawaii Plant. Rec 1980 , 59 , 87–176 68 Sumarlin, D.; Dirhamsyah, M.; Ardian, H. Identifikasi tumbuhan sumber pangan di Hutan Tembawang Desa Aur Sampuk Kecamatan Sengah Temila Kabupaten Landak J. Hutan Lestari 2015 , 4 , 8 69 Fitmawati, F.; Suwita, A.; Sofiyanti, N.; Herman, H. Eksplorasi dan Karakterisasi Keanekaragaman Plasma Nutfah Mangga (Mangifera) di Sumatera Tengah. In Proceedings of the Prosiding SEMIRATA 2013, Lampung, Indonesia, 10–12 May 2013 70 Uji, T. Keanekaragaman jenis dan sumber plasma nutfah Durio ( Durio spp.) di Indonesia Bul. Plasma Nutfah 2005 , 11 , 28–33 71 Widowati, D.A.H. Inventarisasi Keanekaragaman Anggrek ( Orchidaceae ) di Hutan Resort Way Kanan Balai Aman Nasional Way Kambas Sebagai Sumber Informasi dalam Melestarikan Plasma Nutfah Bioedukasi (J. Pendidik. Biol.) 2015 , 6 . [ CrossRef ] 72 Siregar, C. Exploration and inventory of native orchid germplasm in West Borneo, Indonesia HortScience 2008 , 43 , 554–557 [ CrossRef ] 73 Sjafani, N Studi Habitat dan Pengembangbiakan Burung Mamoa (Eulipoa wallacei) Sebagai Upaya Konservasi Plasma Nutfah Kabupaten Halmahera Utara ; Universitas Brawijaya: Malang, Indonesia, 2015 74 Tyapradana, D.O Evaluasi Implementasi Program Kawin Semi Alami Sebagai Upaya Peningkatan Jumlah Populasi Dan Kelestarian Plasma Nutfah Banteng Jawa (Bos javanicus) di Taman Nasional Baluran ; Universitas Brawijaya: Malang, Indonesia, 2017 75 Kurniawanto, A. Studi Perilaku Badak Sumatera ( Dicerorhinus sumatrensis Fischer, 1814) di Suako Rhino Sumatera Taman Nasional Way Kambas Lampung. Undergraduate Thesis, Faculty of Forestry, IPB University, Bogor, Indonesia, 2007 76 Ramdaniah, Y Studi Kualitas Tanah Pada Tipe Penutupan Lahan Hutan Alam, Hutan Pinus Dan Padang Rumput di Sub das Curug Cilember, Cisarua, Bogor ; IPB University: Bogor, Indonesia, 2001 77 Lapadjati, K.K.; Wardah, W.; Rahmawati, R. Sifat fisik tanah pada hutan tanaman kemiri, lahan agroforestri dan lahan hutan sekunder di Desa Labuan Kungguma Kabupaten Donggala Sulawesi Tengah J. War. Rimba 2016 , 4 , 6 78 Aini, Z.Z.; Khasanah, N.m.; Kusuma, Z. Degradasi sifat fisik tanah sebagai akibat alih guna lahan hutan menjadi sistem kopi monokultur: Kajian perubahan makroporositas tanah Agrivita 2004 , 26 , 60–68 79 Diana, A. Kajian Sifat Fisika Tanah Akibat Alih Fungsi Lahan dari Hutan Primer dan Kebun Karet ( Havea brasiliensis ) Menjadi Kebun Kopi Robusta ( Coffea canephora ) di Nagari Sibakur Kabupaten Sijunjung. Undergraduate Thesis, Soil Science Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Andalas University, Padang, Indonesia, 2021 80 Anggara, S.A. Kajian Sifat Fisika Tanah Pada Beberapa Penggunaan Lahan di Hulu DAS Batang Kandis. Undergraduate Thesis, Department of Soil Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Andalas University, Padang, Indonesia, 2021 81 Alfiani, B.P. Analisis Sifat Fisika Tanah dan Laju Infiltrasi pada Berbagai Penggunaan Lahan. Undergraduate Thesis, IPB University, Bogor, Indonesia, 2019 82 Wasis, B. Dampak Kebakaran Hutan dan Lahan terhadap Kerusakan Tanah J. Manaj. Hutan Trop 2003 , 9 , 79–86 83 Murtinah, V.; Edwin, M.; Bane, O. Dampak kebakaran hutan terhadap sifat fisik dan kimia tanah di Taman Nasional Kutai, Kalimantan Timur J. Pertan. Terpadu 2017 , 5 , 128–139. [ CrossRef ] 84 Wasis, B.; Saharjo, B.H.; Waldi, R.D. Dampak kebakaran hutan terhadap flora dan sifat tanah mineral di kawasan hutan Kabupaten Pelalawan Provinsi Riau J. Silvikultur Trop 2019 , 10 , 40–44. [ CrossRef ] 85 Greiner, L.; Keller, A.; Gr ê t-Regamey, A.; Papritz, A. Soil function assessment: Review of methods for quantifying the contributions of soils to ecosystem services Land Use Policy 2017 , 69 , 224–237. [ CrossRef ] 86 Gerzabek, M.H. Global soil use in biomass production: Opportunities and challenges of ecological and sustainable intensification in agriculture Bodenkultur 2014 , 65 , 5–15 87 Silver, W.L.; Perez, T.; Mayer, A.; Jones, A.R. The role of soil in the contribution of food and feed Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci 2021 , 376 , 20200181. [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 88 De Deyn, G.B.; Kooistra, L. The role of soils in habitat creation, maintenance and restoration Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci 2021 , 376 , 20200170. [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 89 Lal, R.; Monger, C.; Nave, L.; Smith, P. The role of soil in regulation of climate Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci 2021 , 376 , 20210084 [ CrossRef ] 90 Smith, J.; Farmer, J.; Smith, P.; Nayak, D. The role of soils in provision of energy Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci 2021 , 376 , 20200180 [ CrossRef ] 91 J ó nsson, J.Ö.G.; Dav í dsd ó ttir, B. Classification and valuation of soil ecosystem services Agric. Syst 2016 , 145 , 24–38. [ CrossRef ] 92 Widyati, E.; Siarudin, M.; Indrajaya, Y. The Dynamic of Functional Microbes Community Under Auri ( Acacia auriculiformis Cunn Ex Benth) Agroforestry System J. Manaj. Hutan Trop 2022 , 28 , 119–127. [ CrossRef ] 93 Dixon, G.R.; Tilston, E.L Soil Microbiology and Sustainable Crop Production ; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin, Germany, 2010; pp. 1–436 94 Hobara, S.; Osono, T.; Hirose, D.; Noro, K.; Hirota, M.; Benner, R. The roles of microorganisms in litter decomposition and soil formation Biogeochemistry 2014 , 118 , 471–486. [ CrossRef ] 95 Krashevska, V.; Malysheva, E.; Klarner, B.; Mazei, Y.; Maraun, M.; Widyastuti, R.; Scheu, S. Micro-decomposer communities and decomposition processes in tropical lowlands as affected by land use and litter type Oecologia 2018 , 187 , 255–266. [ CrossRef ] 96 Talukder, M.J.H.; Sun, H. The microbial diversity and structure in peat land forest in Indonesia J. Biodivers. Conserv. Bioresour Manag 2019 , 5 , 133–144. [ CrossRef ]

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Eng, Zhang, Liu, Sandhu, Shukla, Ris, Mcmullin, Airey, Tilahun, Hoffman, Dis, Mountain, Agustina, Fix, Ramadani, Spice, Vineeta, Shamsuddin, Ihsan, Ethiopia, Rahma, Han, Emir, Dawson, Zainuddin, Hunter, Navia, Vermeulen, Jeong, Saito, Rani, Jasa, Ser, Isme, Veldkamp, Tuning, Rep, Jang, Jung, Pala, Afifah, Ricketts, Berk, Nuraini, Porter, Rai, Zhou, Zulkarnain, Sunarti, Bija, Hershey, Dev, Hong, Powell, Carney, Fine, Farooqi, Baset, House]

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 12124 31 of 39 97 Yulma; Ihsan, B.; Awaludin; Zainuddin; Bija, S.; Rani, M.; Andira, A.; Ramadani, F.; Sunarti. Identification of bacteria from mangrove forest in Mamburungan, Tarakan City IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci 2020 , 564 , 012020. [ CrossRef ] 98 Sasongko, P.E. Land Use Change and Soil Quality in the West Slope of Bromo Mountain, East Java, Indonesia Nusant. Sci. Technol Proc 2018 , 2017 , 160–165. [ CrossRef ] 99 Jamnadass, R.H.; McMullin, S.; Iiyama, M.; Dawson, I.K.; Powell, B.; Termote, C.; Ickowitz, A.; Kehlenbeck, K.; Vinceti, B.; Vliet, N.v.; et al. Understanding the roles of forests and tree-based systems in food provision For. Trees Landsc. Food Secur. Nutr. A Glob. Assess. Rep 2015 , 2 , 24 100. Farooqi, T.J.A.; Li, X.; Yu, Z.; Liu, S.; Sun, O.J. Reconciliation of research on forest carbon sequestration and water conservation J. For. Res 2021 , 32 , 7–14. [ CrossRef ] 101. Zhang, W.; Ricketts, T.H.; Kremen, C.; Carney, K.; Swinton, S.M. Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture Ecol. Econ 2007 , 64 , 253–260. [ CrossRef ] 102. Ghaley, B.B.; Porter, J.R.; Sandhu, H.S. Soil-based ecosystem services: A synthesis of nutrient cycling and carbon sequestration assessment methods Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag 2014 , 10 , 177–186. [ CrossRef ] 103. Rahma, N.E.; Rositah, E.; Pramono, D.A.; Widyasasi, D.; Fariyanti, F. Valuasi jasa lingkungan hutan tropis: Studi kasus beberapa kampung di Kalimantan Timur J. Ris. Pembang 2020 , 2 , 67–78. [ CrossRef ] 104. Wang, D.; Xu, A.; Elmerich, C.; Ma, L.Z. Biofilm formation enables free-living nitrogen-fixing rhizobacteria to fix nitrogen under aerobic conditions ISME J 2017 , 11 , 1602–1613. [ CrossRef ] 105. Baset Mia, M.A.; Shamsuddin, Z.H. Nitrogen fixation and transportation by rhizobacteria: A scenario of rice and banana Int. J Bot 2010 , 6 , 235–242. [ CrossRef ] 106. Ezawa, T.; Saito, K. How do arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi handle phosphate? New insight into fine-tuning of phosphate metabolism New Phytol 2018 , 220 , 1116–1121. [ CrossRef ] 107. Zhang, Y.; Li, Y.; Wang, S.; Umbreen, S.; Zhou, C. Soil phosphorus fractionation and its association with soil phosphate-solubilizing bacteria in a chronosequence of vegetation restoration Ecol. Eng 2021 , 164 , 106208. [ CrossRef ] 108. Chakravarty, S.; Rai, P.; Vineeta; Pala, N.A.; Shukla, G. Litter Production and Decomposition in Tropical Forest. In Handbook of Research on the Conservation and Restoration of Tropical Dry Forests ; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2019; pp. 193–212. [ CrossRef ] 109. Mekuria, W.; Veldkamp, E.; Tilahun, M.; Olschewski, R. Economic valuation of land restoration: The case of exclosures established on communal grazing lands in Tigray, Ethiopia Land Degrad. Dev 2011 , 22 , 334–344. [ CrossRef ] 110. Warningsih, T.; Kusai, K.; Bathara, L.; Zulkarnain, Z.; Deviasari, D. Economic Valuation of Mangrove Ecosystem Services in Sungai Apit District, Siak Regency, Riau Province, Indonesia IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci 2021 , 695 , 012036. [ CrossRef ] 111. Lee, E.P.; Lee, S.I.; Jeong, H.M.; Han, Y.S.; Lee, S.Y.; Park, J.H.; Jang, R.H.; Hong, Y.S.; Jung, Y.H.; Kim, E.J.; et al. Valuation of ecosystem services in the organic carbon of the Pinus densiflora forest at Mt. Namsan, Seoul Metropolitan City J. Ecol. Environ 2019 , 43 , 1–11. [ CrossRef ] 112. Vermeulen, S.; Wellesley, L.; Airey, S.; Singh, S.; Agustina, R.; Izwardy, D.; Saminarsih, D Healthy Diets from Sustainable Production: Indonesia ; Chatham House and Hoffman Centre for Sustainable Resource Economy: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2019 113. Suwardi, A.B.; Zidni Ilman, N.; Tisna, H.; Syamsuardi; Erizal, M. Ethnobotany and conservation of indigenous edible fruit plants in South Aceh, Indonesia Biodivers. J. Biol. Divers 2020 , 21 , 1850–1860. [ CrossRef ] 114. Andesmora, E.; Muhadiono, M.; Hilwan, I. Ethnobotanical Study of Plants Used by People in Hiang Indigenous Forest Kerinci, Jambi J. Trop. Life Sci 2017 , 7 , 95–101. [ CrossRef ] 115. Fathurahman, F.; Nursanto, J.; Madjid, A.; Ramadanil, R. Ethnobotanical Study of “Kaili Inde Tribe” in Central Sulawesi Indonesia Emir. J. Food Agric 2016 , 28 , 337–347. [ CrossRef ] 116. Susandarini, R.; Khasanah, U.; Rosalia, N. Ethnobotanical study of plants used as food and for maternal health care by the Malays communities in Kampar Kiri Hulu, Riau, Indonesia Biodivers. J. Biol. Divers 2021 , 22 , 3111–3120. [ CrossRef ] 117. Hartoyo, A.P.P.; Supriyanto, S.; Siregar, I.Z.; Theilade, I.D.A.; Prasetyo, L.B. Agroforest diversity and ethnobotanical aspects in two villages of Berau, East Kalimantan, Indonesia Biodivers. J. Biol. Divers 2018 , 19 , 387–398. [ CrossRef ] 118. Trimanto; Danarto, S.A.; Ashrafuzzaman, M. Ethnobotanical uses of plants by Brangkuah Community of Moyo Island, West Nusa Tenggara, Indonesia: Ethnobotanical use of plants in Indonesia J. Bangladesh Agric. Univ 2019 , 17 , 325–337. [ CrossRef ] 119. Waroy, H.F.; Utami, S.; Jumari. The food plant ethnobotany of Ampari tribe community in Papua, Indonesia J. Phys. Conf. Ser 2020 , 1524 , 012074. [ CrossRef ] 120. Sukenti, K.; Hakim, L.; Indriyani, S.; Purwanto, Y.; Matthews, P.J. Ethnobotanical study on local cuisine of the Sasak tribe in Lombok Island, Indonesia J. Ethn. Foods 2016 , 3 , 189–200. [ CrossRef ] 121. Rahayu, M.; Susiarti, S.; Sihotang, V.B.L. A preliminary ethnobotanical study on useful plants by local communities in Bodogol Lowland Forest, Sukabumi, West Java J. Trop. Biol. Conserv. (JTBC) 2012 , 9 , 115–125 122. Navia, Z.I.; Audira, D.; Afifah, N.; Turnip, K.; Nuraini, N.; Suwardi, A.B. Ethnobotanical investigation of spice and condiment plants used by the Taming tribe in Aceh, Indonesia Biodivers. J. Biol. Divers 2020 , 21 , 4467–4473. [ CrossRef ] 123. Pawera, L.; Khomsan, A.; Zuhud, E.A.M.; Hunter, D.; Ickowitz, A.; Polesny, Z. Wild Food Plants and Trends in Their Use: From Knowledge and Perceptions to Drivers of Change in West Sumatra, Indonesia Foods 2020 , 9 , 1240. [ CrossRef ] 124. Utami, S. Keanekaragaman Tumbuhan yang Berpotensi sebagai Bahan Pangan di Hutan Lindung Pulau Panjang Jepara Jawa Tengah Bioma Berk. Ilm. Biol 2018 , 19 , 136–140. [ CrossRef ]

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Van Der Geest, Farnsworth, Petrus, Richardson, Eaton, Bennett, Joly, Nur, Rad, Effendi, Aust, Smi, Huntley, Sos, Whyte, Sweden, Mace, Sao, Yeny, Sago, Ash, Halpern, Baskaran, Bureau, Jennifer, Iklim, Narendra, Brown, Boumans, Arah, Scholes, Welsch, Chan, Souza, Takeuchi, Victoria, Akerele, Kovaleva, Dale, Stromberg, Med, Geneva, Guo, Downing, Hani, Agus, Paulo, Lim, Walters, Kline, Jager, Afdhal, Karlina, Quijas, Mulholland, Geo, Karp, Mcbride, Hendrix]

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 12124 32 of 39 125. Mulu, M.; Zephisius, R.E.N.; Petrus, S.I.I.; Hildegardis, M. Ethnobotanical knowledge and conservation practices of indigenous people of Mbeliling Forest Area, Indonesia Biodivers. J. Biol. Divers 2020 , 21 , 1861–1873. [ CrossRef ] 126. Piesse, M. Food security in Indonesia: A continued reliance on foreign markets Indep. Strateg. Anal. Aust. Glob. Interests 2016 . Available online: http://inford.org/food-security-in-indonesia-a-continued-reliance-on-foreign-markets/ (accessed on 16 June 2022) 127. Richardson, R.B. Ecosystem Services and Food Security: Economic Perspectives on Environmental Sustainability Sustainability 2010 , 2 , 3520–3548. [ CrossRef ] 128. Boseren, M.; Weterings, R Sago Palm: A Sustainable Solution for Food Security and Peat Conservation in Indonesia ; FORCLIME Forests and Climate Change Programme: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2021. Available online: https://forclime.org/documents/Briefing%20 Note/ English/Policy%20 Brief%20-%20 Sago%20 Palm.pdf (accessed on 16 June 2022) 129. Sudomo, A.; Hani, A.; Agus, C.; Nugroho, A.W.; Utomo, M.M.B.; Indrajaya, Y. Intensification of Agroforestry Systems in Community Forests to Increase Land Productivity and Sustainable Food Sovereignty. In Sustainable Agriculture and Food Security ; Leal Filho, W., Kovaleva, M., Popkova, E., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 183–199 130. Ministry of Environment and Forestry Performance Report 2020 of Ministry of Environment and Forestry ; Ministry of Environment and Forestry: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2021; p. 315 131. Maskun; Napang, M.; Nur, S.; Bachril, S.; Al Mukarramah, N. Detrimental impact of Indonesian food estate policy: Conflict of norms, destruction of protected forest, and its implication to the climate change. In Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science ; IOP Publishing: Bogor, Indonesia, 2021; p. 012097. [ CrossRef ] 132. Marwanto, S.; Pangestu, F. Food estate program in Central Kalimantan Province as an integrated and sustainable solution for food security in Indonesia. In Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Scienc ; IOP Publishing: Bogor, Indonesia, 2021; p. 012068. [ CrossRef ] 133. Yeny, I.; Garsetiasih, R.; Suharti, S.; Gunawan, H.; Sawitri, R.; Karlina, E.; Narendra, B.H.; Ekawati, S.; Djaenudin, D.; Rachmanadi, D. Examining the socio-economic and natural resource risks of food estate development on peatlands: A strategy for economic recovery and natural resource sustainability Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 3961. [ CrossRef ] 134. Farnsworth, N.R.; Akerele, O.; Bingel, A.S.; Soejarto, D.D.; Guo, Z Medicinal Plants in Therapy ; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 1985; p. 965 135. Afdhal, A.F.; Welsch, R.L. The Rise of the Modern Jamu Industry in Indonesia: A Preliminary Overview. In The Context of Medicines in Developing Countries: Studies in Pharmaceutical Anthropology ; van der Geest, S., Whyte, S.R., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1988; pp. 149–172 136. User, M.; Kusumaputri, V.S.; Hendrix, T. Bioprospection of traditional medicinal plants in increasing potential of traditional wisdom-based local drugs J. Kelitbangan Inov. Pembang 2016 , 4 , 133–146 137. Sholikhah, E.N. Indonesian medicinal plants as sources of secondary metabolites for pharmaceutical industry J. Med. Sci 2016 , 48 , 226–239. [ CrossRef ] 138. Herika Jennifer, E.S. Preferensi Individu Terhadap Pengobatan Tradisional di Indonesia J. Ekon. Dan Studi Pembang 2015 , 16 , 1 139. Dwiartama, A.; Purnamahati, R.R.; Pramudya, A.A Policy Brief Arah Pengembangan Bioprospecting di Indonesia ; KEHATI: Jakarta Selatan, Indonesia, 2020. Available online: https://kehati.or.id/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Policy-Brief-Arah-Pengembangan- Bioprospecting-di-Indonesia.pdf (accessed on 16 June 2022) 140. Balvanera, P.; Quijas, S.; Karp, D.S.; Ash, N.; Bennett, E.M.; Boumans, R.; Brown, C.; Chan, K.M.A.; Chaplin-Kramer, R.; Halpern, B.S.; et al. Ecosystem Services. In The GEO Handbook on Biodiversity Observation Networks ; Walters, M., Scholes, R.J., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 39–78 141. Rad, M.F.; Fröling, M.; Grönlund, E. Including ecosystem services in sustainability assessment of forest biofuels. In Proceedings of the World Bioenergy, Jönköping, Sweden, 29–31 May 2012; pp. 75–78 142. Gasparatos, A.; Stromberg, P.; Takeuchi, K. Biofuels, ecosystem services and human wellbeing: Putting biofuels in the ecosystem services narrative Agric. Ecosyst. Environ 2011 , 142 , 111–128. [ CrossRef ] 143. McBride, A.C.; Dale, V.H.; Baskaran, L.M.; Downing, M.E.; Eaton, L.M.; Efroymson, R.A.; Garten, C.T.; Kline, K.L.; Jager, H.I.; Mulholland, P.J.; et al. Indicators to support environmental sustainability of bioenergy systems Ecol. Indic 2011 , 11 , 1277–1289 [ CrossRef ] 144. Joly, C.; Verdade, L.; Huntley, B.; Dale, V.; Mace, G.; Muok, B.; Ravindranath, N.H. Biofuel impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services. In Bioenergy & Sustainability: Bridging the Gaps ; Souza, G.M., Victoria, R.L., Joly, C.A., Verdade, L.M., Eds.; SCOPE: Sao Paulo, Brazil, 2015; Volume 72, pp. 548–574 145. Putrasari, Y.; Praptijanto, A.; Santoso, W.B.; Lim, O. Resources, policy, and research activities of biofuel in Indonesia: A review Energy Rep 2016 , 2 , 237–245. [ CrossRef ] 146. Effendi, R.; Roffandi, N.; Puspitodjati, T.; Bangsawan, I. Menggagas Energi Biomassa Hutan Sebagai Sumber Energi Terbarukan Penelit. Dan Pengemb. Sos. Ekon. Kebijak. Dan Perubahan Iklim 2018 , 11 , 1–5 147. Central Bureau of Statistics Statistik Produksi Kehutanan ; Central Bureau of Statistics: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2020 148. Suntana, A.S.; Vogt, K.A.; Turnblom, E.C.; Upadhye, R. Bio-methanol potential in Indonesia: Forest biomass as a source of bio-energy that reduces carbon emissions Appl. Energy 2009 , 86 , S 215–S 221. [ CrossRef ] 149. Sarana Multi Infrastruktur PT SMI Insight—Q 3 Reaching the Energy Mix Target through Bioenergy ; PT Sarana Multi Infrastruktur (Persero): Jakarta, Indonesia, 2017; pp. 1–13.

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Van Der Ent, Dir, Santos, Lopez, Echevarria, Ceci, Cardoso, Fatty, Pratiwi, Nizar, Xiao, Fernandes, Peran, Adb, Pap, Erskine, Morel, Adi, Zari, Amri, Goux, Nez, Nik, Sil, Siew, Ziegler, Azevedo, Stat, Hermoso, Rodrigues, Tata, Mater, Gwp, Mart, Friedman, Swift, Freitas, Markov, Hasil, Shames, Izac, Reynaud, Savitri, Albena, Yana, Manila, Campos]

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 12124 33 of 39 150. Yana, S.; Nizar, M.; Irhamni; Mulyati, D. Biomass waste as a renewable energy in developing bio-based economies in Indonesia: A review Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev 2022 , 160 , 112268. [ CrossRef ] 151. Mohammed, J. The Role of Genetic Diversity to Enhance Ecosystem Service Am. J. Biol. Environ. Stat 2019 , 5 , 46–51. [ CrossRef ] 152. Sembiring, L. Microbial diversity and its importance in microbial genetic resources preservation and its role in natural J. Biol. Res 2015 , 21 , 13–17. [ CrossRef ] 153. Wijayanti, M.; Meryandini, A.; Wahyudi, A.T.; Yuhana, M. Diversity and the Composition of Fatty Acids of Lipolytic Bacteria Isolated from Soil and Aquatic Sediment in a Forest and on an Oil Palm Plantation Makara J. Sci 2014 , 18 , 71–78. [ CrossRef ] 154. Sukara, E. Tropical Forest Biodiversity to Provide Food, Health and Energy Solution of the Rapid Growth of Modern Society Procedia Environ. Sci 2014 , 20 , 803–808. [ CrossRef ] 155. Lopez, S.; Goux, X.; van der Ent, A.; Erskine, P.D.; Echevarria, G.; Calusinska, M.; Morel, J.L.; Benizri, E. Bacterial community diversity in the rhizosphere of nickel hyperaccumulator species of Halmahera Island (Indonesia) Appl. Soil Ecol 2019 , 133 , 70–80 [ CrossRef ] 156. Mart í nez, A.; Amri, A Managing Plant Genetic Resources in the Agro-Ecosystem: Global Change, Crop-Associated Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services ; FAO-ICARDA: Rome, Italy, 2008 157. Swift, M.J.; Izac, A.M.N.; van Noordwijk, M. Biodiversity and ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes—Are we asking the right questions? Agric. Ecosyst. Environ 2004 , 104 , 113–134. [ CrossRef ] 158. Priscoli, J.D. Linking ecosystem services and water security-SDGs offer a new opportunity for integration Glob. Water Partnersh Perspect. Pap 2016 . Available online: https://www.gwp.org/globalassets/global/toolbox/publications/perspective-papers/ gwp_pp_-ecosystemservices.pdf (accessed on 20 June 2022) 159. Carignan, R.; Steedman, R.J. Impacts of major watershed perturbations on aquatic ecosystems Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci 2000 , 57 , 1–4 [ CrossRef ] 160. Ceci, P Forest and Water: International Momentum and Action ; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2013 161. Guo, Z.; Xiao, X.; Li, D. An assessment of ecosystem services: Water flow regulation and hydroelectric power production Ecol Appl 2000 , 10 , 925–936. [ CrossRef ] 162. Grizzetti, B.; Lanzanova, D.; Liquete, C.; Reynaud, A.; Cardoso, A.C. Assessing water ecosystem services for water resource management Environ. Sci. Policy 2016 , 61 , 194–203. [ CrossRef ] 163. Fakhriyah, F.; Yeyendra, Y.; Marianti, A. Integrasi Smart Water Management Berbasis Kearifan Lokal Sebagai Upaya Konservasi Sumber Daya Air di Indonesia Indones. J. Conserv 2021 , 10 , 34–41 164. Fulazzaky, M.A. Challenges of integrated water resources management in Indonesia Water 2014 , 6 , 2000–2020. [ CrossRef ] 165. ADB Indonesia Country Water Assessment ; Asian Development Bank: Manila, Philippines, 2016 166. Piesse, M. Indonesian Water Security: Improving but Still Subject to Shocks Future Dir. Int 2016 . Available online: http: //inford.org/indonesian-water-security-improving-but-still-subject-to-shocks/ (accessed on 20 June 2022) 167. Ardhianie, N. Coping with Water Scarcity in Indonesia. Available online: https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2015/03/25 /coping-with-water-scarcity-indonesia.html (accessed on 20 June 2022) 168. Nugroho, H.Y.; Indrawati, D.R.; Wahyuningrum, N.; Adi, R.N.; Supangat, A.B.; Indrajaya, Y.; Putra, P.B.; Cahyono, S.A.; Nugroho, A.W.; Basuki, T.M.; et al. Toward Water, Energy, and Food Security in Rural Indonesia: A Review Water 2022 , 14 , 1645. [ CrossRef ] 169. Asdak, C Hidrologi dan Pengelolaan Daerah Aliran Sungai ; Gadjah Mada University Press: Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 2018 170. Suryatmojo, H Peran Hutan Sebagai Penyedia Jasa Lingkungan ; Fakultas Kehutanan Universitas Gadjah Mada: Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 2006 171. Suryatmojo, H Peran Hutan Pinus Sebagai Penyedia Jasa Lingkungan Melalui Penyimpanan Karbon dan Penyediaan Sumberdaya Air ; Hasil Penelitian: Yogyak, Indonesia, 2004 172. Junaidi, E.; Tarigan, S.D. Pengaruh hutan dalam pengaturan tata air dan proses sedimentasi Daerah Aliran Sungai (DAS): Studi Kasus di DAS Cisadane J. Penelit. Hutan Dan Konserv. Alam 2011 , 8 , 155–176. [ CrossRef ] 173. Scherr, S.J.; Shames, S.; Friedman, R. From climate-smart agriculture to climate-smart landscapes Agric. Food Secur 2012 , 1 , 12 [ CrossRef ] 174. Campos, J.C.; Rodrigues, S.; Sil, Â .; Hermoso, V.; Freitas, T.R.; Santos, J.A.; Fernandes, P.M.; Azevedo, J.C.; Honrado, J.P.; Regos, A. Climate regulation ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation are enhanced differently by climateand fire-smart landscape management Environ. Res. Lett 2022 , 17 , 054014. [ CrossRef ] 175. Zari, M.P. Utilizing relationships between ecosystem services, built environments, and building materials Mater. A Healthy Ecol Sustain. Built Environ 2017 , 3–27. [ CrossRef ] 176. Indrajaya, Y.; Yuwati, T.W.; Lestari, S.; Winarno, B.; Narendra, B.H.; Nugroho, H.Y.; Rachmanadi, D.; Pratiwi; Turjaman, M.; Adi, R.N.; et al. Tropical Forest Landscape Restoration in Indonesia: A Review Land 2022 , 11 , 328. [ CrossRef ] 177. Basuki, T.M.; Nugroho, H.Y.; Indrajaya, Y.; Pramono, I.B.; Nugroho, N.P.; Supangat, A.B.; Indrawati, D.R.; Savitri, E.; Wahyuningrum, N.; Purwanto; et al. Improvement of Integrated Watershed Management in Indonesia for Mitigation and Adaptation to Climate Change: A Review Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 9997. [ CrossRef ] 178. Markov, B.; Nedkov, S. Mapping of Erosion Regulation Ecosystem Services. In Proceedings of the 6 th International Conference on Cartography and GIS, Albena, Bulgaria, 13–17 June 2016 179. Sidle, R.C.; Ziegler, A.D.; Negishi, J.N.; Nik, A.R.; Siew, R.; Turkelboom, F. Erosion processes in steep terrain—Truths, myths, and uncertainties related to forest management in Southeast Asia For. Ecol. Manag 2006 , 224 , 199–225. [ CrossRef ]

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: De Almeida, Da Silva, De Carvalho, Rosenthal, Esp, Print, Almeida, Yamani, Silva, Foley, Syarif, Carmona, Basso, Nasir, Islam, Mandor, Yusuf, Diva, Chile, Ahead, Gov, Lozada, Huk, Sundari, Carvalho, Malhi, Pasang, Susilo, Toa, Aguayo, Hendriks, Satia, Enam, Salawu, Haida, Hidayatullah, Century, Karst, Cie, Negara, Gibbs, Pinheiro, Picchi, Kenya, Ibo, November, Oleh, Satu, Abad, Houghton, Southern, Oxford, Suku, April, Phillips, Cramer, Achard, Hukum, Asmawati, Jaramillo, Abubakar, Tour, Mariani, Olen, Wasa, Alhamd, Box, Mores]

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 12124 34 of 39 180. Sihombing, R.S.M. The role of the indigenous knowledge system of the community Dayak in water management Kahayan River: Review of local wisdom perspective. In Proceedings of the Iapa Proceedings Conference, Bali, Indonesia, 11–12 November 2019; pp. 341–350. [ CrossRef ] 181. Sundari, S.; Ibo, L.; Rahajoe, J.; Alhamd, L.; Gunawan, H.; Priyono, N. Biodiversity study of several peatland types in Papua. In Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science; IOP Publishing: Bogor, Indonesia, 2020; p. 012002 182. Hijjang, P. Pasang dan Kepemimpinan Ammatoa: Memahami Kembali Sistem Kepemimpinan Tradisional Masyarakat Adat dalam Pengelolaan Sumberdaya Hutan di Kajang Sulawesi Selatan Antropol. Indones 2015 , 29 , 255–256. [ CrossRef ] 183. Muntaza, M. Satu Abad Perubahan Sakralitas Alam Malind-anim J. Sosiol. Reflektif 2016 , 8 , 179–208 184. Satia, R.; Gumiri, S.; Utsman, S.; Asmawati, Y.; Abubakar, H.M.; Bulkani, B.; Yusuf, M.; Ardianor, A.; Yusuf, N.S.; Nasir, M Pukung Pahewan ; Diva Press: Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 2019; p. 358 185. Wiati, C.B. Kajian aturan adat pemanfaatan Tana’ Olen oleh masyarakat local di Desa Setulang Kabupaten Malinau, Kalimantan Timur J. Penelit. Ekosist. Dipterokarpa 2013 , 7 , 123–130. [ CrossRef ] 186. Suparmini, S.; Setyawati, S.; Sumunar, D.R.S. Pelestarian lingkungan masyarakat Baduy berbasis kearifan lokal J. Penelit. Hum 2013 , 18 , 8–22. [ CrossRef ] 187. Syarif, E.; Fatchan, A.; Astina, K. Tradition of “Pasang Ri-Kajang” in the forests managing in system mores of “Ammatoa” at District Bulukumba South Sulawesi, Indonesia Mediterr. J. Soc. Sci 2016 , 7 , 325. [ CrossRef ] 188. Yamani, M. Strategi perlindungan hutan berbasis hukum lokal di enam komunitas adat daerah bengkulu J. Huk. Ius Quia Iustum 2011 , 18 , 175–192. [ CrossRef ] 189. Sumarsono, A.; Wasa, C. Traditional Sasi wisdom in Papua-based nature conservation. In Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science ; IOP Publishing: Bogor, Indonesia, 2019; p. 012092. [ CrossRef ] 190. Pattiselanno, F. The wildlife hunting in Papua Biota 2006 , XI , 59–61 191. Renjaan, M.J.; Purnaweni, H.; Anggoro, D.D. Studi kearifan lokal sasi kelapa pada masyarakat adat di Desa Ngilngof Kabupaten Maluku Tenggara J. Ilmu Lingkung 2013 , 11 , 23–29. [ CrossRef ] 192. Efremila; Wardenaar, E.; Sisillia, L. Studi etnobotani tumbuhan obat oleh etnis suku Dayak di desa Kayu Tanam kecamatan Mandor kabupaten Landak J. Hutan Lestari 2015 , 3 . [ CrossRef ] 193. Pristi, N.A. Etnobotani Dalam Upacara Adat Masyarakat Suku Naga, Desa Neglasari, Kecamatan Salawu, Kabupaten Tasikmalaya, Jawa Barat. Bachelor’s Thesis, Fakultas Sains dan Teknologi Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif Hidayatullah, Jakarta, Indonesia, 2015 194. Wansa, W.S Pemanfaatan Etnobotani Masyarakat Suku Kajang Desa Tanah Toa Kecamatan Kajang Kabupaten Bulukumba ; Universitas Muhammadiyah Makassar: Makassar, Indonesia, 2019 195. Nahuelhual, L.; Carmona, A.; Lozada, P.; Jaramillo, A.; Aguayo, M. Mapping recreation and ecotourism as a cultural ecosystem service: An application at the local level in Southern Chile Appl. Geogr 2013 , 40 , 71–82. [ CrossRef ] 196. Putri, I.A.S.L.P.; Ansari, F.; Susilo, A. Response of Bird Community Toward Tourism Activities in the Karst Area of Bantimurung Bulusaraung National Park J. Qual. Assur. Hosp. Tour 2019 , 21 , 146–167. [ CrossRef ] 197. UNEP The Role of Ecosystems in Developing a Sustainable ‘Green Economy’ ; United Nation Environment Programme: Nairobi, Kenya, 2010 198. EIA. EIA Projects Nearly 50% Increase in world Energy Usage by 2050, Led by Growth in Asia. Available online: https: //www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=41433 (accessed on 18 April 2022) 199. Platform. Finding Synergies between Renewable Energy and Ecosystem Services. Available online: https://www.interregeurope.eu/ find-policy-solutions/stories/finding-synergies-between-renewable-energy-and-ecosystem-services (accessed on 16 May 2022) 200. Picchi, P.; Verzandvoort, S.; Geneletti, D.; Hendriks, K.; Stremke, S. Deploying ecosystem services to develop sustainable energy landscapes: A case study from the Netherlands Smart Sustain. Built Environ 2020 ahead-of-print . [ CrossRef ] 201. Ministry of National Development Planning Pedoman Teknis Penyusunan Rencana Aksi—Tujuan Pembangunan Berkelanjutan/Sustainable Development Goals (TPB/SDGs) , 2 nd ed.; Ministry of National Development Planning: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2020 202. Republik Indonesia Energi. Undang-undang Republik Indonesia nomor 40 tahun 2007 tentang perseroan terbatas Jkt. Sekr Negara 2007 . Available online: https://www.ojk.go.id/Files/box/keuangan-berkelanjutan/UU_PT_No_40_tahun_2007.pdf (accessed on 20 June 2022) 203. Esp é cie, M.d.A.; de Carvalho, P.N.; Pinheiro, M.F.B.; Rosenthal, V.M.; da Silva, L.A.F.; Pinheiro, M.R.d.C.; Espig, S.A.; Mariani, C.F.; de Almeida, E.M.; Sodr é , F.N.G.A.d.S. Ecosystem services and renewable power generation: A preliminary literature review Renew. Energy 2019 , 140 , 39–51. [ CrossRef ] 204. Hastik, R.; Basso, S.; Geitner, C.; Haida, C.; Poljanec, A.; Portaccio, A.; Vršˇcaj, B.; Walzer, C. Renewable energies and ecosystem service impacts Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev 2015 , 48 , 608–623. [ CrossRef ] 205. Fearnside, P.M. Global Warming and Tropical Land-Use Change: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Biomass Burning, Decomposition and Soils in Forest Conversion, Shifting Cultivation and Secondary Vegetation Clim. Chang 2000 , 46 , 115–158. [ CrossRef ] 206. Cramer, W.; Bondeau, A.; Schaphoff, S.; Lucht, W.; Smith, B.; Sitch, S. Twenty-first century atmospheric change and deforestation: Potential impacts on tropical forests. In Tropical Forests and Global Atmospheric Change ; Malhi, Y., Phillips, O., Eds.; Oxford Scholarship Online: Oxford, UK, 2005; pp. 17–30 207. Ramankutty, N.; Gibbs, H.K.; Achard, F.; Defries, R.; Foley, J.A.; Houghton, R.A. Challenges to estimating carbon emissions from tropical deforestation Glob. Chang. Biol 2007 , 13 , 51–66. [ CrossRef ]

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Iso, Mol, Ahmed, Thailand, Goetz, Raja, Dennis, Yeoman, Cadman, Salla, Anggraini, Sills, Durban, Riam, Marine, Eco, Hsu, Widodo, Bid, Paradise, Lorde, Hidayat, Coast, Indira, Gill, Moore, Lamers, Mar, Hijau, Bus, Nas, Yahya, Waite, Sotirov, Miles, Damayanti, Devkota, Sarker, Sign, Wilson, Merry, Romero, Laporte, Tacconi, Spencer, Wibowo, Africa, Romania, Parks, Kaji, Johns, Joko, Cerutti]

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 12124 35 of 39 208. Tacconi, L.; Muttaqin, M.Z. Reducing emissions from land use change in Indonesia: An overview For. Policy Econ 2019 , 108 , 101979 [ CrossRef ] 209. Miles, L.; Kapos, V. Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation: Global Land-Use Implications Science 2008 , 320 , 1454–1455. [ CrossRef ] 210. Johns, T.; Merry, F.; Stickler, C.; Nepstad, D.; Laporte, N.; Goetz, S. A three-fund approach to incorporating government, public and private forest stewards into a REDD funding mechanism Int. For. Rev 2008 , 10 , 458–464. [ CrossRef ] 211. Cadman, T.; Sarker, T.; Muttaqin, Z.; Nurfatriani, F.; Salminah, M.; Maraseni, T. The role of fiscal instruments in encouraging the private sector and smallholders to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation: Evidence from Indonesia For Policy Econ 2019 , 108 , 101913. [ CrossRef ] 212. Boediono, L. Indonesia and the World Bank Sign Milestone Agreement on Emission Reductions. Available online: https: //www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2020/12/08/indonesia-and-the-world-bank-sign-milestone-agreement-onemission-reductions (accessed on 29 May 2022) 213. Venter, O.; Meijaard, E.; Possingham, H.; Dennis, R.; Sheil, D.; Wich, S.; Hovani, L.; Wilson, K. Carbon payments as a safeguard for threatened tropical mammals Conserv. Lett 2009 , 2 , 123–129. [ CrossRef ] 214. Saepudin, A.; Muryantini, A.; Maghfiroh, H.D. Kebijakan Indonesia Dalam Mewujudkan Industri Hijau (Green Industry) Masa Pemerintahan Presiden Joko Widodo J. EKSOS 2020 , 2 , 166–177 215. Pusat Pengkajian Strategis Kehutanan. Green Product Kehutanan vs. Issue Lingkungan. Available online: http://www. forestforlife.web.id/2012/09/green-product-kehutanan-versus-issue.html (accessed on 2 June 2022) 216. Maryudi, A.; Devkota, R.R.; Schusser, C.; Yufanyi, C.; Salla, M.; Aurenhammer, H.; Rotchanaphatharawit, R.; Krott, M. Back to basics: Considerations in evaluating the outcomes of community forestry For. Policy Econ 2012 , 14 , 1–5. [ CrossRef ] 217. Purwanto, A.; Asbari, M.; Prameswari, M.; Pramono, R. Sistem manajemen pengelolaan hutan FSC, PEFC, ISO 38200:2018 dan pengaruhnya terhadap kinerja industri kayu di Indonesia Tengkawang 2020 , 10 , 34–44. [ CrossRef ] 218. Wibowo, A.; Sahide, M.A.K.; Pratiwi, S.; Dharmawan, B.; Giessen, L. Ragam Skema Sertifikasi Hutan Global Dan Opsi Transformasinya Di Indonesia RISALAH KEBIJAKAN PERTANIAN DAN LINGKUNGAN Rumusan Kaji. Strateg. Bid. Pertan. Dan Lingkung 2015 , 2 , 1–8. [ CrossRef ] 219. Gavrilut, I.; Halalisan, A.-F.; Giurca, A.; Sotirov, M. The Interaction between FSC Certification and the Implementation of the EU Timber Regulation in Romania Forests 2016 , 7 , 3. [ CrossRef ] 220. Kongmanee, C.; Ahmed, F.; Longpichai, O. Cost-Benefit Analysis and Challenges of Implementing FSC Standards in Rubber Plantations in Southern Thailand J. Asian Financ. Econ. Bus 2020 , 7 , 423–431. [ CrossRef ] 221. Palupi, R.D. Implementasi Sertifikasi FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) Terhadap Eco-Product di Indonesia. Available online: https: //pediailmu.com/kehutanan/implementasi-sertifikasi-fsc-terhadap-eco-product-di-indonesia/ (accessed on 10 June 2022) 222. Tacconi, L.; Rodrigues, R.J.; Maryudi, A. Law enforcement and deforestation: Lessons for Indonesia from Brazil For. Policy Econ 2019 , 108 , 101943. [ CrossRef ] 223. Wiyono, W.; Oktalina, S.N. Kendala Implementasi Sistem Verifikasi Legalitas Kayu pada Industri Kayu di Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta. In Proceedings of the Prosiding Seminar Nasional Teknologi Terapan 2015 “Inovasi Budaya dan Teknologi untuk Kemajuan Bangsa”. Sekolah Vokasi Universitas Gajah Mada, Yogjakarta, Indonesia, 14 November 2015 224. Romero, C.; Sills, E.O.; Guariguata, M.R.; Cerutti, P.O.; Lescuyer, G.; Putz, F.E. Evaluation of the impacts of Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification of natural forest management in the tropics: A rigorous approach to assessment of a complex conservation intervention Int. For. Rev 2017 , 19 , 36–49. [ CrossRef ] 225. Yahya, A.F.; Damayanti, E.; Zuhud, E.A. Traditional forest-related knowledge for ecosystem services in Sundanese ethnic of Sukabumi District, West Java Province. In Proceedings of the XIV WORLD FORESTRY CONGRESS, Durban, South Africa, 7–11 September 2015 226. Yeoman, J. Ecotourism and Sustainable Development. In Who Owns Paradise? 2 nd ed.; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2001; Volume 22, pp. 206–208 227. Libosada, C.M. Business or leisure? Economic development and resource protection-Concepts and practices in sustainable ecotourism Ocean Coast. Manag 2009 , 52 , 390–394. [ CrossRef ] 228. Hsu, P.H. Economic impact of wetland ecotourism: An empirical study of Taiwan’s Cigu Lagoon area Tour. Manag. Perspect 2019 , 29 , 31–40. [ CrossRef ] 229. Indira Anggraini, R.; Gunawan, B. Ecotourism development in National Parks: A new paradigm of forest management in Indonesia E 3 S Web Conf 2021 , 249 , 03010. [ CrossRef ] 230. Pynanjung, P.A. Dampak pengembangan ekowisata terhadap kesejahteraan masyarakat di Kabupaten Bengkayang: Studi kasus Kawasan Ekowisata Riam Pangar J. Nas. Pariwisata 2018 , 10 , 22–38. [ CrossRef ] 231. Wiyono, W.; Hidayat, R.; Oktalina, S. The Community Empowerment Strategy in Protected Forest Management through Community-Based Ecotourism Development in Kalibiru Village, Kulon Progo Regency Habitat 2020 , 31 , 11–27. [ CrossRef ] 232. Atmodjo, E.; Lamers, M.; Mol, A. Financing marine conservation tourism: Governing entrance fees in Raja Ampat, Indonesia Mar. Policy 2017 , 78 , 181–188. [ CrossRef ] 233. Schuhmann, P.W.; Skeete, R.; Waite, R.; Lorde, T.; Bangwayo-Skeete, P.; Oxenford, H.A.; Gill, D.; Moore, W.; Spencer, F. Visitors’ willingness to pay marine conservation fees in Barbados Tour. Manag 2019 , 71 , 315–326. [ CrossRef ]

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: De Oliveira, Jezile, Ferraro, Malik, Babak, Iskandar, Faust, India, Wen, Myth, Nandini, Callegari, Marais, Pierce, Budhi, Mss, Baik, Santosa, Zone, Panda, Delhi, Dung, Morris, Brunner, Sakti, York, Bishop, Iqbal, Knight, Wunder, Pandit, Phuong, Mills, Welz, Pham, Yin, Zheng, Wilhelm, Ting, Wijaya, Roux, Purnomo, Selling, Capodaglio, Hou, Stevens, Loft, Line, Mns, Cowling, Rouget, Kholil, Muhamad, Dedy, Oliveira, Farrell]

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 12124 36 of 39 234. Ma, B.; Yin, R.; Zheng, J.; Wen, Y.; Hou, Y. Estimating the social and ecological impact of community-based ecotourism in giant panda habitats J. Environ. Manag 2019 , 250 , 109506. [ CrossRef ] 235. Wiratno, W.; Withaningsih, S.; Gunawan, B.; Iskandar, J. Ecotourism as a Resource Sharing Strategy: Case Study of Community- Based Ecotourism at the Tangkahan Buffer Zone of Leuser National Park, Langkat District, North Sumatra, Indonesia Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 3399. [ CrossRef ] 236. Butarbutar, R.; Soemarno, S. Environmental effects of ecotourism in Indonesia J. Indones. Tour. Dev. Stud 2013 , 1 , 97–107 [ CrossRef ] 237. Purnomo, M.; Maryudi, A.; Dedy Andriatmoko, N.; Muhamad Jayadi, E.; Faust, H. The cost of leisure: The political ecology of the commercialization of Indonesia’s protected areas Environ. Sociol 2022 , 8 , 121–133. [ CrossRef ] 238. Lenzen, M.; Sun, Y.Y.; Faturay, F.; Ting, Y.P.; Geschke, A.; Malik, A. The carbon footprint of global tourism Nat. Clim. Chang 2018 , 8 , 522–528. [ CrossRef ] 239. Morris, E.K.; Morris, D.J.P.; Vogt, S.; Gleber, S.C.; Bigalke, M.; Wilcke, W.; Rillig, M.C. Visualizing the dynamics of soil aggregation as affected by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi ISME J 2019 , 13 , 1639–1646. [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 240. Kholil, K.; Dharoko, T.A.; Widayati, A. Pendekatan multi dimensional scaling untuk evaluasi keberlanjutan waduk Cirata—Propinsi Jawa Barat J. Mns. Dan Lingkung 2015 , 22 , 22–31. [ CrossRef ] 241. Nandini, R.; Kusumandari, A.; Gunawan, T.; Sadono, R. Multidimensional Scaling Approach to Evaluate the Level of Community Forestry Sustainability in Babak Watershed, Lombok Island, West Nusa Tenggara Forum Geogr 2017 , 31 , 28–42. [ CrossRef ] 242. Suryanto, S.; Onrizal, O.; Susilo, A.; Andriansyah, M.; Muslim, T. Implementation of Multi-System Silviculture (MSS) to improve performance of production forest management: A case study of PT Sarpatim, Central Kalimantan Indones. J. For. Res 2018 , 5 , 1–19 [ CrossRef ] 243. Rakatama, A.; Pandit, R. Reviewing social forestry schemes in Indonesia: Opportunities and challenges For. Policy Econ 2020 , 111 , 102052. [ CrossRef ] 244. Cowling, R.M.; Egoh, B.; Knight, A.T.; O’Farrell, P.J.; Reyers, B.; Rouget, M.; Roux, D.J.; Welz, A.; Wilhelm-Rechman, A. An operational model for mainstreaming ecosystem services for implementation Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008 , 105 , 9483–9488 [ CrossRef ] 245. Mijatovi´c, D.; Sakalian, M.; Hodgkin, T Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Production Landscapes ; United Nations Environment Programme: New Delhi, India, 2018 246. Cowling, R.M.; Pierce, S.M.; Sandwith, T. Conclusions: The Fundamentals of Mainstreaming Biodiversity. In Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Development: Case Studies from South Africa ; van Wilgen, B., Marais, C., Magadlela, D., Jezile, N., Stevens, D., Eds.; The International Bank for Reconstructionand Development/The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2002; p. 143 247. Capodaglio, A.G.; Callegari, A. Can Payment for Ecosystem Services schemes be an alternative solution to achieve sustainable environmental development? A critical comparison of implementation between Europe and China Resources 2018 , 7 , 40 [ CrossRef ] 248. Grima, N.; Singh, S.J.; Smetschka, B.; Ringhofer, L. Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) in Latin America: Analysing the performance of 40 case studies Ecosyst. Serv 2016 , 17 , 24–32. [ CrossRef ] 249. Folharini, S.d.O.; De Oliveira, R.C. Environmental Services and Ecosystem Services: Conceptual Difference and Application in Brazilian Environmental Legislation Geoambiente-Line 2020 , 38 , 210–229. [ CrossRef ] 250. Ferraro, P.J. The future of payments for environmental services Conserv. Biol 2011 , 25 , 1134–1138. [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 251. Pham, T.T.; Loft, L.; Bennett, K.; Phuong, V.T.; Dung, L.N.; Brunner, J. Monitoring and evaluation of Payment for Forest Environmental Services in Vietnam: From myth to reality Ecosyst. Serv 2015 , 16 , 220–229. [ CrossRef ] 252. Ferraro, P.J. Asymmetric information and contract design for payments for environmental services Ecol. Econ 2008 , 65 , 810–821 [ CrossRef ] 253. Wunder, S. When payments for environmental services will work for conservation Conserv. Lett 2013 , 6 , 230–237. [ CrossRef ] 254. Pasha, R.; Asmawan, T.; Leimona, B.; Setiawan, E.; Wijaya, C.I Komoditisasi Atau Koinvestasi Jasa Lingkungan: Skema Imbal Jasa Lingkungan Program Peduli Sungai di DAS Way Besai, Lampung, Indonesia ; World Agroforestry Centre: Bogor, Indonesia, 2011 255. Laila, N.; Murtilaksono, K.; Nugroho, B. Kelembagaan kemitraan hulu hilir untuk pasokan air DAS Cidanau, Provinsi Banten J. Penelit. Sos. Dan Ekon. Kehutan 2014 , 11 , 29177. [ CrossRef ] 256. Fauzi, A.; Anna, Z. The complexity of the institution of payment for environmental services: A case study of two Indonesian PES schemes Ecosyst. Serv 2013 , 6 , 54–63. [ CrossRef ] 257. Napitupulu, D.F.; Asdak, C.; Budiono, B. Mekanisme imbal jasa lingkungan di sub-das Cikapundung (studi kasus pada Desa Cikole dan Desa Suntenjaya Kabupaten Bandung Barat) J. Ilmu Lingkung. Undip 2013 , 11 , 73–83. [ CrossRef ] 258. Pagiola, S.; Landell-Mills, N.; Bishop, J. Market-based mechanisms for forest conservation and development. In Selling Forest Environmental Services ; Pagiola, S., Bishop, J., Landell-Mills, N., Eds.; Earthscan Publications Ltd.: New York, NY, USA, 2002; pp. 1–13 259. Aviantara, D.B.; Suciati, F. Penggunaan model matematik gaussian dispersion untuk pendugaan perubahan kualitas udara dalam analisis dampak lingkungan J. Rekayasa Lingkung 2021 , 14 . [ CrossRef ] 260. Budhi, G.S.; Kuswanto, S.; Iqbal, M. Concept and implementation of PES program in the Cidanau watershed: A lesson learned for future environmental policy Anal. Kebijak. Pertan 2008 , 6 , 37–55 261. Santosa, A.; Sakti, D.K.; Hardiyanto, G.; Berliani, H.; Suwito Mendorong Pemanfaatan Air dan Energi Air yang Lebih Baik ; The Partnership for Governance Reform: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2015.

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: De Groot, Nevalainen, Biber, Sari, Hakala, Hyde, Christie, Hanley, Mayers, Kelly, Fair, Camps, Nieuwenhuis, Emery, Corradini, Eriksson, Liang, Moroni, Lapeyre, Warren, Deals, Ann, Woo, Cristal, Campbell, Kota, Mata, Mexico, Turner, Venn, London, Gonz, Borges, Sens, Christensen, Allali, Lamas, Slu, Stringer, Mca, Garcia, Cooper, Acuna, Corrigan, Portugal, Groot, Colombo, Issaoui, Sherman, Erba, Braat, Kaspar, Bond, Chee, Nordstrom, Tahri, Zilberman, Amsterdam, Tato, Kabak, Pirard, Black, Palomino, Hein, Gonzalo]

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 12124 37 of 39 262. Diswandi, D. A hybrid Coasean and Pigouvian approach to Payment for Ecosystem Services Program in West Lombok: Does it contribute to poverty alleviation? Ecosyst. Serv 2017 , 23 , 138–145. [ CrossRef ] 263. Iqbal, Y.M.; Burhanudin, H. Penentuan Biaya Kompensasi Air dari Kota Cirebon untuk Penghijauan Desa Sekitar Mata Air Cipaniis Kabupaten Kuningan. In Proceedings of the Seminar Penelitian Sivitas Akademika UNISBA, Bandung, Indonesia, 6–11 August 2020; pp. 408–416. [ CrossRef ] 264. Suich, H.; Lugina, M.; Muttaqin, M.Z.; Alviya, I.; Sari, G.K. Payments for ecosystem services in Indonesia Oryx 2017 , 51 , 489–497 [ CrossRef ] 265. Romero, H.G. Payments for Environmental Services: Can They Work? The Case of Mexico Field Actions Sci. Rep. J. Field Actions 2012 , 6 , 1–7 266. Lapeyre, R.; Pirard, R.; Leimona, B. Payments for environmental services in Indonesia: What if economic signals were lost in translation? Land Use Policy 2015 , 46 , 283–291. [ CrossRef ] 267. Bulte, E.H.; Lipper, L.; Stringer, R.; Zilberman, D. Payments for ecosystem services and poverty reduction: Concepts, issues, and empirical perspectives Environ. Dev. Econ 2008 , 13 , 245–254. [ CrossRef ] 268. de Groot, R.S.; Alkemade, R.; Braat, L.; Hein, L.; Willemen, L. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making Ecol. Complex 2010 , 7 , 260–272. [ CrossRef ] 269. Bond, I.; Mayers, J Fair Deals for Watershed Services Lessons from a Multi-Country Action-Learning Project ; International Institute for Environment and Development: London, UK, 2010 270. Tahri, M.; Kaspar, J.; Vacik, H.; Marusak, R. Multi-attribute decision making and geographic information systems: Potential tools for evaluating forest ecosystem services Ann. For. Sci 2021 , 78 , 1–19. [ CrossRef ] 271. Borges, J.G.; Nordstrom, E.M.; Garcia Gonjalo, J.; Hujala, T.; Trasobares, A Computer-Based Tools for Supporting Forest Management. The Experience and the Expertise World-Wide ; Forest Resource Management-SLU: Umeå, Sweden, 2014; p. 507. ISBN 978-91-576-9236-8 272. Zhang, Z.; Sherman, R.; Yang, Z.; Wu, R.; Wang, W.; Yin, M.; Yang, G.; Ou, X. Integrating a participatory process with a GIS-based multi-criteria decision analysis for protected area zoning in China J. Nat. Conserv 2013 , 21 , 225–240. [ CrossRef ] 273. Armatas, C.A.; Campbell, R.M.; Watson, A.E.; Borrie, W.T.; Christensen, N.; Venn, T.J. An integrated approach to valuation and tradeoff analysis of ecosystem services for national forest decision-making Ecosyst. Serv 2018 , 33 , 1–18. [ CrossRef ] 274. Hyyppä, E.; Yu, X.; Kaartinen, H.; Hakala, T.; Kukko, A.; Vastaranta, M.; Hyyppä, J. Comparison of backpack, handheld, under-canopy UAV, and above-canopy UAV laser scanning for field reference data collection in boreal forests Remote Sens 2020 , 12 , 3327. [ CrossRef ] 275. Liang, X.; Wang, Y.; Pyörälä, J.; Lehtomäki, M.; Yu, X.; Kaartinen, H.; Kukko, A.; Honkavaara, E.; Issaoui, A.E.I.; Nevalainen, O.; et al Forest in situ observations using unmanned aerial vehicle as an alternative of terrestrial measurements For. Ecosyst 2019 , 6 , 1–16 [ CrossRef ] 276. Palomino, J.; Muellerklein, O.C.; Kelly, M. A review of the emergent ecosystem of collaborative geospatial tools for addressing environmental challenges Comput. Environ. Urban Syst 2017 , 65 , 79–92. [ CrossRef ] 277. Emery, B.; Camps, A Introduction to Satellite Remote Sensing: Atmosphere, Ocean, Land and Cryosphere Applications ; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017 278. Bagstad, K.J.; Semmens, D.J.; Waage, S.; Winthrop, R. A comparative assessment of decision-support tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation Ecosyst. Serv 2013 , 5 , 27–39. [ CrossRef ] 279. Çetinkaya, C.; Kabak, M.; Erba¸s, M.; Özceylan, E. Evaluation of ecotourism sites: A GIS-based multi-criteria decision analysis Kybernetes 2018 , 47 , 1664–1686. [ CrossRef ] 280. Woo, H.; Acuna, M.; Moroni, M.; Taskhiri, M.S.; Turner, P. Optimizing the location of biomass energy facilities by integrating Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) and Geographical Information Systems (GIS) Forests 2018 , 9 , 585. [ CrossRef ] 281. Garcia-Gonzalo, J.; Bushenkov, V.; McDill, M.E.; Borges, J.G. A decision support system for assessing trade-offs between ecosystem management goals: An application in Portugal Forests 2015 , 6 , 65–87. [ CrossRef ] 282. Nordström, E.M.; Nieuwenhuis, M.; Ba¸skent, E.Z.; Biber, P.; Black, K.; Borges, J.G.; Bugalho, M.N.; Corradini, G.; Corrigan, E.; Eriksson, L.O.; et al. Forest decision support systems for the analysis of ecosystem services provisioning at the landscape scale under global climate and market change scenarios Eur. J. For. Res 2019 , 138 , 561–581. [ CrossRef ] 283. Cristal, I.; Ameztegui, A.; Gonz á lez-Olabarria, J.R.; Garcia-Gonzalo, J. A Decision support tool for assessing the impact of climate change on multiple ecosystem services Forests 2019 , 10 , 440. [ CrossRef ] 284. Pasalodos-Tato, M.; Mäkinen, A.; Garcia-Gonzalo, J.; Borges, J.G.; Lamas, T.; Eriksson, L.O. Review. Assessing uncertainty and risk in forest planning and decision support systems: Review of classical methods For. Syst 2013 , 22 , 282–303 285. Lopes, R.; Videira, N. How to articulate the multiple value dimensions of ecosystem services? Insights from implementing the PArticulatES framework in a coastal social-ecological system in Portugal Ecosyst. Serv 2019 , 38 , 100955. [ CrossRef ] 286. Lopes, R.; Videira, N. Valuing marine and coastal ecosystem services: An integrated participatory framework Ocean Coast Manag 2013 , 84 , 153–162. [ CrossRef ] 287. Chee, Y.E. An ecological perspective on the valuation of ecosystem services Biol. Conserv 2004 , 120 , 549–565. [ CrossRef ] 288. Jamouli, A.; Allali, K. Economic valuation of ecosystem services in Africa E 3 S Web Conf 2020 , 183 , 01002. [ CrossRef ] 289. Christie, M.; Hyde, A.; Cooper, R.; Fazey, I.; Dennis, P.; Warren, J.; Colombo, S.; Hanley, N Economic Valuation of the Benefits of Ecosystem Services Delivered by the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (Defra Project SFFSD 0702) ; DEFRA: London, UK, 2011.

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: De Vries, De Lucia, Farber, Costanza, Bernhardt, Salsabila, Heal, Sharma, Frau, Phelps, Pisani, Thomas, Morse, Salles, Martin, Walz, Winkler, Braz, Tam, Childers, Barbier, Chu, Lien, Stork, Hopkinson, Balasubramanian, Rey, Karanja, Aronson, Felipe, Beyond, Myanmar, Nicholas, Norton, Fisher, Anthony, Put, Zubair, Escalera, Roslinda, Reg, Troy, Grove, Garmendia, Perrino, Kahn, Lucia, Aung, Erickson, Baja, Bryan, Vries, Ruiz, Haryanto, Saputra, Bhatta, Ortega, Newton, Crossman, Sears, Joyce, Nelson, Schmidt, Caporale, Gargano, Lin, Levine, Macdonald, Dak, Reyes, Voice, Raymond, Keenan, Pazienza]

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 12124 38 of 39 290. Pisani, D.; Pazienza, P.; Perrino, E.V.; Caporale, D.; De Lucia, C. The Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services of Biodiversity Components in Protected Areas: A Review for a Framework of Analysis for the Gargano National Park Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 11726 [ CrossRef ] 291. Selivanov, E.; Hlav á ˇckov á , P. Methods for monetary valuation of ecosystem services: A scoping review J. For. Sci 2021 , 67 , 499–511 [ CrossRef ] 292. Eregae, J.E.; Njogu, P.; Karanja, R.; Gichua, M. Economic Valuation for Cultural and Passive Ecosystem Services Using a Stated Preference (Contingent Valuation Method (CVM)) Case of the Elgeyo Watershed Ecosystem, Kenya Int. J. For. Res 2021 , 2021 , 5867745. [ CrossRef ] 293. Ojea, E.; Martin-Ortega, J.; Chiabai, A. Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services: Conflicts in Classification. In Proceedings of the 9 th International and National Webinar on Fisheries and Marine Science (ISFM 9), Riau, Indonesia, 10 September 2010 294. Resendea, F.M.; Fernandesa, G.W.; Andraded, D.C.; N é derd, H.D. Economic valuation of the ecosystem services provided by a protected area in the Brazilian Cerrado: Application of the contingent valuation method Braz. J. Biol 2017 , 77 , 762–773 [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 295. Roslinda, E.; Yuliantini, Y. The economic value of hydrological services in Mendalam Sub Watershed, Kapuas Hulu Regency, West Kalimantan, Indonesia Indones. J. For. Res 2014 , 1 , 1–8. [ CrossRef ] 296. Balasubramanian, M. Economic value of regulating ecosystem services: A comprehensive at the global level review Environ Monit. Assess 2019 , 191 , 616. [ CrossRef ] 297. Baral, H.; Jaung, W.; Bhatta, L.D.; Phuntsho, S.; Sharma, S.; Paudyal, K.; Zarandian, A.; Sears, R.R.; Sharma, R.; Dorji, T.; et al Approaches and tools for assessing mountain forest ecosystem services Work. Pap 2017 , 235 . [ CrossRef ] 298. Farber, S.; Costanza, R.; Childers, D.L.; Erickson, J.; Gross, K.; Grove, M.; Hopkinson, C.S.; Kahn, J.; Pincetl, S.; Troy, A.; et al Linking Ecology and Economics for Ecosystem Management BioScience 2006 , 56 , 121–133. [ CrossRef ] 299. Bullock, J.M.; Aronson, J.; Newton, A.C.; Pywell, R.F.; Rey-Benayas, J.M. Restoration of ecosystem services and biodiversity: Conflicts and opportunities Trends Ecol. Evol 2011 , 26 , 541–549. [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 300. Baral, H.; Keenan, R.J.; Sharma, S.K.; Stork, N.E.; Kasel, S. Economic evaluation of ecosystem goods and services under different landscape management scenarios Land Use Policy 2014 , 39 , 54–64. [ CrossRef ] 301. Barbier, E.B.; Heal, G.M. Valuing Ecosystem Services Econ. Voice 2006 , 3 , 6. [ CrossRef ] 302. Turner, R.K.; Morse-Jones, S.; Fisher, B. Ecosystem valuation Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci 2010 , 1185 , 79–101. [ CrossRef ] 303. Salles, J.-M. Valuing biodiversity and ecosystem services: Why put economic values on Nature? C. R. Biol 2011 , 334 , 469–482 [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 304. Troy, A.; Wilson, M.A. Mapping ecosystem services: Practical challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and value transfer Ecol Econ 2006 , 60 , 435–449. [ CrossRef ] 305. Effendi, R.; Salsabila, H.; Malik, A. Pemahaman Tentang Lingkungan Berkelanjutan Modul 2018 , 18 , 75. [ CrossRef ] 306. Raymond, C.M.; Singh, G.G.; Benessaiah, K.; Bernhardt, J.R.; Levine, J.; Nelson, H.; Turner, N.J.; Norton, B.; Tam, J.; Chan, K.M.A Ecosystem Services and Beyond: Using Multiple Metaphors to Understand Human–Environment Relationships BioScience 2013 , 63 , 536–546. [ CrossRef ] 307. Lin, Y.P.; Lin, W.C.; Li, H.Y.; Wang, Y.C.; Hsu, C.C.; Lien, W.Y.; Anthony, J.; Petway, J.R. Integrating social values and ecosystem services in systematic conservation planning: A case study in Datuan Watershed Sustainability 2017 , 9 , 718. [ CrossRef ] 308. Phelps, J.; Dermawan, A.; Garmendia, E. Institutionalizing environmental valuation into policy: Lessons from 7 Indonesian agencies Glob. Environ. Chang 2017 , 43 , 15–25. [ CrossRef ] 309. Johnson, D.N.; van Riper, C.J.; Chu, M.; Winkler-Schor, S. Comparing the social values of ecosystem services in US and Australian marine protected areas Ecosyst. Serv 2019 , 37 , 100919. [ CrossRef ] 310. Walz, A.; Schmidt, K.; Ruiz-Frau, A.; Nicholas, K.A.; Bierry, A.; de Vries Lentsch, A.; Dyankov, A.; Joyce, D.; Liski, A.H.; Marb à , N.; et al. Sociocultural valuation of ecosystem services for operational ecosystem management: Mapping applications by decision contexts in Europe Reg. Environ. Chang 2019 , 19 , 2245–2259. [ CrossRef ] 311. Marupah; Zubair, H.; Rukmana, D.; Baja, S. Economic valuation of erosion IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci 2018 , 157 , 012018 [ CrossRef ] 312. Felipe-Lucia, M.R.; Com í n, F.A.; Escalera-Reyes, J. A framework for the social valuation of ecosystem services AMBIO 2015 , 44 , 308–318 [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 313. Chintantya, D. Peranan Jasa Ekosistem dalam Perencanaan Kebijakan Publik di Perkotaan Proc. Biol. Educ. Conf 2017 , 14 , 144–147 314. Bryan, B.A.; Raymond, C.M.; Crossman, N.D.; Macdonald, D.H. Targeting the management of ecosystem services based on social values: Where, what, and how? Landsc. Urban Plan 2010 , 97 , 111–122. [ CrossRef ] 315. Emerton, L.; Aung, Y.M The Economic Value of Forest Ecosystem Services in Myanmar and Options for Sustainable Financing ; International Management Group: Yangon, Myanmar, 2013 316. Emerton, L.; Bishop, J.; Thomas, L Sustainable Financing of Protected Areas: A Global Review of Challenges and Options ; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland, 2006 317. Saputra, W.; Halimatussadiah, A.; Haryanto, J.; Nurfatriani, F.; Salminah, M Designing Policy of Regional Incentive Funds (DID), Specific Purpose Funds (DAK) for Environment and Forestry Sector and Village Funds (DD) Ecological Fiscal Transfers in Indonesia ; USAID-Kemitraan: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2021 318. Gutman, P.; Davidson, S A Review of Innovative International Financial Mechanisms for Biodiversity Conservation with a Special Focus on the International Financing of Developing Countries’ Protected Areas ; WWF: Washington, DC, USA, 2007.

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Nepal, January, Woodward, Joshi, Neupane, Freeman, Iii, Costa, Santiago, Aryal, Routledge, Kling, Rio, Bayon, Thapa, Atas, Shrestha, Stock, Blackman, Ranabhat]

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 12124 39 of 39 319. Barbier, E.B. Valuing ecosystem services as productive inputs Econ. Policy 2007 , 22 , 178–229. [ CrossRef ] 320. Freeman, A.M., III; Herriges, J.A.; Kling, C.L The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods ; Routledge: London, UK, 2014 321. Bayon, R.; Lovink, J.S.; Veening, W.J Financing Biodiversity Conservation ; Citeseer: Washington, DC, USA, 2000 322. Panayotou, T. Taking stock of trends in sustainable development finance since Rio. In Proceedings of the Finance for Sustainable Development: The Road Ahead, Santiago, Chile, 8–10 January 1997 323. Nurfatriani, F.; Satrio, A.E. Urgensi Pendanaan Pembangunan Berbasis Ekologi. Dalam Pendanaan Pembangunan Berbasis Ekologi di Provinsi Kalimantan Timur. In Tinjauan Atas Skema Result Based Payment Sebagai Insentif REDD+ ; Nurfatriani, F., Dharmawan, I.W.S., Eds.; IPB Press: Bogor, Indonesia, 2020 324. Fiskal, B.K Pendanaan Publik Untuk Pengendalian Perubahan Iklim Indonesia 2016–2018 ; Badan Kebijakan Fiskal: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2019 325. Direktorat Mobilisasi Sumberdaya Sektoral dan Regional Menuju Operasionalisasi Pendanaan Iklim ; Direktorat Mobilisasi Sumberdaya Sektoral dan Regional (Direktorat MSSR); Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2017 326. Dhewanthi, L. Kebijakan dan strategi pendanaan perlindungan dan pengelolaan lingkungan hidup. In Proceedings of the Perbaikan Tata Kelola dan Dukungan Pendanaan Perubahan Iklim di Daerah, Jakarta, Indonesia, 23 April 2020 327. Krott, M Forest Policy Analysis ; Springer Science & Business Media: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2005 328. Aryal, K.; Bhatta, L.D.; Thapa, P.S.; Ranabhat, S.; Neupane, N.; Joshi, J.; Shrestha, K.; Shrestha, A.B. Payment for ecosystem services: Could it be sustainable financing mechanism for watershed services in Nepal? Green Financ 2019 , 1 , 221–236. [ CrossRef ] 329. Blackman, A.; Woodward, R.T. User financing in a national payments for environmental services program: Costa Rican hydropower Ecol. Econ 2010 , 69 , 1626–1638. [ CrossRef ]