Nature Based Tourism

Case Study: Gunung Gede Pangrango National Park

By Glem Mulcahy & John McCarthy

Background Tourism in GGPNP Impacts on the wildlife and the ecological basis for tourism Management Constraints Planning and Management Appendix Endnotes References

Background.

Gunung Gede Pangrango.

Gunung Gede Pangrango National Park (GGPNP), a small park, located in West Java, faces unique challenges. As GGPNP lies in the Puncak mountain area just south of Jakarta, about 30 million people live within 100 kilometres of the 15,000 hectare park. As the Puncak area is a favourite get-away for weekend visitors from Jakarta, over the last decades developers have heavily rebuilt this area for recreational uses – constructing many hotels, swimming pools, golf courses and discos. Located as it is in the midst of these developments, GGPNP has become the focus for mass tourism.

Click on maps to see enlargements

History

In the Netherland Indies, during the nineteenth century the Dutch created forest reserves, areas that could be exploited for timber but which had to be left under forest cover to prevent soil erosion and other ecological damage. In 1889 the Dutch established what was in effect the first nature reserve in Indonesia at Cibodas (the first part of GGPNP), creating a reserve initially covering 240 hectares. While this site was dedicated to scientific research rather than nature conservation, nonetheless this made the Cibodas reserve one of the oldest, formally established, tropical forest reserves in the world (Dammerman, 1929) (Harris, 1994). Consequently, more than a century of on-going scientific research into tropical ecology has enhanced significantly the status and value of the park.

Over the following 90 years the authorities continued to add areas of forest to the reserve: first, another 56 ha in 1919; a further 1,040 ha at Cibodas in 1925; then in 1975 some 100 ha. In 1977 the Park formed the core of a UNESCO World Biosphere reserve, although this had no legal standing in Indonesia (Wells et al. 1999). Finally, in 1978 the authorities added 14, 000 ha. On 6 March 1980 the total area of 15,196 ha of land, known as Cibodas Reserve, was designated a national park. The park was subsequently renamed Gunung Gede Pangrango National Park (PHPA, 1995a).

Biodiversity and Ecological Value

GGPNP plays an important role in the wider west Javan context. More than 60 rivers flow from the mountainous park. The area downstream is subject to heavy flooding. For instance, the Ciliwung River that flows from the park often causes severe flooding in Jakarta. Therefore, GGPNP watershed forests support important hydrological functions, as well as providing water for agricultural, industrial and domestic uses. It has been estimated that the park provides water worth US$1.5 billion for domestic and agricultural uses (Wells et al. 1999).

Furthermore, GGPNP supports important submontane and montane tropical rainforests, including some of the best remaining Javan montane forests.

Within the park, scientists have recorded over 1,000 species of flowering plants, comprising of approximately 120 plant families, including more than 200 species of orchid – 33% of all orchid species found on Java.

The variety of vegetation and therefore habitats, make it possible for a large number of diverse fauna to exist in GGPNP. Some 245 species of birds have been recorded in the park, including 24 of Java's 24 endemics" (Wells et al. 1999). Notable mammals include two endemic primates (the Javan gibbon and Javan leaf monkey), leopard, Javan stink badger, yellow-throated marten, and leopard cat. The Javan hawk eagle (Indonesia's national bird) and the two endemic primates are "globally the most threatened representatives of their respective families" (Wells et al. 1999). A number of fauna species, such as the Javan Gibbon (Hylobates moloch), are living at the limits of their altitudinal range, having been pushed into the remnant mountain ranges of GGPNP by the destruction of their lowland habitat. The Ebony leaf monkey (Trachypithecus auratus) and the Long-tailed macaque (Macaca fascicularis) are easy to see near the Cibodas gate or along the path to the Cibeureum waterfalls (Harris, 1996). Both are common throughout this area. However, if the destruction of habitat and the pet trade are not checked, their status, as with many small mammals and many birds, will change in the not too distant future.

[Return to Top]

Tourism in GGPNP

Each year an estimated 50,000 urban people visit the park, attracted by the mild climate and spectacular views rather than biodiversity (Wells et al. 1999). The Cibodas and Selabintana areas have become very popular, and tourism has reached the level of mass tourism associated with beaches and other large-scale attractions. One Saturday morning during April 1999 between 0830 and 0900, the author witnessed some 45 visitors entering the park (Cibodas) in groups of between 2 to 10. This was an ordinary day. Tourism reaches its peak during public holidays and festivals, such as the Independence day holiday, when large groups of students camp and climb in the park. During the early evening on 16th August, somewhere between 600 and 1,000 people climb to the Surya kencana meadow to camp. The objective is to see the sun rise over Mount Gede on 17th August – Independence day.

Welcome: Click link to read in: Indonesian or English

According to statistics from the conservation agency, PHPA, at least 96% of the tourists visiting GGPNP are Indonesians. The remaining 4% are mostly from Europe, North America, Japan and Australia (PHPA, 1995a). PHPA surveys reveal that in general most visitors (97%) enter the park for recreational purposes such as walking, bird watching, picnicking and perhaps bathing (see Tables 1a and 1b in Appendix 1). There are no other facilities for recreation purposes such as 'white-water rafting' or mountain bike tails. (end note 1)

Tourists

 

The 3 volcanic complexes lying within GGPNP form a central attraction of the park. Passing into the park, the remains of the huge Mt. Mandalawangi complex (3.3 km wide caldera) forms a horse shoe rim whose weathered form can be seen behind the National Park Headquarters at Cibodas. Mt. Pangrango, located just behind the busy Puncak Pass, is an extinct volcano. Pangrango rises to a height of 3,019m asl with deep folds dropping away sharply into deep valleys on either side. Close by lies the park's second highest peak Mt. Gede, standing at 2,958 m asl. Gede has several spectacular caldera, one of which issues sulphurous steam (Harris, 1996). G.Gede is one of 17 active volcanoes (with a possible 30) on Java, and is considered to be one of the most active (Harris, 1996). The first recorded eruption was in 1747 with further eruptions in 1840, 1852, and 1947 and some small events taking place up until 1957 (Harris, 1994; PHPA, 1995a). The department of volcanology closely monitors volcanic activity.

In addition to the spectacular volcanos, there are also sixteen waterfalls dotted throughout the park, varying in height and volume. There is also a hot water stream at 2,150 m above sea level 5.3 km beyond the main gates at Cibodas. Furthermore, on Sundays and holidays, Indonesians like to visit several lakes found in the park. The largest, Danau Situgunung, covers an area of approximately 10 hectares, providing excellent bird watching and the opportunity to see squirrels and gibbon.

Social Impacts

Statistics reveal that 361,002 people live around the park. The park is also surrounded by 61 densely packed villages, and most villagers reply on subsistence agriculture (Wells et al., 1999). There are significant land shortages, with local people on average holding less than 0.25 hectares per household. Census data reveals that 55.2% of these people are primarily landless farm labourers and 34% are farmers in their own right.

Local people have gained some benefit from the popularity of GGPNP amongst the urban populations of nearby Bogor and Jakarta. This is mostly clearly seen in the income generating opportunities generated by the tourists. On Saturdays, Sundays and holidays villagers sell farm produce, garden plants and a few handicrafts at a large market in Cibodas. Tourism generates increased business for small family shops and kiosks and for local businesses such as nursery gardens. Some families have also opened simple 'homestay' accommodation. Other villagers work in transportation, ferrying tourists on the back of their motorcycles (ojek). All these activities increase earnings in the local community.

 

Clearly, the benefits generated by tourism cannot completely overcome the lack of economic opportunities facing the poor, a problem now exacerbated by the monetary crisis facing Indonesia in general. This also has an impact on the park An intact forest does not seem to provide sufficient benefits in the form of income from tourism to offset opportunities offered by the sale of gained from the non-sustainable harvest of forest products (both flora and fauna) from inside the park. Pressures on the park are much less compared to other parks in Indonesia. Nevertheless these include occasional illegal logging, fuel wood collection, and poaching (Wells et al. 1999).

A related problem is the comparative advantage of outside business people in setting up businesses. As the level of education and business acumen among the local people is limited, they are much slower to see the potential for business activities in the area. In addition, they lack the capital to start a business. Consequently, outsiders tend to move in and push the locals out.

This was exemplified by the golf course built in 1986 alongside the Botanical Gardens just below Cibodas. Previously, an extensive area of market gardens owned by the local people occupied this site. However, developers offered locals very little for the land and only a few actually sold their land. The rest were simply pushed out when bulldozers moved in and cleared the land, and the golf course was built. While it is still unclear who was behind the golf course, local informants say that the local government was involved together with a businessman. (end note 2).

Interviews with local people conducted in April 1999 indicate that villagers also see the sale of forest products as a relatively easy activity that offers quick financial gain. In this context, local people are more concerned with the immediate profits and less worried about the long term effect on the forest ecosystem as a source of good income for the future. Interviews with guides and market gardeners also indicated that farmers prefer working as farmers and are not interested in business pertaining to tourism. Relatively few local people wish to be guides.(end note 3). Moreover, few Indonesian tourists engage guides. This is most probably related to the very high price the guides demand for their services (Rp 35,000 – Rp 70,000 to Cibeureum water falls or Rp 120,000 – 150,000 for the over night trek to the Gede peak). In any case, the paths are well laid out with clear sign posts, and PHPA does not encourage tourist to hire guides. In contrast, in Gunung Halimun National Park (also in West Java) many of the paths are unclear, the price of guides is controlled by the GH Enterprises (Rp 15,000 per day per guide and Rp 10,000 per day per porter), and all visitors are encouraged to hire a guide. This ensures that more local guides find employment in tourism within the park.         

In an attempt to reduce illegal activities in GGPNP and pressures resulting from the poverty surrounding the park, PHPA set up a buffer-zone development program in 1994. Some 60% of the villages in the area are participating in a program designed "to promote income-generating activities in villages surrounding the park and to improve people's appreciation and awareness of the protected area" (Wells et al. 1999).(end note 4). Assistance is in the form of livestock and seed. Farmers who receive cows must give the offspring to another household in the village when these animals reproduce. Once a month a ranger (where possible the same ranger each month) visits the farmers who are involved in the program.

[Return to Top]

Pollution

These large numbers of people create a number of problems. Mass tourism brings tons of rubbish in the form of plastic bags and bottles, tin cans and their pull-rings, food and polystyrene. Tourists discard this litter along the paths, around camping grounds and shelters. In response, rangers and volunteers remove truck loads of rubbish from the park on a monthly basis (endnote 5). This rubbish has an aesthetic impact on the landscape (Ceballos-Lascuráin, 1996). Toilet facilities are also inadequate and badly maintained and lead to the fouling of rivers (endnote 6).

Visitors, especially the large groups of students who come to camp out and climb Gunung Gede, are very noisy. As noted elsewhere, this is known to have an adverse effect on many animals (Griffiths and Van Schaik, 1993). Some species can be habituated to certain behaviours including noise; however, many cannot and are driven into smaller and smaller ranges. These factors can also interfere with an animal's efficiency in finding food, breeding behavior and the establishment of territoties, contributing to species decline.

Soil erosion is particularly severe on the steeper trails leading to the Gede summit and other peaks. This is attributed to the large number of visitors who take short cuts or go off the trails to avoid slippery areas and management deficiencies (endnote 7).

Poaching

Shooting is a popular sport, even in the towns: in residential areas of Jakarta and Bogor, people can be seen shooting birds during the day and rats at night. Most large markets in West Java also sell guns (endnote 8). It is therefore not surprising visitors also engage in this sport in National Parks, including GGPNP. People hunt for various reasons, shooting wild boars for meat or merely shooting birds or anything that moves for fun. Some poachers target adult animals to obtain the young, such as primates, which are sold in the markets (endnote 9). When guards apprehend hunters, they are not prosecuted: they have their guns confiscated and are let off with a warning (endnote 10).

Mist-netting is another problem for parks such as GGPNP. Poachers catch birds, and even bats, in nets and then sell them in the markets of Bogor and Jakarta (endnote 11).

A variety of traps are also used to catch other wild life, such as the lesser mouse deer (T. jananicus), the forest cat (P. bengalensis), large birds of prey (eagle and hawks), owls, and snakes. These animals are also sold in the markets in Bogor and Jakarta. Once again, when the authorities apprehend these poachers, their mist-nets, traps and any other equipment used in the capture of the animals are confiscated, and they are let off with a warning.

Encroachment

According to a park official interviewed by the Jakarta daily, Suara Pembaruan, in 1997 only 13 hectares within the park were being cultivated by local villagers (endnote 12). This represents a fall from the 33.5 hectares subject to encroachment before the park management took decisive action (Wells et al. 1999). Those who have land elsewhere are threatened with future law enforcement. However, if the farmer who has encroached on park land has no other land, he/she is permitted to use the land for a 5-7 year period. The situation is then reviewed at the end of that period.

Although there are laws pertaining to logging or removal of trees and plants, the park management believes in a 'softly softly' approach to these offences (endnote 13). Law enforcement actions are carefully considered, and Park management attempts to base them on "a thorough understanding of the social and economic situation of the people concerned." As a World Bank report has noted, "considerable attention was given to avoiding the imposition of unnecessary hardship on encroachers who lacked other options outside the park" (Wells et al. 1999). When sanctions are applied, the severity depends upon the species: the rarer or the higher the economic value of the species, the higher the penalty. In April a man was apprehended with one and a half truck loads of tree ferns. He has subsequently been convicted and sentenced to three months imprisonment.

Another threat to the park occurred in 1997. During the long drought that occurred that year forest fires devastated 330 hectares of GGPNP. This fire blanketed the surrounding area with smoke, destroying the forest and damaging the watershed functions of GGPNP. At this time officials expressed concern that this would lead to increased flooding in Bogor and Jakarta (endnote 14).

[Return to Top]

The management of this park faces a number of constraints. The following are the most salient:

1. Lack of education and skilled personnel.
   PHPA documents suggest that in general park management suffers from a lack of skilled personnel in both the field and the office (PHPA, 1995a). While there are 72 rangers currently working in the park, only six have been trained to collect data for the flora and fauna monitoring (endnote 15). Despite high levels of dedication amongst some staff, many of the managers lack managerial skills.

2. Bureaucracy.
   The centralised and overly bureaucratic system in which the park managers have to work constrains the management of GGPNP. GGPNP has little input into staff recruitment, and the technical ability of the park management cannot be improved if the staff allocated to the park management unit do not have the qualifications required.

3. Low Salary.
   Public servants generally receive very low salaries. The rangers in the field work six days a week and are at their stations 24 hours a day. For this work they receive Rp250,000 (about AU$45-$38 per month). Department heads do not earn much more than their staff (endnote 16). On such low salaries staff with good qualifications and ability will move on quickly. This means that skilled staff will continue to be rare. For those staff who stay, this salary is too low to live on, and they will need to find other ways to supplement their income. In Indonesia this problem generally provides incentives for corruption amongst civil servants.

4. Funding.
   The Indonesian Government funds GGPNP from a number of sources such as forest production taxes, reforestation duties and the development sector. On the positive side, the park budget increased substantially, from Rp 220 million in 1990-91 to Rp 1.6 billion (or US$700,000) in 1996-7 (Wells et al. 1999) (endnote 17). However, as stated in the GGPNP Management Plan (1995) the Park management unit is expected to support itself financially from its own activities, facilities, infrastructure and human resources. This is indeed extremely difficult if the management are not creative or have the skills needed to raise funds. It is also made difficult by the fact that the park management unit (UPT) have little to no input in staff recruitment. Fund raising requires certain skills. Many leading NGOs recruit especially for this task.

5. Large numbers of un-supervised visitors.
   Over the last 10 years there has been between 42,207 and 60,000 visitors a year (PHPA 1, 1995; Harris, 1996). As it is very easy for visitors not to report to the ranger's office to pay the entrance fee, exact numbers are not known. A random sample of visitors undertaken by the author revealed that only about 30% paid an entrance fee. Some visitors were unaware that they were required to buy a ticket for the short trail or that they needed to pay for insurance in the ranger's office for the long trail. There is no actual barrier stopping visitors from entering the park or directing them into the office. This reduces the amount of revenue generated for park coffers.
   Visitors are not required to have a guide in attendance. As the paths are well sign posted, visitors see no need for one. Consequently, once they enter the park they are on their own. Rangers are rarely seen, and if they do appear, they generally pay little attention to the visitors.

6. Although GGPNP management have identified the need to faciliate community outreach and development programs, this has been difficult to achieve effectively. "This is partly due to PHPA's traditional policing role, as well as the staff's lack of expertise or training in either community liaison or agriculture" (Wells et al. 1999).

7. Planning/policy related to the area.
   Planning and the development of policies for the park and the surrounding area are complicated by the geographical position of the park. GGPNP runs into three districts (Bogor, Sukabumi and Cianjur) and there are difficulties coordinating the three district governments. The government agencies and stakeholders connected with various sectors surrounding the park - including agricultural, tourism, transportation, and industrial sectors – have conflicting priorities, and sometimes irreconcilable interests. This also complicates park planning. The physical position of this park requires specific legislation in order to ease management and to secure the conservation area.

[Return to Top]

 

The GGPNP Management Plan.

GGPNP is under the administration of PHPA the Directorate General of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation, a directorate within the Ministry of Forestry. All protected areas in Indonesia are administered by PHPA.

In 1995 a PHPA team prepared a comprehensive management plan for the period 1995 to the year 2020. It describes the present management problems, possible management schemes to meet the different interests of visitors and interested parties and institutions as well as landscaping and zoning of the park (see PHPA, 1995 a and b).

Clearly the park management needs to address issues generated by the popularity of the park and the, ever increasing, number of visitors. This has ramifying effects. If this problem is not managed effectively, the sustainability of the ecosystem of the area will be damaged beyond repair.

To manage the ecosystem of the park and reconcile this with the functioning of the park as a tourist attraction entails optimising various activities. To facilitate this, as in other protected areas, the management plan divides the park into three different zones:

• intensive zone for intensive use around the resort areas;

• buffer zone for limited use including adjacent production and protection forests and tea plantations; and

• a core zone for minimal use.

As funding permits, these areas are to be maintained and where appropriate landscaped in keeping with the natural landscape and the zoning system.

To reduce the pressure on the main entrance area at Cibodas, Bogodol has been developed as an education centre, with a canopy walk added as an extra attraction (PHPA, 1995a). This resort is situated to the North of the park and can be accessed from the Sukabumi road, within easy reach of the urban centre of Bogor.

The plan envisages that the development of the intensive zone will result in a more even distribution of visitors, which will help the ecosystem to adjust to disturbances (PHPA, 1995a). The plan also believes that this will ultimately protect the core zone. This system is commonly used by conservation organizations in the management of reserves open to the public.

The plan suggests that in the future it may be necessary to control the numbers of visitors through demanding higher entrance fees for all or certain areas (PHPA 1, 1995). This would be necessary if and when the Carrying Capacity is reached. The GGPNP plan does not believe that the carrying capacity has been surpassed at this time. However, the plan fails to indicate exactly how the carrying capacity for GGPNP was calculated. From the report and discussions with GGPNP staff it is clear that visitors who do not pay have not been included in the formula (endnote 18).

Table 1: Standard Carrying Capacity for GGPNP

* assumed cc ideal is 10 people per 100 m length of the path.

In other protected areas planners have developed frameworks to determine the level of acceptable impact on the environment. This involves creating a framework for measuring how much change is acceptable and determining indicators that can be monitored to gauge the impact of tourism - such as damage to trees, soil erosion and crowding at campsites. In the absence of such a framework at GGPNP, the ecological impact of tourism remains largely unquantified. This makes it difficult to accurately set visitation levels for the park. Clearly there is a need for the collection of better baseline data on tourism sites in order to provide basic parameters for monitoring change and developing a framework such as the LAC framework commonly used elsewhere.

Other initiatives

• To overcome the lack of skilled staff, GGPNP management have undertaken staff development programs offering training, opportunities to attend external courses and performance incentives (Wells et al. 1999).

• To help coordinate park management with other State sectors, PHPA management have held annual coordination meeting with other agencies. This has increased the status of the park in regional government, integrate park planning in provincial spatial plans and led to district Forestry and Land Rehabilitation Services working in the GGPNP buffer-zone (Wells et al. 1999).

• GGPNP has also worked to provide opportunities for environmental appreciation and eduction. GGPNP has hosted conservation camps and developed a conservation cadre program. In addition, drawing on support from the Consortium, GGPNP has developed interpretation and information programs targeting local schools, visitors, local communities and decision makers. A conservation and environmental education centre was built in 1996, and GGPNP has also developed nature guides and provided interpretation material to visitors (Wells et al. 1999).

Other issues

In the face of so many constraints, park management cannot be fully effective. While the 1995 management plan is a first step towards improving management, management needs to pay urgent attention to monitoring both visitors and flora and fauna. As mentioned above, monitoring is required to help assess the impact of the visitors on the park ecosystem and to create an effective management framework. However, monitoring of both the visitors and the wildlife is inadequate.

1. Visitors are able to enter the park without paying, and there is no accurate record of the number of visitors.

2. There are only six or seven park rangers who have been trained to monitor the flora and fauna. While there over 250 species of bird have been identified in GGPNP, the reports of rangers do not reflect this. When checked against reliable guides, the scientific and local names in reports do not match (endnote 19). However, if all rangers had the right qualifications and ability to collect data for the flora and fauna, once the data was collected and analysed, this would help monitor ecological changes in different areas. This in turn would aid the calculation of the carrying capacity and the creation of a LAC framework.

Each year the National Park makes a request in regard to staffing needs to the central PHPA office in Jakarta. The central office then do the recruiting. Unfortunately the central office is often unable to fulfil the requests made by the GGPNP office. This is particularly the case with respect to the qualifications and the level of education of the recruited staff (endnote 20).

[Return to Top]

Table 1a Visitor Profiles and Numbers of Individual Visitors

Rencana Penelolaan Taman National Gunung Gede Pangrango 1995

Table 1b Visitor Profiles and Numbers of Individual Visitors

Rencana Penelolaan Taman National Gunung Gede Pangrango 1999

[Return to Top]

1. In table 1b "recreation" has been further subdivided. This gives a clearer view of visitor activities. However, it is still unclear as to what constitutes "recreation" or what is grouped under "recreation". Interviews with PHPA staff during April-May 1999 reveal that that if a visitor only goes to the Cibeureum waterfalls or buys a short-trail ticket, their visit is classed as recreational. However, a number of visitors interviewed during April 1999 said if they did pay an entrance fee they were not asked what the purpose of their visit was. Many did not pay a fee because they were never asked to show a ticket during their visit and there is no check point at the gates. The author also experienced this when visiting the park (Cibodas) during April-May 1999.
2. Interview with guide, Cibodas, 21 April 1999.
3. Interview with tourist guides and market gardeners April 1999.
4. Park management have also helped facilitate the creation of the Gunung Gede Pangrango-Halimun Consortium, involving 14 domestic and foresting organisations: universities, research agencies, NGOs and government agencies. The consortium has supported various research education and ecotourism and development projects (Wells et al. 1999).
5. Interview Edi Sensudi, May 1999.
6. Interviews with numerous visitors both Western and Indonesian, April-May, 1999.
7. Personal observation 1999; see also Ceballos-Lascuráin (1996).
8. Personal observation, April-May, 1999.
9. Personal observation and interview of local villagers, April-May, 1999.
10. Edi Sensudi, personal communication, April 1999
11. Personal observation and interview local villagers, April-May, 1999.
12. Suara Pembaruan, 'PR Pemda Bogor Membenahi Kawasan Puncak', 31/12/97.
13. Edi Sensudi, personal communication, May 1999).
14. Edi Sensudi, personal communication, May 1999).
15. Edi Sensudi, per. com., May 1999
16. Edi Sensudi, per.com., April 1999
17. Wells et al.(1999) note that the budget has specifically included community-development and conservation-education activities since 1994 (Wells et al.,1999).
18. The following table has been taken from a undated report entitled "Management of Gunung Gede Pangrango National Park"
19. Checking was done against MacKinnon's "Birds of Java and Bali". For example, a report lists Berecet for Myophonus glaucinus, while MacKinnon has M. glaucinus as Tiung batu Kecil and Pneopyga pusilla as Berencet kecil (Laporana Kegiatan)
20. Edi Sensudi, per. Com., May 1999

[Return to Top]

Dammerman, K.W. (1929) Preservation of wild life and nature reserves in the Netherlands Indies. Fourth Pacific Science Congress, Java, 1929. . Weltevreden: Emmink

GGPNP/PHPA. (1999) Laporan Tahunan, Balai Taman Nasional Gunung Gede Pangrango Tahun Anggaran 1998/1999, Cibodas, March 1999

GGPNP/PHPA. (1999) Laporan Kegiatan Balai Taman Nasional Gunung Gede Pangrango Bulan: April 1999, Cibodas, April 1999

GGPNP/PHPA. (1997) Management of Gunung Gede Pangrango National Park. Unpulished report.

Harris, K. (1994) Cibodas to Ciberueum, GGPNP/PHPA Information Series Volume I. Gede Pangrango National Park, October 1994.

Harris, K. (1994) Mt. Gede Pangrango National Park GGPNP/PHPA Information Series Volume II, Mt. Gede Pangrango National Park March 1996.

Ceballos-Lascurain, H. (1996). Tourism, ecotourism, and protected areas The World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzeland.

Griffiths, M. and Van Schaik, C. P. (1993). The impact of human traffic on the abundance and activity periods of Sumatran rain forest wildlife. Conservation Biology. 7(3): 623-626.

Mackinnon, J. (1991) Field Guide to the Birds of Java and Bali Gadjah Mada University Press, Jakarta.

PHPA (1995a) Rencana Pengelolaan Taman Nasional Gunung Gede Pangrango 1995 – 2020 Buku II, Departement Kehutanan, Direktorat Jenderal Perlindungan Hutan dan Pelestarian Alam, Taman Nasional Gunung Gede, Bogor, Juni 1995.

PHPA (1995b) Rencana Pengelolaan Taman Nasional Gunung Gede Pangrango 1995 – 2020 Buku II, Direktorat Jenderal Perlindungan Hutan dan Pelestarian Alam, Taman Nasional Gunung Gede, Bogor, Juni 1995.

Wells, M., Guggenheim, A. and Khan, A. (1999). Investing in biodiversity: a review of Indonesia's Integrated Conservation and Development Projects. The World Bank.

[Return to Top]