54
Analysis of Factors Affecting Fishermen Participation in Marine Protected Area East Java
Reny Tiarantika
1*, Anthon Efani
21Department of Socio-Economics, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Brawijaya, Jl. Veteran, Malang 65145, Indonesia
2Fisheries and Marine Science Faculty, University of Brawijaya
Abstract
The main failure of Marine Protected Areas (MPA) in achieving its objectives is the lack of involvement of users (communities) and stakeholders in the planning and decision-making processes, with unforeseen social consequences. Of course, this is also related to the government-based or community-based Marine Protected Area management system.
Management of Marine Protected Areas that do not involve local community participation in governance and management will of course result in low local community perceptions of Marine Protected Areas because it will have an impact on local people's lives, especially related to fishery production and fishermen's household income. Therefore, community participation is considered important in the implementation of Marine Protected Areas. The purpose of this study focuses on the factors that affect the level of participation of fishermen in Marine Protected Areas (MPA). This study used 147 samples of fishermen selected by random sampling. The method used is probit regression. The results showed that the participation rate of community-based MPA was higher than that of government-based MPA. Other findings show that age, education, experience, long trip have a positive and significant impact on fishermen's decisions to participate in Marine Protected Areas.
Keywords: marine protected area, fisherman, participation, probit
INTRODUCTION1
Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), are one of the most widely used marine management instruments globally today and are designed for a variety of purposes, from biodiversity restoration, fisheries management, to tourism enhancement [1]. Globally, the declaration of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) as instruments for biodiversity conservation, habitat protection and fisheries management has recently become increasingly popular in the conservation community and among marine scientists [2]. Marine Protected Area (MPA) was initiated as a form to overcome overexploitation in the fisheries sector.
Overexploitation affects fishermen's welfare by reducing capture fisheries productivity and fishermen's income [3]. In addition, overexploitation has pushed many fisheries into unsustainable conditions, and this is the biggest challenge to prosperity ([4].
Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) can have positive benefits for local communities such as empowerment, improved governance, alternative livelihoods, improved fisheries, and social, educational, and cultural benefits [5]. For example
Correspondence address:
Reny Tiarantika
Email : [email protected]
Address : Jl. Veteran, Faculty of Agriculture University of Brawijaya , Malang 65145, Indonesia
[6], revealed that Marine Protected Areas (MPA) could improve ecosystems, reduce poverty through tourism, better governance, improve health, and empower women, increase fishery output, community organizing, resilience and adaptation, and security of tenure. However, in practice Marine Protected Areas (MPA) tend to produce outcomes of “biological success and social failure”. This means that in the management and implementation of Marine Protected Area (MPA) policies, they still focus on biological benefits or related to ecosystem sustainability, but matters relating to the community are still not given much attention. These social failures include restrictions on participation, unfair distribution of economic benefits, and conflicts [7].
More specifically, Marine Protected Areas (MPA) provide positive benefits to the surrounding community who work as fishermen. Effect of Marine Protected Area (MPA) on fisherman's livelihood output such as fishery production and fisherman's household income. Fish fisheries production is an increase in abundance and diversity of fish, an increase in the number of fish caught and a decrease in the level of effort to make a catch in the USA in 2019 [8]. Meanwhile, in terms of household income, fishermen in Marine Protected Areas (MPA) had an impact on increasing income and profit sharing within and among groups who felt the impact of Marine
55
Protected Areas (MPA). This is because fishing is a profession that is very dependent on marine natural resources, which is related to the abundance of fish in the sea [9]. Marine Protected Areas (MPA) will encourage the improvement of ecosystems and food chains in marine ecosystems.
Determination of an area as a Marine Protected Area (MPA) will have an impact on local communities both in terms of economic and social aspects [5]; [10]. This is because there will be a pattern of adaptation from the community that previously the area was still with the status of common property to become an area with the status of Marine Protected Area (MPA). Of course, the community must adapt to the new regulations set for the area. One of them is that the community must understand the conservation area and the division of management zones within it [11]. Marine Protected Area was first implemented in Indonesia in 2007 based on PP no.
60 of 2007 concerning protected water areas. In Indonesia, Marine Protected Areas (MPA) are divided into 2 types, namely Marine Protected Areas based on government and Marine Protected Areas Based on Community. Marine Protected Area based government is a marine conservation area initiated by the government and management is managed directly by the local government, while Marine Protected Area Based Community is a marine conservation area whose establishment is initiated by the community. In the case of Indonesia, Marine Protected Area Based Community is the initiation of coastal communities who generally also work as fishermen.
Determination of Marine Protected Areas (MPA) is very important for local communities, especially fishermen because it will have an impact on fishermen's livelihood outputs such as fishery production and income [10]. However, the fact is that the implementation of the Marine Protected Area (MPA) does not fully have a positive impact on all relevant stakeholders. The main failure of Marine Protected Areas (MPA) in achieving its objectives is the lack of involvement of users (communities) and stakeholders in the planning and decision-making processes, with unforeseen social consequences [2]. Of course, this is also related to the government-based or community- based Marine Protected Area management system.
The main problem of capture fisheries today is overfishing. The exploitation of marine resources is currently excessive, especially in the fisheries sector, accompanied by destructive fishing behavior and Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported (IUU) activities. These problems cause the country to suffer losses. Therefore, to overcome this
problem, it is necessary to implement sustainable management of marine and fisheries resources by establishing a Marine Protected Area (MPA) [12].
Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) can be used as an effective tool to address conservation needs as part of integrated management of coastal and marine areas. Worldwide, the area of protected marine waters is very small [13]. Currently the entire Marine Protected Area (MPA) covers less than half of the world's oceans, few are highly protected and 71% have no active management [14].
There is strong evidence that protecting areas from fishing results in an increase in the number, size and biomass of the types of organisms exploited. Marine storage and protection areas are often said to only apply to coral reef environments. In fact, this method has been successfully applied to a wide range of habitats in environments from tropical to sub-tropical conditions. Marine storage and protection is a global tool. Overfishing has become a reality in various capture fisheries in the world. The World Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that 47% of the world's marine fisheries are fully exploited, 18% are overfished or the remaining stock has even been depleted, only 10% of the resources are still under-captured [14].
Management of Marine Protected Areas that do not involve local community participation in governance and management will of course result in low local community perceptions of Marine Protected Areas because it will have an impact on local people's lives, especially related to fishery production and fishermen's household income [4].
Therefore, community participation is considered important in the implementation of Marine Protected Areas. Thus, this study focuses on what factors influence the level of community participation in Marine Protected Areas (MPA).
MATERIAL AND METHOD Study Area
This research was carried out in Probolinggo and Malang Regency in September – October 2021. The Probolinggo Regency area which has potential in the tourism sector such as snorkeling, diving and for conservation areas is Gili Ketapang because it is the center of coral reefs in East Java [15] . However, this potential actually had an impact on the percentage of coral community cover reaching 52.09%. This value was supported by the number of live corals that were damaged with a value of 36.92% divided by Acropora (17.54%) and non-Acropora (19.37%). While the rest is dominated by other biota by 15.18% [16].
Based on these conditions, the Department of
56 Marine Affairs and Fisheries of East Java Province
in 2020 determined Gili Ketapang Island to be a Marine Protected Area (MPA) based on the Minister of Marine Affairs and Fisheries Regulation Number 64 of 2020 concerning the Gili Ketapang Conservation Area and Surrounding Waters in East Java [16].
Malang Regency is also a Regency that has a Marine Protected Area (MPA), which is a mangrove conservation area. Unlike the Marine Protected Area (MPA) in Probolinggo Regency, the Marine Protected Area in Malang Regency is an initiative of local residents (based community). The Marine Protected Area (MPA) in Malang Regency was initiated in 2012 by the conservation community agency Bhakti Alam Sendang Biru.
Population and Sample
The population in this study were small-scale fishermen, with a sampling method using simple random sampling. In this study, 147 small-scale fishermen were calculated using the Slovin method.
Analysis Method
The method used to determine the effect of socio-demographic conditions on the participation of fishermen in Marine Protected Areas (MPA) is by using probit regression. Probit regression can be used when the dependent variable (Y) is binary in this study, namely if 1 community participates, and 0 = community does not participate [17].
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics
In this study the dependent variable used is Marine Protected Area (MPA) (Fishermen are involved in the management of Marine Protected Area (MPA) = 1 and No Community is involved in the management of Marine Protected Area (MPA)
= 0). Fishermen who are said to participate in Marine Protected Areas (MPA) are fishermen who are active in Marine Protected Area (MPA) activities such as participating in planting
mangroves and coral reefs, attending fisherman's natural schools and cleaning beaches and Marine Protected Areas (MPA). In addition, fishermen can also be said to participate when fishermen are involved in making Marine Protected Area (MPA) management policies indicated by attending regular meetings every month, providing advice on Marine Protected Area (MPA) governance, and supervising Marine Protected Area (MPA) governance. MPA). while the independent variables used in this study were the socio- economic conditions of fishermen consisting of age (x1), education (x2), household size (x3), experience (x4), trip distance (x5), long trip (x6).
Mathematically the probit regression model in this study can be written as follows:
P (Y=1│x_i) = β0 + βiXi
Where P (Y=1│x_i) is an opportunity for fishermen to participate in Marine Protected Areas and Xi is a socio-demographic condition variable.
RESULT AND DISCUSSION Socio Demographic Condition
Descriptive statistics on the variables of this study are from table 1, it can be seen information related to the socio-demographic conditions of fishermen. Where in this study an average of 43 years with a minimum age of respondents is 24 years and a maximum of 80 years. The level of education taken by fishermen in this study was an average of 7 years with a minimum of no school education and the highest education was taken for 12 years.
The average fisherman household size is 4 people with a minimum household size of 2 people and a maximum of 8 people. Fishermen experience an average of 22 years with a minimum of 5 years and a maximum of 60 years.
The average distance traveled by fishermen is 6.6 km with a minimum distance of 4 km and a maximum of 12 km.
Variable Mean Std. Dev Min Max
Marine Protected Area .809 .394 0 1
Age (Year) 43.632 11.094 24 80
Education ( Year ) 6.863 2.400 0 12
Household Size (People) 3.714 1.452 2 8
Experience ( Year ) 22.306 9.941 5 60
Trip Distance (Km) 6.646 2.040 4 12
Long Trip (Hour) 6.054 1.291 5 10
Production (Kg) 226.149 73.019 100 430
Income (Rp) 1696122 547643.1 750000 3225000
57
The output variable in this study uses the production and income of fishermen. The average production of fish caught by fishermen is 226 Kg with a minimum catch of 100 Kg and a maximum of 430 Kg. Meanwhile, the average income received by fishermen is Rp. 1,696,122 with a minimum income of Rp. 750,000 and a maximum income of Rp. 3,225,000.
In knowing the perceptions of fishermen due to the determination of the Marine Protected Area, it can be seen by looking at the participation of fishermen in the Marine Protected Area, the views of fishermen on the availability of fish, the condition of the ecosystem or the relationship between the manager and the community. The following is the perception of fishermen regarding the existence of Marine Protected Areas in Probolinggo Regency and Malang Regency.
Participation in Marine Protected Area
The data shown in Figure 1 above shows that the respondents in Probolinggo Regency there are 45,83% fishermen who participate in the Marine Protected Area and 54,17% fishermen who do not participate in the Marine Protected Area.
Meanwhile, in Malang Regency there are 81,33%
fishermen who participate in the Marine Protected Area and 18,67% fishermen who do not participate in the Marine Protected Area. It can be concluded that Malang Regency has a higher number of fishermen who participate in Marine Protected Areas compared to fishermen in Probolinggo Regency. This phenomenon occurs because there are differences in the management system of Marine Protected Areas in Probolinggo Regency and Malang Regency. In Probolinggo Regency the Marine Ptotected Area is an initiative of the Regional Government, while in Malang Regency the Marine Ptotected Area is an initiation from the community (based community). This is why in Probolinggo Regency there are still many fishermen who do not participate in the management of Marine Protected Areas. This is also reinforced by the [18], that the Marine Protected Area initiated by the Government does not involve the community in its management process. The form of participation in the management of Marine Protected Areas is in the form of being active in all activities related to Marine Protected Areas and participating in making policies on the management of Marine Protected Areas.
The form of participation in the management of Marine Protected Areas is in the form of being active in all activities related to Marine Protected
Areas and participating in policy-making for the management of Marine Protected Areas.
45.83%
81.33%
54.17%
18.67%
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
Probolinggo Malang Fishermen Participation in Marine
Protected Area
Participation Not Participation Figure 1. Fisherman Participation a. Active in Marine Protected Area activities
Based on the results of the study, it can be seen the number of respondents who are active in the management of Marine Protected Areas in the following figure:
40.28%
77.33%
59.72%
22.67%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
Probolinggo Malang
Responden
Active in Marine Protected Area Activities
Yes No
Figure 2. Active in Marine Protected Area activities From Figure 2 above, it can be seen that there are 40,28% fishermen in Probolinggo Regency who are active while the remaining 59,73% fishermen are not active in Marine Protected Area activities.
Meanwhile, in Malang Regency, there were 77,33% active fishermen and 22,67% inactive fishermen in Marine Protected Area activities. So it can be concluded that the level of activity of fishermen in Malang Regency is higher than Probolinggo Regency. The activities of fishermen in Marine Protected Area activities, such as being involved in planting mangroves or coral reefs, participating in fishermen's natural schools or cleaning beaches and Marine Protected Areas. This
58 is also reinforced by the opinion [19], that Marine
Protected Areas managed by the community have higher fishing activities than Marine Protected Areas managed by the government. The following is a description of the activities of fishermen:
• Participate in mangrove and coral reef planting Based on the results of the study, it can be seen the number of respondents who participated in planting mangroves and coral reefs in the following figure:
40.28%
69.33%
59.72%
30.67%
0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00%
Probolinggo Malang
Participate in mangrove and coral reef planting
No Yes
Figure 3. Participate in mangrove and coral reef planting
From Figure 3, it can be seen that the activities of fishermen in participating in mangrove and coral reef planting activities in Probolinggo Regency and Malang Regency have differences. In Probolinggo Regency as many as 40,28% fishermen took part in mangrove and coral reef planting activities and 59,72% fishermen did not participate. Meanwhile, in Malang Regency as many as 69,33% fishermen participated in mangrove and coral reef planting activities and 30,67% fishermen did not participate. So it can be concluded that participation in mangrove and coral reef planting activities in Malang Regency is higher than Probolinggo Regency.
• Participation in fisherman's nature school From Figure 4, it can be seen that fishermen's activities in participating in fishermen's natural schools in Probolinggo Regency and Malang Regency have differences. In Probolinggo Regency, there are no fishermen who attend the Fisherman's Nature School. While in Malang Regency as many as 73,33% fishermen participated in participating in the fishermen's nature school and 26,67% fishermen did not participate. So it can be concluded that participation in the activities of participating in
fishermen's natural schools in Malang Regency is higher than Probolinggo Regency. The activities of this fisherman's nature school are in the form of training activities for planting and caring for mangroves or coral reefs, training in the use of fishing gear, socialization and counseling about conservation, as well as educational activities about the natural environment.
0.00%
73.33%
100.00%
26.67%
0.00%20.00%40.00%60.00%80.00%100.00%120.00%
Probolinggo Malang
Participation in fisherman's nature school
No Yes
Figure 4. Participation in fisherman's nature school
• Clean beaches and Marine Protected Areas Based on the results of the study, it can be seen the number of respondents who follow the beach clean and Marine Protected Area area in the following figure:
29.17%
77.33%
70.83%
22.67%
0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% 100.00%
Probolinggo Malang
Clean beaches and Marine Protected Areas
No Yes
Figure 5. Clean beaches and Marine Protected Areas
From Figure 5, it can be seen that the activities of fishermen in participating in beach cleaning and the Marine Protected Area in Probolinggo Regency and Malang Regency have differences. In Probolinggo Regency, as many as 29,17 fishermen participated in participating in the clean up of beaches and Marine Protected Areas and 70,83%
fishermen did not participate. Meanwhile, in Malang Regency, as many as 77,33% fishermen participated in participating in the clean up of
59
beaches and Marine Protected Areas and 22,67%
fishermen did not participate. So it can be concluded that participation in participating in beach clean-up and Marine Protected Areas in Malang Regency is higher than Probolinggo Regency.
b. Participate in policy making
Based on the results of the study, it can be seen the number of respondents who are active in the management of Marine Protected Areas in the following figure:
38.89%
72.00%
61.11%
28.00%
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
Probolinggo Malang
Responden
Participate in policy making
Yes No
Figure 6. Participate in policy making From Figure 6, it can be seen that there are 61,11% fishermen who participate in making Marine Protected Area management policies in Probolinggo Regency, while 38,89% fishermen do not participate. Meanwhile, in Malang Regency, there were 72% fishermen who participated in policy making and 23% fishermen who did not participate. This shows that the level of participation of fishermen in Malang Regency in making policies regarding Marine Protected Areas is higher than that of Probolinggo Regency.
This phenomenon occurs because in Malang Regency the management of Marine Protected Areas is managed directly by the community (based community) so that many fishermen also participate in it. Of course, this is inversely proportional to the conditions in Probolinggo Regency, where the Marine Protected Area is still managed by the Regional Government so that it does not involve the community's role in it. This is also reinforced by the opinion [19], which states that Marine Protected Areas managed by the government tend not to involve the role of the community, so it is easy to trigger management conflicts. Activeness in policy making can be in the form of attending regular meetings every month, providing advice on the management of Marine
Protected Areas, and participating in supervising the management of Marine Protected Areas. The following is a description of participation in policy making in Marine Protected Areas.
• Regular meeting every month
Based on the results of the study, it can be seen the number of respondents who take part in regular meetings every month in the following figure:
38.89%
84.00%
61.11%
16.00%
0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% 100.00%
Probolinggo Malang
Regular meetings every month
No Yes
Figure 7. Regular Meetings Every Month From Figure 7, it can be seen that the activities of fishermen who take part in regular meetings every month in Probolinggo and Malang districts have differences. In Probolinggo Regency as many as 38,89% fishermen take part in routine meetings every month and 61,11% fishermen do not.
Meanwhile, in Malang Regency, as many as 84%
fishermen took part in regular meetings every month and 16% fishermen did not. So it can be concluded that participation in regular meetings every month in Malang Regency is higher than Probolinggo Regency.
• Provide advice on Marine Protected Area governance
From Figure 8, it can be seen that the activities of fishermen in providing advice on the management of Marine Protected Areas in Probolinggo Regency and Malang Regency have differences. In Probolinggo Regency, as many as 29,17% fishermen gave advice on the management of Marine Protected Areas and 70,83% fishermen did not. While in Malang Regency as many as 84%
fishermen gave advice on the management of Marine Protected Areas and 16% fishermen did not provide advice. So it can be concluded that participation in providing advice on the management of Marine Protected Areas in Malang Regency is higher than Probolinggo Regency.
60 Based on the results of the study, it can be seen
the number of respondents who gave advice on the management of Marine Protected Areas in the following figure:
29.17%
84.00%
70.83%
16.00%
0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% 100.00%
Probolinggo Malang
Providing advice on Marine Protected Area governance
No Yes
Figure 8. Providing Advice on Marine Protected Area Governance
• Marine Protected Area governance oversight Based on the results of the study, it can be seen that the number of respondents who supervise the management of Marine Protected Areas is shown in the following figure:
16.67%
72.00%
83.33%
28.00%
0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% 100.00%
Probolinggo Malang
Marine Protected Area governance oversight
No Yes
Figure 9. Marine Protected Area governance oversight
From Figure 9, it can be seen that the activities of fishermen in the supervision of the management of Marine Protected Areas in Probolinggo Regency and Malang Regency have differences. In Probolinggo Regency as many as 16,67% fishermen supervise the management of Marine Protected Areas and 83,33% fishermen do not supervise. While in Malang Regency as many as 72% fishermen supervise the management of Marine Protected Areas and 28% fishermen do not supervise. So it can be concluded that participation in supervising the management of Marine
Protected Areas in Malang Regency is higher than Probolinggo Regency
Fish Availability
11%
1%
19%
4%
35%
16%
31%
52%
4%
27%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Probolinggo Malang Fish Availability
Strongly decreased decreased unchanged increased Strongly increase
Figure 10. Perception about Fish Availability From Figure 10, it can be seen that fishermen have different views on the availability of fish due to the Marine Protected Area. In Probolinggo Regency, there were 11% fishermen who stated that the availability of fish strongly decreased, 19%
fishermen stated that fish availability had decreased, 35% fishermen stated that fish availability had unchanged, 31% fishermen stated that fish availability had increased, and 4%
fishermen stated that fish availability had strongly increased. From these results, the highest score for fishermen in Probolinggo stated that the existence of a Marine Protected Area did not change the amount of fish available in the ocean.
In Malang Regency, there were 1% fisherman who stated that fish availability had strongly decreased, 4% fishermen stated that fish availability had decreased, 16% fishermen stated that fish availability had not changed, 52%
fishermen stated that fish availability had increased, and 27% fishermen stated that fish availability had strongly increased. This shows that fishermen in Malang Regency have a perception that the existence of a Marine Protected Area can increase fish availability.
This phenomenon occurs because Probolinggo Regency is a Marine Protected Area that has just been implemented, so that the perceived impact does not yet exist. This is different from the conditions in Malang Regency, which since the beginning of the initiation has started from 2007 although it has only been implemented since 2012.
This is also reinforced by the opinion [20], the time
61
span of the implementation of Marine Protected Areas also has an impact on perceptions fishing communities, especially related to fishery conditions.
Ecosystem Condition
From the results of research, it can be seen that fishermen's perceptions of the condition of coral reef and mangrove ecosystems during the existence of Marine Protected Areas can be seen in the following figure:
0%1% 0%0%
51%
4%
29%
89%
18%
7%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Probolinggo Malang Ecosystem Condition
Strongly decreased decreased unchanged increased Strongly increase
Figure 11. Perception about Ecosystem Condition From Figure 11, it can be seen that the views on the condition of the coral reef and mangrove ecosystems due to the existence of Marine Protected Areas by fishermen are different. In Probolinggo Regency, there were no fishermen who stated that the coral reef and mangrove ecosystems had strongly decreased, 1% fisherman stated that the coral reef and mangrove ecosystems had decreased, 51% fishermen stated that the coral reef and mangrove ecosystems had not changed, 29% fishermen stated that the coral reef and mangrove ecosystems had increased, and 18% fishermen stated that coral reefs and mangrove ecosystems have strongly increase.
From this result, the highest score of fishermen in Probolinggo stated that the existence of a Marine Protected Area did not change the condition of the coral reef and mangrove ecosystems.
In Malang Regency, there were no fishermen who stated that the coral reef and mangrove ecosystems had strongly decreased, or decreased, but 4% fishermen stated that the coral reef and mangrove ecosystems had not changed, 89%
fishermen stated that the coral reef and mangrove ecosystems had increased, and 7% fishermen stated that the coral reef and mangrove
ecosystems strongly increased. This shows that fishermen in Malang Regency have a perception that the existence of a Marine Protected Area can improve the condition of coral reef and mangrove ecosystems. The phenomenon of the difference in perception between Malang Regency and Probolinggo Regency occurs due to the different time span of the application of Marine Protected Areas so that the perceived impact is also different [20].
Relationship Manager with Community
From the results of research, it can be seen that fishermen's perceptions of the relationship between Marine Protected Area managers and the community can be seen in the following figure:
0%0% 0%0%
17%
0%
64%
44%
1%
56%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Probolinggo Malang Relationship Manager with Community
Strongly decreased decreased unchanged increased Strongly increase
Figure 12. Perception about Relationship Manager with Community
From Figure 12, it can be seen that fishermen have different views on the relationship between Marine Protected Area managers and the community. In Probolinggo Regency, there are no fishermen who state that the relationship between Marine Protected Area managers and the community has stongly decreased or decreased, 17% fishermen stated that the relationship between Marine Protected Area managers and the community has not changed, 64% fishermen stated that the relationship between Marine Protected Area managers and the community has increased, and 1% fisherman stated that the relationship between Marine Protected Area managers and the community has stongly increased. Managers of Marine Protected Areas with increasing communities. From this result, the highest value of fishermen's perception in Probolinggo states that the relationship between the manager of the Marine Protected Area and the community has increased. This is because since the
62 determination of the Marine Protected Area in
Probolinggo Regency, the Regional Government has often held outreach or socialization to the surrounding community about Marine Protected Areas, so that although there are still many fishermen who have not participated in Marine Protected Area activities, communication between fishermen and the Regional Government has become better.
In Malang Regency, there were no fishermen who stated that the relationship between Marine Protected Area managers and the community had stongly decreased, decreased, or did not change.
However, 44% fishermen stated that the relationship between Marine Protected Area managers and the community had increase, and 56% fishermen stated that the relationship between Marine Protected Area managers and the community had stongly increase. This shows that fishermen in Malang Regency have a perception that the relationship between Marine Protected Area managers and the community is increasing even greatly. The phenomenon is because in Malang Regency the manager of the Marine Protected Area is the community itself, so that the existence of the Marine Protected Area makes the community more often communicate or do activities together in environmental conservation.
This is reinforced by the opinion [18], that the existence of Marine Protected Areas has an impact on increasing communication between managers and affected communities.
Factors Affecting Participation
In this study, the factors used to determine fishermen's decisions to participate in Marine Protected Areas are socio-demographic conditions, namely age, gender, education, household size, experience, trip distance, length of trip, fishing gear, fishing group, activity social, and ship size.
The probit model illustrates the influence of fishermen's socio-demographic variables on fishermen's decisions to make decisions in participating in Marine Protected Areas. The parameter estimation table of the probit model for the estimation of the determinants of participation in the Marine Protected Area is shown in the following table:
Table 2. Parameter Estimation of the Probit Model
Variable Coef. Std. Err z P > z
Age (Year) .0863 .037 2.29 0.022**
Education ( Year ) .437 .170 2.57 0.010**
Household Size
(People) -.035 .164 -0.22 0.828
Experience ( Year ) .221 .083 2.66 0.008***
Trip Distance (Km) .547 .405 1.35 0.177 Long Trip (Hour) .981 .590 1.66 0.096*
Variable Coef. Std. Err z P > z
_cons -18.668 5.820 -2.86 0.004
Number of Obs 147
LR Chi2 (6) 122.25
Prob > chi2 0.000
Pseudo R2 0.854
From the results of the analysis that has been carried out, the value of Prob>Chi2 is 0.000, which means that the independent variables of age, education, household size, experience, trip distance, and long trip simultaneously influence the decision. Fishermen participate in Marine Protected Areas. Meanwhile, household size and trip distance no significant effect on fishermen's decisions to participate in Marine Protected Areas.
However, age, education, experience, and long trip have a positive and significant impact on fishermen's decisions to participate in Marine Protected Areas.
CONCLUSION
This study aims to investigate public perceptions of Marine Protected Areas, in Probolinggo and Malang districts in East Java, Indonesia. The findings of the study indicate that participation in Marine Protected Areas in Malang Regency is higher than the participation of fishermen in Probolinggo Regency which occurs because there are differences in the management system of Marine Protected Areas in Probolinggo Regency and Malang Regency. In Probolinggo Regency the Marine Ptotected Area is an initiative of the Regional Government, while in Malang Regency the Marine Ptotected Area is an initiation from the community (based community) so that it involves the community more in its management.
Fishermen's perceptions related to fish availability, ecosystem conditions, or related to the relationship between managers and the community due to the existence of Marine Protected Areas tend to improve for the better.
This is because the communication that is built between the manager and the community becomes quite frequent. Therefore, this study suggests that small-scale fishermen should participate in Marine Protected Areas to increase the effectiveness of Marine Protected Areas.
Increasing the participation of fishing communities in Marine Protected Area activities can be done by involving the community's role in the management of Marine Protected Areas, for example, the community can be given the opportunity to convey information about the condition of the area, and the community can be given the opportunity to express their opinions, especially in determining the utilization zone. In addition, it can also be done by providing counseling to increase awareness of
63
the fishing community about the importance of Marine Protected Areas.
Results of the analysis that has been carried out, the value of Prob>Chi2 is 0.000, which means that the independent variables of age, education, household size, experience, trip distance, and long trip simultaneously influence the decision.
Fishermen participate in Marine Protected Areas.
Meanwhile, household size and trip distance no significant effect on fishermen's decisions to participate in Marine Protected Areas. However, age, education, experience, and long trip have a positive and significant impact on fishermen's decisions to participate in Marine Protected Areas
For further research, it should increase the number of respondents without limiting the respondent's criteria. This is so that the results obtained are able to explain the effect significantly better. In addition, it is necessary to add other variables as a renewal of this research, for example regarding fishermen's institutions. The implication of this research is that it is necessary to apply and multiply community-based marine protected areas to increase community participation so that the effectiveness of marine protected areas can be maximized.
REFERENCES
[1] S. D. Jupiter, G. Epstein, N. C. Ban, S.
Mangubhai, M. Fox, and M. Cox, “A Social–
Ecological Systems Approach to Assessing Conservation and Fisheries Outcomes in Fijian Locally Managed Marine Areas,” Soc.
Nat. Resour., vol. 30, no. 9, pp. 1096–1111, 2017, doi: 10.1080/08941920.2017.1315654.
[2] T. Agardy, G. N. di Sciara, and P. Christie,
“Mind the gap: Addressing the shortcomings of marine protected areas through large scale marine spatial planning,” Mar. Policy, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 226–232, 2011, doi:
10.1016/j.marpol.2010.10.006.
[3] J. Y. Weigel, P. Morand, A. Charpin, and O.
Sadio, “Impact assessment of a marine and coastal protected area on fishing households through a counterfactual approach. A Senegalese case study (West Africa),” Ocean Coast. Manag., vol. 155, no. September 2017,
pp. 113–125, 2018, doi:
10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.02.009.
[4] K. L. Yates, “View from the wheelhouse:
Perceptions on marine management from the fishing community and suggestions for improvement,” Mar. Policy, vol. 48, pp. 39–
50, 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2014.03.002.
[5] N. J. Bennett and P. Dearden, “Why local people do not support conservation:
Community perceptions of marine protected area livelihood impacts, governance and management in Thailand,” Mar. Policy, vol.
44, pp. 107–116, 2014, doi:
10.1016/j.marpol.2013.08.017.
[6] R. Arnason, Fisheries management, vol. 99.
2016.
[7] J. S. Rossiter and A. Levine, “What makes a
‘successful’ marine protected area? The unique context of Hawaii’s fish replenishment areas,” Mar. Policy, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 196–
203, 2014, doi:
10.1016/j.marpol.2013.08.022.
[8] M. B. Mascia, C. A. Claus, and R. Naidoo,
“Impacts of marine protected areas on fishing communities,” Conserv. Biol., vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 1424–1429, 2021, doi: 10.1111/j.1523- 1739.2010.01523.x.
[9] K. Barley Kincaid, G. Rose, and H. Mahudi,
“Fishers’ perception of a multiple-use marine protected area: Why communities and gear users differ at Mafia Island, Tanzania,” Mar.
Policy, vol. 43, pp. 226–235, 2014, doi:
10.1016/j.marpol.2013.06.005.
[10] R. C. Abecasis, L. Schmidt, N. Longnecker, and J. Clifton, “Implications of community and stakeholder perceptions of the marine environment and its conservation for MPA management in a small Azorean island,”
Ocean Coast. Manag., vol. 84, pp. 208–219,
2013, doi:
10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2013.08.009.
[11] M. Westera, Guidelines for Marine Protected Areas, vol. 6, no. 4. 2000.
[12] J. Corton, I. S. Donnison, A. B. Ross, A. R. Lea- Langton, M. Wachendorf, and M. D. Fraser,
“Impact of vegetation type and pre- processing on product yields and properties following hydrothermal conversion of conservation biomass,” Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev., vol. 137, no. April 2020, p.
110462, 2021, doi:
10.1016/j.rser.2020.110462.
[13] M. J. Correia, I. Domingos, J. Santos, V. Lopes, G. de Leo, and J. L. Costa, “Challenges to reconcile conservation and exploitation of the threatened Anguilla anguilla (Linnaeus, 1758) in Santo André lagoon (Portugal),”
Ocean Coast. Manag., vol. 181, no.
November 2018, p. 104892, 2019, doi:
10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.104892.
64 [14] FAO, “for Sustainable 2021 Cofi Declaration,”
2021.
[15] S. R. Fakri and F. Purwanti, “Potential Damage of Coral Due to The Development of Snorkeling Tourism,” vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 57–62, 2021.
[16] KKP, “Laporan Tahunan Kementrian Kelautan dan Perikanan Republik Indonesia Tahun 2019,” Kkp.Go.Id, vol. 1, no. 2, p. 19, 2020.
[17] R. Hendayana, “Application Method of Logistic Regression Analyze the Agricultural Technology Adoption,” Inform. Pertan., vol.
22, no. 1, pp. 1–9, 2013.
[18] A. A. D. Chirico, T. R. McClanahan, and J. S.
Eklöf, “Community- and government- managed marine protected areas increase fish size, biomass and potential value,” PLoS One, vol. 12, no. 8, pp. 1–19, 2017, doi:
10.1371/journal.pone.0182342.
[19] R. Kenchington, “RAC Marine Pty Ltd , P O Box 588 , Jamison , ACT 2614 Eddie Hegerl Marine Ecosystem Policy Advisors , 8 Grevillea Street ,” no. January 2003, 2014.
[20] C. Pita et al., “Fisher’s perceptions about a marine protected area over time,” Aquac.
Fish., vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 273–281, 2020, doi:
10.1016/j.aaf.2020.01.005.
