International Journal of Innovative Social Sciences & Humanities Research 1 (1): 43-51, 2013 © SEAHI PUBLICATIONS, 2013
www.seahipub.org
ECONOMICS OF HOUSEHOLD ANALYSIS AND INFLUENCE ON POVERTY OF PAYANG FISHERMAN AT MADURA STRAITS *MIMIT Primyastanto, **SOEMARNO, ***Anthon EFANI, & *** MUHAMMAD Sahri *PhD Candidate in School of Fisheries, **School of Agriculture, *** School of Fisheries Brawijaya University, Veteran Street, Malang 65145, Indonesia * E-mail of the corresponding author:
[email protected] ABSTRACT The purposes of this research are to investigate and analyze: (1) Characteristics of Payang fisherman at Madura Strait, (2) factors affecting the fishing income of fisherman household economy, (3) factors that influence expenditures value of fisherman household economy, (4) Opportunity poverty as a result of the factors affecting fisherman poverty. It uses simple random sampling. Samples are fishermen using fisherman at Madura Strait. Research results showed: (1) Fisherman characteristics age is about 39.39% at 41-50 years old, majority fisherman education level is the elementary school level (SD) at 63.64%. Based on experience at sea, about 39.4% of them have 21-30 years experience. Most fisherman family members not more than three people at 54.55%. While the status of fisherman's wives work about 45.45%, (2) factors affecting the fisherman income at sea are education, experience at sea, and engine power, (3) factors affecting household expenditure is number of fisherman family member, (4) factors affecting the poverty opportunity are fisherman age, education, and experience at sea. Older fishermen will have higher poverty opportunity, higher education and experiences of fishermen at sea factors will reduce poverty opportunity of fisherman household. Keywords: income at sea, household expenditure, poverty, Payang fisherman, Madura Strait. INTRODUCTION Indonesia is a maritime country with territorial waters area three times the entire land area. Therefore, Indonesia Country has high fisheries potential. Based on geology, oceanography, and climatology, Indonesia is a very strategic area. (Mimit, 2011a). With this potential, today marine development in Indonesia is directed at resources utilization of marine and seabed as well as utilization functions of national territorial waters, including Exclusive Economic Zone. This is done in a harmonious manner and balanced with respect to marine capacity and sustainability to improve people welfare as well as expand business and employment opportunities (Lailatin et al, 2007). Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (2011), states that Indonesia marine and coastal areas have rich ecosystems such as mangrove forests, coral reefs and seagrass beds. This coastal region has biological and nonbiological resources, artificial resources and ecosystem that have potential in addition to supporting the viability, particularly coastal communities. Fishery potential is very large, namely: 17,510 islands with a coastline of 95 181 km and 70% of Indonesia is sea (Arif, 2008). From economic standpoint, Indonesia geography has a long coastline and marine potential, coastal fisheries and large beach. Basically, it should be able to make a significant contribution to communities living around the vicinity (Department of Marine and Fisheries, 2011). Ecosystems richness potential in this motherland is still not utilized optimally (Stanis, 2005). The wealth should be able to increase Indonesia people welfare, especially the fishermen. Adversely, the Director General of Coastal and Small Island (2000) stated that one coastal problem is prolonged/structural poverty, especially in coastal village / fishing village. As a homogeneous region, it’s not only a coastal fish production center area, but also can be regarded as a region with a population with income levels below poverty line (Agunggunanto, 2011). Fishery resources utilization, particularly
43
Mimit et al... Int. J. Innovative Soc. Sc. & Hum. Res 1 (1): 43-51, 2013 marine fisheries (fishing), is still dominated by people Ok fishing business. Generally, their characteristics are small scale, simple technology applications; capture range is limited around coastal and relatively low productivity (Muhammad, 2002). Generally, fishermen have low productivity due to lack of skills and knowledge as well as fishing gear and boats usage are still modest. Effectiveness and efficiency of fishing gear and other production factors usage is not optimal. These situations affects income received by fishermen and ultimately affect their welfare level (Ginting, 2010). According to Pancasasti (2008), fishery business of traditional fishermen is still dominated by small-scale, simple technology simple, highly influenced by rhythm seasons, and its products are limited only for local consumption. Local traditional fishermen work alone. They catch fish in the sea and not using labor from outside household (Reswati, 1991). Therefore, efforts to improve traditional fishermen households welfare require approaches that pay attention to household decision making pattern (Purwanti , 2010). Fishermen production, affected by seasonal factors and simple technology usage, will affect amount of income earned by the fisherman (Reniati, 1998). Earned income will be allocated to meet all primary and secondary needs, both food and nonfood consumption (Rachman, et al, 2006). However, income received is limited; food and non-food needs in household were also likely to become problems. During dry season, where production is minimal, the income received is very small. Fisherman has a chance to become poor (Karubaba, et al, 2001). The situation is also supported if in a household, income is solely based on one family member. So it can be said that minimal contribution of family members to seek additional income in the household can increase the fisherman poverty chances (Saliem, et al, 2005). This research aims to analyze: (1) Fisherman characteristics with Payang catcher tool in research area. (2) Factors affecting the sailing income of Payang fisherman household economy. (3) Factors affecting the economic household expenditure value of Payang fisherman household economy. (4) Poverty probability due to factors affecting the poor fishermen in the research area RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES Research Approach Research methods used in this the research is descriptive. The reasons for using the descriptive approach are: first to analyze characteristics of respondents (fishermen), second and the third is to analyze the factors affecting fishing income and household expenditure value respectively and fourth to analyze poverty probability (Singarimbun and Effendi, 1989). Research location is selected intentionally (purposively) on Gili Ketapang island, Sumberasih subdistrict, Probolinggo district. Gili Ketapang Island is located in the Madura Strait of East Java (Nazir, 2005). This research was conducted in February-June 2012. This research use simple random sampling technique (Marzuki, 2005). This research uses multiple data collection techniques to obtain in-depth and relevant information. Techniques of data collection were as follows: (1) Interview: This research used interviews on research object, employer fishermen families. Interviews with respondents assisted by questionnaire given directly by researchers and exploring in-depth information in order to obtain appropriate results. Researchers directed respondents to provide answers to questions according to questionnaire. (2) Observation: This research technique observes the economic behavior of employer fishermen households, either directly or indirectly. (3) Documentation: A documentation technique is used to collect data through documents or archives related to research. The document can be used as evidence for an investigation. Types and Sources of Data a. Primary Data Primary data in this research was collected through interviews with fishermen and the instruments used are questionnaires. With this interview the researchers were expected to get relevant and accurate data in accordance with research objectives.
44
Mimit et al.... Int. J. Innovative Soc. Sc. & Hum. Res 1 (1): 43-51, 2013 b. Secondary Data Secondary data required in this research were obtained Ok from: (1) Agencies Survey, agency survey carried out on agencies related to research as Department of Marine and Fisheries Probolinggo, Gili Ketapang Island Village Office and Central Statistics Bureau of Probolinggo. (2) Literature study, as reports of previous research results, literature study from internet browsing, and data or number of fish catcher tool used. Data Analysis Method a. Qualitative Analysis Qualitative analysis was used to answer first the objective, which describes employer fishermen characteristics with Payang catcher tool. b. Quantitative Analysis Factors Affecting Fishermen Sailing Income Factors affecting fishermen sailing income were estimated by linear regression model (Solomon, 2004) as follows: PDM = β0 + â1UN + â2PDD + â3PM + â4JAK + â5ASK + â6DM + â7CKM + Description: PDM: Sailing income (Rp / year), UN: Fishermen age (yr), PDD: Education (yr), PM: Sailing Experience (yr), JAK : Number of family members (People), ASK : asset value of boats and fishing tool (Rp), DM : Power machines (PK), CKM: Outpouring of sailing work (HOK) Factors Affecting Fishermen Household Expenditures Factors affecting household expenditure were estimated by linear regression models (Rohmadi, 2010) as follows: PRT = β0 + â1JAK + â2PDD + â3UN + â4PDM + Description: PRT: Household expenditure (Rp / Year), JAK: Number of family members (People), PDD : Education (yr), UN: Age (yr), PDM: Sailing income (Rp / year). Factors Affecting Fishermen Poverty Probability Factors affecting fishermen poverty probability was analyzed with logit models (Nachrowi and Usman, 2002) as follows: Li = Ln = + ui Where: D: 1 = wife work, D: 0 = wife does not work RESULTS Respondents Fishermen Characteristics Fishermen respondents’ characteristics with highest age range 41-50 were 39.39%. Associated with the productive age group, average age of fishermen respondents included in productive age (between 15-65 years of productive life). Age group is the age group with potential to work as a labor (Maryam, et al, 2012). Education level of most fishermen household respondent was elementary school, with a number 63.64%. Not all fishermen graduated from elementary school. Some respondents go to school until grade 4 or grade 5. Money shortage factor may have frequently been a major problem at that time. In addition, interviews with respondents indicated that education is not the main thing. For them, working to meet needs is more important (Purnomo, 1991). Their motivation to continue their education to higher level is still very low.
45
Mimit et al... Int. J. Innovative Soc. Sc. & Hum. Res 1 (1): 43-51, 2013 Ok
Sailing experience in fisheries sector is important for fishermen. This experience provides sailing expertise and skills that become measure on how fishermen earn money (Manurung, 1983). Fishermen also use the experience to know the weaknesses and shortcomings as well as new opportunities for their profession. The more the fishermen experience, the easier they find a fishing ground. Most fishermen have experience to catch fish within the range of 21-30 years, with value of 39.4%. It is not short time experience. Under these conditions, it can be concluded that community in location research has long relied on fisheries sector. Numbers of family members included are heads of families, wives, and children who live under same roof and eating from same kitchen. The average family members that were not more than three people are 54.55%. It can be concluded that average respondents are small family. From 33 respondents’ survey, approximately 45.45% wives of fishermen respondents have a supplementary job to supplement household income. Ship assets in this research include catcher tool and vessel price for fishing activities. Fishing catcher tool prices around 2,000,000 rupiah. The vessel price is range of 5 to 18 million. Fish catcher tool and vessels used by fishermen is obtained from purchasing, both secondhand and new. Boat engine power used for fishing activities by Payang fishermen in Gili Ketapang Island ranging from 12 to 23 PK. The vessel engine was derived from purchasing, without any assistance or loans from local governments and stakeholders. Catching fish activity in Gili Island is the main subsistence for local communities. From research observation, there is no alternative employment for Payang fishermen. If catching fish is main subsistence, the only income obtained is from catching fish (Mimit. P. et al, 2013). Fishermen household expenditure in this research can be divided into two parts, namely basic consumption expenditure for food and non-staple food consumption (Maleha, 2008). Most fishermen household consumption expenditure is allocated to meet food needs. About 80.7% of total expenditure is used to meet basic needs of food for fishermen on Gili Island, while the rest is used for non-food basic needs. Fishermen Household Economic Analysis Fishermen Working Devotion to Sail Results showed respondent fishermen with Payang catcher tool averagely devotes their time to sail activities and do not have alternative employment than sailing. Sailing is their main source of income to meet household needs. When there is a bad season, fishermen who use payang catcher tool will switch to use fishhook or becoming Pandega at purse seiner or cantrang ship. Fishermen who use payang catcher tool sail only once in a day. In other words, fishermen who use payang catcher tool is one day operating fishermen that operate in Gili island coastal (Sukandar, et al, 2004). Payang catcher tool is well-known in almost all Indonesia's marine fisheries. The existence for Indonesian marine fisheries still remains important until to day, both from productivity and employment. Simple and traditional construction of payang catcher tool still allows fishermen to operate the tool (Mimit., 2011b) Household Income of Fisherman’s Wife Fisherman's wife adds household income by processing majority fish catching, as fish drying, fish merchants, paving the grocery store, become a tailor, and became laborers in processing business. From 33 respondents, approximately 45% fishermen wives are working. According to Barnum and Lyn Squire, (1979), a farm household provides the conceptual framework underlying this analysis. The household determines the levels of consumption of broad categories of goods, including leisure, that will provide maximum satisfaction to household members and these are possibly subject to the availability of family income (part of which is farm profits) and time. Factors Affecting the Sailing Income of Fishermen Household Regression models on factors affecting sailing income was estimated by following equation: LnPDM = 18,01 – 0,99LnUN + 2,05LnPDD + 0,79LnPM – 0,27LnJAK + 0,09LnASK + 1,76LnDM – 1,08LnCKM
46
Mimit et al... Int. J. Innovative Soc. Sc. & Hum. Res 1 (1): 43-51, 2013 1 (1): 31-39, 2013 Partially, t value result of t test showed that independent variables significantly affect sailing income. Here are independent variables with a significant effect. Ok Table 1. Regression Results of Factors Affecting Fishermen Household Sailing Income (PDM) Variables Coef. Sig. t UN -0.990 0.31 -1.03 PDD 2.050 0.00 3.66*** PM 0.795 0.01 2.67*** JAK -0.272 0.64 -0.47 ASK 0.098 0.89 0.15 DM 1.760 0.05 2.10** CKM -1.082 0.39 -0.88 Constant 18.01 F 4.08 0.00 Education level of fishermen Education variable coefficient is 2.05. It means 1% increase in fishermen education will increase incomes by 2.05%, cateris paribus. It can be concluded if fishermen education is higher, in this case formal and non-formal education such as vocational training or education fisheries technology; the fish catch increased thereby increasing fishermen income (Ilyas, 1991). Sailing experience Sailing experience variable coefficient is 0.79. It means 1% increase in sailing experience will increase income by 0.79%, cateris paribus. It can be concluded that the more fishing sailing experience, the easier to find fishing ground. Fishermen will increase their catch and increase their income (Mimit. , 2012). Machines Power Machine power variable coefficient is 1.76 and positive. It means that 1% increase in machine power will increase income by 1.76%, cateris paribus. The higher ship machine power, the faster to find fishing ground than low machine power boats. Fishermen will get more fish and incomes will increase (Mimit, 2011c). Factors Affecting Fishermen Household Expenditure Value Multiple linear regression models of factors affecting the consumption expenditure at Gili islands fishermen are follows: LnPRT = 13,52 + 0,65LnJAK – 0,04PDD + 0,29LnUN + 0,09LnPDM Partially, t value from t test shows that independent variables significantly affect consumption expenditure value. Here are independent variables with significant effect. Table 2. Regression Results of the Factors Affecting Fishermen Household Expenditure (PRT) Variables Coef. Sig. t UN 0.290 0.38 1,32 PDD -0.102 0.59 0,37 PDM 0.091 0.12 0,79 JAK 0.648 0.00 2,69*** Constant 13.52 F 3.80 0.01
47
Mimit et al.. Int. J. Innovative Soc. Sc. & Hum. Res 1 (1): 43-51, 2013 Family Members Number Family size variable coefficient is 0.65. Every additional Ok member to the family would increase expenditure by 0.65%, cateris paribus. It can be concluded that if the number of family members increases, total household consumption expenditure will increase (Herman, 1986). Factors Affecting Poverty Probability at Fishermen Household Logit models used to analyze the factors affecting fishermen poverty probability are: Li = Ln = + ui Statistically, age variable has a positive and significant effect on fishermen poverty probability. It means the older the fisherman, the higher fishermen poverty probability. Exp (B) value indicates if fisherman age increased one year, then it is likely to create poverty by 1.32 times, cateris paribus. Education variables obtain negative sign. It means the higher education then the lower fishermen poverty probability. Exp (B) value result of regression is 0.37. It means fishermen with 1 year higher education will have 0.37 smaller poverty probabilities, cateris paribus. Furthermore, sailing experience variable statistically has significant effect, with α = 10%. Parameter on this variable is negative. It means the more fishermen experience, the lower fishermen poverty probability. Fishermen experience in sailing will affect their fish catching. If the experience increases by one year, then 0.79 times more likely lower to fishermen poverty probability, cateris paribus. Family members number statistically does not have significant effect at α = 5% or α = 10%. Regression results indicate the number of family members’ variable is positive. It means the larger family size, the higher the chances of fishing households in poverty. If a family member increases 1 unit (person) then fishermen poverty probability will 2.69 times greater, cateris paribus. According to Bandyopadhyay and Skoufias, (2013), the occupational and sectoral choices of millions of rural households in developing countries are important determinants of economic growth. Considering that both push and pull factors contribute to the decisions of households to allocate labor between activities on-farm and off-farm, it is necessary to have a better understanding of which of these two factors plays amore important role in the observed choices of households and their members. Asset variable, strength or power of boat engine, does not have significant effect. Regression results indicate that asset variable has a negative sign of engine power. It mean, the greater engine power used for sailing activities, the smaller fishermen poverty probability. Exp (B) value shows fisherman who has 1 unit (PK) bigger engine will have 0.54 times smaller fishermen poverty probability, cateris paribus. According to Reardon, et al, (2006), in areas with poor agroclimate conditions, risky agriculture, and no insurance markets, non farm activities allow households to cope, with severe downturns in agricultural productivity Household expenditure variables statistically expected does not effect on fishermen poverty probability (Sahdan, 2005). The following variable parameter is positive. It means the larger the household expenditure, the greater fishermen poverty probability. Exp (B) value is 1:03. It means high or low household expenditure has same poverty probability, cateris paribus. The last variable is fisherman’s wife status. Parameter for wife status variable is negative. It means that wife working will reduce fishermen poverty probability. Exp (B) value is 0.13. It means working wife will contribute to reducing fishermen poverty probability by 0.13 times than not working, cateris paribus (Nazir, 2005).
48
Mimit et al... ... Int. J. Innovative Soc. Sc. & Hum. Res 1 (1): 43-51, 2013 Table 3. Regression Results the Factors Affecting Fishermen Household Poverty Probability. Variables B Sig Exp (B) (P) UN 0,275 0,07* 1,32 PDD -1,005 0,02** 0,37 PM -0,239 0,09* 0,79 JAK 0,988 0,41 2,69 DM -0,610 0,18 0,54 PRT 0,027 0,77 1,03 Dummy -2,014 0,35 0,13 Constant 0,662 0,96 1,94 Description: UN: Age Fishermen, PDD: Education, PM: Experience, JAK:Number of Family Members, DM: Power Machines, PRT : Household Spending, Dummy: Wife Variable, *** Sig = 1%, ** Sig = 5%, * Sig = 10 %
DISCUSSION Fishermen characteristics with payang catcher tool mostly aged 41-50, with a number 39.39%. Most fishermen education level is elementary school level (SD), with amount of 63.64%, years of sailing experience is 21-30, with a number of 39.4%, and predominantly fishermen family members are not more than three people with the value of about 54.55%. Factors that statistically have significant effect on sailing income are fishermen education, experience, and engine power. While the factor that statistically has significant effect on household spending is family member number. Factors affecting fishermen poverty probability are age, fishermen education as head of family, and sailing experience. Local governments need to pursue formal education institutions with fisheries major and marine skills such as SMK. Department of Marine and Fisheries also should provide assistance like ship's engine production assets that can be distributed through a fishermen group created through credit at an affordable price. Coaching or improving human resources is given to women role to empower fishermen households economic associated with women contribution to household incomes through product diversification of fishery processing activity or non fishery activity, for example marine tourism sector development in creating a MAP or Alternative Subsistence. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The authors are grateful to Soemarno, Efani A. Muhammad S. an anonymous referee for constructive comments. The authors would like to thank all those who have contributed, either directly or indirectly, in writing this article until finished. REFERENCES Agunggunanto, Y.Edy. (2011) Analisis Kemiskinan dan Pendapatan Keluarga Nelayan Kasus Di Kecamatan Wedung Kabupaten Demak, Jawa Tengah, Indonesia. Undip. Semarang. Arif, Ainul . (2008) Pengaturan Hukum Dalam Mewujudkan Pengolahan Wilayah Pesisir Yang Berbasis Masyarakat Di Kabupaten Rembang. Undip Semarang. Barnum H.N, and Lyn Squire, (1979) A Model of an Agricultural Household (Theory and Evidence). Published for the World Bank. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore and London. Bandyopadhyay. S and E. Skoufias, (2013). Rainfall variability, occupational choice and welfare in rural Bangladesh. Springer Science + Business Media. Newyork. Published online : 08 June 2013. Rev Econ Household DOI 10.1007/s 11150-013-9203.
49
Mimit et al... Int. J. Innovative Soc. Sc. & Hum. Res 1 (1): 43-51, 2013 Dinas Kelautan dan Perikanan, (2011) Profil Pulau Gili Ketapang Kabupaten Probolinggo. Pemerintah Kabupaten Probolinggo Dinas Kelautan dan Perikanan. Probolinggo. Ginting, (2010) Himpunan Ahli Pengelolaan Pesisir Indonesia (HAPPI). Organisasi dan Pengembangan SDM HAPPI. Hermanto, (1986) Analisis Pendapatan dan Pencurahan Tenaga Kerja Nelayan di Desa Pantai Studi Kasus di Muncar Banyuwangi. Pusat Penelitian Agroekonomi. Badan Penelitian dan Pengembangan Pertanian. Jakarta. Ilyas,S. (1991) Meningkatkan Produktivitas Nelayan Tradisional, makalah disampaikan pada pertemuan Tim Ahli Bimas Departemen Pertanian. Jakarta. Karubaba, C.T. ,D.G Bengen danV.P.H. Nikijuluw, (2001) Kajian Pemenuhan Kebutuhan Pangan Nelayan Pada Musim Timur dan Musim Barat, Kaitannya dengan Pemanfaatan Sumberdaya Pesisir. Artikel Jurnal Pesisir dan lautan Vol.3 No.3 tahun 2001. Kementerian Kelautan Dan Perikanan. (2011) Kondisi Sosial Ekonomi Rumahtangga Nelayan. Jakarta. Lailatin F, Mimit .P dan OS. Darmawan, 2007. Analisis Bioekonomi Model Gordon Schaefer Sumberdaya Ikan Lemuru di Perairan Selat Bali. Fakultas Perikanan. Universitas Brawijaya. Malang. Manurung ,V.T. (1983) Suatu Tinjauan Kriteria Nelayan Kecil dan Masalah Pembiayaannya di Jawa Timur dalam Proceeding Workshop Sosial Ekonomi Perikanan Indonesia. Pusat Penelitian dan Pengembangan Perikanan Departemen Pertanian Jakarta. Maleha, (2008) Perilaku Rumahtangga Petani Dalam Pencapaian Ketahanan Pangan. PPS Fakultas Pertanian Universitas Brawijaya, Malang. Disertasi. Marzuki, (2005) Metodologi Riset. Fakultas Ekonomi , Universitas Islam Indonesia. Yogyakarta. Maryam, H.Nuddin, dan Mimit. P, 2012. Analisis Ekonomi Rumahtangga dan Peluang Kemiskinan Nelayan Payang. FPIK UB. Malang. Muhammad, Sahri. (2002) Ekonomi Rumahtangga dan Pemanfaatan Sumberdaya Perikanan Di Jawa Timur: Suatu Analisis Simulasi Kebijakan. Disertasi. IPB. Bogor. Nazir, M. 2005) Metodologi Penelitian. Cetakan Kelima. Ghalia Indonesia. Jakarta. Nachrowi,N.D. Hardius dan Usman, 2002. Penggunaan Teknik Ekonometri : Pendekatan Populer dan Praktis Dilengkapi Tekhnik Analisis dan Pengolahan Data dengan Menggunakan Paket Program SPSS. Radja Grafindo Persada. Jakarta. Mimit .P, 2011a. Pengelolaan Sumberdaya Ikan (SDI) Berkelanjutan : Pendekatan Bioekonomi. Buku. ISBN : 978-602-8624-93-0. Program Pasca Sarjana. Univ. Brawijaya, Malang. Mimit .P, 2011b. Rekayasa Model Ekonomi Statis Pada Sumberdaya Ikan di Perairan Selat Madura. Proceedings Interdiciplinary Studies Seminar I. ISBN : 978-602-8624-90-9.PPS-UB. Malang. Mimit .P, 2011c. Kebijakan Perikanan Lebih Tangkap. Buku. Program Pasca Sarjana, Universitas Brawijaya. ISBN : 978-602-8624-94-7. Malang. Mimit .P,, 2012. Policy (Kebijakan) Pengelolaan SDI (Sumberdaya Ikan) Pada Perikanan Over Fishing (Lebih Tangkap) . UB Press. ISBN : 978-602-203-163-5.Cetakan 1 Juli 2012 Mimit .P,,Soemarno, Efani A. and Muhammad. S. 2013. Fisheries Resources Management by Empowering the Local Wisdom in Madura Straits. Research on Humanities and Social Sciences. IISTE Jornal. ISSN 2222-2863 (Oneline). Vol.3, No.6, p : 13-21. Purwanti, Pudji. 2010. Model Ekonomi Rumahtangga Nelayan dan Ketahanan Pangan. Brawijaya University Press. Malang. Purwono.G.S. 1991. Alokasi Waktu dan Produktivitas Nelayan di kecamatan Puger Kabupaten Jember, FPS UGM , Yogyakarta. Thesis.
50
Mimit et al... Int. J. Innovative Soc. Sc. & Hum. Res 1 (1): 43-51, 2013 Pancasasti, Ranthy. 2008. Analisis Perilaku Ekonomi Rumahtangga Dan Peluang Kemiskinan Nelayan Tradisional (Studi Kasus: Rumahtangga Tradisional Di Kecamatan Kaseman Kabupaten Serang Propinsi Banten. Rachman, HPS, TB Purwantini, dan Y. Marisa, 2006. Prospek Diversifikasi Usaha Rumahtangga dalam Mendukung Ketahanan Pangan dan Penanggulangan Kemiskinan. Forum Penelitian Agroekonomi Vol. 24 No.1 Juli 2006. Reniati, 1998. Faktor-faktor yang Mempengaruhi dan Keterkaitan Keputusan Kerja Produksidan Pengeluaran Rumahtangga Nelayan. PPS. IPB. Bogor. Reardon, T., Berdegue- , Julio, Barret, Christopher B., and Stamoulis, Kostas, 2006. Husehold income diversification in to rural non farm activities. In Steven Hagg blade, Peter Hazell, and Thomas Reardon (Eds), Transforming the rural non farm economy. Baltimore : John Hopkins University Press. Reswati, (1991) Pemanfaatan Tenaga Kerja dalam Keluarga sebagai Usaha Peningkatan Pendapatan Nelayan di Ketapang Kabupaten Lampung Selatan, Journal Penelitian Perikanan Laut no. 60. Jakarta. Reniati, (1998) Faktor-faktor yang Mempengaruhi dan Keterkaitan Keputusan Kerja Produksidan Pengeluaran Rumahtangga Nelayan. PPS. IPB. Bogor. Rohmadi, (2010) Ekonomi Rumahtangga Nelayan Payang. IPB. Bogor. Sahdan, G. (2005) Menanggulangi Kemiskinan Desa. Artikel Ekonomi Rakyat dan Kemiskinan. Jurnal Ekonomi Rakyat. Saliem HP, H. Mayrowani, Sumaryanto, G.S. Hardono, TB Purwantini, D. Hidayat dan Y. Marisa, (2005) Analisis Diversifikasi Usaha Rumahtangga dalam Mendukung Ketahanan Pangan dan Penanggulangan Kemiskinan. Pusat Penelitian dan Pengembangan Sosial Ekonomi Pertanian. Badan Penelitian dan Pengembangan Pertanian Departemen Pertanian Jakarta. Stanis, Stevanus. (2005) Pengelolaan Sumberdaya Pesisir Dan Melaut Melalui Pemberdayaan Kearifan Lokal Di Kabupaten Lembata Propinsi Nusa Tenggara Timur. Undip. Semarang. Sulaiman, (2010) Model Alternatif Pengelolaan Perikanan Berbasis Hukum Adat Laot Di Kabupaten Aceh Jaya Menuju Keberlanjutan Lingkungan yang Berorientasi Kesejahteraan Masyarakat.Undip. Semarang. Sukandar, Martinus dan J. Alfan. (2004) Diktat Matakuliah Manajemen Perikanan Tangkap. Fakultas perikanan dan Ilmu Kelautan. Universitas Brawijaya. Malang. Sutoyo, (2005) Kajian Ekonomi Rumahtangga Nelayan Kecil Pada Program Pemberdayaan Pengelolaan Sumberdaya Berbasis Komunitas (PSBK). Kasus di Muncar Banyuwangi). PPS Unibraw. Malang.
51
