Community-Based Coastal Resources Management: An Interim Assessment of the Proyek Pesisir Field Site in Blongko, North Sulawesi, Indonesia

Community-Based Coastal Resources Management: An Interim Assessment of the Proyek Pesisir Field Site in Blongko, North Sulawesi, Indonesia Brian R. Crawford, R. B. Pollnac and Asep Sukmara TE-00/03-E

CRC/URI CRMP NRM Secretariat Ratu Plaza Building 18th Floor Jl. Jenderal Sudirman 9 Jakarta Selatan 10270, Indonesia

Phone: (62-21) 720-9596 Fax: (62-21) 720-7844 E-mail: [email protected]

www.pesisir.or.id

Community-Based Coastal Resources Management: An Interim Assessment of the Proyek Pesisir Field Site in Blongko, North Sulawesi, Indonesia

By Brian R. Crawford, R.B. Pollnac and Asep Sukmara

2000

Funding for the preparation and printing of this document was provided by USAID as part of the USAID/BAPPENAS Natural Resources Management (NRM) Program and the USAID-CRC/URI Coastal Resources Management (CRM) Program.

Further details of Proyek Pesisir publications can be found at www.pesisir.or.id Further details of NRM publications can be found at www.nrm.or.id Further details of CRM publications can be found at www.crc.uri.edu

Printed in: Jakarta Citation: Crawford, Brian R., R.B. Pollnac and A. Sukmara. 2000. Community-Based Coastal Resources Management: An Interim Assessment of the Proyek Pesisir Field Site in Blongko, North Sulawesi, Indonesia. Technical Report TE-00/03-E. University of Rhode Island, Coastal Resources Center, Narragansett Rhode Island, USA. pp. 70. Credits: Layout: B. Crawford Maps: A. Siahainenia

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................ii LIST OF FIGURES ...........................................................................................................v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..............................................................................................vi 1.0

INTRODUCTION............................................................................................1 1.1

2.0

3.0

PROJECT BACKGROUND........................................................................1 THE VILLAGE OF BLONGKO....................................................................3

2.1

AN OVERVIEW OF PROJECT ACTIVITIES...........................................3 2.1.1 Planning and Capacity Building Activities ............................................5 2.1.2 Implementation Actions .........................................................................6 2.1.3 Participation and Gender........................................................................8

2.2

SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHANGES SINCE 1997........................................15 2.2.1 Overview ..............................................................................................15 2.2.2 Population.............................................................................................16 2.2.3 Occupations ..........................................................................................17 2.2.4 Material Style of Life ...........................................................................19

2.3

CHANGES IN PERCEIVED QUALITY OF LIFE AND PROBLEMS...22

2.4

CHANGES IN PERCEPTIONS OF RESOURCE IMPACTS FROM HUMAN ACTIVITIES..............................................................................24

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................27

REFERENCES CITED ...................................................................................................31 APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................35 Appendix A.

Project activities in Blongko .............................................................36

Appendix B.

Survey form and administration instructions (English and Indonesian)...................................................................38

Appendix C.

Analysis of perceived quality of life and problems...........................65

Appendix D.

Changes in perceptions of resources impacts from human activities........................................................................68

Appendix E.

Analysis of reasons for bomb fishing................................................70

Proyek Pesisir

-i-

Blongko Impact Assessment

LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1.

Average days per month the field extension officer was resident at the project site.............................................................................5

Table 2.

Summary of project activities conducted in Blongko ..................................6

Table 3.

Implementation actions in Blongko .............................................................7

Table 4.

A comparison of assessments of implementation actions ............................7

Table 5.

What respondents know about the project – first response..........................8

Table 6.

What respondents know about the project – second response .....................9

Table 7.

Don’t know versus other responses concerning project knowledge In Blongko (first response only)...................................................................9

Table 8.

Project participation rates of survey respondents.........................................9

Table 9.

Distribution of responses concerning participation by activity type – all responses .......................................................................10

Table 10.

Percent ranking by respondents concerning the usefulness of project activities they participated in or were aware of.........................10

Table 11.

Percent distribution of responses concerning awareness or participation in management plan development ....................................11

Table 12.

Percent distribution of responses concerning awareness of survey respondents that the management plan was approved ...............11

Table 13.

Percent distribution of responses concerning rules of the marine sanctuary – all responses combined.....................................12

Table 14.

Don’t know versus other responses concerning rules of the marine sanctuary – first response only.............................................12

Table 15.

Percent distribution of responses concerning the purpose of the marine sanctuary - all responses combined.....................................13

Table 16.

Don’t know versus other responses concerning purpose of the marine sanctuary – first response only.............................................13

Table 17.

Distribution of responses concerning membership in project organizations by sex.......................................................................14

Proyek Pesisir

-ii-


Table 18.

Distribution of responses concerning membership in project organizations by type .....................................................................14

Table 19.

Population changes in project and control sites .........................................16

Table 20.

Changes in ethnic and religious composition of Blongko village and control sites..........................................................................................17

Table 21.

Percent distribution of ranking of productive activities in Blongko ..........18

Table 22.

Percent distribution of ranking of productive activities in Control Sites (Sapa-Boyongpante).............................................................18

Table 23.

Percent distribution of Material Style of Life (MSL) measures In Blongko and control villages (Sapa – Boyongpante) ............................19

Table 24.

Final principal component analysis of Material Style of Life (MSL) variables......................................................20

Table 25.

Mean Material Style of Life component scores for Blongko and control sites across two time periods...................................................21

Table 26.

Percent distribution of responses concerning household well being today compared to five years ago .............................................22

Table 27.

Percent distribution of responses concerning household well being today compared to five years in the future ...............................22

Table 28.

Principal component analysis of conservation attitude variables...............25

Table 29.

Mean resource beliefs component scores for Blongko and control sites across two time periods..........................................................26

Table 30.

Percent distribution of responses of whether bomb fishing harms the marine environment..............................................................................26

Table A1.

Project activities in Blongko. .....................................................................36

Table C1.

Reasons for perceived changes - reason number 1. ...................................65

Table C2.

Reasons for perceived changes - reason number 2. ...................................65

Table C3.

Perceived problems - first reason given. ....................................................66

Table C4.

Perceived problems - second reason given. ...............................................66

Table C5.

Perceived problems - third reason given. ...................................................67

Table D1.

Mean scale values for Blongko and control villages (Sapa-Boyongpante).........................................................68

Proyek Pesisir

-iii-


Table D2.

Percent distribution of scale values for Blongko .......................................69

Table D3.

Percent distribution of scale values for control sites (Sapa-Boyongpante) ..............................................................69

Table E1.

Reasons for using the bomb fishing technique - reason number 1.............70

Table E2.

Reasons for using the bomb fishing technique - reason number 2.............70

Proyek Pesisir

-iv-


LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1.

Proyek Pesisir field sites in North Sulawesi, Indonesia...............................1

Figure 2.

Location of project and control sites in North Sulawesi..............................2

Figure 3.

Blongko village ............................................................................................3

Figure 4.

Number of days per month the field extension officer was resident at the project site ..............................................................................................4

Proyek Pesisir

-v-


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors of this document would like to thank the numerous individuals and institutions who have assisted with this effort. Special thanks are provided to Drs. B. Tangkawarouw, Vice Bupati, Kabupaten Minahasa, for providing the formal letter of permission to conduct the survey work and for his encouragement and support of Proyek Pesisir activities in North Sulawesi. We would like to thank the entire data gathering team who administered the survey questionnaires including Tony Gedoan, Inggrid Umboh, Yusni Salamaya, Lisnawati Monoarfa, and Muhammad G. Trinanto. Special thanks are also provided to the field assistants; Rahma Mokoagow, Femmy Lumolos, Jefta Mintahari, Ventje Semuel, Yusran Mooduto as well as the Extension Officers; Noni Tangkilisan, Maria Dimpudus, Meidiarti Kasmidi, Maxi Wowiling and Christovel Rotinsulu for providing reports and information on project activities. We would also like to thank Lissa Inkiriwang, Office Manager, for compiling financial data on implementation actions. We would like to express our appreciation to our colleagues at the Coral Reef Information and Training Center at Sam Ratulangi University who conducted the reef surveys at control sites and whose data is incorporated into the environmental sections on this report. We would also like to thank Chris Rotinsulu and Frankie Runtukahu who collected the reef survey data at the project sites. We particularly wish to thank Basir Paturusi, Albert J. Lowongan, Adolf Takalelumang and Dolvi Janis, the heads of the villages of Tumbak, Bentenan, Talise, and Blongko respectively, for providing valuable information and village records. Special thanks are also given to the community members from project villages and control sites that provided time out of busy schedules to participate in the survey work. We would also like to express our appreciation for families that provided lodging and assistance with meals during the fieldwork - the Lumolos family (Blongko), Semuel family (Talise), Guliling family (Tumbak) and Naser Onsu family (Bentenan). We would especially like to thank the CRMP Manado administrative support staff including Lissa Inkiriwang, Daisy Malino, Sesilia Dajoh, Sherly Tulung, Agustinus Tabuni, Melki Maensiga, Wasimin and Joyce for assisting with the financial, administrative and travel logistics for conducting the fieldwork. Finally we would like to thank Johnnes Tulungen, Field Program Manager for North Sulawesi and Ian Dutton, Chief of Party, for technical input and encouragement to complete the final write-up of information contained in this report.

Proyek Pesisir

-vi-


1.0

INTRODUCTION

This report provides an assessment of Proyek Pesisir activities that have been carried out in the village of Blongko during the period between November 1997 and June 2000. Blongko is one of three village-level field sites in North Sulawesi, Indonesia where best practices in community-based coastal resources management are being developed. A variety of methods were used for this assessment including a review of project reports and documents, discussions with project staff, interviews with key informants within the village, direct observation at the field site, as well as administration of a survey questionnaire to a random sample of household residents. Adjacent village control sites were also used as part of this assessment. The report provides summary information concerning project activities that have been implemented and changes that have occurred in the community over an approximately three year period since the project started in 1997. Participation and gender issues are highlighted. Where appropriate, it compares project sites with similar information from the control sites. The report summarizes socioeconomic changes in the community, perceptions concerning resource impacts of human activities, perceived quality of life and problems, and the extent to which these changes may be due to project activities. It contains a summary of findings and recommendations for the project staff concerning continuing activities over the next two years. The report serves as an interim benchmark of progress as of June 2000. A final project impact assessment will take place in 2002, the final year of project field activities. 1.1

PROJECT BACKGROUND

The USAID-BAPPENAS NRM II coastal resources management project, locally known as Proyek Pesisir, established a field office in North Sulawesi Province in 1997. This is one of three provincial-level field programs contributing to the program objective to strengthen and decentralize coastal resources management in Indonesia. Three villagelevel field sites in the Minahasa Regency of North Sulawesi (see Figure 1) were selected Talise

MANADO

BITUNG

Blongko

Bentenan - Tumbak

Figure 1: Proyek Pesisir field sites in North Sulawesi, Indonesia (Lokasi desa Proyek Pesisir di Sulawesi Utara, Indonesia) Proyek Pesisir

-1-


in 1997 for development of models of community-based coastal resources management (Tim Kerja Proyek Pesisir, 1997). Subsequently, socio-economic and environmental baseline surveys and technical studies were carried out at each site (Pollnac et al. 1997a, 1997b; Kusen et al. 1997; 1999a; 1999b; Mantjoro, 1997a, 1997b; Kasmidi, 1998; Kussoy, 1999; Crawford et al. 1999; Lee and Kussoy, 1999,). Surveys were also conducted in villages adjacent to project sites. These villages are being used as control sites (Pollnac et al. 1998, Fakultas Perikanan, 1999, 2000) for monitoring and assessment of long-term socio-economic and environmental outcomes (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. Location of project and control sites in North Sulawesi (Lokasi desa proyek dan desa kontrol di Sulawesi Utara)

Proyek Pesisir

-2-


2.0

THE VILLAGE OF BLONGKO

2.1

AN OVERVIEW OF PROJECT ACTIVITIES

A field extension worker was assigned to live and work in Blongko (see Figure 3) in October of 1997. Her initial task over the first few months was to orient the community to the project objectives and to develop an understanding of the cultural, political, social and economic dynamics within the village. The project then initiated a participatory process in the village to develop a community-based marine sanctuary as well as a profile of coastal resources management issues of concern to the community (Kasmidi et. al., 1999a). The marine sanctuary was established by village ordinance in August 1998.

Figure 3.

Blongko village (Desa Blongko)

Proyek Pesisir

-3-


After preparation of the profile, a coastal resources development and management plan (Kasmidi, 1999b; Tulungen et al. 2000) was prepared. The management plan was approved by the community and village government through a village ordinance in November 1999, and subsequently endorsed by an interagency task force at the Regency (Kabupaten Minahasa) level. The project strategy in Blongko varied from the other two field sites. First, the marine sanctuary development process was started as one of the first interventions, well before the village management planning process was initiated. In the field sites of Talise and Bentenan-Tumbak, the village planning process took priority and marine sanctuary development was emphasized after the management plans were approved. Additionally, the field extension officer assigned to Blongko was full-time for a shorter period than the other two field sites (see Figure 4). In April of 1999, she became part-time at the field site and is now reassigned to the Manado office, but continues to provide support to the community from time to time on an ad hoc basis. In Blongko as well as at the other sites, a field assistant from the community was hired in January 1999 on a part-time basis. 30

BLONGKO VILLAGE 25

Total Days per Month

Field Extension Officer becomes part time at site 20

15

10

Field assistant starts working

Maternity leave of Field Extension Officer

5

Oc t-9 No 7 v-9 De 7 c-9 7 Ja n-9 8 Fe b-9 8 Ma r-9 8 Ap r-9 Ma 8 y-9 8 Ju n-9 8 Ju l-9 Au 8 g-9 Se 8 p-9 8 Oc t-9 No 8 v-9 De 8 c-9 8 Ja n-9 Fe 9 b-9 9 Ma r-9 9 Ap r-9 9 Ma y-9 9 Ju n-9 9 Ju l-9 Au 9 g-9 Se 9 p-9 9 Oc t-9 No 9 v-9 9 De c-9 9 Ja n-0 Fe 0 b-0 0 Ma r-0 0 Ap r-0 Ma 0 y-0 0

0

Month

Figure 4. Number of days per month the field extension officer was resident at the project site (Jumlah hari pada tiap bulan penyuluh lapangan tinggal di desa) Total number of days the field extension officer spent in the field site between October 1997 and May 2000 was 384 days for an average of 12 days per month over the 32-month period. This is substantially less time at the field site compared to the field extension worker in Talise (466 total days) and in Bentenan-Tumbak (531 days). In Table 1, we can see that the average number of days during the initial full time period was 18 days per month, approximately the same as at the other field sites. This was reduced substantially during the part-time period to 7 days per month. Since returning from maternity leave, the field extension officer’s amount of time on-site has been less than 5 days per month.

Proyek Pesisir

-4-


Table 1. Average days per month the field extension officer was resident at the project site (Rata-rata jumlah hari/bulan penyuluh lapangan tinggal di desa) Field status/time period Assigned to Blongko (October 1997-May 2000) Full Time (October 97 – March 99) Part Time (April 99 – May 2000*) * Excluding maternity leave

2.1.1

Average number of days per month resident at the project site 12 18 7

Planning and Capacity Building Activities

The community-based planning process has been well documented (Crawford et al., 1998a, 1998b; Crawford and Tulungen 1998a, 1998b, 1999a, 1999b, 1999c; Tulungen et al., 1998, 1999a, 1999b, 2000) and will not be elaborated in detail here. For marine sanctuary development, it involved the following steps that took approximately one year from initiation to formal sanctuary establishment (ordinance approval): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Community Socialization Public Education and Capacity Building Community Consultation and Village Ordinance Formulation Village Ordinance Approval Implementation

The marine sanctuary has been in the implementation phase for over one year at the time this assessment was conducted. The management planning process was started after the sanctuary was established. It involved the following steps: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Issues Identified Issues Validated and Prioritized Management Options Developed Management Options Selected and Adopted Implementation Initiated

The management plan was in the early phase of implementation at the time this assessment was conducted. Management committees have been appointed, an annual implementation workplan was developed and is being funded through block grants to the community from USAID and GOI project budgets. Parallel to these planning steps, capacity building activities as well as implementation of selected actions was initiated. Table 2 is a summary of activities by type carried out in Blongko as well as activities where Blongko community members participated as part of an event implemented for participants for all field sites. A detailed listing of each event implemented in Blongko is provided in Appendix A. There were more meetings (e.g. for planning the marine sanctuary, planning implementation actions) than any other type of event. A total of over one thousand people participated in these events, but since many individuals participated in more than one event, this does not tell us how representative the meetings were of all stakeholders, or what percentage of community members participated in project activities. On average, the project target of at least 30 percent female participation was met. However, for training and workshops, we were slightly below this target. A more detailed analysis of participation and gender is provided in a later section of this report (See section 2.1.3). Proyek Pesisir

-5-


Table 2. Summary of project activities conducted in Blongko (Rangkuman kegiatan proyek yang telah dilakukan) Activity

Number of events held

Participants Male

Female

Total

% Male

% Female

Meeting Training/Workshop Presentation

40 976 522 1498 65 35 8 96 36 132 73 27 7 276 195 471 59 41 Total 55 1348 753 2101 64 36 JOINT EVENTS* 10 132 60 192 69 31 * Includes participants from all four project villages where data of participants by village was not available. Source –Workplan implementation reports

2.1.2

Implementation Actions

As part of the project strategy, implementation actions were initiated while the longerterm planning process was on going. These “early actions” were meant to be simple solutions to readily identified problems within the community. The purpose of the implementation actions were to: • • •

Build community support for the longer-term planning initiative Experiment with mechanisms for community implementation Build community capacity for implementation through a learning-by-doing process

These actions differ from planning and capacity building activities such as training, workshops, public education, village meetings and participatory monitoring as they are specific activities to address a particular management problem. The project established a grant-like system whereby communities could submit proposals for funding activities that met certain criteria. These action grants, or practical exercises in implementation, had to address a specific coastal resources management issue in the village, have widespread support within the community, and be approved by the head of village. Funds were then provided to the community - an action group - that was responsible for implementation. A final report on the activity and an itemized accounting of funds was required from the community before additional funds were dispersed for new proposals they submitted. Implementation actions in Blongko were started in 1998, while village issue-profiling and planning was on going. The community received funds from two sources; either USAID or BAPPEDA project funds. A list of implementation proposals, the amount funded in Rupiah (RP 8,500 = US$ 1 in June 2000), source of funds and date reports were submitted, is provided in Table 3. A summary assessment of implementation actions on Blongko is provided in Table 4 (see Crawford et. al., 2000 for detailed information and assessments of these implementation actions.). Overall, most of the implementation projects have been somewhat successful or successful. All groups ranked the boat engine revolving fund the lowest and it was the only one ranked as unsuccessful by the assessment team.

Proyek Pesisir

-6-


Table 3. Implementation actions in Blongko (Pelaksanaan awal) Name of Proposal

Description

Public Toilet (I) Public Toilet (II) Information Center (I) Public Toilet (III) Water Supply Information Center (II) Marine Sanctuary (I) Marine Sanctuary (II) Public Toilet (IV) Marine Sanctuary (III) Boat Engines Dike Construction Dike Construction

1 unit public toilet + 1 well Additional budget with Public revised prices Moveable building with size 600 x 400 m 5 units public toilet 4% community contribution for World Bank project Additional budget for finishing building Marine sanctuary marker buoys Additional budget for buoy connector, chain, pipe 4 units public toilet Additional budget for finishing Revolving fund starting w/ 6 boat engines (5 HP) 80 M length (to prevent beach erosion) Additional budget for finishing TOTAL Note: US$ 1 = RP 8,500 in June 2000

Date of Proposal 22-Jan-98 1-Jul-98 20-Aug-98 28-Aug-98 9-Oct-98 12-Nov-98 22-Sep-98 4-Dec-98 24-Mar-99 16-Feb-99 23-Sep-99 10-Oct-99 1-Mar-00

Date Approved Amount (RP) Amount (RP) Date Report Approved by Approved by Submitted CRMP BAPPEDA 29-Apr-98 1,239,500 1-Jul-98 13-Jul-98 2,529,000 28-Aug-98 1-Sep-98 2,330,000 15-Oct-98 1-Sep-98 11,145,000 24-Mar-99 22-Oct-98 2,400,000 18-Nov-98 231,000 Mar-99 13-Nov-98 5,220,000 4-Dec-98 7-Dec-98 5,845,000 15-Feb-99 25-Mar-99 8,916,000 Sep-99 16-Feb-99 704,300 Mar-99 Mar-00 9,582,000 28-Mar-00 30-Mar-00 9,850,000 31-Mar-00 5,000,000 50,409,800 14,582,000

Table 4. A comparison of assessments of implementation actions (Perbandingan dari penilaian terhadap pelaksanaan awal) Action Community Rank* Staff Score** Assessment Team Ranking Marine sanctuary 95 5 Successful Water supply system 86 5 Somewhat successful Information center 86 4 Successful MCK (bathing/washing/latrine units) 81 3.5 Successful Erosion control dike 95 3 Too soon to evaluate Boat engine revolving fund 75 2 Unsuccessful Agroforestry extension N/A N/A Somewhat successful * Percent of survey respondents ranking the activity as very useful or useful. ** Ranked on a scale of 1-5, 1 = not successful, 5 = very successful, N/A = too soon to evaluate

Proyek Pesisir

-7-


2.1.3

Participation and Gender

An important element of the project strategy involves participation. Experience from community-based coastal resources management initiatives around the world have demonstrated the importance of community participation in all phases of the process. A basic premise is that without adequate participation, such initiatives are doomed to failure. Hence, a concerted effort was made to ensure high levels of community participation in all project activities. Gender is seen as an important element of the participation strategy, particularly the inclusion of female members of the community in all project activities. To assess how well the project is doing with respect to participation, several questions were asked as part of the random household survey. The survey questionnaire and instructions for it’s administration are provided in Appendix B (English and Indonesian versions). These questions were answered separately by the head of household (typically a male) and of another member of the household of the opposite sex (typically but not always the spouse of the head of household). Hence, this information gives an overall picture of community participation and possible gender differences well beyond what is provided in Table 2. Survey respondents were asked an open-ended question of what they know about the project in order to gauge how effective dissemination activities about the project have been. Answers were grouped into several categories and the results of their responses are provided in Tables 5 and 6. Control sites were also asked this question in order to see how much knowledge was disseminated to neighboring villages even though meetings in adjacent villages were not organized. Most individuals in Blongko view the project as concerning marine or environmental protection, followed by physical works, livelihood development, community development and marine sanctuaries. Only 14 percent of respondents did not know what the project was about. Hence, 86 percent of respondents could give a response, all of which are correct and reflect in one way or another, project objectives or activities. In the control sites, while most people do not know about the project in Blongko, for those that do, it is viewed as a marine environmental protection project or about marine sanctuaries (which can also be categorized as marine environmental protection). This is probably due to the no fishing restriction in the core zone of the marine sanctuary, something that fishers in these villages would probably become aware of while fishing in the Blongko area. Interestingly, community development and livelihood elements of the project do not register with residents of the adjacent communities. Table 5. What respondents know about the project – first response (Apa yang diketahui responden tentang proyek – tanggapan pertama) Percent Response/knowledge Blongko 2000 Control 2000 29 10 Marine/environmental protection 16 1 Physical works/projects 14 77 Don’t know 11 3 Resource/livelihood/economic development 11 0 Community development and strengthening 10 9 Marine sanctuaries 6 0 Environmental surveys/monitoring 3 0 Coastal resources management 80 120 N

Proyek Pesisir

-8-


Table 6. What respondents know about the project – second response (Apa yang diketahui responden tentang proyek – tanggapan kedua) Percent* Response/knowledge Blongko 2000 Control 2000 36 100 Marine/environmental protection 27 0 Physical works/projects 18 0 Community development and strengthening 18 0 Resource/livelihood/economic development 11 2 N * Percent may not sum to 100 due to rounding. Note: only 1 respondent gave more than 2 responses.

A breakdown of responses by gender is provided in Table 7. This table clearly illustrates that women are more likely to provide a “don’t know” response. This result is statistically significant (chi-square = 5.16, p<.05). As previously mentioned, while we are achieving the target of 30 percent female participation in activities, it is not sufficient to eliminate gender differences in the response to project knowledge. However, an overwhelming majority (78 percent) of the women could give a response. This is a very positive result. Table 7. Don’t know versus other responses concerning project knowledge in Blongko (first response only) (Jawaban tidak tahu dan jawaban lainnya berdasarkan pengetahua akan proyek – tanggapan pertama) Project knowledge Frequency Male Female Total Don’t know 2 9 11 Response given 38 31 69 N 40 40 80

We are interested in knowing overall participation levels among the community in project activities, something we cannot ascertain from a summation of the total number of participants involved in project activities (see Table 2). Table 8 shows the overall participation rates of survey respondents and the breakdown by gender. Overall, 62 percent of survey respondents have participated in project activities. This is a high level of community participation. However, males are more likely to participate in project activities than females. This result is statistically significant (Chi square = 6.37, P <.01) and reflects the gender differences in participation also seen in Table 2. Table 8. Project participation rates of survey respondents (Partisipasi dalam proyek dari responden yang disurvey) Participation Percent Male Female Total Yes 75 48 62 No 25 52 38 N 40 40 80

A breakdown of activities that respondents said they participated in is provided in Table 9. Implementation actions that were physical works ( MCK, water supply, information center, dike construction) made up 64 percent of the responses followed by meetings (20 percent). The marine sanctuary made up only 7 percent of responses. While we might expect the marine sanctuary to rank higher, most of the organizational and planning meetings for the marine sanctuary were conducted more than two years ago. Therefore, activities conducted more recently (e.g. dike construction) may be more salient in the minds of respondents. There are several gender differences. Only women mentioned cooking and only men Proyek Pesisir

-9-


mentioned the marine sanctuary, dike construction, coral reef monitoring and welcoming guests. The field extension officers (all female) and other project staff were asked whether only women mentioning cooking was a finding that we should be concerned about. The group consensus was that this would be problematic if cooking were the only activity they participated in, which it is not. They pointed out that cooking can be a positive mode of participation. For instance, women cook meals for project staff when they stay overnight in the villages for training events, meetings, field surveys, etc. During meals, these women, along with other community members present, interact with project staff and both receive as well as provide information. Table 9. Distribution of responses concerning participation by activity type - all responses (Sebaran tanggapan berdasarkan partisipasi dalam kegiatan – semua tanggapan) Activity

Percent* Female 38 19 19 4 0 15 0 0 0 26

Male 31 20 18 13 11 0 5 2 2 55

Washing, bathing, latrine units (MCK) Meeting Water supply Information center Marine protected area Cooking for project activities Dike construction Welcome guests Manta tow/coral reef monitoring Total number of responses * Column percent may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

Total 33 20 17 10 7 5 4 1 1 81

Survey respondents were asked to rank the usefulness of project activities they were aware of or participated in. Results are summarized in Table 10. The marine sanctuary, water supply and erosion control dike were ranked as very useful by over 60 percent of the respondents. The boat engine revolving fund had the largest percentage ranking it as not useful and the lowest percentage ranking it as useful or very useful combined. Surprisingly, a small percentage of respondents ranked the water supply project and MCK project as not useful. It is possible that some individuals who may not have benefited directly from these projects may not view them as useful. In both cases however, more than 80 percent of respondents ranked these as useful or very useful. Table 10. Percent ranking by respondents concerning the usefulness of project activities they participated in or were aware of (Tingkat persentase responden berdasarkan manfaat kegiatan proyek yang mereka ketahui atau ikuti) Activity Very Somewhat Not Don’t Useful Useful Useful Useful Know Marine sanctuary Water supply Information center MCK (bathing, washing & latrine units) Erosion control dike construction Boat engine revolving fund (katinting) Total (all activities mentioned)

71.4 61.9 35.7 39.1 68.4 43.8 53.0

23.8 23.8 50.0 42.2 26.3 31.2 32.8

9.5 7.1 10.9 6.3 7.1

4.8 6.2 6.2 3.8

4.8 7.2 1.6 5.3 12.5 3.3

N 21 42 14 64 19 16 183

Respondents were asked an open-ended question concerning their participation in or awareness concerning management planning. The results are presented in Table 11. Eightysix percent of respondents indicated that they were aware of or had participated in the

Proyek Pesisir

-10-


management planning process. Females were slightly more likely to say “yes” compared to males, but there is no statistically significant difference between male and female responses. Respondents were also asked if they were aware that the plan was approved (Table 12). Eighty percent of respondents were aware that the plan was approved and there is no statistically significant difference between male and female responses. Awareness levels within Blongko concerning the management planning process are high and in this case, no gender differences are seen. Not surprisingly, respondents in the control sites were not very aware of the planning process compared to Blongko, but 13 percent did know that a plan had been approved. As was seen with responses to the question concerning the project purpose, a significant amount of information is transmitted from Blongko to the adjacent villages even though no information dissemination activities were conducted by the project in the adjacent control site villages. This finding has important implications for the eventual replication of best practices for community-based management in other villages. Focusing replication activities in villages adjacent to where marine sanctuaries or management plans have already been developed may be easier than in other locations as some information diffusion has already occurred. Table 11. Percent distribution of responses concerning awareness or participation in management plan development (Sebaran persentase dari tanggapan yang berdasarkan pada pengetahuan ata keterlibatan masyarakat dalam penyusunan rencana pengelolaan) Participation/awareness Blongko of management plan (Percent) development Male Female Total Yes 84 88 86 No 16 12 14 N 40 40 80

Table 12. Percent distribution of responses concerning awareness of survey respondents that the management plan was approved (Sebaran persentase dari tanggapan yang berdasarkan pada pengetahuan masyarakat bahwa rencana pengelolaan telah disetujui) Awareness management Blongko Control* plan approved (Percent) (Percent) Male Female Total Male Female Total Yes 82 78 80 16 10 13 No 18 22 20 84 90 87 N 40 40 80 60 60 120 * Awareness of plan approved in Blongko.

The establishment and implementation of the community-based marine sanctuary was one of the major activities conducted in Blongko and one of the best practice models being tested and developed in North Sulawesi. Hence, we are interested in knowing to what extent the community understands the rules governing the marine sanctuary as well as its purpose. A high level of understanding of these concepts is important for compliance with the rules and for community support of the marine sanctuary concept. The field extension officer transmitted such knowledge in a number of ways including formal events (such as meetings, training courses and workshops) as well as through informal approaches. The results of the survey concerning the marine sanctuary are provided in Tables 13, 14, 15 and 16. Answers to the question, “What are the rules of the marine sanctuary?” were summarized into several categories listed in the tables. No fishing and no extractive activities

Proyek Pesisir

-11-


were the most frequently mentioned responses, followed by no passing through and no destructive activities (see Table 13). All of these are accurate responses concerning rules of the Blongko marine sanctuary. The no fishing rule is probably most important to achieve the long-term goal of enhanced fish production in the surrounding reef areas. Considering only the first response, only four percent of respondents could not state one of the rules of the marine sanctuary and there is no major difference between male and female responses in Blongko (see Table 14). Table 13. Percent distribution of responses concerning rules of the marine sanctuary all responses combined (Persentase tanggapan mengenai peraturan daerah perlindungan laut) Blongko (percent) Male Female No fishing 29 31 No extractive activities 34 25 No passing through** 23 23 No destructive activities*** 13 17 Don’t know 2 2 Total number of responses 102 93 * Awareness of rules of the marine sanctuary in Blongko ** No playing/swimming/walking/boats. *** No coral mining, mangrove cutting, etc.

Controls* (percent) Female 11 2 0 7 80 66

Marine Sanctuary Rule

Total 30 30 23 15 2 195

Male 26 6 15 15 39 77

Total 19 4 8 11 58 143

In the adjacent villages, awareness levels seem to be quite high with 31 percent of respondents able to state one or more of the rules of the Blongko marine sanctuary (see Table 14). In contrast to Blongko, males in the control sites were much more likely to give a response compared to women, (chi-square = 20.67, p<.001). The no fishing rule had the largest percentage of responses after “don’t know”. Since males tend to predominate the fishery, it is quite important that fishers in the adjacent villages know these rules. We expect that this knowledge will improve compliance by fishers outside of Blongko village that may fish from time to time on Blongko reefs. In the adjacent villages, fisher head of households (households that mentioned fishing as the first ranked productive activity) are much more likely to be able to state a rule concerning the Blongko marine sanctuary (65 percent of fishers) compared to non-fisher head of households (24 percent of non-fishers; chi-square = 13.14, p<.001). This suggests that the mode of information diffusion to adjacent villages is primarily through the fishers. Table 14. Don’t know versus other responses concerning rules of the marine sanctuary - first response only (Jawaban tidak tahu dan jawaban lainnya mengenai peraturan daerah perlindungan laut – hanya tanggapan pertama) Blongko Rules of MPA (Percent) Male Female Total Don’t Know 2 6 4 Response Given 98 94 96 N 40 40 80 * Rules of marine sanctuary in Blongko.

Male 50 50 60

Controls* (Percent) Female 88 12 60

Total 69 31 120

In Blongko, there is no statistically significant difference between fisher and non-fisher households or between males and females concerning ability to state a rule of the marine sanctuary. This suggests that knowledge of the marine sanctuary rules in Blongko is being acquired equally by males and females in spite of the fact that females tend to participate less Proyek Pesisir

-12-


in formal project activities and are less active in direct fishing activities. This is likely a result of the informal means of information dissemination used by the extension officer and therefore a critical strategy for reaching female members of the community. Fisheries enhancement was mentioned most frequently in Blongko with respect to responses concerning the purpose of the marine sanctuary (see Table 15), followed by “don’t know” and marine environmental protection. A larger number of respondents mention, “don’t know” for the purpose of the marine sanctuary (29 percent) compared with the rules (4 percent). This may be a more difficult question as it is not just a straight knowledge of dos and don’ts but requires a higher order conceptual understanding of its functioning. While there were no gender differences between males and females concerning rules, with respect to purpose, females in Blongko as well as the control sites are more likely to have a “don’t know” response (see Table 16) compared to other responses (chi-square = 4.71, p<.05 and chi-square = 10.57, p<.001 respectively). Table 15. Percent distribution of responses concerning the purpose of the marine sanctuary - all responses combined (Persentase tanggapan mengenai tujuan dari daerah perlindungan laut) Marine Sanctuary Purpose Male Fisheries enhancement 53 Don’t know 17 Marine/environmental protection 13 Preserve for future generations 11 Community development 4 Care for the beauty of the sea 0 Tourism 0 Erosion prevention 2 Total number of responses 46 * Purpose of the marine sanctuary in Blongko.

Blongko (percent) Female 36 43 6 2 2 4 4 0 41

Total 45 29 10 7 3 2 2 1 87

Controls* (percent) Female 4 95 2 0 0 0 0 0 60

Male 14 71 12 0 2 0 0 0 61

Total 9 83 7 0 1 0 0 0 121

Table 16. Don’t know versus other responses concerning the purpose of the marine sanctuary - first response only (Jawaban tidak tahu dan jawaban lainnya mengenai tujuan dari daerah perlindungan laut – hanya tanggapan pertama) Blongko Control* Purpose of MPA (Percent) (Percent) Male Female Total Male Female Don’t know 20 42 31 74 96 Response given 80 58 69 26 4 N 40 40 80 60 60 * Purposes of marine sanctuary in Blongko

Total 85 15 120

More effort is likely needed in pubic education and information dissemination activities concerning the purpose of the marine sanctuary. However, it seems to have been sufficient for knowledge of the rules. Since women are more likely to not know the purpose and are less likely to attend formal meetings and training programs, information efforts should include non-formal methods which are considered more likely to be effective at reaching the female members of the community. The establishment of organizations at the community level is another important output of the project that helps create formal structures and mechanisms for community development and resources management. Project organizations formed include management committees for

Proyek Pesisir

-13-


the marine sanctuary, for implementation of the village coastal resources management and development plan as well as groups responsible for undertaking specific implementation actions such as erosion control dike construction or water and sanitation projects. Tables 17 and 18 provide a summary of results of the survey concerning membership in project organizations. Eleven percent of respondents are members of project organizations. Since we do not expect every member of the community to be a member of a project organization, we would not expect this number to be high -- over 50 percent for instance. What is more important from the project perspective is the gender distribution of members in project organizations. Table 17 demonstrates a statistically significant difference between males and females (Yates corrected chi-square = 4.51, p<.05). Since these organizations tend to be the decision making bodies for the community, female perspectives and representation therefore seems to be quite limited (at least in a formal sense). Strategies for increasing female representation in project organizations are needed. Table 17. Distribution of responses concerning membership in project organizations by sex (Sebaran tanggapan berdasarkan keanggotaan masyarakat dalam organisasi proyek menurut jenis kelamin) Member of project organization YES NO N

Male 20 80 40

Percent Female 2 98 40

Total 11 89 80

While there were groups established for each implementation action carried out to date, the most frequent responses to the question concerning organization membership were resources and environmental management groups (64 percent) compared to 36 percent for livelihood projects. (Table 18). Interestingly, no one mentioned community development projects (MCK, erosion control or dikes). Table 18. Distribution of responses concerning membership in project organizations by type (Persentase tanggapan berdasarkan keanggotaan masyarakat dalam organisasi proyek menurut jenisnya) Organization Boat engine group MPA management group Management committee Environmental management group N

Proyek Pesisir

Male 40 30 19 10 10

-14-

Percent Female 0 100 0 0 1

Total 36 36 18 9 11


2.2

SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHANGES SINCE 1997

2.2.1

Overview

A basic project premise is that coastal management initiatives will eventually lead to improved quality of life within the community as well as improved or stabilized environmental conditions. This is the long-term goal expected from implementation of the marine sanctuary and management plan. The purpose of the baseline surveys and subsequent monitoring in the project and control sites is to determine to what extent project activities are impacting on the quality of life and environmental conditions within the community. However, socio-economic changes are constantly occurring in any community. Macroeconomic and large-scale ecological and political factors can often have major influences on socio-economic conditions within any given community and may be greater than those due to project interventions. It is difficult to distinguish between impacts from project initiatives and these larger scale changes unless there are time series information and comparisons between project and non-project locations. Even with such information we should not expect to prove conclusively any causality. However, we may be able to infer with a reasonable degree of certainty what impacts have likely occurred and possibly quantify the magnitude of such changes. Another challenge for monitoring strategies is that it may take years before a socio-economic impact resulting from project interventions becomes noticeable. Therefore, by monitoring socio-economic changes periodically, we can start to learn how long it may take before such impacts can be measured using the indicators selected. Indonesia and North Sulawesi faced several large-scale economic, political and environmental events since the project started in 1997. In the later part of 1997, the whole Asian region, including Indonesia, started to fall into deep recession caused by the large-scale currency devaluation and the banking sector crisis. In Indonesia, the Rupiah fell from approximately 2,500 to the dollar in mid-1997 to over 10,000 to the dollar in the early part of 1998. While many parts of the country were severely affected, especially the banking and manufacturing sectors, the devaluation resulted in large increases in prices paid (Rupiah) to farmers for many export commodities. While inflation for basic commodities and imported goods skyrocketed, prices for many export crops produced in rural communities of North Sulawesi (seaweed, copra, cloves, vanilla) soared (Pollnac et.al., 1998). Rural communities highly dependent on export commodities did not feel the recession as much as other groups or areas of the country and the devaluation may have been beneficial for them. This period also saw one of the strongest El Nino events on record. Forest fires swept the country creating a regional haze. Many short-term crops failed in coastal areas of North Sulawesi, and in areas such as the project site in Bentenan, many coconut and clove trees withered and died. Bentenan had almost no rain for 13 months and all the springs that fed water systems in the village ran dry. In 1998, the marine environment was also hit by a strong La Nina event. This triggered elevated sea surface temperatures and widespread coral bleaching in the months of October through November 1998. This period of time also saw political turmoil in the country. Riots broke out in Jakarta and other locations around the country but North Sulawesi remained calm and peaceful. This turmoil led to the fall of President Suharto, who had ruled the nation for over 30 years. In 1999, violence broke out in neighboring Maluku province and many refugees have poured into Manado and surrounding communities. On the positive side, Indonesia became the third largest democracy in the world with the election of Abdurrahman Wahid in September 1999. Proyek Pesisir

-15-


Such events can have major implications for local communities and it compounds the challenge of determining project impacts on socio-economic aspects at our project sites. 2.2.2

Population

During the period of 1997 to 2000, Blongko village has seen many changes in addition to the national, regional and global events mentioned above. The population of Blongko grew at an annual rate of 7.8 percent over this period. This is much higher than the population growth rates at the control sites that grew at an annual rate of less than four percent between 1995 and 2000 (see Table 19) and is also much higher than the national average of less than two percent. The project sites of Talise and Bentenan-Tumbak have also seen growth rates higher than the control sites. In-migration is a large part of these high growth rates, but we do not know what is driving this in-migration. One possible explanation is that project activities are somehow contributing to in-migration, perhaps making these communities a more attractive place to live. Another explanation may be similar to explanations for high population growth rates in some Philippine coastal communities. Coastal communities where resources are in good condition (see Pollnac et. al., 2000), may be attracting persons away from depleted areas to regions where there are better economic opportunities to be gained from exploiting resources that are still in good condition. Since the coastal resources in the Minahasa region are still in good condition, we may be seeing a similar coastal migration pattern in Indonesia. However, the change may be the result of a faulty census. Whatever the reason, if this growth rate is real are sustained it puts increasing pressure on local resources. The sustainability of the coastal resource base in these villages therefore is threatened from high levels of in-migration and population growth, increasing the need for improved management. More research is needed to better understand the factors behind these coastal demographic trends. Table 19. Population changes in project and control sites (Perubahan jumlah penduduk di desa project dan desa control) Site Year Percent Annual Growth 1995 1997 2000 Change Rate (%) Project Sites Blongko 1251 1545 23.50 7.83 Control Sites Sapa 2122 2532 19.32 3.86 Boyongpante 1728 1912 10.65 2.13 Source: Village key informants, village profiles and Biro Pusat Statistik, North Sulawesi.

Table 20 illustrates changes in the ethnic composition of Blongko and the control sites. In Blongko, there have been small increases in the percent of people from Minahasa and Muluku and decreases in the percent of people from the Sangir-Talaud Island group and from areas of Sulawesi other than North Sulawesi Province. Key informants in the village have reported that much of the population increase has been in-migration of people from Sangir. While more individuals from Sangir may be moving into Blongko the survey data show a decrease in the overall percent of residents from the Sangir region. Control sites show a pattern similar to Blongko, with groups from Minahasa and Bolongmongondow and Gorontalo as well as Maluku increasing, and groups from Sangir-Talaud and other locations declining. The increases from Maluku are small but may be related to the outbreak of violence there resulting in migration of refugees to North Sulawesi. Other than Maluku, it seems that the ethnic groups from nearby locations are increasing and those from further away are declining. This may be a regional trend as it is occurring in Blongko as well as in

Proyek Pesisir

-16-


the control sites. The percent changes in ethnic composition are small however so any explanation of these changes must be viewed with caution. Longer time series data and examination of a larger sample of coastal communities in the region could help shed light on these trends. There are no statistically significant changes over time in religious composition for Blongko or the control sites. Table 20. Changes in ethnic and religious composition of Blongko village and control sites Group

Blongko (Percent*) 1997 2000

Ethnic/Geographic Makeup Minahasa, Minahasa-Bolaangmongondow, Minahasa-Jawa-Gorontalo Sangir, Sangir-Siau, Sangir Talaud, Siau, Sangir-Ambon Bolaangmongandow, Gorontalo, Gor.-Bolaang., Bolaang.-Cina, Bantik Maluku – Ternate, Ambon South and Central Sulawesi – Soluan, Bajo, Bugis, Buton Other (Jawa, Flores) Religion Muslim Christian N * Columns may not sum to 100 due to rounding

2.2.3

Control Sites (Percent*) 1998 2000

19 75 4 0 2 1

26 64 4 2 0 2

23 53 17 0 7 0

25 49 21 1 4 0

16 84 180

19 81 80

34 66 100

31 69 120

Occupations

Changes in the percent distribution of productive activities for households in Blongko and the control sites between 1997/98 and 2000 are detailed in Tables 21 and 22. Farming and fishing are still the most prevalent activities in Blongko. However, there are small declines in the number of households engaged in farming, processing, coconut plantation worker and general trading. There is a large decline in the number of households involved in gleaning and an increase in the number of households engaged in fishing. The percentage of households ranking fishing as the most important productive activity is now slightly more than farming and is higher than any other productive activity. Another interesting trend in Blongko and the control sites is that the number of productive activities a household is engaged in is declining. For instance, in 1997 fifty percent of the households surveyed engaged in at least four productive activities compared to only twenty percent in 2000. Since many of the coastal resources management strategies in Blongko are related to sustainable fishing, the increasing number of fishers is a trend of particular interest. If the project activities result in an increasing number of fishers entering the fishery, then any possible benefits from resources management actions by the community may be dissipated or negated. However, a similar trend is occurring in the control sites, with fishing taking on increasing importance. It is therefore likely that the move into fishing is a regional trend and not a result of project activities. However, the open access nature of the fishery means that any benefits derived from reduction of destructive fishing or from establishment of the marine sanctuary in Blongko still will be dissipated among a larger number of households. It is possible that the high population growth rate from in-migration may in part be due to an increasing movement of fishers into the region.

Proyek Pesisir

-17-


Table 21.

Percent distribution of ranking of productive activities in Blongko (Persentase distribusi prioritas kegiatan produktif di Blongko)

Activity (Kegiatan Produktif) Farming (Pertanian) Fishing (Perikanan) Processing (Pengolahan) Coconut Plantation Worker (Pekerja Perkebunan Kelapa) Other * (Kegiatan lainnya) Other Trading (Jual beli Lainnya) Fish Trading (Jual beli Ikan) Carpenter (Tukang kayu) Gleaning (Pengumpul hasil laut) Total

1

2

3

4

1997 5 6

7

8

41 10 17 13

32 19 7 4

9 12 10 9

9 9 3 2

4 1 2 1

0 3 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

12 3 2 2 0 100

10 12 5 2 0 91

8 2 11 3 10 74

6 3 1 1 16 50

8 0 1 0 11 28

0 1 0 1 7 12

0 0 1 0 4 5

0 1 0 0 0 1

Total (1997) 95 54 39 29 44 22 21 9 48

1

2

3

4

2000 5 6

7

8

30 32 3 10

40 15 15 8

15 13 13 3

0 5 5 0

0 3 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

25 0 0 0 0 100

8 5 3 0 0 94

8 0 8 0 0 60

0 0 10 0 0 20

0 0 0 0 3 6

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

Total (2000) 85 68 36 21 46 5 21 0 3

* Other category includes activities with less than 5 respondents. In 1998 this included boat builder, tailor, remittance from family, teacher, carpenter, clove harvester, laundry, etc. In 2000 this included tailor, remittance from family, teacher, company employee, chauffeur, fish trap maker, vehicle rental, selling food, sale of cakes, boat rental, rental of farmland, etc.

Table 22.

Percent distribution of ranking of productive activities in Control Sites (Sapa and Boyonpante).

(Persentase distribusi prioritas kegiatan produktif di Lokasi Control – Sapa dan Boyongpante) 1998 Activity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total 1 (Kegiatan Produktif) (1998) Farming (Pertanian) 44 22 16 6 0 2 0 0 90 28 Fishing (Perikanan) 22 8 22 4 2 2 0 0 60 33 Processing (Pengolahan) 10 22 14 6 4 0 0 0 56 2 Coconut Plantation Worker 10 6 2 0 0 0 0 18 5 (Pekerja Perkebunan Kelapa) Other * (Kegiatan lainnya) 10 4 2 8 4 0 0 0 28 12 Fish Trading (Jual beli Ikan) 2 10 12 8 0 0 0 0 32 5 Carpenter (Tukang kayu) 2 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 12 12 Gleaning (Pengumpul hasil laut) 0 2 8 14 6 2 0 32 0 Other Trading (Jual beli Lainnya) 0 12 2 4 0 0 0 0 18 0 Small shop owner (Pemilik warung) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Total 100 90 74 46 24 10 2 0 100

2

3

4

2000 5 6

7

8

18 15 12 7

8 15 20 3

10 10 2 2

5 0 8 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

13 10 3 7 3 5 88

3 10 2 5 0 2 66

7 2 2 0 0 2 37

3 0 2 0 0 0 18

3 0 0 0 0 0 3

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total (2000) 69 73 44 17 41 27 21 12 3 12

* Kategori lainnya kurang dari 5 responden 1998 - termasuk: pembuat perahu, penjahit, tunjangan dari keluarga, guru, pemotong kayu, pemetik cengkih, dan tukang cuci pakaian, 2000 - termasuk: penjahit, tunjangan dari keluarga, guru, buruh perusahaan, pemotong kayu, sopir, pembuat igi, penyewa angkutan, pembuat arang tempurung, penjual makanan, pengrajin, pembuat/penjual kue, penyewa perahu, penggarap kebun orang, dan tukang cukur.

Proyek Pesisir

-18-


2.2.4

Material Style of Life

Physical household characteristics are used as an socio-economic measure of well being in the community. Table 23 is a summary of changes in household characteristics in Blongko and the control sites between 1997/98 and 2000. In general, there is a trend towards more durable and expensive household structures. For instance, in Blongko we see an increase in the percent of households with concrete walls and floors, as well as with metal roofs and glass windows. Other improvements include increases in the percentage of households with electricity, indoor toilets, piped water and household possessions. This demonstrates an overall improvement in material style of life and most likely a result of increasing household incomes that allow families to make such improvements. These trends are seen both in Blongko and the control sites and therefore seem to be regional phenomena. Table 23. Percent distribution of Material Style of Life (MSL) measures in Blongko and control villages (Sapa-Boyongpante) (Persentase distribusi jenis bangunan rumah, peralatan dan barang yang dimiliki di Blongko dan desa control) Household characteristics Blongko Blongko Control (Karakteristik rumah tangga) 1997 2000 1998 (Percent) (Percent) (Percent) Walls (Dinding) Bamboo walls (Dinding bambu) 49 35 30 Wood walls (Dinding kayu) 17 20 14 Concrete walls (Dinding beton) 41 53 62 Floors (Lantai) Earthen floors (Lantai tanah) 21 18 28 Concrete floors (Lantai beton) 51 56 66 Wooden & bamboo floors (Lantai kayu & bambu) 29 25 14 Tile floors (Lantai tegel) 5 3 0 Roofs (Atap) Nipa roof (Atap nipa) 49 38 34 Metal roof (Atap seng) 53 73 74 Wooden roof (Atap kayu) 5 3 12 Tile roof (Atap genteng) 1 3 0 Windows (Jendela) Open windows holes (Jendela terbuka) 53 58 56 Wooden shutters (Jendela kayu) 37 10 38 Glass windows (Jendela kaca) 27 35 36 Services (Peralatan) Electricity (Listrik) 77 98 74 Indoor toilet (WC dalam rumah) 5 15 22 Water pipe into house (Air ledeng di rumah) 1 8 2 Possessions (Barang yang dimiliki) Refrigerator (Lemari es) 1 5 2 Modern stove* (Kompor moderen*) 9 45 24 Living room set (Kursi tamu) 29 30 34 Chairs (Kursi) 37 75 70 Benches (Bangku) 69 75 74 Cabinet (Lemari) 24 35 50 Cupboard (Lemari pajangan) 9 65 26 Fan (Kipas angin) 1 0 2 Radio cassette player (Radio tape) 15 28 20 Television (Televisi) 15 23 20 Parabolic satellite antenna (Antena parabola) 5 3 6 VCD 0 5 0 Video Game 0 0 0 N 90 40 50 * Other than wood or charcoal (Lain dari kayu atau arang) Proyek Pesisir

-19-

Control 2000 (Percent) 30 13 60 22 77 8 0 28 75 0 0 40 13 48 95 25 2 2 72 35 83 48 48 72 5 25 15 5 5 0 60


Blongko has a lower percentage of households with indoor toilets and piped water in 2000 compared with the control sites. However, these items have also seen larger percentage increases in Blongko between 1997 and 2000 compared to the control sites, particularly piped water. This in part can be attributed to project activities implemented in Blongko such as the construction of MCKs and a piped water system. As a means of developing a standardized material style of life scale for all project and control sites, a principal component analysis was conducted for the 28 material style of life variables 1 for all ten project and control villages across the two time periods (N = 812 households). Six of the items manifested very low component loadings in the first analysis of the data, so they were eliminated, and the analysis, using varimax rotation of components, was conducted once again. The scree test (Cattell 1966) was used to determine the number of components, resulting in 3 components which account for a total of 46 percent of the variance in the data set. The results of this analysis are found in Table 24. Items loading highest on the first component indicate a relatively well-constructed house with adequate furnishings. Items loading highest on component two reflect modern appliances, and those with high positive loadings on factor three are associated with a solid, permanent structure (e.g., cement walls and tin roof) while those loading a high negative are associated with a less permanent structure (wood walls, floor, and window). Table 24. Final principal component analysis of Material Style of Life (MSL) variables. Variable Modern House Modern Structure and Furnishings Appliances Bamboo wall -0.820 -0.056 -0.092 Nipa roof -0.731 -0.095 -0.367 Concrete floor 0.704 0.054 0.334 Dirt floor -0.684 -0.074 0.204 Open window -0.680 -0.188 0.138 Glass window 0.667 0.214 0.333 Tin roof 0.662 0.098 0.456 Concrete wall 0.647 0.127 0.597 Electricity 0.508 0.165 -0.022 Cabinet 0.501 0.380 0.086 Living room set 0.478 0.306 0.063 Bench -0.400 -0.071 0.017 Satellite dish (TV) 0.056 0.744 0.044 Television 0.261 0.637 0.106 Refrigerator -0.010 0.592 -0.017 Fan -0.016 0.548 0.014 Radio-cassette player 0.232 0.545 0.025 Indoor toilet 0.276 0.478 0.202 Modern cook stove 0.245 0.391 0.086 Wood wall 0.128 -0.103 -0.644 Wood floor -0.182 -0.009 -0.643 Wooden window -0.019 -0.060 -0.565 Percent of Variance 23.376 12.276 10.055

1

See Pollnac and Crawford (2000a) for a discussion of the use of principal component analysis with this type of data. Proyek Pesisir

-20-


Component scores representing the position of each household on each component were created for each household. The component scores are the sum of the component coefficients times the sample standardized variables. These coefficients are proportional to the component loadings. Hence, items with high positive loadings contribute more strongly to a positive component score than low or negative loadings. Nevertheless, all items contribute (or subtract) from the score; hence, items with moderately high loadings on more than one component (e.g., tin roof and concrete wall in the analysis presented here) will contribute at a moderate level, although differently, to the component scores associated with each of the components. This type of component score provides the best representation of the data. In this paper, for this data we will refer to these scores as Material Style of Life Component Scores. They are standardized scores with a mean of zero and a standard deviation of one. The question for monitoring concerns whether or not project activities have improved coastal resources in Blongko to the extent that productive activities have increased income and, subsequently, the material style of life in the project communities. As a means of testing for this impact, mean component scores for each component are calculated for each time period in the project and control communities. If the project has had a positive impact we would expect that mean component scores would increase more in Blongko than in the control sites. While the mean scores for 2000 are higher than the mean scores for 1997/98 in both Blongko and the control sites, the differences, as determined by Student’s T-test are not statistically significant (see Table 25). Table 25. Mean material style of life component scores for Blongko and control sites across two time periods. HOUSE & FURNISHINGS APPLIANCES STRUCTURE N

1997/8 -0.169 -0.217 -0.411 90

2000 0.013 -0.022 -0.109 40

Blongko t-test 0.947 1.228 1.455

Control 1997/8 -0.008 -0.070 0.018 50

2000 0.208 0.062 0.125 60

t-test 1.122 0.650 0.577

Hence, at this stage of the project, we can see no material style of life changes we can attribute to a project impact as measured by the three principal components - modern house and furnishings, appliances, modern structure. However, we can point to specific examples of some changes that are concrete community impacts. These include flooding reduction from the construction of flood control culverts, erosion prevention from dike construction, improved water supply and sanitation from the construction of MCKs and a piped water system. These community development projects may improve quality of life, but over the short term do not have direct economic or income generating impacts. The percentage of households with water piped into their house and indoor toilets have increased (see Table 23) in Blongko compared with a smaller and no increase respectively in the control sites. However, these are only two of more than 20 material style of life variables used in the principal component analysis and therefore are not sufficient to significantly influence the mean principal component scores. Therefore, a longer time frame may be required before principal component analysis of material style of life variables will be able to distinguish project impacts.

Proyek Pesisir

-21-


2.3

CHANGES IN PERCEIVED QUALITY OF LIFE AND PROBLEMS

Survey respondents were asked questions concerning their perceived problems and quality of life. Table 26 summarizes responses concerning their perceptions of well being, “Is your household better off, worse off or the same compared to five years ago?” This question was asked of male and female respondents so the results reflect the perceptions of both genders. In Blongko, there is a slight increase in the number of respondents saying they are better off or the same, and a small decrease in those saying they are worse off between 1997 and 2000. These differences however are not statistically significant. The control sites show a much greater change between 1998 and 2000 concerning the percentage of respondents saying they are better off and less saying they are worse off compared to five years ago. Baseline data in the control sites was collected during the economic crises of 1998 and therefore we should expect to see a smaller number saying they are better off during this period of uncertainty and economic hardship for many households compared to 2000. Comparing Blongko and the control sites in 2000, we find that Blongko has a higher number of respondents saying they are better off. Since there is very little change in Blongko from the 1997 baseline however, it is unlikely project activities have had any influence on respondent’s perceptions of well being compared to five years ago. This is similar to the results concerning household characteristics (material well being). While the trends are in a positive direction over the last three years, and may be due to project activities, we cannot make this claim with any degree of (statistical) certainty. Table 26. Percent distribution of responses concerning household well be ing today compared to five years ago (Persentase distribusi respon keadaan rumah tangga saat ini dibandingkan dengan lima tahun yang lalu) Response (percent) Village Year Worse Off Same Better Off Lebih Buruk Masih Sama Lebih Baik Project Village Blongko 2000 10.0 21.3 68.8 Blongko 1997 12.8 18.3 66.1 Control Villages Sapa – Boyongpante 2000 14.2 33.3 51.7 Sapa – Boyongpante 1998 49.0 34.0 16.0

Don’t Know Tidak Tahu

N

0.0 2.8

80 180

0.8 1.0

120 100

Table 27. Percent distribution of responses concerning household well being today compared to five years in the future (Persentase distribusi respon keadaan rumah tangga saat ini dibandingkan dengan lima tahun yang akan datang) Response (percent) Village Year Worse Off Same Better Off Don’t Know Lebih Buruk Masih Sama Lebih Baik Tidak Tahu Project Village Blongko 2000 0.0 1.3 72.5 26.3 Blongko 1997 0.0 3.3 59.4 37.2 Control Villages Sapa – Boyongpante 2000 0.0 5.0 60.8 34.2 Sapa – Boyongpante 1998 0.0 4.0 23.0 73.0

N

80 180 120 100

Table 27 provides a summary of results concerning household well being today compared to what they perceive it will be in the future. While the previous question focuses on how respondents have perceived changes compared to the past, this question asks them about perceptions concerning future outlook. In Blongko, there are more respondents in 2000 saying they will be better off in the future (73 percent) compared to 1997 (59 percent). No Proyek Pesisir

-22-


respondents said they expected to be worse off both in 1997 and 2000. Therefore future outlook of the community remains very positive. However, there are no statistically significant differences between 1997 and 2000 in Blongko comparing those saying they will be better off and don’t know responses. The control sites show a large change in the number saying they will be better off compared to 1998. As previously mentioned, the 1998 economic crises is the most likely reason for this difference. While there are a higher percentage of respondents in Blongko saying they are better off in 2000 compared to 1997 and compared with control sites in 2000, we cannot with any degree of certainty say this is a project impact. While the trend may be a result of the project, differences are not yet large enough to make that claim. We will need to wait for the results of the 2002 survey to see if this trend continues. Survey respondent’s reasons concerning perceived changes in well being are provided in Appendix C. In Blongko, resources and environmental issues were the most frequent category of their first response in 1997. In Blongko, this category dropped from 24 percent in 1997 to 4 percent in 2000, whereas in the control sites, it dropped from 10 percent in 1998 to 7 percent in 2000. Resources and environmental issues seem to be less of a factor now compared to before the project started in Blongko. While there was little change in this first response category in the control sites between 1998 and 2000, there was a similar drop in this category for the second response given in the control sites. The 1998 period was at the tail end of the El Nino drought which effected farm crops and during the La Nina elevated sea surface temperature event that effected pelagic fisheries. These regional environmental swings may be a factor in some of these differences. However, project activities have resulted in greater community control over resources management in Blongko and it is quite possible that this has resulted in Blongko residents seeing environmental and resources issues as less of a primary factor causing changes in their well being. Respondent’s answers to the open-ended question concerning perceived problems are also provided in Appendix C. In both Blongko and the control sites, there is a large increase in 2000 concerning the percentage of respondents that state “no problems” as their first response. In Blongko, there are also large decreases in the percent of respondents mentioning economic, material style of life, weather and access to resources as the first reason given. For first and second responses in 1997, access to resources was the second most frequently mentioned problem in Blongko. In contrast, it was hardly mentioned in the control sites. Community perceptions concerning access to resources are important from a project standpoint. Access to resources show large decreases in both the first and second response categories of perceived problems in Blongko. This is an indicator that perceptions concerning community access or control over the marine resources have changed for the better. It is likely that this was brought about by the project through the establishment of the marine sanctuary, adoption of a related coastal development and management plan, and formation of coastal resources and marine sanctuary management committees. The virtual elimination of this problem in 2000 is important because establishing a marine sanctuary means that a certain area of reef and surrounding waters are no longer accessible for fishing. We would expect that many residents might complain about loss of access as a result. However, the opposite has occurred. In spite of the loss of access of a small percentage of marine area to fishing, the overall perception in the community concerning access to resources has actually improved.

Proyek Pesisir

-23-


2.4

CHANGES IN PERCEPTIONS OF RESOURCE IMPACTS FROM HUMAN ACTIVITIES

As one means of obtaining information concerning community member’s perceptions of the coastal resources and potential human impacts on these resources, household members from the 10 project sites and control sites were requested to provide a statement concerning the degree of their agreement or disagreement with nine statements. These questions were posed at both the baseline (1997/98) and monitoring (2000) phases of the project to determine if project activities had any influence on these perceptions. Each of the nine statements involves some aspect of relationships between coastal resources and human activities. The following are the statements used: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

We have to take care of the land and the sea or it will not provide for us in the future. Fishing would be better if we cleared the coral where the fish hide from us. If our community works together we will be able to protect our resources. Farming in the hills behind the village can have an effect on the fish. If we throw our garbage on the beach, the ocean takes it away and it causes no harm. We do not have to worry about the air and the sea, God will take care of it for us. Unless mangroves are protected we will not have any small fish to catch. There are so many fish in the ocean that no matter how many we catch, there will always be enough for our needs. 9. Human activities do not influence the number of fish in the ocean. The statements were arranged in the interviews so as to limit interference between similar statements (e.g., statements number 8 and 9 were separated by 6 other statements). It will also be noticed that agreement with some would indicate an accurate belief, while agreement with others would indicate the opposite. This was done to control for responses where the respondent either agrees or disagrees with everything. Statements were randomly arranged with respect to this type of polarity. Respondents were asked if they agree, disagree, or neither (neutral) with respect to each statement. If they indicated either agree or disagree, they were asked if they agree (disagree) strongly, agree (disagree), or just agree (disagree) a little with the statement. This resulted in a scale with a range from one to seven. Polarity of the statement is accounted for in the coding process, so as a score value changes from one to seven it indicates an increasingly stronger and accurate belief concerning the content of the statement. The scale values associated with the nine statements involving beliefs concerning relationships between the coastal resources and human activities were factor analyzed using the principal component analysis technique and varimax rotation. One of the statements (“Farming in the hills behind the village can have an effect on the fish”) manifested very low loadings on all factors, so it was eliminated from the final analysis. The scree test was used to determine optimum number of factors to be rotated (Cattell 1966). The result of this final analysis can be found in Table 28. Statements loading high positive on the first component involve perceptions of the lack of human control (God will take care of it), inexhaustibility (endless supplies of fish) and vastness (it can absorb all the rubbish) of the ocean. Statements loading highest on the second component involve the efficacy of human actions (we have to take care, protect, not clear coral, and work together) with respect to health of the resource. Thus, the first component is

Proyek Pesisir

-24-


labeled “Vastness” and the second “Efficacy.” Component scores (see above discussion) were calculated for each individual on each component. Table 28. Principal component analysis of conservation attitude variables. Statement (abbreviated) Vastness Efficacy God will take care of the sea for humans 0.694 0.130 Humans do not impact the number of fish 0.659 -0.086 There will always be enough fish 0.603 -0.160 The ocean can harmlessly absorb beach garbage 0.595 0.263 We have to take care of the land and sea 0.021 0.713 Working together can protect our resources 0.020 0.668 If we clear coral it will improve fishing 0.264 0.547 We must protect mangroves for small fish -0.151 0.530 Percent of Total Variance Explained 21.583 20.660 In terms of resource beliefs, it is important to determine if project activities have had any impact on community members’ beliefs about the coastal environment. As a means of testing for this impact, mean Resource Belief Component Scores for each component are calculated for each time period in the project and control communities (Table 29). If the project has had a positive impact we would expect that mean scores would increase more in Blongko than in the control sites. In both the project and control sites component scores decreased on the Vastness Component and increased on the Efficacy Component. The only difference that is statistically significant is the relatively large decrease in the Vastness Component Score in Blongko, a finding that is the opposite of what we would expect. Therefore, this suggests that the project has not resulted in any positive changes of perceptions concerning human impacts on marine resources using this indicator. Survey results previously described have shown a relatively high level of awareness in Blongko concerning the purpose and rules for the marine sanctuary in spite of the fact that more general perceptions concerning human impacts on the marine environment have not changed. In Blongko, the field extension worker spent less time at the field site compared to the other project sites. In addition, our activities in Blongko immediately concentrated on the establishment of the marine sanctuary and this was the emphasis of many of the public education events as well as the formal and informal meetings that have been conducted. It is possible that the immediate emphasis on the marine sanctuary was at the expense of creating a general foundation of environmental awareness concerning human impacts on the marine environment. Still almost three-quarters (71 percent) of the sample know the purpose of the marine sanctuary. The shorter duration of time the extension worker spent on-site may also have been a factor. Research from the Philippines suggests that whether a field worker is in the village full-time or part-time does not influence the overall success of a community-based marine sanctuary (Pollnac and Crawford, 2000b). However, the total amount of time they are in the village may be more important rather than their full or part-time status. In addition, the type and content of public education events they conduct will influence the community perceptions concerning the resource. More public education to create an understanding of general resource use concepts and impacts is needed in Blongko. In addition, community-based management initiatives in the future should consider implementing environmental education activities on fundamental principles either prior to or concurrent with suggested interventions such as marine sanctuaries. Withdrawal of the extension worker from the community should also be Proyek Pesisir

-25-


deferred until such time that such fundamental principles are well understood within the community, regardless of whether a sanctuary has already been established or not. Table 29. Mean resource beliefs component scores for Blongko and control sites across two time periods. Blongko Control 1997/98 2000 t-test 1997/8 2000 t-test VASTNESS 0.540 0.018 4.087* 0.163 0.000 1.237 CONTROL -0.008 0.162 1.465 0.263 0.335 0.622 N 180 80 100 120 *p < 0.001

The summary of scale values for 10 perception questions concerning resource impacts from human activities are provided in Appendix D. The frequency distribution of responses and the mean scale values are both provided in the Appendix for information purposes, but factor analysis (described above) is considered the most appropriate way to analyze changes over time within the project sites and for comparison with control sites. Survey respondents were also asked questions concerning whether bomb fishing harms the ocean (see Table 30). An overwhelming majority of respondents in Blongko and the control sites view bomb fishing as destructive. This is a correct understanding and very positive attitude demonstrated by the communities. There have been no significant changes in this community perception between 1997 and 2000 in Blongko or at the control sites. Reasons given by respondents for bomb fishing are categorized in Appendix E. Respondents in Blongko no longer view it as a way to catch more fish or even as more profitable (considering their first response). Now, they are more likely to respond first with either don’t know or a quick and easy way to catch fish. There are few changes in these response categories in the control sites and this may be an indicator of changing attitudes in Blongko as a result of project public education and training activities. Considering the second response, Blongko residents now state more frequently, compared with 1997, that the reason for bomb fishing is a habit of bomb fishers or due to inadequate enforcement. Control sites also state law enforcement problems more frequently. This may be an indicator of an increase in bomb fishing in the region, or a break down in law enforcement due to national political and governance changes instituted in the last several years. Table 30. Percent distribution of responses of whether bomb fishing harms the marine environment (Persentase distribusi respon apakah menangkap ikan dengan bom merusak lingkungan laut) Response (percent) Village

Year

N NO Tidak

Project Village Blongko Blongko Control Villages Sapa – Boyongpante Sapa – Boyongpante

Proyek Pesisir

YES Ya

Don’t Know Tidak Tahu

2000 1997

1.3 0.6

96.3 96.1

2.5 3.3

80 180

2000 1998

0.8 0.0

97.5 97.0

1.7 3.0

120 100

-26-


3.0

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of community-based coastal resources management initiatives in Blongko village has been on going for a period of approximately three years. This work was facilitated by the assignment of an extension officer to the community full time for a period of two years followed by a period of approximately one-year on a part-time basis. A team of technical specialists supported the field worker with specific activities such as community coral reef monitoring training, technical studies of selected issues and ordinance development. The community-based planning and implementation initiative was coordinated by the project through an interagency task force at the kabupaten level. During this threeyear period, over 55 events (meetings, training, presentations) were held in the village with a cumulative total of over 2000 participants. The purpose of these activities was to raise community awareness and knowledge concerning coastal resources management issues and build community capacity to address them. A number of early actions (resources management, livelihood and community development initiatives) have been implemented by the community with funding provided by the USAID project as well as from Government of Indonesia sources. Many of these implementation actions are on going and additional implementation activities are being planned. The majority of the implementation actions carried out to date have been successful. The community-based management process has moved beyond planning and is now in the implementation phase. An information center has been constructed in the village. Marine sanctuary marker buoys and informational signs have been installed. The community is conducting surveillance and enforcement activities and other implementation actions linked to the management plan are underway. Local government (BAPPEDA) is providing implementation resources to the community and cooperation with the police on patrolling and enforcement against bomb fishing in the area is occuring. A number of important milestones have been achieved over the three-year project period between 1997 and 2000. These include the formal establishment of a community-based marine sanctuary, the adoption of a coastal resources management and marine sanctuary plan, and the formation of local committees to oversee implementation of the marine sanctuary and management plan. The analysis of the information collected for this assessment indicates that a high level of participation has been achieved in the development of the marine sanctuary and management plan. Approximately 62 percent of village survey respondents have participated in project activities. Eighty six percent of survey respondents could provide a response concerning the project purpose and were aware of or participated in the development of the management plan. Sixty nine percent of the respondents could explain one or more purposes of the marine sanctuary and even more impressively, 96 percent of respondents could state one or more rules governing the marine sanctuary. The project met a target of at least 30 percent female participation in project activities such as trainings and workshops. No gender differences were evident among survey respondents for questions concerning awareness of and participation in management plan development, and rules governing the marine sanctuary. Some gender differences were evident for questions concerning the purpose of the marine sanctuary and project participation. While women were less likely to participate or were less likely to state the purpose of the marine sanctuary, slightly less than half of the women surveyed said they did participate in project events and Proyek Pesisir

-27-


more than half were able to state a purpose for the marine sanctuary. While there are some gender differences, overall, this level of female participation and knowledge is still a very satisfactory result. However, there was one area where female participation varied greatly from males. This was with respect to female participation in project organizations. Only 2 percent of female respondents stated they were members of project organizations compared with 20 percent of males. Since these are decision-making bodies in the community, the lack of female participation in these organizations risks the exclusion of concerns and inputs from half of the village stakeholders in resources management decision-making. The project team needs to put more effort into designing appropriate strategies for increasing female participation rates in project organizations. A number of important socio-economic changes have occurred within the community over the three years of project implementation. Population increases have been dramatic with an annual growth rate of approximately 8 percent in large part fueled by in-migration from neighboring areas. In addition, fishing now slightly outranks farming as the most important primary productive activity among households. Coupled with the population increases, the resulting trend is an increase in fishing pressure on the coastal resources on which many of the households depend. The primary purpose of the coastal resources management initiatives (marine sanctuary and management plan) implemented by the project is to sustainably manage the proximate coastal resources. However, the beneficial effects of improved management from these initiatives may be dissipated due to the increasing dependence on the coastal resource base by an increasing number of users. The population increases and increases in fishing effort appear to be a regional trend that over the long run will exacerbate resource management issues. These regional trends cannot be addressed solely by the community and are beyond their control. However, without the management regimes put in place at the community level, the problems associated with increasing population and numbers of fishers will become even more severe. The period between 1997 and 2000 has seen increases in the overall quality of life among households in the community as measured by material style of life indicators. Principle component analysis of the 28 individual indicators reduces the data set to three primary components (household structure and furnishings, appliances, and household structure). These three indicators show similar improvements in material style of life both in the project and control sites, and therefore, there have been no changes over time in Blongko that we can reasonably attribute to project activities. However, by looking at a few specific individual indicators such as piped water supply and indoor toilets, there are increases in the percentage of respondents with these facilities in Blongko compared to the control sites. We can attribute these improvements in Blongko to construction of a piped water supply and latrines that have been facilitated in whole or in part by the project. Hence, while the project has made specific impacts on some aspects of quality of life, using this measure it has not shown any larger overall quality of life impact at this stage. For instance, we cannot say that the establishment of the marine sanctuary has led to improved fish catches and incomes which has then resulted in households improving their house structure or purchasing new and modern furnishings. Over the last three years, Blongko has seen improvements in perceptions concerning positive improvements in overall well being of households compared to the past and with respect to the future. However, the differences are too small to say with any certainty that this is due to project activities. Compared to the control sites, Blongko residents now view resources and environmental issues as less of a reason impacting on their well being. It is possible that Proyek Pesisir

-28-


project activities which have resulted in greater community control over the local resources have resulted in Blongko residents viewing environmental and resource issues as less of a factor causing changes in their overall well being. This is further supported by responses to the question concerning perceived problems. Fewer respondents now state access to resources as a problem and more are likely to state “no problems”. Community perceptions concerning access to resources are important. The community has gained increasing control through the establishment of management committees as well as from the preparation and approval of a management plan. In spite of the fact that fishers have lost access to a small area of marine waters (the marine sanctuary core zone) the overall community perception is one of fewer problems concerning access and control. This is a very positive result. Residents’ perceptions of human impacts on the marine environment were surveyed in 1997 and 2000. There has been no positive change in perceptions between these time periods that we can attribute to project activities. Hence, the project has not yet had any measurable impact on general perceptions about the limits to exploitation of marine resources and human impacts on them. However, when asked about a specific destructive use practice such as bomb fishing, the overwhelming majority of respondents (96 percent) continue to agree that this practice harms the marine environment. Perceptions of why people bomb fish have changed in Blongko compared to very little changes in the control sites. Blongko residents are more likely to state a reason for bomb fishing as an easy and quick way to catch fish as opposed to previous responses that it is profitable or a means to catch more fish. In addition, they are more likely to give an additional response that it is due to the habit of bomb fishers or due to inadequate enforcement. The perceived need for greater enforcement by authorities should be seen as a favorable result whereby residents now expect greater action and accountability by government officials. Public education and meetings conducted in the village have tended to emphasize immediate issues and specific management measures – such as location, purpose and rules of the marine sanctuary. Most likely, the immediate emphasis on implementation measures did not provide enough time or number of educational programs to develop some of the underlying principles of open access resources and their management. Therefore, more effort is needed in Blongko on educating residents to concepts such as overfishing and the tragedy of the commons, as well as impacts of deforestation and sedimentation on marine resources. Replication of community based coastal resources management initiatives in other communities therefore, should put more emphasis on basic environmental and coastal resources management principles early on in the community preparation phase and concurrent with marine sanctuary and management plan development. Overall, the cumulative results of project actions and the milestones achieved indicate that significant progress has been made at establishing an effective community-based coastal resources management model in the village of Blongko in North Sulawesi Province. There are a few issues and adjustments that need to be made in the current approach. This includes additional efforts to involve more women in project and management organizations as well as conducting additional public education activities on basic resource management concepts. An increasing number of visitors from within and outside the province are visiting Blongko to learn from their experience. To cope with the increasing number of visitors, more attention needs to be given on how the Blongko example can be used as a demonstration site. A formal visitor program and supporting resource materials need to be developed with the community. The challenge facing the project now is to consolidate the gains that have been achieved, ensure sustainability of the initiatives started and start project phase out. At this Proyek Pesisir

-29-


stage, the project also needs to put more emphasis on creating higher level (Kabupaten or Provincial) enabling frameworks that ensure on-going assistance can be provided to Blongko by local institutions as well as to support and start community-based coastal resources management initiatives in other coastal communities of North Sulawesi.

Proyek Pesisir

-30-


References Cited Cattell, R.B. 1966 The scree test for the number of factors. Research 1:245-276.

Multivariate Behavioral

Crawford, B.R. and J.J. Tulungen. 1999a. Scaling-up Initial Models of Community-Based Marine Sanctuaries into a Community Based Coastal Management Program as a Means of Promoting Marine Conservation in Indonesia. Working Paper. Coastal Resources Management Project – Indonesia. Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island and the US Agency for International Development. Jakarta. Crawford, B.R., and J.J. Tulungen. 1998a. Methodological Approach of Proyek Pesisir in North Sulawesi. Working Paper. Coastal Resources Management Project – Indonesia. Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island and the US Agency for International Development. Jakarta. Crawford, B.R. and J.J. Tulungen. 1998b. Marine Sanctuaries as a Community Based Coastal Resources Management Model for North Sulawesi and Indonesia. Working Paper. Coastal Resources Management Project – Indonesia. Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island and the US Agency for International Development. Jakarta. Crawford, B.R. and J. Tulungen. 1999b. Monitoring and Evaluation of a Community-Based Marine Sanctuary: the Blongko Village Example. Working Paper. Coastal Resources Management Project – Indonesia. Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island and the US Agency for International Development. Jakarta. Crawford, B.R., and J.J. Tulungen. 1999c. Concept for a Decentralized Provincial and/or Kabupaten Coastal Management Program in North Sulawesi. Working Paper. Coastal Resources Management Project – Indonesia. Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island and US Agency for International Development. Jakarta. Crawford, B.R., I. Dutton, C. Rotinsulu, L. Hale. 1998a. Community-Based Coastal Resources Management in Indonesia: Examples and Initial Lessons from North Sulawesi. Paper presented at International Tropical Marine Ecosystem Management Symposium, Townsville, Australia, November 23-26. Crawford, B.R., P. Kussoy, A Siahainenia and R.B. Pollnac 1999. Socioeconomic Aspects of coastal resources use in Talise, North Sulawesi. Proyek Pesisir Publication. University of Rhode Island, Coastal Resources Center, Narragansett, Rhode Island, USA. pp. 67. Crawford, Brian R., R.B. Pollnac and A. Sukmara. 2000. Community-Based Coastal Resources Management: An Interim Assessment of Implementation Actions in Proyek Pesisir Field Sites in North Sulawesi, Indonesia. Technical Report TE-00/02-E. University of Rhode Island, Coastal Resources Center, Narragansett Rhode Island, USA. pp. 46.

Proyek Pesisir

-31-


Crawford, B.R., J.J. Tulungen, A. Wowor and I. Dutton. 1998b. From Local Action to National Practice: Establishing Community-Based Models for Coastal Management in Indonesia. Paper presented at: Sharing Responsibility: National Biennial Coastal Management Conference. Perth Australia, 29 April –1 May, 1998. Fakultas Perikanan dan Ilmu Kelautan, Universitas Sam Ratulangi Manado. 1999. Survei Kondisi Terumbu Karang, Mangrove dan Rumput Laut di Daerah Pesisir Pantai Airbanua, Kahuku, Rumbia, Minanga, Sapa dan Boyonge Pante, Kabupaten Minahasa, Sulawesi Utara. Technical Reports (TE-99/04-I) Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island, Jakarta, Indonesia. pp. 101. Fakultas Perikanan dan Ilmu Kelautan, Universitas Sam Ratulangi Manado. 2000. Survei Kondisi Terumbu Karang, Mangrove dan Rumput Laut di Daerah Pesisir Pantai Airbanua, Kahuku, Rumbia, Minanga, Sapa dan Boyonge Pante, Kabupaten Minahasa, Sulawesi Utara. Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island, Jakarta, Indonesia. pp. 94. Kasmidi, M. 1998. Sejarah Penduduk dan Lingkungan Hidup Desa Blongko, Kecamatan Tenga. Proyek Pesisir Technical Report No. TE-98/01-I. Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island, Narragansett, Rhode Island, USA. pp. 12. Kasmidi, M., A. Ratu, E. Armada, J. Mintahari, I. Maliasar, D. Yanis, F. Lumolos, and N. Mangampe. 1999a. Profil Sumberdaya Wilayah Pesisir Desa Blongko, Kecamatan Tenga, Kabupaten Minahasa, Sulawesi Utara. Proyek Pesisir. University of Rhode Island, Coastal Resources Center, Narragansett, Rhode Island, USA. Kasmidi, M., A. Ratu, E. Armada, J. Mintahari, I. Maliasar, D. Yanis, F. Lumolos, N. Mangampe, P. Kapena, and M. Mongkol. 1999b. Rencana Pengelolaan Daerah Perlindungan Laut dan Pembangunan Sumberdaya Wilayah Pesisir Desa Blongko, Kecamatan Tenga, Kabupaten Minahasa, Sulawesi Utara. Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island, Narragansett, Rhode Island, USA dan BAPPEDA Kabupaten Minahasa, Sulawesi Utara. Indonesia. pp. 59. Kusen, J.D., B.R. Crawford, A. Siahainenia dan C. Rotinsulu. 1997. Laporan Data Dasar Sumberdaya Wilayah Pesisir Di Bentenan-Tumbak. Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island, Narragansett, Rhode Island, USA. pp. 108. Kusen, J.D., B.R. Crawford, A. Siahainenia dan C. Rotinsulu. 1999a. Laporan Data Dasar Sumberdaya Wilayah Pesisir Desa Talise, Kabupaten Minahasa, Propinsi Sulawesi Utara. Proyek Pesisir. Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island, Narragansett, Rhode Island, USA. pp. 53. Kusen, J.D., B.R. Crawford, A. Siahainenia dan C. Rotinsulu. 1999b. Laporan Data Dasar Sumberdaya Wilayah Pesisir Desa Blongko, Kabupaten Minahasa, Propinsi Sulawesi Utara. Proyek Pesisir. Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island, Narragansett, Rhode Island, USA.

Proyek Pesisir

-32-


Kussoy, P., B.R. Crawford, M. Kasmidi dan A. Siahainenia. 1999. Aspek Sosial-Economi untuk Pemanfaatan Sumberdaya Pesisir di Desa Blongko Sulawesi Utara. Technical Report. Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island, Narragansett, Rhode Island, USA. Lee, R. and P. Kussoy. 1999. Assessment of Wildlife Populations, Forest, and Forest Resource Use on Talise Island, North Sulawesi. Proyek Pesisir. TE-99/09-E. Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island, Narragansett, Rhode Island, USA. pp37. Mantjoro, E. 1997a. An Ecological and Human History of Bentenan and Tumbak Village Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island, Narragansett, Rhode Island, USA. pp. 18. Mantjoro, E. 1997b. Sejarah Penduduk dan Lingkungan Hidup Desa Talise. Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island, Narragansett, Rhode Island, USA. pp. 21. Pollnac, Richard B. and B. R. Crawford. 2000a. Assessing Behavioral Aspects of Coastal Resource Use. Proyek Pesisir Publications Special Report. Coastal Resources Center Coastal Management Report #2226. Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island, Narragansett, Rhode Island. pp. 139. Pollnac, R. B. and B. R. Crawford 2000b. Discovering Factors that Influence the Success of Community-Based Marine Protected Areas in the Visayas, Philippines. Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island, Narragansett, RI, USA, and Philippine Council for Aquatic and Marine Research and Development, Los Banos, Laguna, Philippines. pp. 30. Pollnac, R. B., B. Crawford, C. Rotinsulu, P. Kussoy and A. Siahainenia. 1998. An Examination and Comparison of Rumbia and Minanga: Control Villages for the Coastal Resource Management Project Sites at Bentenan and Tumbak.” Proyek Pesisir Publication TE-98/01-E. Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island, Narragansett, Rhode Island, USA. pp. 41. Pollnac R.B. J.W. McManus, A.E. Rosario, A.A. Banzon, S.G. Vergara and M.L.G. Gorospe. 2000. Unexpected relationships between coral reef health and socio-economic pressures in the Philippines: reefbase/RAMP applied. Mar. Freshwater Res. 51,529-33. Pollnac, R.B., C. Rotinsulu and A. Soemodinoto. 1997a. Rapid Assessment of Coastal Management Issues on the Coast of Minahasa. Proyek Pesisir Technical Report No: TE97/01-E. Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island, Narragansett, Rhode Island, USA. pp. 67. Pollnac, R.B., F. Sondita, B. Crawford, E. Mantjoro, C. Rotinsulu and A. Siahainenia. 1997b. Baseline Assessment of Socioeconomic Aspects of Resources Use in the Coastal Zone of Bentenan and Tumbak. Proyek Pesisir Technical Report No: TE-97/02-E. Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island, Narragansett, Rhode Island, USA. pp. 79.

Proyek Pesisir

-33-


Tim Kerja Proyek Pesisir. 1997. Laporan Kegiatan Lapangan untuk Penentuan Lokasi Proyek di Sulawesi Utara. Proyek Pesisir, Sulawesi Utara. pp. 18. Tulungen, J. J., B. Crawford and I. Dutton. 1999b. Pengelolaan sumberdaya wilayah pesisir berbasis masyarakat di Sulawesi Utara sebagai salah satu contoh otonomi daerah dalam pembangunan pesisir di Indonesia. Makalah dipresentasikan dalam Seminar Ilmiah Hasil-hasil Penelitian Unggulan di Hotel Paradise Likupang, Sulawesi Utara, 15 Desember 1999. Proyek Pesisir. Tulungen, J.T., B.P. Devi and C. Rotinsulu. 2000. Pengelolaan Pengembangan, Persetujuan dan Pelaksanaan Rencana Pembangunan dan Pengelolaan Sumberdaya Wilayah Pesisir Berbasis-Masyarakat di Sulawesi Utara. Dalam: Proceedin Konferensi Nasional II: Pengelolaan Sumberdaya Pesisir dan Lautan, Makassar, Sulawesi Selatan. 15 – 17 Mei 2000. Tulungen, J.J., P. Kussoy, and B.R. Crawford. 1998. Community Based Coastal Resources Management in Indonesia: North Sulawesi Early Stage Experiences. Paper presented at Convention of Integrated Coastal Management Practitioners in the Philippines. Davao City. 10 – 12 November, 1998. Tulungen, J., C. Rotinsulu , B. Crawford and F. Pua. 1999a. Daerah perlindungan laut berbasis-masyarakat sebagai model konservasi pesisir dan laut di Indonesia. Makalah dipresentasikan dalam “Seminar & Lokakarya Kelautan Internasional” di Manado 27 – 28 September 1999. Proyek Pesisir.

Proyek Pesisir

-34-


APPENDICES

Appendix A. Project activities in Blongko Appendix B. Survey form and administration instructions (English and Indonesian) Appendix C. Analysis of perceived quality of life and problems Appendix D. Changes in perceptions of resources impacts from human activities Appendix E. Analysis of reasons for bomb fishing

Proyek Pesisir

-35-


Appendix A Table A1.

Project activities in Blongko

(Aktivitas proyek di Blongko) Category and Activity Date Meeting 20-21 July 97 The CRMP and Field Activities, CRM Issues of concern by villagers 28-29 August 97 The CRMP and Field Activities, CRM Issues of concern by villagers 26-27 Nov 97 Sharing pengalaman peranan masyarakat dalam pengelolaan pesisir di Pulau Apo Philippina 15 Dec 97 Pelaksanaan Awal : Pembuatan MCK Desa 12 Feb 98 Pelaksanaan Awal: Pembuatan MCK desa dan penjelasan strategi rencana kerja desa tahun kedua 18-24 Feb 98 Pelaksanaan Awal: Persetujuan untuk pembuatan MCK dan sharing hasil pelatihan usaha rakyat 13 Mar 98 Pelaksanaan Awal: Lokasi Pembuatan MCK desa dan Daerah Perlindungan 7 Apr 98 Musyawarah Daerah Perlindungan Laut bersama kelompok pemanfaat 19 Apr 98 Musyawarah tentang Draft Peraturan DPL 29 Apr 98 Penjelasan tentang pendanaan, administrasi, keuangan, dan penyerahan dana pelaksanaan awal I 10 Jun 98 Persiapan Evaluasi Dana dan Administrasi Pelaksanaan Awal 13 Jul 98 Penyerahan dana pelaksanaan awal: MCK tahap kedua 23 Jul 98 Sosialisasi peta lokasi DPL 10 Agust 98 Pembentukan Kelompok Pengelola DPL, Proyek Air Bersih, dan evaluasi pembangunan MCK 12 Agust 98 Pertemuan pembentukan MCK untuk 8 keluarga 13 Agust 98 Pertemuan tanda batas DPL dan kepastian persetujuan lokasi Pusat Informasi Masyarakat 20 Agust 98 Pertemuan Pembangunan Pusat Informasi 26 Agust 98 Pertemuan persetujuan keputusan desa untuk UU DPL 2 Sep 98 Pertemuan Penyerahan dana tahap III pembangunan MCK dan Pusat Informasi 18 Sept 98 Diskusi strategi Pendidikan Lingkungan Hidup 14 Oct 98 Laporan kegiatan Pusat Informasi 14-15 Oct 98 Proses Daerah Perlindungan 16-18 Oct 98 Persiapan kunjungan peserta pelatihan ICM Outreach 22 Oct 98 Pertemuan masyarakat dengan peserta training ICM Outreach 13 Jan 99 Laporan kegiatan Kelompok Pengelola Daerah Perlindungan Laut 7 Apr 99 Penyerahan batuan pembangunan dari Bappeda 16 Apr 99 Peresmian Daerah Perlindungan Laut 20 Jun 99 Rapat Kelompok Pengelola DPL dengan Kelompok Katinting 1 Jul 99 Pertemuan petani dengan Tim Agroforestry

Proyek Pesisir

-36-

Participants Female Male Total 4 78 45 4 6 37 91 20 4 2 2 3 18 3 4 6 5 14 8 7 5 4 5 9 6 7 57 3 1

20 134 23 12 4 90 123 14 9 8 1 8 15 10 4 31 15 38 6 3 13 4 12 13 20 31 87 12 33

24 212 68 16 10 127 214 34 13 10 3 11 33 13 8 37 20 52 14 10 18 8 17 22 26 38 144 15 34


Table A1. Project avtivities in Blongko (continued) (Aktivitas proyek di Blongko – lanjutan) Category and Activity Date 6 Jul 99 Sosialisasi Rencana Pengelolaan 18 Jul 99 Sosialisasi Rencana Pengelolaan 19 Jul 99 Sosialisasi Rencana Pengelolaan 23 Sept 99 Evaluasi kelompok pengelola DPL 24 Sept 99 Monitoring Manta Tow 28 Sept 99 Kunjungan INCUNE 10 Oct 99 Musyawarah erosi pantai dan sungai 28 Oct 99 Evaluasi umum program Proyek Pesisir di Desa Blongko 9 Feb 00 Sosialisasi penenaman pohon sengon di sepanjang sempadan Sungai Laimpangi 9 Feb 00 Pembentukan Badan Pengelola 26 Feb 00 Regional Cross Visit Takabonerate-Blongko COREMAP Presentasi 18 Nov 97 Proyek Pesisir Socialization 19 Nov 97 Proyek Pesisir Socialization 13 Mar 98 Aspek Hukum Lingkungan 14 Mar 98 Aspek Hukum Lingkungan 18 Mar 98 Aspek Hukum Lingkungan 19 Mar 98 Aspek Hukum Lingkungan 30 Sept 99 Hasil Pengamatan Erosi Pantai Training 10-14 Nov 97 Coral Reef Monitoring Participatory I 4-10 Mar 98 Coral Reef Monitoring Participatory I 10-11 Mar 98 Administrasi dan Keuangan 11-13 Mar 98 Coral Reef Monitoring Participatory II 20-21 April 98 Coral Reef Monitoring Participatory II 25 Agust 98 Administrasi dan Keuangan 18-19 August 99 Pelatihan Agroforestry Workshop 18-21 Jan 00 Kelompok Pengelola Daerah Perlindungan Laut

Partcipants Female Male Total 8 15 23 5 21 26 14 40 54 3 12 15 2 8 10 10 17 27 11 10 21 2 13 15 2 13 15 7 34 41

Total

27 9 33 24 18 77 7

14 10 53 39 39 103 18

41 19 86 63 57 180 25

3 8 3 3 3 5 6

9 5 2 10 9 9 24

12 13 5 13 12 14 30

5 753

28 1348

33 2101

Source : Workplan Implementation Reports. Proyek Pesisir. Jakarta.

Proyek Pesisir

-37-


Appendix B PROJECT MONITORING AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT SURVEY INTERVIEW FORM DESA_______________________ DUSUN_____________________ DATE________ INTERVIEWER________________ NAME___________________________ AGE__________ SEX______________ HOUSEHOLD SIZE_________________(NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN HOUSEHOLD, INCLUDING PERSON INTERVIEWED)

IF FISHING IS PRACTICED BOAT TYPE__________________SIZE__________________MOTOR___________OWN?____________ GEAR TYPES: For Each gear type, as appropriate, record size. IF MILKFISH FRY COLLECTION IS PRACTICED Number of nets used by household_______________

Ownership of nets_______________

IF SEAWEED FARMING IS PRACTICED Size of planting (record unit of measurement)__________________ Number and length of lines_________ Identify roles of household members in seaweed farming (e.g., father, mother, son, daughter, etc.). IF GLEANING IS PRACTICED Identify gear used if any IF BUYING AND SELLING OF AQUATIC PRODUCTS PRACTICED Record type (e.g., milkfish fry, fish, seaweed) IF PROCESSING IS PRACTICED Record type of product processed IF FARMING IS PRACTICED Record crops, hectares IF OTHER PRODUCTIVE ACTIVITIES PRACTICED List type and rank of importance LIST ALL ACTIVITIES: FISHING ( ) MILKFISH FRY COLLECTION ( ) GLEANING ( ) SEAWEED FARMING ( ) BUY AND SELL: FISH ( ) MILKFISH FRY ( ) SEAWEED ( ) ________( ) PROCESSING ( ) SPECIFY TYPES________ _________ _________ FARMING ( ) OTHER________________ ________________ RANK ORDER ALL PRODUCTIVE ACTIVITIES PRACTICED IN TERMS OF CONTRIBUTION TO HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND FOOD: 1ST_____________________ 2ND_______________________3RD ______________________ 4TH _____________________ 5TH _______________________6TH ______________________

Proyek Pesisir

-38-


MATERIAL STYLE OF LIFE (HOUSEHOLD WEALTH INDICATOR) HOUSE CONSTRUCTION: HOUSE WALLS: BAMBOO______ WOOD_____ CONCRETE BLOCK____ FLOOR: DIRT_____ CONCRETE______ WOOD_______ TILE_______ ROOF: NIPA_______ TIN________ WOOD________ TILE________ WINDOWS: OPEN____ WOOD SHUTTERS_____ GLASS_________ FACILITIES AND APPLIANCES: ELECTRICITY________ ELECTRIC FAN______ REFRIGERATOR________ COOKSTOVE MODERN (OTHER THAN WOOD OR CHARCOAL)_____ INDOOR TOILET________ PIPED WATER__________ MATCHED LIVINGROOM SET (CHAIRS, SOFA, COFFEE TABLE)________ WOOD OR PLASTIC CHAIRS______ WOODEN BENCHES__________ DISPLAYING CABINET______ CUPBOARD______ RADIO/CASSETT PLAYER_______ VCD PLAYER _____ VIDEO GAME_____ TELEVISION____ SATTELITE DISH_____ IF LAND IS “OWNED/USED” (FOR TALISE, KAHUKU AND AERBANUA ONLY) List type of use and type of ownership

Proyek Pesisir

-39-


INDIVIDAL QUESTIONNAIRE (HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD AND SPOUSE OR OTHER HOUSEHOLD FEMALE) (To be asked of both husband and wife separately)

ATTITUDE QUESTIONS

PART A: BASELNE QUESTIONS 1.

In terms of household well-being are you better off or worse off or the same as you were 5 years ago? Why?. 2. Do you expect your standard of living to be better in 5 years? 3. Some people around Tumbak and Bentenan use bombs for fishing. Why do you think they use bombs? Do you think bombs hurt the ocean?____________________ 4. What are the major problems facing you and your family today? 5. Do you feel that the Bentenan Beach Resort will help, hurt, or have no impact on the people in your village? Why?

For each of the following questions ask the respondent if he/she agrees or disagrees. For either response ask if he/she strongly agrees(disagrees), agrees (disagrees), or just slightly agrees(disagrees). Human activities do not influence the number of fish in the ocean. Strong disagree__ disagree__ slight disagree__ neither__ slight agree__ agree__ strong agree__ Unless mangroves are protected we will not have any small fish to catch Strong disagree__ disagree__ slight disagree__ neither__ slight agree__ agree__ strong agree__ We have to take care of the land and the sea or it will not provide for us in the future. Strong disagree__ disagree__ slight disagree__ neither__ slight agree__ agree__ strong agree__ If we throw our garbage on the beach, the ocean takes it away and it causes no harm. Strong disagree__ disagree__ slight disagree__ neither__ slight agree__ agree__ strong agree__ We do not have to worry about the air and the sea, God will take care of it for us. Strong disagree__ disagree__ slight disagree__ neither__ slight agree__ agree__ strong agree__ If our community works together we will be able to protect our resources. Strong disagree__ disagree__ slight disagree__ neither__ slight agree__ agree__ strong agree__ Fishing would be better if we cleared the coral where the fish hide from us. Strong disagree__ disagree__ slight disagree__ neither__ slight agree__ agree__ strong agree__ Farming in the hills behind the village can have an effect on the fish. Strong disagree__ disagree__ slight disagree__ neither__ slight agree__ agree__ strong agree__ There are so many fish in the ocean that no matter how many we catch, there will always be enough for our needs. Strong disagree__ disagree__ slight disagree__ neither__ slight agree__ agree__ strong agree__ There is a limit to the amount of seaweed farming that can be done in Bentenan. Strong disagree__ disagree__ slight disagree__ neither__ slight agree__ agree__ strong agree__

(for control sites, change the above statement to; “There is a limit to the area of the sea that can be used by the village” (Kawasan laut yang dapat dimanfaat oleh desa ini terbatas.).

Proyek Pesisir

-40-


PART B: LADDER QUESTIONS The following questions involve showing the respondent a ladder-like diagram with 15 steps. The respondent is told that the first step represents the worst possible situation. For example, with respect to coastal resources, the subject would be informed that the first step indicates an area with no fish or other resources, that the water is so foul nothing could live in it. The highest step could be described as a rich, clean water, filled with fish and other wildlife. The subject would then be asked where on this ladder (ruler, scale, whatever is appropriate for the subjects involved) the local area is today (the self-anchoring aspect of the scale). The subject would then be asked to indicate where it was pre-Proyek Pesisir (3 years ago) and where he/she believes it will be 3 years in the future. The step numbers are entered on the form for each time period. 1.

Overall well-being of individual family. TODAY___ 3 YEARS AGO___ 3 YEARS IN THE FUTURE___ The first step indicates a very poor family, without enough food to eat, very little or no furniture in the house, and a very poor house that is too small and doesn't protect one from the weather. The highest step indicates a wealthy family with more than enough food, and a beautifully furnished well built house. 2. Control over resources. TODAY___ 3 YEARS AGO___ 3 YEARS IN THE FUTURE___ The first step indicates a community where the people have no control over access to the community's coastal resources--anyone from anywhere is free to come and fish, gather shellfish, cultivate seaweed, etc. The highest step indicates a community where the people in the community have the right to control (e.g., develop rules) the use of the coastal resources of their community. 3.

Ability to influence community affairs. TODAY___ 3 YEARS AGO___ 3 YEARS IN THE FUTURE___ The first step indicates a community where the people have no influence on community affairs. Things are changed even if community members disagree with the changes, and they have no influence on anything that happens. The highest step indicates a community where all community members can attend meetings, voice their wants and concerns, and influence what happens in the community through popular vote. 4.

Amount of traditionally harvested fish resource in the water. TODAY___ 3 YEARS AGO___ 3 YEARS IN THE FUTURE___ The first step indicates waters with none of the traditionally harvested fish. All the fish are gone. The highest step indicates waters where community members can easily catch all the fish they want.

PART C: PROJECT QUESTIONS 1. 2. 3.

4.

5. 6.

7.

What do you know about proyek pesisir? (project and control villages) Have you participated in any activities sponsored by proyek pesisir? If yes, what? (project villages) Are you aware of any other Proyek Pesisir activities such as meetings, trainings, education programs, CoTs or beach clean-ups, mangrove replanting, etc.? If yes, what? (only project villages) For each activity mentioned in response to the previous two questions: In terms of usefulness for your community, was the activity useful or not useful? If useful, was it a little useful, useful, or very useful? (only project villages) Are you aware of or participated in meetings to discuss village problems and to develop rules, strategies, actions to address problems regarding coastal resources such as coral reefs , mangroves, tourism, sanitation, water supply, coastal erosion and flooding, etc. ? (if mentioned above do not ask this part of the question). For control villages, ask if they are aware of the management plan in the adjacent project village of B-T or Blongko, or Talise. Do you know if the coastal development and management plan has been approved? (project villages only) What kind of rules are associated with the Marine Protected Area? Blongko, Tumbak , Minanga, Sapa, Boyongpante only. In Bentenan, Minanga Boyongpante and Sapa, mention MPA in Blongko or MPA in Tumbak) What is the purpose of the marine sanctuary? Blongko, Tumbak , Minanga, Sapa, Boyongpante only. In Bentenan, Minanga Boyongpante and Sapa, mention MPA in Blongko or MPA in Tumbak)

Proyek Pesisir

-41-


8.

Do you belong to the organization associated with project activities? (use appropriate name for the organization; e.g. planning core group or management committee) If yes, what group? (Project villages)

No, not a member of a group ______ Core group______ Management committee______ MPA management group_____ Environmental management group_____ Monitoring group______ Manta Tow group______ Beach Profiling group______ Mangrove replanting group_______ Crab raising group________ Boat engine group_____ Other (specify)______

PART D: DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS EDUCATION _____yrs SEX____ AGE_____ETHNICITY____________________RELIGION_________

PART E: SPECIAL QUESTIONS FOR SPECIFIC SITES: Bentenan and Tumbak: (Ask these questions only if the household does seaweed farming.) If your household seaweed farms now, were you seaweed farming 3 years ago? (YES / NO) If NO, why did you start seaweed farming? Does time spent seaweed farming mean that you do less other activities? (YES / NO) If YES, what activities do you now do less? Talise: Did you receive a certificate of title recently through the assistance of Proyek Pesirir and BPN? (YES / NO) If YES, how, if any, has this changed your attitudes, behaviors, or way of life?

Proyek Pesisir

-42-


FORMULIR WAWANCARA PENELITIAN PENGARUH PROYEK

Nomor responden : ____ *: lingkari jawaban yang tepat.

1. Desa :___________ Dusun:__________ Tanggal: _________ Pewawancara : __________ 2. Nama responden:_____________________ Umur: ______tahun Jenis Kelamin: _______ 3. Komposisi penghuni rumah: Jumlah orang _________

BAGIAN PERTAMA 3 KEGIATAN PENANGKAPAN IKAN (Ya/Tidak)* 3.1 Perahu pertama, baik milik sendiri ataupun tempat kerja Tipe perahu: ___________________ Ukuran Panjang: ______meter Lebar: ______meter Motor: ____ PK. Jumlah perahu: ______ Milik sendiri: ( Ya / Tidak)* Perahu lainnya (baik milik sendiri maupun tempat bekerja) Tipe perahu: ___________________ Ukuran Panjang: ______meter Lebar: ______meter Motor: ____ PK. Jumlah perahu: ______ Milik sendiri: ( Ya / Tidak)* 3.2 Alat tangkap, baik milik sendiri ataupun milik orang lain Jenis alat tangkapUkuran (panjang, tinggi, dan mata jaring)

Keterangan

a: nama teknis atau nama lokal; 4. KEGIATAN PENANGKAPAN NENER BANDENG (Ya-Tidak)* # Jumlah sere Jumlah sere yang yg digunakan (buah) dimiliki sendiri

Proyek Pesisir

-43-

Keterangan


5. KEGIATAN BUDIDAYA RUMPUT LAUT (Ya-Tidak)* (1 depa = 1,60 meter) Ukuran lahan laut Jumlah Panjang satu tali Yang bekerja tali ris (buah) Ris (meter) (Bentenan & Tumbak saja) Panjang Lebar Lelaki Perempuan (meter) (meter) Dws Ank Dws Ank

6. KEGIATAN MENGUMPUL HASIL LAUT DENGAN TANGAN/ALAT

SEDERHANA (Ya - Tidak)* Jenis alat yang digunakan

Keterangan (Jenis hasil laut yang dikumpul untuk tiap alata)

a: misalnya kerang, teripang, kimah, rumput laut dan lain-lain (sebutkan!). 7.

KEGIATAN BELI-JUAL KOMODITI (Ya - Tidak)* Jenis Komoditi

8. KEGIATAN PENGOLAHAN (Ya-Tidak)* Jenis Komoditi yang diolah

Keterangan

9. KEGIATAN PERTANIAN (Ya-Tidak)* Jenis tanaman Luas lahan (Ha) Milik Sendiri? Ya/Tidak

Proyek Pesisir

Keterangan

-44-

Keterangan


Keterangan

10. KEGIATAN PRODUKTIF LAIN (Ya-Tidak)* Jenis kegiatan lain

Keterangan

misalnya: menangkap ikan hias, ambil karang, turisme, tukang kayu, bikin kapal, guru, pegawai kantor, juga menerima kiriman barang/uang dari keluarganya di luar desa dan lain-lain, sebutkan!) Urutan penting kegiatan di atas (yang tercantum di nomor 10 saja): (1) _____________________________ (2) _____________________________ (3) _____________________________ (4) _____________________________ (5) _____________________________

√

11. DAFTAR KEGIATAN PRODUKTIF ( beri tanda jika dilakukan) Semua kegiatan produktif yang dilakukan rumah-tangga (mulai nomor 3 hingga 10) Tangkap ikan ( ) Tangkap nener ( ) Kumpul hasil laut dengan tangan ( ) Budidaya rumput laut ( ) Beli-jual ikan ( ) Beli-jual nener ( ) Beli-jual rumput laut ( ) Beli-jual komoditi lain-lain ( ) sebutkan: _________________________________________ Pengolahan ( ) Pertanian ( ) Kegiatan produktif lain-lain ( ) sebutkan: _________________________________________

12. TINGKATAN KEGIATAN PRODUKTIF (yang terdaftar di pertanyaan nomor 11 di atas terhadap makanan dan pendapatan penghuni rumah) : Ke-1: ________________________________ Ke-2: ________________________________ Ke-3: ________________________________ Ke-4: ________________________________ Ke-5: ________________________________ Ke-6: ________________________________ Ke-7: ________________________________ Ke-8: ________________________________ Ke-9: ________________________________

Proyek Pesisir

-45-


BAGIAN KEDUA 13. INDIKATOR KEMAKMURAN RUMAH TANGGA 13.1 Keadaan bangunan rumah (Lingkari kondisi yang ada atau terlihat) Bagian Rumah Bahan Bambu

Kayu

Beton

Tanah Nipa Terbuka

Beton Seng Papan

Kayu Kayu Kaca

Bahan Lain

Dinding Lantai Atap Jendela

13.2. Fasilitas dan Perabot yang ada (Lingkari huruf yang sesuai; * garis bawah yang ada) a. b. c. d. e. f.

g. h.

Listrik Kipas Angin Kulkas WC di dalam rumah Air leding pribadi Satu set kursi Tamu Kursi (kayu / plastik/ keramik)* Bangku kayu

i. Lemari Pajangan j. Lemari k. Radio Kaset/CD l. VCD m. Video Game n. Televisi (berwarna / hitam putih)* o. Antena Parabola p. Memasak: (Kompor: Minyak-Gas-Listrik)/ Kayu *

(No. 14 dibawah untuk Talise, Kahuku dan Aerbanua saja)

14. STATUS TANAH 14.1 Tanah yang anda “miliki” digunakan untuk : (pilih dari peruntukan yang ada, jika jawabannya Ya, tanyakan pula status tanah tersebut) a. Perumahan (Ya / Tidak) b. Pertanian (Ya / Tidak) c. Peternakan (Ya / Tidak) d. Tempat usaha Warung, Toko (Ya / Tidak) e. Dan lain-lain_________________________(Tulis kalau ada)

a a a a a

b b b b b

c c c c c

d d d d d

e e e e e

14.2 Keterangan status tanah yang anda garap atau kerjakan. a. b. c. d. e.

Milik sendiri ( Hak milik ) Hak guna pakai ( ada izin ) Hak guna usaha ( ada izin ) Sewa dari lain orang Lain-lain ________________________________( Tuliskan kalau ada )

Proyek Pesisir

-46-


Nomor responden: _____(L - P) BAGIAN KETIGA PENJAJAKAN SIKAP INDIVIDUAL

Nama responden : ___________________

Bagian ini harus ditanyakan secara terpisah pada suami dan istri dari satu rumah tangga responden. Pertanyaan Data Awal

15.1 Dibandingkan dengan 5 tahun yang lalu, apakah ekonomi rumah tangga sekarang merasa lebih baik atau lebih buruk? Jawab: ( Lebih baik / Lebih buruk / Sama-saja / Tidak-tahu )* Mengapa? Alasan: (1) _______________________________________________________________________ (2) _______________________________________________________________________ (3) _______________________________________________________________________ dst. (sebutkan) ______________________________________________________________ 15.2 Dalam 5 tahun ke depan, apakah ada kemungkinan keadaan hidup menjadi lebih baik atau tidak? Jawab: ( Lebih baik / Tidak / Tidak-tahu )*

15.3 Saat ini masih ada sejumlah orang memakai bom untuk menangkap ikan. Menurut Anda, mengapa mereka menggunakan bom? (1) ________________________________________________________________________ (2) ________________________________________________________________________ dst. (sebutkan) _______________________________________________________________ 15.4

Menurut Anda apakah bom itu merusak lingkungan laut? Jawab: ( Ya / Tidak / Tidak tahu )*.

15.5

Masalah-masalah utama apa yang dirasakan paling sulit dihadapi oleh Anda dan keluarga pada saat ini?

(1) ________________________________________________________________________ (2) ________________________________________________________________________ (3) ________________________________________________________________________ (4) ________________________________________________________________________ dst. _____________________________________________________________________

15.6 Menurut Anda apakah dengan adanya BBR (Bentenan Beach Resort) Anda mendapat keuntungan, kerugian atau tidak ada pengaruhnya sama sekali pada masyarakat di desa Anda? Jawab: ( Menguntungkan / Merugikan / Tidak ada pengaruh)*. Mengapa.? Alasan: (1) _______________________________________________________________________ (2) _______________________________________________________________________

(3) _______________________________________________________________________ (4) _______________________________________________________________________ (Untuk no 15.6, BBR diganti dengan Perusahaan Budidaya Mutiara di Talise dan Perusahaan Kelapa di Blongko. Di desa control, tidak menggunakan pertanyaan ini.)

Proyek Pesisir

-47-


Nomor responden: ____(L – P) PENJAJAKAN SIKAP INDIVIDUAL

Nama responden : _____________________

Pertanyaan berikut ini untuk mengetahui apakah responden setuju atau tidak setuju. Apabila responden menjawab salah satu, tanyakan lagi tingkatan rasa setuju atau tidak setuju tersebut. Lingkari satu huruf yang tepat untuk setiap satu pernyataan. 1. Kegiatan manusia di laut tidak mempengaruhi keadaan jumlah ikan di dalam laut: a) Sangat tidak setuju. b) tidak setuju. c) agak tidak setuju. d) tidak tahu. e) agak setuju. f) setuju. g) setuju sekali. 2. Apabila hutan bakau tidak di lindungi maka kita tidak dapat lagi menangkap ikan kecil-kecil. a) Sangat tidak setuju. b) tidak setuju. c) agak tidak setuju. d) tidak tahu. e) agak setuju. f) setuju. g) setuju sekali. 3. Kita harus perduli dan menjaga tanah dan laut, bila tidak maka tanah dan laut tidak akan menyediakan makanan bagi kita di kemudian hari. a)Sangat tidak setuju. b) tidak setuju. c) agak tidak setuju. d) tidak tahu. e) agak setuju f) setuju. g) setuju sekali. 4. Membuang sampah ke pantai, akan dibawah arus ke laut dan tidak akan menimbulkan kerusakan lingkungan laut. a)Sangat tidak setuju. b) tidak setuju. c) agak tidak setuju. d) tidak tahu. e) agak setuju. f) setuju. g) setuju sekali. 5. Kita tidak perlu kuatir mengenai lingkungan udara dan laut, karena Tuhan akan merawat dan menjaganya. a)Sangat tidak setuju. b) tidak setuju. c) agak tidak setuju. d) tidak tahu. e) agak setuju. f) setuju. g) setuju sekali. 6. Apabila ada kerjasama dari masyarakat maka sumberdaya alam di sekitar desa dapat di jaga dan di lindungi. a)Sangat tidak setuju. b) tidak setuju. c) agak tidak setuju. d) tidak tahu. e) agak setuju. f) setuju. g) setuju sekali. 7. Menangkap ikan akan menjadi lebih mudah bila karang tempat hidup ikan di angkat dan di ambil habis. a)Sangat tidak setuju. b) tidak setuju. c) agak tidak setuju. d) tidak tahu. e) agak setuju. f) setuju. g) setuju sekali. 8. Perkebunan di perbukitan di belakang desa dapat mempengaruhi kehidupan ikan. a)Sangat tidak setuju. b) tidak setuju. c) agak tidak setuju. d) tidak tahu. e) agak setuju. f) setuju. g) setuju sekali. 9. Karena begitu banyak ikan di laut, maka berapa pun yang ditangkap, ikan akan tetap tersedia cukup bagi kebutuhan kita. a)Sangat tidak setuju. b) tidak setuju. c) agak tidak setuju. d) tidak tahu. e) agak setuju. f) setuju. g) setuju sekali. 10. Luas budidaya rumput laut yang dapat dilakukan di desa ini terbatas. a)Sangat tidak setuju. b) tidak setuju. c) agak tidak setuju. d) tidak tahu. e) agak setuju. f) setuju. g) setuju sekali. (untuk desa kontrol, pertanyaan No 10 diganti dengan “Kawasan laut yang dapat dimanfaatkan oleh desa ini terbatas”)

Proyek Pesisir

-48-


B. Pertanyaan Berjenjang 1.

Keadaan kehidupan anggota rumah tangga; (Tahap terendah menunjukkan keluarga yang sangat miskin, makanan kurang, tidak ada air bersih, perabot rumah tangga sangat kurang atau tidak ada sama sekali dan rumah yang sangat kecil. Tahap tertinggi menunjukkan keluarga kaya, makanan yang lebih, ada air bersih, perabot rumah tangga dan bangunan yang bagus dan ada mobil) Jawab: Hari ini____ Tiga tahun lalu____ Tiga tahun mendatang____

2.

Pengaturan terhadap penggunaan sumberdaya; (Tahap terendah menunjukkan dimana masyarakat tidak dapat mengontrol setiap orang yang datang dari mana saja ke desa ini dan mengambil ikan dengan bebas, membom ikan, mengumpul kerang-kerangan, berbudidaya rumput laut, dll. Tahap tertinggi menunjukkan masyarakat telah bisa mengontrol penggunaan sumberdaya pesisir di desa ini dengan baik yaitu dengan membuat aturan-aturan dan orang-orang mengikuti aturan yang telah dibuat) Jawab: Hari ini____ Tiga tahun lalu____ Tiga tahun mendatang____

3. Kemampuan untuk mengutarakan pendapat mengenai urusan atau kepentingan masyarakat/desa; (Tahap terendah menunjukkan dimana masyarakat desa ini tidak mempunyai pengaruh dalam urusan masyarakat. Semuanya dapat berubah walaupuan mungkin saja perubahan-perubahan yang terjadi itu tidak dikehendaki oleh masyarakat, masyarakat tidak mempunyai pengaruh/suara terhadap segala hal yang terjadi. Tahap tertinggi menunjukkan dimana masyarakat bisa menghadiri pertemuan, mengutarakan semua keinginan, keprihatinan dan perhatian mayarakat, pendapat masyarakat diperhatikan, dan keputusan yang ada dalam masyarakat mengikuti suara terbanyak ). Jawab: Hari ini____ Tiga tahun lalu____ Tiga tahun mendatang____ 4.

Jumlah (ikan, bia, tripang,dll) yang ditangkap dari laut; (Tahap terendah menunjukkan perairan laut yang tidak ada penangkapan ikan dan tidak terdapat ikan sama sekali. Tahap tertinggi menunjukkan daerah perairan laut di desa ini dimana penduduk dapat menangkap ikan dengan mudah) Jawab: Hari ini____ Tiga tahun lalu____ Tiga tahun mendatang____

BAGIAN KEEMPAT: PERTANYAAN PROYEK 1. Apa yang anda ketahui tentang Proyek Pesisir? (untuk desa proyek dan kontrol) ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 2. Apakah Anda telah berpartisipasi dalam kegiatan-kegiatan yang dilakukan oleh Proyek Pesisir? (Ya / Tidak)* Jika ya, kegiatan apa? (untuk desa proyek) ________________________________________________________________________________ a b c d e ________________________________________________________________________________ a b c d e ________________________________________________________________________________ a b c d e ________________________________________________________________________________ a b c d e ________________________________________________________________________________ a b c d e 3. Apakah Anda mengetahui kegiatan-kegiatan lain seperti rapat atau pertemuan, pendidikan lingkungan hidup, pembersihan bintang laut berduri atau pantai, penanaman bakau, dll yang telah dilakukan oleh Proyek Pesisir? (Ya / Tidak)* Jika ya, apa? (untuk desa proyek) ________________________________________________________________________________ a b c d e ________________________________________________________________________________ a b c d e ________________________________________________________________________________ a b c d e ________________________________________________________________________________ a b c d e ________________________________________________________________________________ a b c d e ________________________________________________________________________________ a b c d e ________________________________________________________________________________ a b c d e

Proyek Pesisir

-49-


(untuk pertanyaan nomor 2 dan 3) Dalam hal manfaat bagi masyarakat, apakah masing-masing dari kegiatan-kegiatan tersebut bermanfaat atau tidak?; (pertanyaan pertama hanya untuk mendapatkan jawaban bermanfaat, tidak tahu dan tidak bermanfaat, apabila jawabannya bermanfaat, tanyakan apakah sangat bermanfaat, bermanfaat atau agak bermanfaat) a. Sangat bermanfaat b. Bermanfaat c. Agak bermanfaat d. Tidak tahu e. Tidak bermanfaat 4. Apakah Anda mengetahui atau mengikuti pertemuan untuk membicarakan masalah lingkungan di desa, membuat penanganan untuk memecahkan masalah yang ada tentang sumberdaya wilayah pesisir seperti terumbu karang bakau, pariwisata, kebersihan lingkungan, air bersih, erosi pantai, banjir, dll untuk desa ini? (Ya / Tidak)* (untuk desa proyek) 5. Apakah Anda tahu bahwa Rencana Pengelolaan dan Pembangunan Sumberdaya Wilayah Pesisir untuk desa ini telah disetujui/ditandatangani? (Ya / Tidak)* (untuk desa proyek dan kontrol) 6. Peraturan-peraturan apa saja (yang dilarang, dibolehkan, sanksi-sanksi, dll) di Daerah Perlindungan Laut (DPL)? (hanya untuk Blongko dan Tumbak, Rumbia, Minanga, Sapa dan Boyongpante) ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 7. Apakah tujuan atau hasil yang diharapkan dengan membuat Daerah Perlindungan Laut (DPL)? ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 8.

Apakah anda termasuk salah satu anggota kelompok yang berhubungan dengan kegiatan Proyek Pesisir? (untuk desa proyek) ___Tidak ___Kelompok pembesaran kepiting ___Kelompok inti ___ Kelompok pengelola bakau ___Badan Pengelola ___Kelompok katinting ___Kelompok Daerah Perlindungan Laut ___Kelompok lain _______________________________ ___Kelompok Lingkungan Hidup ___Kelompok lain _______________________________ ___Kelompok pengawas profil pantai ___Kelompok lain _______________________________

BAGIAN KELIMA: PERTANYAAN DEMOGRAPI Pendidikan terakhir: ___________ Suku _______________________

Proyek Pesisir

Umur: ________tahun Jenis Kelamin: ____________ Agama : ________________________

-50-


PERTANYAAN KHUSUS UNTUK DESA SITES

Bentenan dan Tumbak (Hanya untuk rumah tangga yang melakukan kegiatan penanaman rumput laut) Jika sekarang rumah tangga Anda menanam rumput laut, apakah Anda menanam rumput laut 3 tahun lalu? (Ya/Tidak)* Jika tidak, mengapa Anda mulai menanam rumput laut? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Apakah waktu yang digunakan untuk menanam rumput laut membuat Anda melakukan sedikit kegiatan yang lain? (Ya/Tidak)* Jika ya, kegiatan apa yang Anda kurang lakukan sekarang? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Talise Apakah Anda menerima sertifikat tanah melalui bantuan Proyek Pesisir dan Badan Pertanahan Nasional (BPN)? (Ya/Tidak)* Jika ya, bagaimana hal ini telah merubah sikap, kebiasaan, atau cara hidup Anda? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

Proyek Pesisir

-51-


PETUNJUK UNTUK MENGGUNAKAN FORMULIR WAWANCARA PENELIAN PENGERAU PROYEK UNTUK RUMAH TANGGA MASYARAKAT DI DESA INSTRUCTION FOR ADMINISTERING THE INTERVIEW FORM FOR THE INTERMEDIATE PROJECT IMPACT ASSESSMENT

UMUM GENERAL Formulir wawancara ini dibuat untuk memperoleh keterangan dan seluk-beluk kegiatan produktif yang dilakukan seluruh anggota rumah-tangga (bagian pertama), kondisi rumah dan gaya hidup (bagian kedua) dan untuk mengetahui persepsi/pendapat/ cara pandang/sikap anggota rumah-tangga yang diwakili oleh seorang lelaki dewasa dan seorang wanita dewasa terhadap lingkungan hidup dan sumberdaya alam di sekitarnya (bagian ketiga). Keterangan bagian pertama akan mencerminkan hubungan mereka dan pentingnya sumberdaya alam bagi mereka. Formulir ini terdiri dari satu set pertanyaan untuk satu rumah-tangga dan dua set pertanyaan untuk seorang lelaki dewasa dan seorang perempuan dewasa. This form is designed to obtain information on productive activities carried out by members of a household (‘rumah-tangga’) (section 1), house and life style (section 2), and to discover perceptions of households members represented by one adult male and one adult female (section 3). The section 1 reflects the dependence on and the importance of the natural coastal resources to the households. This form consists of a set of questions for the households and two sets of questions, each for the male and female representatives. ‘RUMAH-TANGGA’ dalam formulir ini diartikan sebagai satu kelompok orang yang bersama-sama bernaung di dalam satu rumah. Definisi ini berarti bahwa siapapun yang berada di dalamnya adalah anggota rumah tangga. Anggota rumah-tangga ini biasanya tercantum dalam KARTU KELUARGA. Rumah-tangga dalam formulir ini TIDAK diartikan sebagai satu unit keluarga yang terdiri satu pasang suami-isteri dan anak-anaknya. Dengan demikian, didalam satu RUMAH-TANGGA bisa terdapat lebih dari satu pasang suami-isteri, sejumlah anak-anak dan keluarga lainnya, ataupun tanpa adanya pasangan suami-isteri. ‘HOUSEHOLD’ in this form is defined as a unit of people that occupy a house. This means that anyone lives in the house is a member of the household. The members of household are usually registered on the household card ~ KARTU KELUARGA. In this form, a household does not necessarily consist of a married couple (husband & wife) and their children. Within a household, therefore, there may be more than one married couple, a number of children and other relatives, or no married couple at all. Dalam studi data awal (baseline study) ini ANGGOTA RUMAH-TANGGA dirinci dalam jumlahorang yang menghuni satu rumah. Seorang anggota rumah-tangga dikelompokkan sebagai dewasa jika ia sudah berusia 17 tahun atau sudah menikah. Seorang anggota rumah-tangga dikelompokkan sebagai anak-anak jika ia berusia kurang dari 17 tahun. Pengelompokan ini dilakukan untuk menghindarkan kesalahpahaman

Proyek Pesisir

-52-


dalam menentukan siapa yang terlibat dalam suatu kegiatan produktif rumah-tangga, karena bisa saja responden yang diwawancarai adalah seorang yang berusia 20 tahun tetapi dia berstatus anak dari sepasang orang yang lebih tua. In this baseline study, members of a households are listed as the number of adult females, adult males, young females (girls) and young males (boys) live in a house. A member is classified an adult if his/her age is more than or equal to 17 years old or has been married. A member is classified young if his/her age is less than 17 years old and not married. This classification is made to avoid confusion, as our respondent can be a person 20 years old who is the son of an older person. In bahasa Indonesia, the term ‘son’ can be mixed up with ‘young boy’. Dalam studi ini, kita tertarik untuk mengetahui kegiatan produktif yang dilakukan oleh seluruh anggota rumahtangga. Kegiatan produktif ini didefinisikan sebagai kegiatan apa saja yang ditujukan untuk menghasilkan pendapatan keluarga maupun sumber pemenuhan kebutuhan konsumsi (makanan). Untuk itu, kita perlu mengetahui informasi teknis dari anggota rumah-tangga yang secara khusus bekerja/terlibat dengan kegiatan produktif yang sedang kita teliti. Sebagai contoh, jika kepala rumah-tangga (seorang lakilaki dewasa) adalah nelayan dan seorang wanita dewasa adalah pengolah ikan dan penjual, kedua-duanya harus diwawancarai secara terpisah menurut kegiatan yang menjadi tanggungjawabnya. Perlu diingat bahwa sesuai dengan tujuannya, kita harus mengetahui bukan saja kegiatan produktif yang dilakukan oleh orang yang sedang kita wawancarai tetapi juga kegiatan produktif yang dilakukan oleh seluruh anggota lain. Dengan demikian, setelah wawancara kita dapat mengetahui kegiatan produktif apa yang dilakukan oleh rumah-tangga tersebut, peralatan apa yang digunakan, siapa pemilik peralatan tersebut dan lain-lain, misalnya jenis komoditi atau jasa yang dilakukan. In our study, we are interested in discovering all productive activities carried out by members of a household. The productive activity is defined as efforts or activities that generate income or food for the household. Therefore, we need to know technical information from persons who are responsible for such activities. For example, if the head of a household (an adult male) is a fisherman who catches scads and indian mackerel and an adult female practices fish trading, we should interview them separately according to type of activity. Please remember that according to our objectives, we have to know productive activities carried out by the person we interview but also we have to know what other members do to generate the income of the household. After the interview, therefore, we will know types of productive activities, tools/equipment used in the activities etc., e.g. products or service they produce. Jika di dalam satu rumah terdapat lebih dari satu pasang suami-isteri, pilih satu pasang yang mewakili rumahtangga untuk diwawancarai. Jangan lupa, kita tidak hanya menanyakan kegiatan produktif orang/pasangan yang diwawancarai, tetapi juga kegiatan anggota lain didalam rumah melalui orang tersebut. Jika tidak ada pasangan suami-isteri, tentukan anggota laki-laki dan wanita dewasa yang dapat mewakili. If within a house there are more than one married couple, select one couple to represent the houshold. Please don’t forget that we ask about productive activities which are carried out not only by the representatives, but also by other members of the household through their representatives. If there is no married couple, select one adult male and one adult female to represent the household.

Proyek Pesisir

-53-


KEGIATAN PRODUKTIF PRODUCTIVE ACTIVITIES Dalam mendapatkan informasi kegiatan produktif yang dilakukan responden dan anggota lainnya, harus ditanyakan apakah ada orang lain di dalam rumah-tangganya melakukan kegiatan produktif seperti yang tercantum dalam formulir (nomor 3 hingga 11). Sebagai contoh, jika mereka tidak mengatakan mengumpulkan kerang atau menangkap ikan, tanyakan apakah mereka pernah melakukannya di pantai untuk keperluan makan. Coba selidiki lebih jauh karena orang cenderung mengabaikan kegiatan yang ditujukan untuk keperluan subsisten (misalnya makan sehari-hari) terutama dalam puncak musim ketika produksi sedang bagus. In discovering the productive activites performed by the respondent and other household members, we should ask him/her if there is someone else in the household performing activities listed in the form (questions number 3 through 11). For example, if they collect mussels or catch table fish, ask him/her if they have ever done it on the coast for their food. Probe because people tend to ignore such subsistence activities, especially during the peak season of production. Kegiatan produktif yang mungkin dilakukan oleh rumah-tangga masyarakt pesisir adalah sebagai berikut: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

Kegiatan penangkapan ikan konsumsi, biasanya berukuran relatif besar; Kegiatan penangkapan nener bandeng; Kegiatan budidaya rumput laut; Kegiatan mengumpulkan hasil laut dengan tangan/alat sederhana; Kegiatan jual beli komoditi; Kegiatan pengolahan komoditi; Kegiatan pertanian atau bercocok-tanam; Kegiatan produktif lainnya.

Productive activities that are probably carried out by housholds in coastal area are as follows: (1) Fishing for table fish; (2) Collection of milkfish fry; (3) Seaweed farming; (4) Gleaning marine biotas using hand/simple tools; (5) Trading marine products or others; (6) Processing marine products or others; (7) Farming or horticulture; (8) Other productive activities. Kegiatan produktif lain meliputi kegiatan penyediaan produk komoditi maupun jasa. Contoh kegiatan lain pertama adalah penangkapan ikan hias, pengumpulan kayu bakau, peternakan mutiara, pertambakan udang, pertambakan ikan, pengumpulan batu karang dan lain-lain. Contoh kegiatan lain kedua adalah sebagai pegawai (negeri/swasta/restoran/buruh) seperti pelayan hotel/restoran, tukang kebun, penjaga keamanan, pemandu wisata, agen biro perjalan dan lain-lain (harap disebutkan), ataupun profesional seperti tukang cukur, tukang kayu, tukang bikin kapal/perahu, montir, guru,

Proyek Pesisir

-54-


dokter dan lain-lain. Aktifitas ini harus merupakan kegiatan yang menghasilkan pendapatan atau makanan. Jika responden atau anggota keluarga lainnya bekerja dalam satu perusahaan/kantor tertentu catat nama majikannya. Kiriman uang/barang konsumsi dari keluarganya di luar desa dianggap sebagai kegiatan produktif karena memilik kontribusi terhadap pendapatan rumah-tangga. Harap ditanyakan kepada responden apah mereka menerima kiriman dari luar. Other productive activities include provision of products and services. Examples of the first type of other activities are collection of ornamental fish, cutting and collection of mangrove woods, pearl culture, prawn farming, fish farming, coral mining, etc. Examples of the second type of other activites are working for someone else in providing service, e.g., public workers, factory labour, hotel/restaurant servant, travel bureau agent, or professionals such as barber, carpenter, boat builder, mechanic, teacher, medical doctor, etc. These activities should generate income. If our respondent or other household members work for someone/factory/office we should know who is his/her boss or the company. Remitance from relatives outside the village should be considered as a productive activity because it generates income for the household. CARA PENGISIAN FORMULIR GUIDANCE TO FILL IN THE FORM Semua pertanyaan harus dijawab; jika jawaban tidak terdapat dalam tempat yang disediakan di dalam formulir (yaitu jawaban kosong) berarti kita kehilangan keterangan. Jawaban angka nol (0) berbeda dari jawaban kosong! Nol menunjukkan kita memiliki data, sedangkan jawaban kosong menunjukkan kita tidak punya data. All questions must be answered; unanswered questions (blank) means that we do not have the information or we do know nothing. An answer of null or zero (0) is different from an unanswered question! Zero indicates that we have an information while an empty space means we do not have the information. Untuk kegiatan budidaya rumput laut, keterlibatan anggota rumah-tangga dalam kegiatan ini dicatat dengan cara merinci berapa orang laki-laki dewasa, perempuan dewasa, anak-anak lelaki dan anak-anak perempuan yang melakukannya. Jika salah satu kategori anggota rumah-tangga tidak terlibat, tuliskan angka nol dalam kolom yang relevan. For seaweed farming, participation of household members should be noted by recording the total number of adult males, adult females, young males and young females involved. If no member category is involved, write down 0 in a relevant column.

Proyek Pesisir

-55-


BAGIAN PERTAMA: KEGIATAN PRODUKTIF RUMAH-TANGGA SECTION 1: PRODUCTIVE ACTIVITES OF HOUSEHOLD Kegiatan penangkapan ikan konsumsi (nomor 3) Fishing – food fish (question no. 3) Kita perlu mengetahui perlengkapan yang digunakan dalam kegiatan penangkapan ikan. Untuk menangkap ikan konsumsi, umumnya nelayan menggunakan perahu/kapal dan alat tangkap. Seluruh perlengkapan yang digunakan ini perlu dicatat, baik milik sendiri maupun milik orang lain. Orang bisa saja menangkap ikan dengan cara bekerja sebagai buruh atau awak kapal milik seorang juragan/pengurus. Jika responden atau anggota rumah-tangganya bekerja sebagai awak kapal milik orang lain, maka tipe, ukuran (panjang & lebar), mesin/motor, dan jumlah perahu serta status pemilikan serta perlengkapannya harus dicatat. Demikian juga dengan alat-tangkap yang digunakan, jenis/tipe dan ukuran. We need to know the gear and equipment used in the fishing activity that is carried out by member of houshold. To catch table fish, fishermen usually use a fishing boat and fishing gear. All equipment/gear used must be recorded as well as whether he/she owns it or not. A person can catch fish by working for someone else as crew member on someone else’s boat. If our respondent or other household members work on someone elses boat, we need to record type of boat, size of boat (length and breadth), its engine, number of boats of the same type they use, boat ownership and its equipment. The same thing must be done for the fishing gear, i.e., type of gear, amount and ownership as well as size of the gear. Harap diingat kembali, bahwa kita bertujuan untuk memperoleh gambaran kegiatan produktif masyarakat di pantai selengkap mungkin. Gunakan logika/daya nalar dan rasa ingin tahu. Misalnya, jika anggota rumah-tangga mengatakan menggunakan soma roa dan paka-paka, tanyakan juga apakah mereka menggunakan alat tangkap jenis lain, misalnya jaring, perangkap, tali pancing. Karena jenis alat tangkap ini sangat beraneka, tanyakan jenisnya atau nama lokalnya (misalnya: igi Ambon, igi kapiting dll.). Jangan lupa mencatat dimensinya. Please remember that our objective is to describe the productive activities performed by the coastal community. Use common sense and develop your curiosity. For example, if a member of household uses soma roa and paka-paka, ask if he/she uses nets, traps or hand-lines. Due to a high variety of fishing gear, please record the type of gear and its local name (for example: igi Ambon, iki kapiting etc.), Do not forget to record its dimension.

Proyek Pesisir

-56-


Keterangan yang perlu diketahui mengenai deskripsi dan dimensi: Details required for description of fishing gear and its dimension Jaring jenis gillnet: catat ukuran mata jaring (stretched mesh-size), panjang total dan dalam total. Jika responden melaporkannya dalam satuan pis (potong, piece), tanyakan ukuran panjang dan dalam setiap jaring serta bagaimana mereka menata/menyusun jaring tersebut. Gillnet: record stretched mesh-size, total length and depth. If respondent gives the dimension in terms of number of net pieces, ask him/her the size of each piece and how the nets are arranged. Jenis seine net (pukat-kantong): catat panjang kantong (meter) dan panjang total (meter) dari keseluruhan pukat (yaitu dari ujung kantong hingga ujung sayap/wing). Seine net: record the length of the bag section and total length of the seine, i.e. distance from the tip of the bag to the tip of the wing. Jenis pukat cincin (purse-seine): catat panjang (meter) dan dalam jaring (meter); Purse-seine: record length and depth of the net. Jenis pancing: Tanyakan apakah jenis hand-line, pole & line, long-line, atau layanglayang. Catat ukuran panjang tali dan jenis/jumlah mata-kailnya. Hook & line: ask the type of hook & line, i.e., hand-line, pole & line, long-line or kite. Jenis perangkap: Catat nama lokal, bentuknya (gambar!), dan ukuran panjang (meter), lebar (meter) dan tinggi (meter). Fish traps: record its local name, the shape (draw it) and dimension (length, width and depth). Jenis sero: Catat jenisnya (misalnya, sero nyare dan sero tanam) dan ukurannya (panjang dan lebar sero). Weir: record its type (eg. sero nyare dan sero tanam) and its size (length and width); Jenis bagan: Catat jenisnya (bagan tancap, bagan perahu). Jika bagan mereka gunakan dibangun dengan bentuk dan ukuran yang seragam tentukan bentuk dan ukurannya sebelum survei dilakukan. Liftnet: record its type (fixed bagan tancap, mobile bagan perahu). If all use bagan of similar construction and size, the description of this gear can be obtained before the survey. Kegiatan penangkapan nener bandeng (nomor 4) Milkfish fry collection (question no. 4) Catat berapa jumlah sere yang dipakai oleh rumah-tangga dan berapa buah yang dimilikinya. Hal terakhir perlu diketahui karena ada kemungkinan bahwa mereka hanya mengoperasikan alat yang dipinjamkan atau milik orang lain. Record how many gears are used by the household and how many of them are owned by the household member. It is possible that they operate gear that is loaned by someone with whom they may have an agreement on selling the fry.

Proyek Pesisir

-57-


Kegiatan budidaya rumput laut (nomor 5) Seaweed farming (question No.5) Catat ukuran luas area laut yang dipakai untuk budidaya rumput laut dengan menanyakan ukuran panjang dan lebarnya. Tanyakan berapa banyak tali ris yang digunakan untuk menggantungkan rumput laut dan berapa panjang masing-masing tali ris (meter). Catat siapa anggota keluarga yang bekerja/terlibat. Record the size of area used for seaweed farming by asking its length and the width, how many lines used to hang the seaweed and length of each line. Record who is involved in the seaweed farming. Kegiatan mengumpulkan hasil laut dengan tangan/alat yang sederhana (nomor 6) Gleaning of marine biotas (question No.6) Catat jenis alat yang digunakan dan tanyakan 5 (lima) jenis hasil laut yang terbanyak diperoleh dari kegiatan ini. Record what gear they use and list the 5 (five) most important biota collected.

Proyek Pesisir

-58-


Kegiatan beli-jual komoditi (nomor 7) Trading activity (question No.7) Bagian ini mencatat kegiatan beli-jual, yaitu dimana anggota keluarga menerima/membeli dari orang lain kemudian menjualnya kepada orang lain. Nelayan yang menangkap ikan lalu menjualnya kepada orang lain tidak dikatakan melakukan kegiatan beli-jual karena dia tidak melakukan pembelian ikan, tetapi hanya menangkap ikan. This section records trading activity, i.e. when household members receive/buy from someone and then sell to someone. Fishermen who catch fish and sell the fish to someone are not considered involved in trading activity. Their activity is only catching fish. Catat jenis komoditi diperdagangkan, misalnya ikan segar, ikan asap, nener bandeng, rumput laut, ikan hias, kelapa, kopra, kayu bakar ataupun kebutuhan rumah-tangga sehari-hari dan lain-lain apa saja yang diperdagangkan. Record everything that is being traded, e.g., fresh fish, smoked fish, milkfish fry, seaweed, ornamental fish, kopra, firewood or other groceries, etc. Kegiatan pengolahan komoditi (nomor 8) Processing (question No.8) Bagian ini mencatat kegiatan pengolahan (processing) komoditi, baik bahan mentah maupun setengah mentah, dimana anggota keluarga mengubah kualitas komoditi menjadi jenis komoditi baru. Jenis komoditi yang diolah dan hasilnya dapat berupa ikan asap, agar-agar, kopra, tepung. This section records processing, either raw material or half processed, in which household members change the quality of a product. The product can be in the form of smoked fish, agar-agar, kopra or flour. Kegiatan pertanian/bercocok tanam (nomor 9) Farming activities (question No.9) Bagian ini mencatat kegiatan pertanian/bercocok tanam di lahan daratan, seperti kebun, ladang, tanah rawa di lingkungan hutan bakau. Catat jenis komoditi yang ditanam, berapa luas lahan untuk masing-masing komoditi atau total luas lahan. This section records agricultural activities on land, e.g., garden, farmland, swamp in mangrove areas. Record type of plants they grow, the size of the area used for farming or total area of the farmland. Record the ownership of the land. Kegiatan Produktif Lainnya (nomor 10) Other productive activities (question No.10) Bagian ini mencatat kegiatan produktif lain yang tidak tercantum dalam kegiatan nomor 3 hingga nomor 9. Dalam bagian ini kegiatan produktif yang langsung memanfaatkan sumberdaya laut dan pesisir harus dicatat. Misalnya kegiatan

Proyek Pesisir

-59-


penangkapan ikan hias, pengumpulan kayu bakau, peternakan mutiara, pertambakan udang, pertambakan ikan, pengumpulan batu karang dan lain-lain. This section records productive activities other than those mentioned in questions number 3 through 9. In this section any productive activity must be recorded. For example, collection of ornamental fish, collection of fire woods from mangrove area, pearl farming, prawn farming, fish farming, coral mining etc.. Khusus untuk bagian ini, kegiatan produktif lain ini diurutkan berdasarkan kepentingannya terhadap pendapatan rumah-tangga. Nomor satu adalah kegiatan yang paling terpenting. The other productive activities listed in this section are then ranked with regard to the degree of importance/contribution to the income of the household. Rank no. 1 is the most important activity. Daftar Kegiatan Produktif (nomor 11) List of Productive Activities (question No.11) Setelah memperoleh jawaban-jawaban untuk setiap nomor pertanyaan, anda harus mendaftar setiap kegiatan produktif yang dilakukan oleh rumah-tangga responden. Berikut adalah contoh daftar kegiatan-kegiatan produktif suatu rumah tangga: Tangkap ikan, tangkap nener, kumpul hasil laut dengan tangan/alat sederhana, budidaya rumput laut, beli-jual ikan, beli jual nener bandeng, beli-jual rumput laut, beli jual kopera Beli jual ikan hias dll. (sebutkan!), pengolahan ikan, pengolahan kelapa, pertanian kopera dll. (sebutkan!), tukang kayu, kiriman uang dll. (sebutkan!). After you get all the answers, you must list of all the productivity activities performed by the household. Here is an example of activities listed: Fishing, milkfish fry collection, seaweed farming, trading fish, trading milkfish fry, trading seaweed, trading kopra, trading ornamental fish and others (list them), fish processing, kopra processing, coconut farming, carpenter, money received from overseas and others (list them). Tingkatan Kegiatan Produktif (nomor 12) Rank of Productive Activities (question No.12) Kegiatan-kegiatan yang terdaftar dalam daftar kegiatan produktif (nomor 11) harus diurutkan menurut kepentingannya/sumbangannya terhadap pendapatan rumahtangga. Nomor 1 (satu) adalah kegiatan yang paling penting, yaitu yang paling besar sumbangannya. Semua kegiatan yang dilakukan tersebut harus diurutkan. Jangan sampai ada yang terlewat! All productive activities listed in question no. 11, must be ranked according to their importance/contribution to the income of the houshold. Ranked no. 1 is the most important activity. All of the activities must be ranked. Don’t miss any of them!

Proyek Pesisir

-60-


BAGIAN KEDUA: KONDISI RUMAH DAN GAYA HIDUP SECTION 2: HOUSE CONDITION AND LIFE STYLE Indikator Kemakmuran Rumah Tangga (nomor 13) Material Style of Life Indicators (No.13) Gunakan logika dalam mencatat jenis-jenis bahan yang dipakai atau peralatan yang digunakan rumah tangga. Anda tidak perlu menanyakan semuanya karena anda dapat mengamatinya (misalnya, kondisi dinding, jendela, lantai, dll. Jangan membuang waktu menanyakan hal-hal yang sudah bisa diamati. Apabila terdapat bagian dari rumah (dinding, lantai, dll.) yang tidak terdaftar, tuliskan dibawah kolom bahan lain. Use common sense when you record building/house materials and house equipment. You do not necessarily ask the respondent because you can observe them directly, such as wall condition, window and floor, etc.). Don’t waste your time by asking something that you can observe. If the material for the part of the house (wall, floor, etc.) is not listed fill it in under other material. Penggunaan Tanah Dan Status Tanah Yang Dimiliki (nomor 14) Land Use and Type of Ownership (question No.14) Pertanyaan ini hanya akan digunakan di Talise, Aerbanua dan Kahuku saja. This question will be used in Talise, Aerbanua and Kahuku only. Untuk memperoleh informasi mengenai status kepemilikan dan penggunaan tanah, pertama tanyakan apakah mereka punya atau menggunakan tanah untuk kegiatan sebagaimana terdaftar dalam pertanyaan nomor 14. Jika mereka menjawab Ya, kemudian diteruskan dengan pertanyaan bagaimana tipe kepemilikan yang mereka punyai. To obtain information concerning the ownership status of land and its use, first ask whether they have or use land for the activities listed in question 14. If they answer yes, then proceed to the following question as to what type of “ownership” they have.

Proyek Pesisir

-61-


BAGIAN KETIGA: PERTANYAAN SIKAP SECTION 3: ATTITUDE QUESTIONS Bagian A: Pertanyaan-Pertanyaan Data Awal Part A: Baseline Questions Kita perlu mengetahui pandangan/sikap wanita dan pria terhadap pemanfaatan dan sifat-sifat sumberdaya alam yang tersedia di kawasan pesisir. Dengan demikian, seorang lelaki dewasa dan seorang wanita dewasa kita minta untuk menjawab sejumlah pertanyaan. Wawancara ini harus dilakukan dalam suasana dimana tidak ada orang lain yang dapat mempengaruhi wawancara. Hal ini berarti lelaki dan perempuan perlu diwawancarai secara terpisah, jika keadaan memungkinkan. Anda disarankan untuk menghindarkan wawancara dalam suasana orang berkerumun karena banyak diantara mereka dapat memberikan respon terhadap pertanyaan. Tujuan kita adalah mengetahui pandangan/sikap perorangan, bukan sikap kelompok. We need to know perceptions of males and females on the use and characteristics of natural coastal resources. Therefore, we need an adult male and adult female for the interview. The interview must be carried out in an environment where no one will affect the process of interviewing. This means that the male and the female must be interviewed separately when possible. You are not encouraged to interview a respondent in a crowd because they may make any response to the questions. Our goal is to discover individual perceptions or attitudes, not group. Enam pertanyaan pertama bagian sikap ini memerlukan perhatian khusus karena kita ingin mengetahui alasan pernyataan yang dibuat oleh responden secara lebih rinci. Alasan bahwa responden merasa bahwa ‘keadaan ekonomi sekarang lebih baik dari lima tahun lalu’ harus digali sebanyak mungkin. Alasan pendek seperti ‘fasilitas umum lebih baik’ atau ‘membantu masyarakat’ atau ‘merugikan’ tidak cukup untuk menjelaskan perasaan tersebut. Usahakan untuk mendapatkan jawaban yang lebih jelas dan khusus, dimana tergambar faktor dan proses yang menyebabkan ia membuat kesimpulan perasaannya tersebut (soal nomor 15.1 dan 15.6). Hal yang sama harus juga dilakukan dalam menanyakan masalah besar yang dihadapi keluarganya (soal nomor 15.5). Misalnya, jawaban pendek seperti ‘penghasilan menurun’ harus dijelaskan apa yang menyebabkan menurun dan bagaimana prosesnya. The first six attitude questions need special attention because we need to know more detailed reasons on statements made by the respondent. When the respondent feels that the economic status of the household is better now than five years ago, the reason must be explored. Reasons expressed in short sentences such as ‘improved public facilities’, ‘being helpful to community’ or ‘disadvantageous’ do not sufficiently explain such reasons. Try to discover answers which describe the factor and process by which the respondent formed her/his opinion (question no. 15.1 and 15.6). The same effort must be made in order to discover the problems faced by the household (question no. 15.5). For example, a short reason of ‘decreased income’ must be explained by asking what made the income drop or how did it happen.

Proyek Pesisir

-62-


Untuk pertanyaan yang memerlukan jawaban setuju dan tidak setuju, sebelum menanyakan pertanyaan sikap, anda perlu mengatakan : “Saya akan membacakan sejumlah pernyataan. Untuk setiap pernyataan yang saya baca, saya ingin mengetahui apakah Bapak/Ibu setuju dengan pernyataan itu”. Jika setelah satu pernyataan dibacakan, tanyakan apakah dia setuju atau tidak setuju atau netral dengan pernyataan tersebut. Jika Ia mengatakan setuju, tanyakan apakah ia sangat setuju, setuju atau agak setuju . Jika mereka mengatakan tidak setuju, tanyakan apakah ia sangat tidak setuju, hanya tidak setuju saja atau agak tidak setuju. Jawaban yang diberikan oleh responden harap dicatat dengan melingkari huruf yang sesuai. With respect to the set of attitude questions that respondent is asked to agree or disagree with, you should introduce the set by saying : “I am going to read you a list of statements. For each statement I read, I want to know if you agree nor disagree with the statements.” After reading a statement, ask if the respondent agrees or disagrees or neither (neutral). If they say agree, ask if they agree strongly, agree, or just agree slightly. If they say disagree, ask if they disagree strongly, simply disagree, or only diasgree a little. Bagian B. Pertanyaan-Pertanyaan Berjenjang Part B: Ladder Questions Pertanyaan-pertanyaan ini dilakukan dengan memperlihatkan kepada responden sebuah diagram seperti tangga dengan 15 langkah. Kepada responden disebutkan bahwa langkah pertama menunjukkan keadaan buruk yang memungkinkan. Misalnya, sehubungan dengan sumberdaya pesisir, subjek yang dapat diinformasikan adalah langkah pertama menunjukkan satu tempat dimana tidak terdapat ikan atau sumberdaya yang lain, air sangat kotor dan tidak ada yang dapat hidup di dalammnya. Langkah tertinggi dapat digambarkan sebagai seseorang yang kaya, air bersih, terdapat ikan yang banyak dan satwa liar yang lain. Subjek selanjutnya dapat ditanyakan dimana dari tingkatan (penggaris, skala, apasaja yang tepat untuk subjek yang dimaksud) daerah di tengah adalah keadaan hari ini (aspek tumpuan dari skala). Subjek selanjutnya dapat ditanyakan untuk menandakan dimana keadaan sebelum proyek pesisir (3 tahun lalu) dan dimana yang ia yakini akan terjadi pada 3 tahun mendatang. Nomor-nomor langkah selanjutnya diisi dalam formulir untuk setiap periode waktu. These questions involve showing the respondent a ladder-like diagram with 15 steps. The respondent is told that the first step represents the worst possible situation. For example, with respect to coastal resources, the subject would be informed that the first step indicates an area with no fish or other resources, that the water is so foul nothing could live in it. The highest step could be described as a rich, clean water, filled with fish and other wildlife. The subject would then be asked where on this ladder (ruler, scale, whatever is appropriate for the subjects involved) the local area is today (the selfanchoring aspect of the scale). The subject would then be asked to indicate where it was pre-Proyek Pesisir (3 years ago) and where he/she believes it will be 3 years in the future. The step numbers are entered on the form for each time period.

Proyek Pesisir

-63-


BAGIAN KEEMPAT: PERTANYAAN-PERTANYAAN PROYEK SECTION 4: PROJECT QUESTIONS Pertanyaan-pertanyaan ini ditanyakan pada desa-desa proyek. Di lokasi-lokasi kontrol responden hanya akan ditanyakan apabila mereka mengetahui kegiatan-kegiatan proyek di desa proyek dan berpartisipasi dalam beberapa kegiatan proyek. Mereka juga akan ditanyakan jika mereka mengetahui tentang recana pengelolaan dan mengatahui peraturan untuk daerah perlindungan laut di lokasi proyek. These questions are asked in the project villages. In the control sites participants will be asked only if they are aware of the project in the other project village and if they have participated in any project activities. They will also be asked if they are aware of the management plans in the adjacent vilage and if they are aware of the rules for the marine protected areas in the project sites.

BAGIAN KELIMA : PERTANYAAN-PERTANYAAN DEMOGRAFI SECTION 6: DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS Akan ditanyakan pada semua responden, lokasi proyek dan lokasi kontrol, kepala rumah tangga dan istri. To be asked of all respondents, project and control sites, head of household and spouse. TERAKHIR, tanyakan pendidikan terakhir yang dialaminya. Jika pendidikan formal yang diikuti tidak selesai, tanyakan sampai kelas berapa. Pertanyaan tentang umur, jenis kelamin, suku dan agama sudah jelas. Periksa formulir, pastikan semua pertanyaan terjawab sebelum diserahkan kepada pengolah/pengkode data. FINALLY, ask if they had any formal education and for how long or the degree they achieved. Their age, sex, ethnicity and religion must also be recorded. Check the form, make sure you have all the questions answered before submitting to the data processor/coder. Selamat melakukan wawancara! Have a nice day!

Proyek Pesisir

-64-


Appendix C ANALYSIS OF PERCEIVED QUALITY OF LIFE AND PROBLEMS (ANALISA PERSEPSI KUALITAS HIDUP DAN MASALAH)

Table C1. Reasons for perceived changes - reason number 1 Blongko 1997 19 15 5 11 24 3 1 1 13 1 5 1 1 0 180

(Alasan untuk perubahan: alasan pertama). Percent Reason (Alasan) Blongko Control Control 2000 1998 2000 37 33 32 Economic 24 6 16 Occupation 12 21 15 Inflation 9 21 7 Other 4 10 7 Resources/environment/weather/crop diseases 4 1 12 Social 4 2 4 Health 4 0 3 Don’t know/no reason 1 0 1 Material style of life 1 1 2 Equipment 0 1 0 Land ownership 0 0 0 Infrastructure 0 0 1 Marketing 0 4 0 Less expenditures 80 100 120 N

Table C2.

Reasons for perceived changes - reason number 2

(Alasan untuk perubahan dikali silang dengan lokasi: alasan kedua ) Percent Reason (Alasan) Blongko Blongko Control Control 1997 2000 1998 2000 17 36 58 39 Economic 30 21 8 17 Inflation 4 14 0 0 Less expenditures 22 7 0 0 Material style of life 0 7 0 4 Equipment 4 7 0 9 Occupation 4 7 33 4 Resources/environment/weather/crop diseases 17 0 0 0 Land ownership 0 0 0 17 Health 0 0 0 4 Marketing 0 0 0 4 Other 23 14 12 23 N Note: Column percent may not sum to 100 due to rounding

Proyek Pesisir

-65-


Table C3. Perceived problems - first reason given Blongko 1997 9 2 6 6 1 23 4 2 13 1 2 0 0 15 15 1 0 0 180

(Anggapan masalah untuk alasan pertama yang diberikan) Percent Reason (Alasan) Blongko Control Control 2000 1998 2000 45 4 50 No problems 15 0 9 Income 9 7 5 Education/educational financing 8 2 1 Infrastructure 6 1 7 Social 4 9 2 Economic 4 7 4 Lack of necessities 4 12 3 Resources/environmental 1 4 0 Material style of life 1 1 6 Health/healthcare 1 0 3 Employment 1 0 0 Land ownership 1 0 4 Marketing 0 2 0 Access to resources 0 0 2 Weather/crop diseases 0 0 3 Other 0 1 0 Don’t know 0 0 1 Equipment 80 100 120 N

Table C4. Perceived problems - second reason given (Anggapan masalah: untuk alasan kedua yang diberikan) Percent Blongko Blongko Control Control Reason (Alasan) 1997 2000 1998 2000 5 29 3 0 Social 2 29 3 25 Income 30 14 25 0 Material style of life 14 14 6 0 Infrastructure 0 14 0 0 Land ownership 21 0 0 0 Access to resources 12 0 41 25 Economic 7 0 6 0 Education/educational financing 5 0 0 0 Weather/crop diseases 4 0 0 0 Other 0 0 9 12 Resources/environmental 0 0 6 0 Employment 0 0 0 25 Lack of necessities 0 0 0 12 Equipment 57 7 32 8 N Note: Column percent may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

Proyek Pesisir

-66-


Table C5. Perceived problems - third reason given (Anggapan masalah: untuk alasan ketiga yang diberikan). Percent* Reason (Alasan) Blongko Blongko Control Control 1997 2000 1998 2000 47 0 0 0 Infrastructure 18 0 0 100 Material style of life 18 0 0 0 Access to resources 12 0 0 0 Education/educational financing 6 0 100 0 Economic 17 0 3 1 N Note: Column percent may sum to more 100 due to rounding

Proyek Pesisir

-67-


Appendix D CHANGES IN PERCEPTIONS OF RESOURCE IMPACTS FROM HUMAN ACTIVITIES (PERSEPSI DARI DAMPAK KEGIATAN MANUSIA TERHADAP SUMBERDAYA ALAM)

Table D1. Mean scale values for Blongko and control villages (Sapa-Boyongpante) (Skala nilai rata-rata di Blongko dan desa control) (Statement Number) Blongko 1997 Blongko 2000

Control 1998

Control 2000

1 6.3 3.7 4.3 3.8 2 6.2 6.3 6.2 6.4 3 6.3 6.2 6.3 6.4 4 4.3 5.4 5.8 5.4 5 5.7 3.8 4.4 3.8 6 5.6 6.2 6.5 6.4 7 5.9 6.5 6.2 6.4 8 5.6 3.9 3.2 3.6 9 2.9 3.1 2.5 2.9 10* 4.4 4.3 5.3 4.1 N 180 80 100 120 * Blongko 2000 data asked this question concerning limits to sea area, Blongko 1997 question asked limits to seaweed farming area. As the statements varied slightly, the data is not fully comparable across these time periods.

Statements corresponding to the number in Tables D1, D2 and D3 are provided below. 1. We have to take care of the land and the sea or it will not provide for us in the future. 2. Fishing would be better if we cleared the coral where the fish hide from us. 3. If our community works together we will be able to protect our resources. 4. Farming in the hills behind the village can have an effect on the fish. 5. If we throw our garbage on the beach, the ocean takes it away and it causes no harm. 6. We do not have to worry about the air and the sea, God will take care of it for us. 7. Unless mangroves are protected we will not have any small fish to catch. 8. There are so many fish in the ocean that no matter how many we catch, there will always be enough for our needs. 9. Human activities do not influence the number of fish in the ocean. 10. There is no limit to the amount of seaweed farming area/sea area in this village.* * For Blongko in 2000, and control sites in 1998 and 2000, this question asked about limits to sea area. For Blongko in 1997 the question asked about limits to seaweed farming area. As the statements varied slightly, the data is not fully comparable across these time periods for Blongko, or between Blongko and control sites in 1997-98.

Proyek Pesisir

-68-


Table D2. Percent distribution of scale values for Blongko (Persentase distribusi skala nilai di Blongko) Statement Number

One Satu 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 2 21 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10* N

Two Dua 0 2 1 22 8 11 20 6 50 24

1997 Scale Value Three Four Tiga Empat 0 1 1 6 1 1 8 27 2 4 2 1 0 11 1 11 1 3 0 23

Mean Five Lima 0 3 61 7 3 14 6 2 1 6

Six Enam 71 49 0 26 50 42 63 58 19 36

Seven Tujuh 28 39 36 9 31 29 19 20 4 8

6.3 6.2 6.3 4.3 5.7 5.6 5.9 5.6 2.9 4.4 180

One Satu 9 0 2 2 6 1 0 4 8 1

Two Dua 40 3 0 19 46 0 1 36 59 22

2000 Scale Value Three Four Five Tiga Empat Lima 1 11 6 0 3 1 0 3 0 0 1 1 1 1 8 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 21 4 1 6 5 5 28 4

Mean Six Enam 30 43 55 49 30 63 43 33 20 39

Seven Tujuh 3 50 40 28 8 34 56 1 1 1

Six Enam 36 52 52 52 36 52 53 24 22 46

Seven Tujuh 2 46 47 25 6 45 45 2 0 1

3.7 6.3 6.2 5.4 3.8 6.2 6.5 3.9 3.1 4.3 80

* Blongko 2000 data asked this question concerning limits to sea area, Blongko 1997 asked limit to seaweed farming area. As statement No. 10 varied slightly between 1997 and 2000, the data is not fully comparable across these time periods.

Table D3. Percent distribution of scale values for control sites (Sapa-Boyongpante) (Persentase distribusi skala nilai di desa control Sapa-Boyongpante) Statement Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 N

One Satu 10 0 0 4 14 0 2 27 34 7

Two Dua 24 1 2 6 28 0 5 22 43 6


Mean Six Enam 21 45 46 41 23 51 33 14 3 31

Seven Tujuh 22 45 46 39 31 49 57 6 10 33

4.3 6.2 6.3 5.8 4.4 6.5 6.2 3.2 2.5 5.3 100

One Satu 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 1

Two Dua 46 1 1 20 51 0 1 47 69 41


Mean

3.8 6.4 6.4 5.4 3.8 6.4 6.4 3.6 2.9 4.1 120

* Control sites in 1997 and 2000 asked limits to sea area. As statement No. 10 for the control sites varied slightly with statement 10 in Blongko in 1997, the data is not fully comparable between controls and Blongko. . Proyek Pesisir

-69-


Appendix E ANALYSIS OF REASONS FOR BOMB FISHING (ANALISA ALASAN PENGGUNAAN BOM UNTUK PENANGKAPAN IKAN) Table E1. Reasons for using the bomb fishing technique - reason number 1 Blongko 1997 9 22 39 15 2 2 8 0 0 1 1 1 180

(Alasan untuk menggunakan bom sebagai teknik menangkap ikan: alasan pertama) Percent Reason (Alasan) Blongko Control Control 2000 1998 2000 35 29 33 Don’t know 34 32 35 Quick and easy way to catch fish 6 19 10 Catch more fish 5 5 7 Cheaper fishing method/more profit 5 1 2 Government/Community do not enforce 5 7 8 Not aware of law/damage to environment 5 5 3 Poor/bad attitudes of bomb fishers 3 0 0 Have knowledge/skill of bombing method 2 1 0 No alternative 0 1 2 Habit 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 Fun/hobby 80 100 120 N

Table E2. Reasons for using the bomb fishing technique - reason number 2 (Alasan untuk menggunakan bom sebagai teknik menangkap ikan: alasan kedua) Percent Blongko Blongko Control Control Reason (Alasan) 1997 2000 1998 2000 5 40 0 0 Habit 21 20 50 36 Quick and easy way to catch fish 26 20 0 0 Catch more fish 11 20 0 9 Government/Community do not enforce 21 0 25 18 Poor/bad attitudes of bomb fishers 11 0 0 18 Cheaper fishing method/more profit 5 0 25 18 Not aware of law/damage to environment 19 5 4 11 N Note: Column percent may not sum to 100 due to rounding

Proyek Pesisir

-70-


Community-Based Coastal Resources Management: An Interim Assessment of the Proyek Pesisir Field Site in Blongko, North Sulawesi, Indonesia

Recommend Documents