final report perception survey of marine …

FINAL REPORT

PERCEPTION SURVEY OF MARINE CONSERVATION AND

SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES MANAGEMENT IN MALUKU,

NORTH MALUKU AND WEST PAPUA FOR

COMMUNICATIONS

SUSTAINABLE ECOSYSTEMS ADVANCED (SEA) PROJECT

JULY 2017

This report is made possible by the generous support of the American People through the United States Agency

for International Development (USAID) with the close collaboration of the Government of Indonesia (GOI). The

contents of this report are the sole responsibility of Coral Triangle Center (CTC) and do not necessarily reflect

the views of USAID or the United States Government.

USAID SEA PROJECT PERCEPTION SURVEY OF MARINE CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES MANAGEMENT IN MALUKU, NORTH MALUKU AND WEST PAPUA FOR COMMUNICATIONS – FINAL REPORT | 2

FINAL REPORT

Perception Survey of Marine Conservation and Sustainable

Fisheries Management in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua

for Communications

Sustainable Ecosystems Advanced (SEA) Project

Team Members:

Hesti Widodo

Leilani Gallardo

I Putu Aryasukma Widya Yoga Putra

I Nyoman Suardana

Survey Assistants:

Ardan Firmansyah

Qhusnul

Putu Amandiartha Pundarika

August 2017

Cover photo by Yoga Putra/CTC


Contents

Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................................................... 6

List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 7

List of Tables .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 15

List of Pictures ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 16

Executive Summary............................................................................................................................................................................... 17

I. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................................. 18

II. Objectives ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 19

III. Methodology ................................................................................................................................................................................. 19

III.A. Pre-survey Test .................................................................................................................................................................. 20

III.B. Sampling Design ................................................................................................................................................................. 21

III.C. Survey in in Maluku ........................................................................................................................................................... 23

III.D. Survey in North Maluku .................................................................................................................................................. 24

III.E. Survey in West Papua ...................................................................................................................................................... 25

III.F. Post-survey Activities ....................................................................................................................................................... 25

IV. Respondents’ Background ......................................................................................................................................................... 26

IV.A. Respondents in Maluku .................................................................................................................................................... 26

IV.B. Respondents in North Maluku ....................................................................................................................................... 26

IV.C. Respondents in West Papua ........................................................................................................................................... 26

IV.D. Respondents’ Socio-Economic Background ............................................................................................................... 27

IV.D.a. Education ................................................................................................................................................................ 27

IV.D.b. Livelihod .................................................................................................................................................................. 28

IV.D.c. Income..................................................................................................................................................................... 30

IV.D.d. Income Classification Based on Livelihood .................................................................................................... 32

IV.D.e. Gender Distribution Based on Livelihood ..................................................................................................... 34

V. Summary of Key Results ............................................................................................................................................................ 36

VI. Presentation of Key Issues ........................................................................................................................................................ 38

VI.A. Perception on Key Marine and Fisheries Resources Management Issues .......................................................... 38

VI.A.a. Perception of Health of Marine Resources in Locality Based on Livelihood ........................................ 38

VI.A.b. Perception of Future Health of Marine Resources in Locality Based on Livelihood .......................... 40

VI.A.c. Perception on the Importance of the Status of Coral Reefs in Locality ................................................ 42

VI.A.d. Perception of the Health of Coral Reefs in Locality Based on Livelihood ............................................ 44


VI.A.e. Perception of Future Health of Coral Reefs in Locality Based on Livelihood ...................................... 44

VI.A.f. Perception of Destructive Fishing as Common Practice in Locality ....................................................... 45

VI.A.g. Perception of Food Fish Supply Based on Income....................................................................................... 47

VI.A.h. Perception on Availability of Fish Food Supply in Locality Classified by Gender ................................ 49

VI.A.i. Perception on Availability of Fish Food Supply in Locality Based on Livelihood ................................. 50

VI.A.j. Perception on the Past and Future Availability of Fish Food Supply in Locality Based on Livelihood

.................................................................................................................................................................................. 51

VI.A.k. Perception of Disappearance of Fish Species in Locality ........................................................................... 55

VI.A.l. Perception on the Awareness of Protected Fish Trade at Locality ........................................................ 57

VI.B. Perception of Marine Protected Areas ........................................................................................................................ 62

VI.B.a. Perception of Knowledge about MPAs Based on Livelihood.................................................................... 62

VI.B.b. Perception on the Importance of MPAs Based on Livelihood ................................................................. 63

VI.B.c. Perception of Punishment for Violation of Rules in the MPAs................................................................. 65

VI.B.d. Perception on Which Authority to Regulate the MPAs ............................................................................ 67

VI.B.e. Perception on Compliance on Government Regulation about Marine and Coastal Resources ..... 69

VI.B.f. Perception of the Existence of Traditional Law about Marine Protection ............................................ 71

VI.B.g. Perception of Compliance of Government Regulation vs Traditional Law about Marine Resources

Protection .............................................................................................................................................................. 72

VI.C. Perception of the Influencers in Marine Resource Management and Protection ............................................. 75

VI.C.a. Perception of Persons Responsible for Destruction of Marine and Coastal Areas ............................ 75

VI.C.b. Perception of Persons Who Might Be Able to Create Laws and Regulations Regarding Marine

Resources ............................................................................................................................................................... 77

VI.C.c. Perception of the Willingness to Do Activities to Support Marine Conservation ............................. 79

VI.C.d. Perception of Waste Disposal into the Sea as Common Practice .......................................................... 86

VI.C.e. Perception on Severe Impacts Caused by Marine Pollution to Marine Animals.................................. 88

VI.C.f. Perception on the Existence of Waste Management Services at Locality ............................................. 90

VI.C.g. Perception on Reasons of Improper Waste Disposal in Coastal Areas ................................................ 92

VI.D. Perception on Marine and Fisheries Information Dissemination .......................................................................... 94

VI.D.a. Key Sources of Marine and Fisheries Information Dissemination ........................................................... 94

VI.D.b. Level of Confidence about Information from Key Resource Persons Based on Livelihood ............ 96

VI.D.c. Frequency of Marine and Fisheries Information Received in the Last Six Months Based on

Livelihood ............................................................................................................................................................... 97

VI.D.d. Frequency of Marine and Fisheries Information Sharing in the Last Six Months Based on

Livelihood ............................................................................................................................................................... 98

VI.D.e. Preferred Media for Marine and Fisheries Information Dissemination Based on Livelihood ........... 99

VI.D.f. Analysis for Top Three Preferred Media for Marine and Fisheries Information Dissemination

Based on Livelihood .......................................................................................................................................... 100

VI.D.f.1. Newspaper/Magazine ....................................................................................................................... 100


VI.D.f.2. Television ............................................................................................................................................ 103

VI.D.f.3. Social Media ........................................................................................................................................ 109

VI.D.g. Perceived Clarity and Understandability of Media Format ..................................................................... 115

VI.D.h. Preferred Meeting Places for Marine and Fisheries Information Sharing Based on Gender .......... 120

VI.D.i. Perceived Outreach Activity for Marine and Fisheries Information Dissemination ........................ 122

VI.D.j. Perceived Importance and Preferred Method of Children Education in Marine and Fisheries

Information Dissemination. ............................................................................................................................ 128

VII. Follow Up and Recommendations ....................................................................................................................................... 131

VIII. Annexes ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 131


Acronyms and Abbreviations

BAPPEDA Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Daerah

(Regional Development Planing Agency)

BKSDA Balai Konservasi Sumber Daya Alam

(Natural Resources Conservation Center)

BPS Badan Pusat Statistik

(Indonesian Nasional Bureau of Statistics)

C4C Communication for Change

CTC Coral Triangle Center

DKP Dinas Kelautan dan Perikanan

(Marine and Fisheries Agency)

EAFM Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management

FCO Field Communication Officer

FEO Fisheries Extension Officer

FMA Fisheries Management Area

GOI Government of Indonesia

MDPI Yayasan Masyarakat dan Perikanan Indonesia

(Indonesian Community and Fisheries Foundation)

MEL Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning

MMAF Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries

MPA Marine Protected Area

NGO Non-governmental Organization

SEA Sustainable Ecosystems Advanced

SMS Short Message Service

SPSS Statistical Package for Social Science

TVRI Televisi Republik Indonesia (National Television Channel of Indonesia)

USAID United States Agency for International Development

USG United States Government

WCS Wildlife Conservation Society

WPP Wilayah Pengelolaan Perikanan (FMA)

WWF World Wildlife Fund


List of Figures

Figure 1 Educational level distribution among respondents in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua. ............................. 27 Figure 2 Educational level distribution among respondents at district level in Maluku. ........................................................ 27 Figure 3 Educational level distribution among respondents at district level in North Maluku. .............................................. 28 Figure 4 Educational level distribution among respondents at district level in West Papua. ................................................. 28 Figure 5 Livelihood sector distribution among respondents in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua. ............................. 29 Figure 6 Livelihood sector distribution among respondents at District Level in Maluku........................................................ 29 Figure 7 Livelihood sector distribution among respondents at district level in North Maluku. .............................................. 29 Figure 8 Livelihood sector distribution among respondents at district level in West Papua. ................................................. 30 Figure 9 Income classification distribution among respondents in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua......................... 30 Figure 10 Income classification distribution among respondents at district level in Maluku. ................................................ 31 Figure 11 Income classification distribution among respondents at district level in North Maluku. ...................................... 31 Figure 12 Income classification distribution among respondents at district Level in West Papua. ........................................ 31 Figure 13 Income Distribution based on livelihood among respondents in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua. ........... 32 Figure 14 Income distribution based on livelihood among respondents at district level in Maluku........................................ 33 Figure 15 Income distribution based on livelihood among respondents at district level in North Maluku. ............................. 33 Figure 16 Income distribution based on livelihood among respondents at district level in West Papua................................. 33 Figure 17 Gender distribution based on livelihood among respondents in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua. ............ 34 Figure 18 Gender distribution based on livelihood among respondents at district level in Maluku. ...................................... 34 Figure 19 Gender distribution based on livelihood among respondents at district level in North Maluku. ............................. 35 Figure 20 Gender distribution based on livelihood among respondents at district level in West Papua. ............................... 35 Figure 21 Distribution of Perception of health of marine resources in locality based on livelihood among respondents in

Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua........................................................................................................... 38 Figure 22 Distribution of perception of health of marine resources in locality based on livelihood among respondents at

district level in Maluku. ..................................................................................................................................... 38 Figure 23 Distribution of perception of health of marine resources in locality based on livelihood among respondents at

district level in North Maluku. ........................................................................................................................... 39 Figure 24 Distribution of perception of health of marine resources in locality based on livelihood among respondents at

district level in West Papua. .............................................................................................................................. 39 Figure 25 Distribution of perception of future health of marine resources based on livelihood among respondents in Maluku,

North Maluku and West Papua. ....................................................................................................................... 40 Figure 26 Distribution of perception of future health of marine resources based on livelihood among respondents at district

level in Maluku. ............................................................................................................................................... 41 Figure 27 Distribution of perception of future health of marine resources based on livelihood among respondents at district

level in North Maluku. ...................................................................................................................................... 41 Figure 28 Distribution of perception of future health of marine resources based on livelihood among respondents at district

level in West Papua. ........................................................................................................................................ 41 Figure 29 Distribution of opinion about coral reefs among the respondents in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua. .... 42 Figure 30 Distribution of opinion about coral reefs among the respondents at district level in Maluku. ............................... 43 Figure 31 Distribution of opinion about coral reefs among the respondents at district level in North Maluku. ..................... 43 Figure 32 Distribution of opinion about coral reefs among the respondents at district level in West Papua. ........................ 44 Figure 33 Distribution of Perception of the Health of Coral Reefs in Locality Based on Livelihood among Respondents in

Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua........................................................................................................... 44 Figure 34 Distribution perception of future health of coral reefs based on livelihood among respondents in Maluku, North

Maluku and West Papua. ................................................................................................................................. 45 Figure 35 Distribution of perception of destructive fishing as common practice among respondents in Maluku, North Maluku

and West Papua. ............................................................................................................................................. 45


Figure 36 Distribution of perception of destructive fishing as common practice among respondents at district level in Maluku.

....................................................................................................................................................................... 46 Figure 37 Distribution of perception of destructive fishing as common practice among respondents at district level in North

Maluku. ........................................................................................................................................................... 46 Figure 38 Distribution of perception of destructive fishing as common practice among respondents at district level in West

Papua. ............................................................................................................................................................. 46 Figure 39 Distribution of the origin of fish source in locality based on income among respondents in Maluku, North Maluku

and West Papua. ............................................................................................................................................. 47 Figure 40 Distribution of the origin of fish source in locality based on income among respondents at district level in Maluku.

....................................................................................................................................................................... 48 Figure 41 Distribution of the origin of fish source in locality based on income among respondents at district level in North

Maluku. ........................................................................................................................................................... 48 Figure 42 Distribution of the origin of fish source in locality based on income among respondents at district level in West

Papua. ............................................................................................................................................................. 48 Figure 43 Distribution of perception on availability of fish food supply in locality based on gender among respondents in

Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua........................................................................................................... 49 Figure 44 Distribution of perception on availability of fish food supply in locality based on gender among respondents at

district level in Maluku. ..................................................................................................................................... 49 Figure 45 Distribution of perception on availability of fish food supply in locality based on gender among respondents at

district level in North Maluku. ........................................................................................................................... 50 Figure 46 Distribution of perception on availability of fish food supply in locality based on gender among respondents at

district level in West Papua. .............................................................................................................................. 50 Figure 47 Distribution of perception on availability of fish food supply in locality based on livelihood among respondents in

Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua........................................................................................................... 51 Figure 48 Distribution of perception on the past and future condition of the availability of fish food supply in locality based

on livelihood among respondents in Maluku. ..................................................................................................... 52 Figure 49 Distribution of perception on the past and future condition of the availability of fish food supply in locality based

on livelihood among respondents in North Maluku. ............................................................................................ 52 Figure 50 Distribution of perception on the past and future condition of the availability of fish food supply in locality based

on livelihood among respondents in West Papua. .............................................................................................. 52 Figure 51 Distribution of perception on the past and future condition of the availability of fish food supply in locality based

on livelihood among respondents in West Seram. .............................................................................................. 53 Figure 52 Distribution of perception on the past and future condition of the availability of fish food supply in locality based

on livelihood among respondents in Central Maluku .......................................................................................... 53 Figure 53 Distribution of perception on the past and future condition of the availability of fish food supply in locality based

on livelihood among respondents in East Seram . ............................................................................................... 53 Figure 54 Distribution of perception on the past and future condition of the availability of fish food supply in locality based

on livelihood among respondents in South Halmahera. ...................................................................................... 54 Figure 55 Distribution of perception on the past and future condition of the availability of fish food supply in locality based

on livelihood among respondents in Morotai Island. ........................................................................................... 54 Figure 56 Distribution of perception on the past and future condition of the availability of fish food supply in locality based

on livelihood among respondents in Sula Islands. ............................................................................................... 54 Figure 57 Distribution of perception on the past and future condition of the availability of fish food supply in locality based

on livelihood among respondents in Bintuni Bay. ................................................................................................ 55 Figure 58 Distribution of perception on the past and future condition of the availability of fish food supply in locality based

on livelihood among respondents in South Sorong. ............................................................................................. 55 Figure 59 Distribution of perception on the awareness of disappearance of some fish species in locality among respondents

in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua. ...................................................................................................... 56 Figure 60 Identification of disappearing fish species according to respondents in Maluku. .................................................. 56


Figure 61 Identification of disappearing fish species according to respondents in North Maluku. ........................................ 57 Figure 62 Identification of disappearing fish species according to respondents in West Papua. ........................................... 57 Figure 63 Distribution of perception on the awareness of protected fish trade and reactions at locality among respondents in

Maluku. ........................................................................................................................................................... 58 Figure 64 Distribution of perception on the awareness of protected fish trade and reactions at locality among respondents in

North Maluku. ................................................................................................................................................. 58 Figure 65 Distribution of perception on the awareness of protected fish trade and reactions at locality among respondents in

West Papua. .................................................................................................................................................... 58 Figure 66 Distribution of perception on the awareness of protected fish trade and reactions at locality among respondents in

Ambon. ............................................................................................................................................................ 59 Figure 67 Distribution of perception on the awareness of protected fish trade and reactions at locality among respondents in

West Seram. ................................................................................................................................................... 59 Figure 68 Distribution of perception on the awareness of protected fish trade and reactions at locality among respondents in

Central Maluku. ............................................................................................................................................... 59 Figure 69 Distribution of perception on the awareness of protected fish trade and reactions at locality among respondents in

East Seram. ..................................................................................................................................................... 60 Figure 70 Distribution of perception on the awareness of protected fish trade and reactions at locality among respondents in

Ternate............................................................................................................................................................ 60 Figure 71 Distribution of perception on the awareness of protected fish trade and reactions at locality among respondents in

South Halmahera. ............................................................................................................................................ 60 Figure 72 Distribution of perception on the awareness of protected fish trade and reactions at locality among respondents in

Morotai Island. ................................................................................................................................................. 61 Figure 73 Distribution of perception on the awareness of protected fish trade and reactions at locality among respondents in

Sula Islands. ..................................................................................................................................................... 61 Figure 74 Distribution of perception on the awareness of protected fish trade and reactions at locality among respondents in

Manokwari. ..................................................................................................................................................... 61 Figure 75 Distribution of perception on the awareness of protected fish trade and reactions at locality among respondents in

Bintuni Bay. ..................................................................................................................................................... 62 Figure 76 Distribution of perception on the awareness of protected fish trade and reactions at locality among respondents in

South Sorong. .................................................................................................................................................. 62 Figure 77 Distribution of level of knowledge about MPAs based on livelihood among respondents in Maluku, North Maluku

and West Papua. ............................................................................................................................................. 63 Figure 78 Distribution of perception on the importance of MPAs based on livelihood among respondents in Maluku, North

Maluku and West Papua. ................................................................................................................................. 63 Figure 79 Distribution of perception on the importance of MPAs based on livelihood among respondents at district level in

Maluku. ........................................................................................................................................................... 64 Figure 80 Distribution of perception on the importance of MPAs based on livelihood among respondents at district level in

North Maluku. ................................................................................................................................................. 64 Figure 81 Distribution of perception on the importance of MPAs based on livelihood among respondents at district level in

West Papua ..................................................................................................................................................... 64 Figure 82 Distribution of punishment for violation of rules in MPAs among respondents in Maluku, North Maluku and West

Papua. ............................................................................................................................................................. 65 Figure 83 Distribution of punishment for violation of rules in MPAs among respondents at district level in Maluku. ............. 66 Figure 84 Distribution of punishment for violation of rules in MPAs among respondents at district level in North Maluku. ... 66 Figure 85 Distribution of punishment for violation of rules in MPAs among respondents at district level in West Papua. ...... 67 Figure 86 Distribution of perception on which authority to regulate the MPAs among respondents in Maluku, North Maluku

and West Papua. ............................................................................................................................................. 68 Figure 87 Distribution of perception on which authority to regulate the MPAs among respondents at district level in Maluku.

....................................................................................................................................................................... 68


Figure 88 Distribution of perception on which authority to regulate the MPAs among respondents at district level in North

Maluku. ........................................................................................................................................................... 68 Figure 89 Distribution of perception on which authority to regulate the MPAs among respondents at district level in West

Papua. ............................................................................................................................................................. 69 Figure 90 Distribution of perception on compliance on government regulations about marine and coastal resources among

respondents in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua. ................................................................................... 69 Figure 91 Distribution of perception on compliance on government regulations about marine and coastal resources among

respondents at district level in Maluku. ............................................................................................................. 70 Figure 92 Distribution of perception on compliance on government regulations about marine and coastal resources among

respondents at district level in North Maluku. .................................................................................................... 70 Figure 93 Distribution of perception on compliance on government regulations about marine and coastal resources among

respondents at district level in West Papua. ...................................................................................................... 70 Figure 94 Distribution of perception of the existence of traditional law about marine protection among respondents in

Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua........................................................................................................... 71 Figure 95 Distribution of perception of the existence of traditional law about marine protection among respondents at

district level in Maluku. ..................................................................................................................................... 71 Figure 96 Distribution of perception of the existence of traditional law about marine protection among respondents at

district level in North Maluku. ........................................................................................................................... 72 Figure 97 Distribution of perception of the existence of traditional law about marine protection among respondents at

district level in West Papua. .............................................................................................................................. 72 Figure 98 Distribution of perception of compliance on government regulation VS traditional law about marine resources

protection among respondents in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua......................................................... 73 Figure 99 Distribution of perception of compliance on government regulation VS traditional law about marine resources

among respondents at district level in Maluku. .................................................................................................. 74 Figure 100 Distribution of perception of compliance on government regulation VS traditional law about marine resources

among respondents at district level in North Maluku. ...................................................................................... 74 Figure 101 Distribution of perception of compliance on government regulation VS traditional law about marine resources

among respondents at district level in West Papua. ........................................................................................ 74 Figure 102 Distribution of perception of persons responsible for destruction of marine and coastal areas among respondents

in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua. ................................................................................................... 75 Figure 103 Distribution of perception of persons responsible for destruction of marine and coastal areas among respondents

at district level in Maluku. .............................................................................................................................. 75 Figure 104 Distribution of perception of persons responsible for destruction of marine and coastal areas among respondents

at district level in North Maluku. .................................................................................................................... 76 Figure 105 Distribution of perception of persons responsible for destruction of marine and coastal areas among respondents

at district level in West Papua. ....................................................................................................................... 76 Figure 106 Distribution of perception of persons who might be able to create marine regulation among respondents in

Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua. ....................................................................................................... 77 Figure 107 Distribution of perception of persons who might be able to create marine regulation among respondents at

district level in Maluku. .................................................................................................................................. 78 Figure 108 Distribution of perception of persons who might be able to create marine regulation among respondents at

district level in North Maluku. ........................................................................................................................ 78 Figure 109 Distribution of perception of persons who might be able to create marine regulation among respondents at

district level in West Papua. ........................................................................................................................... 78 Figure 110 Distribution of the willingness to conduct activities to conserve the sea among respondents in Maluku. ............. 79 Figure 111 Distribution of the willingness to conduct activities to conserve the sea among respondents in North Maluku. ... 80 Figure 112 Distribution of the willingness to conduct activities to conserve the sea among respondents in West Papua. ...... 80 Figure 113 Distribution of the willingness to conduct activities to conserve the sea among respondents in Ambon. .............. 81 Figure 114 Distribution of the willingness to conduct activities to conserve the sea among respondents in West Seram. ...... 81


Figure 115 Distribution of the willingness to conduct activities to conserve the sea among respondents in Central Maluku. . 82 Figure 116 Distribution of the willingness to conduct activities to conserve the sea among respondents in East Seram. ....... 82 Figure 117 Distribution of the willingness to conduct activities to conserve the sea among respondents in Ternate. ............. 83 Figure 118 Distribution of the willingness to conduct activities to conserve the sea among respondents in South Halmahera.

.................................................................................................................................................................... 83 Figure 119 Distribution of the willingness to conduct activities to conserve the sea among respondents in Morotai Island. ... 84 Figure 120 Distribution of the willingness to conduct activities to conserve the sea among respondents in Sula Islands. ....... 85 Figure 121 Distribution of the willingness to conduct activities to conserve the sea among respondents in Manokwari......... 85 Figure 122 Distribution of the willingness to conduct activities to conserve the sea among respondents in Bintuni Bay. ........ 86 Figure 123 Distribution of the willingness to conduct activities to conserve the sea among respondents in South Sorong. ..... 86 Figure 124 Distribution of perception of waste disposal into the sea as common practice among respondents in Maluku,

North Maluku and West Papua. .................................................................................................................... 87 Figure 125 Distribution of perception of waste disposal into the sea as common practice among respondents at district level

in Maluku. .................................................................................................................................................... 87 Figure 126 Distribution of perception of waste disposal into the sea as common practice among respondents at district level

in North Maluku. .......................................................................................................................................... 87 Figure 127 Distribution of perception of waste disposal into the sea as common practice among respondents at district level

in West Papua. ............................................................................................................................................. 88 Figure 128 Distribution of perception on severe impacts caused by sea pollution to marine animals among respondents in

Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua. ....................................................................................................... 89 Figure 129 Distribution of perception on severe impacts caused by sea pollution to marine animals among respondents at

district level in Maluku. .................................................................................................................................. 89 Figure 130 Distribution of perception on severe impacts caused by sea pollution to marine animals among respondents at

district level in North Maluku. ........................................................................................................................ 90 Figure 131 Distribution of perception on severe impacts caused by sea pollution to marine animals among respondents at

district level in West Papua. ........................................................................................................................... 90 Figure 132 Distribution of perception on the existence of waste management services at locality in Maluku, North Maluku

and West Papua. .......................................................................................................................................... 91 Figure 133 Distribution of perception on the existence of waste management services at locality at district level in Maluku.

.................................................................................................................................................................... 91 Figure 134 Distribution of perception on the existence of waste management services at locality at district level in North

Maluku. ........................................................................................................................................................ 91 Figure 135 Distribution of perception on the existence of waste management services at locality at district level in West

Papua. .......................................................................................................................................................... 92 Figure 136 Distribution of reasons of improper waste disposal in coastal areas among respondents in Maluku, North

Maluku and West Papua. .............................................................................................................................. 92 Figure 137 Distribution of reasons of improper waste disposal in coastal areas among respondents at district level in

Maluku. ........................................................................................................................................................ 93 Figure 138 Distribution of reasons of improper waste disposal in coastal areas among respondents at district level in North

Maluku. ........................................................................................................................................................ 93 Figure 139 Distribution of reasons of improper waste disposal in coastal areas among respondents at district level in West

Papua. .......................................................................................................................................................... 93 Figure 140 Distribution of key sources of marine and fisheries information among respondents in Maluku, North Maluku

and West Papua. .......................................................................................................................................... 94 Figure 141 Distribution of key sources of marine and fisheries information among respondents at district level in Maluku. . 95 Figure 142 Distribution of key sources of marine and fisheries information among respondents at district level in North

Maluku. ........................................................................................................................................................ 95 Figure 143 Distribution of key sources of marine and fisheries information among respondents at district level in West

Papua. .......................................................................................................................................................... 95


Figure 144 Distribution of level of confidence about information from key resource persons based on livelihood among

respondents in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua. ................................................................................ 96 Figure 145 Distribution of level of confidence about information from key resource persons based on livelihood among

respondents at district level in Maluku. ........................................................................................................... 96 Figure 146 Distribution of level of confidence about information from key resource persons based on livelihood among

respondents at district level in North Maluku. ................................................................................................. 97 Figure 147 Distribution of level of confidence about information from key resource persons based on livelihood among

respondents at district level in West Papua .................................................................................................... 97 Figure 148 Frequency of marine and fisheries information received in the last six months based on livelihood among

respondents in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua. ................................................................................ 98 Figure 149 Frequency of marine and fisheries information sharing in the last six months based on livelihood among

respondents in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua. ................................................................................ 98 Figure 150 Distribution of preferred media for marine and fisheries information dissemination based on livelihood among

respondents in Maluku. ................................................................................................................................. 99 Figure 151 Distribution of preferred media for marine and fisheries information dissemination based on livelihood among

respondents in North Maluku. ....................................................................................................................... 99 Figure 152 Distribution of preferred media for marine and fisheries information dissemination based on livelihood among

respondents in West Papua. ........................................................................................................................ 100 Figure 153 Frequency of newspaper/magazine reading based on livelihood among respondents in Maluku, North Maluku

and West Papua. ........................................................................................................................................ 100 Figure 154 Distribution of preferred kind of newspaper/magazine based on livelihood among respondents in Maluku, North

Maluku and West Papua. ............................................................................................................................ 101 Figure 155 Distribution of preferred kind of newspaper/magazine based on livelihood among respondents at district level in

Maluku. ...................................................................................................................................................... 102 Figure 156 Distribution of preferred kind of newspaper/magazine based on livelihood among respondents at district level in

North Maluku. ............................................................................................................................................ 102 Figure 157 Distribution of preferred kind of newspaper/magazine based on livelihood among respondents at district level in

West Papua. ............................................................................................................................................... 103 Figure 158 Frequency of Television Watching Based on Livelihood among Respondents in Maluku, North Maluku and West

Papua ......................................................................................................................................................... 103 Figure 159 Frequency of television watching based on livelihood among respondents at district level in Maluku. ............... 104 Figure 160 Frequency of television watching based on livelihood among respondents at district level in North Maluku. ..... 104 Figure 161 Frequency of television watching based on livelihood among respondents at district level in West Papua. ........ 105 Figure 162 Distribution of preferred time to watch television based on livelihood among respondents in Maluku, North

Maluku and West Papua. ............................................................................................................................ 105 Figure 163 Distribution of preferred time to watch television based on livelihood among respondents at district level in

Maluku. ...................................................................................................................................................... 106 Figure 164 Distribution of preferred time to watch television based on livelihood among respondents at district level in North

Maluku. ...................................................................................................................................................... 106 Figure 165 Distribution of preferred time to watch television based on livelihood among respondents at district level in West

Papua. ........................................................................................................................................................ 107 Figure 166 Distribution of preferred TV channel based on livelihood among respondents in Maluku, North Maluku and West

Papua ......................................................................................................................................................... 107 Figure 167 Distribution of preferred TV channel based on livelihood among respondents at district level in Maluku. ......... 108 Figure 168 Distribution of preferred TV channel based on livelihood among respondents at district level in North Maluku.

.................................................................................................................................................................. 108 Figure 169 Distribution of preferred TV channel based on livelihood among respondents at district level in West Papua. .. 109 Figure 170 Frequency of social media access based on livelihood among respondents in Maluku, North Maluku and West

Papua. ........................................................................................................................................................ 109


Figure 171 Frequency of social media access based on livelihood among respondents at district level in Maluku. .............. 110 Figure 172 Frequency of social media access based on livelihood among respondents at district level in North Maluku. .... 110 Figure 173 Frequency of social media access based on livelihood among respondents at district level in West Papua. ....... 111 Figure 174 Distribution of preferred social media based on livelihood among respondents in Maluku, North Maluku and

West Papua. ............................................................................................................................................... 111 Figure 175 Distribution of preferred social media based on livelihood among respondents at district level in Maluku. ....... 112 Figure 176 Distribution of preferred social media based on livelihood among respondents at district level in North Maluku.

.................................................................................................................................................................. 112 Figure 177 Distribution of preferred social media based on livelihood among respondents at district level in West Papua. 113 Figure 178 Distribution on reaction towards information received from social media based on livelihood among respondents

in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua. ................................................................................................. 113 Figure 179 Distribution on reaction towards information received from social media based on livelihood among respondents

at district level in Maluku. ............................................................................................................................ 114 Figure 180 Distribution on reaction towards information received from social media based on livelihood among respondents

at district level in North Maluku. .................................................................................................................. 114 Figure 181 Distribution on reaction towards information received from social media based on livelihood among respondents

at district level in West Papua. ..................................................................................................................... 115 Figure 182 Distribution of perception about clarity and understandability of media format among respondents in Maluku.

.................................................................................................................................................................. 115 Figure 183 Distribution of perception about clarity and understandability of media format among respondents in North

Maluku. ...................................................................................................................................................... 116 Figure 184 Distribution of perception about clarity and understandability of media format among respondents in West

Papua. ........................................................................................................................................................ 116 Figure 185 Distribution of perception about clarity and understandability of media format among respondents in Ambon. 116 Figure 186 Distribution of perception about clarity and understandability of media format among respondents in West

Seram. ........................................................................................................................................................ 117 Figure 187 Distribution of perception about clarity and understandability of media format among respondents in Central

Maluku. ...................................................................................................................................................... 117 Figure 188 Distribution of perception about clarity and understandability of media format among respondents in East

Seram. ........................................................................................................................................................ 117 Figure 189 Distribution of perception about clarity and understandability of media format among respondents in Ternate.

.................................................................................................................................................................. 118 Figure 190 Distribution of perception about clarity and understandability of media format among respondents in South

Halmahera. ................................................................................................................................................ 118 Figure 191 Distribution of perception about clarity and understandability of media format among respondents in Morotai

Island. ......................................................................................................................................................... 118 Figure 192 Distribution of perception about clarity and understandability of media format among respondents in Sula

Islands. ....................................................................................................................................................... 119 Figure 193 Distribution of perception about clarity and understandability of media format among respondents in Manokwari.

.................................................................................................................................................................. 119 Figure 194 Distribution of perception about clarity and understandability of media format among respondents in Bintuni Bay.

.................................................................................................................................................................. 119 Figure 195 Distribution of perception about clarity and understandability of media format among respondents in South

Sorong. ....................................................................................................................................................... 120 Figure 196 Distribution of preferred meeting places for information sharing based on gender among respondents in Maluku,

North Maluku and West Papua. .................................................................................................................. 121 Figure 197 Distribution of preferred meeting places for information sharing based on gender among respondents at district

level in Maluku. ........................................................................................................................................... 121


Figure 198 Distribution of preferred meeting places for information sharing based on gender among respondents at district

level in North Maluku. ................................................................................................................................. 122 Figure 199 Distribution of preferred meeting places for information sharing based on gender among respondents at district

level in West Papua. .................................................................................................................................... 122 Figure 200 Distribution of interest towards different kind of public outreach activities among respondents in Maluku. ...... 123 Figure 201 Distribution of interest towards different kind of public outreach activities among respondents in North Maluku.

.................................................................................................................................................................. 123 Figure 202 Distribution of interest towards different kind of public outreach activities among respondents in West Papua.

.................................................................................................................................................................. 123 Figure 203 Distribution of interest towards different kind of public outreach activities among respondents in Ambon. ....... 124 Figure 204 Distribution of interest towards different kind of public outreach activities among respondents in West Seram.

.................................................................................................................................................................. 124 Figure 205 Distribution of interest towards different kind of public outreach activities among respondents in Central Maluku.

.................................................................................................................................................................. 124 Figure 206 Distribution of interest towards different kind of public outreach activities among respondents in East Seram. 125 Figure 207 Distribution of interest towards different kind of public outreach activities among respondents in Ternate. ...... 125 Figure 208 Distribution of interest towards different kind of public outreach activities among respondents in South

Halmahera. ................................................................................................................................................ 125 Figure 209 Distribution of interest towards different kind of public outreach activities among respondents in Morotai Island.

.................................................................................................................................................................. 126 Figure 210 Distribution of interest towards different kind of public outreach activities among respondents in Sula Islands. 126 Figure 211 Distribution of interest towards different kind of public outreach activities among respondents in Manokwari. . 126 Figure 212 Distribution of interest towards different kind of public outreach activities among respondents in Bintuni Bay. . 127 Figure 213 Distribution of interest towards different kind of public outreach activities among respondents in South Sorong.

.................................................................................................................................................................. 127 Figure 214 Distribution of perceived importance of children education in marine and fisheries among respondents in Maluku,

North Maluku and West Papua. .................................................................................................................. 128 Figure 215 Distribution of preferred method for children education in marine and fisheries among respondents in Maluku,

North Maluku and West Papua. .................................................................................................................. 128 Figure 216 Distribution of perceived importance of children education in marine and fisheries among respondents at district

level in Maluku. ........................................................................................................................................... 129 Figure 217 Distribution of preferred method for children education in marine and fisheries among respondents at district

level in Maluku. ........................................................................................................................................... 129 Figure 218 Distribution of perceived importance of children education in marine and fisheries among respondents at district

level in North Maluku. ................................................................................................................................. 129 Figure 219 Distribution of preferred method for children education in marine and fisheries among respondents at district

level in North Maluku. ................................................................................................................................. 130 Figure 220 Distribution of perceived importance of children education in marine and fisheries among respondents at district

level in West Papua. .................................................................................................................................... 130 Figure 221 Distribution of preferred method for children education in marine and fisheries among respondents at district

level in West Papua. .................................................................................................................................... 130


List of Tables

Table 1 Total population of nine target districts in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua. (Source: BPS, 2015) ............. 21 Table 2 Sample size design at provincial and district level in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua............................... 21 Table 3 Sample size design at community level in Maluku. .............................................................................................. 22

Table 4 Sample size design at community level in North Maluku. ............................................................................... 22 Table 5 Sample size design at community level in West Papua. ....................................................................................... 22 Table 6 Actual number of respondents in Maluku. ........................................................................................................... 26 Table 7 Actual number of respondents in North Maluku. ................................................................................................. 26 Table 8 Actual number of respondents in West Papua. .................................................................................................... 26


List of Pictures

Picture 1 The villagers fill the questionnaire of USAID SEA Project Perception Survey in Lelei Village, Kayoa Sub-district,

South Halmahera, North Maluku, March 03, 2017………………………………………………………….. 19

Picture 2 Respondents fill the questionnaire of USAID SEA Project Perception Survey during the trial at University of

Patimurra, Ambon, Maluku, November 30, 2016……………………………………………………………… 20

Picture 3 Itinerary map of perception survey in Seram Island, Maluku. (Source: Google Map)……………………………... 23

Picture 4 Itinerary map of perception survey in North Maluku. (Source: Google Map)……………………………………... 24

Picture 5 Itinerary map of perception survey in West Papua. (Source: Google Map)……………………………………….. 25

Picture 6 Fishermen move their catch into a pick-up car in South Halmahera, North Maluku, on March 01, 2017…………. 34

Picture 7 Local fishermen return a sea turtle back to the sea after accidentally being caught in Morotai, North Maluku,

March 09, 2017……………………………………………………………………………………………... 36

Picture 8 Healthy marine condition in Guraici Islands of Kayoa Sub-district, South Halmahera, on March 03, 2017………... 39

Picture 9 Coastal community members in West Seram, Maluku, develop an integrated marine tourism and aquaculture

using open net cages on February 09, 2017…………………………………………………………………… 40

Picture 10 Coral reefs in the waters around Buano Island, West Seram, Maluku, on February 10, 2017…………………….. 42

Picture 11 Coral reefs in the waters around Sula Islands, North Maluku, on March 20, 2017………………………………. 43

Picture 12 Fisherman shows his catch of yellow-fin tuna in Bere-bere Village, Morotai, North Maluku, on March 09, 2017…... 47

Picture 13 Fish sold in Sesar Village, East Seram, Maluku, on February 02, 2017…………………………………………... 51

Picture 14 A Napoleon fish (Cheilinus undulatus) was caught swimming around Lifumatola Island, Sula Islands, North

Maluku, on March 20, 2017………………………………………………………………………………… 56

Picture 15 Valentine Strait in Buano Island, West Seram, will be proposed to be new MPA in Maluku……………………….. 65

Picture 16 SEA Core Team and CTC Team discuss the importance of MPA with fishermen in Buano Island, Maluku, on

February 12, 2017…………………………………………………………………………………………… 67

Picture 17 Discussion about compliance on government regulation and traditional law with members of Kuri Tribe in Bintuni

Bay, West Papua, on May 05, 2017………………………………………………………………………… 73

Picture 18 Local fishermen throw the remains of shrimp heads to the river in Bintuni Bay, West Papua, on May 05, 2017…… 76

Picture 19 Officers of the Marine and Fisheries Agency of North Maluku Province participate in the USAID SEA Project

perception survey on February 27, 2017………………………………………………………………………. 77

Picture 20 A woman in Kampung Tahiti, Bintuni Bay, West Papua, create a traditional trap for crabs on May 05, 2017……... 79

Picture 21 Villagers in Morotai Island, North Maluku, help fishermen to land the boat to the shore on March 09, 2017……... 84

Picture 22 A pile of garbage washed to the shore in Amahai, Central Maluku, on February 04, 2017………………………... 88

Picture 23 Plastic waste are seen around Kayoa Island, South Halmahera, North Maluku, on March 05, 2017……………... 89

Picture 24 Discussion with fisheries extension officers in Sula Islands, North Maluku, before field survey on March 14, 2017... 94

Picture 25 Information sharing in North Buano Village, West Seram, Maluku, on February 10, 2017……………………….. 101

Picture 26 A female respondent sits next to her television at Sesar Village, East Seram, Maluku, on February 04, 2017……… 104

Picture 27 Participants in Bere-bere Village, Morotai Island, North Maluku, fill the questionnaire on March 08, 2017………... 120

Picture 28 People from different villages in Sula Islands come to Sanana City to attend religious event on March 15, 2017…... 127


Executive Summary

This final report provides results and analysis of USAID Sustainable Ecosystems Advanced (SEA) Project Perception

Survey of Marine Conservation and Sustainable Fisheries Management in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua,

that was conducted during the first semester of 2017 by the Coral Triangle Center (CTC). The survey aims to gauge

the level of knowledge and perception of local communities within the USAID SEA Project targeted areas regarding

marine conservation and sustainable fisheries management and to provide data that will support the implementation

of the overall USAID SEA Project Communications Strategy.

The perception survey used methodology that includes the selection criteria for target villages, respondents and

independent interviewers. The villages were selected around the existing or new marine protected area (MPA) sites

in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua, based on the recommendation from the CTC technical task team and

other project implementing partners, such as the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), World Wildlife Fund (WWF)

Indonesia and Yayasan Masyarakat dan Perikanan Indonesia (MDPI). There were three villages selected from each

province to represent the project’s target MPA sites.

Before being rolled out in the field, the questionnaire was tested for feedback from the coastal community members

and marine and fisheries practicioners in Ambon, Maluku. The questionnaire also has passed the reliability and validity

test using SPSS Statistics and Microsoft Excel. The sampling size was design to have participation from 400

respondents, but ended up with 414 respondents. The data analysis includes tabulation and cross-tabulation using

pivot-table methodology to identify several significant correlations among measured variables. All data calculation

and tables can be found in the appendices.

Results of data analyzed show that majority of respondents work as fishermen and civil servants who have high

dependency to the marine sectors for their livelihoods. They mostly perceive that the current marine and coastal

resources to be in generally good condition, but they are not sure about its future. Related to the fisheries sectors,

majority of respondents think that they still have abundant fish food supply, yet they also start noticing that

destructive fishing practices have become common. The unsustainable fishing practices have also omitted some fish

species which threaten their future income.

Majority of respondents are also familiar with MPA and marine conservation area, and they agree that it plays vital

role to ensure the sustainability of marine resources. However, they still have limited knowledge about the basic

knowledge and management of MPA in order to preserve it for future generations, as well as to support alternative

livelihoods such as marine tourism.

The fisheries extension officer (FEO) is believed by majority of respondents to be the main source of trusted

information about marine conservation and fisheries information, followed by other local government officers. For

the medium of information dissemination, the respondents prefer to watch television, read newspaper and use social

media through their handphone, which are in line with the preferred media format of video, static visual and short

text as the clearest and easiest to understand. To support the increasing of public awareness, knowledge and

behavioral change, most of respondents also think that the outreach activities such as exhibition and religious events

are important, and the right place to do such activities will ensure the effectiveness and optimize the number of

people of being exposed to the key messages. It is also essential for any future communications activity of USAID

SEA Project to involve children, youth and women.

Thus, the report has successfully brought up the basic information of community members’ existing knowledge about

marine conservation and fisheries, as well as their preferences of enriching it. The USAID SEA Project, through CTC,

will follow up the report by designing appropriate and responsive communications materials to promote behavior

change towards sustainable marine resources management throughout the life of the project. This report will also

provide critical inputs to the overall project communications strategy, as well as provide local-level inputs to project

partners who are engaging communities on the ground. With the assistance of identified local champions through

this perception survey, all communications materials and activities will be optimized to increase the public awareness

in target area before going to other steps to complete the whole needed processes of expected behavioral change.


I. Introduction

The USAID Sustainable Ecosystems Advanced (SEA) Project is a 5-year project that supports the Government

of Indonesia (GOI) to conserve biological diversity and improve the governance of marine resources at local,

district, provincial and national levels. The overall goal of SEA Project is that USAID assistance will have

improved the conservation and management of Indonesia’s marine biodiversity through advanced capacity and

practical application of marine conservation and sustainable fisheries management.

Key expected results that must be achieved by the completion of the project are:

1. At least 6 million hectares in the target Fisheries Management Area (FMA or WPP) or sub-WPP under

improved fisheries management as a result of USG assistance, measured through the Ministry of Marine

Affairs and Fisheries Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management (MMAF EAFM) and Marine Protected

Area (MPA) Effectiveness Index scores or other approved national or international standards,

disaggregated by national, provincial and district jurisdiction, and by whether within, or outside MPAs.

2. At least 6 (six) policies, laws, regulations, and/or operational protocols in support of marine conservation

and sustainable fisheries management created, strengthened, promulgated, and/or enforced at all levels.

3. Key drivers and highest-rated pressures to marine biodiversity show a declining trend in the target areas.

SEA activities are targeted at three levels of governance: at the national level, including the National Fisheries

Management Area (FMA) of the Republic of Indonesia; at the provincial level, particularly in three adjacent

provinces in eastern Indonesia, namely Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua, which lie within FMA 715 –

one of Indonesia’s 11 FMAs; as well as at the district level.

SEA Project is implemented by Tetra Tech and a consortium of partners that includes the Wildlife Conservation

Society (WCS), Coral Triangle Center (CTC), World Wildlife Fund-Indonesia (WWF) and Yayasan Masyarakat

dan Perikanan Indonesia (MDPI). The project will be implemented from March 2016 through March 2021. CTC

as subcontractor of Tetra Tech supports the USAID SEA Project specifically in 3 Strategic Approaches:

• Strategic Approach 1: Create Demand for Marine Conservation and Sustainable Fisheries Management

• Strategic Approach 2: Improve ecosystem management of FMA 715 and MPAs

• Strategic Approach 5: Institutionalize Training and Capacity Building

Specifically, for the Strategic Approach I, which is designed to improve the broad understanding and buy-in of

the benefits from conservation and sustanable use of fisheries, leading to change in behaviors throughout SEA

Project’s target areas. Communications for Change (C4C) methodology will be used to design and implement

a public education and outreach plan to catalyze this learning and change. A targeted on-the-ground and

responsive communications strategy will be implemented to enhance knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behaviors

of local communities reflecting the positive benefits of conservation and sustainable use of marine resources.

To be able to deliver a good evidence-based communication strategy, it is necessary for CTC to conduct a

baseline perception survey in the targeted area. The survey aims to measure how the community of the targeted

area thinks, feels and believes about the current situation related to the marine conservation and sustainable

fisheries management. Through this perception survey, the SEA Project will also be able to identify the

appropriate, responsive and effective outreach materials produced as platforms to disseminate powerful key

messages to the local communities.

During the first semester 2017, starting from end of January to mid of May, CTC conducted the Perception

Survey of Marine Conservation and Sustainable Fisheries as part of the first-year implementation of the USAID

SEA Project in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua Provinces. The survey in Maluku covered Ambon City

and other three districts in Seram Island, namely West Seram, Central Maluku and East Seram, reaching 140

respondents representing local governments and coastal community members. Meanwhile in North Maluku,

the activity covered Ternate City, South Halmahera, Morotai Island and Sula Islands Districts, with a total of

137 respondents. The last phase in West Papua, CTC carried out the survey to 137 respondents in Manokwari

City, Bintuni Bay and South Sorong Districts.


II. Objectives

The perception survey aims to:

1. Gauge the level of knowledge and perception of local communities within the USAID SEA Project targeted

areas regarding marine conservation and sustainable fisheries management;

2. Provide data that will support the implementation of the overall USAID SEA Project Communications

Strategy;

3. Provide baseline data in the development and implementation of a Communications Strategy that will be

implemented by CTC in its target areas;

4. Support the development of five specific outreach materials to promote behavioral change in the USAID

SEA Project; and

5. Identify local key stakeholders from of Maluku Provinces who will help create demand for marine

conservation and sustainable fisheries management.

III. Methodology

The methodology used in this perception survey includes selection criteria for target villages, respondents and

independent interviewers1. The villages were selected around the existing or new MPA sites in Maluku, North

Maluku and West Papua, based on the recommendation from the CTC technical task team and other project

implementing partners, such as WCS and WWF. There were three villages selected from each province, and

each village is to represent the project’s target MPA sites.

Picture 1 The villagers fill the questionnaire of USAID SEA Project Perception Survey in Lelei Village, Kayoa Sub -district, South Halmahera,

North Maluku, March 03, 2017. (Credit: Yoga Putra/CTC)

The survey was conducted both in person (face-to-face) and in small group discussion led by the Field

Communication Officer (FCO), with help of locally-recruited assistant to explain some specific terms and filling

instructions in local language. The perception survey emphasized more on the individual information and

perception. The questionnaire is mostly close-ended questions with few open-ended questions.

1 Adapted from Widodo, Hesti, Soekirman, Tri, and Halim, Abdul, 2010, Monitoring Stakeholder Perception to Improve MPA Management

Effectiveness in Indonesia – Round 3, Final Progress Report, The Nature Conservancy


III.A. Pre-survey Test

Before the survey was being rolled out, set of questionnaires were tested to 41 respondents in Ambon,

on November 30, 2016. The trial took place at the Learning Center of Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries

Management of the University of Pattimura, Ambon. All feedbacks gathered from the respondents during

the discussion were used to improve the questionnaire.

Picture 2 Respondents fill the questionnaire of USAID SEA Project Perception Survey during the trial at University of Patimurra,

Ambon, Maluku, November 30, 2016. (Credit: Yoga Putra/CTC)

The questionnaire also passed the reliability and validity test using SPSS Statistics and Microsoft Excel.

The test used 35 sets of questionnaires that were valid (fully filled by respondents) out of total 41 sets

from the trial, covering 125 questions that remain unchanged after revision. The reliability test aimed to

measure the internal consistency and average correlation of the survey instruments using the Cronbach’s

alpha methodology. From both SPSS Statistics and Microsoft Excel analysis, the Cronbach’s alpha was

0.827 which indicated the questionnaire has good reliability (0.9 > α > 0.8).

On the other hand, the validity test measured the degree of validity of the survey instrument using the

Pearson Product Moment Correlation, which correlates most of key questions with the total score. The

key items that significantly correlated with total score indicate that the items are valid. The test was

applied to 15 key questions out of 125 questions due to the reason that the survey is not merely aiming

to seek for causation analysis, but more into the actual perception and understanding of respondents

about the current situation in their surroundings2. The Pearson Correlation’s value of these 15 key

questions was then compared to the critical value from the 2-tailed table of 125 variables, which is

0.1757, and all of them were valid.

The final version of questionnaire consists of 165 questions, divided into five parts: Respondent

Background, Perception on Marine Conservation, Tourism and Fisheries, Perception of Attitude/

Behavior towards Marine and Coastal Environment; Perception of Law/Regulations Enforcement and

2 Derived from Bunce, Leah and Pomeroy, Bob, 2003, Socioeconomic Monitoring Guidelines for Coastal Managers in Southeast Asia, World

Commission on Protected Areas and Australian Institute of Marine Science, adapted for FMA 715 context


Perception of Media and Information. Based on the trial run, each respondent requires approximately

one hour responding to the questionnaire.

III.B. Sampling Design

Before being implemented in the field, the sample size was determined based on the population in the

target area. Through consultations with USAID SEA Core Team, WCS and WWF, it was decided that

CTC shall conduct the survey in nine districts namely Central Maluku, East Seram and West Seram

(Maluku), South Halmahera, Morotai Island and Sula Islands (North Maluku), and Fakfak, South Sorong

and Raja Ampat (West Papua), whereas, the project will support the local government and community

to establish new MPA.

The latest demographic data from the Indonesian National Bureau of Statistics (BPS) in 2015, show the

total population of nine target districts in FMA 715 can be seen on the following table:

District Population

Central Maluku 369.315

East Seram 108.406

West Seram 169.481

South Halmahera 219.836

Morotai Island 8.653

Sula Islands 95.285

Fakfak 73.468

South Sorong 43.036

Raja Ampat 45.923

TOTAL 1.133.403

Table 1 Total population of nine target districts in Maluku,

North Maluku and West Papua. (Source: BPS, 2015)

To generate an appropriate sample size from the population data, the following formula is used:

remarks:

n = Sample Size

N = Population Size

e = Margin of Error

In order to get a proportional sample size, the Margin of Error is 5%, thus the generated sample size is

399.98, rounded into 400. The breakdown of the sample size is using the Proportionate Stratified

Random Sampling as following:

1. Provincial and District Level

No Institutions MalukuNorth

Maluku

West

Papua

1 DKP at Provincial Level 5 5 5

2 Tourism Agency at Provincial Level 5 5 5

3 BAPPEDA at Provincial Level 5 5 5

4 Academician/Researcher 5 5 5

5 Local NGO/Journalist 4 4 4

6 Fisheries Company/Private Sector 4 4 4

7 DKP at District Level 6 6 6

8 Tourism Agency at District Level 6 6 6

40 40 40 120TOTAL Table 2 Sample size design at provincial and district level in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua


2. Community Level in Maluku

No InstitutionsWest

Seram

Central

Maluku

East

Seram

1 Sub-district Officer 4 4 4

2 Fisheries Extension Officer 4 4 4

3 Village Officer 4 4 4

4 Local Community Leaders 4 5 4

5 Fishermen 5 5 5

6 Youths 5 5 5

7 Women 5 5 5

31 32 31 94TOTAL Table 3 Sample size design at community level in Maluku.

The selected villages in Maluku were located in Seram Island, namely North Buano in West Seram

District, Labuan and Pasanea in Central Maluku District, and Kataloka in East Seram District.

However, due to severe weather happened in East Seram, the ferry trip to Kataloka Village was

canceled. Thus, it was replaced by Sesar Village in Bula which is the target location for MDPI.

3. Community Level in North Maluku

No InstitutionsMorotai

Island

Sula

Islands

South

Halmahera





5 Fishermen 5 5 5

6 Youths 5 5 5

7 Women 5 5 5

31 31 31 93TOTAL Table 4 Sample size design at community level in North Maluku.

The selected villages in North Maluku were Bere-bere in Morotai Island District, Waisakai in Sula

Islands District, and Lelei in South Halmahera District.

4. Community Level in West Papua

No Institutions FakfakSouth

Sorong

Raja

Ampat





5 Fishermen 5 5 5

6 Youths 5 5 5

7 Women 5 5 5

31 31 31 93TOTAL Table 5 Sample size design at community level in West Papua.


During the survey implementation in Papua, there were some changes happened following the result

of scoping study by WWF prior to the activity. WWF recommended CTC to conduct perception

survey in two districts, namely South Sorong and Bintuni Bay. The selected villages were: Kampung

Tahiti and Kampung Lama in Bintuni Bay, and Kampung B and Konda in South Sorong.

III.C. Survey in in Maluku

The perception survey in Maluku was conducted from 30 January to 14 February 2017, covering Ambon

City and three districts in Seram Island, namely West Seram, Central Maluku and East Seram.

Picture 3 Itinerary map of perception survey in North Maluku. (Source: Google Map)

The itineraries are as follows:

• Day 1 (30 January 2017) in Ambon covering Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Daerah (BAPPEDA)

and Tourism Agency of Maluku and University of Pattimura (no line);

• Day 2 (31 January 2017) from Ambon to Masohi, Central Maluku, covering Dinas Kelautan dan

Perikanan (DKP) of Central Maluku (red line and red dotted line across the sea);

• Day 3 (01 February 2017) from Masohi to Pasanea covering Seram Utara Barat Sub-district, Labuan

Village and Pasanea Village (blue line);

• Day 4 (02 February 2017) from Pasanea to Bula in East Seram District (half blue line, continued

with green line);

• Day 5 (03 February 2017) in Bula covering Tourism Agency and DKP of East Seram (no line);

• Day 6 (04 February 2017) in Bula covering Bula Sub-district and Sesar Village, continued by trip

back to Masohi (back to green line, continue with blue line);

• Day 7 (05 February 2017) in Masohi covering Tourism Agency of Central Maluku (no line);

• Day 8 (06 February 2017) from Masohi to Piru in West Seram, covering DKP of West Seram (red

line, continue with orange line);

• Day 9 (07 February 2017) in Piru covering Tourism Agency of West Seram (no line);

• Day 10 (08 February 2017) from Piru to Huamual Belakang covering Huamual Belakang Sub-district

and Waesala Village (dark blue line, and red dotted line);

• Day 11 (09 February 2017) from Piru to Buano Island covering North Buano Village (dark blue line,

and red dotted line);

• Day 12 (10 February 2017) from Piru to Ambon (back to orange line, continued with red dotted

line and red line);

• Day 13 (13 February 2017) in Ambon covering DKP of Maluku (no line);

• Day 14 (14 February 2017) in Ambon covering mass media (no line);


III.D. Survey in North Maluku

In North Maluku, the activity took place from 27 February to 17 March 2017, covering Ternate City and

three cross-island districts, namely South Halmahera, Morotai Island and Sula Islands.


• Day 1 (26 February 2017) from Ambon to Ternate (no line);

• Day 2 (27 February 2017) from Ternate to Sofifi covering DKP North Maluku (no line);

• Day 3 (28 February 2017) in Ternate covering BAPPEDA North Maluku (no line);

• Day 4 (01 March 2017) from Ternate to Labuha, South Halamahera, covering DKP and Tourism

Agency of South Halmahera (red line);

• Day 5 (02 March 2017) from Labuha to Kayoa covering Kayoa Sub-district (orange line);

• Day 6 (03 March 2017) from Kayoa to Lelei Island covering Lelei Village (no line);

• Day 7 (04 March 2017) from Lelei Island to Kayoa Island (no line);

• Day 8 (05 March 2017) from Kayoa Island to Ternate (yellow line);

• Day 9 (06 March 2017) in Ternate covering University of Khairun (no line);

• Day 10 (07 March 2017) from Ternate to Morotai Island (green line);

• Day 11 (08 March 2017) from Ternate to Bere-bere Village covering DKP of Morotai Island, North

Morotai Sub-district and Bere-bere Village (light green line);

• Day 12 (09 March 2017) in Morotai covering Tourism Agency of Morotai Island (no line);

• Day 13 (10 March 2017) from Morotai Island to Ternate (back to green line);

• Day 14 (11 March 2017) in Ternate covering Tourism Agency of North Maluku (no line);

• Day 15 (12 March 2017) from Ternate to Sula Islands District (blue line);

• Day 16 (13 March 2017) in Sanana covering DKP of Sula Islands (no line);

• Day 17 (14 March 2017) from Sanana to Mangoli Island covering Mangoli Utara Timur Sub-district

and Waisakai Village (purple line);

• Day 18 (15 March 2017) in Sanana covering Tourism Agency of Sula Islands (no line);

• Day 19 (16 March 2017) from Sanana to Ternate (back to blue line);

• Day 20 (17 March 2017) from Ternate to Ambon (no line).

Labuh

a

Kayoa—Lelei

Morot

ai

Bere bere

Sanana

Mangoli

Picture 4 Itinerary map of perception survey in North Maluku. (Source: Google Map)


III.E. Survey in West Papua

The last phase of the survey was conducted in West Papua from 01 – 13 May 2017, covering Manokwari

City, Bintuni Bay and South Sorong Districts.

Picture 5 Itinerary map of perception survey in West Papua. (Source: Google Map)


• Day 1 (01 May 2017) from Ambon to Manokwari (red line);

• Day 2 (02 May 2017) in Manokwari covering DKP West Papua Province (no line);

• Day 3 (03 May 2017) in Manokwari covering University of Papua (no line);

• Day 4 (04 May 2017) in Manokwari covering BAPPEDA and Tourism Agency of West Papua

Province (no line);

• Day 5 (05 May 2017) from Manokwari to Teluk Bintuni (green line), covering DKP and Tourism

Agency of Teluk Bintuni District;

• Day 6 (06 May 2017) in Teluk Bintuni covering Kampung Lama Village;

• Day 7 (07 May 2017) in Teluk Bintuni covering Kampung Tahiti Village;

• Day 8 (08 May 2017) from Teluk Bintuni to Manokwari (green line) coordination with WWF;

• Day 9 (09 May 2017) from Manokwari to Sorong to South Sorong (blue lines), covering DKP of

South Sorong District;

• Day 10 (10 May 2017) in South Sorong covering Balai Konservasi Sumber Daya Alam (BKSDA) of

West Papua and Kampung B Village (no line);

• Day 11 (11 May 2017) in South Sorong covering Konda Village (no line);

• Day 12 (12 May 2017) from South Sorong to Sorong (blue line);

• Day 13 (13 May 2017) from Sorong to Ambon (orange line).

III.F. Post-survey Activities

Activities conducted after survey consisted data entry and tabulation, preparing draft for interim report

for Maluku and North Maluku to be presented in the USAID SEA Project Monitoring Evaluation and

Learning and Communication Workshop, data cross tabulation and analysis for the final report. All

process was led by FCO with close consultation with SEA Core Team and other Task Leaders.

The data entry, tabulation and cross tabulation were done using Microsoft Excel and SPSS. The cross

tabulation method was used to compare the relationship between two or more variables, mostly

between respondents’ demographic background and responses. The results of the cross tabulation are

presented in pie and bar charts with combination of clustered and stacked columns.

TeminaSouth

Sorong


IV. Respondents’ Background

For the all phases of perception survey in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua, the FCO was able to get

414 respondents, exceeding the initial sample size by 3.5%. This was due to the high interest of respondents to

participate in the survey, particularly those who represent governmental agencies at district level and

community members. Following are the detail of actual number of respondents in three provinces:

IV.A. Respondents in Maluku

No Respondent Male Female Total

1 Local Government (Provincial + 3 Districts) 17 13 30

2 Central Maluku District 28 7 35

3 East Seram District 28 7 35

4 West Seram District 24 11 35

5 Researcher/Media 2 3 5

TOTAL 99 41 140

Table 6 Actual number of respondents in Maluku.

IV.B. Respondents in North Maluku



2 South Halmahera District 23 6 29

3 Morotai Island District 25 5 30

4 Sula Islands District 21 7 28

5 Researcher 4 1 5

TOTAL 106 31 137

Table 7 Actual number of respondents in North Maluku.

IV.C. Respondents in West Papua



2 Bintuni Bay District 37 9 46

3 South Sorong District 32 16 48

4 Researcher 3 2 5

TOTAL 95 42 137

Table 8 Actual number of respondents in West Papua.


IV.D. Respondents’ Socio-Economic Background

IV.D.a. Education

Majority of the respondents in the survey areas had high literacy rates (see Figure 1), indicated

by their educational background. This shows that the target beneficiaries of USAID SEA Project

in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua will have higher probability to be able to understand

of marine conservation and sustainable fisheries management concepts.

However, it should be noted that there are some community members in Buano Island, Maluku,

who are illiterate, unable to write and have poor comprehension of Bahasa Indonesia. As Buano

Island is one of the CTC’s target site as a new MPA under USAID SEA Project, specific attention

to translate information, education and communication materials to the local language and to

the appropriate medium is needed for the particular project area.

Figure 1 Educational level distribution among respondents in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua .

Figure 2 Educational level distribution among respondents at district level in Maluku.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Maluku(n = 140)

North Maluku(n = 137)

West Papua(n = 137)

Uneducated

Elementary School

Junior High School

High School

Diploma

Bachelor

Master/Ph.D.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Ambon(n = 20)

West Seram(n = 40)

Central Maluku(n = 40)

East Seram(n = 40)

Uneducated

Elementary School

Junior High School

High School

Diploma

Bachelor

Master/Ph.D.


Figure 3 Educational level distribution among respondents at district level in North Maluku.

Figure 4 Educational level distribution among respondents at district level in West Papua.

IV.D.b. Livelihod

Majority of the survey respondents in Maluku and West Papua are fishermen or seasonal

farmers (Figure 5), followed by local government staff and other community representatives.

On the other hand, the majority of respondents in North Maluku work as civil servants,

followed by fishermen and other community representatives.

An interesting aspect amongst respondents in North Maluku is that those who have jobs

classified as others, such as private employees, part time/contract workers of sub district and

village offices, and teachers, are also seasonal fishermen. They often go off shore for fishing, but

with smaller catch amount (average of 10 kilograms per sail) than regular fishermen.

In the capital city, such as Ambon (Maluku), Ternate (North Maluku) and Manokwari (West

Papua), the FCO only met with respondents to represent the local governmental institutions

at provincial level, as well as other professions, such as academician and journalist. There were

no coastal community members interviewed in these cities as they were not considered to

represent the target MPA sites.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Ternate(n = 20)

South Halmahera(n = 39)

Morotai Island(n = 40)

Sula Islands(n = 38)

Uneducated

Elementary School

Junior High School

High School

Diploma

Bachelor

Master/Ph.D.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Manokwari(n = 21)

Bintuni Bay(n = 55)

South Sorong(n = 61)

Uneducated

Elementary School

Junior High School

High School

Diploma

Bachelor

Master/Ph.D.


Figure 5 Livelihood sector distribution among respondents in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua.

Figure 6 Livelihood sector distribution among respondents at District Level in Maluku.

Figure 7 Livelihood sector distribution among respondents at district level in North Maluku.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Maluku(n = 140)


West Papua(n = 137)

Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other

0%

15%

30%

45%

60%

75%

Ambon(n = 20)

West Seram(n = 40)


East Seram(n = 40)

Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other

0%

15%

30%

45%

60%

75%

Ternate(n = 20)




Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other


Figure 8 Livelihood sector distribution among respondents at district level in West Papua.

IV.D.c. Income

Majority of the survey respondents in Maluku and North Maluku generate average income of

between IDR 1 – 5 million per month, while majority respondents in West Papua only get less

than IDR 1 million per month (Figure 9). However, there are possibilities that the income of

the respondents varies than what they have reported as they are mostly engaged in seasonal

livelihoods.

The findings in Maluku and North Maluku are similar to the official data released by Badan Pusat

Statistik (BPS) in 2014, where the income per capita in Maluku was recorded at IDR 19 million

and in North Maluku was just slightly higher with IDR 21 million. A contrast data can be seen

in West Papua, where according to BPS the income per capita in the province is higher than 39

million.

Figure 9 Income classification distribution among respondents in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua.

0%

15%

30%

45%

60%

75%

90%

Manokwari(n = 21)

Bintuni Bay(n = 55)


Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Maluku(n = 140)


West Papua(n = 137)

No income

< IDR 1 mil.

IDR 1-5 mil.

IDR 5-10 mil.

> IDR 10 mil.


Figure 10 Income classification distribution among respondents at district level in Maluku.

Figure 11 Income classification distribution among respondents at district level in North Maluku.

Figure 12 Income classification distribution among respondents at district Level in West Papua.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Ambon(n = 20)

West Seram(n = 40)


East Seram(n = 40)

No income

< IDR 1 mil.

IDR 1-5 mil.

IDR 5-10 mil.

> IDR 10 mil.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Ternate(n = 20)




No income

< IDR 1 mil.

IDR 1-5 mil.

IDR 5-10 mil.

> IDR 10 mil.

0%

15%

30%

45%

60%

75%

90%

Manokwari(n = 21)

Bintuni Bay(n = 55)


No income

< IDR 1 mil.

IDR 1-5 mil.

IDR 5-10 mil.

> IDR 10 mil.


IV.D.d. Income Classification Based on Livelihood

Majority of the survey respondents in all three provinces who work as fishermen have an

average income of below IDR 1 million per month, while those who work as civil servants have

better income between IDR 1 – 5 million per month (Figure 13).

Picture 6 Fishermen move their catch into a pick-up car in South Halmahera, North Maluku, on March 01, 2017.

(Credit: Yoga Putra/CTC)

Figure 13 Income Distribution based on livelihood among respondents in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Maluku (n = 140) North Maluku (n = 137) West Papua (n = 137)

No income

< IDR 1 mil.

IDR 1 - 5 mil

IDR 5 - 10 mil

> IDR 10 mil.


Figure 14 Income distribution based on livelihood among respondents at district level in Maluku.

Figure 15 Income distribution based on livelihood among respondents at district level in North Maluku.

Figure 16 Income distribution based on livelihood among respondents at district level in West Papua.

0%

15%

30%

45%

60%

75%

Ambon (n = 20) West Seram (n = 40) Central Maluku (n = 40) East Seram (n = 40)

No income

< IDR 1 mil.

IDR 1 - 5 mil

IDR 5 - 10 mil

> IDR 10 mil.

0%

15%

30%

45%

60%

75%

Ternate (n = 20) South Halmahera (n = 39) Morotai Island (n = 40) Sula Islands (n = 38)

No income

< IDR 1 mil.

IDR 1 - 5 mil

IDR 5 - 10 mil

> IDR 10 mil.

0%

15%

30%

45%

60%

75%

90%

Manokwari (n = 21) Bintuni Bay (n = 55) South Sorong (n = 61)

No income

< IDR 1 mil.

IDR 1 - 5 mil

IDR 5 - 10 mil

> IDR 10 mil.


IV.D.e. Gender Distribution Based on Livelihood

Majority of the fishermen, civil servants and other occupations, in all three provinces were male

(Figure 17). Meanwhile, the majority of female respondents in Maluku work as civil servants or

are unemployed (Figure 18), while the most female respondents in North Maluku and West

Papua work as civil servant (Figure 19 and Figure 20).

Figure 17 Gender distribution based on livelihood among respondents in Maluku, North Maluku and West

Papua.

Figure 18 Gender distribution based on livelihood among respondents at district level in Maluku.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%


Male

Female

0%

15%

30%

45%

60%

75%


Male

Female


Figure 19 Gender distribution based on livelihood among respondents at district level in North Maluku.

Figure 20 Gender distribution based on livelihood among respondents at district level in West Papua.

0%

15%

30%

45%

60%

75%


Male

Female

0%

15%

30%

45%

60%

75%

90%


Male

Female


V. Summary of Key Results

The results from the Phase 1, 2 and 3 of the perception survey conducted in Maluku, North Maluku and West

Papua show valuable insights in the perceived gaps in marine resources and sustainable fisheries knowledge

amongst the local community in USAID SEA Project sites in FMA 715.

The results also provided insights in the appropriate methods of information dissemination that will enable

USAID SEA Project to design and implement communications strategies that are responsive to the needs of

the project’s target communities as well as in the development of outreach materials to promote behavioral

change. The survey has also identified some key community and government leaders who are potential to be

local champions in creating demand for sustainable fisheries management and MPA establishment.

Based on the data collected, below are the key survey findings at the provincial level:

Majority of respondents – many of them work as fishermen – in three provinces perceive their marine

and coastal resources to be in generally good condition. On the other hand, they are unsure about the

future condition of the marine resources in their respective area.

Majority of respondents in three provinces agree that the existence of coral reefs is essential to support

the marine living. In Maluku, although most of respondents perceive that the coral reefs are still in good

condition, many of them think the opposite. However, they strongly believe that the coral reefs can be

recovered in the future. In North Maluku, many of respondents also agree that the existing coral reefs are

still in good condition, but not sure about its future. In West Papua many of respondents have minimum

knowledge about the coral reefs and as they live in the estuaries that are not suitable for its habitat.

Majority of respondents in Maluku and West Papua perceive that they have abundant fish supply for food

while almost half of the respondents in North Maluku said they do not have enough fish supply for food.

Respondents in all provinces also note that certain fish species that used to be abundant for food supply

can no longer be found in their area. Almost half of total respondents agree that destructive fishing become

common practices.

Majority of respondents Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua get their fish food supply directly from

the sea. The fish stock was reported to be available everyday at local market. Most of respondents think

that there were more fish available in the past, but not sure about the availability in the near future.

Picture 7 Local fishermen return a sea turtle back to the sea after accidentally being caught in Morotai, North Maluku, March 09,

2017. (Credit: Yoga Putra/CTC)


Although majority of respondents in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua say that it is illegal to consume

protected marine animals (e.g. sharks, manta rays, whales and turtles), many respondents still consume

these, while some others have started to report it to local authority.

Majority of respondents in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua say that they have heard the term of

MPA and have knowledge on which activities are allowed or not inside an MPA. Almost all respondents

agree that fishing using bombs and chemical poison are prohibited in an MPA. Most of them are also able

to identify the punishment that should be given to offenders in the MPA. Majority believe that MPAs must

be regulated by the national government and that government can complement the existing traditional law

in their area to conserve the MPAs.

Majority of respondents think that the development the coastal area for alternative livelihoods such as

marine tourism, is not yet optimum. However, they have recognized some great potential of marine

resources in their respective village to be new tourism destinations.

Majority of survey respondents identify local villagers, including themselves, as contributing factor to the

destruction of their marine environment. However, they are willing to minimize destructive actions

towards the sea, such as reducing waste disposal, stop the sand/coral reefs mining, reduce mangrove

cutting, and avoid consumption of protected marine animals.

Although majority of respondents in three provinces disagree with disposing their waste in the sea, they

admit that waste management service in their area are still poor. Lack of trash bin, followed by lack of

awareness and daily habit, are the top three reasons for people do improper waste disposal to the sea.

Majority of respondents in Maluku and West Papua identify fisheries extension officers (FEO) as the main

source of trusted information regarding marine conservation and fisheries information, followed by district

government officers, district government officers, provincial government officers and the community

leaders. Meanwhile in North Maluku, respondents identify the district government officer to be the main

source of trusted information, followed by the FEO provincial government officers, village government

officers and sub-district government officers.

Majority of respondents in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua identify television as their preferred

medium for receiving marine and fisheries information, followed by newspapers, and social media. For

preferred television channel, most of them choose national private channel, while for preferred kind of

newspaper, most of them choose local newspaper. Facebook is the most accessed social media amongst

the respondents.

In line with their preference for television, majority of the respondents in both provinces perceive

information in a video format to be clearest and easiest to understand, followed by static images and short

text format.

Respondents in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua choose community hall as the preferred meeting

point for information dissemination of marine and fisheries information, followed by traditional market,

and places of religious worship (mosque/church). These preferred meeting points are proportionally

distributed between male and female respondents.

For preferred public outreach activity, many respondents in three provinces choose exhibition as the most

favorite, followed by religious event. The respondents also generally agree that education about marine

conservation is important for children, and they prefer games and/or contest as medium to educate the

children.


VI. Presentation of Key Issues

VI.A. Perception on Key Marine and Fisheries Resources Management Issues

VI.A.a. Perception of Health of Marine Resources in Locality Based on Livelihood

Majority of respondents in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua, who work as fishermen,

still perceive their marine and coastal resources to be in good condition (Figure 21), while only

a few believe that their marine resources are slowly being depleted.

There are no coastal community members represented in the capital city of three provinces,

such as Ambon, Ternate and Manokwari. Therefore, only two livelihoods were recognized in

the area, such as civil servants representing provincial government institutions, and researcher

and/or journalist that are classified as other.

Figure 21 Distribution of Perception of health of marine resources in locality based on livelihood among

respondents in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua.

Figure 22 Distribution of perception of health of marine resources in locality based on livelihood among respondents at

district level in Maluku.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Good Bad Don'tknow

Good Bad Don'tknow

Good Bad Don'tknow


Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Good Bad Don'tknow

Good Bad Don'tknow

Good Bad Don'tknow

Good Bad Don'tknow


Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other


Figure 23 Distribution of perception of health of marine resources in locality based on livelihood among respondents at

district level in North Maluku.

Figure 24 Distribution of perception of health of marine resources in locality based on livelihood among

respondents at district level in West Papua.

Picture 8 Healthy marine condition in Guraici Islands of Kayoa Sub-district, South Halmahera, on

March 03, 2017. (Yoga Putra/CTC)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Good Bad Don'tknow

Good Bad Don'tknow

Good Bad Don'tknow

Good Bad Don'tknow


Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Good Bad Don'tknow

Good Bad Don'tknow

Good Bad Don'tknow


Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other


VI.A.b. Perception of Future Health of Marine Resources in Locality Based on Livelihood

Majority of respondents in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua perceive the future health

of marine resources as unknown, although there are some of them optimistic that the sea will

be better in the near future (Figure 25). Most of the respondents from Ambon, Ternate and

Manokwari represent the provincial government institution, and no coastal community member

representative was interviewed here.

Figure 25 Distribution of perception of future health of marine resources based on livelihood among respondents

in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua.

Picture 9 Coastal community members in West Seram, Maluku, develop an integrated marine tourism and

aquaculture using open net cages on February 09, 2017. (Credit: Yoga putra/CTC)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Better Same Worse Don'tknow




Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other


Figure 26 Distribution of perception of future health of marine resources based on livelihood among respondents at district level in Maluku.

Figure 27 Distribution of perception of future health of marine resources based on livelihood among respondents at district level in North

Maluku.

Figure 28 Distribution of perception of future health of marine resources based on livelihood among respondents at district level

in West Papua.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%






Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%






Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%





Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other


VI.A.c. Perception on the Importance of the Status of Coral Reefs in Locality

In this section, the respondents were given five statements about coral reefs and asked to give

their opinion about each of the statements. In general, majority of respondents in Maluku, North

Maluku and West Papua highly agree that coral reefs are important as nursery grounds for

marine species, as well as protect the coastline from storm waves (Figure 29). They also agree

that destructive fishing and waste disposal can damage the living coral reefs. In contrast, majority

of respondents disagree with the coral reefs gleaning and opine that such practice is not

common in their respective villages.

Picture 10 Coral reefs in the waters around Buano Island, West Seram, Maluku, on February 10, 2017. (Credit:

Marthen Welly/CTC)

Figure 29 Distribution of opinion about coral reefs among the respondents in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5


Agree

Disagree

Don't know

S1 = Coral reefs provide food and shelter for the fish S4 = Destructive fishing also destroys coral reefs

S2 = Coral reefs act as natural barrier for coastal area S5 = Plastic waste and climate change damage coral reefs

S3 = Coral reefs gleaning is common in my village


Figure 30 Distribution of opinion about coral reefs among the respondents at district level in Maluku.

Figure 31 Distribution of opinion about coral reefs among the respondents at district level in North Maluku.

Picture 11 Coral reefs in the waters around Sula Islands, North Maluku, on March 20, 2017. (Credit: Marthen Welly/CTC)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5


Agree

Disagree

Don't know

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5


Agree

Disagree

Don't know








Figure 32 Distribution of opinion about coral reefs among the respondents at district level in West Papua.

VI.A.d. Perception of the Health of Coral Reefs in Locality Based on Livelihood

Majority of respondents in Maluku and North Maluku, dominated by fishermen, perceive the

coral reefs are still in good condition (Figure 33). On the other hand, there are a few

respondents in West Seram, Maluku, who think that the coral reefs in their area are destroyed.

(Figure 34). Meanwhile, majority of respondents in West Papua could not give their opinion

about coral reefs condition as they live in the estuaries and rarely see the coral reefs.

Figure 33 Distribution of Perception of the Health of Coral Reefs in Locality Based on Livelihood among

Respondents in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua.

VI.A.e. Perception of Future Health of Coral Reefs in Locality Based on Livelihood

Majority of respondents in Maluku, dominated by fishermen, think that the coral reefs will be

in better condition in the near future, but most of respondents in North Maluku (mostly work

as civil servants) and West Papua were not so sure about it (Figure 34).

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5


Agree

Disagree

Don't know

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Good Bad Don'tknow

Good Bad Don'tknow

Good Bad Don'tknow


Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other





Figure 34 Distribution perception of future health of coral reefs based on livelihood among respondents in Maluku,

North Maluku and West Papua.

VI.A.f. Perception of Destructive Fishing as Common Practice in Locality

Majority respondents in Maluku and North Maluku do not believe that destructive fishing

practices often occur in their respective village (Figure 35 and Figure 37). In contrast, majority

respondents in West Papua agree that unsustainable fishing practices are common in their area

and they beieve that this will bring bad impact to the environment.

Figure 35 Distribution of perception of destructive fishing as common practice among respondents in Maluku,


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%





Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Maluku(n = 140)


West Papua(n = 137)

Agree

Disagree

Don't know


Figure 36 Distribution of perception of destructive fishing as common practice among respondents at district level in

Maluku.

Figure 37 Distribution of perception of destructive fishing as common practice among respondents at district level in

North Maluku.

Figure 38 Distribution of perception of destructive fishing as common practice among respondents at district

level in West Papua.

0%

15%

30%

45%

60%

75%

Ambon(n = 20)

West Seram(n = 40)


East Seram(n = 40)

Agree

Disagree

Don't know

0%

15%

30%

45%

60%

75%

Ternate(n = 20)




Agree

Disagree

Don't know

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Manokwari(n = 21)

Bintuni Bay(n = 55)


Agree

Disagree

Don't know


VI.A.g. Perception of Food Fish Supply Based on Income

Majority respondents in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua who earn less than IDR 1

million per month get their fish food supply directly from the sea (Figure 39), except in West

Seram District (Figure 40).

Picture 12 Fisherman shows his catch of yellow-fin tuna in Bere-bere Village, Morotai, North Maluku, on March 09,


Figure 39 Distribution of the origin of fish source in locality based on income among respondents in Maluku, North

Maluku and West Papua.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%


No income

< IDR 1 mil.

IDR 1 - 5 mil

IDR 5 - 10 mil

> IDR 10 mil.


Figure 40 Distribution of the origin of fish source in locality based on income among respondents at district level in

Maluku.

Figure 41 Distribution of the origin of fish source in locality based on income among respondents at district level in

North Maluku.

Figure 42 Distribution of the origin of fish source in locality based on income among respondents at district


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


No income

< IDR 1 mil.

IDR 1 - 5 mil

IDR 5 - 10 mil

> IDR 10 mil.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%


No income

< IDR 1 mil.

IDR 1 - 5 mil

IDR 5 - 10 mil

> IDR 10 mil.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


No income

< IDR 1 mil.

IDR 1 - 5 mil

IDR 5 - 10 mil

> IDR 10 mil.


VI.A.h. Perception on Availability of Fish Food Supply in Locality Classified by Gender

Both male and female respondents in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua think that the fish

are still available every day (Figure 53). Except respondents in Morotai Island who perceive the

fish can only be found sometimes. Fishermen in Morotai believe that low fish supply happened

after 2012, when government encouraged fishermen to increase their fish catch to supply guests

and participants at a tourist event called Sail Morotai.

Figure 43 Distribution of perception on availability of fish food supply in locality based on gender among


Figure 44 Distribution of perception on availability of fish food supply in locality based on gender among respondents at


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%


Male

Female

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


Male

Female


Figure 45 Distribution of perception on availability of fish food supply in locality based on gender among respondents at


Figure 46 Distribution of perception on availability of fish food supply in locality based on gender among


VI.A.i. Perception on Availability of Fish Food Supply in Locality Based on Livelihood

Although majority of respondents, dominated by those who work as fishermen, in Maluku,

North Maluku and West Papua think that the fish are still available every day (Figure 47), there

are few fishermen in North Maluku perceive that the fish are not always available. The livelihood

sectors in capital city, such as Ambon, Ternate and Manokwari which are dominated with civil

servants and academician also contribute significantly to the overall perception.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


Male

Female

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


Male

Female


Figure 47 Distribution of perception on availability of fish food supply in locality based on livelihood among


Picture 13 Fish sold in Sesar Village, East Seram, Maluku, on February 02, 2017.(Credit: Yoga Putra/CTC)

VI.A.j. Perception on the Past and Future Availability of Fish Food Supply in Locality Based

on Livelihood

Majority of respondents in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua perceive that there were

more fish available in the past, yet they are unsure about fish supply in the near future (Figure

48, Figure 49 and Figure 50). In Maluku, the exception was found in West Seram where most

respondents think that the past situation was similar to the current state, and in Central Maluku

where most respondents are optimistic about the fisheries sector in the future (Figure 51 and

52). In North Maluku, majority of respondents in Morotai Island think that availabiity of fish

supply in the past has remained the same (Figure 55), and most respondents in Sula Islands think

the fisheries supply in the future will remain the same (Figure 56). In West Papua, the only

exception was found in South Sorong where most respondents think the fisheries supply will

be depleted in the future (Figure 58).

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%


Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other


Figure 48 Distribution of perception on the past and future condition of the availability of fish food

supply in locality based on livelihood among respondents in Maluku.

Figure 49 Distribution of perception on the past and future condition of the availabi lity of fish food

supply in locality based on livelihood among respondents in North Maluku.


supply in locality based on livelihood among respondents in West Papua.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%



Past FutureMaluku (n = 140)

Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%



Past FutureNorth Maluku (n = 137)

Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


Better Same Worse Don'tknowPast Future

West Papua (n = 137)

Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other



supply in locality based on livelihood among respondents in West Seram.


supply in locality based on livelihood among respondents in Central Maluku


supply in locality based on livelihood among respondents in East Seram .

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%



West Seram (n = 40)

Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%



Central Maluku (n = 40)

Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%



East Seram (n = 40)

Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other


Figure 54 Distribution of perception on the past and future condition of the availability o f fish food

supply in locality based on livelihood among respondents in South Halmahera.


supply in locality based on livelihood among respondents in Morotai Island.


supply in locality based on livelihood among respondents in Sula Islands.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%



South Halmahera (n = 39)

Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%



Morotai Island (n = 40)

Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%



Sula Islands (n = 38)

Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other



supply in locality based on livelihood among respondents in Bintuni Bay.


supply in locality based on livelihood among respondents in South Sorong.

VI.A.k. Perception of Disappearance of Fish Species in Locality

Majority of respondents in all three provinces agree that some fish species that used to be

available can no longer be found in their respective villages (Figure 59). In Maluku, majority of

respondents noted the disappearance of Napoleon fish (Cheilinus undulatus) (Figure 60).

Meanwhile majority of respondents North Maluku and West Papua identified Grouper

(Epinephelus pachycentru) as the missing fish species. (Figure 61 and Figure 62).

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%



Bintuni Bay (n = 21)

Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%



South Sorong (n = 21)

Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other


Figure 59 Distribution of perception on the awareness of disappearance of some fish species in

locality among respondents in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua.

Figure 60 Identification of disappearing fish species according to respondents in Maluku .

Picture 14 A Napoleon fish (Cheilinus undulatus) was caught swimming around Lifumatola Island, Sula

Islands, North Maluku, on March 20, 2017. (Credit: Marthen Welly/CTC)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Maluku(n = 140)


West Papua(n = 137)

Yes

No

Don't know

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20%

Ikan Daun Tebu/Layur (Trichiurus lepturus)

Ikan Parang-parang (Chirocentrus dorab)

Ikan Kawalinya (Selar crumenopthalmus)

Ikan Bubara/Kuwe (Caranx sexfasciatus)

Ikan Taruri (Carnila sp.)

Ikan Tatobodo (Balistapus undulatus)

Ikan Lema/Kembung (Rastrelliger sp.)

Ikan Tenggiri (Scomberomorini)

Ikan Maming/Napoleon (Cheilinus undulatus)

Ikan Hiu (Selachimorpha)

Ikan Silapa/Lencam (Lethrinus sp.)

Ikan Tuna (Thunnus sp.)

Ikan Garopa/Kerapu (Epinephelus pachycentru)

Ikan Lompa (Trissina baelama)

Ikan Piskada/Kakap (Lutjanus sp.)

Ikan Puri/Teri Nasi (Stolephorus Indicus)

Ikan Layang (Decapterus russelli)

Ikan Kakaktua (Scarus sp.)

Ikan Pari (Dasyatis sp.)



Figure 61 Identification of disappearing fish species according to respondents in North Maluku.

Figure 62 Identification of disappearing fish species according to respondents in West Papua.

VI.A.l. Perception on the Awareness of Protected Fish Trade at Locality

Majority of respondents in Maluku and North Maluku perceive that there are no protected fish

sold in their respective villages (Figure 63 and Figure 64), with exception of respondents in

Ambon and West Seram (Figure 66 and Figure 67).

However, majority of respondents in West Papua, except Bintuni, say that protected fish are

sold in their village, and they choose to tell other people when they see it (Figure 65).

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

Ikan Nener/Bandeng (Chanos chanos)

Ikan Gabo/Lencam (Lethrinus sp.)


Ikan Julung-julung (Hemirhampus sp.)

Ikan Lolosi (Caesio chrysozona)


Ikan Tatameri (Secutor ruconius)

Ikan Teri (Stolephorus Indicus)


Ikan Sako/Cendro (Tylosurus crocodilus)

Ikan Tato (Balistapus undulatus)



Ikan Kakap (Lutjanus sp.)

Ikan Make/Lompa (Trissina baelama)

Ikan Samandar/Baronang (Siganus sp.)

Ikan Tongkol (Euthynnus affinis)


0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

Ikan Oci/Lema/Kembung (Rastrelliger sp.)

Ikan Congge/Gulamah (Nibea albiflora)

Ikan Cakalang (Katsuwonus pelamis)



Ikan Mangewang/Hiu (Selachimorpha)

Ikan Sako/Cendro (Tylosurus crocodilus)


Ikan Sembilan Kuning (Caesio chrysozona)

Ikan Kakap (Lutjanus sp.)

Ikan Puri/Teri (Stolephorus Indicus)





Figure 63 Distribution of perception on the awareness of protected fish trade and reactions at locality among

respondents in Maluku.


respondents in North Maluku.


respondents in West Papua.

21%

57% 9%

5%

8%

22%

Maluku (n = 140)

Buy it

Ignore it

Tell other people

Report it

27%

58% 3%1%

5%

6%

15%

North Maluku (n = 137)

Buy it

Ignore it

Tell other people

Report it

27%

33% 5%

11%

19%

5%

40%


Buy it

Ignore it

Tell other people

Report it

Yes

No

Don’t know

Yes

No

Don’t know

Yes

No

Don’t know



respondents in Ambon.


respondents in West Seram.


respondents in Central Maluku.

25%

30%5%5%

35%45%

Ambon (n = 20)

Buy it

Ignore it

Tell other people

Report it

33%

33%

25%

8%3%

35%

West Seram (n = 40)

Buy it

Ignore it

Tell other people

Report it

10%

88%3%3%


Buy it

Ignore it

Tell other people

Report it

Yes

No

Don’t know

Yes

No

Don’t know

Yes

No

Don’t know



respondents in East Seram.


respondents in Ternate.


respondents in South Halmahera.

18%

65%5%

5%

8%

18%

East Seram (n = 40)

Buy it

Ignore it

Tell other people

Report it

25%

55%15%

5%

20%

Ternate (n = 20)

Buy it

Ignore it

Tell other people

Report it

21%

69%3%

8%10%


Buy it

Ignore it

Tell other people

Report it

Yes

No

Don’t know

Yes

No

Don’t know

Yes

No

Don’t know



respondents in Morotai Island.


respondents in Sula Islands.


respondents in Manokwari.

28%

50% 8%

5%

10%

23%


Buy it

Ignore it

Tell other people

Report it

34%

58%3%

5%

8%


Buy it

Ignore it

Tell other people

Report it

33%

19%19%

19%

10%

48%

Manokwari (n = 21)

Buy it

Ignore it

Tell other people

Report it

Yes

No

Don’t know

Yes

No

Don’t know

Yes

No

Don’t know



respondents in Bintuni Bay.


respondents in South Sorong.

VI.B. Perception of Marine Protected Areas

VI.B.a. Perception of Knowledge about MPAs Based on Livelihood

Majority of the respondents in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua say that they have heard

the term of MPA, or a certain area around their respective villages where people are limited to

catch fish and forbided to develop in order to conserve the natural resources. (Figure 77).

However, there are a few of fiserhmen respondents who never heard anything related to MPA

at all and look forward to having more knowledge about it.

29%

38% 4%

11%

15%

4%

33%


Buy it

Ignore it

Tell other people

Report it

23%

33%8%

8%

23%

5%

44%


Buy it

Ignore it

Tell other people

Report it

Yes

No

Don’t know

Yes

No

Don’t know


Figure 77 Distribution of level of knowledge about MPAs based on livelihood among respondents in

Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua.

VI.B.b. Perception on the Importance of MPAs Based on Livelihood

Majority of the respondents in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua agree that MPA is

important to support their livelihoods (Figure 78). However, there are fishermen respondents

in West Seram and East Seram, Maluku, are unsure about this (Figure 79), as well as in Bintuni

Bay, West Papua (Figure 81).

Figure 78 Distribution of perception on the importance of MPAs based on livelihood among respondents in


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Heard Never Notsure

Heard Never Notsure

Heard Never Notsure


Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%


Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other


Figure 79 Distribution of perception on the importance of MPAs based on livelihood among respondents at district level

in Maluku.

Figure 80 Distribution of perception on the importance of MPAs based on livelihood among respondents at district level

in North Maluku.

Figure 81 Distribution of perception on the importance of MPAs based on livelihood among respondents at district

level in West Papua

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other


Picture 15 Valentine Strait in Buano Island, West Seram, will be proposed to be new MPA in Maluku. (Credit:

Marthen Welly/CTC)

VI.B.c. Perception of Punishment for Violation of Rules in the MPAs

In this section, the respondents were asked to give their opinion regarding the punishment of

five prohibited activities inside an MPA. Majority of respondents in Maluku, North Maluku and

West Papua say that written warning is the most proper punishment for waste/pollution

disposal, fine in rupiah for illegal fishing, and prison for protected marine animals hunting, coral

reefs gleaning and mangrove cutting (Figure 82).

Figure 82 Distribution of punishment for violation of rules in MPAs among respondents in Maluku, North Maluku and

West Papua.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V1 V2 V3 V4 V5


Don't know

Prison

Vessel sinking

Confiscation of fishing gear

Fine in rupiah

Written warning

V1 = Waste/pollution disposal V4 = Coral reefs gleaning

V2 = Illegal fishing V5 = Mangrove cutting

V3 = Hunting for protected marine species


Figure 83 Distribution of punishment for violation of rules in MPAs among respondents at district level in Maluku.

Figure 84 Distribution of punishment for violation of rules in MPAs among respondents at district level in North Maluku.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V1 V2 V3 V4 V5


Don't know

Prison

Vessel sinking


Fine in rupiah

Written warning

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V1 V2 V3 V4 V5


Don't know

Prison

Vessel sinking


Fine in rupiah

Written warning








Figure 85 Distribution of punishment for violation of rules in MPAs among respondents at district level in West Papua.

Picture 16 SEA Core Team and CTC Team discuss the importance of MPA with fishermen in Buano

Island, Maluku, on February 12, 2017. (Credit: Marthen Welly/CTC)

VI.B.d. Perception on Which Authority to Regulate the MPAs

Majority of respondents in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua think that the MMAF should

regulate the MPAs (Figure 86), except for a few respondents in Manokwari who think that the

Fisheries Agency at provincial level should be the one who takes the responsibility (Figure 89).

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V1 V2 V3 V4 V5


Don't know

Prison

Vessel sinking


Fine in rupiah

Written warning





Figure 86 Distribution of perception on which authority to regulate the MPAs among respondents in Maluku,


Figure 87 Distribution of perception on which authority to regulate the MPAs among respondents at district level in

Maluku.

Figure 88 Distribution of perception on which authority to regulate the MPAs among respondents at district level in

North Maluku.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Maluku(n = 140)


West Papua(n = 137)

MMAF

Fisheries Agency at provinciallevel

Government at district/sub-district level

Government at village level

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Ambon(n = 20)

West Seram(n = 40)


East Seram(n = 40)

MMAF




0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Ternate(n = 20)




MMAF





Figure 89 Distribution of perception on which authority to regulate the MPAs among respondents at district level

in West Papua.

VI.B.e. Perception on Compliance on Government Regulation about Marine and Coastal

Resources

Majority of respondents in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua say that there are only few

people in their respective village who know and obey the government regulation regarding the

marine conservation and sustainable fisheries (Figure 90) due to lack of information.

The role of Fisheries Extension Officer (FEO) is considered important in disseminating

information about rules and regulations to the community. As seen in Bintuni Bay and South

Sorong, West Papua, although many respondents also give similar answer like their peers in

Maluku and North Maluku, there are some respondents who say that most people in their

smaller neighbourhood territory actually know about these kind of regulations.

Figure 90 Distribution of perception on compliance on government regulations about marine and coastal

resources among respondents in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Manokwari(n = 21)

Bintuni Bay(n = 55)


MMAF




0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Maluku(n = 140)


West Papua(n = 137)

Most

Few

Don't know


Figure 91 Distribution of perception on compliance on government regulations about marine and coastal resources

among respondents at district level in Maluku.

Figure 92 Distribution of perception on compliance on government regulations about marine and coastal resources

among respondents at district level in North Maluku.

Figure 93 Distribution of perception on compliance on government regulations about marine and coastal

resources among respondents at district level in West Papua.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Ambon(n = 20)

West Seram(n = 40)


East Seram(n = 40)

Most

Few

Don't know

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Ternate(n = 20)




Most

Few

Don't know

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Manokwari(n = 21)

Bintuni Bay(n = 55)

South Sorong(n = 61

Most

Few

Don't know


VI.B.f. Perception of the Existence of Traditional Law about Marine Protection

Majority of respondents in Maluku and West Papua say that there are traditional laws – known

as Sasi and Ulayat, to protect the marine resources, On the other hand, majority of respondents

in North Maluku say that there is no such law in their respective village (Figure 94) except in

Morotai Island, where respondents say that raditional laws still exist, but only known by the

elders of the village (Figure 96) and not practiced anymore.

Figure 94 Distribution of perception of the existence of traditional law about marine protection among


Figure 95 Distribution of perception of the existence of traditional law about marine protection among respondents at


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Maluku(n = 140)


West Papua(n = 137)

Yes

No

Don't know

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Ambon(n = 20)

West Seram(n = 40)


East Seram(n = 40)

Yes

No

Don't know


Figure 96 Distribution of perception of the existence of traditional law about marine protection among respondents at


Figure 97 Distribution of perception of the existence of traditional law about marine protection among


VI.B.g. Perception of Compliance of Government Regulation vs Traditional Law about

Marine Resources Protection

Majority of respondents in Maluku and North Maluku say that people in their village obey both

traditional law and governmental regulation regarding marine resources, while respondents in

West Papua opine that the villagers prefer to follow the traditional over government law (Figure

98).

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Ternate(n = 20)




Yes

No

Don't know

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Manokwari(n = 21)

Bintuni Bay(n = 55)

South Sorong(n = 61

Yes

No

Don't know


Figure 98 Distribution of perception of compliance on government regulation VS traditional law about marine

resources protection among respondents in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua.

Picture 17 Discussion about compliance on government regulation and traditional law with members of Kuri Tribe in

Bintuni Bay, West Papua, on May 05, 2017. (Credit: Yoga Putra/CTC)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Maluku(n = 140)


West Papua(n = 137)

People obey tradtitionallaw betterPeople obey governmentlaw betterBoth laws are equallyobeyedPeople don't obey all laws


Figure 99 Distribution of perception of compliance on government regulation VS traditional law about marine resources

among respondents at district level in Maluku.

Figure 100 Distribution of perception of compliance on government regulation VS traditional law about marine resources

among respondents at district level in North Maluku.

Figure 101 Distribution of perception of compliance on government regulation VS traditional law about marine

resources among respondents at district level in West Papua.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Ambon(n = 20)

West Seram(n = 40)


East Seram(n = 40)


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Ternate(n = 20)




People obey tradtitional lawbetterPeople obey government lawbetterBoth laws are equally obeyed

People don't obey all laws

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Manokwari(n = 21)

Bintuni Bay(n = 55)




VI.C. Perception of the Influencers in Marine Resource Management and Protection

VI.C.a. Perception of Persons Responsible for Destruction of Marine and Coastal Areas

Majority of respondents in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua perceive the villagers –

including themselves, as the most responsible persons to contribute to the destruction of

marine and coastal areas, followed by local fishermen and local government (Figure 140). The

results show that the high self-awareness level among respondents.

Figure 102 Distribution of perception of persons responsible for destruction of marine and coastal areas among


Figure 103 Distribution of perception of persons responsible for destruction of marine and coastal areas among respondents

at district level in Maluku.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Maluku(n = 140)


West Papua(n = 137)

Villagers (including him/her self)

Local fisherman

Foreign fisherman

National government

Local government

Business/Private sector

Tourist

Other

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Ambon(n = 20)

West Seram(n = 40)


East Seram(n = 40)


Local fisherman

Foreign fisherman

National government

Local government


Tourist

Other


Figure 104 Distribution of perception of persons responsible for destruction of marine and coastal areas among respondents at


Figure 105 Distribution of perception of persons responsible for destruction of marine and coastal areas among


Picture 18 Local fishermen throw the remains of shrimp heads to the river in Bint uni Bay, West Papua, on May

05, 2017. (Credit: Yoga Putra/CTC)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Ternate(n = 20)





Local fisherman

Foreign fisherman

National government

Local government


Tourist

Other

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Manokwari(n = 21)

Bintuni Bay(n = 55)



Local fisherman

Foreign fisherman

National government

Local government


Tourist

Other


VI.C.b. Perception of Persons Who Might Be Able to Create Laws and Regulations Regarding

Marine Resources

Majority of respondents in Maluku think that the government at village level should be able to

create marine regulation, while the respondents in North Maluku and West Papua think that

the district government should do that (Figure 106), with exception for respondents in South

Halmahera and Sula Islands, North Maluku (Figure 108).

Figure 106 Distribution of perception of persons who might be able to create marine regulation among respondents in


Picture 19 Officers of the Marine and Fisheries Agency of North Maluku Province participate in the USAID SEA

Project perception survey on February 27, 2017. (Credit: Yoga Putra/CTC)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Maluku(n = 140)


West Papua(n = 137)


Community leader

Village government

Sub-district government

District government

Provincial government

National government


Figure 107 Distribution of perception of persons who might be able to create marine regulation among respondents at district

level in Maluku.

Figure 108 Distribution of perception of persons who might be able to create marine regulation among respondents at district

level in North Maluku.

Figure 109 Distribution of perception of persons who might be able to create marine regulation among respondents at

district level in West Papua.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Ambon(n = 20)

West Seram(n = 40)


East Seram(n = 40)


Community leader

Village government


District government


National government

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Ternate(n = 20)





Community leader

Village government


District government


National government

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Manokwari(n = 21)

Bintuni Bay(n = 55)



Community leader

Village government


District government


National government


VI.C.c. Perception of the Willingness to Do Activities to Support Marine Conservation

In this section, the participants were asked to give their opinion regarding 10 activities that are

likely to do related to marine conservation. Majority of respondents in Maluku say that they

will not do some activities that bring harm to the environment, such as throw the garbage/plastic

waste into the sea, glean/vandalize the living coral reefs, mine the sand/coral, consume young

fish and protected marine animals. In contrast, they show high interest in reminding others to

keep sea clean, reporting any environmental destruction acts and participating in the mangrove

replanting (Figure 110). Similar trend also happened in North Maluku and West Papua (Figure

111 and Figure 112).

Figure 110 Distribution of the willingness to conduct activities to conserve the sea among respondents in Maluku.

Picture 20 A woman in Kampung Tahiti, Bintuni Bay, West Papua, create a traditional trap for crabs on May 05,


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10

Maluku (n = 140)

Don't know

Will not do

Will likely do

Will definitely do

A1 = Throw the garbage/plastic waste into the sea A6 = Limit the usage of mangrove timber

A2 = Remind others to keep the sea clean A7 = Participate in replanting the mangrove

A3 = Report any environmental destruction acts A8 = Ask the originality of the fish

A4 = Glean/vandalize the living coral reefs A9 = Consume young fish

A5 = Sand/coral mining A10 = Consume protected animals (i.e. sharks, turtles, whales)


Figure 111 Distribution of the willingness to conduct activities to conserve the sea among respondents in North Maluku.

Figure 112 Distribution of the willingness to conduct activities to conserve the sea among respondents in West Papua.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10


Don't know

Will not do

Will likely do

Will definitely do

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10


Don't know

Will not do

Will likely do

Will definitely do












Figure 113 Distribution of the willingness to conduct activities to conserve the sea among respondents in Ambon.

Figure 114 Distribution of the willingness to conduct activities to conserve the sea among respondents in West Seram.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10

Ambon (n = 20)

Don't know

Will not do

Will likely do

Will definitely do

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10

West Seram (n = 40)

Don't know

Will not do

Will likely do

Will definitely do












Figure 115 Distribution of the willingness to conduct activities to conserve the sea among respondents in Central Maluku.

Figure 116 Distribution of the willingness to conduct activities to conserve the sea among respondents in East Seram.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10


Don't know

Will not do

Will likely do

Will definitely do

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10

East Seram (n = 40)

Don't know

Will not do

Will likely do

Will definitely do












Figure 117 Distribution of the willingness to conduct activities to conserve the sea among respondents in Ternate.

Figure 118 Distribution of the willingness to conduct activities to conserve the sea among respondents in South

Halmahera.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10

Ternate (n = 20)

Don't know

Will not do

Will likely do

Will definitely do

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10


Don't know

Will not do

Will likely do

Will definitely do












Figure 119 Distribution of the willingness to conduct activities to conserve the sea among respondents in Morotai Island.

Picture 21 Villagers in Morotai Island, North Maluku, help fishermen to land the boat to the shore on March 09,


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10


Don't know

Will not do

Will likely do

Will definitely do







Figure 120 Distribution of the willingness to conduct activities to conserve the sea among respondents in Sula Islands.

Figure 121 Distribution of the willingness to conduct activities to conserve the sea among respondents in Manokwari.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10


Don't know

Will not do

Will likely do

Will definitely do

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10

Manokwari (n = 21)

Don't know

Will not do

Will likely do

Will definitely do












Figure 122 Distribution of the willingness to conduct activities to conserve the sea among respondents in Bintuni Bay.

Figure 123 Distribution of the willingness to conduct activities to conserve the sea among respondents in South Sorong.

VI.C.d. Perception of Waste Disposal into the Sea as Common Practice

Majority of respondents in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua disagree of perceiving waste

disposal into the sea as common practice in their village (Figure 124). However, there were

some exceptions found among respondent in Ambon and East Seram, Maluku, (Figure 125), and

in South Sorong, West Papua (Figure 127).

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10


Don't know

Will not do

Will likely do

Will definitely do

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10


Don't know

Will not do

Will likely do

Will definitely do












Figure 124 Distribution of perception of waste disposal into the sea as common practice among respondents in


Figure 125 Distribution of perception of waste disposal into the sea as common practice among respondents at district

level in Maluku.

Figure 126 Distribution of perception of waste disposal into the sea as common practice among respondents at district


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Maluku(n = 140)


West Papua(n = 137)

Agree

Disagree

Don't know

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Ambon(n = 20)

West Seram(n = 40)


East Seram(n = 40)

Agree

Disagree

Don't know

0%

15%

30%

45%

60%

75%

Ternate(n = 20)




Agree

Disagree

Don't know


Figure 127 Distribution of perception of waste disposal into the sea as common practice among respondents at


Picture 22 A pile of garbage washed to the shore in Amahai, Central Maluku, on February 04, 2017. (Credit: Yoga

Putra/CTC)

VI.C.e. Perception on Severe Impacts Caused by Marine Pollution to Marine Animals

Majority of respondents in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua agree that marine pollution

can bring bad impact towards the life of marine animals (Figure 128). However, there are a few

respondents who think the opposite way.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Manokwari(n = 21)

Bintuni Bay(n = 55)


Agree

Disagree

Don't know


Figure 128 Distribution of perception on severe impacts caused by sea pollution to marine animals among


Picture 23 Plastic waste are seen around Kayoa Island, South Halmahera, North Maluku, on

March 05, 2017. (Credit: Yoga Putra/CTC)

Figure 129 Distribution of perception on severe impacts caused by sea pollution to marine animals among respondents at


0%

15%

30%

45%

60%

75%

Maluku(n = 140)


West Papua(n = 137)

Agree

Disagree

Don't know

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Ambon(n = 20)

West Seram(n = 40)


East Seram(n = 40)

Agree

Disagree

Don't know


Figure 130 Distribution of perception on severe impacts caused by sea pollution to marine animals among respondents at


Figure 131 Distribution of perception on severe impacts caused by sea pollution to marine animals among


VI.C.f. Perception on the Existence of Waste Management Services at Locality

Majority of respondents in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua say that there is no waste

management service in their respective village (Figure 104). Some exceptions were found among

respondents in Ambon and West Seram, Maluku (Figure 105), and in Ternate, North Maluku

(Figure 106).

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Ternate(n = 20)




Agree

Disagree

Don't know

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Manokwari(n = 21)

Bintuni Bay(n = 55)


Agree

Disagree

Don't know


Figure 132 Distribution of perception on the existence of waste management services at locality in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua.

Figure 133 Distribution of perception on the existence of waste management services at locality at district level in

Maluku.

Figure 134 Distribution of perception on the existence of waste management services at locality at district level in

North Maluku.

0%

15%

30%

45%

60%

75%

Maluku(n = 140)


West Papua(n = 137)

Yes

No

Don't know

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Ambon(n = 20)

West Seram(n = 40)


East Seram(n = 40)

Yes

No

Don't know

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Ternate(n = 20)




Yes

No

Don't know


Figure 135 Distribution of perception on the existence of waste management services at locality at district level

in West Papua.

VI.C.g. Perception on Reasons of Improper Waste Disposal in Coastal Areas

Majority of respondents in the three provinces mention the top three reasons behind the

improper waste disposal in coastal area are the lack of trash bin (infrastructure), lack of self-

awareness and it has been natural habit of the inhabitants (Figure 136).

In Ambon, Maluku, the lack of regulation also became the top answer among respondents

(Figure 137). This reason also came up as one of the most chosen among respondents in

Manokwari, West Papua (Figure 139).

Figure 136 Distribution of reasons of improper waste disposal in coastal areas among respondents in Maluku,


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Manokwari(n = 21)

Bintuni Bay(n = 55)


Yes

No

Don't know

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Maluku(n = 140)


West Papua(n = 137)

Lack of trash bin

Lack of awareness

Natural habit

No regulation/punishment

Follow other people

Other reason


Figure 137 Distribution of reasons of improper waste disposal in coastal areas among respondents at district level in

Maluku.

Figure 138 Distribution of reasons of improper waste disposal in coastal areas among respondents at district level in

North Maluku.

Figure 139 Distribution of reasons of improper waste disposal in coastal areas among respondents at district level

in West Papua.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Ambon(n = 20)

West Seram(n = 40)


East Seram(n = 40)

Lack of trash bin

Lack of awareness

Natural habit


Follow other people

Other reason

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Ternate(n = 20)




Lack of trash bin

Lack of awareness

Natural habit


Follow other people

Other reason

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Manokwari(n = 21)

Bintuni Bay(n = 55)


Lack of trash bin

Lack of awareness

Natural habit


Follow other people

Other reason


VI.D. Perception on Marine and Fisheries Information Dissemination

VI.D.a. Key Sources of Marine and Fisheries Information Dissemination

Majority of respondents in Maluku and West Papua identify fisheries extension officer (FEO) as

the main source of trusted information about marine conservation and fisheries management,

while in North Maluku it is district officer who become the main sources (Figure 140). The top

five key sources in all three provinces are FEO, district government officer, provincial

government officer, village government officer and community leader.

Figure 140 Distribution of key sources of marine and fisheries information among respondents in Maluku, North Maluku

and West Papua.

Picture 24 Discussion with fisheries extension officers in Sula Islands, North Maluku, before field survey on March

14, 2017. (Credit: Yoga Putra/CTC)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Maluku(n = 140)


West Papua(n = 137)


District government


Village government

Community leader

Fisheries extension officer

NGO officials

Other (Researcher)


Figure 141 Distribution of key sources of marine and fisheries information among respondents at district level in Maluku.

Figure 142 Distribution of key sources of marine and fisheries information among respondents at district level in North Maluku.

Figure 143 Distribution of key sources of marine and fisheries information among respondents at district level in West

Papua.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Ambon(n = 20)

West Seram(n = 40)


East Seram(n = 40)


District government


Village government

Community leader


NGO officials

Other (Researcher)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Ternate(n = 20)





District government


Village government

Community leader


NGO officials

Other (Researcher)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Manokwari(n = 21)

Bintuni Bay(n = 55)



District government


Village government

Community leader


NGO officials

Other (Researcher)


VI.D.b. Level of Confidence about Information from Key Resource Persons Based on

Livelihood

Majority of respondents in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua who work as fishermen and

civil servants believe that the information from key resource persons are true and can be

trusted (Figure 144).

Figure 144 Distribution of level of confidence about information from key resource persons based on livelihood

among respondents in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua.


respondents at district level in Maluku.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Yes No Notsure

Yes No Notsure

Yes No Notsure


Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes No Notsure

Yes No Notsure

Yes No Notsure

Yes No Notsure


Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other



respondents at district level in North Maluku.

Figure 147 Distribution of level of confidence about information from key resource persons based on livelihood

among respondents at district level in West Papua

VI.D.c. Frequency of Marine and Fisheries Information Received in the Last Six Months Based

on Livelihood

In general, respondents in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua say that they have received

information regarding marine conservation and fisheries during the last six months (Figure 148).

However, some respondents give different opinion about this due to difficult access to some

their villages. This can be found in West Seram, Maluku, and in South Halmahera, North Maluku,

as well as in Bintuni Bay, West Papua.

The results indicate the correlation between village location to the frequency of information

received by the community members. Other than location, there are also some factors that

prevent the information dissemination such as transportation, telecommunication network and

lack of education.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes No Notsure

Yes No Notsure

Yes No Notsure

Yes No Notsure


Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Yes No Notsure

Yes No Notsure

Yes No Notsure


Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other


Figure 148 Frequency of marine and fisheries information received in the last six months based on livelihood among respondents in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua.

VI.D.d. Frequency of Marine and Fisheries Information Sharing in the Last Six Months Based

on Livelihood

Majority of respondents in the three provinces say that they have shared any information about

marine and fisheries to other people during the last six months (Figure 174). The only exception

was found among respondents in Bintuni Bay, West Papua (Figure 177).

The results indicate good response among respondents towards any information given to them,

particularly about marine conservation and fisheries. Based on the discussion held during the

survey, there are several factors that enable the fast information sharing among community

members at the village level, such as community events, village meetings, night watch activities

and religious activities.

Figure 149 Frequency of marine and fisheries information sharing in the last six months based on livelihood

among respondents in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Yes No Notsure

Yes No Notsure

Yes No Notsure


Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Yes No Notsure

Yes No Notsure

Yes No Notsure


Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other


VI.D.e. Preferred Media for Marine and Fisheries Information Dissemination Based on

Livelihood

Majority of respondents in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua identify television as their

preferred medium for receiving information about marine conservation and fisheries, followed

by newspapers and social media (Figure 150, Figure 151 and Figure 152). However, there are

some respondents who also choose radio and poster as the source of information, which can

be found in West Seram, East Seram, South Halmahera, Sula Islands and South Sorong.

Figure 150 Distribution of preferred media for marine and fisheries information dissemination based on livelihood

among respondents in Maluku.


among respondents in North Maluku.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Newspaper/magazine

Radio Television Brochure/flyers

Poster/sign board

Social media Mobile apps Other

Maluku (n = 140)

Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Newspaper/magazine


Poster/sign board



Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other



among respondents in West Papua.

VI.D.f. Analysis for Top Three Preferred Media for Marine and Fisheries Information

Dissemination Based on Livelihood

VI.D.f.1. Newspaper/Magazine

There are different trends regarding the frequency of newspaper/magazine reading among

respondents in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua (Figure 153). In Maluku, more than one-

third of respondents say that they read newspaper every day, with exception in East Seram. In

North Maluku, majority of respondents in Ternate and South Halmahera say that they only read

newspaper a few times a week, while those who represent Morotai Island and Sula Islands are

very seldom to read it. In West Papua, only respondents in Manokwari read newspaper on daily

basis, while respondents in Bintuni Bay and South Sorong are very seldom to read it.

Figure 153 Frequency of newspaper/magazine reading based on livelihood among respondents in Maluku, North

Maluku and West Papua.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Newspaper/magazine


Poster/sign board



Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Everyday

Fewtimes aweek

Fewtimes amonth

Veryseldom

Everyday

Fewtimes aweek

Fewtimes amonth

Veryseldom

Everyday

Fewtimes aweek

Fewtimes amonth

Veryseldom


Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other


Picture 25 Information sharing in North Buano Village, West Seram, Maluku, on February 10,

2017. (Credit: Marthen Welly/CTC)

Majority of respondents in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua identify local newspaper as

their preference of reading information (Figure 154), with only minor exception in East Seram

(Figure 155) and Morotai Island (Figure 156).

Figure 154 Distribution of preferred kind of newspaper/magazine based on livelihood among respondents in


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other


Figure 155 Distribution of preferred kind of newspaper/magazine based on livelihood among respondents at district level in

Maluku.

Figure 156 Distribution of preferred kind of newspaper/magazine based on livelihood among respondents at district level in

North Maluku.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%


Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%


Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other


Figure 157 Distribution of preferred kind of newspaper/magazine based on livelihood among respondents at


VI.D.f.2. Television

Majority of respondents in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua consider watching television

as routine activity on daily basis (Figure 158).

Figure 158 Frequency of Television Watching Based on Livelihood among Respondents in Maluku, North

Maluku and West Papua

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Everyday

Fewtimes aweek

Fewtimes amonth

Veryseldom

Everyday

Fewtimes aweek

Fewtimes amonth

Veryseldom

Everyday

Fewtimes aweek

Fewtimes amonth

Veryseldom


Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other


Picture 26 A female respondent sits next to her television at Sesar Village, East Seram, Maluku, on February 04,


Figure 159 Frequency of television watching based on livelihood among respondents at district level in Maluku.

Figure 160 Frequency of television watching based on livelihood among respondents at district level in North Maluku.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Everyday

Fewtimes aweek

Fewtimes amonth

Veryseldom

Everyday

Fewtimes aweek

Fewtimes amonth

Veryseldom

Everyday

Fewtimes aweek

Fewtimes amonth

Veryseldom

Everyday

Fewtimes aweek

Fewtimes amonth

Veryseldom


Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Everyday

Fewtimes aweek

Fewtimes amonth

Veryseldom

Everyday

Fewtimes aweek

Fewtimes amonth

Veryseldom

Everyday

Fewtimes aweek

Fewtimes amonth

Veryseldom

Everyday

Fewtimes aweek

Fewtimes amonth

Veryseldom


Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other


Figure 161 Frequency of television watching based on livelihood among respondents at district level in West Papua.

Majority of respondents in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua watch television during

night time, between 21.00 – 01.00 (Figure 162).

Figure 162 Distribution of preferred time to watch television based on livelihood among respondents in Maluku,


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Everyday

Fewtimes aweek

Fewtimes amonth

Veryseldom

Everyday

Fewtimes aweek

Fewtimes amonth

Veryseldom

Everyday

Fewtimes aweek

Fewtimes amonth

Veryseldom


Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%


Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other


Figure 163 Distribution of preferred time to watch television based on livelihood among respondents at district level in

Maluku.

Figure 164 Distribution of preferred time to watch television based on livelihood among respondents at district level in

North Maluku.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%


Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%


Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other


Figure 165 Distribution of preferred time to watch television based on livelihood among respondents at district


Majority of respondents in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua prefer to watch the national

private channel on television (Figure 166), with some exceptions in Morotai Island and Sula

Islands (Figure 168), and Bintuni Bay (Figure 169), where the respondents also prefer to watch

TVRI (national television channel).

Figure 166 Distribution of preferred TV channel based on livelihood among respondents in Maluku, North Maluku and

West Papua

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%


Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other


Figure 167 Distribution of preferred TV channel based on livelihood among respondents at district level in Maluku.

Figure 168 Distribution of preferred TV channel based on livelihood among respondents at district level in North Maluku.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other


Figure 169 Distribution of preferred TV channel based on livelihood among respondents at district level in West

Papua.

VI.D.f.3. Social Media

Majority of respondents in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua who use social media say

that they access it on daily basis (Figure 170), with some exceptions in Central Maluku (Figure

171), South Halmahera (Figure 172) and South Sorong (Figure 173), where the respondents say

that they access social media only a few times a week.

Figure 170 Frequency of social media access based on livelihood among respondents in Maluku, North Maluku

and West Papua.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%


Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other


Figure 171 Frequency of social media access based on livelihood among respondents at district level in Maluku.

Figure 172 Frequency of social media access based on livelihood among respondents at district level in North Maluku.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other


Figure 173 Frequency of social media access based on livelihood among respondents at district level in West

Papua.

Majority of respondents in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua who use social media prefer

Facebook as the main kind (Figure 174), with exceptions in Ambon (Figure 175), where the

respondents prefer to use YouTube channel.

Figure 174 Distribution of preferred social media based on livelihood among respondents in Maluku, North Maluku

and West Papua.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%


Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other


Figure 175 Distribution of preferred social media based on livelihood among respondents at district level in Maluku.

Figure 176 Distribution of preferred social media based on livelihood among respondents at district level in North Maluku.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%


Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%


Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other


Figure 177 Distribution of preferred social media based on livelihood among respondents at district level in West Papua.

Majority of respondents in all three provinces who use social media admit that they believe

information from social media only of the resources are credible (Figure 178). However, there

are also small portion of respondents who just take the information from social media for

granted.

Figure 178 Distribution on reaction towards information received from social media based on livelihood among


0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%


Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other


Figure 179 Distribution on reaction towards information received from social media based on livelihood among respondents at


Figure 180 Distribution on reaction towards information received from social media based on livelihood among respondents at


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other


Figure 181 Distribution on reaction towards information received from social media based on livelihood among


VI.D.g. Perceived Clarity and Understandability of Media Format

Majority of respondents in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua think that video format is

the easiest to understand, followed by static visuals and short text format (Figure 182, Figure

183 and Figure 184).

Figure 182 Distribution of perception about clarity and understandability of media format among respondents in Maluku.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Fisherman

Civil Servant

Unemployed

Other

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Long text Short text Static visual Audio Video Infographics Interactive

Maluku (n = 140)

Easy

Medium

Hard

Don't know


Figure 183 Distribution of perception about clarity and understandability of media format among respondents in North

Maluku.

Figure 184 Distribution of perception about clarity and understandability of media format among respondents in West

Papua.

Figure 185 Distribution of perception about clarity and understandability of media format among respondents in Ambon.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%



Easy

Medium

Hard

Don't know

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%



Easy

Medium

Hard

Don't know

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%


Ambon (n = 20)

Easy

Medium

Hard

Don't know


Figure 186 Distribution of perception about clarity and understandability of media format among respondents in West

Seram.

Figure 187 Distribution of perception about clarity and understandability of media format among respondents in Central

Maluku.

Figure 188 Distribution of perception about clarity and understandability of media format among respondents in East

Seram.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


West Seram (n = 40)

Easy

Medium

Hard

Don't know

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%



Easy

Medium

Hard

Don't know

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


East Seram (n = 40)

Easy

Medium

Hard

Don't know


Figure 189 Distribution of perception about clarity and understandability of media format among respondents in

Ternate.

Figure 190 Distribution of perception about clarity and understandability of media format among respondents in South

Halmahera.


Morotai Island.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%


Ternate (n = 20)

Easy

Medium

Hard

Don't know

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%



Easy

Medium

Hard

Don't know

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%



Easy

Medium

Hard

Don't know



Sula Islands.


Manokwari.

Figure 194 Distribution of perception about clarity and understandability of media format among respondents in Bintuni

Bay.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%



Easy

Medium

Hard

Don't know

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%


Manokwari (n = 21)

Easy

Medium

Hard

Don't know

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%



Easy

Medium

Hard

Don't know


Figure 195 Distribution of perception about clarity and understandability of media format among respondents in South

Sorong.

Picture 27 Participants in Bere-bere Village, Morotai Island, North Maluku, fill the questionnaire on March 08,


VI.D.h. Preferred Meeting Places for Marine and Fisheries Information Sharing Based on

Gender

Majority of respondents in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua choose community hall as

the preferred meeting point, followed by traditional market and places of religious worship such

as mosque and church (Figure 196).

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%



Easy

Medium

Hard

Don't know


Figure 196 Distribution of preferred meeting places for information sharing based on gender among respondents in



level in Maluku.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%


Male

Female

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%


Male

Female




Figure 199 Distribution of preferred meeting places for information sharing based on gender among respondents at


VI.D.i. Perceived Outreach Activity for Marine and Fisheries Information Dissemination

In Maluku, majority of respondents choose exhibition as the most interesting public information

activity, followed by religious event and traditional event (Figure 242). Similar trends also can

be found in North Maluku and West Papua, but with small different in movie screening as one

of the top chosen activities (Figure 243 and Figure 244).

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%


Male

Female

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%


Male

Female


Figure 200 Distribution of interest towards different kind of public outreach activities among respondents in Maluku.

Figure 201 Distribution of interest towards different kind of public outreach activities among respondents in North Maluku.

Figure 202 Distribution of interest towards different kind of public outreach activities among respondents in West

Papua.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Exhibition Movie screening Music concert Religious event Traditional event

Maluku (n = 140)

Very interesting

Interesting

Not interesting

Don't know

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%



Very interesting

Interesting

Not interesting

Don't know

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%



Very interesting

Interesting

Not interesting

Don't know


Figure 203 Distribution of interest towards different kind of public outreach activities among respondents in Ambon.

Figure 204 Distribution of interest towards different kind of public outreach activities among respondents in West

Seram.

Figure 205 Distribution of interest towards different kind of public outreach activities among respondents in Central

Maluku.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%


Ambon (n = 20)

Very interesting

Interesting

Not interesting

Don't know

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


West Seram (n = 40)

Very interesting

Interesting

Not interesting

Don't know

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%



Very interesting

Interesting

Not interesting

Don't know


Figure 206 Distribution of interest towards different kind of public outreach activities among respondents in East Seram.

Figure 207 Distribution of interest towards different kind of public outreach activities among respondents in Ternate.

Figure 208 Distribution of interest towards different kind of public outreach activities among respondents in South

Halmahera.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


East Seram (n = 40)

Very interesting

Interesting

Not interesting

Don't know

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%


Ternate (n = 20)

Very interesting

Interesting

Not interesting

Don't know

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%



Very interesting

Interesting

Not interesting

Don't know


Figure 209 Distribution of interest towards different kind of public outreach activities among respondents in Morotai

Island.

Figure 210 Distribution of interest towards different kind of public outreach activities among respondents in Sula Islands.

Figure 211 Distribution of interest towards different kind of public outreach activities among respondents in Manokwari.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%



Very interesting

Interesting

Not interesting

Don't know

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%



Very interesting

Interesting

Not interesting

Don't know

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


Manokwari (n = 21)

Very interesting

Interesting

Not interesting

Don't know


Figure 212 Distribution of interest towards different kind of public outreach activities among respondents in Bintuni Bay.

Figure 213 Distribution of interest towards different kind of public outreach activities among respondents in South

Sorong.

Picture 28 People from different villages in Sula Islands come to Sanana City to attend religious event on

March 15, 2017. (Credit: Yoga Putra/CTC)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%



Very interesting

Interesting

Not interesting

Don't know

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%



Very interesting

Interesting

Not interesting

Don't know


VI.D.j. Perceived Importance and Preferred Method of Children Education in Marine and

Fisheries Information Dissemination.

Majority of respondents in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua agree that it is important to

educate children about marine conservation and fisheries (Figure 214). Further discussion show

that it is better to start the education at elementary school.

Majority of the respondents believe that games and contests are the most interesting format

for dissemination of environmental information to children (Figure 215), emphasizing the need

for prizes to stimulate interest amongst target children’s group. Some exceptions can be found

in East Seram (Figure 216) and Bintuni Bay (Figure 220), where most respondents choose art

performances to be most preferred educational activity for children.

Figure 214 Distribution of perceived importance of children education in marine and fisheries among respondents

in Maluku, North Maluku and West Papua.

Figure 215 Distribution of preferred method for children education in marine and fisheries among respondents in


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Maluku(n = 140)


West Papua(n = 137)

Yes

No

Don't know

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Maluku(n = 140)


West Papua(n = 137)

Games

Movie screening

Race/contest

Parade/March

Art performances

Other


Figure 216 Distribution of perceived importance of children education in marine and fisheries among respondents at


Figure 217 Distribution of preferred method for children education in marine and fisheries among respondents at district

level in Maluku.

Figure 218 Distribution of perceived importance of children education in marine and fisheries among respondents at


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Ambon(n = 20)

West Seram(n = 40)


East Seram(n = 40)

Yes

No

Don't know

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Ambon(n = 20)

West Seram(n = 40)


East Seram(n = 40)

Games

Movie screening

Race/contest

Parade/March

Art performances

Other

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Ternate(n = 20)




Yes

No

Don't know


Figure 219 Distribution of preferred method for children education in marine and fisheries among respondents at district


Figure 220 Distribution of perceived importance of children education in marine and fisheries among respondents

at district level in West Papua.

Figure 221 Distribution of preferred method for children education in marine and fisheries among respondents at


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Ternate(n = 20)




Games

Movie screening

Race/contest

Parade/March

Art performances

Other

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Manokwari(n = 21)

Bintuni Bay(n = 55)


Yes

No

Don't know

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Manokwari(n = 21)

Bintuni Bay(n = 55)


Games

Movie screening

Race/contest

Parade/March

Art performances

Other


VII. Follow Up and Recommendations

Site-level data from the perception survey will be shared with USAID SEA Project partners and team members

to provide inputs in the implementation of the overall USAID SEA Project communications strategy and site

level communications planning.

Further communication strategy reports will be equipped with some important and responsive key messages

and a view to develop environmental education programs that are responsive to the needs of local communities

for SEA Core Team. Therefore, the desired outcomes of empowered and knowledgeable community in keeping

the sustainable of marine resources will likely be achieved.

CTC will develop communications strategy that include the design, production and plan for further information

dissemination in target area to emphasize the steps needed in the whole process of behavioral change for

coastal community members. For the first year, the outreach materials and activities will focus on increasing

public awareness and strengthening the collaboration with identified local champions. For the second year, the

strategy will continue with more event to contemplate and internalize the key messages into the community

that will lead them to think about changing. The third year will focus on transition between thinking phase into

formulating real action based on community’s ideas and aspirations. The fourth year will be the time for

community to conduct and adopt the expected habits. Finally, at the year five, it is expected that the community

have shown the behavioral changing and be commited to maintain it. Therefore, it would be a good suggestion

for the USAID SEA Project to conduct perception survey at the final phase to measure the changes at

community level.

VIII. Annexes

1. Perception survey questionnaire in English;

2. Reliability and Validity Test Result using SPSS;

3. Data tabulation of the three phases of perception survey (selected tables).

final report perception survey of marine …

Documents