Pengetahuan terhadap Perkhidmatan Ekosistem dan Sumbangannya kepada Kehidupan Komuniti di Kuala Sepetang, Perak (Knowledge and Contributions of Ecosystem Services to Community Livelihood at Kuala Sepetang, Perak)
Abstract
Kemusnahan alam sekitar dan kepupusan biodiversiti telah menjadi suatu isu yang sangat membimbangkan. Keterancaman biodiversiti ini dijangka akan berterusan dan meningkat pada masa akan datang jika tiada tindakan serius yang diambil oleh semua pihak berkepentingan. Kemerosotan dan kepupusan sumber semula jadi yang menjejaskan perkhidmatan ekosistem bukan sahaja menjadi isu dan cabaran di peringkat global, malah turut memberi impak kepada Malaysia. Oleh itu, kajian mengenai tahap pengetahuan komuniti dan sumbangan perkhidmatan ekosistem perlu dilakukan dengan memfokuskan kepada empat kategori perkhidmatan ekosistsem iaitu perkhidmatan-perkhidmatan pembekalan, kawal atur, sokongan, dan budaya. Sejumlah 249 borang soal selidik telah diedarkan secara rawak kepada anggota kuminiti di kawasan Kuala Sepetang, Perak. Data yang diperoleh melalui borang soal selidik ini, dianalisa dengan menggunakan kaedah Indeks Kepentingan Relatif (RII) dalam menentukan kedudukan item dan kategori. Kajian mendapati tahap pengetahuan komuniti setempat terhadap keempat-empat kategori perkhidmatan ekosistem adalah baik iaitu perkhidmatan pembekalan, perkhidmatan kawal atur, perkhidmatan sokongan dan perkhidmatan budaya. Sumbangan perkhidmatan ekosistem sokongan menunjukkan sumbangan terbesar dalam kehidupan harian penduduk dan secara tidak langsung membantu dalam kelangsungan hidup. Alam sekitar semula jadi terbukti menyediakan perkhidmatan ekosistem yang sangat penting dan menjadi elemen yang utama dalam kehidupan harian komuniti tempatan. Perkhidmatan ekosistem bukan hanya memberi perkhidmatan kepada manusia tetapi juga menjadi sistem bantuan kehidupan yang berkualiti.
Kata kunci: alam sekitar, sumber semula jadi, komuniti, indeks kepentingan relatif, perkhidmatan ekosistem, pengetahuan
Environmental destruction and biodiversity extinction have become an issue of grave concern. These threats on biodiversity are expected to continue and increase in the future if no serious actions are taken by stakeholders. Degradation and extinction of natural resources that affect the ecosystem services is not just a global issue and challenge at the global level, it also has an impact on Malaysia. Therefore, there is a need to study on the level of knowledge within the community on the contribution of ecosystem services focusing on four aspect of ecosystem services such as supply, regulatory, support and culture. A total of 249 questionnaire forms were distributed randomly to community members in the area of Kuala Sepetang, Perak. Data obtained through this survey were analyzed using the Relative Importance Index (RII) method in determining the position of items and categories. The study showed that the level of knowledge among the local community on the four ecosystem service categories are good such as supply service, regulatory service, support service and culture service. The support ecosystem service contributed the most towards the daily life of the community and indirectly enhanced their livelihood. Natural environment is proven providing a very important ecosystem service and it is a vital element of the local community daily life. Ecosystem services not only serve people but also become a quality life support system.
Keywords: environment, natural resources, community, relative important index, ecosystem services, knowledge
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Angelsen, A., Wunder, S., Babigumira, R., Blecher, B., Börner, J., & Smith-Hall, C. (2011). Environmental incomes and rural livelihoods: a global-comparative assessment. Paper Presented at 4th Wye Global Conference, (3), 17. Retrieved from http://typo3.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/pages/rural/wye_city_group/2011/documents/session4/Angelsen_Wunder_Babigumira_Belcher_Birner__Smith-Hall-Paper.pdf
Aguado, M., González, J. A., López-Santiago, C., & Montes, C. (2018). Exploring subjective well-being and ecosystem services perception along a rural–urban gradient in the high Andes of Ecuador. Ecosystem services, 34, 1-10.
Ahammad, R., Stacey, N., & Sunderland, T. C. (2019). Use and perceived importance of forest ecosystem services in rural livelihoods of Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh. Ecosystem services, 35, 87-98.
Akrofi, Mark M., Sarpong H. Antwi, and Jabulani R. Gumbo. "Students in Climate Action: A Study of Some Influential Factors and Implications of Knowledge Gaps in Africa." Environments 6, no. 2 (2019): 12.
Chan R.Y.K. & Lau, L.B.Y. (2000). Antecedents of Green Purchases: A Survey in China. Journal of Consumer Marketing 17 (4):338-357.
Crossman, N. D., Burkhard, B., Nedkov, S., Willemen, L., Petz, K., Palomo, I., … Maes, J. (2013). A blueprint for mapping and modelling ecosystem services, 4, 4–14. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.02.001
Cruz-Garcia, G.S., Sachet, E., Blundo-Canto, G., Vanegas, M., Quintero, M. (2017). To what extent have the links between ecosystem services and human well-being been researched in Africa, Asia, and Latin America? Ecosyst. Serv. 25, 201–212.
Delgado, L.E., Marín, V.H. (2016). Well-being and the use of ecosystem services by rural households of the Río Cruces watershed, southern Chile. Ecosyst. Serv. 21, 81–91.
Duraiappah, A. K. (2011). Ecosystem Services and Human Well-being: Do Global Findings Make Any Sense? BioScience, 61(1), 7–8. doi:10.1525/bio.2011.61.1.2
Eustafor, & Patterson, T. (2011). Ecosystem Services in European State Forests. The European State Forest Association (EUSTAFOR), (June), 40.
Felix, M., & Burkhard, B. (2012). The indicator side of ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 1, 26–30. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.06.001
Fru Delvis Ngang. (2015). The Contribution of Community-Based Natural Resources Management to Livelihoods , Conservation and Governance in Cameroon . A Comparative Assessment of Three Community Forests. Pan African Institute for Development-West Africa.
Haines-young, R., & Potschin, M. (2013). Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services ( CICES ): Consultation on Version 4 , August-December 2012. UK.
Hashim, N. M., Sakawi, Z., Choy, L. K., Jaafar, M., Rose, R. A. C., & Ahmad, N. H. (2019). Tahap kesedaran komuniti pinggir pantai terhadap kenaikan aras laut. Geografia: Malaysian Journal of Society and Space, 15(2).
Hasliza Abdul Rahman & Rohasliney Hashim. (2010). Pemeliharaan dan Pemuliharaan Alam Sekitar di Malaysia. Universiti Sains Malaysia, Pulau Pinang.
Hapsari, A. (2010). Assessing and Mapping Ecosystem Services in Assessing and Mapping Ecosystem Services in Offinso. Ghent University, Belgium.
Hou, Y., Zhou, S., Burkhard, B., & Müller, F. (2014). Socioeconomic influences on biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being: a quantitative application of the DPSIR model in Jiangsu, China. Science of the Total Environment, 490, 1012-1028.
Howe, C., Suich, H., Vira, B., & Mace, G. M. (2014). Creating win-wins from trade-offs ? Ecosystem services for human well-being : A meta-analysis of ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies in the real world. Global Environmental Change, 28, 263–275. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.07.005
Jamilah Ahmad, Hasrina Mustafa, Hamidah Abdul Hamid & Juliana Abdul Wahab. (2011). Pengetahuan, Sikap dan Amalan Masyarakat Malaysia terhadap Isu Alam Sekitar. Jurnal Akademika 81 (3): 103-115
Jenkins, M., & Schaap, B. (2018). Forest Ecosystem Services - Background Analytical Study. United Nations Forum on Forests, (April). Retrieved from http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/timber/meetings/20151102/English_new_FAO_logo/ECE_TIM_2015_6_FO_EFC_15_6.pdf
Jose, S. (2009). Agroforestry for ecosystem services and environmental benefits: An overview. Agroforestry Systems, 76(1), 1–10. doi:10.1007/s10457-009-9229-7
Kalaba , F. K., (2013). Forest ecosystem services , rural livelihoods and carbon storage in Miombo woodland in the Copperbelt region of Zambia. University of Leeds.
Kandel, P., Tshering, D., Uddin, K., Lhamtshok, T., Aryal, K., Karki, S., … Chettri, N. (2018). Understanding social-ecological interdependence using ecosystem services perspective in Bhutan, Eastern Himalayas: Ecosphere, 9(2).
Kandziora, M., Burkhard, B., & Müller, F. (2013). Interactions of ecosystem properties, ecosystem integrity and ecosystem service indicators: A theoretical matrix exercise. Ecological Indicators, 28, 54–78. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.09.006
Kuhn, C. (2014). Assessing the Provisioning Ecosystem Service Food Rice and its Linkages to Human Well-Being in Hai Duong and Vinh Phuc Province of Vietnam Presented by Faculty of Agricultural and Nutritional Sciences. University of zu Kiel, Vietnam.
Laroche, M., Bergeron, J., & Barbaro-Forleo, G. (2001). Targeting consumers who are willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products. Journal of consumer marketing, 18(6), 503-520.
Liu, S., Costanza, R., Farber, S., & Troy, A. (2010). Valuing ecosystem services Theory, practice, and the need for a transdisciplinary synthesis, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences Volume 1185, Issue 1. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1185, 54–78. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.05167.x/abstract
Liu, Y., Li, J., & Zhang, H. (2012). An ecosystem service valuation of land use change in Taiyuan City, China. Ecological Modelling, 225, 127–132. doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2011.11.017
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Ecosystems (Vol. 5). doi:10.1196/annals.1439.003
Mohamad, F. B. & Teoh Y. Y. (2006). Tahap Keprihatinan Alam Sekitar dan Amalan Kepenggunaan Hijau Pengguna di Petaling Jaya, Selangor. Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 14(2): 95-109.
Oertli, B., & Parris, K. M. (2019). Review: Toward management of urban ponds for freshwater biodiversity. Ecosphere, 10(7).
Olunga M.A, Kavoi M.M, and G. P. . (2013). Assessment of factors influencing utilization of forest resources in Kipini division of Tana delta district, Kenya. University of Nairobi. Retrieved from http://erepository.uonbi.ac.ke/bitstream/handle/11295/56524/Olunga_ utilization of Forest.pdf?sequence=3
Ostrom, E. (2008). The Challenge of Common-Pool Resources. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 50(4), 8–21. [Diakses daripada] http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3200/ENVT.50.4.8-21
Patterson, T. M., & Coelho, D. L. (2009). Ecosystem services: Foundations, opportunities, and challenges for the forest products sector. Forest Ecology and Management, 257, 1637–1646. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2008.11.010
Phongkaranyaphat, K., Maiman, S., & Asanok, L. (2017). Factors Influencing People Participation in Community Forest Management in Phrae Province , North Thailand. International Journal of Agricultural Technology, 13, 1707–1713.
Price, C. (2014). Regulating and supporting services and disservices: customary approaches to valuation, and a few surprising results. New Zealand Journal of Forestry Science, 44(Suppl 1), S5. Retrieved from http://www.nzjforestryscience.com/content/44/S1/S5
Raman, F. I., & Bakar, K. A. (2019). Amalan kelestarian alam sekitar dalam kalangan guru prasekolah. Geografia: Malaysian Journal of Society and Space, 15(2).
Rasethe, M. T., Semenya, S. S., Potgieter, M. J., & Maroyi, A. (2013). The utilization and management of plant resources in rural areas of the Limpopo Province , South Africa. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedice, 9(27), 1–8.
Roy Haines-Young & Potschin Marion. (2010). Common International Classification of Ecosystem Goods and Services ( CICES ): Consultation on Version 4, August-December 2012. EEA Framework Contract No EEA/IEA/09/003. Contract. doi:10.1038/nature10650
Sekercioglu, C. H. (2010). Ecosystem functions and services. Conservation Biology for All, 45–72. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199554232.001.0001
Shackleton, C., Shackleton, S., Gambiza, J., Nel, E., Rowntree, K., & Urquhart, P. (2008). Links between Ecosystem Services and Poverty Alleviation. Situation analysis for arid and semi-arid lands in southern Africa.
Smith, N. ., Deal, R. ., Kline, J. ., Spies, T. A. ., Blahna, D. ., Patterson, T. ., & Bennett, K. . (2011). Ecosystem services as a framework for forest stewardship: Deschutes national forest overview. USDA Forest Service - General Technical Report PNW-GTR, 1–46. Retrieved from http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-80053993065&partnerID=40&md5=ab1fd0d1b0293fd559f39394c928eedd
Sodhi, N.S., Lee, T.M., Sekercioglu, C.H., Webb, E.L., Prawiradilaga, D.M., Lohman, D.J., Pierce, N.E., Diesmos, A.C., Rao, M., Ehrlich, P.R., 2010. Local people value environmental services provided by forested parks. Biodivers. Conserv. 19
Somiah, M. K., Osei-Poku, G., & Aidoo, I. (2015). Relative importance analysis of factors influencing unauthorized siting of residential buildings in the Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolis of Ghana. Journal of building construction and planning Research, 3(03), 117.
Summers, J. K., Smith, L. M., Fulford, R. S., & de Jesus Crespo, R. (2018). The Role of Ecosystem Services in Community Well-Being. Ecosystem Services and Global Ecology, 145. In Intech (Vol. 1, p. 13). Retrieved from https://www.intechopen.com/books/advanced-biometric-technologies/liveness-detection-in-biometrics
Uniyal, S. K., & Singh, R. D. (2012). Natural resources assessment and their utilization: Analyses from a Himalayan state. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 184(8), 4903–4919.
Vieira da Silva, L., Everard, M., & Shore, R. G. (2014). Ecosystem services assessment at Steart Peninsula, Somerset, UK. Ecosystem Services, 10, 19–34. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.07.008
Villamagna, A., & Giesecke, C. (2014). Adapting human well-being frameworks for ecosystem service assessments across diverse landscapes. Ecology and Society, 19(1). doi:10.5751/ES-06173-190111
Watson, R. T., Rosswall, T., Steiner, A., Töpfer, K., Arico, S., & Bridgewater, P. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being. Ecosystems (Vol. 5). doi:10.1196/annals.1439.003
Xu, D., Zhang, J., Rasul, G., Liu, S., Xie, F., Cao, M., & Liu, E. (2015). Household Livelihood Strategies and Dependence on Agriculture in the Mountainous Settlements in the Three Gorges Reservoir Area, China. Sustainability, 7(5), 4850–4869. Retrieved from http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/7/5/4850/
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.