River Basin and Disaster Management
3. Result
To determine the diversity of Odonata in the research area, a survey was carried out in the upper Brantas watershed area for community of Odonata. The results showed that there were three Familia of Odonata; those were:
Aeshnidae, Chlorocyphidae, and Libellulidae which were detailed into eleven Genus: Amphiaeschna, Libellago, Rhinocypha, Agriocnemis, Ischnura, Pseudagrion, Brachythemis, Crocothemis, Neurothemis, Orthetrum and Trithemis, and Consisted of fifteen species, namely: Amphiaeschna ampla (Rambur), Libellago lineata (Burmeister), Rhinocypha fenestrata (Burmeister), Agriocnemis femina (Brauer), Ischnura senegalensis (Rambur), Pseudagrion pruinosum (Burmeister), Brachythemis contaminata (Fabricius ), Crocothemis servilia (Drury), Neurothemis terminata (Rambur), Orthetrum chrysis (Selys), Orthetrum glaucum (Brauer), Orthetrum pruinosum (Burmeister), Orthetrum sabina (Drury), Orthetrum triangular (Selys) and Trithemis festiva (Rambur), respectively. From the findings obtained in the field, it is suggested that the Odonata species were found to describe the environmental quality conditions in the study area as bioindicator. Familia of Aeshnidae could reflect the quality of a good environment, especially water quality and riparian vegetation surrounding the area. Aeshnidae larvae live in the water; the larvae are sensitive to environmental changes that occur in areas where the larvae live. Presence of pollutants into the waters will be very influential on the development of larvae and can cause death in these larvae. If it happened, people who live on terrestrial regions cannot see this familia flying in the watershed area because it is dead by the time it becomes larvae.
3.1 The Role of Odonata Knowledge to increase community perception and participation
The analysis of The Ecological Perceptions and Communities Participations on River Conservation Based on Bioindicator Odonata Knowledge in Upper Watershed Area showed that, in general, community in upper Brantas watershed area did not understand their role in environmental stewardship (14.59 ± 2.9), their role in protection environmental damage (12.41 ± 4.09) and lack of information on Bioindicator of Odonata (15.83 ± 2.38). Detailed information is presented in table 1. After they get information on Bioindicator Odonata knowledge, almost all parameters results indicated significant increase in t-test analysis after two month they receive information on Bioindicator of Odonata (p<0.001), Environmental ethics (p<0.001), Intention for river conservation (p<0.001), The role of the community in environmental stewardship (p<0.001), The role of the community in protection environmental
S u s ta iN 2 0 1 3
Page | 91 damage (p<0.001), The level of community in participation environmental conservation (p<0.001); and Type of community participation in environmental conservation (p<0.001).
Table 5. Relationship perception and participation on river conservation based on bioindicator Odonata knowledge
Parameters
Average ± std dev, p-value of t-test before vs after
Before After
Information on Bioindicator of Odonata 15.83 ± 2.38 17.64 ± 1.54 p<0.001
Environmental ethics 18.97 ± 3.48 21.57± 1,77 p<0.001
Intention for river conservation 21.71± 2,87 22.60± 2.03 p<0.001
The role of the community in environmental stewardship 14.59 ± 2.9 17.99 ± 1.59 p<0.001 The role of the community in protection environmental damage 12.41 ± 4.09 16.74 ± 2.41 p<0.001 The level of community in participation environmental
conservation
19.81 ± 5.01 25.40 ± 2.57 p<0.001
Type of community participation in environmental conservation 19.94 ± 4.40 23.69 ± 1.91 p<0.001 Note: before and after data indicated value each parameter giving information Bioindicator
Based on the table above, increased public understanding of the Odonata knowledge could support public awareness on river conservation, intentions of environmental stewardship, increasing the type and level of community participation in the conservation of the river and increasing the role of the community in maintaining the quality of the environment.
Community intention could be generated by an increase in public knowledge. Lack of information on Odonata species that could be used as Bioindicator resulted in people did not understand the signals given by nature to mankind.
This could be seen at the beginning of the study when the community has not been introduced yet to the function the existence of Odonata to environmental quality. The society at the research study area simply assumed that Odonata as a complement species in the environment. Two months after receiving Bioindicator knowledge Odonata, people understand the position and function of these species in the environment and the impact can increase environmental ethics, public participation in environmental stewardship and concern for conservation significantly.
3.2 Model of the Ecological Perceptions and Communities Participations on River Conservation Based on Bioindicator Odonata Knowledge in the Upper Watershed Area at Batu District.
Further analysis showed the relationship between the factors of research which was carried out by using path analysis with Partial Least Square approach. Through this approach convergent validity and reliability in the outer composite model of ecological perceptions and communities participations on river conservation based on Bioindicator Odonata knowledge in the upper watershed area would be known. Convergent validity referred to the validity of the items making up a latent with reflective indicators. Convergent validity was examined through two size grades: Average Variance Extracted (AVE) and the value of composite reliability (CR) of latent reflective. Convergent validity was formed when the AVE values > 0.5 and composite reliability was above 0.7. On outer models, there were two latent variables that were reflective as described in Table 2.
Table 2 shows that all reflective latent variables outside the model had a composite reliability and AVE values exceeded the minimum value of 0.5 and 0.7. Thus, it can be concluded that there is no measurement error in the model outside and all latent variables can be used to predict the functions of the inner structural models. Cross loading reflexive analysis indicators on both the latent constructs explained that each construct had a suitable indicator based data supporting the results of the study. Each of these indicators had higher cross loading value than the value of the other indicators as described inTable 3.
S u s ta iN 2 0 1 3
Page | 92
Table 2. Value AVE and Composite Reliability (CR)
Construct AVE
Value
Composite
Reliability Annotation
Socio-Cultural 0.59 0.74 Valid and Reliable
Community Participation 0.57 0.70 Valid and Reliable
Table 3. Cross-Loading Results for Latent Construct The Ecological Perceptions and Communities Participations on River Conservation Knowledge Based on Bioindicator Odonata in Upper Watershed Area
Indicator
Latent Construct
Socio-Culture Participation
Information 0.653* 0.651
Cooperation 0.784* 0.578
Ecology 0.664* 0.957
Environmental Protection 0.201 0.679*
Community Role 0.225 0.674*
Level of Participation 0.346 0.584*
Type of Participation 0.247 0.469*
Based on the data presented in Table 3 above, the cross loading calculation results for each indicator on the socio-cultural construct and participation was appropriate because the cross loading value of the corresponding indicator was higher. This research had 9 parts of testing hypotheses relating to inner models. Causality hypothesis developed in this model was tested with the null hypothesis that the regression coefficients in every relationship were not different from zero by t-test such as the one in the regression analysis [19]. Here is a description of the test results to 9 units on the inner model hypothesis proposed in this study. In the following sections, inner and outer model (full model) in the socio-cultural structure of the variable relationships, knowledge, ethics, socio-economic, intentions and participation were presented. Relationship indicators on the latent constructs of social and cultural participation was reflexive, while the construct of knowledge, ethics, socio-economic and intentions on the data were presented in Table 3 above; the cross loading calculation results for each indicator on the socio-cultural construct and participation was appropriate because the cross loading value of the corresponding indicator was higher. This research had 9 parts of testing hypotheses relating to inner models. Causality hypothesis developed in this model was tested with the null hypothesis that the regression coefficients in every relationship were not different from zero by t-test such as the one in the regression analysis [19]. Here is a description of the test results to 9 units on the inner model hypothesis proposed in this study. In the following sections inner and outer model (full model) in the socio-cultural structure of the variable relationships, knowledge, ethics, socio-economic, intentions and participation are presented. Relationship indicators on the latent constructs of social and cultural participation were reflexive, while the construct of knowledge, ethics, socio-economic and intentions were formative.
S u s ta iN 2 0 1 3
Page | 93
Figure 2. Inner Outer Model from Partial Least Square
Inner model results shown in Table 4 explained that the entire pathway in the model was significant at α = 0.05.
Intent on endogenous constructs had four determinants, namely socio-cultural, Bioindicator, socio-economic and ethics, while the participation of endogenous constructs had five determinants of the socio-cultural, Bioindicator, ethical, socio-economic and intentions. The study of ecological perception was a complex. Research approaches could be done with measurement of the condition of socio-cultural society, socio-economic communities, knowledge of Bioindicator Odonata, and environmental ethics. The measurement of this condition would affect the intention of communities in river conservation and, in turn, would have an impact on the active participation of the community to conserve the river.
Outer models aimed to examine the relationship of each indicator of the latent constructs that existed in the structural model of The Ecological Perceptions and Communities participations on River Conservation Knowledge Based on Bioindicator Odonata in Upper Watershed Area. Indicators to construct a relationship were reflexive.
Weighting factor would be taken from the value of result for outer loadings. On indicators that were reflexive, loading factor value of 0.40 or more indicated that the indicator had a good validation to measure the latent variable. While the relationship with the indicators was formative construct, weighting factors would be taken from the value of result for outer weight. Results of the analysis are described in Table 5.
Table 4. Inner Model test Result of The Ecological Perceptions and Communities participations on River Conservation Knowledge Based on Bioindicator Odonata in Upper Watershed Area.
Original sample
estimate
Mean of subsamples
Standard deviation