Organization member shows positive relation to the total income. Being involved in any organization will increase the total income by Rp12.5 million per
period, ceteris paribus, significant at 99 percent confidence interval. If one joined any organization then he would get access to information and a better opportunity
to cooperate with other parties that could be beneficial for increasing his income.
Table 17 Sea Farming Impacts on Household Income
Variables Coefficients
T P|t|
A. Household Characteristics
Age years -347216.6000
-2.0400 0.0460
Education 10 789456.8000
0.1500 0.8800
Organization Member 10 1.25e+07
2.8700 0.0050
B. Household Assets Ownership
Mobile Phone Ownership After 2010 unit 4203126
2.8700 0.0050
Boat Ownership After 2010 unit 4109026
1.2500 0.2150
C. Sea Farming
Sea Farming Participation 10 1.46e+07
3.4900 0.0010
Constant
2.55e+07 3.6200
0.0001
Summary Statistics
Model Test F-test 4.1200
Prob F 0.0014
R
2
0.2635 Adjusted R
2
0.1995 Root MSE
1.5e+07 Number of Observations
76 Source: own calculation
Notes: Significant at 10 percent level; significant at 5 percent level; significant at 1 percent level.
The number of observations is reduced into 76 households due to missing value on variable mobile phone ownership after 2010.
On the second group, both mobile and boat ownership have positive relationship with total income. One unit increase in mobile phone ownership
would increase the total income by Rp4.2 million per period, ceteris paribus, significant at 99 percent confidence interval. This shows that mobile phone
ownership is important for those who live in rural coastal area as its mobility is lower compared to those who live in the urban and mainland area. Although
mobile phone is not necessarily used for internal communication between one person with other persons who live in the same island, mobile phone ownership
would be beneficial for external communication. It could be used as means to engage in any productive and profitable activities, as well as obtaining market
opportunity from the external market.
Surprisingly, boat ownership is not significant though has positive relationship with the total income. Nevertheless, this result is consistent with the
first model estimation ’s result which also shows boat ownership is not significant
in influencing the sea farming participation. The authors suspect that insignificant relation between boat ownership and total income is caused by the size of
respondents’ boats that are not big. Thus, its fishing productivity is not high. The data shows that the boat size of
the respondents’ owned are ranged from 2 quintals to 7 GT.
Sea farming participation shows positive and significant relationship with total income. By participating in sea farming, it will increase the total income by
Rp14.6 million per period, ceteris paribus, significant at 99 percent confidence interval. Compared to other variables, sea farming gives the highest contribution
to the increase of total income. This result is consistent with the previous studies that mention aquaculture has positive contribution to poverty alleviation Edwards
2000; Jamu and Ayinla 2003; Irz et al. 2007; Kaliba et al. 2007; Hiheglo 2008; Russel et al. 2008; Ogundari and Ojo 2009; WorldFish Center 2011. This result is
also in line with the real condition, the local community particularly the participants; felt that this project is beneficial for increasing their income. Even
the neighboring island, Kelapa Island and Harapan Island, replicate the sea farming project in 2012 to boost its mariculture production and to increase the
local community welfare.
The significant difference between participant and non- participant’s income
can be seen on Table 15. Total income of participants is higher than non- participants Rp35.2 million versus Rp28.7 million and it is significant at 5
percent significance level.
In summary, the model shows that sea farming participation, age, organization member, and mobile phone ownership are variables that have
significant relationship to the total income. It also proves that sea farming has positive impact to increase household income and reduce poverty as stated in the
hypothesis. However, there are lots of factors which can influence income that might not be captured by this study. Other interventions from other
organizationinstitutions for local community could also affects the changes of household income. In addition to that, the model would have been better if it
incorporate other assets variables as additional covariates to estimate income; other economic activities e.g. post-harvest and marketing; and enlarge the
sample size.
Benefits and Constraints of Sea Farming
In addition to the analysis of sea farming impacts to household income, this study also captured the contribution of sea farming to local community through
the benefits subjectively felt by local community particularly its participants. Sea farming perceived as a project that gives positive contribution to local community
as it gives the chance to have additional source of income fro m participants’ point
of view. All of participants answered to “yes” option when they were asked
whether or not sea farming gives any benefits to the local community. Meanwhile only nine non-participants who agreed that sea farming benefit local community,
two non- participants answered “no” and the rest do not give any answer. Figure
15 shows number of respondents and their perception of sea farming benefits. The respondents both participants and non-
participants who give “yes” answer have different reasons to this question, several responses are:
1. It gives alternative to improve household and local community’s economy;
2. It enhances local community mariculture knowledge and skills;
3. It provides capital for mariculture activity;
4. It provides fingerling as the main input in mariculture activity;
