Formulating Local CI Knowledge

Figure 3.4. Relationship of conditions and indicators of sustainability

3.3.2. Formulating Local CI Knowledge

The stakeholders involved in CI formulation were identified using the criteria of their proximity to the forest, pre-existing rights, dependency, poverty, local knowledge, forestculture integration and power deficits Colfer et al. 1999. Schmoldt 1998 suggested a linguistic-based knowledge analysis to formulate knowledge. This analysis approaches knowledge acquisition a process whereby selected stakeholders are encouraged to articulate their knowledge, by categorising knowledge into three major types: lexical knowledge; syntactic knowledge; and semantic knowledge. Lexical knowledge analysis creates the lexicons that make up the domain language, from which it becomes possible to discuss knowledge structure syntax and tactical and strategic knowledge semantics. Syntactic knowledge analysis involves identifying, labelling, and describing the relationships among factors identified in lexical analysis. Semantic knowledge analysis focuses on a specific combination of factors lexicons and Those necessary conditions jointly become a sufficient condition A sufficient condition Conditions of sustainability Criteria and indicators of sustainability Social indicators; Economic indicators; Ecological indicators. Necessary condition 1 …n relationships syntax to indicate plausible avenues to search towards a problem’s solution. Bernard 1994 stated that unstructured interviewing is the most widely used method in cultural anthropology. There is a continuum of interview situations based on the amount of control we try to exercise over the responses of informants Dohrenhead Richardson 1965; Gorden 1975; Spradley 1979 in Bernard 1994. Bernard divided the continuum into four large chunks: informal interviewing; unstructured interviewing; semi-structured interviewing; and structured interviewing. Semi-structured interviewing has much of the free- wheeling quality of unstructured interviewing and is based on the use of an interview guide - which is a written list of questions and topics that need to be covered in a particular order. To gather local knowledge, focus group discussions were conducted with village people located inside or adjacent to the FMU boundary. These discussions centred on indicators or signs of good forest management. . These discussions were categorized into semi-structured interviewing. The guideline for this semi-structured interviewing is given in Appendix 1. At the end of the focus group discussions, a list of SFM criteria and indicators from local communities was obtained. The list represents the communities’ perception of what constitutes good forest management. The Central Bureau of Statistics 1993 in a diagnostic study of HPH Bina Desa Hutan 1993 reported the villages’ status, as listed in Table 3.1. However, this report was not very true. The first three villages were located outside the boundary, and Langap Village was very close to the boundary. The three selected “villages” were Long Loreh Long Seturan and Langap. However, Long Loreh and Long Seturan are not villages but groups of very small villages. Table 3.1. Villages inside Inhutani II boundary No Village name Status 1 Tanjung Lapang Not poor 1 2 Batu Kajang Poor 3 Gong Solok Poor 4 Long Loreh Not poor 5 Langap Poor 6 Paya Seturan Poor Source: Diagnostic Study of Inhutani II Community Development 1993 2

3.3.3. Testing Method of the First Hypothesis