CHAPTER III. Assessment of EAFM Indicators on the Social

3.1. Data collection technique

In evaluating EAFM indicators in the Social Domain, primary data can be obtained through direct field observations and secondary data from available references. Interviews were conducted after determining the selected respondents from the sampling results. Face-to-face debriefing was carried out using a guide or questionnaire to obtain information according to the purpose of this study. The characteristics of direct interviews are as follows.

1. The interviewer and respondent do not know each other;

2. the interviewer asked, the respondent answered;

3. the interviewer is neutral, does not direct the respondent; And

4. the questions asked following the guide or questionnaire.

Sampling was carried out using a stratified random sampling method; namely, the respondents that will be interviewed were determined in stages. This sampling technique pays attention to every population element from each group that does not overlap (the elements are homogeneous) and must have the same opportunity. Sampling strata can use administrative boundaries or the type of fishing gear used. The allocation of the number of samples from each level is sought using the principle of proportional allocation.

The description of data collection techniques for each indicator is as follows:

a. Society Participation

Community Participation indicator data/information can be obtained through the following:

• Results of direct field observations related to the number of fishing actors involved in sustainable fisheries management;

• monitoring reports from related work units;

• scientific data from related research institutions or academics; and/or

• results of interviews with fishermen/other competent respondents.

The steps for giving a criterion value to the community participation indicator are:

1. Collecting data on all indicators of community participation in an inland water ecosystem.

2. Rate the criteria (nk) for Community Participation indicators with the following value criteria:

• nk 1 = There is no community participation;

• nk 2 = Community participation in the form of non-destructive fishing;

• nk 3 = Community participation in non-destructive fishing, maintaining environmental conditions, recording/reporting fish catches, and/or recording and reporting destructive fishing activities.

Several stakeholders who can be used as respondents in evaluating Community Participation indicators include:

1. Work units in the fisheries sector;

2. academics/researchers from higher education institutions/other research institutions;

3. community leaders or village officials;

4. fishery instructor;

5. fisherman, and

6. NGO.

b. Fisheries Conflict

Fisheries Conflict indicator data/information can be obtained through:

• Results of Direct Field Observations Related to Conflicts that Occur in the Process of Managing Fishery Resources in an Inland Water Ecosystem;

• monitoring reports from related work units;

• scientific data from related research institutions or academics; and/or

• results of interviews with fishermen/other competent respondents.

The steps for giving criterion values ​​to the Fisheries Conflict indicator are:

1. Collecting data on all indicators of Fisheries conflict in an inland water ecosystem.

2. Give the criterion value (nk) of fisheries conflict indicators with the following value criteria:

• nk 1 = conflict that occurs vertical and horizontal

• nk 2 = conflict that occurs vertical or horizontal

• nk 3 = there is no fishery conflict.

Some of the stakeholders who can be used as respondents in assessing indicators of fisheries conflict include:

1. Work units in the fisheries sector;

2. academics/researchers from higher education institutions/other research institutions;

3. community leaders or village officials;

4. fishery instructor;

5. fisherman; And

6. NGO.

c. Local Agreement

Local Agreement indicator data/information can be obtained through:

• The results of direct observations in the field related to the number of fishing communities in a community that practices local knowledge in sustainably managing SDI;

• monitoring reports from related work units; and/or

• results of interviews with fishermen/other competent respondents.

The steps for assigning a criterion value to the Local Agreement indicator are:

1. Collecting all data on Local Agreement indicators in an inland water ecosystem;

2. Give the criterion value (nk) of the Utilization of Local Knowledge indicator with the following value criteria:

• nk 1 = there is a local agreement that conflicts with efforts to manage sustainable fisheries;

• nk 2 = there is no local agreement that supports efforts to manage sustainable fisheries;

• nk 3 = there is a local agreement that supports efforts to manage sustainable fisheries.

Some of the stakeholders who can be used as respondents in evaluating Local Agreement indicators include:

• Work units in the fisheries sector;

• academics/researchers from higher education institutions/other research institutions;

• community leaders or village officials;

• fishery instructor;

• fisherman; And

• NGO.

d. The role of important people/ community leaders

Figure Role indicator data/information can be obtained through:

• The results of direct field observations related to the number of figures and the role of each figure in determining fisheries management arrangements, both formal and non-formal;

• monitoring reports from related work units;

• scientific data from related research institutions or academics; and/or

• results of interviews with fishermen/other competent respondents

The steps for giving a criterion value to the Figure Role indicator are as follows:

1. Collecting all data on the indicator of the Role of Figures in an inland waters ecosystem.

2. Give the criterion value (nk) of the Character Role indicator with the following value criteria:

• nk 1 = no community leaders;

• nk 2 = there are community leaders, but no/lack of an inside role in sustainable fishery management;

• nk 3 = community leaders have a dominant role in sustainable fisheries management.

Some of the stakeholders who can be used as respondents in assessing the role of the figure (community leader) indicators include:

• Work units in the fisheries sector;

• academics/researchers from higher education institutions/other research institutions;

• community leaders or village officials;

• fishery instructor;

• fisherman; And

• NGO;

e. Education Proportion

Data/information on the Proportion of Education indicators can be obtained through the following:

• Results of direct observations in the field regarding education level, diversity of work experience in fishing, business ownership, or employment status;

• monitoring reports from related work units;

• scientific data from related research institutions or academics; and/or

• results of interviews with fishermen/other competent respondents.

The steps for assigning a criterion value to the Education Proportion indicator are as follows:

1. Collecting all data on the Education Proportion indicator in an inland water ecosystem.

2. Give the criterion value (nk) of the Education Level indicator with the following value criteria:

• nk 1 = proportion of people with low education (> 60%);

• nk 2 = proportion of people with low education (30-60)%;

• nk 3 = proportion of people with low education (<30%)

Several stakeholders who can be used as respondents in assessing the education proportion indicator include:

• Work units in the fisheries sector;

• academics/researchers from higher education institutions/other research institutions;

• community leaders or village officials;

• fishery instructor;

• fisherman; And

• NGO.

f. Experience as a fisherman

Data/information on experience as a fisherman indicator can be obtained through:

• The results of direct observations in the field regarding the experience of fishermen;

• monitoring reports from related work units;

• scientific data from related research institutions or academics; and/or

• results of interviews with fishermen/other competent respondents.

The steps for assigning a criterion score to the experience as a fisherman indicator are:

1. Collecting all data on experience indicators as fishermen in an inland waters ecosystem.

2. Give the value of the criteria (nk) indicator of experience as a fisherman with the following value criteria:

• nk 1 = experience as a fisherman over 10 years (<30%);

• nk 2 = experience as a fisherman over 10 years (30-60%);

• nk 3 = experience as a fisherman over 10 years (> 60%).

Some of the stakeholders who can be used as respondents in assessing the Experience as Fishermen indicators include:

• Work units in the fisheries sector;

• academics/researchers from higher education institutions/other research institutions;

• community leaders or village officials;

• fishery instructor;

• fisherman; And

• NGO.

3.2. Analysis Techniques

EAFM analysis is a multi-attribute approach to symptoms or performance indications of aquatic ecosystem conditions. Substantially, the assessment of EAFM indicators is a multi-criteria analysis system that ends in assessing a composite index to determine the status of fisheries management using the flag modeling technique (Adrianto, Matsuda, and Sakuma, 2005). Data analysis is needed to find out the relationship between the current management performance status based on the data of each indicator in the stakeholder domain and recommendations for fisheries management actions that will be developed.

Currently, there are tools available that can be used to analyze the condition of EAFM in general and the conditions of each EAFM domain, especially the stakeholder domain, namely by using the EAFM indicator assessment matrix (as attached). In detail, the method for calculating the composite score on social indicators and domains is described as follows:

a. Community Participation Indicators

The formula used to calculate the composite indicator (CI) value of Community Participation is:

Description:

 = community Participation indicator composite

 = weight value of community participation indicator 

 = ranking value of community Participation indicator 

 = criterion value of community participation indicator 

From the 6 (six) indicators in the Social Domain, the rating value of the Community Participation indicator is in third place. Thus the weight of the Community Participation indicator has a value of 14. It shows that the Community Participation indicator has quite an effect on the Social Domain. The formula used to calculate the value of the weight (br) of Community Participation is:

b. Fisheries Conflict

The formula used to calculate the composite indicator (CI) value for Fisheries Conflict is:

Description:

 = fisheries conflict indicator composite

 = weight value of fishery conflict indicator 

 = ranking value of fisheries conflict indicators 

 = criterion value of fisheries conflict indicator 

From the 6 (six) indicators in the Social Domain, the rating value of the Fisheries Conflict indicator is 2. Thus the weight of the Fisheries Conflict indicator has a value of 10. It shows that the Fisheries Conflict indicator has a low influence on the Social Domain. The formula used to calculate the weight value (br) of Fisheries Conflict is:

c. Local Agreement

The formula used to calculate the composite indicator value (CI) of Local agreement is:

Description:

 = local agreement indicator composite

 = local agreement indicator weight value

 = local agreement indicator ranking value

 = local Agreement indicator criteria value

From the 6 (six) indicators in the Social Domain, the rating value of the Local Agreement indicator is 15. Thus the weight of the Local Agreement indicator has a value of 24. It shows that the indicator of the utilization of local knowledge has quite a high influence on the Social Domain. The formula used to calculate the weight value (br) utilization of local knowledge is:

d. Figure Role

The formula used to calculate the composite indicator value (CI) of Figure Role is:

Description:

 = composite figure role indicator

 = the weight value of the figure role indicator

 = ranking value of the figure role indicator

 = the criterion value of the figure role indicator

From the 6 (six) indicators in the Social Domain, the ranking value of the Figure Role indicator is 6. Thus the weight of the Figure Role indicator has a value of 29. It shows that the Figure Role indicator influences the Social domain. The formula used to calculate the weight value (br) of the character's role is:

e. Education Proportion

The formula used to calculate the composite indicator (CI) value for Education Level is:

Description:

 = composite education proportion indicator

 = the weight value of the education proportion indicator

 = ranking value of the education proportion indicator

 = value of the education proportion indicator criterion

From the 6 (six) indicators in the Social Domain, the rating value of the Proportion of Education indicator is 4. Thus the weight of the Education Level indicator has a value of 19. It shows that the Education Level indicator has quite an effect on the Social Domain. The formula used to calculate the weight value (br) of the Proportion of Education is:

f. Experience as a Fisherman

The formula used to calculate the composite indicator value (CI) of experience as a fisherman is:

Description:

= composite of experience as a fisherman indicator

 = the weight value of the experience as a fisherman indicator

 = rank value of the experience as a fisherman indicator

 = value of experience as a fisherman criterion indicator

From 6 (six) indicators in the Social Domain, the rating value of the Proportion of Education indicator is 1. Thus the weight of the Education Level indicator has a value of 5. It shows that the Education Level indicator has minimal influence on the Social Domain. The formula used to calculate the value of the weight (br) of experience as a Fisherman is:

Description:

= social domain composite value

= composite value of community participation indicators

= composite value of fisheries conflict indicator

= composite value of local agreement indicator

= composite value of the character role indicator

= composite value of education proportion indicator

= composite value of experience as a fisherman indicator

The  value obtained is used to analyze the Social Domain condition status flags in implementing fisheries management with an ecosystem approach or the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management (EAFM) in inland waters. The status flag criteria for social domains are grouped based on 3 (three) categories, namely:

After obtaining all CD values, the next step is to determine the status flags for fisheries management conditions in an inland waters ecosystem, namely by calculating the aggregate of all EAFM domain composite values ​​using the following formula:

Description:

The flag criteria for the status of fisheries management conditions in an inland waters ecosystem are grouped into 3 (three) categories, namely:

2 (two) factors determine its value to evaluate each indicator in each domain, namely weight and score. The weight is from a set of indicators in the same domain, sorted by importance from high to low, with a total of 100% (maximum 1). The score uses a Likert scale of 1 to 3, namely 1 = low, 2 = moderate, 3 = high.

Based on the calculation of the CD3 value above, it is known that the Social Domain status flag is yellow or in moderate condition (value 1075). It shows that the conditions of the local Social Domain have implemented the principles of sustainable fisheries but are not yet optimal. So it is necessary to establish a strategic plan to optimize or improve the conditions of the existing domains and indicators.