Co-Creating Governance for Community-Based Forest Orchid Cultivation and Ecotourism: Lessons from Lore Lindu National Park, Indonesia

Abstract

Lore Lindu National Park (LLNP), a United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Biosphere Reserve in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia, is characterized by its significant biodiversity and ecotourism potential, including endemic forest orchids and rich cultural heritage. Despite its ecological importance, the park continues to face deforestation and illegal land use, partly driven by limited community involvement in conservation governance. In this study, we examine the co-creation of governance in community-based forest orchid cultivation and ecotourism initiatives in Karunia Village, where local communities have developed organic orchid cultivation practices since 2004. Drawing on the co-creation governance framework of Christopher Ansell, Eva Sørensen, and Jacob Torfing, we employ a qualitative case study approach based on a literature review, field observations, and in-depth interviews conducted over four months. Our findings reveal that each phase of co-creation is shaped by distinct institutional and socio-political dynamics. Initiation is strongly influenced by local economic pressures and social solidarity, while design encounters regulatory barriers related to licensing and conservation policy. Implementation remains constrained by fragmented coordination among multi-level stakeholders, and systematic evaluation mechanisms are largely absent. We propose the use of a Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed (RACI) Matrix to clarify institutional roles and strengthen collaborative governance arrangements. This article contributes to the literature by expanding the empirical understanding of co-creation practices in the Global South and highlighting the importance of institutional and socio-political dimensions in community-based environmental governance.

1. Introduction

1.1. Co-Creation and Institutional Support in Local Conservation

Since the abandonment of Traditional Public Administration (TPA) and the transition to more recent models such as New Public Management (NPM) [1,2], paradigm shifts have transformed governance areas in both Global North and Global South countries across various layers and levels of multi-scalar governance [3,4]. Public administration has evolved through successive reform paradigms, from TPA to NPM and further to New Public Governance (NPG) and post-NPM models [2,5]. These transitions have unfolded differently across contexts, with developing countries experiencing hybrid trajectories shaped by institutional and organizational isomorphism, financial pressures, and managerial capacity [6,7]. One paradigm that has developed rapidly is the environmental governance paradigm, which has drastically shifted from a top-down, state-centered approach to a more collaborative and participatory approach [8,9,10].

This transition is driven not only by the failure of the hierarchical bureaucratic model to respond to the complexity of contemporary, cross-sectoral, cross-level, and rapidly changing environmental challenges [11,12,13], with the privatization of environmental governance having also been deemed ineffective, thus producing suboptimal outcomes. Primavera and Esteban demonstrated that the success of collaborative conservation and ecological restoration is not shaped by a single determinant, but instead requires the elaboration of social, institutional, and biophysical factors within the region [14]. The compelling findings from their case conservation research examining Philippine mangroves indicated that, although many conservation projects are led by the private sector, massive investments in conservation do not guarantee optimal results. The long-term survival rate of replanted mangroves is typically between 10 and 20 percent, often due to inappropriate species and site selection, rigid top-down planning, and a lack of local community involvement in the design and monitoring process. Subsequent studies have shown that community participation, institutional coordination, and sustained local leadership are key to restoration success, particularly in developing countries where environmental governance and enforcement capacity remain uneven [15,16,17].

Co-creation is emerging as a promising public governance strategy and has been promoted as the face of NPG today. Ansell and Torfing define co-creation as an approach that transcends the classic triptych of public bureaucracy, market models, and self-sufficient communities by constructing “platforms” and “arenas” that enable diverse actors from various sectors, including the public sector, private sector, mass media, civil society, and academia, to engage in creative problem-solving [18]. Ansell, Sørensen, and Torfing emphasize that co-creation is not only about consultation or passive participation, but rather about empowering lay actors to engage in cross-border and cross-level collaboration that can generate shared concerns about emerging problems, innovative solutions, and a sense of shared ownership over their implementation [19].

In the context of conservation, the urgency of co-creation is reinforced by empirical findings that conservation success is strongly influenced by equity, participatory governance, and traditional ecological integration [20]. Brooks et al. show that community-based conservation is successful when there is an emphasis on local participation from the initiation phase, establishment, and daily management [21]. It can also be said that the community becomes a conservation agent, the driving force of conservation, not just the target of intervention. Armitage et al. emphasize that, although a top-down approach is sometimes necessary, “a strong body of evidence points to the crucial role and potential of customary and local institutions as the foundation for successful, sustainable conservation over decades or even centuries” [22]. This approach aligns with Ostrom’s landmark work, Governing the Commons, which persuasively explains that resource user communities can organize themselves and their communities to create more effective institutional arrangements for managing shared resources [23]. Ostrom underscored eight principles of successful commons management design, including highlighting regulations contextual to local conditions, participation in decision-making, monitoring, tiered sanctions, conflict resolution mechanisms, and recognized autonomy.

However, the emergence of co-creation as the “new kid on the block” in public governance is not without significant theoretical debate [24]. As a theory often considered as an orthodoxy or buzzword in development, co-creation still has its drawbacks. It does not guarantee successful collaboration in achieving program outcomes, primarily influenced by adequate institutional capacity, as weak institutional capacity risks becoming merely participatory rhetoric that disguises existing structural power inequalities [25].

Further critiques by Foster and Iaione and Morrison et al. challenge the assumption that Ostrom’s design principles can be directly applied to large-scale and complex resource problems, suggesting that community governance also needs to be strengthened by institutional arrangements that facilitate collaboration across sectors and organizations [26,27]. Third, through polycentric governance, Ostrom also argues that conservation success does not lie in a single level of governance, but rather in the multiplicity of decision-making centers interconnected by local communities, government agencies, and other non-governmental organizations [28,29].

The classic debate between a top-down, state-centric approach and a bottom-up, communal approach has become increasingly contested and unproductive. As Armitage et al. argue, “we have been locked in a conservation governance debate that has been going on for decades” [22]. In reality, various governance approaches, whether regulatory, cooperative, or community-based, are all needed simultaneously within a multi-level approach where local communities and interests are at the center of governance, yet remain embedded within a broader institutional environment. As Gómez-Baggethun, Corbera, and Reyes-García add, formal regulation and the loss of legitimacy of community institutions can actually weaken the resilience of socio-ecological systems [30]. This argument suggests that institutional support must also be designed to complement and strengthen—rather than replace or negate—the presence of local institutions.

In this article, we examine a case of hybrid co-creation through institutional intervention and a community-based movement for orchid conservation in Karunia Village in Lore Lindu National Park (LLNP) Sulawesi, Indonesia. This case is theoretically rich because it provides a concrete illustration of how environmental governance is carried out not only through a single initiative, but also by combining both top-down, state-centric and bottom-up, community-based approaches. This context displays the simultaneous tension and synergy between these two dimensions, making it an ideal empirical case for testing the assumptions of co-creation theory in the Global South. It not only provides empirical evidence but also serves as a refutation of normative arguments about co-creation, demonstrating the hybridity between the transformative potential of conservation and the structural fragility of this model simultaneously.

Our research aims to address three significant theoretical gaps. First, the majority of the co-creation literature is based on cases from developed countries in the Global North, particularly Scandinavian and Western European countries [18]. Therefore, there is an urgent need to enrich co-creation discourse using cases from countries in the Global South, particularly within the context of developing countries with distinct socio-political dynamics. Second, most orchid studies focus on the ecological outcomes of conservation efforts by assessing the number of conserved species and plant survival rates, but very few delve deeply into the institutional models and grassroots movements that underpin them. Third, the socio-political factors in this case demonstrate that these factors are the determinants of the success or failure of conservation initiatives.

Based on the theoretical and empirical background discussed above, our study addresses the following main questions: How does the co-creation model developed by the orchid cultivation community in Karunia Village succeed in conserving endemic orchids in the LLNP buffer zone, and what success factors shape each phase of co-creation within this model? In this article, we demonstrate that the co-creation model developed by the orchid cultivation community in Karunia Village represents an authentic grassroots success, but its sustainability and replicability are greatly influenced by factors in each phase of co-creation contributions. By identifying and analyzing these factors using an exploratory qualitative approach and the Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed (RACI) Matrix instrument, this study contributes to the global co-creation literature by (1) enriching the study of co-creation practices from the perspective of the Global South, (2) exploring institutional models that go beyond mere ecological outcomes, and (3) explaining the significant influence of socio-political factors on co-creation practices at the grassroots level.

1.2. Research Context

LLNP is located in the Poso and Sigi Regencies of Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. Established in 1982 and designated a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve in 1977, it covers an area of 217,991 hectares [31]. Approximately 90% of its area is mountainous forest, with only 10% being lowland forest, and the landscape is dotted with lakes and green valleys in the Nokilalaki and Adale mountain ranges. LLNP serves as a stronghold for biodiversity protection along the Wallacea Line, a unique transition zone between Asia and Australia. It is home to 230 bird species and endemic mammals such as the anoa, babirusa, Tonkean macaque, pygmy tarsier, 55 bat species, and endemic Sulawesi rats [32].

Figure 1 illustrates the spatial configuration of the multi-actor co-creation network examined in this study, situating the grassroots orchid community of Karunia Village within the broader institutional and ecological landscape of Lore Lindu National Park. This area is located between 119°58′–120°16′ East Longitude and 1°8′–1°3′ South Latitude, covers the areas of Sigi Regency and Poso Regency, and is located on the unique Wallacea Line. Figure 1 also shows three key stakeholders contributing to the conservation of this area: organically, the Pak Sardin Orchid Community in the LLNP buffer zone, and, institutionally, the two orchidariums established by the LLNP Center, located relatively close to each other in the green areas (the LLNP Orchidarium Core Area and the LLNP Orchidarium Lake Tambing).

In addition to protecting flora and fauna, LLNP also serves as a vital ecosystem, serving as a water catchment area for rivers in Palu, Gumbasa, and Lariang, supporting the livelihoods of the surrounding communities. The conservation program involves 117 villages within the national park and buffer zone [33]. Conservation efforts are carried out through forest patrols, species monitoring, and local community education. LLNP management additionally contributes to sustainable economic development through ecotourism development, focusing on biodiversity and megalithic sites. LLNP’s attractions include the iconic Lake Lindu, mountain forests, megalithic sites in the Bada, Napu, and Behoa Valleys, and endemic orchid tourism found only within the national park [34]. Existing indigenous tribes, such as the Kaili and Behoa, are also involved in these ecotourism activities. These efforts are aimed at creating a reciprocal relationship between nature and the surrounding community. Without this relationship, asymmetrical relations are highly likely, characterized by illegal use, inappropriate land clearing, or overexploitation of natural resources.

Orchids are one of the main floral treasures of LLNP, which is host to 20 types of orchid host trees and 35 species of epiphytic orchids, growing epiphytically on tree trunks, branches, and twigs, as well as terrestrially above ground [35]. The most common species are Abdominea minimiflora, Habenaria, Goodyera celebica Blume, and Phaius montanum [36]. Efforts to preserve these flora have been enacted through various programs carried out simultaneously by multiple actors. Institutionally, the LLNP Center has established two orchid collection gardens (orchidariums) for conservation and education purposes. In addition, an organic grassroots movement has operated since 2004, traditionally maintaining the sustainability of orchids while also being a source of economic development for the community around the LLNP buffer area.

Working alongside the formal orchidarium of the LLNP Center, the grassroots cultivation community in Karunia Village has, for the past twenty years, practiced a distinctive “rescue and return” model rooted in local ecological knowledge. The remainder of this article examines how these two conservation logics—institutional and grassroots—interact in the four phases of co-creation, the success factors that shape each phase, and what their convergence reveals about the possibilities and limitations of co-creation as a governance model in the Global South.

2. Materials and Methods

The methodological approach of this study is illustrated in Figure 2, which breaks down the process into three main stages: identification, analysis, and results. In the identification stage, we employ the co-creation framework developed by Ansell, Sørensen, and Torfing, using a qualitative approach and abductive reasoning [37]. Field engagement was conducted over a four-month period from September to December 2025 in Karunia Village, Palolo Subdistrict, which is part of the buffer zone of Lore Lindu National Park (LLNP). Our analysis captures a hybrid environmental governance model that brings together the interaction between formal institutions and community-based environmental governance.

The theoretical framework was applied during our analysis and was used to organize the field data into four phases of co-creation: initiation, design, implementation, and evaluation. Data were obtained from key informants and stakeholders through a combination of policy document analysis, participatory observations that involved living near residents’ homes, repeated in-depth interviews using purposive and snowball sampling techniques, and transect walks and participatory mapping at the orchid rescue and return sites. Subsequently, all oral interview data were cross-checked using data triangulation to validate the research findings. During the result formulation stage, abductive analysis revealed the presence of asymmetrical patterns in each co-creation phase, shaped by local socio-economic drivers (initiation), formal regulatory and Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) policy bottlenecks (design), multi-scalar stakeholder silos (implementation), and an evaluative democratic deficit (evaluation), which were subsequently elaborated through the formulation of roles in the form of an institutional RACI Matrix.

2.1. Study Area

The village of Karunia, Palolo Subdistrict, Sigi Regency, Central Sulawesi Province, Indonesia, was selected as the study area. This village is part of the Palolo Transmigration Area, located in central Indonesia within the transition zone between the Weber and Wallace zones, which is rich in endemic flora and fauna. Bordering Lore Lindu National Park (LLNP), Karunia Village serves as a buffer village for the Lore Lindu Biosphere Reserve. As villagers living directly adjacent to the forest, the residents of Karunia Village depend on the forest for their livelihoods, as it is a source of Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFPs), specifically orchids, which are a natural resource of the Lore Lindu Biosphere Reserve. The orchids in Karunia Village are cultivated in residents’ backyards, with the village serving as a habitat for 70 orchid species, including orchids endemic to Sulawesi [36]. This potential has been recognized through the inclusion of Karunia Tourism Village in the top 100 of the Tourism Village Awards (ADWI) in 2024.

2.2. Research Design and Theoretical Framework

In this study, we employ a qualitative approach to map and analyze institutional and collaborative governance issues in forest orchid cultivation and community-based ecotourism in Karunia Village. The co-creation theoretical framework developed by Ansell, Sørensen, and Torfing is used as an analytical lens to dissect this phenomenon through the four phases of co-creation, as illustrated in Figure 3 [37].

• Initiation: In Karunia village co-creation began not with a formal program but with a local champion, as Mr. Sardin chairman of the Kelompok Sadar Wisata (Pokdarwis), brought together growers, orchid enthusiasts, and women’s groups around a shared problem; trust economic trap, in which the low returns of legal orchid sales discouraged compliance.
• Design: In this phase, actors jointly explored the problem and tested a legal pathway, developing the Captive-Breeding Licence scheme (F0/F1/F2) through consultation with Natural Resources Conservation Agency (BKSDA) and Indonesian Quarantine Agency (Barantin); the prototype nonetheless exposed structural barriers, namely licensing procedures of up to six months and upfront Non-Tax State Revenue (PNBP) payments that strained community capacity.
• Implementation: During the implementation phase, actors coordinated roles through an asset based (RACI) division of labor and consolidated a backyard cultivation network of roughly eighty households; yet the effort proceeded without state funding and relied on ad hoc, siloed coordination rather than an institutionalized forum, limiting the pace of consolidation.
• Evaluation: In this final phase, early outcomes were observed—rising household income, reduced illegal hunting, and documented restocking—but they remained largely anecdotal, as the initiative still lacked any monitoring and evaluation framework, baseline data, or public-accountability mechanism to systematically measure impact or enable dissemination.

Outcome: cutting across the four phases, and anchored in the persistent tension between grassroots initiators and institutional actors (marked by distrust and asymmetric resources), the process cumulatively produced three interlocking outcomes: ecological (endemic-orchid conservation and restocking), economic (a more stable alternative livelihood), and tourism (a community-based agro-ecotourism destination).

2.3. Data Collection

Research data were obtained through document analysis, in-depth interviews, and direct field observations, all of which were collected to support a comprehensive understanding and analysis of the data. The research was conducted from September to December 2025 in Karunia Village, Palolo Subdistrict, Sigi Regency, Central Sulawesi Province, Indonesia, with a researcher residing directly in a resident’s home near the research site. The researcher conducted a document review by screening policy documents and other literature deemed relevant to the research topic, such as the literature related to collaborative governance, co-creation, and environmental conservation. Primary data collection was carried out through participatory observation by directly observing community dynamics, engaging in informal dialogs with residents, assessing orchid potential in Karunia Village through home visits, orchid re-stocking, short treks in the Lore Lindu National Park area with residents, and coordination visits to the BKSDA and the Central Sulawesi Animal, Fish, and Plant Quarantine Office to simulate the processing of Domestic Transport Permit for Wild Plants and Animals (SATS-DN) for endemic orchid commodities from Karunia Village.

Interview subjects were selected using purposive sampling, with criteria focused on key actors directly involved in forest management and orchid cultivation in Karunia Village, supplemented by snowball sampling once the researcher was in the field. This research method was chosen because the actors involved over the past two decades could be more accurately identified through organic recommendations at the research site. To mitigate the risk of excessive subjectivity resulting from the snowball sampling technique, the researcher applied data triangulation by confirming data from one informant with another informant who had a different role to maintain data validity.

Figure 4 shows the key informants interviewed in this study comprised 5 local orchid growers, namely the Chairperson of the Tourism Awareness Group and 4 residents of Karunia Village involved in orchid cultivation. In addition, the institutional representatives included 2 individuals from the Natural Resources Conservation Agency, 3 from the Lore Lindu National Park Office, and 2 from the Central Sulawesi Animal, Fish, and Plant Quarantine Office, giving a total of 12 informants. Interviews took place intensively over a four-month period, with each session lasting 30 to 60 min. To ensure thorough data collection, interviews were repeated 2 to 4 times for each group of respondents. After the data were collected, the interview results were analyzed, starting with transcribing the interview data into written text. The researchers then read through the transcripts to identify common patterns or keywords, assigning initial labels to relevant text segments, a step known as open coding. These labels were later grouped into broader categories and main themes through axial coding to draw structured, meaningful conclusions aligned with the research objectives.

2.4. Data Analysis

Data analysis was conducted iteratively, alternating between data collection and interpretation. The researcher cross-checked the validity of the findings by verifying the statements from one informant against those of another and by comparing daily observations with the results of in-depth interviews. This cross-checking process was carried out continuously until the data reached saturation. Conclusions in this study were drawn abductively. The researchers began the analysis by collecting empirical evidence and phenomena in the field, then retrospectively linking the field findings with co-creation theory to formulate conclusions, causal relationships, and a collaborative governance model.

2.5. Declaration and Ethics

Repeated field visits were also conducted to triangulate perspectives and validate findings. Specific targeted groups, such as small-scale entrepreneurs, women-led community enterprises, and local farmer groups, were included as civil society organizations and were interviewed to ensure a broader representation of less-visible stakeholders within the collaborative governance network. Before the interview or group discussion, respondents completed the ethical approval and individual consent forms, and ethical clearance and instruments were provided by the research team and validated under the Ministry of Transmigration Rep. of Indonesia. More specifically, the ethical safeguards that were applied were as follows: (i) field access and research permits were obtained from the relevant authorities, including the Lore Lindu National Park (LLNP) authority and the responsible ministry; (ii) all participants took part voluntarily and provided informed consent prior to interview, after being informed of the study’s purpose and their right to withdraw at any time; (iii) participant confidentiality and anonymity were preserved, and no personally identifying information is reported without explicit consent; and (iv) the research team adhered to the research-ethics guidelines of Universitas Indonesia throughout data collection and reporting.

3. Results

In this section, we present the results of our in-depth analysis of the governance and development of endemic orchids in Karunia Village through the lens of co-creation theory. Our research findings are organized in a structured manner following the four main phases of the co-creation cycle—initiation, design, implementation, and evaluation—each of which requires the fulfillment of specific strategic tasks to generate sustainable collective impact at the local level.

Table 1. Co-creation phases applied to the orchid governance case study in Karunia Village, Lore Lindu National Park.

Phase	Key Tasks [37]	Empirical Findings	Phase-Specific Drivers/Barriers
Initiation	Problem identification; actor mobilization; trust building	20-year grassroots movement led by Mr. Sardin; Pokdarwis formation; ADWI 2024 recognition	Driver: Local champions and social capital. Barrier: Institutional distrust.
Design	Problem redefinition; shared vision; prototyping	BKSDA—Barantin pathway mapped; two-orchid pilot shipment; Captive Breeding License scheme	Driver: Multi-actor dialog. Barrier: PNBP costs and 6-month verification.
Implementation	Securing funding; coordinating actions; consolidating solutions	Backyard cultivation network; asset-based role distribution; RACI Matrix	Driver: Community asset proximity. Barrier: Multi-scalar silos and funding limits.
Evaluation	measuring outcomes; public accountability; disseminating solutions	Dual-function outcome (production + ecotourism); reactive Barantin assessment	Driver: Emergent agro-ecotourism. Barrier: Absence of M&E framework.

above presents a synthesized roadmap of the empirical findings of this study, organized according to the four co-creation phases proposed by Ansell, Sørensen, and Torfing: initiation, design, implementation, and evaluation [37]. For each phase, the table maps three analytical dimensions: the theoretically prescribed key tasks, the empirical findings observed in Karunia Village, and the phase-specific drivers and barriers that shape co-creation dynamics in this Global South conservation context.

Our mapping reveals a distinctive pattern of asymmetry across the four phases. The initiation phase is propelled by strong grassroots drivers, particularly local champions such as Mr. Sardin and accumulated social capital from two decades of community orchid conservation, yet remains constrained by deep-seated institutional distrust. The design phase demonstrates the most transformative potential, evidenced by the BKSDA–Barantin pathway mapping and the Captive Breeding License scheme, although high regulatory costs and lengthy verification timelines emerge as critical structural barriers. The implementation phase, while operationalized through asset-based role distribution and the RACI Matrix, is challenged by multi-scalar silos and limited funding.

Finally, the evaluation phase exposes the most significant governance lacuna: the complete absence of a formal monitoring and evaluation framework after two decades of community activity. Together, these phase-specific patterns provide an integrated empirical contribution to co-creation theory, which is examined in detail in the subsequent subsections (Section 3.1 through Section 3.4).

3.1. Initiation

Based on in-depth interviews with Mr. Sardin, field observations conducted over a four-month period, and a review of the official decree establishing Karunia Village’s Pokdarwis, the initial dynamics of initiation can be divided into three main theoretical stages.

3.1.1. Identifying Problems and Communicating Solution Ideas

Actors must identify pressing problems or challenges that require co-creation solutions while developing and disseminating initial ideas about what such solutions might look like and why they are needed through storytelling that emphasizes the urgency of action and the viability of collaborative solutions [37]. In the context of Karunia Village, this process began with individual initiatives that later evolved into collective ideas to address the classic dilemma of buffer zones, namely, ecological pressures and economic traps. Ecologically, the wild orchid population in the LLNP area faces constant pressure due to illegal harvesting. Economically, residents are prohibited from forest extraction, and residents engaging in legal orchid trade face unprofitable business conditions. A single orchid clump sells for IDR100,000, barely covering the transportation cost to Palu—IDR80,000. Meanwhile, legal commercialization requires a multi-stage permitting process with an initial cost of at least IDR3,000,000 and a waiting period of up to six months.

To address these challenges, local orchid enthusiasts have acted as local champions, identifying the issue of wild orchid loss beginning in 2004. A solution was enacted in 2019 with the establishment of the Karunia Village Orchidarium, designed to function simultaneously as a breeding facility, an educational space, and a source for restocking the Ranjuri Forest and Tambing Lake. These orchid enthusiasts also promoted the importance of conservation by teaching a local-content course at a local high school for six years, integrating conservation knowledge into formal education. Karunia Village’s recognition among the top 100 of the Indonesian Tourism Village Awards (ADWI) in 2024 could serve as a way of reframing this issue. The narrative of local activists and the Pokdarwis has successfully shifted the zero-sum logic of conservation versus livelihoods to a positive-sum logic of conservation as a livelihood.

3.1.2. Engaging and Mobilizing Relevant Actors

Actors must bring together relevant and affected parties who possess the knowledge, ideas, competencies, and resources needed to drive change and generate collective impact. This stage requires a careful stakeholder analysis to motivate the engagement of both interested actors and those holding the keys to regulation or solutions [37]. Our field data analysis revealed a significant gap between the ideal actor map (those possessing knowledge and resources) and the actors actually present on the ground. This initial profile reflects the initial condition of “asymmetric resources” [11], where high levels of social and ecological capital are concentrated in a single community actor but remain disconnected from the institutional ecosystem holding legal and economic authority. Due to this highly sparse and fragmented network of actors, the key challenge for future initiation efforts is to motivate these regulatory actors to actively engage in a self-sustaining multi-stakeholder platform.

An in-depth analysis of the stakeholder map in Karunia Village reveals a wide gap between actors who ideally possess the mandate and capacity for involvement, and the reality of their actual involvement on the ground. This actors in situation can be categorized into three main groups: (1) community and academic actors, (2) regulatory and legal authorities, and (3) economic and market facilitators. Actors in the first group serve as the primary drivers at the grassroots level, strongly represented by orchid enthusiasts and the Karunia Village Tourism Development Group (Pokdarwis). They possess strong social capital and local ecological knowledge regarding over 70 orchid species, while also serving as the face of the local formal institutional framework. Their current status is one of active engagement. Conversely, Universitas Tadulako, which holds crucial technical capacity for tissue culture propagation, remains absent and has not been engaged with by the community at all.

The second group, which holds the key to legal frameworks, generally remains passive and reactive. The Lore Lindu National Park (LLNP) Office, which holds the mandate for in situ conservation, has so far maintained only a passive awareness of community activities. Meanwhile, the Central Sulawesi Natural Resources Conservation Agency (BKSDA), as the authority for ex situ conservation and the issuer of permits for distribution or commercial trade, is notably absent due to the fact that the Palolo area lies outside their scope of focus. On the other hand, the involvement of the Barantin in biosecurity certification remains reactive, with actions taken only when incoming shipments require inspection. The third group, comprising economic and market stakeholders in Karunia Village, currently maintains minimal to non-existent involvement. The Sigi Regency Government, which holds the mandate for regional development and tourism, and the Village-Owned Enterprise (BUMDes), which holds the mandate for facilitating the village economy, demonstrate very minimal involvement. Meanwhile, from a market perspective, the PAI Community (Indonesian Orchid Lovers) has a strong interest in the potential of exotic orchid varieties in this village, but their role has not yet been integrated into the existing governance system.

3.1.3. Building Trust and Facilitating Collaboration

Actors must build trust among participants as a foundation for openly sharing experiences, ideas, and resources. Trust is built through informal social interactions, establishing transparent ground rules during meetings, and creating upward trust spirals [37]. In the early phases of co-creation in Karunia Village, the most significant barrier identified was not interpersonal distrust but institutional distrust—the erosion of community trust in government actors due to past failures in interaction. These trust barriers stem from a chronic deficit of transparency and accountability, manifesting as three key dynamics: the practice of extraction without compensation, such as government officials taking products from Pokdarwis initiatives without payment or clear return on investment on several occasions; the presence of psychological trauma resulting from government programs that arrive with promises but depart without tangible results, leaving equipment idle because farmers were not trained—a situation orchid enthusiasts view as merely a means to fulfill administrative obligations for official travel; and the occurrence of a sharp regulatory information asymmetry because, although the community has managed the nursery for two decades, they have never received any information regarding legal permits from the BKSDA or LLNP.

3.2. Design

Ansell, Sørensen, and Torfing identify three crucial tasks that must be completed in this phase: collaborative exploration and redefinition of the problem, the formation of a shared vision to guide the search for solutions, and the development and testing of prototypes in the field [37]. These three tasks did not proceed linearly in Karunia Village but evolved iteratively through a series of coordination visits to the Central Sulawesi BKSDA office (18 and 24 November 2025), discussions with the Lore Lindu National Park Office (18 November 2025), a simulation of orchid specimen shipment via the BKSDA route and Barantin route, interviews with local growers, and direct field observations.

3.2.1. Joint Problem Exploration and Redefinition

Ansell, Sørensen, and Torfing, emphasized that effective problem exploration requires the empathetic sharing of local experiences by those directly affected by the problem, combined with input from government agencies, independent experts, and academics [37]. Vulnerable and marginalized groups, who lack the power to speak out, must be reached through intermediaries or carefully designed focus group interviews. Different types of input must then be weighed against one another so that competing diagnoses can be critically examined. In Karunia Village, problem exploration took place through an asymmetrical yet meaningful process. Mr. Sardin, as both a farmer and a guardian of ecological knowledge for two decades, serves as the richest source of bottom-up input and shared firsthand experiences regarding the economic barriers of legal channels. In one interview session, he stated that “It’s hard for things to come out from here, but it’s easy for things to come in from outside… we should also be able to leave once we meet the requirements, especially since there’s already a breeding facility”.

On the other hand, coordinated visits to the BKSDA and Lore Lindu National Park provided the perspective of an institute that had never previously engaged in direct dialog with the community. A BKSDA staff member acknowledged that “The scope of the work area isn’t within the BKSDA’s jurisdiction. If I’m not mistaken, it likely falls under the jurisdiction of Lore Lindu National Park”. But since this involves plants, for example, if cultivation requires transport documents in the future, that falls under BKSDA’s authority.” A staff member from Lore Lindu National Park also stated that, “Regarding distribution of SATS-DN, the authority lies with BKSDA (Natural Resources Conservation Agency), not the National Park. The National Park’s function is in situ conservation. As for the utilization and distribution of wild flora and fauna, that falls under the BKSDA’s jurisdiction”. This is a clear example of an institutional framework that has never been tested against on-the-ground realities.

3.2.2. Developing a Shared Vision and Seeking Solutions

The second task in the design phase, according to Ansell, Sørensen, and Torfing, is to develop a shared vision that reflects local needs and guides the search for promising solutions [37]. A jointly formulated vision provides direction for the creative problem-solving process, which must be driven by mutual learning that goes beyond mere error correction and adjustments to existing policies and fully embraces the search for new, as-yet-unknown solutions. Open brainstorming must be combined with the critical testing of emerging ideas, and the results must be integrated with proven strategies to enhance the viability of solutions.

In Karunia, the embryo of a shared vision began to take shape through multi-stakeholder consultations facilitated by the research team. From the dialog between the community, BKSDA, and Barantin, a solution framework with two pillars emerged. The first pillar is the transformation of the production model—shifting the community from the position of unlicensed hunters to licensed breeders through a Captive Breeding License scheme. The second pillar is the transformation of the regulatory model—transforming BKSDA from an enforcer in the community to a technical partner that helps the community navigate complex procedures.

This vision is relevant because it not only addresses the community’s economic needs but also aligns with the institutional mandates of regulatory actors, thereby holding the potential to garner support from all parties. Consultations with Barantin confirmed that the existing licensing barriers are not insurmountable: through a Captive Breeding License scheme, the classification of plant generations (F0 as protected parent stock; F1 and F2 as offspring that may be traded) creates a legal pathway that is both ecologically sustainable and commercially viable.

3.2.3. Building and Testing Prototypes in the Field

The third task of design is to build and test prototypes—tentative solution designs that can be tested on a small scale to identify strengths and weaknesses, and to learn from both. Ansell, Sørensen, and Torfing emphasize that prototypes must be built upon a clear theory of action, and that experimental testing helps identify problems early on, avoid costly failures, and prepare for actual implementation [37].

At Karunia, the most concrete prototype was a simulation of the shipment of two orchid specimens through the BKSDA–Barantin regulatory corridor conducted by the research team. This trial was not merely a technical demonstration but served as an empirical mapping of the bureaucratic pathway, identifying where processes ran smoothly and where operational bottlenecks occurred. From this simulation, the critical path successfully mapped is Online Single Submission (OSS) registration (Indonesian Standard Industrial Classification (KBLI) 02209) → document completeness (Taxpayer Identification Number (NPWP), Indonesian Identity Card (KTP), business proposal, Annual Work Plan (RKT)) → breeding permit (IDR500,000) → Commercial Distribution Permit (IDR2,500,000) → annual quota determination by the Director General of Natural Resources and Ecosystem Conservation (KSDAE) → Quarantine Agency inspection → issuance of SATS-DN (IDR35,000 per document) → central-level verification, which can take up to six months.

Testing this prototype identified two critical structural weaknesses. First, the PNBP mechanism requiring upfront payment before a single plant is sold creates a disproportionate risk for small-scale growers. As Mr. Sardin described, “It’s like paying for a shipping container. Whether it’s full or not, you still have to pay”. If the plants do not sell all year, the costs paid are lost without compensation. Second, the central-level verification process taking up to six months makes this pathway operationally unresponsive to market needs that move much faster. These findings are precisely the kind of information Ansell, Sørensen, and Torfing had in mind when they emphasized the value of prototype testing: identifying problems before full-scale implementation so that the design can be revised and improved before the costs of failure become too great [37].

3.3. Implementation

Ansell, Sørensen, and Torfing identify three key tasks in this phase: securing adequate funding to scale up successful solutions, coordinating actions among the involved actors with a clear division of labor, and consolidating new solutions by integrating them into existing practices [37]. The data in this section are sourced from home visits to community cultivation plots, observations along trekking trails in the TNLL area, interviews with BKSDA and Barantin staff, and a review of the ADWI 2024 documents.

3.3.1. Securing Funding

Ansell, Sørensen, and Torfing emphasize that implementation requires adequate funding to scale successful prototypes into sustainable solutions [37]. Local governments, private companies or foundations, and donor organizations can jointly fund the implementation of solutions, while involved stakeholders can contribute to their time and effort. In Karunia, the conditions found were almost the opposite of this ideal scenario. The entire orchidarium infrastructure, from storage racks to growing media, was built and funded entirely by Pak Sardin over two decades, without support from government programs specifically designed for community-based endemic orchid cultivation models in buffer zones. Limitations on village funds have exacerbated this situation: technical guidelines from the central government often impose national priorities such as stunting, nutrition, and infrastructure. Proposals emerging from the Village Development Planning Forum (Musrenbang) have failed to materialize, as they are deemed inconsistent with national priorities.

The recognition of Karunia as a 2024 ADWI (National Tourism Village) has opened doors to alternative resources. Karunia’s status as one of the top 100 national tourism villages has enhanced its appeal to tourism investors and partnership programs. However, at the time of the study, this momentum has not yet been successfully converted into concrete funding commitments, but has remained at the level of symbolic legitimacy. This situation confirms the warning by Ansell, Sørensen, and Torfing that one of the most common things to go wrong in the implementation phase is the failure to secure sufficient resources to support the journey from prototype to a truly institutionalized solution [37].

3.3.2. Coordinating Actions

The second task in implementation, according to Ansell, Sørensen, and Torfing, is coordinating actions among the public and/or private actors involved in implementation and establishing a clear division of labor among them [37]. Because co-creation actors often share implementation responsibilities with public bureaucracies that play only a limited role in the design phase, there is a strong need for coordination to avoid gaps and overlaps in the delivery of new solutions.

In Karunia, efforts to operationalize this coordination have resulted in an asset-based role distribution framework: responsibilities are allocated not based on administrative hierarchy, but on asset proximity, with roles assigned to actors possessing the most relevant technical, relational, or regulatory assets for each activity node. Within this framework, the community and Pokdarwis undertake ecological production and knowledge functions; BKSDA is responsible for the technical classification of plant propagation and breeding permit recommendations; TN Lore Lindu performs in situ conservation monitoring; Barantin is responsible for biosecurity certification; Gampiri, as a transition actor, connects production to the PAI network and ecotourism platforms; and BUMDes is conceptually positioned as an aggregation hub, replacing the roles of middlemen.

However, in practice, this coordination remains sporadic and ad hoc, triggered by specific needs rather than institutionalized routine mechanisms. There is no regular coordination forum, no systematic flow of information between communities and regulatory agencies, and no mechanism enabling regulatory updates to proactively reach farmers. These conditions confirm the concerns identified by Ansell, Sørensen, and Torfing: when coordination is not institutionalized, gaps and overlaps in the implementation of new solutions are inevitable [37]. To operationalize and maintain this multi-scale distribution of roles, an RACI (Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed) matrix has been developed in

Table 2. RACI Matrix for institutional contribution and benefit mapping in the Karunia orchid governance model.

Activity	Local Government/Dinas (Macro)	Transition Agencies, Incubators, and NGOs	BUMDes/Cooperative (Village)	Farmer Groups/Pokdarwis	Local Entrepreneurs/Producers
Regulation and Policy Formulation	R/A	C	I	C	C
Market Research and Global Partnerships	I	R/A	C	I	C
Technical Standards Development (Cultivation/Conservation)	C	R/A	I	C	C
Commodity Production (Orchid Breeding)	I	C	I	R/A	R/A
Sorting, Initial QC, and Aggregation	I	C	A	R	R
Post-Harvest Processing and Value Addition	I	C	R/A	I	R
Logistics and Distribution (Karantina Compliance)	I	R	A	I	I
Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E)	A	R	C	C	C

Note: R = responsible (executor); A = accountable (final decision authority); C = consulted (input sought); I = informed (notified after decision). BUMDes = Village-Owned Enterprise; NGO = non-governmental organization. Source: Created by the research team (2026); adapted from Project Management Institute [38].

. This matrix is an analytical output developed by the researchers, synthesized from the identification of roles and interactions between key stakeholders. The RACI matrix, adapted from the Project Management Institute and Ansell and Gash, reduces jurisdictional overlaps and gaps in responsibility across the supply chain, ensuring that every actor—from field-level farmers to macro-level government agencies—has a clear and transparent strategic position within the value ecosystem [11,38]. Using this proposed framework, we aim to provide structured recommendations for collaborative management to ensure that the division of tasks, authority, and coordination flow between related parties is more effective, transparent, and sustainable going forward.

RACI analysis reveals three main principles of role distribution. First, the responsible role is assigned to actors with technical competence and operational proximity: farmer groups hold primary responsibility for orchid propagation on farmland, while Gampiri and the Agricultural Extension Office (BPP) are responsible for technical capacity building and market facilitation. Second, the accountable role is assigned to institutional leaders with formal authority: local governments maintain accountability for regulatory compliance and the investment climate, while the director of the BUMDes is responsible for business profitability. Third, appointing a consultant for farmers in the formulation of regulations enforces bottom-up governance norms, preventing a recurrence of top-down policy failures historically documented in this region [11].

3.3.3. Consolidating Solutions

The third task in implementation is to consolidate new solutions by integrating them into existing practices and engaging downstream actors to adapt the solutions to local experiences, organizational resources, and political and economic dynamics that may hinder the use of certain tools and strategies [37]. In Karunia, the most tangible consolidation effort is evident in the backyard cultivation network model that developed organically. Around 80 participating households maintain a small- to medium-scale orchid collection. This model successfully integrates cultivation into the daily rhythms of residents’ lives, distributes risk among many small production units, and does not require centralized land. It is a form of local adaptation that grows from a bottom-up and not a top-down design.

However, this consolidation still leaves unresolved tensions between the new solution and its implementation context. First, the economic rhythm of the proposed orchid cultivation network—which generates income only after six months to several years—clashes with the daily economic habits of the migrant community, which is accustomed to the principle of “work today, get paid this afternoon,” as was directly stated by Mr. Sardin in one of the interview sessions. Without a bridging scheme that guarantees residents’ short-term needs during this waiting period, broad participation in the cultivation model is difficult to sustain. Second, the lack of a locally accessible tissue culture laboratory limits the capacity for the mass propagation of seedlings, so the model’s scalability remains constrained by absent infrastructure.

3.4. Evaluation

Ansell, Sørensen, and Torfing state that evaluation ideally occurs continuously [37], but becomes particularly critical at the point where the following question must be answered: does the co-created solution produce the expected impact? Three crucial tasks in this phase are measuring and assessing outputs and outcomes, producing publicly accessible accountability reports, and disseminating successful solutions to other relevant contexts. The data in this section were sourced from follow-up interviews with key informants conducted two to four times per informant, cross-triangulation among informants, and observations during the final phase of the research.

3.4.1. Measuring Outputs and Outcomes

The first task in evaluation, according to Ansell, Sørensen, and Torfing, is to measure and assess outputs and outcomes to learn what works in practice and identify ways to improve performance and impact [37]. The ability to document results is often crucial for securing sustainable funding. At Karunia, evaluating outputs and outcomes faces a fundamental obstacle: no M&E framework has ever been established, since the initiative began two decades ago. There are no baseline data, no systematic sales record-keeping, and no reporting mechanisms linking community production data to household income data. While evaluation functions have so far been conducted informally by Barantin, who reassesses biosecurity risks whenever shipment volumes increase, this is a reactive mechanism, not a proactively designed evaluation. Without a formal and structured M&E framework, all these achievements remain anecdotal and cannot serve as strong evidence supporting collective learning or data-driven decision-making.

Nevertheless, several achievements can be confirmed using qualitative data. From an economic perspective, informants consistently described increased income stability among active growers, particularly through direct sales to visitors and the PAI community, although these achievements remain far below the true potential of the international market, which would open up if export licensing barriers were successfully addressed. From a conservation perspective, field observations indicate a gradual reduction in the pressure of illegal hunting, as more residents view legal cultivation as a more reliable livelihood strategy. The orchid restocking program for natural habitats represents a tangible and documented conservation contribution. During the research period, researchers were invited to participate in the restocking of orchids in Lore Lindu National Park with residents, as shown in Figure 5.

The co-creation process has yielded a dual-functional outcome: community cultivation plots have begun to function simultaneously as production units and ecotourism destinations. Visitors to Karunia Village are not only engaged in purchasing orchids but also in conservation education, which demonstrates that the co-creation process has organically generated agro-ecotourism value beyond the scope originally designed. This emerging outcome aligns with Stojanović, who identifies orchidariums as institutions that serve conservation, scientific research, and sustainable tourism simultaneously [39].

3.4.2. Public Accountability

The second task in our evaluation is to produce accessible public accountability, enabling external actors to critically assess collaborative efforts and hold the involved actors accountable. Ansell, Sørensen, and Torfing emphasize that co-creation efforts must not be closed off—which fosters external suspicion—but must remain an open and transparent arena that derives its legitimacy from the willingness of participants to be accountable for their actions and respond to external feedback and criticism [37]. At Karunia, formal mechanisms for public accountability are virtually nonexistent. The process that has developed is independent and personal, driven by a network of trust centered around Mr. Sardin, without publicly accessible documentation, without periodic reports to stakeholders, and without a forum allowing the general public or external institutions to provide input.

The ADWI 2024 recognition adds a dimension of external accountability: by placing Karunia on this national list, a process that was previously local gains broader public visibility. This creates new incentives and, at the same time, new pressures on the community and local government to maintain and improve existing management standards. However, this visibility is not a substitute for structured accountability mechanisms and is effective only as long as media attention and the competition’s evaluation process are ongoing. In the long term, Ansell, Sørensen, and Torfing demand more than mere visibility; they call for a systematic arena that opens the co-creation process to external oversight, input, and correction [37].

3.4.3. Disseminating Solutions

The third task in evaluation involves disseminating successful solutions to other sectors, jurisdictions, and contexts that may wish to adopt and adapt them. Ansell, Sørensen, and Torfing refer to this as a moral obligation: successful solutions must be disseminated so that other communities and regions can benefit from them, and all actors involved in co-creation must act as ambassadors who use their networks to spread information and build momentum for broader change [37]. Based on field data, Karunia represents several conditions that, when present simultaneously, can enable similar models to thrive in other contexts: conservation social capital built over two decades in the form of living local norms and knowledge; the presence of local champions who possess both technical expertise and community trust; a commodity with both conservation value and tangible market demand; and regulatory actors who, at least at the individual level, are willing to reconsider their roles.

However, these conditions are not evenly distributed across the 72 buffer zone villages of TNLL, let alone in the buffer zone villages of other conservation areas in Indonesia. This means that the Karunia model cannot be mechanically replicated. A replication assessment framework is needed that explicitly evaluates the presence of these enabling conditions in each context before co-creation interventions begin. In a broader context, the case of Karunia provides relevant empirical contributions to the national policy discourse on community-based conservation financing, including NTFP (Non-Timber Forest Product) schemes and ecotourism development in buffer zones, making it not merely a local case study, but a proof of concept that can serve as a policy reference at higher levels.

3.5. Co-Creation Architecture in Orchid Conservation at Karunia Village, Lore Lindu National Park

In general, the accumulation of empirical findings in the field has resulted in the collaborative architecture presented in Figure 6, which maps the relationship between two main groups of actors: the institutional actors on the left and the grassroots initiators on the right. These interactions occur across the four phases of co-creation, which form the core of this study’s analysis, with each phase having its own distinct drivers and barriers.

The initiation phase began with an interaction stemming from the convergence of socio-economic drivers from local initiators—such as Pak Sardin’s Group—with the need for recognition from the Lore Lindu National Park (LLNP) Central Office, the Natural Resources Conservation Agency (BKSDA), and academics at Tadulako University (Untad). The main driver at this stage is the initial legitimacy built from community initiatives, while the identified barrier is the lack of a formal institutional framework to oversee these activities.

The design phase illustrates how local ecological knowledge—specifically, the community’s practices of rescue and return—interacts with formal regulatory instruments, such as the CITES framework and breeding permit documents. This interaction gives rise to a more specific barrier: regulations governing endemic orchid species. While these regulations were originally designed for conservation purposes, in reality, they restrict the community’s ability to act independently.

In the implementation phase, collaboration is strengthened at the operational level through the network of Tourism Awareness Groups (Pokdarwis) and women’s groups. This aligns with the technical capacity of the national office’s official orchidarium and is guided by the division of roles outlined in the RACI Matrix. Barriers that arise in this phase tend to stem from multi-scale actors operating within their respective institutional silos. As a result, information among stakeholders becomes fragmented despite a formal commitment to collaboration.

In the evaluation phase, the community’s participatory reflections on agro-ecotourism outputs and social legitimacy interact with the government’s strategic assessments to generate policy feedback. During this phase, a lack of structured mechanisms for collaborative learning among actors was identified, as each party measured success using different criteria and timeframes. Ultimately, the interaction of these four phases resulted in three categories of outcomes: the ecological conservation of endemic orchid species, alternative income for local communities, and the development of community-based agro-ecotourism.

4. Discussion

While scholars have traditionally viewed state-centric and community-based approaches as opposing forces, the results of this study show that orchid conservation in Lore Lindu National Park (LLNP) is not simply an institutional achievement or a grassroots success, but rather a hybrid practice formed by the simultaneous operation of two distinct but interdependent conservation logics. Our discussion interprets these outcomes through the lens of co-creation theory [18,37], common pool resource studies [23,40], and joint administrative frameworks [11,12], placing them in dialog with supporting evidence and critical perspectives from previous studies. Our discussion is divided into two interrelated sections.

In the first section (Section 4.1), we examine how the convergence of institutional support from the LLNP Center, academic and donor networks, and Pak Sardin’s grassroots community has resulted in a hybrid co-creation model operating across all four canonical phases of co-creation, demonstrating the empirical viability of co-creation theory in a Global South context. In the second section (Section 4.2), we address the structural challenges and contingencies that threaten the sustainability and replication of this model, examining how regulatory paradoxes, multi-scale silos, leadership fragility, external threats, and the lack of meaningful joint evaluation reveal the “dark side” of co-creation [25], even in successful cases. By presenting both the achievements and weaknesses of this collaborative model, our discussion aims to advance a more nuanced theoretical understanding that rejects the romanticization of grassroots conservation and the overreliance on institutional solutions, while offering empirical insights from a context underrepresented in the dominant collaboration literature.

4.1. Institutional and Community Approach Shaped Hybrid Co-Creation

Effective environmental programs require complex, collaborative and mutual partnership among governments, civil society, and private actors at multiple scales [40,41,42]. This case highlights how institutional and community approaches could shape hybrid co-creation as the main success factors. As an institutional intervention, an orchidarium is a garden or special facility designed for the conservation, collection, cultivation, or exhibition of various orchids. Kumar has stated that orchidariums will become an important attraction point for effective conservation awareness dissemination [43]. Orchidariums are specifically constructed as controlled spaces when environmental conditions such as humidity, temperature, light, and air circulation can be adjusted in order to mimic the orchid’s natural habitat and meet its breeding needs, also known as ex situ conservation [43].

Seaton, Hu, Perner, and Pritchard highlighted that ex situ conservation plays a crucial role in cultivating plants in botanical gardens and institutions dedicated to collecting and cryopreserving germplasms to conserve and reproduce associated mycorrhizal fungi [44]. Rasmussen and Petersen also emphasized that ex situ collections help ensure the conservation of a large number of species, often for very long periods of time when combined with in vitro techniques and cryopreservation [45].

Jusman, Head of LLNP, stated that orchidariums serve at least five functions: conservation, research, education, ecotourism, and economic empowerment. At present, two orchidariums are operating under LLNP management. These five functions align with Stojanović et al. [39], who states that orchidariums serve as vital centers for ex situ conservation, playing a role in the management of diverse plant species and offering a triple benefit: strengthening ex situ conservation, advancing scientific research and environmental education, and promoting sustainable tourism. The Telaga Tambing Orchidarium was the first orchidarium in the park, established in 2015 by the Management Division of TN Region II Makmur. To date, it has 40 orchid species and five endemic pitcher plants obtained from the LLNP area. The Saluki Orchidarium was the park’s second orchidarium, established in 2016, and has approximately 34 orchid species and 312 plants. Two endemic orchid species are Airides odorata and Cymbidium finlaysoniaium.

In addition to the LLNP orchidarium, a conservation effort has also emerged organically through a community-based movement. Residents of Karunia Village in Palolo District, Sigi Regency, formed a “Desa Anggrek” (Orchid Village) due to concerns related to the threat of extinction of orchids in the LLNP protected forest caused by environmental damage and illegal hunting for commercial purposes. Mr. Sardin is the initiator of this movement, which has been running for over 20 years, since 2004. Mr. Sardin and 20 other residents involved in this movement search for orchids from fallen or dead trees and cultivate them separately. Once successfully propagated, the orchids are returned to the protected forest within the LLNP area. This practice, popularized by the local community, is called “rescue and return” [33].

Since the community’s founding, there has been an increase in visits from both domestic and international tourists, and various universities across Indonesia have sent students and lecturers to research the “Orchid Village” initiative. International donor agencies such as GIZ have also stepped in to help develop this initiative; for example, by empowering women’s groups in the Rejeki, Bahagia, and Karunia Villages of the Palolo District, Sigi Regency [46].

The conservation movement initiated by Sardin in 2004 represents a form of authentic community autonomy, as it arises from individuals, is legitimized by collective practices, and is driven by shared values in endemic conservation. This is very much in line with the typology of self-organized governance proposed by Ostrom [23].

The existence of norms leads to the creation of conventions and unwritten rules within the community, such as “the only orchids that can be taken are orchids originating from fallen trees and after being propagated, the mother will be returned to the forest.” These norms, which are then developed as guidance and unwritten rules within the community, develop and become a reference for all community members without coercive intervention from the state. On the other hand, this conservation is also assisted by the aligned institutional support of the LLNP Center. One of the largest contributions comes from the government’s collaboration with Tadulako University, Forest Programme III, and GIZ Germany, which successfully combines academic and scientific legitimacy, institutional capacity building at the LLNP Center, and access to international networks. Field research has also confirmed that the grassroots community led by Mr. Sardin will face barriers related to taxonomic capacity and cultural permits for protected species.

More interestingly, this case demonstrates that grassroots co-creation and institutional support not only coexist but also interact and contribute to each phase of creation. In the initiation phase, for example, socio-economic factors drive the community, but the community’s agency is also facilitated by the presence of institutions that provide a sense of “recognition.” In the design phase, regulatory barriers related to breeding permits demonstrate that institutions that should provide support actually become obstacles, creating a paradox in this case. The implementation phase demonstrates the weak coordination between agencies due to the silo mentality among multi-scalar stakeholders, a classic challenge in polycentric governance [28]. Furthermore, in the co-creation phase, without long-term institutional commitment, existing momentum is easily lost and cannot be replicated.

4.2. Challenges and Contingencies of Co-Creation Through Community-Based Orchid Conservation

In the previous section, we described how a hybrid institutional and community approach has led to positive outcomes for orchid conservation in Karunia Village. In this section, we critically examine the structural challenges and contingencies that threaten the sustainability and replication of this collaborative model. In line with Ansell, Sørensen, and Torfing’s theoretical critique of the “dark side” of collaboration [25], our analysis demonstrates that what appears to be a successful grassroots–institutional partnership remains highly dependent on factors often beyond the community’s control. Four interrelated challenges emerged from our fieldwork: regulatory paradoxes, institutional silos, the fragility of grassroots leadership, and external structural threats. Each of these challenges corresponds to the specific phases of co-creation described previously, suggesting that the model’s vulnerabilities are not evenly distributed but concentrated at specific points in the collaborative process.

The most striking paradox observed in this case lies in the design phase, where the regulatory framework intended to protect endemic orchids simultaneously limits the community’s capacity to conserve them. Indonesian regulations for protected species, specifically those listed in Appendices I and II of CITES, require formal breeding permits for any propagation of protected orchid species [47,48]. These regulations exist to prevent illegal trade and are designed primarily for commercial enterprises, not grassroots community initiatives using a “rescue and return” model, as Pak Sardin’s community has done for the past 20 years. The community in Karunia Village, while returning cultivated orchids to the forest, technically operates without formal permits, placing them in a regulatory gray area where their conservation work is neither fully recognized nor endorsed. This finding aligns with Sofyan’s research on policy implementation in LLNP, which identified a fundamental gap between conservation policy formulation and community-level realities [49]. In other words, since the institutional architecture was not designed to accommodate this form of grassroots collaboration, it now relies on a structural mismatch that Ostrom describes as a failure of polycentric design [40]. This condition is not only a failure as a policy; its implications could become a source of criminalization for local communities who have been voluntarily, without state intervention, helping to preserve orchids, turning them into a showcase that has successfully attracted international tourists and brought Sulawesi into the world’s spotlight.

The second challenge relates to the joint implementation phase. Weak coordination among multi-scale stakeholders undermines the collective potential of co-creation. The current case involves at least seven distinct categories of actors operating at different scales: grassroots communities (village level), village governments (Karunia Village Office), district governments (Sigi Regency), provincial governments (Central Sulawesi Province), the LLNP Center under the Ministry of Environment and Forestry (national level), academic institutions (Tadulako University), and international donors (GIZ, Forestry Program III). Although each actor formally supports orchid conservation, their interactions have been characterized by what Morrison et al. describe as a “black box of power” in polycentric governance, where formal collaboration masks substantive disconnects [27]. Field observations indicated that information flows were asymmetrical, with communities often unaware of policy decisions made at higher administrative levels, while institutional actors lacked systematic mechanisms to integrate community knowledge into formal planning.

This silo mentality is not simply a coordination issue but reflects a deeper institutional culture, as each actor operates within its own performance metrics, funding cycles, and accountability structures, which rarely align with the temporal rhythms of grassroots conservation. Berkes reminds us that successful adaptive co-management requires a “bridging organization” capable of translating across these scales [9], a function that remains underdeveloped in the case of LLNPs. Ideally, to fill this gap, the LLNP Center serves as the most appropriate bridging institution. In developing countries, this gap is often caused by the institution’s weak capacity to perform its functions optimally. This stems not only from limited human resources but also from factors such as limited fiscal capacity, traditional infrastructure, and limited rationality in simultaneously carrying out institutional executive functions.

The third challenge is the most existential challenge for the sustainability of this collaborative model: the reliance on a single charismatic initiator, Mr. Sardin, who has been the community’s anchor since 2004. Hofstad, also mentions that public leadership is the greatest challenge in co-creation practices [50]. Public leadership is a collective endeavor performed in various settings and levels that promotes a multitude of goals [51,52]. The involvement of 20 additional community members and the expansion of the women’s group in Rejeki and Bahagia Village demonstrates organic growth. In particular, the internalization of values into the workings forms the normative core of the model through the ethos of “rescue and return” and the unwritten rule to only take from fallen trees.

These deeply rooted values illustrate Mr. Sardin’s co-creative leadership. As categorized by Hofstad, co-creative leadership seeks to generate public value with various actors by initiating, facilitating, and providing direction in interactive processes [50,53,54]. This direction becomes not only a value or gesture of collaboration within the community, but also becomes the foundation of the community’s governance system.

On the other hand, the relational network of researchers and donors that Mr. Sardin has developed remains deeply embedded in Sardin’s personal authority and lived experience. This represents what social movement scholars call the “founder’s dilemma” [42]. Grassroots movements that succeed precisely because of charismatic leadership often face crises when that leadership cannot be reproduced. Without a deliberate effort to formalize the model’s tacit knowledge, mentor a second generation of leaders, and institutionalize an ethical framework that distinguishes this community from mere commercial orchid cultivation, the entire initiative risks collapse after Sardin’s departure. This vulnerability is particularly acute given that grassroots conservation knowledge—what Gómez-Baggethun, Corbera, and Reyes-García call traditional ecological knowledge—is transmitted not through manuals but through embodied practices, intergenerational dialog, and shared moral commitments that are difficult to codify [30].

Even the most successful collaborative models cannot insulate themselves from external structural threats beyond the community’s influence. Two such threats pose a particularly significant challenge in this context. First, deforestation within LLNP reached 7923 hectares between 2010 and 2018 [55], driven by illegal logging, agricultural land conversion, and land grabbing. Second, illegal gold mining (PETI, Pertambangan Emas Tanpa Izin) has been identified at seven sites within the LLNP area—four in Sigi Regency and three in Poso Regency—with mercury contamination in rivers documented at sites such as Sidondo and Dongi-Dongi [56]. These threats are particularly significant for the Karunia Village community because they directly damage the ecological substrate that sustains the “rescue and return” model; their efforts will no longer have any meaningful “return” if the forest being restored is itself being destroyed.

An additional dilemma is that, even if there are communities that voluntarily protect their natural environment, if institutional support is weak, other environmental damage that is not prevented can bring about the destruction that the Karunia Village community has so far prevented, which would be even more ironic if effort is not made to strengthen weak institutions—either internally or externally—through an approach grounded in community aspirations. This asymmetry is striking: community members rescue orchids one by one from fallen trees, while extractive industries easily clear-cut entire forests. This exposes deep contradictions in Indonesian environmental governance, where conservation policy and extractive licensing operate in largely separate bureaucratic realms. As Armitage et al. argue, community-centered conservation must be embedded within a broader institutional environment [22]. Without effective law enforcement against deforestation and illegal mining, even the most committed grassroots movements may find their efforts neutralized by structural forces beyond their control.

Finally, the evaluation phase revealed the most theoretically significant challenge: the absence of a structured collaborative evaluation mechanism that includes grassroots actors as legitimate evaluators in the co-creation process. While the LLNP Center regularly conducts internal monitoring of conservation outcomes and academics occasionally publish studies for their own research, overall, there is no institutional arena that allows the Pak Sardin community, women’s groups, donors, and government officials to collectively assess what is working, what is failing, and what needs to change. This evaluation was conducted to address the fragmented responsibilities among actors who lack an integrated platform to expand existing policies. This absence is not accidental, but reflects what Ansell, Sørensen, and Torfing describe as a “democratic deficit” in co-creation: while collaboration may be celebrated in the initial phase, the evaluation phase often reverts to traditional hierarchical patterns in which authority figures determine the criteria for success [25].

This deficit manifests itself at various scales and across actors. It begins with local officials who have, for the past 20 years, turned Karunia Village into a showcase for tourists in Central Sulawesi, without a concrete commitment to address the challenges and potential of this community. This is followed by national policymakers, who focus on outcomes but fail to strengthen the capacity of conservation agencies at the forefront. It also includes evaluations provided by international donor agencies within project cycles that are too short to capture the long journey of community-based conservation. The result is a fragmented evaluation landscape, with different actors measuring different things using different standards, without a shared framework for collective learning. Without addressing this deficit, collaborative models risk becoming mere rhetorical achievements rather than substantive transformations.

5. Conclusions

This qualitative case study provides empirically grounded evidence that co-creation, when situated within the buffer zone of a major conservation area in the Global South, operates as a hybrid governance practice instead of only singular formal institutional program or grassroots initiatives. As visualized in the co-creation architecture in Figure 6, the success of this model rests on the dynamic interaction between two distinct yet interdependent sets of actors—Pak Sardin’s grassroots community of cultivators and the institutional network anchored by the LLNP Center, Tadulako University, and international partners such as GIZ and Forest Programme III—operating across four sequential yet overlapping phases of co-creation.

These four phases reveal a distinctive pattern of asymmetry. Initiation emerged organically from socio-economic concerns and local ecological knowledge, suggesting that grassroots autonomy can serve as a powerful starting point for conservation without formal institutional sanction. Yet as the model progressed to design, the regulatory framework intended to protect endemic species paradoxically became a barrier to community-led propagation, exposing a structural mismatch between conservation policy and grassroots practice. The implementation phase revealed how multi-scalar stakeholders, despite formal commitments to collaboration, often operate within institutional silos that fragment information flows and accountability. The evaluation phase, in turn, exposed the absence of structured mechanisms for collaborative learning, with each actor measuring success by different criteria and timescales. This phase-by-phase asymmetry suggests that co-creation is not uniformly fragile but vulnerable at specific institutional junctures—a finding with implications for both theory and practice.

The challenges identified here reflect broader obstacles that conservation actors in the Global South face when implementing collaborative policies alongside grassroots movements, and they point to the need for more rigorous collaborative design and ongoing recalibration. Several directions follow. First, regulatory reform is needed to establish clearer legal norms for community-based conservation, distinguishing it from commercial captive breeding and granting it appropriate legitimacy. Second, liaison organizations should be strengthened—not only through large, singular institutions but through local academics from institutions such as Tadulako University, or through hybrid platforms combining LLNP centers, civil society, and community representatives. Third, investing in leadership regeneration—through institutional documentation, intergenerational mentoring, and the integration of conservation ethics into local school curricula—could help mitigate leadership fragility. Fourth, the proposed RACI Matrix offers a concrete tool for mapping responsibilities, accountabilities, and information flows between actors, potentially providing a basis for more structured joint evaluations. Finally, future research could examine the replicability of this model in other buffer-zone communities within LLNP and other Indonesian national parks, while attending to the specific socio-political, cultural, and ecological conditions that have shaped Desa Karunia’s trajectory. Longitudinal work could trace the model’s evolution over the coming decade, particularly through the anticipated leadership transition from Mr. Sardin to the next generation, offering rare insight into how grassroots conservation movements navigate institutional succession.

Several limitations should be acknowledged. The four-month field engagement, though intensive, captured only a specific temporal segment of a movement that has evolved over more than two decades. The focus on Karunia Village, while analytically productive, limits the generalizability of findings to other buffer-zone communities within Lore Lindu National Park and to other Indonesian national parks, where ecological, cultural, and political conditions differ substantially. Our analysis also privileges the perspectives of grassroots cultivators and institutional actors, engaging less directly with voices that may contest the dominant co-creation narrative—including customary leaders, ecologically marginalized groups, and actors involved in extractive industries operating around the park.

More broadly, this case offers insight from an Indonesian context in which institutional capacity is uneven and regulatory frameworks remain shaped by colonial and developmentalist legacies. Karunia Village suggests that co-creation in the Global South does not simply replicate models developed in Scandinavian or Western European welfare states; it adapts, hybridizes, and at times resists them through locally grounded practices such as the “rescue and return” ethos. Mapping the four phases against their specific drivers and barriers indicates that what appears to be an ecological achievement—the conservation of endemic orchid species—is better understood as the product of a governance arrangement whose sustainability depends on factors largely invisible in conventional conservation assessments. Socio-political dynamics such as regulatory paradoxes, multi-scalar silos, leadership fragility, and limited political will in evaluation are not peripheral noise but appear to be constitutive of co-creation, shaping each phase from initiation through evaluation.

Instead as a panacea for the failures of state-centered conservation or a romantic alternative grounded in community autonomy, co-creation in Karunia Village emerges as a contingent, politically embedded, and continually negotiated practice. The endemic orchids returning to the forests of Lore Lindu represent not only a conservation success but the fragile possibility that, in the buffer zones of the Global South, communities and institutions can jointly craft governance models that protect biodiversity while honoring the ecological, cultural, and political agency of those who live alongside it. Whether that possibility is realized will depend less on the goodwill of any single actor than on a collective, sustained commitment to rebuilding the architecture of co-creation across all four phases.