AJWEP erwin Wolff. AJWEP erwin Wolff

AsianJournal of Water,Environmentand Pollution,Yol.5,No. 4,pp.59-67.

Quantifying Habitat and ResourceUse Changesin the
SegaraAnakan Lagoon(Cilacap,Indonesia)over the

Past25 Years(1978-2004)
Erwin Riyanto Ardli* and Matthias Wolffl
FakultasBiologi UniversitasJenderalSoedirman,Jl. Dr. Supamo63 Purwokerto,Indonesia
tl-eibnrz Zentrum fiir Marine Tropencikologie(ZMT), Fahrenheitstr.6 28359 Bremen, Germany
F( eriantoo@yahoo.com
ReceivedJune 2, 2006; revisedand acceptedJune I 3, 2008

Abstract: This study assesses
the changesin habitatand resourceuse ofthe SegaraAnakan lagoon (SAL) located
in Cilacap,Indonesiain relation to coastaldevelopmentover a period of 25 years.The SAL was chosenfor this
studydue to its social importanceand its ecoiogicalsignificance,as it is one of the few mangroveareasleft in Java,
and the lagoonareais rapidly decreasing.The SAL ecosystemwas mappedfrom 1978through2004 using satellite
imagesand a GIS packageto determine coastalhabitat areachanges.The main changesin land cover and land use
involved the conversionof a largepart of the estuaryto new land (2966.8ha) and mangrovearea(3497.2ha), and
the subsequentconversionof theseareas,and of older sectionsof the mangroveforest, to rice agriculture,semiintensivefishponds,new settlementsand otherland uses( I 1,3I 5.6 ha). Over the whole period the largestportion of
from the total mangrovearea).The mangrovedecrease

mangroveswas convertedinto rice fields (8886haor 43.2o/o
per
year
last
Land
resulted
from increasedurbanization, and the expansion
since
the
decade.
use
amountedto l.4yo
of agriculture and aquaculture,which lead to problems of settlementencroachmenton agricultural land, land
reclamationfrom swamps,silt depositionin the lagoon,and a decreasein fisherycatches"This researchprovidesan
accountof the coastalhabitatand resourceusechangesin SegaraAnakan,and their implicationsfor coastalresource
managementand provides the ground work for a forthcoming ecosystem-basedassessmentof the SegaraAnakan
naruralresourcesvia the applicationof a trophic modellingapproach.
Key words: Coastalhabitat,coastalresources,SegaraAnakan,Indonesia,satelliteimages,GIS.

Various speciesof mangrove, fish, shrimps, crabs,

molluscs,birds and mammals are found either in the
lagoon,on the mud flats or in the mangroveareas.The
SegaraAnakan rs a largelagoonat the southerncoastof
Java,comprisedby the only large estuarine-mangrove mangroveforest of SegaraAnakan (21,750 ha in 1983)
contains26 pimarily mangrovespecies,of which the
forest left in Central Java.The lagoon is connectedto
most
abundantand commercially important ones are
(Plawangan
Barat)
the lndian Oceanby the Westernoutlet
Rhizophora apiculata, R. mttcronata and Bruguiera
and a tidal channeltowardsCilacapas an Easternoutlet
(Figure 1). The lagoon receiveshigh amountsof fresh gtmnorrhiza (White et al., 1989).Primaryproductionin
water and dischargesincluding suspendedsediments the lagoonis reportedto rangebetween0.639and 1.343
mgC.m-3.s-r(Tomasciket al.,1997). The net primary
from Citanduy River, Cikujang River, Cikonde River and
production of mangrove litter of SegaraAnakan was
CibereumRiver (Ardli and Widyastuti,2001).
estimatedas 134.3 g DW.m-2.dayI (Tomascik et al.,

Introduction

'Corresponding
Author

r9e7).

60

Erwrn Riyanto Ardh and Matthias Wolff

White et al. (1989)reportedmore than 45 speciesof
frshesof which lJ aredemersal,12 residentialand 16
visitors.More than B5%of thesespeciesare
occasional
of high economicvalue as fisheriescommodities.The
lagoon is a feeding, spawningand nursery ground for
many commercially important fishes and crustaceans.
The commerciallyimporlantcmstaceansfound inthe area
areScyllaspp.,Portunuspelagictrs,Tellinaspp.,Penaeus

merguensis,P. chinensis,P. monoclon,Metapenaeus
ensis,IV. elegartandM. dopsoni(Dudley,2000).
ln theyear2000,the lagoon'sfisheriesproductionwas
about488 tons comprising41Yoshrimp, 390/ofrsh,13%o
crabs and 7% others.The rnost dominant fishing gear
used(46%)is the"apong"(tidal filter net)(Dudley,2000).
Human populationsare concentratedin the three
villages"KampungLaut" i.e. Ujungalang(4959people),
Ujunggagak(3861 people)and Penikel(4490 people)
(Yulastoro,2003).The most imporlanthumanactivities
are fishing, agriculture and aquaculture.Coastal
settlementsare generally densely populated with
r v i d e s p r e a dp o v e r t y , e s p e c i a l l y a m o n g f i s h i n g
communities.
SinceI 978,landuseand land coverchangeincreased
in this coastal region" as a result from increased
urbanization and immigration leading to several
problems.These include settiementencroachmenton
agricultural land, land reclamation from swamps,silt
in fisherycatches"

depositionin thelagoon,anda decrease
SegaraAnakanis subjectedto a multiple resourceuse
conflict, overexploitationof coastalresourcesand
environmentaldegradation.The coastalcommunities
issues
traditionallyexploitmangroves.Key management
arethe decreasing
sizeofthe lagoondueto heavyriverine
sedimentinput from upland activities,water quality
problems, particularly pesticides runoff from upland
agricultureandpoor economicconditionsof the coastal
inhabitants(Dudley, 2000; Yulastoro. 2003; BPKSA,
2003).
In 1991the SegaraAnakan mangroveforestareawas
about 13,577ha (Tomasciket a1.,1997),and has been
severelydegradedand reducedby a rate of 192.96ha
per yearsincethen(tudli andWidyastuti,2001).In 1980
the lagoon extendedover an area of 3636 ha but
constantlydecreasedto only 600 ha in 2002 (White et
al", 1989;BPKSA, 2003).The lagoonis rapidly filling

up with sedimentsbecauseof high ratesof upland soil
erosion.Fishery yields have also been affecteddue to
the envrronmentalchangesand the loss of lagoon area
(Dudley,2000).
The rmportanceof integratedcoastalconservation
and
plan fbr the SAL was established
management
in 1992

by the Indonesiangovernmentand the ASEAN-USAID
CRMP (Cicin-Sainand Knecht, 1998).Coastalhabitat
mapsare regardedto be fundamentalfor the purposeof
coastalmanagementplanning (Stevensand Connolly,
2004;Mumby et al., 1999;Cicin-SainandKnecht,1998).
For this reasonperiodicmappingof coastalhabitat,land
resourceswere performedto observetrendsand changes
(Cicin-SainandKnecht,1998)"
I)ue to the spatial nature of habitatsand associated
temporal changes,the assimilation of data using

traditionalanalyticalmethodsis often difiicult. Mapping
using remote sensing and Geographic Information
Systems(GIS) has proven to be effectiveto address
problems inherent in the analysisof spatial data. GIS
can be used to effectively collect, archive, display,
analyze,and model spatialand temporaldata(Stanbury
andStarr,1999).It may alsobe usedto combinescientific
andcultural datato assessandmanagemarineandcoastal
habitats(Cicin-Sainand Knecht, 1998). GIS is an
"organizedcollection of computerhardware,software,
geographicdata,anddesignedto efficiently capture,store,
update,manipulate, analyze,and display all forms of
geographicallyreferencedinformation" (ESRI, I 990).
Satellitedata are now availablethat can be used to
map andmonitor changesfrom continentalto local scales
andover temporalscales(Treitz,2004). Landsatthematic
mapper(TM) and (Le SystemePour I'Observationde la
Terre) SPOT images are adequatefor mapping marine
and intertidai habitats(Donoghueand Mironnet,2002;
Mumby et a1., 1999), as well as mapping land and

mangrove cover changes (Vasconceloset al., 2002;
Weiers et al., 2004; Ardli and Widyastuti,2001; Long
and Skewes,1996).Many environmentalandecological
propertiescan be measuredusing remote sensing
(Mumby et al., 2004) . Accuratemapsof their di stribution
andabundanceareessentialfor monitoringchangesover
time, for assessinghabitatcondition,and for investigating
their links with otherecologicalsystemcomponentsthat
rely directly or indirectly on them (Long and Skewes,
1996).To monitor changesefficiently over largeareas,
accurate,objectiveand inexpensivemappingtechniques
arerequired.Imageprocessingof high-resolutionLandsat
TM and SPOTsatellitedatahasmany ofthese advantages
over traditional photo-interpretationmapping(Long and
Skewes,1996;Mas,2004;Mumby et al., 1999).
The objectivesof the presentwork were (l) to map
and analysedominant habitats of the SegaraAnakan
ecosystem(lagoon/estuarine,
mangrove,mud flat, open
water area, river, aquacultureand agriculture)and to

theirtemporal(1980's-present time)
monitorandassess
and spatialchangesby the analysisofthe satellitedata

QuantifyingHabitat and ResourceUse Changesin the SegaraAnakan Lagoon

and by the use of field data for groundtruthing,and (2)
to assess
the socio-economic
consequences
of habitatuse
changes.
Methods
Study Area
The SAL ecosystemis locatedin the south-western
part
(108"46'-109"03'E;
of CentralJava
J"34'-J"47'S),west
of Cilacapcity (Figure1).The lagoonis protectedfrom

the open ocean by a barrier island, called
Nusakambangan.
The climate at SegaraAnakan is tropical and humid,
with a southeastmonsoondry seasonand a northwest
monsoonrainy season.Rainfall during the rainy season
exceeds300 mm/monthand decreases
to 100rnm/month
or lessin the dry season(Tomasciket al.,1997). Tides
are diurnal with amplitudesof 0.2-2.6 m (average1.48
m) within the lagoon(White et al., 1989).
The study areaincludesthe SegaraAnakan lagoon,
the rivers Citanduy, Cibereum and Cikonde in the
northempartof lagoon,Moteanin the eastemandKlaces
in the southernpart ofthe lagoon.The topography,the
elevation/contour,the soil types,and the distancefrom
the line ofmaximum tide inundationdeterminethe spatial
distribution of the coastal habitats.To discriminate

betweenthe different coastalhabitatsinformationon their
spatialdomainis required"Sincecoastalhabitatsrequire

to be influencedby tidal waters (Walsh, 1974 inLong
and Skewes,1996), the coastalhabitatareawas defined
by using spatialfeatureinfluencedby the tides suchas
mangroves,lagoonwatersand rivers of SegaraAnakan
from Landsatimageof the baselineyear 1978"
Data Material
Satelliteimagesacquiredin this studyare listedin Table
1.LandsatTM and SPOTmultispectral(XS) imageswere
usedto determinecoastalhabitat changesin this study.
The analysiswas based on the availabledata, costeffectiveness,and the available spectraland spatial
resolution(Mumby et al., | 999; Weierset al.,2004).
Landsat MSS and TM images were registeredand
resampledto a Universal TransverseMercator (UTM)
coordinatesystemfor zoneSUTM 49 on theWGS 1984
projectedoutputimagecomposedof 30 m x 30 m pixels
with an RMS error of lessthan 1.0 pixel. SPOTimages
were also registeredand resampiedto a UTM (SUTM
49) projectedoutput image composedof 20 m x 20 m
pixels with an RMS error of lessthan 1.0pixel that was
obtained from the Biotrop Training and Information
Centre(BTIC).

lngrnn 0t*9t

ru 3

0

6t

3Kilomelers

Figure 1: SegaraAnakan lagoon,Cilacap District, Central Java.

62

Erwin Riyanto Ardli and Matthias Wolff
Table 1: List of satellite images used in this study

Sensor

Platfurm

Spectral
coverage

Numberof
channel

Spatial resolution
(m)

Path/Row
(scene)

4 ( G , R , 2x N I R )

7e (MS)240(rrR)
l0 (PAN)20 (MS)
30 (MS) 120(TrR)

25-04-1978
129t065
289-36510 l 0 - 1 0 - 1 9 8 7
l
05-07-199
12v065

l0 (PAN)20 (MS)
l0 (PAN)20 (MS)
30 (MS) 120(rrR)

289-36510 1 1 - 0 7 - 1 9 9 5
998
289-36510 I 9-03-1
121t065 22-06-2001

Acquisition
date

$Lm)

MSS
HRV 2
TM

Landsat5
SPOT1
Landsat5

0.50-12.6
0.50-0"89
0.45-2.35

HRV 2
HRV 2
TM

SPOT3
SPOT1
Landsat5

0.50-0.89
0.50-0.89
0.45-2.35

TM

Landsat5

0.45-2.35

SPOT5
SPOT2

0.50-0.89
0.50*0.89

HRG 1
HRV 1

a
J

7 (8, G, R, NIR,2 x
MIR, thermalIR)
a
J
a
J

7 (B. G, R, NIR,2 x
MIR, thermal IR)
7 (B, G, R, NIR,2 x
MIR, thermal IR)
J
a
J

Resampling was done by the nearest neighbour
method,which setsthe radiometricvalue of the output
pixel equal to the nearest input pixel in the original
geometry in order to preservethe original valuesof the
image.A digital elevationmodel along with soil, land
use/cover,streamand road network digital maps(scale
of 1:50,000),was obtainedfrom the SegaraAnakan
ManagementAgency (BPKSA).
Mapping Approach
Image Processing
In the pre-processingphase,the imageswere cut to
includeonly theareasof interest.They werethenrectified
by using ground control points (with the geometric
corrected image as a base) with a iinear polynomial
transformationand nearestneighbourresamplingwith a
root meansquareerror of lessthan one pixel.
CI assifi cat i on (Superv i sed I mage CIassifi cati on)
Supervisedclassificationwith a maximum likelihood
algorithm(availablein ERMapper5.5) was usedin this
study, becausethis classification algorithm produces
consistently good results for most habitat types
(DonoghueandMironnet,2002).The training polygons
were digitized on-screenbased on terrain knowledge
acquiredduring fieldwork andwas distributedthroughout
the study areas.The pixels in the polygons that were
selectedas representativeof eachclasswere plotted in
spectralspaceanda visual checkwasmadethat all classes
could be separatedin at leastone combinationof bands,
for ellipsescontaining95o/oof the classpixels.
To increasethe size of the sample to be used in
classificationaccuracyassessment,
the layer with the
field-checkedsiteswasoverlaidon the correctedsatellite

3o (MS) 120(rrR)

12U065

s (PAN)l0 (MS)
l0 (PAN)20 (MS)

289-36st0
289-365t0

I 9-01-2003
07-06-2004
30-12-2004

images,andhomogeneouspolygonswith similar spectral
reflectance,when viewed in severalbandcombinations,
were drawn around those sites.The layer of polygons
createdusing this processwas later used for checking
the accuracyof the classifiedmap.
AccuracyAssessment
for the coastalhabitatmapsfrom
Accuracyassessment
the SegaraAnakan ecosystemwas basedon 37-ground
truthingpointsrecordedduring field survey(May 2004February 2005). Using ecological information in a
GeographicInformation System(GIS), one canformulate
andapply locationandtopological(therelationbetween
objects)rules to the classifiedsatellitbdata
area-based
to improve the mapping accuracy(Long and Skewes,
1996).A standarderror matrix was determinedto assess
the classificationaccuracy,using data from the output
map as the row, and the reference data (ground truth
points)as the column in the matrix (Congalton,1999in
Alonso-Perez
et al.,2003).
Post-classificationAnalysisand ChangeDetection
the classifiedimageswere
After accuracyassessment,
exportedto the GIS facilities to generatethe coastal
habitatmap.Analysis and quantificationof coastalhabitat
differencesbetweenthe different dateswas includedin
the GIS database.Onceboth mapshad exactlythe same
numberof featurepixels they were subjectto a crosstabular comparison.This indicates the differencesin
extent of each class and the transitionsthat had taken
placebetweenthe two dates.The characteizationof land
coverchangeis doneusingaggregatedmeasurements
of
area by cover type at both dates and quantifying
transitions"The change analysis is limited to these
measurementsdue to the different seneralizationlevels

63

Quantifuing Habitat and ResourceUse Changesin the SegaraAnakan Lagoon

and minimum size of mappedunits for the datasources
availablefor the study (1978-2004).

Results
Since 1978, the SegaraAnakan region has changed
enormously.From 1978 to 2004, the main changesin
land coverand land useinvolved the conversionoflarge
part of the estuarywhich is lagoon and river into new
land (2966.8 ha) and mangroves(3497.2 ha), and the
subsequent
conversionofthese areasand older sections
of the mangroveforestto rice agriculture,semi-intensive
fishponds,new settlements
andotherlanduses( I I ,315.6
ha) (seeTables2 and 3). A large parr (43,2 %) of the

total mangroveareachangedinto rice fields, and minor
parts into other land use area such as aquaculture(2.7
o/o),dry land agriculture (5.8 %o),rural settlement(0.9
%), industryQ.4 %) and other landcovertypes(2.1 %).
In the first 17 yearsperiod (1978-1995),new land
areasrapidly increasedin the westernpart of the SAL.
The older part of this new land was then convertedinto
new mangroveforest.Thesechangeswere mainlycaused
by the high sedimentationrate of the SAL system,
estimatedat l-3 million tonlyear (Purba,1991).In the
western region (Karanganyar,Kiaces and Motean)
mangrovechangewas more pronounceddueto stronger
loggingand sedimentationcomparedto the easternarea.
During this period, these changes favoured the

Table 2: SegaraAnakan coastalhabitat changes(in ha)
Habitat
Mangrove
Lagoon
River
Mud flat
Rural settlement
Rice field
Dry land agriculture
Aquaculture
Industry area

I 978

1987

t99I

1995

I 7090.I
15827.6 12592.3
2224.8
t187.4
3491.0
2 7 3 1 . 2 2203.8 2281.4
462.5
6s5.4
859.8
247.8
260.8
61.7
1725.7 5783.5
0
596.5
0
7 t7.5
136.0
175.5
0
0
9',7.9
99.3
23836.5 23836.s 23836.5

10914.6
tr13.1
2286.4
381.6
258.8
7786.9
593.7
282.1
99.3
23836.s

1998

200I

2003

1 0 9 3 8 . 3 9 8 8 1 . 6 9597.0
1004.
l
1173.2
99r.6
2270.9
2286
2336.6
144.6
3r7.6
29.6
292.0
263.8
309.0
8875.2
7778.3
9203.8
632.0
62s.0
695.4
603.9
355.0
s40.3
r32.2
99.3
132.2
23836.5 23836.5 23836.5

2004
9271.6
931.8
2323.6
27.4
312.1
9442.6
755.3
s68.3
203.8
23836.5

Table 3: Temporal trajectory of mangrove conversion in Segara Anakan
Land-cover

Mangrove (unchange)
New mangrove areas
Mangrove, converted
Ricefields
Dry land agriculture
Aquaculture
Rural settlement
Industry
Others
Mangrove (incl.
unchange,converted
and new)

I 978I 987
(ha)

14086.5
t74t.l
3003.6
I 708.l
678.8
I27.8
156.1
46.7
286.I

Annual
change
19781987
(ha)
193.;
.'JJ.

I

189.8
75.4
1A a
L+.L
I t.J

5.2
31 . 8

19871 9 59
(ha)

Annuql
changel9ST1995
(ha)

j,9952004
(ha)

Annual
change
I 9952004

Total
(t 9782004)
(ha)

(hq)

10058.6
916.0
5',769.0
5232.7
307.8
I50.5
23 . 7
0.1
54.2

I14.5
721.1
654.I
38.5
18.8
3.0
0.0
6.8

8431.5
840.1
2543.0
1945.2
202.8
27t.0
4.4
t't

,

92.2

84.0
254.3
194,5
20.3
27.1
0.4
2.7
9.2

3497.2
l1315.6
8886.0
r 189.4
549.3
184.2
74.2
432.5

20587.3

Remarks:
. Mangrove (unchange)refers to the area that remainedcoveredby mangrovesover the referencetime
. New mangrove areasrefers to mainly former lagoon area of mud flats that due to siltation got habitable for mangroves
. Mangrove converted representsformer mangrove areas,which were converted into different land use types.

61

Erwin Riyanto Ardli and MatthiasWolff

developmentof rural settlements(258.8 ha), the
implementation
ofrice fields(7786.9ha) andof industrial
areas(99.3ha) (seeTable2).
Tlre largestpatch of the new mangrovearea(43.2%)
{.vasconvertedinto the rice fields that aremostly located
in the northerr, northwesternand northeasternparts of
the lagoon,whereparts of it belong to the Ujung Alang
.rndPenikelvillages.This is a low lying areawith a great
aLrundance
of fresh water inflow. and thereforesuitable
for rice culture. Only a very small part (0.4%) of the
mangrovearea of the year 1978 was convertedinto
industrialarea(about74.2ha). Thereare also important
additionsofthe new mangroves(3497.2 ha) derivedfrom
former mud flats and the open lagoon(from 193.5to 84
ha per year)(Table3).
Since 19JB, the sizeof the mangroveforesthasbeen
fluctuatingasa resultofboth deforestation
andmangrove
encroachment.
From I 978 to I 987 approximately3003.6
hectaresof forestwere cut down, while 1741. t hectares
of new mangroveforestwereestablished
on new grounds
period.
in tb,eestuaryduring this
While mangrovescoveredabout 17,090ha in 1978
and rice fields were not existent at that time, both
mangrovesand rice fields coveredabout the samearea
in 2004 (ca 9000 ha) (seeFigure 2). More than 50% of
the mangroveareasin 2004 were disturbedespeciallyin
the westernpart of SegaraAnakan (BPKSA, 2003).The
increaseofother landusessuchasaquaculture,industry
rural settlement,dry land agriculture and others did not
significantly change the extent of the converted
mangrovesarea,becauseof new mangrovesthat were
b u i l d i n g u p . F r o m 1 9 9 5 t o 2 0 0 4 o n l y 5 9 7 . 8h a o f
mangroveswere convertedinto land use (excluderice
fields) (seeTables3 and4.), while at the sametime about
840.1ha of new mangroveswere created.
The generaldeclineofthe rateof mangroveconversion
from the period1987-1995to 1995-2004(from -3.4%
year)(seeTable5), maybe (at leastin
to only-1 .4o/oper
parl) due to the projectsCRMP and SACDP conducted
in SegaraAnakan,as mentionedabove.
Table 6 shows that all aquatic resourcesgreatly
decreasedover the study period and that this decrease
was paralleledby economic losses,except for the
shrimps,which yieldedhigher benefitsin the year 2000
despitetheir substantialcatchreductionsdue to a threefold increaseof the unit prize. On the other hand, rice
production,which wasnon-existentin 1978,contributed
almost 30% to the total resourcevalue of the year 2000
and helpedto increasethe overall resourcevalue from
(29.6%).
15,363.2
to 19,916.8

Discussion
Sedimentationhas been one of the main management
concernsrn the river basin, particularly regardingthe
impactson the low land activities,includingthe Segara
Anakan.It hasbeenattributedto deforestationandpoor
practicesin theuplandareasof
agriculturalmanagement
the Citanduy river basin, as well as to the volcanic
eruptionof Mount Galunggungin 1982,which is located
in the river basin.The transformationof landuseactivities
hasbeenaccelerated
by the immigrationof farmers,who
havealmostdoubledthe populationsincethe year 1978
(Table7).
New economicopportunitiesarosefrom the rice fields
development,generatingmany income activities from
farm labour,harvesting,gardeningand dryland cropping,
and fishponds were created.While rice has been the
dominant agricultural activity over the past decadein
SegaraAnakan, the cultivation of other agriculture
products,generallycashcrops,occurson a muchsmaller
scale. These crops include soybean,palm sugar
production,fruits and vegetables,and are often sold to
supplementthe household income. Rice fields are
managedthrough various labour arrangements,notably,
farmersworking the land themselves,hiring labour,and/
or receivinghelp from family members.
Mangrove conversion has led to severalproblems
besidesreducingfishery yields. It hasled to a reduction
ofbiodiversity, lossofhabitats andnurseryareas,increase
in coastalerosion,lossin productivity,soil acidification,
pollution, and alterationof water drainagepatterns.While
producingeconomicbenefits,aquaculturedevelopment
has also been associatedwith environmentalgradation
of the SAL, since it is also basedon the conversionof
mangrovesand causespollution of the surrounding
waters.Decreasinglagoon size and with it decreasing
fishingground,areconsideredthe causefor thedeclining
fish productionin the SAL as well as offshoreCilacap
(Table6). The lossofbiodiversity inmangrove-converted
areas of the SAL has been reported since 1980s
(Sastranegara
et al., 2003).Intertidalcrab diversitywas
higher and more constantin the undisturbedareawith
high mangrovecoverage(90%) comparedto areasof crab
hunting, logging and prawn ponds with mangrove
coverageof 89Vo,33o/oand 0% respectively.Alongi et
al. (2005) reported human induced disturbancethat
createsa sharpzonationof dry, hypersalinesoil overlying
lesssaline,wettersoil, suppressing
surfacemicrobialand
root growth.
Overall, it appears that the current changeshave
produced an overall economic benefit to the greatly

65

Quantifying Habitat and ResourceUse Changesin the SegaraAnakan Lagoon
Table 4: Matrix of the coastalhabitat changesmapping of 1978and 2004 (in ha)
Year
Rural
settlement

River

312.1

2323.6
189.7
182.4
1934.7
16.8

Area
oo
F\

Mangrdve
17090.1 198.6
Lagoon
3491.0 15.4
River
2731.2
29.3
',t.r
Mud flat
462.5
Rural
settlement
61.7
61.7

Ricefield

Mangrove Lagoon

Dry land Industry Aquaagriculture aree culture

Mud
flat

9442.6
8483.1
787.8
1',71.7

9 2 7t . 6
9 3 1 . 8 2 7. 4
44.6
6195.4
1 5 7 0 . 8 887.1 27.4
548.9
356.5

203.8 568.3
120.0 53l .9
20.1
9.6
15.3
74.2
l.l

755.3
'726.8
21.7
6.8

Table 5: Habitat changesin percent

r 978-I 987

Habilat

1987-1991
-20.4
-46.6
3.5

-7.4
-36.3
-19.3
41.7
301.6
t725.7
'717.5

Mangrove
Lagoon
River
Mud flat
Rural settlement
Rice field
Dry land agriculture
Aquaculture
Industry area

1991-1995
-12.8
-1.2
0.2
-55.6
-0.8
34.6
-0.5
60.7
0.0

3r.2
5.2
235.1
-1 6 . 9
29.0

136.0
91.9

1i
l.a

I 995-I 998
-0.3
0.0
0.0
-16.8
1.9
-0.1
5.3
25.8
0.0

1998-2001
-9"7
,14.4
-54.5
10.'l
14.l
Lt
70.1
3 3 I.

2001-2004
-6.2
1a

2.3
-81.1
6.9
6.4
19.5
-5.9
54.2

Table6: The SAL resources
changesduring 1978-2000s
Amount (ton)

Resources

Unit value/kg ($)

I 978

I 978
SA
- Fish
- Crabs
- Shnmp
- Rice
- Other crop
Offshore
- Fish
- Shrimp
Total

51 6 . 3
250.0
404.0
0
0

190.3
150.0
200.0
48062.0
461s.3

0.55
1.50

t 54 t 2 . 9
5 206.0
21789.2

1 31 5 3 . 0
2 000.0
68370.6

0.55
1.ll

I
tl
Lll

0
0

Table 7: The human population in the SAL:
1978and 2001
Location (village)

I 978

2001

Ujungalang
Ujunggagak
Penikel
Total

3507
3069
l 589
81 6 5

4959
3861
4490
13310

Source. Yulastoro.2003

%oper year

1.80
t.r2
7.94
2.74

Totql value (000 $)

1978
0.45
l.l5
a

tl

J.+ I

0.12
0.10

0.45

284.0(r.8%)
37s.0(2.4%)
448.4(2.e%)
0
0

85.6(0.4%)
(0^9%)
t'72.s
682.0(32%)
(28.9%)
5767.4
46r.s(2.3%)

8477.\(ss.2%)
s778.7(37.6%)
t5363.2

(30.0%)
59r8.8
6829.0 (34.3o/o)
1 9 91 6 . 8 5

increasedhumanpopulation,but the lagoonecosystem,
its aquatic resources and its biodiversity have
significantlybeenaffected.The questionto be askedis,
ifthe SAL is going to furtherdevelop into an agricultural
area,which would mean that the lagoon and its aquatic
resourceswould finally disappear,or if it is desirable
(and ecologicallyfeasible)to maintainthe SAL system
as such,even at a much smaller as original size. Since
Javais alreadyalmostdepletedfrom swampand lagoon

66

Erwin Riyanto Ardli and Matthias Wolff

I8000
15000
12000
fit

9000

o

|:,

6000
3000
0

4000

-o- Lago0n
+.-River

3000
a7
E
6

o

2000

L

aa

10 0 0

U

--.r- Mudflat
-----:f- R ural setflement
---a---Drylandagriculture
+Aquaculture
--{- Industryarea

1200
s00
rI
6

o

OUU

ct

?nn

1982

19 8 6

1990

1994

1ggB

20D2

Figure 2: Extent of changefrom 1978to 2004 by land use types.

areas.a toss of the SAL would mean a great loss of a
unique ecosystem,and of the diversity of habitatsand
specles.which will be unrecoverable"
Economrstsmay argue that the total conversionof
the lagoonurto agricultureland may be beneficialto the
region rn the long run, but it shouldbe emphasized,that

despitethe great changesalreadydone to the SAL, the
contribution of the aquatic resourcesto the overall
resourcevalue of the region still amountsto about70%
(of a total of nearly 20 million US $) and it rs difficult to
irnaginehow a loss of about 14 million US $ could be
compensated.

QuantifoingHabitat and ResourceUse Changesin the SegaraAnakan Lagoon
Acknowledgement
The authors want to thank the SPICE project, Center for
Tropical Marine Ecology (ZMT) Bremen, bmbf,
Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (DAAD) and
Jenderal Soedirman University, Purwokerto, for their
support during this study; Biotrop Training and
Information Center (BTIC) Bogor for images support.

References
Alongi, D.M., Ramanathan,
AL., Kannan,L., Tirendi,F.,Trott.
L.A. and M. Bala Krishna Prasad (2005). Influence of
h u m a n - i n d u c e dd i s t u r b a n c eo n b e n t h i c m i c r o b i a l
metabolismin thePichavaralnmangroves,Vellar-Coleroon
estuarinecomplex, lndia. M arine B i oIogy, 147z 1033- I 044.
Alonso-Perez,F., Ruiz-Luna,A., Turner,J., Berlanga-Robies,
C.A. andG. Mitchelson-Jacob(2003).Land coverchanges
and impact of shrimp aquacultureon the landscapein the
Ceuta coastallagoon system,Sinaloa,Mexico. Ocean &
CoastalManagement,46: 583-600"
tudli, E.R. and A. Widyasruti(2001). Application of NDVI
analysisfrom LandsatTM and SPOT imagesfor monitorrng
and detection of mangrove damagesat SegaraAnakan
Cilacap,Central Java. DUE-like project Unsoed,
PurwokertoIndonesia.
BPKSA (BadanPengelolaKawasanSegaraAnakan) (2003).
Laporanpelaksanaanproyek konservasidan pembangunan
SegaraAnakan. Lokakarya Status,Problem dan Potensi
SurnberdayaPerairan dengan Acuan SegaraAnakan dan
DAS Serayu,Purwokerto.
Cicin-Sain,
B. andR.W.I(necht(1998).Integrated
coastaland
oceanmanagement:Conceptsand practices.Island Press,
WashingtonD.C.
Donoghue,D.N.M. and N. Mironnet (2002). Developmentof
an integratedgeographicalinformation systemprototlpe
for coastalhabitat monitoring. Computer& Geosciences,
2* 129-14t.
Dudley, R.G. (2000). SegaraAnakan FisheriesManagement
Plan. SegaraAnakan Conservationand Development
Project,CornponentB&C, Consultant'sReport.
Environmental SystemsResearchInstitute (ESRI) (1990).
UnderstandingGIS, theARC/INFO method.Environmental
SystemsResearchInstitute,Inc., Redlands,CA, 423 p"
Long,B.G. andT"D.Skewes(1996).A techniqueformapping
mangrove with Landsat TM satellite data and geographic
information system"Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Sciences,
43:373-381"
Mumby,P.J.,Skirving,W., Strong,A.E., Hardy,J.T.,LeDrew,
E.F.,Hochberg,E.J., Sturnpf,R.P. and L.T. David (2004).
Remote sensing of coral reefs and their physical
environment.Marine Po llution Bulletin, 482219-228"

67

Mumby,P.J..Green,E.P.,Edwards,A.J. andC.D.Clark(1999).
The cost-effectiveness
of remotesensingfor tropical coastai
resources assessmentand managemefi. Journal aJ
EnvironmenlalManagement,55: 157-166.
Purba,M. ( 199I ). Impact of high sedimentationrateson the
coastalresourcesof SegaraAnakan, Indonesia,pp. 143l52.In;L.M" Chou,T.-E.Chua,H.W. Khoo,P.E.Lim, J"N.
Paw, G.T. Silvestre,M.J. Valencia,A.T. White and P.K"
Wong(Eds.)Towardsan Integratedmanagement
of troprcal
coastalresources.ICLARM ConferenceProceedings22.
N a t i o n a l U n i v e r s i t y o f S i n g a p o r e ,S i n g a p o r e :a n d
I n t e r n a t r o n a lC e n t e r f o r L i v i n g A q u a t i c R e s o u r c e s
Management,Philipprnes.
Sastranegara,
M.H., Fermon,H. and M. Miihlenberg(2003).
Diversity and Abundanceof Intertidal Crabs at the East
SwampManagedArea in SegaraAnakanCilacap,Central
Java,Indonesia.DeutscherTropentag,Gcittingen.
S t a n b u r y ,K . B . a n d R . M . S t a r r ( 1 9 9 9 ) . A p p l i c a t i o n so f
Geographic Information Systems(GIS) to habitat
a s s e s s m c n ta n d m a r i n e r e s o u r c e m a n a g e m e n t .
OceanologicaActa., 22(61: 699-703"
Stevens.T. and R.M. Cormolly (2004). Testingthe utilrty of
abiotic surrogatesfor marine habitat mapplng at scales
relevantto management.
Biological Conservation,119(3):
351-362.
Tomascik,T., Mah, A.J.,Nontji, A. andM.K. Moosa(1991).
The ecology of the Indonesianseas.Part II. Periplus
Editions, Singapore.
Treitz,P.(2004).Remotesenslngfor mappingandmonitoring
iand-cover and land-use change.Progres.stn Plannirtg.
6l:26'7.
Vasconcelos,
M.J.P.,Mussa'Biai,J.C.,Araulo, A. and M.a.
Diniz (2002).Land cover changein two protectedareasof
G u i n e a - B i s s a u( 1 9 5 6 - 1 9 9 8 ) ,A p p l i e d G e o g r a p h y ,
22: 139-156.
Weiers, S., Block, M., Wissen, M. and G. Rossner(2004).
Mapprng and indicator approachesfor the assessment
of
habitatsat different scalesusrng remote senslngand GIS
methods.Landscapeand Urban Flanning, 61: 13-65.
White, A.T., Martosubroto"P. and M.S.N4Sadorra(Eds.)
( 1 9 8 9 ) . T h e c o a s t a le n v i r o n m e n t a pl r o f i l e o f S e g a r a
Anakan-CilacapS
, o u t h J a v a , I n d o n e s r a .I C L A R M
TechnicalReportson CoastalArea managementSeriesno.
25" InternationalCentre for Living Aquatic Resources
Management,
Manrla.
Yulastoro, P. (2003)" Usaha dan Kendala Penyelamatan
DegradasiLingkunganSegaraAnakan,LokakaryaStatus.
Problemdan PotensiSumberdayaPerairandengairAcuan
SegaraAnakan dan DAS Serayu.Furwokeno.