Household Assets Ownership The Determinants of Sea Farming Participation

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; 5. It provides fund to fulfill needs during fasting times Ramadhan and celebrating muslim’s holiday Idul Fitriand Idul Adha; and 6. It helps to increase household assets ownership e.g. owning house and boat. Restocking as another sea farming activity is perceived as an important issue by more than half of respondents 56 percent of total respondents. Figure 16 illustrates the proportion of respondents ’ perception to restocking. The reasons behind the importance of restocking in respondents’ point of view are: 1 to increase fish population; 2 to sustain the environment for current and next generation; 3 to sustain economic activity as the number of population is growing while number of fish is declining; and 4 to support fishing activity. There are seven respondents 8 percent of total respondents who answered that restocking is not important but they did not give any reasons to their answer. Meanwhile 27 respondents 36 percent of total respondents who did not give any answer confessed that they do not know what is restocking because they never heard about the issue. Some respondents, particularly from participants group, admitted that they have done restocking activity about one until two times; but their activity cannot categorize as restocking. It is because their activity is more incidental than based on purpose. They said that they done restocking when their fish has very low quality, then they will throw away into the sea or when their fish run away from the broken nets. Thus, there is no official restocking activity conducted by sea farming member. The other reasons because there are some difficulties to get fingerling stock and their production are not high enough if they need to restock five percent from the production as required. 34 9 2 32 10 20 30 40 Yes No No Answer Nu m b er o f Re sp o n d en ts Respondents Perception Participants Non Participants Figure 15 Respondents’ Perception to Sea Farming Benefits Besides benefits to local community, this study also tried to capture the problems or constraints of the project perceived by local community particularly from participants’ point of view because they are the most affected from project intervention. Figure 17 presents some constraints that were faced by sea farming members. The figure shows that most of sea farming members felt that they do not have any constraints concerning capital, fingerling stocks, technical skills, and management skills because it is already provided by the project. Meanwhile, water quality and other problems such as security, diseases, delay of fingerlings supply as well as internal and external conflicts, are constraints to the project and its sustainability. Security becomes more important nowadays. The frequency of fish being stolen is increasing. Thus, fish farmers from both groups are doing everyday checking to their cages, every morning and afternoon. Some people with better capital prefer to have safeguard house, so the owner could stay during the day. 56 8 36 Important Unimportant No Answer 3 6 2 1 16 6 25 24 25 26 13 16 6 4 7 7 5 12 5 10 15 20 25 30 Capital Fingerling Stocks Technical Skills Management Skills Water Quality Others N u m b er o f R es p o n d en ts Sea Farming Constraints Yes No No Answer Figure 1 7 Participants’ Perception to Sea Farming Constraints Figure 16 Proportion of Respondents’ Perception to Restocking Activity