The green infrastructure of riverbanks is an indicator of the environmental quality of the watershed area. The community has a leading role in producing green infrastructure. This study describes factors related to community participation in the provision of green infrastructure. Provision of infrastructure which is the planting of protective trees provides land for green infrastructure and maintains green infrastructure. The method of data completion was using the questionnaire as an instrument and involving 200 respondents at Jeneberang River in South Sulawesi. Sample determination using accidental sampling technique. Spearman Correlation analyzed correlation Method. Furthermore, results indicate that the willingness to provide land, assessments of ecological benefits and assessments of economic benefits related to community participation.

The strongest factor associated with the willingness of land provision is land ownership. While the assessment

factor on ecological benefits is strongest about tree planting and willingness to maintain the green

infrastructur

Pertiwi, Nurlita

Repository Universitas Negeri Makassar

World Applied Sciences Journal 35 (6): 914-918, 2017ISSN 1818-4952© IDOSI Publications, 2017DOI: 10.5829/idosi.wasj.2017.914.918Corresponding Author: Nurlita Pertiwi, Postgraduate Programme Universitas Negeri Makassar Jalan Bonto Langkasa, Banta-Bantaeng, Rappocini, Kota Makassar, Sulawesi Selatan 90222.914Community Participation for Providing Green Infrastructure ofRiverbanks is South Sulawesi, IndonesiaNurlita PertiwiPostgraduate Programme Universitas Negeri MakassarJalan Bonto Langkasa, Banta-Bantaeng, Rappocini, Kota Makassar, Sulawesi Selatan 90222, IndonesiaAbstract: The green infrastructure of riverbanks is an indicator of the environmental quality of the watershedarea.  The  community  has  a  leading  role in producing green infrastructure. This study describes factorsrelated to community participation in the provision of green infrastructure. Provision of infrastructure whichis  the  planting  of protective trees provides land for green infrastructure and maintains green infrastructure.The method of data completion was using the questionnaire as an instrument and involving 200 respondentsat Jeneberang River in South Sulawesi. Sample determination using accidental sampling technique. SpearmanCorrelation analyzed correlation Method. Furthermore, results indicate that the willingness to provide land,assessments of ecological benefits and assessments of economic benefits related to community participation.The strongest factor associated with the willingness of land provision is land ownership. While the assessmentfactor on ecological benefits is strongest about tree planting and willingness to maintain the greeninfrastructureKey words: Green infrastructure  Participation  CommunityINTRODUCTION is surface runoff, intra-flow (interflow) and groundwaterFlood disasters caused by river flows are common in infiltrated and partially fills the contours of the groundIndonesia and caused material harm and humans. The surface,  then  flows into the lower areas and the river.flood management as an effort to create the safety and This water flow is a surface runoff. Intra flow comes fromcomfortable environment. Green infrastructure is a the water flow first absorbed by the soil and out back tosupport system of ecosystems and natural life and the the river. Ground water runoff comes from groundwaterindicator of the quality of the ecosystem. As an example that gradually exits for a long time to a low surface.of green infrastructure is greenways, parks and other River morphology includes not only the river bodiesconservation areas [1, 2]. Furthermore, the green but also the surrounding areas. The riverbank area is theinfrastructure is an instrument of strategic planning in boundary between the river body and the surrounding flatsustainable development. This concept aims to protect area. While the edge separates the flow area with the riverbiodiversity and protection of ecosystem values. Water body. The area of riverbank with good vegetation formedconservation and land conservation are the main activities as green infrastructure space. However, most of thein green infrastructure [3, 4]. Green infrastructure can help riverbanks in Indonesia have cultivated spaces such asprotect and restore ecosystem function and serve as flood plantations or agriculture. Also, settlements on the bankscontrol, water treatment system and rainwater of the river are also growing with consideration ofmanagement. This concept is a non-structural river proximity to water sources. The activities of people livingmanagement. in riverbank will have an impact on the quality of theThe watershed is a dynamic system with the environment. Riverbank becomes garbage dumps andcharacteristic is very closely related to the behavior of affects water pollution events. Also, due to large volumepeople who live around the river. The river as one element of waste and accumulate on the bottom causesof the hydrologic cycle collects three types of runoff that sedimentation. The riverbanks should serve as waterrunoff. Rainwater that falls on the soil surface is partiallyWorld Appl. Sci. J., 35 (6): 914-918, 2017915conservation areas and protect river bodies from erosion. infrastructure and the evaluation of the greenRiverbank with good vegetation potential can be useful as infrastructure economic benefits. Sample determinationoxygen-producing and absorb air pollutants. Also, it can using accidental sampling technique Methods of crossmaintain biota life both on land and in water. tabulation assist the researcher in determining therelationMany rivers in South Sulawesi has supports the between themedium variable strength of relationshipwatershed ecosystem and also a resource for drinking using Spearman Correlation.water and irrigation needs. Water potential and physicalpotential of the river must be maintained to support life in RESULTSthe ecosystem. One of the rivers in this administrativearea is the Jeneberang River with a length of 80 km. Respondent Characteristics: Characteristic description ofIntensive river management is characterized by the dams respondents covering education, annual income,that  are the controllers of the Jeneberang River flood. knowledge about green infrastructure are presented inThis dam provides raw water of 3300 liters/s with an Table 1. This shows that most of the respondents areirrigated area of 24, 585 ha. The dam also has hydroelectric senior high school graduates with an average income ofpower with an installed capacity of 20.1 MW. Rp. 20 million - Rp.30 million. Social conditions affectThe development of water resources on the people's willingness to engage in a conservation program.Jeneberang River is not only the responsibility of the With low incomes and only enough to meet daily needs,government. The community is a major stakeholder in community participation tends to be low. Most of theriver management. Conventionally, infrastructure respondents are landowners on riverbanks. However, thedevelopment or rehabilitation of dams or dikes is the main riverbank utilization form is agriculture, plantation andchoice in disaster reduction due to climate change. Green residential. Efforts to protect riverbanks have not beeninfrastructure as the elaboration of the river management supported by community participation indicates ofconcept that takes into account socio-economic aspects evident by the low level of public knowledge about greenof society [5]. infrastructure.Community involvement in river basin managementis part of Integrated Water Resources Management Community Participation in the Provision of Green(IWRM). The program integrates technical concepts with Infrastructure: Communities who live or manage the landappropriate management and institutional paradigms. on riverbank show low participation. People's willingnessHuman dimension becomes part of the management to plant trees on riverbanksin moderate categories (60%)system. Community involvement with participation and  only  7.5%  had high participation in tree plantingrequires knowledge transfer and the development of (Fig. 1). Community participation to provide greeninterest to engage in the program [6]. infrastructure land is also low. As many as 40.5% ofBased on the concept and fact description, this study respondents  who  have  participated with middle levelaims to describe factors related to community and 40% of respondentsshowed low desire to participateparticipation in the provision of green infrastructure on (Fig. 2).river banks. Research location in settlement area along Community participation in the maintenance of greenJeneberang River. infrastructure is also illustrated by the average categoryMATERIALS AND METHODS participation in maintaining natural facilities on riverThis research is a survey with quantitative approach.Methods of data collection using questionnaires as an The Correlation Between Internal Factors andinstrument involving 200 respondents on the banks of the Community Participation: Statistical analysis with crossJeneberang River in South Sulawesi. Community tabulation describes the relationship of internal factors ofparticipation in river management is divided into three society with its participation. The relationship betweenindicators viz., tree planting on riverbanks, provision of land ownership and community participation is describedland for green infrastructure and maintenance of green in Table 2, 3 & 4. Land ownership is divided into threeinfrastructure area. The internal factors of the community categories: low (managing land less than 1ha), moderatewhich are the factors of participation are land ownership, (managing land of 1ha to 2ha) and high category forthe assessment of the ecological benefits of green respondents who manage the land more than 2ha.(64%) moreover, there are 33.5% who have highbanks (Fig. 3)World Appl. Sci. J., 35 (6): 914-918, 2017916Table 1: Description of respondent characteristics Table 2: Cross Tabulation the land ownership with the participation toFactor Criteria Frequency PercentageEducation University 59 29.5Senior High School 78 39Junior High School 34 17Primary school 22 11None 7 3.5Annual income more than Rp.40 million 12 6Rp.30 - 40 million 63 31.5Rp.20 - Rp 30 million 94 47Less than Rp. 20 million 31 15.5Knowledge about High 23 11.5green infrastructure Moderate 72 36Low 105 52.5land ownership status Own property 104 52Rental/cultivators 73 36.5Borrow 23 11.5Fig. 1: Community participation to plant the tree inriverbankFig. 2: Community involvement to provide land in theriverbank for green infrastructureFig. 3: Community participation to maintain the greeninfrastructureprovide landProviding Land---------------------------------------------------------------Land Ownership Low Moderate High TotalLow 48 4 3 55Moderate 12 41 3 56High 21 35 33 89Total 81 80 39 200Table 3: Cross Tabulation the land ownership with the participation toplanting treePlanting---------------------------------------------------------------Land Ownership Low Moderate High TotalLow 11 36 8 55Moderate 3 51 2 56High 1 33 55 89Total 15 120 65 200Table 4: Cross Tabulation the land ownership with the participation tomaintain the green infrastructure.Maintenance---------------------------------------------------------------Land Ownership Low Moderate High TotalLow 0 55 0 55Moderate 4 51 1 56High 1 22 66 89Total 5 128 67 200Table 5: Cross Tabulation ecological value with the participation toproviding land for green infrastructureProviding Land---------------------------------------------------------------Ecological Low Moderate High TotalLow 34 27 22 83Moderate 28 38 4 70High 19 15 13 47Total 81 80 39 200Table 6: Cross Tabulation ecological value with the participation toplanting treePlanting---------------------------------------------------------------Ecological Low Moderate High TotalLow 15 51 17 83Moderate 0 67 3 70High 0 2 45 47Total 15 120 65 200Table 7: Cross Tabulation ecological value with the participation tomaintain green infrastructureMaintenance---------------------------------------------------------------Ecological Low Moderate High TotalLow 2 80 1 83Moderate 1 46 23 70High 2 2 43 47Total 5 128 67 200World Appl. Sci. J., 35 (6): 914-918, 2017917Table 8: Cross tabulation economic value with the participation toproviding land for green infrastructureProviding Land---------------------------------------------------------------Economic Low Moderate High TotalLow 20 29 14 63Moderate 46 45 20 111High 15 6 5 26Total 81 80 39 200Table 8: Cross tabulation economic value with the participation toproviding land for green infrastructurePlanting---------------------------------------------------------------Economic Low Moderate High TotalLow 0 24 39 63Moderate 11 80 20 111High 4 16 6 26Total 15 120 65 200Table 9: Cross Tabulation economic value with the participation toproviding land for green infrastructureMaintenance---------------------------------------------------------------Economic Low Moderate High TotalLow 2 4 57 63Moderate 1 105 5 111High 2 19 5 26Total 5 128 67 200Table 10: Chi square analysis.Internal factor Providing Land Planting MaintenanceLand ownership 0.000 0.000 0.000Ecological 0.003 0.000 0.000Economic 0.205 0.000 0.000Table 11: Spearman correlation analysis.Internal factor Providing Land Planting MaintenanceLand ownership 0.517 0.502 0.638Ecological -0.018 0.539 0.675Economic -0.131 -0.392 -0.669Respondents who live on the riverbank are managedland area more than 2ha. A total of 89 respondents withhigh land ownership. The willingness of the community toprovide land in the medium category. Furthermore, thehabit of these respondents to plant trees on the banksshows good behavior, as well as the willingness tomaintain green infrastructure.The following internal factors that influence thecommunity participation in green infrastructure provisionare the assessment of ecological benefits of greeninfrastructure. This assessment is divided into threecategories: low-ranking, medium-sized and high-valuedappraisals. This assessment is based on respondents'answers about air temperature in riverbanks, the quality ofriver ecosystems and water pollution. The relationshipbetween these assessments and community participationis presented in Table 5, 6 & 7.Analysis of respondents' answer indicates that mostof the respondent (83 people) gave a low assessment ofthe environmental value of green infrastructure. Withthese assessments, the participation to provide land andmaintain green infrastructure is also low. The third internalfactor is the respondent's assessment of the economicvalue of land in green infrastructure. This assessment isalso divided into three categories. The description ofthese internal factors is presented in Table 8, 9 & 10.Assessment of respondents to the economic value ofland  showed  moderate  category  (111  respondents).This assessment causes community participation in theprovision of green infrastructure also in the moderatecategory. Other analysis results on respondents with alow assessment of the land economy. This group ofrespondents is willing to plant trees and maintain greeninfrastructure but is not willing to provide land. The Chisquare analysis revealed the relationship between thevariables shown in Table 10. The Chi square valuessmaller than 0.05 indicate that the two variables arerelated.With SPSS program, Chi square analysis shows thatthe three internal factors influence the communityparticipation, except the economic valuation factor for thewillingness to provide green infrastructure land. The nextanalysis is the closeness of the relationship between twovariables (Table 11).The interpretation of the strength of relationship isdivided into five categories:Very weak if the correlation value between 0.000 –0200.Weak relationship if the correlation value is between0.200 - 0.400.Moderate the relationship if its correlation value isbetween 0.400 - 0.600.Strong relationship if the correlation value between0.600 – 0800 andVery strong if the correlation value is between 0800-1000.The results of Spearman Correlation analysis indicatethat the internal factors have astrong relationship withcommunity participation in green infrastructure provision.Respondent's assessment of the economic and ecologicalvalue of green infrastructure has a very weak relationshipto community participation.World Appl. Sci. J., 35 (6): 914-918, 2017918DISCUSSION REFERENCESThe result of frequency analysis gives an idea that 1. Benedict, M.A. and E.T. McMahon, 2002. Greenthe best society participation is the willingness to Infrastructure: Smart Conservation for the 21maintain green infrastructure. Internal factors of society Century, Renew. Resour. J., 20(3): 12-17.show a strong correlation with the form of community 2. Foster, J., A. Lowe and S. Winkelman, 2011. Theparticipation. Specifically, the highest community Value of Green Infrastructure for Urban Climateparticipation in the shape of green infrastructure Adaptation, Cent. Clean Air Policy, pp: 750.maintenance, while the willingness to provide land and 3. Kopperoinen, L., P. Itkonen and J. Niemelä, 2014.tree planting is very lacking. Using Expert Knowledge in Combining GreenSustainable river management involves local Infrastructure and Ecosystem Services in Land Usecommunity participation. Sustainable river ecosystem Planning: An Insight into aNew Place-Basedservices  can  be  achieved  with people's ability to Methodology, Landsc. Ecol., 29(8): 1361-1375. maintain natural   ecosystems.   River   restoration as 4. Lullulangi, M., M. Ardi, N. Pertiwi,  R.  Bakhrani andpart of  environmental  management   must  consider G. Dirawan, 2014. Subjective Norms Adopted by Thesocio-ecological conditions effectively. Complex Local Community in Preserving Environment ofinstitutional arrangements also support the management Settlement in the Watershed, Mamasa, J. Env. Sci.of  river  corridors.  In general, river basin management Technol., 7(5): 305-313.with green infrastructure support should include: (1) the 5. Poff, N.L., et al., 2016. Sustainable Waterability of community participation, (2) representation of Management   Under   Future   Uncertainty  Withhydro-geomorphological, ecological, socio-economic and Eco-Engineering Decision Scaling, Nat. Clim. Chang.,riverine culture processes; (3) transparency and 6(1): 25-34. community involvement in decision-making processes;  6. Halbe, J., C. Pahl-Wostl, J. Sendzimir and J.and (4) development of community motivation to maintain Adamowski,  2013.  Towards  Adaptive andenvironmental quality [7, 8]. Integrated Management Paradigms to Meet TheA  comprehensive  approach to environmental Challenges of Water Governance, Water Sci.management has been implemented worldwide. Are Technol., 67(11); 2651-2660.increasingly being used to address environmental issues. 7. Kabir,  M.,   M.   Kibria,   M.   Jashimuddin   andCollaborative processes for building social capital that M.M. Hossain, 2016. Community Involvement insupport programs and can prosper the community [9]. River Management for Ecosystem Services andCONCLUSIONS Bangladesh., Environ. Res. J., 10(2).Land ownership, an assessment of the benefits of Decision-Making in River Corridor Management:ecology and an assessment of the economic benefits Two Case Studies From The European Alps, J.associated with community participation. The strongest Environ. Plan. Manag., pp: 1-21.factor related to the willingness of land supply is land 9. Newig, J. and T.M. Koontz, 2014. Multi-Levelownership. While the valuation factor on ecological Governance, Policy Implementation and Participation:benefits is strongest about tree planting and the desire to The EU’s Mandated Participatory Planningmaintain green infrastructure. Approach to Implementing Environmental Policy, J.stLivelihood: A Case Study of Halda River in8. Mazzorana, B., et al., 2017. Toward ParticipatoryEur. Public Policy, 21(2): 248-267.

Community Participation for Providing Green Infrastructure of Riverbanks is South Sulawesi, Indonesia

http://eprints.unm.ac.id/3616/1/WASJ%202017.pdf

Community Participation for Providing Green Infrastructure of Riverbanks is South Sulawesi, Indonesia

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Repository Universitas Negeri Makassar