Developing a Protection Design Framework for the Bajo Tribe’s Living Space in Indonesia’s Coastal Areas: An Adaptation from Funaya Japan

Abstract

This paper presents an adaptive, inclusive, and sustainable framework for the protection design and development of Bajo community living spaces in Indonesian waters, inspired by the Funaya model in Japan. The framework was developed using the Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) method, integrating the principles of Rights, Restrictions, and Responsibilities (RRRs) to address challenges in coastal management, cultural preservation, and economic sustainability. Key strategies include a protection design based on zonation and space, the application of the principles of RRRs, and the adaptation of the Funaya model. This approach emphasizes participatory governance, legal certainty, and community empowerment through training and incentives. The Funaya adaptation integrates the preservation of traditional houses and tourism development to enhance cultural and economic resilience. While its implementation requires significant resources, the expected benefits include environmental sustainability, cultural preservation, and improved livelihoods for the Bajo people. This framework may serve as a replicable model for integrated coastal management across Indonesia.

1. Introduction

The Bajo community has a deep connection with the marine ecosystem. This community is spread across various coastal regions of Indonesia, such as Sulawesi and Nusa Tenggara, with approximately 75% of its economic activities depending on the sea [1]. Prior to Indonesia’s independence, indigenous, local, and traditional communities had long occupied coastal areas for generations. They shifted from one place to another in search of new food sources or to avoid seasonal and climatic changes [2]. Industrialization led to longer settlements in coastal areas [3,4], yet the disconnect between traditional community needs and national frameworks has created management challenges. This necessitates a more flexible and collaborative approach, especially in ensuring fair legal access for indigenous communities such as the Bajo people. National policy developments often fail to fully accommodate their needs, particularly regarding land ownership recognition in aquatic areas.

Indigenous communities comprise four essential elements: a group of people, a living territory, cultural traditions, and social structure. These elements are essential in understanding their history, identity, and challenges in contemporary society [5]. Hence, in the context of fulfilling the livelihood needs of indigenous communities inhabiting coastal waters, the state’s commitment to guaranteeing the availability of habitable settlements is indispensable. This is in line with Article 33, paragraph (3), and Article 27, paragraph (2), of the UUD 1945 (the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia), which state that natural resources belong to the state and must be utilized for the people’s welfare, ensuring that every citizen has access to employment and a decent livelihood [6]. Unlike terrestrial land, coastal waters and the sea are regarded as common rights or communal property [7]. If owned by an individual or by a legal entity, it would mean reducing the state’s control over coastal waters. This issue has been a public concern, resulting in Constitutional Court ruling No. 3/PUU-VIII/2010, which declared that HP3 (Coastal Water Concession Rights) are in contradiction to the 1945 Constitution, as they dwindle state control over coastal area management. In accordance with this, regulations have been established to administer coastal and marine areas, as outlined in Ministerial Regulation ATR/BPN (Agrarian Affair and Spatial Planning/National Land Agency) No. 17/2016, Article 4 [8], Government Regulation No. 18/2021, Article 65, paragraph 2 [9], and Ministerial Regulation ATR/KBPN No. 18/2021, Articles 197 and 198 [10].

Another requirement incumbent to be fulfilled is obtaining a permit for the spatial utilization of marine areas (KKPRL, Coastal and Small Island Spatial Planning) from the central government, which is responsible for marine and fishery affairs, based on the local government proposals for settlements in coastal waters that have been inhabited for five to twenty consecutive years. This aims to anticipate the migration of local communities from land to coastal water settlements, requiring coordination, regulation, and strict requirements supported by oversight mechanisms [11]. However, due to the absence of standardized regulatory frameworks as a guiding principle for the Bajo people who have lived in aquatic environments for centuries, it creates various challenges in managing their living space. These complexities include legal aspects, resource governance, and the fulfillment of adequate housing needs. Therefore, a comprehensive approach is paramount to develop a protective framework for the Bajo people’s living space in aquatic areas. This approach aspires to ensure ecosystem sustainability, equitable access for local communities, and simplified bureaucratic processes in managing their living space.

The need for an innovative approach is becoming increasingly urgent. Theoretical approaches such as adaptive governance and co-management provide a foundation for a more integrative policy framework. Adaptive governance emphasizes flexibility in resource management through collaboration between the government, local communities, and the private sector. This approach is particularly relevant in addressing climate change challenges, such as rising sea levels and coastal habitat degradation, which necessitate dynamic and adaptive management [12]. Not only does this model enable quick responses to environmental changes but it also allows space for local innovation in resource management [4]. It has been successfully implemented in Australia to maintain the Great Barrier Reef, where cross-stakeholder collaboration balances ecosystem conservation with economic activities such as tourism and sustainable fisheries [13].

Co-management, on the other hand, focuses on integrating active community participation with policy support from the government. This approach has proven effective in Canada, where indigenous communities have been granted legal rights to manage fisheries using their traditional knowledge. Additionally, co-management enables communities to take a more significant role in decision making, improving resource management efficiency and reducing conflicts [14]. The outcome not only enhances the sustainability of marine resources but also strengthens local community independence [15]. This approach reduces conflicts between the government and local communities by establishing clear collaboration mechanisms. Both of these approaches serve as the foundation for the Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) framework, which is used to evaluate existing policies and formulate empirically based recommendations, providing a structured approach to developing comprehensive policy formulations. As outlined by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, RIA ensures that the impact of each policy option is thoroughly analyzed, leading to more effective and practically implementable policies [16].

Building on these foundations, the current paper employed the RIA method to evaluate relevant existing policies and further design a protection framework based on the Rights, Restrictions, and Responsibilities (RRRs) framework. This approach involved a thematic analysis of primary data from interviews and Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) with stakeholders, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), and academics, as well as an analysis of secondary data from literature studies related to coastal area management policies in Indonesia. Furthermore, this study employed a comparative analysis of the Funaya model in Japan. The Funaya model has demonstrated success in integrating coastal life with legal recognition through exclusive zoning and collaboration between the government and local communities [17]. The protection framework developed in this study aims to ensure the formal recognition of community rights, implement necessary restrictions to protect ecosystems, and delegate management responsibilities to local communities. In addition to simplifying bureaucracy, this design supports marine ecosystem sustainability through exclusive zoning and community-based conservation. The proposed cross-stakeholder collaboration in this study is also expected to enhance community participation and ensure long-term sustainability. With these expected outcomes, this research not only offers practical solutions but also serves as an academic and policy reference for more adaptive and inclusive coastal area management.

Addressing a significant gap in previous studies, this study responds to how prior work has often examined legal tenure [7,18], culture [19], adaptive governance [15], or environmental protection in isolation. By integrating zoning, the RRRs principle, and cross-cultural insights from the Funaya model, it proposes a holistic framework tailored to the socio-legal context of maritime customary settlements in Indonesia. In summary, the primary contributions of this paper are as follows: first, it reinterprets cultural zoning through renewable tenure arrangements compatible with national law [17]; second, it operationalizes the RRRs framework into participatory planning tools for both government and community actors; and third, it addresses the longstanding conservation–livelihood tension [20] by aligning spatial zones with both ecological and economic functions—an issue overlooked in prior works [21]. Through the application of RIA in this integrated design, the study contributes a rarely used yet effective policy tool for inclusive, evidence-based coastal governance.

2. Data, Study Area, and Research Design

2.1. Study Area

This study was conducted in the coastal areas of Gorontalo, focusing on Bajau Village in Tilamuta Subdistrict, Boalemo Regency, and Torosiaje Village in Popayato Subdistrict, Pohuwato Regency (Figure 1). These two villages were selected because they represent core communities of the Bajau people, whose daily lives are heavily dependent on marine resources as their primary means of livelihood. The geographical and socio-cultural characteristics of these areas provide a relevant context for exploring the relationship between the RRRs framework, rights dimensions, and the level of obedience to resource management policies.

Torosiaje Village is unique due to its location, being entirely situated over water and accessible only by boat from the mainland, with a travel time of approximately 10 min. The houses in this village are neatly arranged with connecting walkways that facilitate residents’ mobility. Additionally, the village features aesthetically pleasing photo spots, enhancing its visual appeal as part of the cultural identity of the Bajau community. In contrast, Bajo Village exhibits different characteristics, and the distribution of the houses varies significantly. The houses are spread across land, coastal areas, and over water. This variation highlights the different adaptations of the Bajau people to coastal and marine environments, reflecting their dynamic interaction with the natural resources available in these regions.

2.2. Data Collection

Primary data were collected through a combination of Likert-scale surveys, in-depth interviews, and FGDs involving stakeholders such as the Bajo community members, local government representatives, NGOs, and academics. The surveys captured perceptions of RRRs, while the interviews and FGDs explored contextual factors affecting policy implementation and community acceptance. In total, 301 respondents participated. Among them, 131 respondents came from Bajo households that reside fully in maritime (overwater) environments, while the remainder represented households living in land-based and transitional zones.

Surveys and interviews with the Bajo community were conducted using a random sampling approach, ensuring that each individual in the population had an equal opportunity to participate. Random sampling was applied in the Likert-scale survey and in-depth interviews to obtain representative data regarding perceptions, needs, and compliance levels related to coastal settlement and resource management policies [22]. Coordination with local community leaders facilitated an active and voluntary participation.

Meanwhile, purposive sampling was employed for stakeholders, including policymakers, government officials, NGO representatives, and academics with expertise and direct involvement in land and resource rights management. Organizations such as the Natural Resource Management Advocacy Network (JAPESDA) from Gorontalo Province, which actively supports Bajo community rights, were included. In total, 20 stakeholders were involved in this process. Purposive sampling was critical to obtaining deep and contextually relevant insights, even if the findings are not generalizable to the broader population [23,24].

2.3. Selection Criteria and Data Reliability Measures

Respondents from the Bajo community were selected based on their active involvement in fishing activities, leadership roles, or household residence in regulated coastal zones. Stakeholder respondents were chosen based on their formal roles or demonstrated expertise in advocacy, policy development, or implementation regarding land and marine resource governance, including key informants from both Indonesia and Japan (particularly officials regulating Funaya settlements). To ensure data reliability, several measures were undertaken, as follows: (1) Triangulation: cross-verification of quantitative data from surveys with qualitative insights from interviews and FGDs allowed for the detection of patterns that may be obscured when using a single method [25,26]; this approach enabled a more comprehensive understanding of the RRRs framework as applied in community contexts [27]. (2) Stakeholder validation: key findings were reviewed in validation FGDs to confirm interpretation accuracy and enhance the credibility of the results. (3) Thematic analysis: responses were systematically coded, grouped, and categorized into dominant themes to uncover the most relevant insights [28].

2.4. Research Design

This study employs a research design based on a conceptual framework that integrates the socio-cultural context of the Bajo community with analytical dimensions grounded in local knowledge, regulatory gaps, and constitutional principles. The aim is to develop a protection model that secures the sustainability of maritime living spaces for sea-based customary communities in Indonesia. As illustrated in Figure 2, the research framework begins with foundational facts about the Bajo community. They live in stilted, sea-based settlements and rely on marine resources for both livelihood and cultural identity [29]. Their traditional practices include spearfishing, archery, and the use of inherited, handcrafted boats. These cultural behaviors reflect their preference for ancestral customs and practical daily subsistence strategies and their spiritual and material dependence on the ocean. Despite this, the Bajo face multiple challenges: environmental degradation, vulnerability to natural disasters, decreasing well-being, and susceptibility to exploitation by external actors. These conditions are compounded by gaps in governance—top-down policies that neglect local wisdom and bottom-up approaches often constrained by limited capacity and formal support.

A key policy gap was identified as the lack of a standardized instrument to evaluate and guide the viability of sea-based living environments. As such, this research explores two alternative pathways: (1) relocation to the mainland; (2) continued sea-based habitation. Relocation, while potentially improving access to services and economic diversification, poses significant cultural risks, including loss of identity, adaptation struggles, and social marginalization. Historical transmigration programs from the 1980s to the 1990s exemplify these risks, having failed largely due to misalignment with local culture and wisdom [30]. These considerations converge in the proposed output: a protection design for the Bajo community. This framework may serve not only as a research scaffold but also as a reference for practical implementation and policy reform in Indonesia’s coastal governance.

3. Methods

This research was designed based on an analysis of previous findings that highlight the importance of regulation as a policy tool to improve social and economic well-being while ensuring sustainable natural resource management [31]. The study claims that regulations play a vital role in supporting efficient and inclusive development and reducing poverty by ensuring a more equitable distribution of benefits. Hence, effective regulations must be designed to achieve strategic objectives efficiently, considering both positive and negative impacts, including social, economic, and environmental consequences. In this context, a qualitative descriptive approach was applied to integrate the regulatory framework as the foundation for developing a protection and management design for the Bajo community’s living space in aquatic areas. Regulations are proposed as an instrument to strengthen the implementation of the protection design, according to the principles of transparency, accountability, and consistency in decision-making [16,32]. Consequently, this research was tested using the RIA approach, a systematic analysis method to critically evaluate the impact of proposed policy or regulatory options. This approach is designed to improve the quality of policy by providing relevant and accurate information to decision makers. By evaluating the potential impacts of various policy options, the RIA assists governments in selecting the best course of action to address specific issues [31,32,33,34].

The implementation of the RIA (see Figure 3) involved collecting primary data through Focus Group Discussions (FGDs), in-depth interviews, and comparative studies of the Funaya model in Japan as a benchmarking reference for best practices. Additionally, secondary data were gathered from policy documents, government regulations, and relevant scientific articles, which served as references in the first and second stages of RIA implementation, according to the following scheme: (1) Problem formulation, which aims to analyze the fundamental issue, including identifying stakeholders involved and assessing its impact on various aspects. (2) Objective formulation, which evaluates the appropriateness of policy goals or actions to be taken. (3) Alternative formulation, where various solution alternatives, both regulatory and non-regulatory, are comprehensively considered. (4) Benefit and cost analysis, which is undertaken to evaluate all alternative actions to determine the option that provides the highest benefits relative to its costs. (5) The implementation strategy, which is formulated to determine strategic steps for executing the selected alternative action.

4. Results

Effective regulatory frameworks play a crucial role in ensuring sustainable coastal management, particularly for indigenous communities such as the Bajo people. This Section explores the existing challenges and opportunities for regulatory improvements, aiming to develop policies that not only protect cultural heritage but also enhance environmental sustainability and economic resilience. The discussion begins by identifying key issues and objectives in coastal management before delving into specific regulatory improvements required for a more inclusive and effective governance framework.

4.1. Identification of Issues and Objectives

The effective governance of coastal areas requires a comprehensive understanding of the challenges faced by the Bajo people. These challenges stem from multiple dimensions, including socio-cultural preservation, disaster preparedness, economic empowerment, and participatory governance. This Section highlights these critical issues, emphasizing the need for regulatory reforms to ensure a more adaptive and inclusive management approach. Furthermore, the analysis extends to evaluating the current regulatory landscape and identifying areas for improvement to address the unique vulnerabilities of the Bajo community.

4.1.1. Potential for Improving the Existing Regulations

The potential for regulatory improvements in managing coastal areas for the Bajo people encompasses various essential aspects requiring strategic attention and solutions. First, the preservation of the Bajo community’s cultural identity must be a priority in regulatory frameworks, as forced relocations and spatial planning changes threaten their cultural practices and communal harmony [35]. Additionally, disaster preparedness is a crucial issue, given the community’s vulnerability to natural risks such as flooding and rising sea levels. This issue is further exacerbated by limited access to disaster mitigation education and adaptive infrastructure [36]. Thus, protection strategies should integrate disaster risk education and the development of environmentally friendly infrastructure.

Economic empowerment must also be an integral part of protection policies. The Bajo people’s dependence on traditional fishing methods makes them highly vulnerable to environmental changes and economic fluctuations. Therefore, diversifying livelihoods and promoting sustainable marine resource management practices are essential [37]. Moreover, the existing regulations must promote community participation in decision-making processes. This approach is effective in enhancing data accuracy and community engagement. While this approach aligns well with local conditions, challenges include resource limitations, participant skill variations, and technological needs. The participatory approach improves the results by making them more structured and transparent, benefiting local management. Policies that exclude the Bajo community lead to marginalization and conflicts with local governments. By ensuring active participation, policies can become more inclusive and relevant [20,38].

Environmental conservation must also be balanced with the economic needs of the community. The current conservation policies often restrict the community interactions with their environment, creating socioeconomic challenges [21]. Therefore, a balanced approach integrating conservation and economic sustainability should be adopted. Additionally, the necessity for ongoing monitoring and focused management approaches to tackle specific areas of pollution concentration must be considered to ensure environmental health [39]. Lastly, the development of infrastructure and accessibility in coastal areas must be improved. Issues related to accessibility and settlement quality require strategic interventions, including infrastructure development to support the livelihoods and well-being of the Bajo people [40].

By addressing these key points, the development of an adaptive protection framework will ensure that the economic, social, cultural, and environmental needs of the Bajo people are holistically met. A regulatory reform based on the principles of equity, sustainability, and community participation is expected to provide an effective solution to the challenges faced by the Bajo community.

4.1.2. Regulations That Need to Be Enhanced, Developed, and Established

To improve coastal management for the Bajo people, regulatory developments must be categorized into three key clusters: applicative, reformative, and revolutionary approaches. The applicative cluster includes policies that have proven effective and relevant, such as the legal recognition of land rights through the issuance of the Certificate of HAT (land ownership). These policies provide legal security and legitimacy to the Bajo community, fostering compliance with the existing regulations.

The reformative cluster addresses existing policies that remain ineffective and require restructuring to become more participatory and applicable. For instance, restrictive policies that do not accommodate local wisdom create barriers to sustainable marine resource management by the Bajo people. Revisions to these policies should incorporate traditional knowledge in resource utilization and address operational constraints, such as the lack of supporting infrastructure. Additionally, more inclusive dialog between policymakers and the Bajo community must be facilitated to ensure that the implemented policies are both acceptable and practical.

The revolutionary cluster focuses on the creation of entirely new policies aimed at establishing a more inclusive and sustainable management system. Certain issues, such as exclusion and marine resource management, remain unaddressed in the existing regulations. Consequently, policies must be established to provide the Bajo people with greater roles in resource governance, reduce conflicts, and foster a responsive and measurable governance framework. These policies must also integrate sustainability principles to balance environmental conservation with the community’s economic needs [21]. By developing regulations based on these three clusters, coastal management strategies can not only meet the holistic needs of the Bajo community but also support marine ecosystem sustainability and promote equity in natural resource governance.

4.1.3. Respondents’ Perspectives on Environmental and Settlement Policies for the Bajo Community

• Exclusive Zoning

The survey results indicated diverse perspectives on environmental and settlement policies for the Bajo community, reflecting the urgent need for protection design which will serve as a common reference. Among the total of 20 respondents comprising policymakers, NGOs, and academics, the majority had contrastive opinions regarding access and control over resources around Bajo community settlements (Figure 4).

The respondents’ perception on the environment and settlements of the Bajo community indicated a significant polarization, especially in the implementation of exclusive zoning policy. This policy was designed to limit external access to Bajo settlement resources while ensuring cultural preservation and environmental sustainability. The responses revealed a sharp divide in opinions: 25% of the respondents strongly disagreed (1), an equal and opposite 25% of the respondents strongly agreed (5), 20% of them disagreed (2), 15% agreed (4), and the remaining 15% were neutral (3).

This distribution highlights significant differences in opinion about the exclusive zoning policy’s effectiveness and relevance. Those strongly in favor (5) emphasized zoning as a protective measure from external threats, including excessive resource exploitation and environmental pollution. On the other hand, those who strongly disagreed (1) thought that a zoning policy may restrict access, as the ocean is a common right. Neutral or moderate responses (2, 3, 4) indicate a lack of consensus or uncertainty regarding the policy’s design.

The absence of a protection design is one of the main reasons why perspectives differ on this issue. Stakeholders emphasized the need for a participatory approach in designing zoning policies that not only protect natural resources but also respect the local wisdom of the Bajo people. By creating empirical evidence-based policies, it is hoped that the polarization of views can be minimized, so that inclusive and sustainable solutions may be obtained. While institutional perspectives provide one dimension of the issue, understanding the Bajo people’s cultural worldview is equally essential for designing an effective protection framework.

2.

Local Wisdom and Integral Relationship with the Sea

The Bajo people possess local wisdom that reflects their identity as a community that lives on and depends on the sea. The sea is not only a source of livelihood but also a cultural and social space that shapes their way of life. Based on a survey (Figure 5), 90 out of 131 Bajo respondents refused to move to the mainland, even if the government offered subsidies. This reflects the fact that the sea is an integral part of their lives. Houses built on water not only serve as residences but also symbolize cultural heritage that is deeply rooted in their identity as a maritime community. As for those who agreed to move to the mainland, they would do so only if the government provided housing subsidies on land but still requested to retain a residence in the waters.

In addition, a survey of policymakers, NGOs, and academics revealed that only 55% of the respondents supported allowing the Bajo people to remain in the waters (Figure 6). This percentage reflects significant concerns regarding environmental issues, such as marine ecosystem degradation and its impact on the sustainability of natural resources. Nevertheless, most stakeholders also recognize the importance of maintaining the Bajo people in their maritime environment as an effort to preserve Indonesia’s unique and valuable cultural heritage.

In order to clarify the contrast between stakeholder perspectives and community realities—particularly in relation to the zoning and relocation debate—we summarized the triangulated findings from surveys and interviews in

Table 1. Summary of key findings from Bajo community and stakeholder perspectives.

Perspective	Key Findings	Implications for Protection Design
Stakeholder on Exclusive Zoning	Divided opinion—some support zoning for ecological protection, others fear it limits shared marine access	Calls for a flexible zoning design that balances resource stewardship with equitable sea access
Stakeholder on Full Relocation	Majority oppose full relocation due to cultural heritage concerns and lack of state preparedness to accommodate relocation	Highlights the urgency of interim protection strategies for maritime communities until full relocation is feasible
Bajo Community on Relocation	Most reject relocation to the mainland, citing risks to livelihoods and cultural disconnection	Emphasizes the importance of culturally sensitive, in situ protection strategies that align with current community needs

. This summary highlights the nuanced differences in how stakeholders and community members perceive exclusive zoning policies, relocation proposals, and the broader implications for protection design.

The comparison of the two graphs above highlights the need for a protection design to guide the living space of the Bajo people and address current concerns while preserving their cultural heritage. Furthermore, based on both interview analysis and supporting evidence from previous research, the local wisdom of the Bajo people can be summarized into the following key characteristics:

• Traditional fishing practices (bapongka): The Bajo people’s bapongka tradition is a seasonal fishing restriction system rooted in local ecological knowledge and lunar cycles. Fishing is prohibited during specific phases of the moon or in designated areas to allow marine life, especially fish stocks, to regenerate. This practice demonstrates adaptive and sustainable resource management that balances daily subsistence needs with long-term conservation goals [21].
• Resistance to technological change: The survey responses indicated that many Bajo households continue to use traditional wooden boats rather than government-issued fiberglass or motorized boats. One participant stated “Wooden boats harmonize with the sea’s rhythm, while engines scare the fish and offend our ancestors” [21]. This illustrates not only a functional preference but also a deep spiritual and cultural resistance to external technological impositions.
• Spatial and environmental stewardship: Bajo houses on stilts are constructed with environmental sensitivity, avoiding ecologically fragile areas like seagrass beds that support marine biodiversity. Settlement arrangements are often adapted to tidal patterns and coastal dynamics, helping to minimize erosion and support natural hydrological cycles [40]. These design choices reflect an intrinsic understanding of coastal ecosystems.
• Oral traditions and ecological knowledge: Cultural narratives passed through generations also reinforce sustainable practices. Proverbs like “The sea is our mother; tearing her apart brings famine” exemplify the Bajo’s conservation ethic. These oral traditions not only serve as moral guides but also function as informal education tools, teaching youth about the dangers of environmentally destructive actions such as dynamite fishing [41].

The experience of transmigration in the early 1990s further reinforced this attachment, as efforts to relocate the Bajo people to the mainland failed because they chose to return to the sea [30]. This fact attested that the sea not only is a source of livelihood but also holds irreplaceable spiritual and cultural value for the Bajo people. Consequently, policies supporting their sustainable maritime life while protecting the marine ecosystem from damage are indispensable.

4.1.4. Integration of Land Rights Regulations in Maritime Areas: Stakeholder Perspectives and Local Wisdom

To generate stakeholders’ perspectives, an FGD was held on Friday, 29 August 2024, involving various relevant stakeholders to explore maritime land rights regulations in-depth. FGD is a qualitative research method designed to gain insights from participants through guided group interaction. This method is highly effective in exploring complex issues, capturing diverse perspectives, and generating varied data [42]. As part of the research, the FGD involved specifically selected participants relevant to the study goal to discuss the topic in depth [43]. It focused on qualitative analysis instead of applying mathematical transformation, highlighting the intertwined and complex qualitative research characteristics, built within frameworks of various terms, concepts, and assumptions [44]. Despite outwardly resembling standard interviews where questions and responses are recorded, an FGD requires significant effort and skill from the facilitator, demanding concentration, insights, and discipline to ensure that the discussions remain organized and productive [42]. This discussion provided a platform for the participants to share experiences, perspectives, and input on the issue.

The regulation of land rights in maritime areas is one of the aspects that required serious attention from the stakeholders. The FGD revealed that these regulations need specialization in determining the subjects and objects being regulated. One major challenge appeared to be the lack of a comprehensive and inclusive regulatory framework, often leading to overlapping authorities across sectors. This has created obstacles in field implementation, particularly regarding permits and land management in maritime areas. For example, up until today, obtaining permits from the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries remains challenging due to the absence of specific licensing instruments. Therefore, cross-sector coordination is crucial to ensuring that regulations can be effectively implemented. The resulting regulations must reflect community dynamics, including the differing local needs across regions.

Environmental sustainability and the reciprocal relationship between humans and nature were also central concerns in this discussion. In the context of the Bajo community, local wisdom teaches that maintaining harmony with nature will provide long-term benefits, whereas exploitative activities that damage the environment will lead to ecological and social losses [41]. This indicates that regulations must accommodate local values while incorporating modern sustainability principles. Prof. Dr. Nurhasan Ismail and Dr. Ricardo Simarmata, who participated in the FGD, emphasized the need for policies that integrate various aspects of philosophical, sociological, and legal aspects to provide holistic and integrated solutions for regulating land rights in maritime areas.

A responsive and accommodative regulatory approach is necessary to bridge modernization-oriented ideas with the community’s social realities that uphold traditional values. Policies focused solely on modernity without considering local wisdom tend to create inequality and disadvantage communities reliant on traditional values. Thus, integrating modern scientific policies with socio-cultural needs is key to formulating inclusive and equitable regulations [45].

4.1.5. The Need to Adapt Japan’s Funaya Protection Design as a Benchmark

The Funaya protection design in Japan, particularly in the Ine area, demonstrates a model of integration between cultural preservation, environmental protection, and sustainable economic development. This area has been recognized as one of Japan’s national cultural heritage sites, with regulations supporting a balance between traditional functions, conservation, and modern activities. The Funaya approach provides valuable lessons for implementation in Indonesia, particularly for the Bajo community, which shares similar socio-cultural characteristics.

Funaya refers to traditional wooden buildings that function as both residences and boat garages on the ground floor. These structures are located along Ine Bay’s coastline, designed to harmonize maritime activities with coastal life. The Japanese government supports the preservation of this area through regulations such as the Act on Protection of Cultural Properties, zoning laws, and financial subsidies to maintain the authenticity of the buildings. This approach prioritizes the concept of RRRs (Rights, Restrictions, Responsibilities), which includes land ownership rights, usage restrictions aligned with conservation goals, and the community’s responsibility for preserving cultural heritage.

Similarly, the Bajo people in Indonesia live on water in stilt houses that reflect their maritime-based local wisdom. However, there is currently no specific policy to protect the cultural identity of the Bajo people. Challenges such as environmental degradation and pressures from modern development threaten the survival of this community. Thus, benchmarking with Funaya can provide a relevant framework for designing a protection model that supports the cultural and environmental sustainability of the Bajo people (see

Table 2. Comparison of Funaya and the Bajo tribe community.

Aspects	Funaya	Bajo Tribe
Location and Characteristics	Located along Ine Bay, traditional wooden structures are built over water, serving as residences and boat garages	Located in coastal waters, stilt houses are built over water, serving as residences and maritime activity hubs
Protection Regulations	Governed by the Act on Protection of Cultural Properties and local zoning regulations	No specific protection regulations, subject to general policies such as the Agrarian Law and KKPRL
Land Ownership	Perpetual ownership with cultural zone protection granted to building owners	Ownership is time-limited, such as right of use or building use rights, with no automatic renewal guarantees
Renovation and Conservation	Renovation must use natural materials (wood) and requires local government approval; renovation subsidies up to 70%	Renovations are self-managed with no specific standards, minimal government support, or incentives
Building Function	Used as residences, restaurants, museums, and cultural tourism accommodation	Mostly used as residences, with little diversification for economic or tourism purposes
Government Support	Financial subsidies, cultural conservation training programs, and promotion as a tourism destination	Minimal financial or policy support for cultural and environmental preservation of the Bajo community
Environmental Management	Exclusive zoning system to control access and protect coastal ecosystems	No specific zoning or ecosystem management in Bajo community areas
Community Participation	Local communities are involved in planning and management, with clear responsibilities in conservation	Limited community participation in policymaking or management, often only as policy objects
RRRs	Rights: land ownership; restrictions: forbiddance on new constructions in preservation zones; responsibilities: cultural and environmental preservation	Rights: time-limited rights such as right of use or building use rights; restrictions: no clear limitations; responsibilities: collective responsibilities remain undefined

).

While Table 1 outlines key comparative features, it is essential to recognize that contextual differences pose significant challenges for direct adaptation. One key distinction lies in the socio-cultural and economic contexts. Funaya houses in Ine, Japan, are historically boat garages integrated with residences, supporting a semi-enclosed maritime lifestyle rooted in cultural heritage tourism [46,47,48]. In contrast, the Bajo people are traditionally sea nomads who inhabit stilt houses above open waters, with livelihoods closely tied to mobility and seasonal migration [49]. This difference introduces several localization challenges, as follows:

• Structural and environmental adaptability: Funaya structures are suited to calm, inland waters, while Bajo settlements face dynamic coastal conditions with stronger wave action and tidal variations. Adaptations must consider local climate, hydrological dynamics, and materials suitable for tropical marine environments [50].
• Socioeconomic constraints: The tourism-driven economy supporting Funaya’s conservation is not directly replicable in Bajo communities, which rely on artisanal fishing and subsistence trading. Thus, any adaptation should prioritize sustainability without displacing traditional economic practices [51].
• Cultural relevance and acceptance: The Bajo community values flexible and semi-permanent housing, reflecting their maritime mobility and adaptive traditions. Rigid, tourism-oriented housing adaptations may not align with their cultural identity unless designed through participatory processes [52].

The purpose of developing this protection design is to create a comprehensive and adaptive framework for safeguarding and managing the living spaces of the Bajo people in Indonesia’s coastal waters. By adopting key elements from Japan’s Funaya protection model, this approach aims to maintain a balance between preserving local cultural heritage and ensuring environmental sustainability. Through this adaptation, the primary goals are to provide legal certainty regarding the Bajo people’s land rights, encourage their active participation in territorial management, and enhance their quality of life through inclusive infrastructure and regulations. In addition, this design is expected to minimize land use conflicts, protect Bajo people’s unique cultural identity, and promote coastal areas as cultural and eco-tourism destinations.

The proposed approach integrates the concept of RRRs—granting rights, establishing usage restrictions, and defining responsibilities for maintaining coastal areas. As a result, this protection design will not only serve as a sustainable spatial management guideline but also offer an inclusive solution to address the challenges faced by the Bajo community today.

4.2. Formulation of Policy Alternatives

The purpose of the formulation of policy alternatives was to offer relevant, inclusive, and sustainable solutions for coastal area management and the protection of the Bajo community in Indonesia. These policy alternatives were designed based on an analysis of the Bajo community’s needs, benchmarking with Funaya in Japan, literature reviews, and survey results involving various stakeholders. The proposed policy alternatives are reported below.

4.2.1. Establishment of the Bajo Community’s Living Space Zone

The establishment of the Bajo community living space zone considered spatial dimensions, community aspects, ecological living space, physical space, and policy space, as illustrated in Figure 7. This zoning system was designed to accommodate the ecological, social, cultural, and economic needs of the Bajo people, who are spread across different settlement types: land-based Bajo, transitional Bajo, and maritime Bajo. The following is an explanation of each zone:

• Conservation zone (Zone A)
• This zone focuses on ecosystem and biodiversity protection. It is designed to support the preservation of natural resources essential to the Bajo community’s livelihood. Permitted activities in this zone include educational programs, research, and community-based ecotourism.
• Vulnerable zone (Zone B)
• This zone consists of areas at high risk of natural disasters such as abrasion, floods, or tsunamis. Infrastructure development in this zone must include risk mitigation measures, such as the provision of evacuation facilities and designated shelter areas for the Bajo people.
• Economic activity zone (Zone C)
• This zone is designed to support community-based economic activities sustainably. It includes maritime Bajo settlements, where the Bajo people manage marine resources following their local traditions. The zone is also supported with market infrastructure, ports, and marine product processing facilities.
• Exclusive zone (Zone D)
• This zone is reserved for exclusive use by the Bajo community. Within this zone, the Bajo people have the right to manage natural resources without the threat of exploitation by external parties. Traditional regulations, such as bapongka, are enforced to ensure the sustainability of marine ecosystems.
• Open zone (Zone E)
• This zone is designated for public access for general purposes, such as transportation routes and traditional fishing areas. The management of this zone must prevent privatization or any violations that could harm the ecosystem.

The establishment of these zones will also involve the Bajo community as the primary actors in spatial management. The community dimension includes historical and cultural aspects, local wisdom, economic activities, and shared ancestral origins, which serve as a strong foundation for sustaining their way of life.

This zoning system was designed to accommodate the needs of the three types of Bajo settlements:

• Land-based Bajo (Settlement A)
  Entirely land-based settlements, focused on access to basic facilities such as electricity and clean water.
• Transitional Bajo (Settlement B)
  Partially land-based and water-based settlements, requiring proper sanitation facilities such as bio-septic tanks to protect the environment.
• Maritime Bajo (Settlement C)
  Entirely water-based settlements, where residency is permitted only in Zone C with additional requirements, including mandatory household waste management.

For better understanding, please see Figure 5.

4.2.2. Protection Design Regulation

The Protection Design Regulation for the Bajo community aims to establish a holistic protection system that balances environmental conservation, economic sustainability, and socio-cultural protection. This design follows the approach of RRRs (Rights, Restrictions, Responsibilities), supporting sustainable resource management, local wisdom, and spatial planning within the Bajo community. Figure 5 above and Table 2 below provide a visual representation of the relationship between rights, restrictions, and responsibilities as applied to different zones and aspects of Bajo life.

Rights of the Bajo people are defined to safeguard their access to resources, cultural recognition, and active participation in territorial management. The main recognized rights include the following:

• Rights to Natural Resources
  • Conservation zone (Zone A): Right to sustainably utilize this zone for education, research, and community-based ecotourism.
  • Economic activity zone (Zone C): Right to manage marine resources traditionally while considering ecosystem regeneration.
  • Exclusive zone (Zone D): Exclusive right to protect the area and its marine resources from external exploitation.
• Rights to Settlements and Basic Infrastructure
  • Bajo Daratan (land-based Settlements): Right to basic facilities such as clean water, sanitation, electricity, and road access.
  • Bajo Peralihan (transitional settlements): Right to sanitation infrastructure, such as bio-septic tanks, to ensure environmental sustainability.
  • Bajo Maritim (maritime settlements): Right to establish residences in designated areas within Zone C with legal recognition.
• Rights to Cultural Recognition
  • Right to preserve customs, cultural rituals, and traditions that define the Bajo community identity.
  • Right to legal protection for traditional practices such as bapongka (seasonal fishing restrictions based on customary laws).

Restrictions are enforced to prevent environmental degradation, resource exploitation, and threats to the Bajo people’s way of life. The main prohibitions include the following:

• Prohibition of destructive activities
  • Zone A (conservation zone): Destructive activities such as using non-eco-friendly fishing gear or waste dumping are prohibited.
  • Zone B (vulnerable zone): Building constructions that increase disaster risks without mitigation measures are prohibited.
  • Zone C (economic activity zone): Unsustainable resource extraction methods are prohibited.
• Prohibition of privatization and land use conversion
  • Zone E (open zone): Privatization or exclusive claims over public-use areas are prohibited.
  • Bajo settlements: Unauthorized land use conversion is not allowed without government and local community approval.
• Prohibition for external parties, Zone D (exclusive zone): Outsiders are prohibited from exploiting resources or entering the area without Bajo community permission.

Responsibilities are divided between the Bajo community (C) and the government (G) to ensure the success of this protection design.

• Responsibilities of the Bajo Community
  • Environmental conservation: Actively maintaining ecological sustainability through traditional practices and participating in conservation efforts.
  • Settlement management: (i) Bajo Peralihan: Required to have bio-septic tanks to prevent water pollution. (ii) Bajo Maritim: Obliged to protect exclusive territories by complying with traditional rules like bapongka.
• Responsibilities of the government
  • Policy and infrastructure management: (i) Providing disaster mitigation training, disaster-resilient infrastructure, and early-warning systems in Zone B. (ii) Ensuring economic infrastructure such as markets, ports, and marine product processing facilities in Zone C.
  • Legal protection: (i) Protecting Bajo community rights over their exclusive territories. (ii) Monitoring and preventing illegal activities that damage marine and terrestrial ecosystems.

For better understanding, see

Table 3. Protection design regulation.

		Rights	Restrictions	Responsibilities
Living Space Zones	Zone A: Conservation	C: Utilizing zones for educational programs, research, and community-based ecotourism. G: Regulating policies and regulations to protect ecosystems.	C: Must not carry out destructive activity such as using non-environmentally friendly fishing gear or waste disposal. G: Must not give resource exploitation permit to any party.	C: Actively participating in preserving the sustainability of zones by complying with conservation regulation. G: Providing conservation training and critical zone monitoring facilities.
	Zone B: Vulnerable	C: Prioritizing the development of disaster-resistant infrastructure, such as evacuation sites and wave barriers.	C: Must not develop settlements which potentially increase the risk of disaster impact.	C: Participating in disaster mitigation training and utilizing the provided facilities. G: Providing early warning systems and conducting regular evacuation simulations.
	Zone C: Economic Activities	C: (1) The right to legally reside in this area with security guarantees and recognized ownership under the law. (2) Access to basic facilities such as clean water, sanitation, and adequate electricity. G: Managing the zone by providing spatial planning that supports community needs and ecosystem sustainability.	C: (1) Prohibited from engaging in activities that harm the environment, such as indiscriminate disposal of domestic or industrial waste. (2) Land use conversion is prohibited without community and government approval. G: External parties cannot be granted permission for activities that threaten sustainability or the welfare of the Bajo community without consultation and approval from the Bajo community.	C: (1) Managing the area by balancing settlements and sustainable economic activities. (2) Participating in government programs to improve economic capacity and environmental management. G: (1) Providing subsidies or incentives for community-based economic development. (2) Ensuring the availability of supporting infrastructure, such as traditional markets, adequate ports, and seafood-processing facilities. (3) Providing training for the community to improve economic skills and environmentally friendly resource management.
	Zone D: Exclusive	C: (1) Full rights to manage and sustainably utilize marine resources in accordance with the bapongka tradition. (2) Exclusive rights to protect the area from access and exploitation by external parties without permission. (3) The right to determine harvesting periods for marine resources to ensure ecosystem regeneration.		C: (1) Maintaining the exclusive area by involving indigenous communities for supervision and sustainable management. (2) Complying with bapongka traditional rules governing the timing and methods of marine resource utilization. (3) Reporting illegal activities, such as fishing by external parties, to the relevant authorities. G: (1) Providing legal protection for the exclusive territory of the Bajo community. (2) Establishing monitoring and law enforcement mechanisms against violations in the exclusive area.
	Zone E: Open	C: Free access to this area for public activities such as transportation, fishing, and waterways for transit by any party. G: Regulating and managing spatial planning in this zone for public interests and environmental sustainability.	C and G: It is prohibited to claim or privatize this area as the property of any individual or specific group.	C: Using this zone responsibly, including maintaining cleanliness, avoiding environmental damage, and complying with applicable regulations. G: (1) Developing spatial planning that includes the utilization of public property for various needs. (2) Supervising activities in open zones to ensure no violations against the ecosystem.
Community	Historical and Cultural	C: The right to preserve cultural traditions, rituals, and customs that have been passed down through generations.	C: It is prohibited to commercialize traditions in ways that degrade their original cultural values.	C: Actively participating in cultural preservation activities through local communities or organizations. G: Providing education and awareness about the community’s cultural history to younger generations.
	Common Ancestry	C: The right to official recognition of the community’s origins and identity as part of the local history.	C: It is prohibited to claim land ownership without legitimate legal grounds.	C: Supporting cooperation among community members to maintain unity and harmony. G: Providing legal mechanisms to regulate the recognition of community origins based on historical records.
	Local Wisdom and Economic Activities	C: The right to utilize local natural resources sustainably according to community traditions.	C: It is prohibited to use exploitative methods that are environmentally unfriendly or damage the ecosystem. G: External parties shall not be granted exploitation rights that threaten the community’s sustainability.	C: Participating in environmental conservation. G: Providing training and support for infrastructure to facilitate economic activities.
Community	Land-Based Bajo: Settlement A, Entirely Land-Based	C: (1) The right to live and reside safely, legally, and sustainably in the community’s territory in accordance with customary and national law. (2) The right to access basic facilities such as electricity, clean water, sanitation, and healthcare services.	C: It is prohibited to convert land use without approval from the community and government. G: Commercial exploitation permits that disrupt the land ecosystem’s balance shall not be granted.	C: Participating in environmental conservation. G: Providing training and support for infrastructure to facilitate economic activities.
	Transitional Bajo: Settlement B, Partly Land-Based		C: Mandatory use of bio-septic tanks to prevent water pollution. G: Construction permits shall only be granted in Zone C areas.	C: (1) Actively contributing to environmental sustainability on land and at sea by ensuring sanitation facilities meet standards. (2) Mandatory use of bio-septic tanks to prevent water pollution. (3) Mandatory household waste management. G: Providing disaster mitigation facilities to prevent the impact of coastal erosion in transitional settlements.
	Maritime Bajo: Settlement C, Entirely Water-Based		C: Establishing residences in Zone C, designated as a settlement zone over water.

.

4.2.3. Developing the Protection Design

The design of the protection system for the Bajo community included establishing a living space zone that safeguards ecosystems, supports community-based economies, and ensures fair territorial access. This design also recognizes the Bajo community as a protected community, granting legal recognition of their traditions, culture, and identity. Additionally, exclusive rights to sustainably utilize resources and responsibilities for environmental sustainability are regulated through collaboration between the community and the government.

• Establishment of the living space zones:
  • Conservation zone (Zone A): Designated for the protection of ecosystems and biodiversity.
  • Vulnerable zone (Zone B): Established to mitigate disaster risks through resilient infrastructure.
  • Economic activity zone (Zone C): Supports sustainable, community-based economic activities.
  • Exclusive zone (Zone D): Reserved for resource management exclusively by the Bajo community.
  • Open zone (Zone E): Public-access areas governed by spatial regulations.
• Establishment of the community designation:
  • The Bajo community is designated as a protected community, ensuring legal recognition of its traditions, culture, and ancestral heritage.
  • Legal protection mechanisms are developed based on historical and cultural data to safeguard the community’s territories.
• Establishment of the settlement characteristics:
  • Land-based Bajo (Settlement A): Fully land-based settlements with access to basic facilities such as clean water and electricity.
  • Transitional Bajo (Settlement B): Partially land- and water-based settlements that require bio-septic tanks to prevent pollution.
  • Maritime Bajo (Settlement C): Fully water-based settlements, where residences can only be built in designated Zone C areas.
• Environmental and sustainability norms:
  • The Bajo community is responsible for maintaining ecosystem balance by adhering to local conservation regulations.
  • The government must provide training, disaster mitigation facilities, and eco-friendly infrastructure, such as early warning systems and evacuation shelters.
  • Resource exploitation by external parties is prohibited without community and governmental approval.
• Security and infrastructure norms:
  • Transitional and Maritime Bajo settlements must have sanitation systems like bio-septic tanks for waste management.
  • Public infrastructure and settlements must be adapted to environmental risks, such as coastal erosion in transitional areas.
• Exclusive rights for the Bajo community:
  • The community has the right to sustainably utilize marine resources following local traditions such as bapongka.
  • The community has exclusive rights to protect its territories from external exploitation without permission.

4.3. Cost–Benefit Analysis

To determine the best policy for coastal area management and the development of the Bajo community’s living space, a cost–benefit analysis was conducted on two main alternatives: Alternative 1—do nothing; Alternative 2—protection design implementation. This analysis evaluated the social, economic, and environmental impacts of each alternative.

Table 4. Cost–benefit analysis for Alternative 1 (do nothing).

Aspect	Costs	Benefits
Economy	No additional costs for zoning management or implementation	Loss of community-based economic potential
Environment	No major change or environmental interventions	Risk of environmental damage due to unregulated resource exploitation
Social and Culture	No immediate social structure changes	Loss of local traditions and cultural identity due to lack of legal protection
Infrastructure	No additional costs for infrastructure development	Lack of infrastructure for disaster mitigation and sanitation in transitional settlements

outlines the cost–benefit analysis where no specific interventions or regulations are applied to the Bajo community. From the benefit point of view, this approach requires no additional costs for zoning management or implementation, yet it poses significant consequences, including environmental degradation due to the absence of clear regulation on resource exploitation, loss of community-based economic potential, and threats to local traditions due to a lack of legal protection. Additionally, the limited infrastructure, such as sanitation and disaster mitigation, remains an unresolved issue in this approach.

Alternative 2 (protection design implementation) is represented in

Table 5. Cost–benefit analysis for Alternative 2 (zoning and spatial management).

Aspect	Costs	Benefits
Economy	Initial investment in infrastructure and community training	Increased community-based economic activities (Zone C)
Environment	Operational costs for zoning enforcement and monitoring illegal activities	Ecosystem and biodiversity protection through Zone A
Social and Culture	Community education costs and adaptation to new system	Protection of traditions (bapongka) and Bajo identity through Zone D
Infrastructure	Costs for disaster-resilient infrastructure and modern sanitation maintenance	Provision of sanitation facilities (bio-septic tanks) and disaster risk mitigation (Zone B)

, presenting the cost–benefit analysis of implementing the zoning and spatial management approach, which includes zoning design to manage the living space of the Bajo community. This alternative provides economic benefits through community-based economic activities in the economic activity zone (Zone C), while also ensuring biodiversity conservation in the conservation zone (Zone A). Additionally, local traditions such as bapongka are preserved through the exclusive zone (Zone D). However, this approach requires initial investments in infrastructure development, community training, and operational costs for zoning enforcement and the prevention of illegal activities. Additional funding is needed for disaster-resilient infrastructure and modern sanitation facilities in the vulnerable zone (Zone B).

Figure 8 illustrates the framework for developing a protective design for the living space of the Bajo community, which was designed by adapting the approach for Funaya (MLIT, Tokyo, Japan).

This approach emphasizes the establishment of cultural heritage status, conservation zoning regulations, and the management of property rights and area maintenance. The framework was adjusted to fit the Bajo community by considering regional and communal aspects, which are realized through the designation of living space zones and the implementation of RRRs. This approach includes the regulation of protective design and integrated conservation zoning, culminating in the formulation of a protective design as a strategic guideline. The final outcome of this framework is the recognition of the Bajo community’s living space rights, along with continuous supervision and maintenance to protect the ecosystem, culture, and identity of the Bajo community.

4.4. Implementation Strategy

The implementation strategy of the policy plays a crucial role in ensuring the success of the protection design and management of the Bajo community’s living space. This approach involves three main elements: socialization mechanisms, monitoring implementation, and incentive and sanction systems. These three components were designed to complement each other and provide a strong operational foundation.

4.4.1. Dissemination Mechanism

The dissemination mechanism aims to increase awareness, acceptance, and participation of the Bajo community and other stakeholders regarding the proposed policy. The stages of dissemination include the following:

• Public information dissemination
  • Utilizing local media, such as radio and visual posters, to communicate the benefits of the policy.
  • Organizing discussion forums with the Bajo community to explain their rights, restrictions, and responsibilities related to the protection design and living spaces in coastal areas.
• Education and training
  • Conducting training on the use of environmentally friendly fishing gear.
  • Enhancing the community’s understanding of the importance of coastal ecosystem conservation and maritime culture.
• Collaboration with partners
  • Involving NGOs, community leaders, and academics in developing socialization modules based on local wisdom and culture.
  • Encouraging the Bajo community to be pioneers in spreading messages to their community and serving as role models for other coastal indigenous groups.

4.4.2. Monitoring Implementation

Monitoring aims to ensure that the policy is implemented in accordance with the intended objectives. An effective monitoring system will include the following:

• Community-based supervision
  • Establishing local monitoring groups consisting of the Bajo community to oversee zoning implementation and area protection.
  • Providing training for these groups to identify violations, such as illegal exploitation by external parties.
• Technology-supported monitoring
  • Utilizing drones and GIS-based applications for the periodic mapping of areas.
  • Developing a digital reporting system that enables the community to report issues in real time.
• Periodic evaluation
  • Conducting quarterly evaluations involving all stakeholders to review policy effectiveness and identify areas for improvement.
  • Preparing monitoring reports as reference material for further decision-making processes.

4.4.3. Social Control Mechanism

The social control mechanism plays a significant role as an instrument to balance incentives and sanctions, encouraging compliance with the protection design guidelines. It ensures that communities are motivated by benefits while being held accountable through penalties for non-compliance. The Bajo communities in specific regions that adhere to the protection design guidelines will receive various benefits, including clearer exclusive zoning, easier and faster asset legalization processes, and access to government support programs aimed at improving their welfare. Additional benefits include the following:

• Financial and infrastructure incentives: Support in the form of subsidies for the renovation or construction of eco-friendly traditional stilt houses, promoting cultural and environmental sustainability, will be provided.
• Involvement in culture-based tourism programs: Communities following the protection design guidelines will be directly involved in culture-based tourism programs, creating additional income opportunities through locally managed tourism.
• Priority in training and assistance programs: These communities will receive priority in sustainable coastal resource management training programs, strengthening their skills and knowledge in ecosystem conservation.
• Security and recognition of protection zones: The community will receive protection from external exploitation through the enforcement of exclusive zoning and the official recognition of the Bajo community protection zone. This will ensure legal certainty and safeguard their living spaces and cultural identity.

Meanwhile, sanctions will be imposed on individuals or groups that fail to comply with the protection design guidelines, which may include the following:

• Loss of financial and infrastructure incentives: Communities that do not follow the guidelines will not receive subsidies for the renovation or construction of traditional stilt houses in coastal areas.
• Exclusion from priority in training programs: Groups that fail to comply will not be included in training and mentoring programs for sustainable coastal resource management.
• Exclusion from culture-based tourism programs: Communities that do not adhere to the guidelines will not be included in culture-based tourism programs that provide additional income opportunities.
• Loss of security and protection zone recognition: Community areas will not be recognized as protected zones, and their asset legalization process will become more complicated and prolonged, adding to their administrative burden.

The system of incentives and sanctions is expected to motivate the Bajo communities to follow the protection design guidelines, achieving a balance between cultural preservation, environmental sustainability, and socioeconomic welfare. However, translating these strategies into effective practice will require addressing several real-world challenges. One of the key difficulties in policy implementation is ensuring active community participation. As noted in prior research, community engagement is often hindered by a lack of awareness, motivation, or trust in the implementing institutions [53,54,55]. To address this, this study incorporates strategies such as targeted awareness campaigns, participatory decision-making mechanisms, and the establishment of community champions who can serve as local advocates for the policy.

Another critical challenge is funding shortages, which can significantly impede the sustainability of the proposed strategies. Decentralized funding mechanisms and multi-stakeholder partnerships can enhance financial sustainability [56]. Therefore, we suggest exploring alternative funding sources, including public–private partnerships, grant applications, and community-based crowdfunding initiatives. Additionally, we indicate the potential role of phased implementation, wherein policies are rolled out in stages to optimize resource allocation and demonstrate early successes that can attract further investment.

5. Discussion

5.1. Thematic Analysis

5.1.1. Cultural Environmental Synergy

The adaptation of Japan’s Funaya model provides a compelling illustration of how cultural–environmental synergy can be institutionalized in coastal governance. As shown in Table 1, the Funaya model integrates traditional architecture, environmental preservation, and sustainable economic activity. Its regulatory emphasis on the RRRs framework aligns well with the needs of the Bajo community. This comparative model demonstrates that cultural heritage and ecological sustainability can coexist when supported by clear legal recognition and financial incentives.

The significance of local wisdom is further emphasized in the survey and FGD findings. Ninety out of 131 Bajo respondents rejected relocation to the mainland, even when subsidies were offered. Their resistance is rooted in a strong cultural identity tied to the sea, traditional lifestyles, and inherited ecological knowledge. These insights affirm that local wisdom is not merely a symbolic element but a foundational component of sustainable spatial planning.

5.1.2. Governance Gaps

Persistent governance gaps hinder effective spatial regulation in maritime areas. The Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) uncovered overlapping sectoral mandates, particularly between the Ministry of Marine Affairs and the National Land Agency, resulting in significant bureaucratic inefficiencies. Permit issuance remains convoluted due to the lack of specialized instruments tailored to marine-based settlements.

In parallel, the polarization in stakeholder perspectives—especially regarding exclusive zoning—reflects broader tensions between top-down policymaking and participatory governance. While some respondents view zoning as protective, others see it as restrictive. This dissonance underscores the importance of participatory approaches that accommodate local contexts and foster shared ownership of policy outcomes.

5.1.3. Scalability

The protection design developed for the Bajo is structured to be adaptive and replicable across Indonesia’s diverse coastal communities. Its zoning system (Zones A–E) and integration of the RRRs framework provide a flexible template for regions facing similar socio-ecological challenges. Moreover, as noted in the Introduction, Canada’s co-management model offers complementary lessons. By granting indigenous communities legal stewardship over fisheries, Canada has demonstrated that local engagement enhances resource sustainability and minimizes conflict. These insights suggest that the Bajo model could inform broader national strategies if adapted with cultural specificity.

5.2. Policy Implications

5.2.1. Incentives and Sanctions

Policy effectiveness depends significantly on incentive structures. For instance, the provision of subsidies for bio-septic tanks in Zone B settlements addresses both environmental and public health concerns. These incentives reinforce community responsibility and compliance with zoning regulations. Conversely, exclusion from cultural tourism programs functions as a non-financial sanction. Communities that deviate from the protection design lose access to economic opportunities, reinforcing adherence through tangible consequences. This combination of incentives and sanctions creates a governance mechanism that balances support and enforcement.

5.2.2. Implementation Risks

Nonetheless, implementation faces several risks. Monitoring requires resource-intensive tools, such as drones and GIS applications, alongside sustained training and community engagement. The logistical and financial demands of such monitoring systems may pose long-term challenges. Stakeholder resistance, evidenced by the polarization seen in Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4, further complicates implementation. Addressing these tensions necessitates continuous dialogue, trust-building, and localized adjustments to policy instruments.

5.3. Theoretical Contributions

5.3.1. RRRs Framework

The integration of the RRRs framework into coastal spatial planning advances the theory of adaptive governance. It operationalizes community rights, environmental restrictions, and collective responsibilities in a coherent policy structure. This formalization provides a replicable model for coastal governance in developing contexts, where regulatory fragmentation is common.

5.3.2. Funaya Adaptation

Equally significant is the novel application of cultural zoning from Funaya to maritime communities like the Bajo. This adaptation transcends mere architectural mimicry; it recontextualizes spatial and cultural governance in a maritime setting. The Funaya-inspired design offers a pathway to preserving intangible heritage while supporting ecosystem resilience and economic livelihoods. Together, these contributions offer a robust theoretical foundation for inclusive, adaptive, and culturally informed coastal governance.

6. Conclusions

This research offers an adaptive, inclusive, and sustainable framework for the protection design and development of the Bajo community’s living space in Indonesia’s coastal areas. This framework was designed to integrate the principles of Rights, Restrictions, and Responsibilities (RRRs) through the Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) method, adapting Japan’s Funaya model as a reference. The principal conclusion of this study is that a protection design approach based on three main pillars, i.e., zoning and spatial planning, RRRs, and Funaya adaptation, can create adaptive solutions for cultural preservation, improving the welfare of the Bajo community, and ensuring coastal environmental sustainability. A zoning-based policy will provide legal certainty to the Bajo community, protect coastal ecosystems from excessive exploitation, and enhance efficient area management. The application of the principles of RRRs ensures a balance between community rights, restrictions on destructive activities, and collective responsibilities for environmental conservation. Meanwhile, the adaptation of Funaya model emphasizes the importance of protecting cultural identity through the preservation of traditional stilt houses and the development of culture-based tourism.

7. Recommendation

This study’s findings indicate that, although policy implementation requires significant investment in regulatory development, community training, and monitoring, the resulting benefits will far outweigh the costs. These benefits include improved environmental quality, the preservation of Bajo culture, and economic welfare enhancement. By actively involving the community in every stage of policy planning, implementation, and evaluation, this protection design is also expected to serve as a replicable model for other coastal areas in Indonesia. Nonetheless, this study acknowledges several limitations that should be addressed in future research. First, the concept of exclusive zoning, while appropriate for the Bajo community context, particularly with its integration of bapongka as a localized form of enforceable responsibility, may not be directly generalizable to other coastal communities in Indonesia. This is due to the diversity of local customs, belief systems, and ecological conditions across the archipelago. Further comparative surveys are needed to assess the applicability of this model to communities with differing cultural and governance structures. Second, the successful implementation of the proposed protection design requires sustained commitment and coordination among multiple actors, including government institutions, the Bajo community, and supporting organizations. Realizing this vision may be constrained by political will, institutional capacity, and financing. Future research should consider developing technical zoning plans as standardized models for pilot projects in similar maritime customary contexts. These could serve as practical benchmarks to evaluate how inclusive zoning strategies can be scaled up while respecting local variations. In this regard, the integration of functional zoning concepts with bottom-up co-management approaches should be further explored to support broader policy reforms for Indonesia’s diverse coastal communities.