Spatial configurations of Big Man and Ondoafi indigenous leadership in Papua

Bibliographic Data

ID19491990
AuthorsLazarus Ramandei (0000-0001-7382-6178, Bandung Institute of Technology), Wilmar Salim (0000-0001-9967-4782, Bandung Institute of Technology), Suhirman Suhirman (0000-0002-8877-446X, Bandung Institute of Technology), Benedictus Kombaitan (0000-0003-1499-2533, Bandung Institute of Technology)
Year2026
Volume8
Publication date2026-05-29
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueFrontiers in Political Science (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 2673-3145 • E-ISSN: 2673-3145
PublisherFrontiers Media SA (PUBLISHER • CH)
DOI10.3389/fpos.2026.1814236
OpenAlexW7162788655
LanguageEN
References cited20

Introduction Indigenous leadership is often examined as a social or cultural institution, leaving its spatial dimensions analytically underexplored. This study reconceptualizes indigenous leadership as a form of spatial governance that shapes territorial organization, development decision making, and the production of the built environment in Papua, Indonesia. Methods This study employed a spatially informed ethnographic approach integrating ethnographic fieldwork, in depth interviews, focus group discussions, and Geographic Information System (GIS) based spatial analysis. Kernel density mapping and influence zoning were used to examine the spatial distribution and territorial reach of Ondoafi and Big Man leadership systems in Jayapura Regency and Jayawijaya Regency. Results The findings reveal contrasting spatial configurations of indigenous leadership authority. The Ondoafi system generated stable and territorially concentrated governance patterns centered around customary sites and hereditary authority. In contrast, the Big Man system produced dispersed and network based spatial influence shaped by mobility, performance, and interclan relations. Spatial overlay analysis further identified hybrid governance spaces where hereditary and achievement-based leadership systems intersected, enabling complementary forms of territorial legitimacy and adaptive mobilization in development processes. Discussion The study demonstrates that indigenous leadership systems function as spatial governance regimes rather than solely cultural institutions. By foregrounding the spatial organization of authority, the research contributes to built environment and governance scholarship and highlights the importance of institutional hybridity in supporting endogenous development within plural governance contexts

Corporate governance · Ethnography · Foregrounding · Hybridity · Indigenous · Scholarship · Spatial planning · Asian Studies and History · Global and Cross-Cultural Management · Urban and Rural Development Challenges

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access