Bogor Agricultural University andApplied Research Centre for Climate and Technology-Indonesia
(ARCATE-Indonesia)
Assessment of Community Participation to Reduce Impact Assessment of Community Participation to Reduce Impact of Climate Change at Citarum Watershed, of Climate Change at Citarum Watershed,
West Java IndonesiaWest Java Indonesia
Uci SulandariRizaldi BoerEka Intan Kumala PuteriDelon Martinus
IntroductionIntroductionCitarum river plays important role for supplying water of districts in and surrounding the watershedHistorical data showed:
Annual Rainfall in Citarum Wathershed decreased at a rate of 10 mm/year(Pawitan 2002)Dry season tended to decrease (Kaimuddin et al,2002)
IntroductionIntroductionForest cover at upper Citarum decrease at a rate of about 2.4% per year ~ cause the ratio between maximum and minimum flow increasedPresent ratio 86 : 1 (Boer et al., 2004), while the ideal ratio 25:1 (Asdak, 2002)
Under changing climate, intensity and frequency of extreme climate events may increase ~ there is an urgent need to stop deforestation and increase forest cover at the upper Citarum Watershed as an effort to reduce the impact of the changing climate
Efforts to increase and protect forest in the upper Citarum
should not be only the responsibility of upstream
community but also the responsibility of downstream
communities
ObjectivesObjectivesTo assess perception of communities to climate change and to evaluate the impact of climate hazards on upstream and downstream communities
To evaluate driving factors for deforestation at the upper Citarum wahtershed
To assess perception of downstream communities to the need of increasing forest cover of the upper Citarum watershed as effort to mitigate impact of climate hazards
To assess willingness of downstream community of Citarum watershed to pay for protecting and improving forest cover at upper the Citarum.
MethodologyMethodology
STUDY SITES• Three sites in the upstream
• Four sites in downstream:
– 2 Agriculture areas
– 2 Cities
MethodologyMethodology
SURVEY METHOD
• Interview– 75 respondents at the
three villages
– 26 respondents at agriculture downstream
– 900 respondents at two cities downstream
Aimed of the SurveysAimed of the Surveys
• Survey in the three villages upstream and two agriculture areas was aimed:
• To assess perception of communities to climate change,
• To evaluate impact of climate hazards, and
• To assess driving factors for deforestation and types of rewards preferred by upper watershed community for the services they provided in maintaining and protecting forests
Aimed of the SurveysAimed of the Surveys
• Survey in the two cities was aimed:
• To assess the willingness of the community to pay compensation for environmental services provided by the upper watershed community in maintaining and protecting forest
Method of AnalysisMethod of Analysis
Statistical Descriptive: Perspective communities to climate change (in agriculture area)AHP: Prioritizing driving factors for deforestation and types of rewards in upstreamCVM: Willingness to pay of downstream communities
Result and DiscussionResult and Discussion1. 85% of respondents stated that the
intensity of climate hazards have increased
85%
15%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Yes No
Perception of The Climate Change
2. Properties being damaged by flood and drought2. Properties being damaged by flood and drought
0
10
20
30
40
50
Rice cr
ops
Upland
crop
s
Lives
tock
Ponds
Fishing
gro
unds
House
Infra
struc
ture
Other
s
Pe
rce
nt
of
Re
sp
on
de
nt
Flood
Drought
3. 3. Perception of Community to Factors Causing the Increase of Drought and Flood Intensity and Role of Forest Function
60% of respondents at Ciparay and Bojongsoang said that they did not know factors causing the increase of drought and flood intensity
Communities in the upper Citarum watershed (Cikembang, Cibereum and Tarumajaya) knew quite well with forest function
Community perception to type of activities Community perception to type of activities that can avoid deforestationthat can avoid deforestation
0
20
40
60
80
100
Cikembang Cibereum Tarumajaya
Pe
rce
nt o
f re
spo
nd
en
tEstablishing forest plantationEstablishing agroforestryProtecting forests
4. 4. Driving Factors for Deforestation and Rewards Preferred by Community for Protecting Forest
Level 2. a. Lack of income sources for meeting primary needs of the household.b. Lack of knowledge on forest functionc. Lack of land for cultivationd. Lack of cooperation between village institutions in protecting forest
Level 1. Community participation to protect and rehabilitate forest
Level 3. Aid alternative: Fund aid, live stock aid, education aid agriculture equipment aid
Inconsistency ratios of the respondent in answering the question were all less than 0.1, indicating high level of consistency or certainty.
The inconsistency ratios for Tarumajaya, Cikembang and Cibereum were 0.09, 0.01 and 0.08
Analytical Hierarchical Process for protecting and Analytical Hierarchical Process for protecting and rehabilitating forestrehabilitating forest
Community participation at Tarumajaya to protect and
rehabilitate forest
Lack of income to meet primary
needs0.56
Lack of knowledge of
forest function0.06
Lack of land for cultivation
0.31
Fund aid0.26
Livestock aid0.50
Education aid0.09
Agriculture equipments aid
0.07
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
5. Willingness of Downstream Community to Pay Compensation
0102030405060708090
100
Play Role Don't play role Agree No agree
Role of upstreamcommunties
Need to rehabilitate forest
Pe
rce
nt
of
Re
sp
on
de
nts
Jakarta Utara
Purwakarta
Perception of downstream community to the role of upstream community and the need of rehabilitating the forest
WTP (WTP (Willingness to PayWillingness to Pay) :) :
Purwakarta was Rp.900,- per 10 mPurwakarta was Rp.900,- per 10 m33
North Jakarta was Rp.1500,00 per 10 mNorth Jakarta was Rp.1500,00 per 10 m33..
05
101520253035404550
250 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
WTP (Rp)
Pe
rce
nt
of
Re
spo
nd
en
t North Jakarta
Purwakarta
Dependency of willingness to pay on level of Dependency of willingness to pay on level of knowledge on forest function and the perception of knowledge on forest function and the perception of downstream community. downstream community.
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Good Medium Low
Level of knowledge on forest function
Prob
abili
ty o
f w
illin
gnes
s to
pay
Understand the role of upstream communityDo not understand the role of upstream community
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Good Medium Low
Level of knowledge on forest function
Prob
abili
ty o
fw
illin
gnes
s to
pay
Agree to support rehabilitation activitiesDo not agree to support rehabilitation activities
Coefficients of logistic regression for WTP for Purwakarta and North Jakarta
Predictors Purwakarta North Jakarta
Level of knowledge on forest function (X1) 2,9231**(18,60)
4,5395**93,65
Perception on the role of upstream community (X2) 3,2223**25,09
3,5320**34,19
Perception on the need for rehabilitating forest (X3) 1,6396*5,15
3,176**23,96
Job (X4 in category) 0,5557*1,74
1,2802*3,60
Age (X5 in years) 0,09050**1,09
0,11729**1,12
Education (X6 in years) 0,14171*1,15
0,15388**1,17
Income (X7 in category) 1,3333*3,79
1,3433*3,83
Family size (X8 in number of family) -0,7291**0,48
-0,3771*0,69
Sex (X9) 1,1928**3,30
2,0481**7,75
R2 87.9% 97.8%
Most of respondents agree that the intensity and the frequency of climate hazards (drought and flood) have increased recently.
Deforestation can be avoided if the community can increase land use intensity or find suitable alternative activities to get additional income such as raising livestock and trading.
Development of reward system for environmental services provided by the upstream community is possible as the downstream communities is willing to support activities or program for maintaining and increasing forest cover of the upstream watershed by increasing price of drinking water from the current price.
(WTP) of the downstream communities highly depends on level of understanding on forest function and their perception on the role of upstream communities and the need for rehabilitating the forest.
There is a need to establish institutional system for collecting, transferring or distributing the payment to the community as well as the regulation.
Conclusion
THANK YOUTHANK YOU