at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Ocean & Coastal Management 73 (2013) 101e112
Contents lists available
Ocean & Coastal Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ocecoaman
Attitudes and perceptions of villagers toward community-basedmariculture in Minahasa, North Sulawesi, Indonesia
Liesa-Marlena von Essen*, Sebastian C.A. Ferse 1, Marion Glaser 2, Andreas Kunzmann 3
Leibniz Center for Tropical Marine Ecology (ZMT) GmbH, Fahrenheitstr. 6, 28359 Bremen, Germany
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:Available online 5 January 2013
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ49 421 68474343; faE-mail addresses: [email protected] (L.-M.
zmt-bremen.de (S.C.A. Ferse), [email protected]@zmt-bremen.de (A. Kunzmann).
1 Tel.: þ49 421 2380028; fax: þ49 421 2380030.2 Tel.: þ49 421 2380066; fax: þ49 421 2380030.3 Tel.: þ49 421 2380026; fax: þ49 421 2380030.
0964-5691/$ e see front matter � 2013 Elsevier Ltd.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2012.12.012
a b s t r a c t
This study assesses how characteristics of individuals (e.g. preparedness to take risks), households (e.g.employment structure) and communities (e.g. distribution of resources) affect the chances thatmaricultureis successfully adopted as an alternative tofisheries. An increasing number of coastal households in tropicalcountries see their livelihoods endangeredby decliningfisheries catches. Acceptable livelihood alternativesare needed to reduce the pressure on the marine environment. Indonesian coastal communities do notalways depend exclusively on fishing but often diversify their livelihood portfolios, whichmakes livelihoodprograms a relevant policy intervention for them. Sea cucumber mariculture is increasingly advocated inIndonesian coastal management. Using semi-structured interviews, focus groups, and non-participantobservation, current livelihoods and the attitudes toward the possibility of sea cucumber mariculture ac-tivities were assessed in two coastal villages in North Sulawesi, Indonesia. Respondents stated a high in-terest in alternative livelihoods. At the same time, non-economic factors such as tradition and personalgratification played an important role in decisions on whether to fish or not. Villagers’ attitudes wereinfluenced by fishery-related experiences, perceptions and understandings, as well as by previous expe-rienceswith alternative livelihoodprograms. The results suggest that it is easier to turnpeoplewith farmingexperience into aquaculturists thanpeoplewho are highly focused on fishing.Moreover, the indications arethat sea cucumbermariculture would remain an additional source of income rather than replace fishing. Inthe study area, mariculture is still an unfamiliar activity, not yet sufficiently trusted to generatewillingnessto invest. Villagers’ general acceptance of non-fishing income alternatives will need to be promoted iflivelihood alternatives are to be successful in reducing pressure on marine resources.
� 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
1.1. Marine resource use and the need for an alternative
Population growth and socio-economic development are fuelingan increasing demand for fishery and aquaculture products all overthe world. This rise in demand has led to increasing pressures onmarine ecosystems, and has also contributed to accelerating deg-radation and exploitation of ecosystems in Indonesia (Dutton, 2005;Burke et al., 2011). Indonesia is the largest archipelagic nation in theworld, consisting of approximately 17,000 islands and a population
x: þ49 421 2380030.von Essen), [email protected] (M. Glaser),
All rights reserved.
of around 237 mio people, the majority of which is stronglydependent on marine resources (Dahuri and Dutton, 2000; BadanPusat Statistik, 2010). Frequently, coastal households diversifytheir livelihood into different income sources, e.g. agriculture orconstruction (Allison, 2009). Furthermore, due to a progressivedecline of catches, an increasing number of households in Indo-nesian coastal communities have difficulties in meeting their live-lihoods by relying on fishing only (Hanson et al., 2003; Dutton,2005). The current situation was largely caused by the intro-duction of destructive fishingmethods (dynamite, poison and largernets with small mesh-sizes) in fishing communities over the pastdecades (Freytag and Kunzmann, 2009). Unfortunately, there arestill many fishermen in Indonesia who continue to use destructivefishingmethods (Dutton, 2005). Overfishing and destructive fishingnowadays poses the single most important threat to reefs in theregion, with over 60% of the coral reefs in Southeast Asia at highrisk from these activities (Burke et al., 2011). Successful marineconservation thus calls for the provision of livelihood alternativesthat are readily accepted by coastal communities and that reduce
Fig. 1. Map of the Likupang area in North Minahasa Regency.
L.-M. von Essen et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 73 (2013) 101e112102
the pressure on the marine environment. Marine aquaculture (alsocalled mariculture) is increasingly advocated as such an alternative(e.g. Haylor, 2004; Pet-Soede, 2003; Priyambodo and Sarifin, 2009;Sievanen et al., 2005).
1.2. Sea cucumber mariculture
Indonesia is the main exporter of sea cucumbers in the world,often called beche-de-mer or trepang in the international trade. InChina, especially Hong Kong SAR, there is a high demand for driedsea cucumbers, because they are considered a delicacy reputedlypossessing medicinal properties (Toral-Granada, 2006). For theyears 1999e2005, Indonesia contributed an average annual exportvolume of 888 tons to the world’s main export destination HongKong, resulting in a total of 6219 tons for this seven-year timeframe. This figure represents 21% of Hong Kong’s total imports of29,400 tons throughout those years (Census and StatisticsDepartment, Hong Kong SAR, cited in Toral-Granada, 2006). Theeconomically most important sea cucumber is the sandfish, Hol-othuria scabra. Similar to other species, most of its production inIndonesia is from natural populations, with only a small shareproduced in sea-farms or ponds (Tuwo, 2004).
The promising market situation of dried H. scabra, and the fa-miliarity of coastal communities throughout the archipelago withsea cucumber fishery, bodes well for the consideration of sea cu-cumber mariculture in alternative livelihood projects. If econom-ically feasible, sea cucumber mariculture has the potential toprevent the overexploitation of natural populations and to con-tribute to poverty alleviation in coastal communities. Small-scalemariculture could provide an alternative source of income to tra-ditional fisheries with a long-term economic perspective (Mauksitet al., 2005). Its successful introduction as a livelihood alternative,however, requires the careful consideration of a range of culturaland socio-economic factors (e.g. Pollnac, 1982; Pollnac et al., 2001;Sievanen et al., 2005). Previous community-based maricultureprojects in Indonesia have often failed (Mauksit et al., 2005;Sievanen et al., 2005; Tam, 2006). The reasons for this fact aremanifold. Initiatives in the past focused mostly on: a) technicalfeasibility and costs, b) biological feasibility, c) participants’ edu-cational background and skills, or d) international market demand(e.g. Bunting, 2010; Ogundari and Ojo, 2009; Alauddin and Hamid,1999). Although these aspects affect project outcomes, the assess-ment of local socio-economic and cultural factors within commu-nities, and addressing the question of who could run small-scalemariculture operations on a daily basis, are important factors thathave so far been neglected (Conand et al., 2006; Miyata andSawada, 2002; Miyata and Manatunge, 2004; Tam, 2006). Untilnow, there are few such socio-economic assessments of targetcommunities in respect to mariculture projects in Indonesia.
1.3. Households’ livelihood diversity and implications for riskattitudes
The characteristics of the individuals (e.g. preparedness to takerisks), households (e.g. employment structure) and communities(distribution of capital and other resources and influence) that mayadopt mariculture affect the likelihood of adoption and the chancesof success after adoption of the new income option. Coastal com-munities in Indonesia do not always depend exclusively on fishingbut often prefer to diversify their livelihood portfolio to compriseactivities such as farming and construction in addition to fishing(e.g. Cullen, 2007). Accordingly, the risk that all sources fail to meeta household’s livelihood is reduced. Miyata, in a 2003 study ofhousehold risk attitudes, reports that people living in co-residenceare more willing to take risks, and observes that risk aversion
decreases with level of education (Miyata, 2003). The diversifica-tion of livelihoods is likely to have a similar security effect. A furtherpoint of interest regarding the acceptance of mariculture lies in thedifferences between people working in the fields of fishing andagriculture, respectively. Fishery is known for its short-term profits,inducing a short-term planning mentality in fisherfolk, whilefarmers often have to allocate their money with a longer-termperspective, in accordance with the time scale needed for annualand perennial crops. In this study, data was collected to assesswhether respondents are able and willing to plan for a longerperiod of time and which types of people in coastal communitiesmight be interested and able to sustain longer-term investment andinterest in innovative mariculture ventures.
1.4. History of sea cucumber fishing and experiences in mariculture
Sea cucumber fishery is common throughout Indonesia and hasa history dating back several centuries (Schwerdtner Máñez andFerse, 2010; Tuwo, 2004). The present study was carried out inNorth Sulawesi, a region where several coastal communities areengaged in this activity (Darsono, 2002). The collection of sea cu-cumbers by wading at low tide had once been a livelihood in thestudy area, shown in Fig. 1. Nowadays, collection is very rare andmostly takes place in deeper waters by divers using compressordiving. Sea cucumbers are mainly caught as a valuable by-catch,because most people in the area are aware of its high value anddemand. A traditional form of sea cucumber farming found in thestudy area is the husbandry of individuals in ocean-based cagesmade of bamboo and wood and lined with net and mangrove sand.Several fishermenhad tried this type ofmariculture, but all reportedsimilar issueswhich eventually caused them to stop after a couple ofmonths. Cages were not properly constructed due to a lack of funds,and collected specimens escaped. Another problem was that fish-ermen, allegedly from an island in the vicinity, came by night andstole sea cucumbers. Finally, knowledge on how to process sea cu-cumbers to obtain a goodquality and earn higher profitswas lacking,which led to low quality of the product and few profits from its sale.Moreover, knowledge on suitable feed was missing. People in thevillage of Bohoi had gained initial knowledge on traditional sea cu-cumber farming from Bajo (former sea nomads) residing in the area.Later on, a workshop was organized in Bulutui village by the pro-vincial office of the Department of Fisheries and Marine Affairs (DKP)
L.-M. von Essen et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 73 (2013) 101e112 103
in the 1990’s. The workshop included a theoretical and a practicalpart. Participants received materials and built cages within the fivedays of the workshop. However, no further support was offered andall activities stopped after two months. A similar project on groupermariculture failed as well, as it turned out to be unprofitable.Moreover, in a recent project aimed at collecting data about thepotential to farm grouper in several villages in the Likupang area,which comprises both study sites, just one day was scheduled pervillage for the data collection process. As a result, villagers had thefeeling that some researchers just took advantage of them andwerenot seriously interested in improving village conditions.Maricultureof seaweed was also carried out, but stopped after one year becauseof a disease locally known as “iceeice”, which is associatedwith lowlight levels and reduced salinity (Ask and Azanza, 2002), and manypeople were afraid that another attempt would fail again. Based onthis local history, mariculture in the villages is associated witha number of prior experiences. These in turn affect the villagers’predisposition toward sea cucumber mariculture.
We propose that in order to assess the feasibility and likelyoutcomeof small-scalemariculture projects as alternative livelihoodoptions, it is fundamental to understand the underlying socio-economic factors affecting success. A first step should be a socio-economic assessment of the targeted community analyzing factorssuch as the villagers’ experiences, willingness, concerns and interestin mariculture. A previous coastal management project sponsoredby the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)operated in the study area between 1999 and 2003, which includedattempts of mariculture introduction (Crawford, 2003). However,there was never a structured assessment of the experiences of theearlier project. In 2009, a local dive operator announced the plan tosponsor community-basedmariculture of sea cucumbers in the area.The present study thus aimed at assessing the local attitudes, per-ceptions and socioeconomic framing conditions regarding mar-iculture, taking sea cucumbermariculture as example, in the light ofpast experiences and the current plan for mariculture development.
In order to investigate the potential for successful community-based mariculture, the following questions were addressed:
a) Which social structures in terms of occupational groups, edu-cational background and ethnicities exist in the local commu-nities, and what are their implications for maricultureimplementation?
b) Are there specific stakeholder relations potentially affectingproject activities?
c) What are the general attitudes of local community memberstoward mariculture?
d) Would villagers taking up mariculture reinvest their profits inthis activity, and if so under which circumstances?
e) Are the local women and men involved in fishing willing toadditionally farm sea cucumbers and do they accept the mar-iculture approach?
f) Which types of community residents are most likely to becomeinvolved in mariculture activities?
g) Are villagers with multiple livelihood sources more willing toalso turn to mariculture than people with only one incomesource?
2. Material and methods
2.1. Study area
This research was carried out in the Likupang area of NorthMinahasa Regency, located at the east end of North SulawesiProvince, Indonesia (Fig. 1). The study sites were the two villagesBohoi and Bulutui, which together with 16 other villages comprise
the district “West Likupang”. Bohoi (1�4204900 North; 125�0100100
East) and Bulutui (1�4200700 North; 125�0004900 East) are bothlocated at the coast, approximately 2 km apart. Likupang townplays an important role in the exchange and trade of goods. Thearea has a rural character, dominated by fishing and agriculture asmajor economic activities. In contrast to the other parts of Sulawesi,where most people are Muslim, North Sulawesi is predominantlyChristian.
The research sites for the socio-economic analyses were selec-ted according to accessibility, moderate population size (500e700inhabitants), a high dependence on marine resources, and differ-ences in terms of predominant occupations and ethnic composi-tion. In addition, both were covered by the previous USAID projectandwere considered as potential sites formariculture developmentby a local dive resort.
2.2. Village characteristics
The villages of Bohoi and Bulutui show clear differences. Bohoi isa community consisting of around 500 inhabitants (¼120 house-holds) with four different ethnicities (Siau, Sangir or Sangihe,Manado and Minahasa) from North Sulawesi mainland and sur-rounding islands. The data gathered from respondents and aninterview with the head of village revealed that 100% of the com-munity members are Christians, of which almost all men areinvolved in fishing. However, the dominant type of livelihood wasa combination of fishing and agriculture, in which both sexes areinvolved. The interviews revealed that almost all fishermen ofthirty years or older finished their education after elementaryschool. Yet, at the household level, the level of education washigher: 17% of the interviewees stated as the highest level of edu-cation in their household junior high school, while 58% hada household member with senior high school degree and in 22% ofhouseholds, there even was a university degree (n ¼ 36).
The community of Bulutui consists of 600 villagers (¼170households). The data gathered from respondents and the head ofvillage revealed that 100% of the community members are Muslim.As in Bohoi, almost all fishermen of thirty years or older finishedtheir school after elementary school. The dominant share ofhouseholds (39%) had a senior high school degree as highest levelof household education, 35% had a household member with a ju-nior high school degree, and 13% a degree from university (n ¼ 33),showing that again, fishermen were among the least educatedmembers of their households. This village is comprised of 14 dif-ferent ethnicities (in order of importance: Sangir, Bajo, Bugi, Min-ahasa, Gorontalo, Ternate, Halmahera, Mamuju, Buton, China,Maluku, Banjan, Bolaang Mongondow and Nain), of which threedominate: Sangir, Bajo and Bugi. One of the reasons why Bulutuiwas of special interest for this study was its Bajo population, sincethe Bajo are considered to be “experts of the sea” and are known foran extensive use of marine resources (Sopher, 1965). The Bajo, alsocalled Sama, originally arrived as sea nomads from the Makassararea in South Sulawesi, searching for good fishing grounds, andsettled in the area due to its rich marine resources. In the course oftime, marriages between Bajo and local people enabled the originalsea nomads to acquire land ownership. Yet, most households do notown any land for agriculture purposes. Therefore, the people inBulutui were always strongly dependent on marine resources. Anaspect to be considered in this context is that many fishermen ofBulutui were involved in the soma cang fishery. Typical for thisfishery, once introduced by the Bajo, is the operation in unitsconsisting of two boats and around 25 fishermen each. Fur-thermore, these units stay at sea between one week and severalmonths, depending onweather conditions. Their journeysmay takethem as far as Central Sulawesi. The favorable time period for
L.-M. von Essen et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 73 (2013) 101e112104
fishing trips begins in March. According to some respondents, incontrast to Bohoi residents, people fromBulutui used to be involvedin fishing with explosives and poison (potassium cyanide). How-ever, no indication was found that this is still ongoing. This type ofdestructive fishing occurred on the surrounding islands of Bangka,Talisei and Gangga as well. Some respondents indicated that thevillage of the island Kinabuhutan (between Talisei and Gangga)might still carry out blast fishing. Several dive tourism operators inthe area reported an increasing destruction of reefs at certain divesites and other locations in the Likupang area as well as the widerarea of Manado.
2.3. Questionnaire and sampling design
Opportunistic sampling was the method used in this study toselect participants for semi-structured interviews (Kemper et al.,2003). A pre-definition of sampling structure with a specificnumber of interviews was not prepared (Flick, 2009). To reduce therisk of bias inherent in opportunistic sampling, interviewees werechosen throughout the entire area of the village. Quantitativequestionnaire surveys were preceded by qualitative assessments ofthe study villages to obtain background information and a betterunderstanding of local conditions, and to refine study questions. Inqualitative data assessment, the focus lies on the quality of state-ments, meaning the analysis of the what and how regarding a cer-tain ‘phenomenon’ (Flick, 2009). Due to limitations of timeavailable for this study, only limited quantitative data could becollected by using Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) techniquesthrough semi-structured interviews, focus groups, or (non-partic-ipant) observation, which mostly generated qualitative data. Thisstudy focused on the prerequisites for community-based projectsunder special consideration of individual expectations, personalexperiences or assumptions of certain villagers. This approachenabled cross-validation of the limited quantitative results andhelped to reveal aspects that any subsequent project activitiesshould pay special attention to. Informal talks and additional ob-servations throughout the stay were used to gather additional in-formation about the wider local context (e.g. circumstances of life).The survey was carried out with the help of a field assistant fromSam Ratulangi University in Manado to translate between the localdialect and English.
The research team joined all church services held in Bohoiduring their stay in the village, as well as other celebrations towhich they were invited. While time-consuming, these activitiescreate trust in the community, allowing informants to open up andto be more willing to communicate. Attendance of these eventsthus increased the quantity and quality of information.
Individual interviews began with semi-structured, ques-tionnaire-based key informant interviews, first with the head ofvillage, followed by the head of church/mosque, and head of schoolor other governmental employees. Interviews then continued withfishermen and housewives. The interviewees were selected in threeways: either haphazardly by walking around the village and askingadults for permission for an interview, by researchers being con-tacted by people willing to be interviewed, and by asking in-terviewees to recommend people with much knowledge orexperience regarding specific subjects. Quantitative questionnairedata from key informants who were involved in fisheries wereincluded in the statistical analysis of fishermen respondents. In thestudy area, further processing and selling of catches is mostly theresponsibility of women. To obtain gender-sensitive information onfishing households, women whose men were involved in fisherieswere chosen as additional respondents in the survey.
Several field visits of up to eight days each were made. BetweenNovember 2009 and February 2010, four visits each with a total of
26 and 24 days, respectively, were made at both research sites. Thequantitative questionnaire surveys involved 36 respondents (28fishermen and 8 women) in Bohoi and 33 respondents (28 fisher-men and 5 women) in Bulutui. In addition, discussions with twohomogenous focus groups, one comprising only fishermen and onecomprised exclusively of women, were held at each research site.
Non-participant observation was used to validate research re-sults and to raise further questions. Besides validation, triangu-lation contributed to the completion of findings. A StakeholderAnalysis (SA) was carried out parallel to all other assessments toidentify the respective interest, importance and influence of allpersons or parties potentially having an influence on the project oraffected by project activities (Bunce et al., 2000). A special emphasiswas on the identification of potential conflicts due to overlappinginterests and powereimportance relations between stakeholders(Grimble and Wellard, 1997).
2.4. Statistical analysis
Categorical data gathered from the interviews (n ¼ 69) wereanalyzed using SPSS Statistics 17 for each research site (Bohoi;Bulutui). Non-parametric Spearman rank correlations were used tocompute the pairwise associations for a set of variables to assess thefactors affecting the villagers’willingness and acceptance regardingsea cucumber mariculture, followed by an assessment of bivariatecorrelation to examine significant differences (p < 0.05) betweensamples.
3. Results
3.1. Stakeholder relations
Negative stakeholder relations were identified between house-holds and the DKP due to the aforementioned previous experienceswith attempted mariculture introduction (Table 1). Furthermore,relations between less powerful households and those with higherpower were latently strained at both research sites. In group dis-cussions, participants reported that some families used their powerin decision-making processes a few years ago to gain economicadvantages. Nowadays, there are no specific families that havesignificantly more power than others anymore in either of thevillages, but the presence of certain groups with leaders (e.g.owners of fishing units/boats e soma cang) signals that potentially,some individuals could (mis-)use their influence again for theirpersonal agenda. Conflicts between households and teripang (seacucumber) traders often occurred as a result of low product qualitydue to poor processing, resulting in low prices paid by the traders,which left villagers feeling cheated. However, conflicts betweenhouseholds did not only occur as a result of power imbalances, butdiscussions showed that there also were individual conflicts be-tween villagers. Some interviewees requested to be given the op-portunity to create their own groups to carry out maricultureproject activities, claiming to know who was eager and motivatedto provide efforts and to contribute experiences and working labor.The Bulutui head of village obtained 100% of his income fromagriculture. Because of this and his weak connection to fisheries, hehad little interest in putting efforts into projects aimed at aug-menting the livelihoods of traditional fishers.
3.2. Attitudes toward mariculture as a livelihood alternative
The study aimed to reveal information about fishermen’s will-ingness to quit fishing once they are involved in mariculture andreceive sufficient profits to meet their financial needs. How peoplewould act in the presence of mariculture differed significantly
Table 1Negative stakeholder relations.
Intermediate relations Development
Households DKP � Lack of long-term support /unprofitability / failed project
Local university � Impression of low interest /low trust and willingness to cooperate
Traders � Poor processing / low qualityproducts / economic disadvantage
Head of village � Weak connection to fishery /
low interest to support projectLeaders of
specific groupsMembers ofspecific groups
� Misuse of higher power indecision making processes to gaineconomical disadvantages
Villager Villager � Individual conflicts / selectionof project/group participants
L.-M. von Essen et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 73 (2013) 101e112 105
between villages (Chi-square test, c2¼ 9.876; p¼ 0.020). In Bulutui,39% of the interviewed fishermen were willing to stop fishing andfocus exclusively on mariculture, while in Bohoi only 14% werewilling to do so. A combination of mariculture and fishing activitieswas preferred by about half of the fishermen from both villages:86% of respondents in Bohoi, and 61% in Bulutui, chose this option.The remaining fishermen willing to quit fishing completely statedas important factors and prerequisites for their decision ‘mar-iculture has to be profitable (35%)’, ‘mariculture activities are lessdemanding (21%)’, ‘results are more reliable and better to calculateand are less dependent onweather conditions (10.5%)’, ‘maricultureis less time consuming than fishing (8%)’, ‘mariculture constitutesan alternative for weaker/older people (10.5%)’ and ‘too difficult tocover all costs with fishing (15%)’ (n ¼ 15; multiple answers pos-sible). The most frequent explanation why fishermen would notstop fishing (n ¼ 41; multiple answers possible) was the ‘hightraditional and cultural value of this source of income (29.5%)’,which has provided a livelihood for these coastal communities forcenturies. Moreover, respondents stated to ‘prefer fishing as thefield where they have the highest expertise (14.5%)’. Finally, theaspects of ‘being able to rely on two sources of income (17.5%)’,‘fishing is fun and challenging (17.5%)’, ‘would not feel comfortablewithout fishing (7%)’, ‘mariculture needs too long until receivingprofits (8.5%)’ and ‘a member of a soma cang unit is not able to stop(5.5%)’ were also important.
3.3. Willingness and acceptance regarding mariculture
In general, the public sentiment regarding mariculture waspositive at both research sites, and respondents appreciated newlivelihood-generating activities and welcomed novel approaches.
The interest of this study was not only in assessing the villagers’interest, but also in gathering data about the motives underlying
Table 2Previous livelihood-generating activities.
Project/activity Research site Time until failing Involved p
Sea cucumberaquaculture
Bohoi, Bulutui Two months,within same year
Several prDKP, local
Seaweed aquaculture Bohoi, Bulutui After one year Followed tsupported
Grouper aquaculture Bohoi Several months Initiated b
their respective attitudes and behavior. The study revealed a highwillingness and interest in alternative livelihoods. 75% of re-spondents (n ¼ 36) in Bohoi and 70% (n ¼ 33) in Bulutui have beenseeking livelihood activities besides fishing and agriculture in thepast (Table 2).
Villagers in Bulutui were more pessimistic regarding the futuredevelopment of fish catches than those in Bohoi. The main reasonsgiven were observations of changes in size and amount of fish. Aminority of respondents at both research sites expected an increaseor no changes of catches. A further aspect influencing the willing-ness to consider new alternatives was household well-being. InBohoi, nearly half of the respondents were satisfied with theirpresent financial situation, because of job diversification or havingsufficient money to meet their basic needs, while the other halfwere not. In Bulutui, slightly more people were dissatisfied due toissues of house ownership or increasing prices (c.f. Table 3.).
One of the central project objectives was the assessment ofwillingness and acceptance regarding mariculture, including per-sonal interests and motivation to farm sea cucumbers. Interest inmariculture among fishermen (n ¼ 56) differed significantly be-tween both villages (Chi-square test, c2 ¼ 10.064, df¼ 2, p¼ 0.007).Interest was very high in Bohoi, where 89% of the fishermenshowed ’high’ willingness and acceptance, compared to Bulutui,where the interest was high with only about half of the fishermen(Fig. 2). The share of interviewees not wanting to be involved in seacucumber mariculture and intending to continue their presentlivelihood activity was low in both villages, with 7% and 11% inBohoi and Bulutui, respectively. Among women (n ¼ 13), a higherpercentage showed high willingness and acceptance of sea cu-cumbermariculture in Bulutui as compared to Bohoi (c.f. Fig. 2), butthese differences were not significant. Women in Bulutui morefrequently stated that they are strongly involved in processing orselling of fish catches. These statements were often made duringinformal talks or observed during field stays in Bulutui. The dif-ference between fishermen and women in Bohoi was significant(Chi-square test, c2 ¼ 7.853, df ¼ 2, p ¼ 0.020), while no significantdifferences were found in Bulutui (Fig. 2).
Reasons given by fishermen and women for their interest areshown in Table 4; multiple answers were possible. However, nosignificant differences between groups were found (fishermenfrom Bohoi vs. women from Bulutui; women from Bohoi vs. fish-ermen from Bulutui).
A further aim of the research was to assess how the job struc-tures affected the willingness and acceptance regarding sea cu-cumber mariculture. As mentioned before, fishing was the mainsource of income in both villages.
However, the dominant type of household in Bohoi engaged ina combination of fishing and agriculture, in which both genderswere involved (Fig. 3). Women usually worked in the processing ofcatches and were involved in farming in between housework. Only
artners Issues and resulting effects
ojects with Japanese initiators,university
� Lack of theory, practical experience,material and further support
� Lacking payments of Japanese companyleading to disappointed participants andless trust in alternative income sources
he idea of other villages, thenfrom DKP
� Outbreak of disease leading villagers torealize high demand of aquacultureand its difficulties
y DKP � Unprofitable husbandry, people doubtedwillingness of DKP to help villagers andimprove their livelihoods
Table 3Perceptions of future development and the household well-being at the research sites.
Perception/assumption Bohoi (n ¼ 36) Bulutui (n ¼ 33) Reasons given of both villages (n ¼ 69; multiple answerswere possible)
Future development
Catches will decrease in the future 72% agree 94% agree � Observation of bigger catches a few years ago (55%)� Increasing number of fishermen leading to increasing
competition for fish (16%)� Observation of smaller fish (10%)� Blast and poison fisheries destroy the reefs (4%)
Catches will increase in the future 3% agree 0% agree � Revenues from ecotourism following the localestablishment of an MPA about 10 years ago (100%)
Catches will remain the same 19% agree 3% agree � Modern fishing gear can compensate the decrease in fish (100%)Do not know 6% 3%Total 100% 100%
Household well-beingSatisfied with present financial situation 47% agree 39% agree � Availability of a second job
� Sufficient money to meet daily consumption needs� Only focused on today, do not plan for the future
Not satisfied with present financial situation 53% agree 61% agree � Decreasing income and increasing prices� Lack of house ownership� Inability to improve their house
Total 100% 100%
L.-M. von Essen et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 73 (2013) 101e112106
a minority of men, most often the household heads, dependedexclusively on fishing. In Bulutui, more than half of the people mettheir income needs exclusively with fishing, and in contrast toBohoi just a minority pursued a combination of fishing and agri-culture. Furthermore, a certain proportion of men in Bohoi and inBulutui was involved in fishing, but was also working for the gov-ernment or in construction as well. Women’s work in Bulutuimainly comprised housework and the support of the husband inprocessing catches. Only very few women were pursuing agri-culture activities or owned a shop selling daily items.
As a result, nearly 90% of people in Bohoi had two or three in-come sources (Table 5). The amount of jobs per person in Bulutuishowed a marked contrast to Bohoi, where most of the peoplesecured their livelihood with just one job. From people’s state-ments it appeared that the multiple incomes of Bulutui providedextra financial security to households.
Pairwise comparison of factors yielded a positive correlationbetween involvement in fishing and interest in sea cucumbermariculture for respondents in Bohoi (Spearman rank correlation,
Fig. 2. Willingness and acceptance of sea cucumber mariculture among fishermen andwomen at the two research sites. Significant differences are indicated by letters abovethe bars (Chi-square tests, p < 0.05).
r ¼ 0.394; p ¼ 0.017). Furthermore, the interest in mariculture inBohoi was positively correlated with the number of jobs of re-spondents (Spearman rank correlation, r ¼ 0.348; p ¼ 0.038). Re-sults from Bulutui were not statistically significant. High interestand willingness to participate in a workshop was positively corre-lated for villagers from Bohoi (Spearman rank correlation,r ¼ 0.499; p ¼ 0.002) and from Bulutui (Spearman rank correlation,r ¼ 0.594; p ¼ 0.01). The proportion of respondents (male/female)with a very high or high interest (29 out of 36 respondents in Bohoi,and 18 out of 33 respondents in Bulutui) who stated to be alsowilling to participate in a workshop/training over several weekswas 100% in both villages.
3.4. Financial behavior of respondents
Interviewees and focus group participants provided statementson the villagers’ general economic behavior and the commonbehavior in relation to a project. In both villages respondents statedthat:
� People are often only willing to work if they receive money inadvance
� If an opportunity is available to earn money (e.g. in the form ofa project), people are often very interested at the beginning,but then motivation and efforts decrease
� If money is available, it is spent immediately; saving money isnot common, not even for those who could afford to do so
� People are not able to manage their money� If people receive money from the government for specificfishing-related activities, they invest it, but most often theystop if they have to wait too long to realize profits
To follow up on the last points, interviewees were asked howthey would decide if an institution offered them the followingchoice: to receive 500,000 IDR immediately,4 or to wait for fourmonths and then receive 2,000,000 IDR. In both cases, peoplewouldreceive themoney without the condition to pay it back. The relativenumber of respondents that chose investments or immediate profit
4 At the time of study, the average monthly income of household in the area wasbetween 500,000 and 700,000 IDR, and 1 USDwas approximately equal to 9,000 IDR.
Table 4Reasons for interest in sea cucumber mariculture in Bohoi and Bulutui (multiple answers were possible).
Bohoi Bulutui
Fishermen (n ¼ 21) Women (n ¼ 8) Fishermen (n ¼ 22) Women (n ¼ 5)
High interestSea cucumber mariculture failed in the past,
and respondents are eager to try it again14 (67%) e 9 (41%) e
Very valuable export good; profitable business 11 (52%) e 10 (45%) 3 (60%)
Low/non-existent interestSea cucumber mariculture failed in the past and there
were low rewards3 (14%) 6 (75%) 12 (55%) e
Intend to improve the own business instead 3 (14%) e e 2 (40%)Respondent was sick; not physically able to be involved 2 (10%) 4 (50%) 5 (23%) e
L.-M. von Essen et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 73 (2013) 101e112 107
did not differ significantly between the two villages. 67% of re-spondents from Bulutui would prefer to receive the 500,000 IDRright away, while 33% chose to wait for the 2,000,000 IDR. The di-vision in Bohoi was more equal; 47% wanted instant profit; 53%would choose the 2,000,000. The most frequently stated motives tochoose instant profit were � cannot wait, not patient enough (40%);� enough to buy newfishing gear (30%); � need it right now, becauseprices increase (17.5%); � lack of trust; not sure if offer is still valid infour months (12.5%). Motives to choose 2,000,000 Rp were � moremoney to invest in the future, which leads to higher profits (34.5%);� opportunity to create new business (31%); � can wait (27.5%); �ability to plan for a longer time (7%).
One of the central questions in implementing a maricultureproject is where the people intend to invest their profits. The shareof fishermen aiming to re-invest their profit in sea cucumbermariculture to extend the system and its profitability was 36% ineach village. However, the fact that fishermen from Bulutui weremore used to having only one source of income was again mirroredby the fact that only 6% decided to invest in mariculture andsimultaneously do their own business, while in Bohoi, 19% of re-spondents favored this option. 36% of fishermen in Bulutui, morethan twice the percentage of Bohoi (17%), would not invest theirprofit in mariculture but rather spend it for daily items/consump-tion. The share of contributing to or creating their own businesswas similar in Bohoi (28%) and Bulutui (21%).
4. Discussion
The assessment at both research sites showed that villagers’acceptance of sea cucumber mariculture was high. Nevertheless,various factors concerning the villagers’ attitudes, determined byexperiences, perceptions and understandings, as well as a lifestylesignificantly shaped by fishery, were revealed in the interviews.These factors will affect the main objectives of any potentialcommunity-based mariculture project: improving the standard ofliving of coastal villagers and preventing overexploitation of marineresources.
A total of 69 interviews and four focus group discussions with3e5 participants each (n ¼ 15) were carried out during this study.Although the number of interviewees was relatively low, the pro-portion of the relatively small population in both villages reachedby personal interviews (excluding FGD participation) was 7.9% inBohoi and 5.4% in Bulutui. Thus, the data obtained in this study aredeemed to provide a reasonably good idea of the prevailing atti-tudes toward mariculture introduction in the two villages.
Activities of ProyekPesisir5 involvedvillagers andgathered socio-economic data, which were available to help in the interpretation of
5 Coastal Resources Management Project of the USAID-BAPPENAS Natural Re-sources Management Program.
the data collected in this study. Previous attempts of maricultureintroduction in the Likupang area did not include an assessment ofthe experiences of earlier mariculture projects and therefore datawere never processed. Also, governmental projects only focused onteaching techniques in mariculture, and did not assess the actualpotential for implementation. For these reasons, previous dataassessing the potential of community-based sea cucumber mar-iculture were not available for the present study.
4.1. Community characteristics
The relatively small number of villagers, with around 500 peo-ple in Bohoi and 600 in Bulutui, turned out to be advantageous forthe collection of data and informing the community in this study. Ina community-based seaweed farming project in the same area,Crawford and Kasmidi (2004) observed that villages with a smallertotal population had higher success in reaching project objectives.Therefore, it can be concluded that a focus on smaller communitiesfor the implementation of the first mariculture systems is likely toincrease the probability of success. Ethnic and religious tensionsbetween the Christian and Muslim villagers at the respectiveresearch site did not seem to exist, but given the history of ethnicand religious tensions elsewhere in Indonesia, they are of potentialimportance in the implementation strategy of community-basedprojects. The villagers of both research sites had at least a basiceducation. The better-educated younger generation could play animportant role in futuremariculture by contributing their labor andknowledge. However, rural-urban migration, caused by better jobopportunities and higher income in urban areas and considered tobe an effective tool for poverty reduction in rural communities(Meng et al., 2010), is common in Indonesia and takes place inNorth Sulawesi as well. This means that available labor is likely todecrease in the future. Furthermore, the low level of education
Fig. 3. Occupational structure of men at the two research sites.
Table 5Number of income sources among respondents in the two villages.
Number of income sources 1 2 3
Proportion of respondentsBohoi (n ¼ 36)
11% 61% 28% S ¼ 100%
Proportion of respondentsBulutui (n ¼ 33)
67% 33% 0% S ¼ 100%
L.-M. von Essen et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 73 (2013) 101e112108
among fishermen means that additional, specifically-tailoredtraining efforts may be necessary to enable them to take up mar-iculture activities.
The assessment of the villagers’ daily routines revealed thatfishermen from Bulutui who are involved in soma cang stay at seafor 3e4months fromMarch on (unless weather conditions are bad,in which case they are taking shorter trips of 2e3 weeks each). Thisfactor must be considered in planning community-based projectactivities, as some villagers may want to do both fishing and mar-iculture but would most probably be absent for a long period oftime. Therefore, activities regarding mariculture implementation(e.g. theoretical training) should take place during the rainy season,ensuring that chances are equal for everybody to participate. Fur-thermore, it is particularly important to develop a strategy on howto manage the mariculture system in the dry season while thesefishermen are absent.
4.2. Stakeholder relations
The high power of traders and mariculture companies, com-pared to members of the local communities, could threaten theproject objectives of providing sustainable income for thesehouseholds, as there is a chance that the former abuse their powerto gain higher profits while accepting economic disadvantages forvillagers. While involvement of such actors may provide benefits interms of funding and market access, mechanisms for the mon-itoring and control of the power relationship between locals andtraders/companies are needed. The head of village showed lowinterest and engagement in sea cucumber mariculture activities.Furthermore trust of villagers in the DKP or the local university waslow due to previous bad experiences. As a result, these stakeholderswould likely not be able to be involved in the socialization for theproject in order to minimize the potential for conflicts and not tojeopardize the implementation process. Alternative strategies areneeded. One option could be to work with selected representativesof the local communities. Frequently there are specific persons whoare known to be neutral within a community and are accepted andhighly regarded by most people due to e.g. high professionalexpertise, diplomatic behavior or particular social standing. Thesepersons can be seen as key figures mediating between theresearcher or project leader and the community members and arelikely to be of specific importance regarding project success.Although some villagers had negative experiences with previousgovernmental projects such as from the DKP, they recommendedthat in order to reduce the potential for conflict between house-holds/participants, mariculture activities need to be monitored andlong-term support be provided. At this interface, local representa-tives are likely to support the DKP or researchers from the localuniversity with the provision of technical and interpersonal assis-tance. Furthermore, villagers need to have the opportunity to createtheir own groups under the guidance of project leaders to ensurethat local self-organizational potentials can engage with theproject.
However, mediation by a neutral party is important to ensureequal participation of community members and avoid ‘elite cap-ture’ plaguing ostensibly community-based projects elsewhere in
Indonesia (Glaser et al., 2010a). For example, regarding the estab-lishment of a community-based fish pond project, Tam (2006: 7)reports that a lack of NGO efforts inmonitoring project activities ledto a failure of the project within a short period of time. Social re-lations were not investigated and project leaders relied on “internalvillage networks” (Tam, 2006) to inform and involve participantswithout well-defined criteria. The author also emphasized theimportance to identify “silent conflicts”within a community, whichare often not obvious, but affect the project outcome and success ifno attention is paid to respective issues. For these reasons, in orderto increase project success, co-management arrangements thatform partnerships between community members and governmentauthorities, monitored by a neutral third party, should be consid-ered in the planning and implementation of a system to supportand ensure the monitoring of mariculture activities, the provisionof long-term support and the opportunity to create their owngroups.
4.3. Potential of willingness and acceptance regarding mariculture
The results of this study indicate that it is likely to be easier toturn people with farming experience (Bohoi) into aquaculturiststhan people that are highly focused on fishing (Bulutui).
The higher relative number of people dependent on only onesource of income and of villagers involved in fishing in Bulutui thanin Bohoi points toward the role offinancial security and job diversityin deciding on mariculture. Higher financial and employment se-curity might allow villagers to be more open for alternatives and totake a certain amount of risk. An experiment of Miyata (2003), inwhich participants played a game about money investment, iden-tified further factors contributing to the willingness to accept risks,such as the number of members in a household, the highest edu-cation in a household, andhouseholdwealth status.With increasingvalues, the respondentsweremore open andwilling to engage in analternative source of income. The present study lacks the data toassess this, but further research on mariculture implementationshould examine these points in more detail. In contrast to thefindings of the present study, in which immigrants such as the Bugiand Bajo from Bulutui were found to focus on fishing and were lessinterested in mariculture, Miyata (2003) concludes that resettledand therefore landless villagers are more willing to risk a newapproach due to a lack of alternatives. Miyata and Manatunge(2004) also emphasize the importance of appropriate timing inintroducing an alternative livelihood approach, which can deter-mine whether villagers adopt or refuse the new activity. Forexample, temporary low market prices would negatively affect thedegree of adoption. The authors observed that villagers were lessskeptical and more willing to carry out floating net aquaculture ifthey could observe success in their environment. The villagers’skepticism toward a new source of livelihood seems to be a generalissue at the beginning of a project. Initially, a few local pioneerseager to carry out mariculture are needed to serve as a positive rolemodel, encouraging other community members to join. Major ef-forts of project leaders are particularly important in the phase ofimplementation to prevent a failure of the mariculture attempts ofthese local people. Lack of success would make it more difficult toconvince others to join the project.
A reason for low interest in Bulutui could be the high number offishermen involved in soma cang. Those fishermen may find it dif-ficult to combine fishery andmariculture, and they may not want togive up their position within the fishing unit. The observed lack ofinterest and the preference for fishing because of the high culturalvalue accorded to it correspond with findings by Pomeroy (1992),who reports that all fishermen involved in a collaborative brackishwater farming in the Philippines continued fishing after 18 months.
L.-M. von Essen et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 73 (2013) 101e112 109
Moreover, Pollnac et al. (2001), studying job satisfaction amongfishermen in Indonesia, found that in contrast to the prevalentassumption that fishermen would appreciate new alternatives asfishing is laborious and can only provide a basic income, the ma-jority would not leave the fishery because of a high level of sat-isfaction with their activity due to culture, tradition and substantialrelated knowledge. Alternatively, the type of mariculture used asexample in the present study may not represent the most appro-priate kind, as fishermen may feel more comfortable culturing or-ganisms they are catching on a daily level. Future studies shouldaddress the acceptance of different types of culture organisms.
A higher percentage of women in Bulutui showed high will-ingness and acceptance of sea cucumber mariculture in Bulutuithan in Bohoi. This might be because these women had more freetime next to their housework, as Bulutui is more fishery-focused.Thus, during bad weather periods, there are fewer catches for thewomen to process (processing being a female occupation), and noalternatives such as farming.
The household income in both research villages ranged between500,000 and >700,000 IDR, which is sufficient to meet basic live-lihood requirements. Pollnac et al. (2002) found evidence thatlevels of income may affect the participation of villagers in projectfield activities. Reasons for this are that poorer villagers might nothave the time or energy to participate and are less willing to takerisks that may jeopardize their income (Miyata and Sawada, 2002;Miyata, 2003; Pollnac et al., 2002). It is therefore likely that morepeople with a higher standard of living will participate. Glaser et al.(2010b,c) found that, both in Brazil and Indonesia, groups and in-dividuals who were poorest and most marginal were least able toenvision their futures in a participatory exercise. However, Pollnacet al. (2002) argues that if the benefits of participation were dem-onstrated by a few people, other villagers would perceive the ac-tivity as less risky and join. Participation in projects that providealternatives to fishing is often low at the beginning but increaseswith rising benefits (Rogers, 1995; Hamblin et al., 1973).
4.4. Potential to reduce fishing pressure
The majority of respondents in Bohoi and Bulutui were lookingfor additional income sources and aiming to diversify their liveli-hood to reduce the risk of financial vulnerability, while at the sametime trying to avoid shifting their livelihood away from fishery,which agrees with the findings of Brugère et al. (2008) assessinglivelihood diversification strategies of fisherfolk. However, eventhough villagers tried to generate an income from different ap-proaches such as seaweed or grouper mariculture, nonewas able toestablish these on a long-term basis within the community(c.f. Table 2). It can thus be concluded that sea cucumber mar-iculture most probably would remain an additional source of in-come and never be able to fully replace main occupations such asfishing. Nevertheless, sea cucumber mariculture is likely to havea positive effect by reducing the need to rely heavily on the wildcapture of marine resources to make a living. Additionally, it couldserve as a supporting pillar in times of underemployment whenmoney is short because of bad weather conditions or other adverselife conditions.
Profits from mariculture could increase fishing pressure if beingused as investments in (destructive)fisheries (Sievanen et al., 2005).In the present study, around one quarter of the interviewed fish-ermen (28% and 21% in Bohoi and Bulutui, respectively) would haveused the hypothetical profits frommariculture exclusively to investin their current activity, e.g. to purchase fishing gear or boats, ratherthan to reinvest into their mariculture. Furthermore, only abouta quarter of respondents would accept waiting several months forprofits, while the greatmajoritywere unable or unwilling to plan for
a longer period of time, preferring a short-term perspective withfast profits rather than a longer-term investmentwith secure higherprofits. Similarly, a study on sea cucumber gatherers in the AruArchipelago (East Indonesia) by Osseweijer (2000: 72) found thatmost villagers held a short-term perspective: “What we find today,we sell today e and the money will also be spent today. Tomorrowwe will see again”. The experiment about the respondents’ long orshort-term perspective showed the respondents’ economic behav-ior, which indicates a potential for future difficulties e some re-spondents might not be able to manage their income in a way tosufficiently address important features of life such as school fees,health, and investments necessary to improve the profitability ofexisting or potential activities in order to increase their standard ofliving. However, the finding that fishermen are more willing toinvest in their own fishing business can be explained by theirknowledge and experience about the relation between investmentsand the respective outcome. The traditional fishing business ismorepredictable for most people and preferred by people with a smallleeway for taking economic risks. Mariculture currently constitutesan abstract concept, and the outcome is not yet trusted sufficientlyto raise willingness to invest. Nevertheless, projects should alsoinclude advice regarding the management and investment ofprofits. Moreover, the purpose and use of investments and ofpatience to achieve higher profits seemed not to be clear to manyrespondents, especially to people in Bulutui, who preferred instantprofit over higher but later returns. In contrast, most villagers inBohoi preferred a later, but higher return, mostly because of beingable to invest more. An additional likely explanation for the lack ofwillingness to re-invest profits into mariculture are the bad expe-riences and disappointments of respondents with previous mar-iculture attempts, which left the impression that maricultureoperations are not profitable. For this reason, during the socializ-ation process of any future mariculture project, particular attentionwill need to be placed on changing villagers’ attitudes towarda more positive orientation and to encourage them.
Crawford (2002) reports that many project designers or man-agers in community-based approaches assume that fishermen arewilling to give up fishing if more lucrative economic alternativesare available, so that viable income alternatives will result ina decrease in fishing pressure. However, this study revealed thatnon-economic factors such as tradition and personal gratificationare often more important than financial returns in deciding onwhether to fish or not. Themotives to continue fishing found in thisstudy (e.g. that it is fun, serves as a hobby, or has a long tradition)corresponded largely with those observed by Crawford et al. (1999)on job-satisfaction of fishermen in the same region. Furthermore,results of Padilla and Lampe (1989) show that even if seaweedfarming were very profitable, many farmers would still remainpart-time fishermen. According to Brugère et al. (2008: 15), “[d]espite the same resource-base, aquaculture is not an obviousalternative to fishing for fisherfolk”, since job satisfaction isstrongly related to the high traditional value of fishing (Irelandet al., 2004; World Bank, 2004). A similar outcome can be expec-ted for mariculture implementation in Bohoi and Bulutui, wheremany fishermen stated theywould not stop fishing even if involvedin profitable sea cucumber mariculture. Crawford et al. (1999) alsoobserved high variability in the income of fishermen in this area,meaning that fishermen are not always the “poorest of the poor”and therefore not necessarily forced to fish, but rather are unwillingto give up fishing. The results of the present study, such as a highpersonal satisfaction of fishermen with fishing and the high num-ber of people having multiple jobs, support this. The low likelihoodof mariculture to fully replace fishing should be explicitlyacknowledged and addressed when concepts for maricultureintroduction are drawn up. A failure of alternative income sources
L.-M. von Essen et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 73 (2013) 101e112110
to reduce destructive fishing was reported in a study from NorthSulawesi by Sievanen et al. (2005). Here, seaweed farming wasintroduced, but most fishermen continued fishing, while farmingwas carried out by women and children. The profits from thismariculture were then invested in further destructive fishing, thuskeeping alive a destructive activity that might otherwise havebecome unprofitable due to resource degradation much earlier.Another aspect is that fishing is the activity most villagers have thehighest expertise with. For this reason, intensive training in seacucumber mariculture is important to enable them to operate thesystem largely independently, which might give them more self-confidence and an increase in motivation and engagement. Fur-thermore, the results underline that any community-based con-servation efforts should not focus exclusively on the establishmentof livelihood alternatives, but should be designed as holistic con-cepts that include awareness raising regarding unsustainableactivities.
4.5. Using a mariculture pilot system
Although the limited time frame of this study did not allow pilotsystems to be set up directly in the communities, project activitiesat both research sites provided the villagers with some initial im-pressions of sea cucumber mariculture. An advantage of a morecareful and slow participatory process was pointed out by Crawfordand Kasmidi (2004: 18), who stated that a “highly participatoryprocess allows maximum input” from villagers. The importance ofa high level of participation in the planning and implementationprocess to ensure a successful outcome is frequently emphasized byresearchers with experience in community-based work (e.g.Tulungen et al., 1998).
5. Conclusions
Based on the local survey, some general conclusions regardingmariculture implementation in this and other areas in Indonesiacan be drawn by assessing the local attitudes, perceptions and so-cioeconomic framing conditions regarding mariculture. The pre-sent study revealed a number of desirable features in villagers’attitudes toward sea cucumber farming, which indicate a highpotential for future mariculture operations. Although villagersdeclared their intention to be engaged and their motivation interms of high willingness and acceptance of mariculture, it is notcertain that this will be reflected in their eventual participation andeffort over a longer period of time once mariculture projects areimplemented. Moreover, non-economic factors such as culture ortradition are often equally or more important to villagers thaneconomic considerations, and this could affect project activities.While mariculture was perceived as more reliable and less cum-bersome and time consuming than fishing by a large part of therespondents, fishing was valued as a challenging activity witha long tradition, which made several respondents reluctant to quitfishing in favor of mariculture. Previous negative experiences ofboth communities with (short-term) mariculture projects alsocontributed to a reluctance regarding mariculture and reduced thecredibility of such projects when introduced by outsiders. Fur-thermore, a large part of the respondents was unwilling or unableto wait a long time for the realization of profits from mariculture,underlining that adequate, long-term financial and technical sup-port is required to build trust and turn mariculture into a feasibleoption under the current socioeconomic conditions.
A detailed economic analysis and a quantitative determinationof financial impact were not part of this study. The aim was toidentify qualitative tendencies in terms of attitudes and percep-tions in the adoption of mariculture. Similar to other management
interventions such as marine protected areas, mariculture projectsthat are planned and implemented solely with ecological or widereconomic criteria in mind are very likely to fail (e.g. Christie, 2004).It is therefore important to carry out a comprehensive socio-economic assessment to characterize the respective communitybefore the establishment of a system and to develop a locally-tailored implementation strategy. It is important to realize thatthis does not allow for absolute statements regarding the finalcourse, progress and success of a specific project, as outcomes willbe highly context-specific. Similarly, the acceptance of mariculturemay hinge upon the choice of suitable culture species, which islikely to differ between sites due to environmental, but also culturalaspects such as acceptance, experience or preferences. Furtherresearch should assess the potential of different species to belocally accepted, and should examine to what extent maricultureprojects can contribute to improving the standard of living and toreducing fishing pressure. Such questions can only be addressedonce a pilot mariculture system has operated over a longer periodof time. At the same time, even in cases where socio-economicanalyses indicate a high potential for mariculture in a community,technical or ecological issues can centrally affect success chances.Thus, feasibility studies need to comprise a wide range of eco-logical, socio-cultural, and economic aspects.
6. Recommendations
Based on our survey work, we offer the following recommen-dations to any prospective community-oriented mariculture proj-ect which also aims at reducing fishing pressure on the naturalenvironment:
� Focus on smaller communities for the implementation of thefirst mariculture systems to increase the probability of success.
� Obligatory and regular meetings during project activitiesshould take place with all people involved to improve com-munication and progress of the project.
� Project leaders should advise local people on the managementand investment of profits, and emphasize the importance ofinvestments in the mariculture system (long-term view) forincreasing the standard of living of participants.
� Long-term interpersonal (and technical) support and supervi-sion of mariculture operations should be continued at leastuntil a sufficient quantity of mariculture products is obtained inmarketable quality.
� Negative stakeholder relations (e.g. with the head of village ortraders) need to be considered and specific involvement in thesocialization for the project needs to ensure the support ofcommunity leaders.
� If traders or companies are involved, the power- and risk-balance between villagers and traders/mariculture companiesshould be monitored by a third party, such as staff fromDKP, anNGO or a local university to avoid that those non-local com-panies or influential locals monopolize profits to the dis-advantage of villagers.
� Specific daily/seasonal activities affecting the project, such asfishermen involved in soma cang, need to be kept in mind toensure that the project design provides equal participationchances for all members of the community.
� During the socialization process, any attempts to achievea change of attitudes of villagers engaged in the project (e.g.willingness to give up fishing) need to acknowledge the highimportance of fishing with multi-dimensional contributions tothe quality of life for coastal people.
� Bad experiences of villagers with previous projects and re-searchers need to be addressed and trust created during the
L.-M. von Essen et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 73 (2013) 101e112 111
socialization process to achieve engagement of villagers inproject activities.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Dr. Inneke Rumengan from the SamRatulangi University in Manado. Furthermore, we thank HanneDarbol from Gangga Island Resort & Spa for her support and theprovision of funding, as well as all other employees of the resortwhichwere involved in the project. SendyMelatunan is thanked forher assistance whilst conducting the survey work. We thank thevillagers of Bohoi and Bulutui for their hospitality and openness.The Indonesian Ministry for Research and Technology (RISTEK) isthanked for providing the permission to conduct this research.L-MvE and SCAF received funding from the German Federal Min-istry of Education and Research (BMBF, Grant No. 03F0474A) withinthe frame of the bilateral IndonesianeGerman research programSPICE II (Science for the Protection of Indonesian Coastal MarineEcosystems).
References
Alauddin, M., Hamid, M., 1999. Towards Sustainable Shrimp Culture in Thailand andthe Region. Shrimp Culture in Bangladesh with Emphasis on Social and Eco-nomic Aspects. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research.
Allison, E.H., 2009. Building resilient small-scale coastal fisheries and aquaculturethrough livelihood diversification. In: APFIC/FAO Regional Consultative Work-shop Best Practices to Support and Improve the Livelihoods of Small-scaleFisheries and Aquaculture Households, 13e15 October 2009, Manila, Philip-pines. FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok.
Ask, E.I., Azanza, R.V., 2002. Advances in cultivation technology of commercialeucheumatoid species: a review with suggestions for future research. Aqua-culture 206, 257e277.
Badan Pusat Statistik, 2010. Hasil Sensul Penduduk 2010. Data Agregat per Provinsi.http://www.scribd.com/doc/41029454/Sensus-Penduduk-2010-BPS(14.10.2012).
Brugère, C., Holvoet, K., Allison, E.H., 2008. Livelihood Diversification in Coastal andInland Fishing Communities: Misconceptions, Evidence and Implications forFisheries Management. In: Working paper, Sustainable Fisheries LivelihoodsProgramme (SFLP). FAO/DFID, Rome.
Bunce, L., Townsley, P., Pomeroy, R., Pollnac, R., 2000. Socioeconomic Manual forCoral Reef Management. Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network. AustralianInstitute of Marine Science.
Bunting, J. 2010, Mechanisms for Increasing Electricity Access for Entrepreneurs onRural Islands of Indonesia. Master thesis. Nicholas School of the Environment.Duke University.
Burke, L., Reytar, K., Spalding, M., Perry, A., 2011. Reefs at Risk Revisited. WorldResources Institute (WRI), Washington, DC, USA.
Christie, P., 2004. Marine Protected areas as Biological Successes and Social Failuresin Southeast Asia, American Fisheries Society Symposium: pp. 155e164.
Conand, C., Muthiga, N., Aumeeruddy, R., De La Torre Castro, M., Frouin, P., Mgaya, Y.,Mirault, E., Ochiewo, J., Rasolofonirina, R., 2006. A three-year project on seacucumbers in the southwestern Indian Ocean: national and regional analyses toimprove management. SPC Beche-de-mer Information Bulletin 23, 11e15.
Crawford, B.R., Kussoy, P., Pollnac, R.B., Sondita, F., 1999. A comparison of level ofdevelopment among coastal and non-coastal communities in North Sulawesiand South Sumatera. Pesisir dan Lautan, Journal of Coastal and Marine Re-sources 2 (1), 1e11.
Crawford, B.R., 2002. Seaweed Farming: an Alternative Livelihood for Small-scaleFishers? Working Paper. Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island,USA.
Crawford, B.R., 2003. Fostering Marine Conservation in Indonesia: Developing Ca-pacity to Implement Community-based Marine Sanctuaries. Final Report(October 1999eApril 2003). Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Is-land, USA.
Crawford, B.R., Kasmidi, M., 2004. Factors Influencing Progress in EstablishingCommunity-based Marine Protected Areas in Likupang Sub-district of NorthSulawesi, Indonesia. Working paper. Coastal Resource Center. University ofRhode Island, USA.
Cullen, L.C., 2007. Marine Resource Dependence, Resource use Patterns and Iden-tification of Economic Performance Criteria within a Small Island Community:Kaledupa, Indonesia. Master thesis. Department of Biological Sciences. Uni-versity of Essex.
Dahuri, R., Dutton, I.M., 2000. Integrated coastal and marine management entersa new era in Indonesia. Integrated Coastal Zone Management 1, 11e16.
Darsono, P., 2002. Sumberdaya dan Perikanan Teripang dari Daerah SulawesiUtara. In: Ruyitno, Aziz, A., Pramudji (Eds.), Perairan Sulawesi dan Sekitarnya.
Biologi, Lingkungan dan Oseanografi. Pusat Penelitian Oseanografi LIPI,Jakarta, pp. 47e54.
Dutton, I.M., 2005. If only fish could vote: the enduring challenges of coastaland marine resources management in post-reformasi Indonesia. In:Resosudarmo, B.P. (Ed.), The Politics and Economics of Indonesia’s Natural Re-sources. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore, pp. 162e178.
Flick, U., 2009. Qualitative Sozialforschung. Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag, Hamburg.Freytag, I., Kunzmann, A., 2009. Threats to the aquatic ecosystem. In: Wolff, M. (Ed.),
Tropical Waters and Their Living Resources: Ecology Assessment and Man-agement. Verlag H. M. Hausschild GmbH, Bremen, Germany, pp. 99e117.
Glaser, M., Baitoningsih, W., Ferse, S.C.A., Neil, M., Deswandi, R., 2010a. Whosesustainability? Top-down participation and emergent rules in marine protectedarea management in Indonesia. Marine Policy 34, 1215e1225.
Glaser, M., Radjawali, I., Ferse, S.C.A., Glaeser, B., 2010b. ‘Nested’ participation inhierarchical societies? Lessons for social-ecological research and management.International Journal of Society Systems Science 2, 390e414.
Glaser, M., Krause, G., Oliveira, R.S., Herazo-Fontalvo, M., 2010c. Mangroves andpeople: a social-ecological system. In: Saint Paul, U., Schneider, H. (Eds.),Mangrove Dynamics and Management in North Brazil. Springer, Heidelberg,Berlin, Germany, pp. 307e354.
Grimble, R.J., Wellard, K., 1997. Stakeholder methodologies in natural resourcemanagement: a review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities.Agricultural Systems 55, 173e193.
Hanson, A.J., Augustine, I., Courtney, C.A., Fauzi, A., Gammage, S. (Eds.), 2003. ProyekPesisir. An Assessment of the Coastal Management Project (CRMP) in Indonesia.Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island, USA.
Hamblin, R., Jacobsen, B., Miller, J., 1973. A Mathematical Theory of Social Change.John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Haylor, G., 2004. Poverty reduction and aquatic resources. In: NACA/FAO (Ed.),Emerging Trends and Experiences in Asia-Pacific Aquaculture. Prepared by theNetwork of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific and Food and AgricultureOrganisation of the United Nations for the 15th NACA Governing CouncilMeeting, 21–25th April 2004, Colombo, Sri Lanka. NACA/FAO, Bangkok, Thai-land, pp. 47e55.
Ireland, C., Malleret, D., Baker, L., 2004. Alternative Sustainable Livelihoods forCoastal Communities e a Review of Experience and Guide to Best Practice. TheIDL Group, Somerset.
Kemper, E.A., Stringfield, S., Teddlie, C., 2003. Mixed methods sampling strategies insocial science research. In: Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C. (Eds.), Handbook of MixedMethods in Social and Behavioral Research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks,CA, pp. 273e296.
Mauksit, A., Maala, L., Suspita, A., 2005. Seaweed culture and farmer incomes inBekasi, Indonesia. Stream Journal 4 (4), 1e3.
Meng, X., Manning, C., Shi, L., Tajuddin, N.E. (Eds.), 2010. Rural-urban Migration inChina and Indonesia: Patterns, Consequences, and Policy Interventions. http://rse.anu.edu.au/rumici/pdf/general_info_part-e-final.pdf (12.10.2012).
Miyata, S., Sawada, Y., 2002. Investment Under Uncertainty: Lessons from Aqua-culture in Indonesia. 8th Convention of East Asian Economic Association, KualaLumpur. 4e5 November.
Miyata, S., 2003. Household’s risk attitudes in Indonesian villages. Applied Eco-nomics 35 (5), 573e583.
Miyata, S., Manatunge, J., 2004. Knowledge sharing and other decision factorsinfluencing adoption of aquaculture in Indonesia. International Journal of WaterResources Development 20 (4), 523e536.
Ogundari, K., Ojo, S.O., 2009. An examination of income generation potential ofaquaculture farms in alleviating household poverty: estimation and policy im-plications fromNigeria. Turkish Journal of Fisheries andAquatic Sciences9, 39e45.
Osseweijer, M., 2000. We wander in our ancestors yard: sea cucumber gathering inAru, Eastern Indonesia. Studies in Environmental Anthropology 5, 55e78.
Padilla, J.E., Lampe, H.C., 1989. The economics of seaweed farming in the Philip-pines. Naga, The ICLARM Quarterly 12 (3), 3e5.
Pet-Soede, L., 2003. Mariculture as a Sustainable Livelihood Strategy in Support ofConservation and Management e a Case Study of Komodo National Park,Indonesia. Improving Coastal Livelihoods through Sustainable AquaculturePractices. A Report to the Collaborative APEC Grouper Research and Develop-ment Network (FWG/01/2001).
Pollnac, R.B., 1982. Sociocultural aspects of implementing aquaculture systems inmarine fishing communities. In: Smith, L.J., Peterson, S. (Eds.), AquacultureDevelopment in Less Developed Countries: Social, Economic, and PoliticalProblems. Westview Press, Boulder, CO, USA, pp. 31e52.
Pollnac, R.B., Pomeroy, R.S., Harkes, I.H.T., 2001. Fishery policy and job satisfaction inthree Southeast Asian fisheries. Ocean & Coastal Management 44, 531e544.
Pollnac, R.B., Crawford, B.R., Sukmara, A., 2002. Community-based Coastal Re-sources Management: An Interim Assessment of the Proyek Pesisir Field Site inBentenan and Tumbak Villages, North Sulawesi, Indonesia. Technical Report TE-02/01-E. Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island, USA.
Pomeroy, R.S., 1992. Aquaculture development: an alternative for small scale-fisherfolk in developing countries. In: Pollnac, R.B., Weeks, P. (Eds.), CoastalAquaculture in Developing Countries: Problems and Perspectives. InternationalCenter for Marine Resource Development, University of Rhode Island, pp. 73e86.
Priyambodo, B., Sarifin, 2009. Lobster aquaculture industry in eastern Indonesia:present status and prospects. In: Williams, K.C. (Ed.), Spiny Lobster Aquaculturein the Asia-pacific Region. Proceedings of an International Symposium, NhaTrang, Vietnam, 9e10 December 2008. ACIAR Proceedings Series, vol. 132,pp. 36e45.
L.-M. von Essen et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 73 (2013) 101e112112
Rogers, E.M., 1995. Diffusion of Innovations, fourth ed. The Free Press, New York.Schwerdtner Máñez, K., Ferse, S.C.A., 2010. The history of Makassan trepang fishing
and trade. PLoS ONE 5 (6), e11346.Sievanen, L., Crawford, B., Pollnac, R., Lowe, C., 2005. Weeding through assumptions
of livelihood approaches in ICM: seaweed farming in the Philippines andIndonesia. Ocean & Coastal Management 48, 297e313.
Sopher, D.E., 1965. The Sea Nomads: A Study Based on the Literature of the Mar-itime Boat People of Southeast Asia, vol. 5. Memoirs of the National Museum,Singapore. 422 p.
Tam, C., 2006. Harmony hurts: participation and silent conflict at an Indonesian fishpond. Environmental Management 38 (1), 1e15.
Toral-Granada, V., 2006. The Biological and Trade Status of Sea Cucumbers in theFamilies Holothuriidae and Stichopodidae. In: Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. Twenty-second meetingof the Animals Committee; Lima, Peru.
Tulungen, J., Kussoy, P., Crawford, B., 1998. Community Based Coastal ResourcesManagement in Indonesia: North Sulawesi Early Stage Experiences. Conventionof Integrated Coastal Management Practitioners in the Philippines, Davao City,Philippines.
Tuwo, A., 2004. Status of sea cucumber fisheries and farming in Indonesia. In:Lovatelli, A., comp. (Eds.), Advances in Sea Cucumber Aquaculture and Man-agement. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 463, FAO Fisheries Department Rome,Italy.
World Bank, 2004. Saving Fish and Fishers. Towards Sustainable and EquitableGovernance of the Global Fishing Sector. Report No. 29090 e GLB. World Bank,Washington, USA.
Recommended
