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
Comparing scientific knowledge and local knowledge, the communities’ perception of good forest management, involved examining a hypothesis of
homogeneity between scientific knowledge and local knowledge. The procedure began by identifying the level of compliance between communities’ perceptions of
sustainability with scientific perceptions of sustainability. Since the communities identified they could express their perceptions in terms of indicators, a
comparison was made at the indicator level. Data gathered from the field was formed into a table filled with “presence”
or “absence” indicators for each knowledge type - as shown in Table 3.2. Character zero related to absence of that knowledge and one related to
presence.
1
“Not poor” refers to the status of the village above the poverty level assigned by the government. “Poor”, according to the government is defined as person who consumes
less than 2,100 calories per person per day Ravallion in Pradhan, 2000
2
A diagnostic study or studi diagnostik is a study conducted by external consultants to provide information to timber companies on the social aspects of an FMU.
Table 3.2. Presence or absence indicator of each knowledge type
Indicators for SFM Knowledge type
I
1
I
2
I
3
I
4
I
5
I
6
I
7
I
8
… GenericScientific knowledge
X
1
1 …
Local knowledge X
2
…
Table 3.2. shows X
1
and X
2
as generic indicators and local indicators. A value Y is defined as
Y = 1 if X
1
= 1 ∩
X
2
= 1 Y = 0 if X
1
= 1 ∩
X
2
= 0 or if X
1
= 0 ∩
X
2
= 1 Local indicators have to meet scientific indicators in order to say that the local
CI set conformed to the scientific CI set which is the acceptance of the first hypothesis.
3.3.4. Developing a CI Knowledge Base System
Developing a Knowledge Base System KBS involved knowledge elicitation, intermediate representation, formal representation and keyword
specification Walker et al., 1994 - as explained below and shown in Figure 3.5. Knowledge elicitation is the process whereby selected informants are
encouraged to articulate their knowledge. Knowledge can also be abstracted from written material. Intermediate representation is the process of recording
simple natural-language statements abstracted from text or interview material. This form is more restricted than natural dialogue, and provides an intermediate
stage between articulation and formal representation. Formal representation is the process of coding knowledge using a restricted syntax as defined by a formal
grammar. Formal representation results are statements with which you can
reason automatically on computer. Keyword specification is the process of identifying key components of the knowledge represented. Keywords may be
objects e.g. ‘soil’, processes e.g. ‘erosion’, attributes e.g. ‘rate of erosion’, or ‘pest population size’ or actions e.g. ‘pruning’.
Figure 3.5. The four principle activities in the creation of knowledge base Walker et al. 1994
The KBS creation activities occur in sequence straight arrows, but evaluation during the creation of the knowledge base and consequent return to previous
activities arc arrows means that the process is in fact a series of cycles. A network of CI was used for representing knowledge of sustainable
forest management as depicted in Figure 3.3. The inference engine is the heart of the knowledge base system, embodying the main control structures and
algorithm. The basic process of the inference engine is illustrated in Figure 3.6. The indicators are classified to form criteria, and by applying multi-criteria
analysis - such as Analytic Hierarchy Process Saaty 1994; Saaty 1996, ranking Knowledge
elicitation
Intermediate representation
Formal representation
Keyword specification
or rating - a decision on sustainability is derived. The decision-making process needs to be scientifically sound, locally accepted and transparent to all
stakeholders. The involvement of all stakeholders, who have different educational backgrounds, in the decision-making process is a necessary condition for co-
management. The decision-making process was observed during the field study.
Figure 3.6. KBS inference engine
3.3.5. Building a Simplified Artificial Society of Forest Actors
