Developing alternative
livelihoods
A case study from fisheries in Indonesia
Lisanne Soffner
Student number: 10152792
Date: 24-‐06-‐2016
Supervisor: dhr. dr. J.M. Bavinck
Second reader: dhr. J. Scholtens MSc
Graduate School of Social Sciences
University of Amsterdam
Abstract
Globally, many fisheries are in crisis. Overfishing, degradation of ecosystems, impacts of climate change and inadequate systems of governance threaten their long-‐term
sustainability. Given this increasing vulnerability of fishers’ livelihoods it is important that fishers have adaptive responses. Since the vulnerability of small scale fisheries is increasing, it is crucial to understand how decision making of local fishermen with regards to adaptation is influenced. From theory it is known that fisheries villages used to have a Coastal Employment System –social system with mutual dependent
relationships-‐ but that commercialization of the fisheries industry changed this to a Fisheries Employment System – a social system with single stranded relationships-‐. Changes in the employment system influence the decision of fishermen to find alternative employment. In addition, there are factors that push fishermen out of the local industry while at the same time there are pull factors from outside that attract fishermen to alternative employment. Thus, the aim of this thesis is to find out how push and pull factors influence the decision of fishermen to find alternative employment. There has been little written on why fishermen in developing countries leave the local fishing industry. To answer this question a case study has been done in Wonokerto Kulon, a fisheries village in Java Indonesia. This thesis is a restudy of the case study research conducted by Pujo Semedi in 1996. The study of Pujo Semedi provides the baseline of this historical comparative study, Using a mixed method of surveys and in-‐ depth interviews this thesis shows that most fishermen in the case study site are still working as fishermen, but on a different, long-‐distance fleet. The most important push factor for this decision is the decreasing income of local fishermen. The most important pull factor is that longer-‐distance fishing provides the fishermen a better income than the local industry. Besides that the results show that the Coastal Employment System that prevailed in the region has not changed substantially, but rather expanded.
Keywords: Fisheries, Alternative employment, Coastal Employment System, push and pull factors
Acknowledgements
While I was writing this thesis I was supported by many people and now I want to seize the opportunity to thank them all.
I am firstly grateful for the support, kindness and inspiration of my supervisor, Dr. Maarten Bavinck. His introduction to Pujo Semedi has made my research a lot easier. Dr. Pujo Semedi has greatly helped me by finding me a research partner that would help me during the entire fieldwork period. Furthermore, I would like to thank UGM for
providing me the documents for my visa.
The best support during the fieldwork period came from my research partner Arief. He has been nothing but supportive my whole time in Indonesia, even when at times I was not so myself. He made me laugh when I had a hard time in the village and made sure my life in the village was the best it could be. He introduced me to the village life, introduced me to the people and most importantly found me a family to live with during the
fieldwork period.
I wish to thank Bu Nur for taking me into her house and accepting me as part of her family. Furthermore, I would like to thank Suswati for being my ‘village sister’. She made sure I felt comfortable in her house and introduced me to Indonesian tv shows.
Further, I would like to thank all villagers that were willing to participate in a survey or interview, helped me find others for interviews or telling me about life in Wonokerto Kulon. The enthusiasm of the villagers was enormous, they always wanted to help and I am forever grateful for that.
Finally, I wish to thank my friends and family for their support and understanding before, during and after the fieldwork period.
List of figures and tables
Figure 1. Conceptual scheme of a Coastal Employment System
Figure 2. Effects of push and pull factors on Coastal Employment Systems. Figure 3. Map of Wonokerto Kulon, scale 1:2500
Figure 4. Wonokerto Kulon outlined in red and Pekalongan. The distance between the village centre and city centre is 10,9 km
Figure 5. Purse seining gear
Figure 6. Rumpon and a kursin ship
Figure 7. Local fish auction data 2000-‐2006. The red bars are the annual catch in tonnes, the blue bars the annual catch in Rupiahs
Figure 8. Conceptual scheme of the extension of the Coastal Employment System with T=1970
Figure 9. Adjusted conceptual scheme with T=1970
Table 1. Land utilization in Wonokerto Kulon 1996/1997
Table 2. Wonokerto Kulon villagers main occupation 1996/1997. Village record 1996/1997
Table 3. Land utilization in Wonokerto Kulon 2015 compared to land utilization in Wonokerto Kulon 1996/1997
Table 4. Wonokerto Kulon villagers main occupation 2010 (Village record 2010) compared to Wonokerto Kulon villagers main occupation 1996/1997
Table 5. Push factors kursin fleet Table 6. Pull factors cakalang fleet
Table 7. Profession of males Wonokerto Kulon Table 8. Cross table profession and age
Table 9. Push and pull factors listed from most important to least important.
List of content
ABSTRACT ... 2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... 3
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES ... 4
1. INTRODUCTION ... 6
1.1. RESEARCH RATIONALE AND RELEVANCE ... 7
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 8
2.1. THE COASTAL EMPLOYMENT SYSTEM ... 8
2.2. PUSH AND PULL FACTORS; ORIGINS, PURPOSE AND FRAMEWORK ... 11
2.3. CONCEPTUALIZATION OF THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 12
2.4. RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND SUB QUESTIONS ... 13
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND METHODS ... 15
3.1. RESEARCH DESIGN ... 15
3.2. UNIT OF ANALYSIS ... 15
3.3. METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION ... 16
3.4. SAMPLING STRATEGY ... 17
3.5. DATA ANALYSIS ... 18
3.6. LIMITATIONS ... 19
3.7. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS ... 20
4. REALITIES OF WONOKERTO KULON ... 21
4.1. DEMOGRAPHICS WONOKERTO KULON 1996/1997 ... 21
4.1.3. Kinship in Wonokerto Kulon ... 25
4.2. DEMOGRAPHICS WONOKERTO KULON 2016 ... 26
4.2.1 Village population ... 26
4.2.2. Political economical arena ... 30
4.2.3. Kinship in Wonokerto Kulon ... 30
5. CHANGE IN THE COSTAL EMPLOYMENT SYSTEM OF WONOKERTO KULON ... 32
COASTAL EMPLOYMENT SYSTEM IN 1996/1997 ... 32
DIFFERENCES AND SIMILARITIES IN 2016 ... 33
6. EMPLOYMENT MIGRATION ... 37
6.1. ALTERNATIVE EMPLOYMENT ... 37
6.1.1. Difference between kursin and cakalang fleets ... 37
6.1.2. Push and pull factors; kursin seine to cakalang fishing ... 39
6.1.3. Characteristics and frequencies ... 43
7. CONCLUSION ... 46
7.1. MAIN FINDINGS ... 46
7.2. THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH ... 50
REFERENCES ... 53 APPENDIX A ... 55 APPENDIX B ... 56 APPENDIX C ... 59 Jeroen With 15-7-16 13:44 Verwijderd: 56 Jeroen With 15-7-16 13:44 Verwijderd: 57 Jeroen With 15-7-16 13:44 Verwijderd: 60
1. Introduction
Globally, many fisheries are in crisis. Overfishing, degradation of ecosystems, impacts of climate change and inadequate systems of governance threaten their long-‐term
sustainability (Beddington et al. 2007; Garcia and Charles 2008; Coulthard, 2012). The fisheries crisis has major consequences for human well-‐being, since the fisheries sector provides an estimated 120 million livelihoods globally. In addition, 97% of all these fishers live in developing countries and there are many more people who are dependent on fish for their food security (World Bank/FAO/WorldFish Center, 2010; Coulthard, 2012). Furthermore, governments grant most of the subsidies to commercial fishers and aquaculture as an incentive to increase production. Thus, compared to the small-‐scale rural fisheries the commercial fisheries have a greater advantage in competing for resources. This leads to the marginalization of small-‐scale rural fisheries (Jacquet & Pauly, 2008; Muallil et al., 2011). Given this increasing vulnerability of fishers’ livelihoods it is important that fishers have adaptive responses to the pressures mentioned above. However, both the ability and willingness to make adaptations in response to these ecosystem and institutional changes, is influenced by cultural,
institutional and economic factors operating at different scales from national economies to individual fishers. Furthermore, the willingness and ability of fishers to adopt
alternative livelihoods and exit fisheries is important for the sustainability of the overexploited seas (Daw, Cinner, McClanahan, Brown, Stead, Graham & Maina, 2012). Economic models based on rationality expect that the exit from the fishery sector can be predicted by the profitability of fishing. The less profitable the fishing the more likely an exit from the fishing sector is (Gordon, 1954; McManus, 1997; Daw et al, 2012). On the other hand, empirical studies show the unwillingness of fishers to exit the
fisheries sector while it is economically rational to exit. These studies argue that there are various cultural and social-‐economic factors influencing the way fishers adapt to a situation (OECD, 2007; Daw et al, 2012). There have been various studies on fishery exit and the results differ considerably among countries and villages. This suggests that fishery exit and other adaptation options are influenced strongly by the local context (Daw et al, 2012). Since the vulnerability of small scale fisheries is increasing,
understanding how decision making of local fishers is influenced is crucial. Thus, the aim of this research is to answer the following main research question:
How do push and pull factors influence the decision of fishermen of Wonokerto Kulon and their direct relatives to leave the local fishery industry for alternative employment?
First the research rationale and relevance are discussed and thereafter the theoretical framework. The theoretical framework of this thesis builds on push and pull theory and on literature regarding also-‐called Coastal Employment System. After the theoretical framework the research questions are discussed as well as the conceptual scheme and operationalization of the main concepts. Thereafter, and introduction to the research location is provided and the research methods, based on a mixed methods approach, are addressed. Finally the outline of the thesis and the planning and budget schemes are shown.
1.1. Research rationale and relevance
The focus of this research is inspired by the work of Johnsen and Vik (2011) on fisheries exit in Norway, which according to them is caused by push and pull factors. Fisheries exit cannot be understood without taking the societal context into consideration
(Johnsen & Vik, 2011). Their theory should be applied not only to Western countries, but also developing countries since there is an increasing trend of local fisheries exit in developing countries (Salayo et al., 2008).
This research is a relevant contribution to both the academic literature and practice. There has been little written on fisheries exit in developing countries in the literature, especially on the reasons why and where these former fishermen end up. It is important to obtain insights in the changing societies of countries that contribute to pulling people into a more regulated life with a comprehensive safety net (Johnsen & Vik, 2011). In other words, it is important to research the impact of the modernization process and then especially the challenges it brings to developing countries.
“Fishing is still the last pre-‐modern hunting activity in the modern society, while the
rest of the population live rather stable lives with secure incomes” (Johnen & Vik, 2011:
16). These fishers have to develop themselves within this new society. The primary data collected in this research could possibly be used for local policy in order to help these fishermen adapt to their new lives.
2. Theoretical Framework
This chapter introduces the main concepts that are used in the research questions, as they are found in the literature. First, the Coastal Employment System will be discussed and thereafter the concepts push and pull factors. Next, the interrelations of these concepts are exemplified in a conceptual scheme. Finally, the research questions are presented.
2.1. The Coastal Employment System
Studies within the local community paradigm have found that both recruitment and employment in fisheries are dependent on social relations (Anderson & Wadel, 1972; Chiarmonte, 1980; Høst, 1980; Kristiansen 1985; Nilsen 1980; Trondsen 1980; Wadel, 1980; Sonvisen, Johnsen & Vik, 2011; 35). Jentoft and Wadel have conceptualized these social relations in their Coastal Employment System. They define the Coastal
Employment System as: “a local network of mutual relationships between the fishing fleet,
the household, the processing and service industries and the local school” (Sonvisen,
Johnsen & Vik, 2011; 35). According to this theory the fishing fleet played a central role in the Coastal Employment System because this was the place of the constitutive capture activity, which gave identity and meaning to the system as whole (Jentoft & Wadel, 1984; Layder, 1994; Sonvisen, Johnsen & Vik, 2011).
Sonvisen, Johnsen and Vik (2011) argue that a Coastal Employment System is organized differently than other industries in modern societies. Modern societies are characterized by formalized, impersonal and single stranded relationships between people and market mechanisms. These relations regulate the labour supply and demand. Thus, rational individuals, formal contracts and market mechanisms determine the employment relations. On the other hand, the Coastal Employment Systems are dependent on multi stranded, affective, informal and interdependent social relations between the buyers and sellers in a local labour market. The local community connects the land and sea. The existence of the Coastal Employment System depends on the social and economic activities of the community. This social system with symbiotic relations is distinctive of the Coastal Employment System (Sonvisen, Johnsen & Vik, 2011).
Furthermore, knowledge and skills in a Coastal Employment System are learned in a practical matter and are based on the local context (Apostele et al., 1998; Sonvisen, Johnsen & Vik, 2011). Consequently, social relations determine recruitment and
employment. While each fishing unit in a Coastal Employment system is autonomous with regards to their decision-‐making, every unit is influenced by the decisions of other units (Sonvisen, Johnsen & Vik, 2011). Figure 1 shows the conceptual scheme of a Coastal Employment System and the symbiotic relations
Figure 1. Conceptual scheme of a Coastal Employment System (Sonvisen, Johnsen & Vik, 2011).
A Coastal Employment Systems consists of four main characteristics: mutual dependency between actors, flexibility and mobility, primary socialization and low system vulnerability (Jentoft & Wadel, 1984; Sonvisen, Johnsen & Vik, 2011). Empirical studies proved the existence of these four main characteristics. Mutual dependency has been found in the recruitment process. The recruitment process in fisheries is mostly based on social networks, kinship and friendship (Doeringer et al., 1992; Hersough, 2005; Johnsen, 2004; Sonvisen, Johnsen & Vik, 2011). Fishermen start their career at boats of family and friends, which leads to the mutual dependency between the fleet and household for demand and supply of labour. Likewise, the processing industry and the fleet were dependent on each other for the delivery of raw materials to the industry (Sonvisen, Johnsen & Vik, 2011).
The second main characteristic is flexibility and mobility and is connected to mutual dependency. Flexibility and mobility is found in empirical descriptions and historical records of Norwegian fisheries. Workers in Norwegian fisheries avoided unemployment using seasonal mobility between the fleet and other economic sectors, but also mobility within the fleet (Jentoft &Wadel, 1984; Lønnsomhetsutvalget 1937; Rabben 1983; Thorsvik, 1982; Sonvisen, Johnsen & Vik, 2011). The specific social organization and mutual dependency between actors created a certain dynamicity in a Coastal Employment System that was necessary to avoid both unemployment and recruitment issues (Hersoug, 1985; Jentoft 1984, Sonvisen, Johnsen & Vik, 2011). The next characteristic is the prevalence of primary socialization. “Primary socialization is the fundamental transfer of knowledge, such as learning a mother tongue, and is a learning process based on experience” (Berger and Luckmann 1967; Johnsen, 2004; Sonvisen, Johnsen & Vik, 2011; 36). Primary socialization is fundamental in the transfer of knowledge in Coastal Employment Systems, it takes place face to face and it is taught by family and friends. Primary socialization learns fishermen the collective norms, values, ideas and culture of the fishing community and thus helps people develop their own identity (Berger & Luckmann, 1967; Johnsen, 2004; Sovisen, Johnsen & Vik, 2011).
Finally, the low system vulnerability of the Coastal Employment System is caused by its organizational strength (Jentoft, 1984; Hersoug, 1985; Sovisen, Johnsen & Vik, 2011). Especially the mutual dependency, mobility and flexibility contribute to the stability of the Coastal Employment System of Wonokerto Kulon. However, there have been some radical changes that have changed the Coastal Employment System
significantly. Examples of this are the school system, functioning of households, fishing fleet and processing services. Property rights, fishing rights and capital investments have made the fisheries sector more professionalized and specialized. The social relations between the different actors have been weakened and the training and recruitment system has been transformed.
Sonvisen, Johnsen and Vik (2011) argue that in Norway the Coastal Employment System has disappeared and that a Fisheries Employment System emerged. A Fisheries Employment System is a system that is characterized by contemporary, single stranded employment and recruitment strategies. In a Fisheries Employment System the
System. This network has been detached from the community and instead embedded in formal structures. Organizations, technology and policies are core elements of the new network. Consequently, there are new types of actors involved in the Fisheries
Employment System like politicians, scientists and bankers. It can be stated that the actors involved in the Fisheries Employment System are more heterogeneous, while the fishing fleets are becoming more homogenous. The homogeneousness of the fleet is caused by the structuring policies, which precisely define what a fisher should be and thus reducing fleet variation (Sonvisen, Johnsen & Vik, 2011). Other studies on kinship-‐ based fisheries employment systems in New England found that fisheries households were very attached to the fisheries way of life. People in these systems were more likely to stay unemployed for a long time before they started looking for alternative
employment because they were so attached to the fishing sector. Push and pull factors make fishers reorient their values, which can weaken their attachment to the fishing way of life and result in a decision to exit the fishing sector (Terkla et al.,1988; Johnsen & Vik, 2011).
2.2. Push and pull factors; origins, purpose and framework
Push and pull factors have a relational character and are difficult to define clearly. The concepts originated from migration and demography studies as hypothesis that can be tested (Efstraglou-‐Todoulou 1990; Fuguit 1959; Otterstad and Hamilton 1998; Johnsen & Vik, 2011). Using the concepts of push and pull as a framework for analysing fisheries has not been done often. However, it has been done by Johnsen and Vik (2011). The idea is that the migration in or out of a sector is caused by social, economic or structural imbalances because these imbalances push and pull people out of a sector (Fuguit, 1959; Johnsen & Vik, 2011). Push factors are stressors from the inside that push people out of a sector. A push factor can be force or a non-‐discretionary decision, which leaves people with no other choice than to leave. Examples of push factors are regulations, entry barriers, reduction in jobs and a declining economy. However, push factors do not have to be caused by force but can also be caused by perception. Perceptions can trigger a discretionary decision with fishers to exit the sector. An example is the perception that fisheries income cannot compete with regular income received from a regular job on shore. This internal stressor can lead to growing dissatisfaction with a fishers’ income
and trigger a decision to leave the fisher way of life (Johnsen & Vik, 2011). On the other hand, there are pull factors influencing the decisions of fishermen. Contrary to push factors are pull factors attractors from outside of the sector that pull people out of the fishing sector. Examples of pull factors are educational and job opportunities, better working conditions and regular working hours. These pull factors often have a
structural character, however they do not contain an element of force, like some push factors. Pull factors are merely discretionary, which means that they lead to voluntary decisions of fishers to leave the sector (Johnsen & Vik, 2011). In sum, push and pull factors are not only related to structural, material and economic differences among sectors. They are also related to perception, which lead to value reorientation. It is hard to distinguish the difference between the perceptive factors of push and pull and
categorize them since push and pull factors work together. The stressors from inside may support and strengthen attractors from outside and the other way round (Johnsen & Vik, 2011).
This theoretical starting point implies that the relationship between fishers leaving the fishing way of life and push and pull factors cannot be taken for granted. Instead the relationship has to be determined empirically taking into account both the context and the interaction between push and pull factors.
2.3. Conceptualization of theoretical framework
The conceptual scheme presented in Figure 2 shows the effect of push and pull factors on Coastal Employment Systems. The Coastal Employment System consists of the
households, school, processing and services industries and local fleet. All these elements have mutual dependent relationships with each other. As explicated before, push and pull factors can affect a Coastal Employment System. In Figure 2 push factors are
represented by red arrows and pull factors by green arrows. The push factors push local fishermen out of the local fishing industry while the pull factors pull local fishermen into alternative types of employment. This alternative employment can be part of a new emerging Fisheries Employment System or be employment in a sector outside the fishing industry.
Figure 2. Effects of push and pull factors on Coastal Employment Systems.
2.4. Research questions and sub questions
The sections above have indicated that Coastal Employment Systems may be changing and fishers all over the world are finding alternative ways of employment. There are various other push and pull factors influencing the decisions of fishers to exit the local fishing industry as chapter 2.2.1 demonstrated. Furthermore, the theoretical framework argued that context and the interaction between push and pull factors are crucial
components. Therefore, this thesis aims to answer the following main research question:
How do push and pull factors influence the decision of fishermen of Wonokerto Kulon and their direct relatives to leave the local fishery industry for alternative employment?
The following sub-‐questions shall help to answer this main research question:
1. How is the local fishing industry organized?
The purpose of this sub-‐question is to get a general understanding of how the local fishing industry works and how the relationships between actors are. It is important to
identify if the Coastal Employment System is still in place or if it has changed towards a Fisheries Employment System.
2. How often and what kind of alternative employment do fishermen find?
This sub-‐question serves the purpose of identifying how often the phenomenon of finding alternative employment outside the local fishing sector takes place. In addition, it is important to know what kind of alternative employment fishermen are finding.
3. What are the characteristics of fishermen and their relatives leaving the local fishing industry?
This sub-‐question aims to identify first the characteristics of the fishermen that have left the local fishing industry and determine if these characteristics are homogenous or heterogeneous. For example, do these fishermen all have the same age? Of how many people consists their household? How many different sources of income have their household?
4. What kind of push and pull factors are there in relation to fishermen finding alternative employment?
This sub-‐question addresses the specific stressors from inside the local fishing sector and the attractors from outside. This helps explaining why fishers are leaving the local fishing industry and finding alternative employment.
3. Research methodology and methods
3.1. Research designThe primary aim of this research is to get insight in the push and pull factors that influence the decision of fishermen to find alternative employment. Based on my research question I have chosen to use a mixed methods design for this research. An important characteristic of this type of research design is that it contains quantitative and qualitative findings (Creswell, 2011). The quantitative and qualitative data are complementary and provide a more comprehensive account to the area of interests and assures the incorporation of different views (Bryman, 2006).
Furthermore, this research project is a restudy of the case study research conducted by Pujo Semedi in 1996. The study of Pujo Semedi is the baseline of this historical comparative study, In his study, Semedi wrote about the Javanese fishing community from1820s – 1990s. Prior the fieldwork I have met Pujo Semedi in
Jogjakarta. Together we have discussed his former research and he has told me about the general labour trends of rural Java.
In terms of research it is important to identify if the characteristics of the Coastal Employment System are still in place and identify the various push and pull factors influencing the life of local fishermen. Since there is only information available about push and pull factors in fisheries in Europe and no information available about push and pull factors in South-‐East Asia, this research will have an explorative nature. An
explanatory design involves first the collection of quantitative data and analysing this data. Thereafter, these results are used as input for the follow-‐up qualitative data collection (Creswell, 2011).
It is important to notice that the quantitative and qualitative data collections are dependent on each other and that sampling occurs in both the quantitative and
qualitative phase (Creswell, 2011).
3.2. Unit of analysis
This research has one unit of analysis, namely the fishermen that have left the local fishing industry of Wonokerto Kulon for alternative employment. However, since most
of these fishermen will not be in the village at the time of research, the respondents of this research are both the fishermen and their household relatives.
3.3. Methods of data collection
In order to answer the research and sub questions I made use of several methods of data collection. The fieldwork period was from February 1 till March 25, 2016. Appendix C contains the exact data of when the surveys and interviews were conducted. All other methods of data collection were done during the entire fieldwork period.
My research started with both participatory and non-‐participatory observations of the local fleet, households, processing and service industries and schools in
Wonokerto Kulon. During my entire research I was supported by Muhammad Arief Rafsanjani -‐a student of Universitas Gadjah Mada-‐ who acted as both my research partner and my translator.
Participatory observation illuminated these concepts and helped to determine if the Coastal Employment System is still in place and how it or the new system is
organized. In addition, informal ‘interviews’ were done to get some clarification about things that were still unclear after the observations.
Furthermore, face-‐to-‐face household surveys in Wonokerto Kulon comprised the quantitative strand of this research. The survey questions are partially based on the participatory observations. The other questions were general demographic questions in order to identify the characteristics of the households. The aim of the survey was to identify how often fishermen have found alternative employment and what kind of alternative employment these fishermen engage in. Appendix A shows the survey
questions. All respondents of the survey were asked verbal consents to participate in my study. I have chosen for a verbal consent since the information obtained was not
perceived as sensitive by the respondents and it seemed unnecessary to let them sign a consent form. During every survey Arief wrote down all the answers, then after every survey we discussed the results and I noted the answers in an excel sheet.
After the face-‐to-‐face household surveys in depth interview were conducted with fishermen that have sought alternative employment. The interviews were sometimes held with only the fishermen and sometimes with other people of the household
the concepts Coastal Employment System, push factors and pull factors. Appendix B shows the complete operationalization of these concepts. The purpose of the interviews was to obtain more in depth knowledge on the question why the fishermen have left the local fishing sector, what were their motives and what push and pull factors influenced their decision. Just like the participants of the survey, these participants were also asked verbal consent to participate in my research. Beside that I asked verbal consent to record the interviews, so these could be transcribed afterwards. Even though the interviews were eventually being transcribed, I discussed the main results with Arief after every interview and we discussed about how to adjust the questions for the next interview. The refining of the interviews made sure that the concepts were completely illuminated and findings reflected (Small, 2009)
Finally, during the entire fieldwork period notes were taking in a field diary. These notes contributed to the general picture of the organization of the local fisheries sector in Wonokerto Kulon. The field diary aimed to capture anomalies, peculiarities and interesting findings identified during the fieldwork to give a more comprehensive first-‐ hand account of the situation in Wonokerto Kulon.
3.4. Sampling strategy
Sampling occurred at two points in this research design: in the qualitative phase and in the quantitative phase of study. The goal of quantitative phase was to identify how often fishermen find alternative employment and what kind of employment. Thus, the
sampling strategy for the surveys was random sampling. However, the available village register was from 2010, hence not completely up-‐to-‐date. Furthermore, the register only provided information on the area where people live and not the exact address. So, it was impossible to use the village register to draw the sample from. Therefore, I have chosen to find my respondents by walking through the village and randomly selecting
households. It was not possible to sample by choosing –for example-‐ every twentieth house, because most of the men and women are gathering at one place. They barely stay at home by themselves all day if they do not have to work, most people get together at one house or warung. Nevertheless, to make the sample as random as possible I visit every part of the village on different days and different times trying not to exclude
anyone from the survey. The aim was to randomly select 60-‐80 households and due to the limited time of time I was able to carry out 66 household surveys.
The in-‐depth semi-‐structured interviews aimed to collect in-‐depth knowledge on the situation of the fishermen that have left. Since a lot of these fishermen were not in the village at the moment of the fieldwork, the household survey was a good starting point for the sampling. The survey identified which fishermen had found alternative employment, besides that the survey gave information if the head of the household was home at that time. Based on this information I was able to find 5 fishermen that had found alternative employment and were not at sea during my fieldwork period. The other five persons I interviewed were found using snowball sampling by asking the people of my first five interviews whether they knew people that also had found
alternative employment. This way of sampling provided insights of both people that had already been a participant in my research and people that had not. In this way I could see if being part of the survey had any impact on the respondents, both positive and negative. A positive effect of already being part of the study is that I had met those fishermen before and they were a bit more comfortable and open in their interviews than the respondents I had not met before.
3.5. Data analysis
The quantitative survey data was analysed using the statistics software SPSS. SPSS provided the descriptive statistics and frequencies of the survey, showing a summary of the variables and giving insight in the basic features of the data.
The other share of the data obtained in this research had a qualitative nature. First, an Indonesian student transcribed the interviews for me because the interviews were mostly recorded in the Indonesian and Javanese language. Thereafter, the
transcribed interviews were coded using the program Atlas.ti. A preliminary coding scheme was constructed based on the theoretical framework and operationalization table (see Appendix B). To give an indication, some of these codes were: push factor, pull factor, kinship recruitment, recruitment, environmental, economical and legal. When new unanticipated concepts occurred this preliminary coding scheme was modified. For instance kursin and cakalang were introduced in the coding scheme.
Finally, I send the results to Pujo Semedi and we exchanged views on the results that were surprising or inexplicable to me. By doing this I obtained some new insights I
would not have come up myself. The expertise of Pujo Semedi on rural Java was very helpful to explain some of the surprising and inexplicable results.
3.6. Limitations
During this research project there were several difficulties I had to cope with. The first difficulty was that I had to overcome the cultural and linguistic barriers between the villagers and myself. Especially the latter caused some difficulties during the fieldwork because both the surveys and interviews could not be held in English. All my surveys and interviews were conducted with the help of my translator Arief, but even with the help of my translator it was inevitable to have misunderstandings and
misinterpretations. Another limitation in line with the language barrier is that I was not able to follow the conversations and only learned after the surveys and interviews what was said. Thus, it took longer than expected and more tests surveys and interviews until the questions were translated the way they were supposed to be. Furthermore, since I could not participate in the interview I only found out after receiving the transcripts that there were some follow-‐up questions I would have liked to ask if I had known in what direction the conversation was heading. Nevertheless, I made good and clear
agreements with my research partner on the information I really needed to get and I got that information.
Another difficulty was to find enough respondents for the interviews. Most fishermen that had found alternative employment were not in the village at the moment of the fieldwork period. Therefore, only ten interviews were done while it would have been nice if this number were a bit higher. However, I was very lucky to find fishermen with various ages, so every age category was represented in the interviews.
There were also some limitations with the information I obtained from the village register. After analysing the data it became clear that the information of the register was not completely up-‐to-‐date. This was clear because some of the strange outliers in the data. Nonetheless, the data was still useful to understand the major trends in the village. Another limitation is caused by the explorative nature of this research project, which makes it impossible to generalize the inferences of this research to the wider context of Java, Indonesia or other developing countries. The aim of this research project was to understand how the fishermen made the decision to take up alternative
employment and to understand the processes and interaction that took place in
Wonokerto Kulon. This means that the results and conclusions of this research project are rather limited to the local context in which it was conducted.
3.7. Ethical considerations
Throughout this research project, I have considered my role as a researcher critically. I have acted in an ethical manner by showing respect to my respondents, treating their information confidentially and maintain their anonymity if they wanted that.
Furthermore, I made sure that the participants understood that participation in the surveys and interviews was not obligatory.
An ethical consideration I had to make is that I was not officially aloud to do research. My research partner told me this before we left to the village because we could not get the right permissions. I had to act as Ariefs research partner in order to obtain the information needed for my thesis. However, we told the participants that the information obtained through the surveys and interviews were used for a thesis, only not that it was my thesis and not his.
Another ethical consideration was that I chose for verbal consents and not
written consents. Weighing the different considerations I chose not use written consents since the information that I got from the respondents was not perceived as sensitive and people did not have a problem it being used for research purposes.
4. Realities of Wonokerto Kulon
The following chapter will illustrate the context of my research. Two situations are described; the first is the context of my research area in the 1990s. Second, the context of the research area is discussed in 2016. The reason for the latter broad period of time is that some of the village register documents were only recorded until 2010 and not until 2016. The purpose of this chapter is to sketch an outline of the situation in the research area in the 1990s and in 2016. This chapter shows the changes that have occurred over time and this will help to understand why the fishermen of Wonokerto Kulon have started to develop alternative livelihoods.
4.1. Demographics Wonokerto Kulon 1996/1997 4.1.1 Village population
The village of Wonokerto Kulon was a village of migrants1. A lot of villagers have stories
about how their great-‐grandparents came to the village to build up a new life while engaging in sea fishing. In the 1990s migration was still happening. Approximately 40% of the village housewives of Wonokerto Kulon had married men of other villages
(Semedi, 2001).
Besides the in-‐migration there is also out-‐migration of the village, and both the in and out-‐migration was equally high. Out-‐migration was equal to the in-‐migration. The rate of people that went out of the village because of marriage was equally high as the rate of people who entered the village because of the same reasons. However, out-‐ migration in order to find an alternative livelihood outside of the fisheries sector was rare. The cases where fishermen left the village to engage in alternative livelihoods often returned back to the village empty handed. The only people who had successfully left the village were the village rich. These people bought a big house outside of Wonokerto Kulon and left the village and with their remaining accumulated money they entered the bigger fish market of Pekalong. The effects of this out-‐migration of rich villagers on the village economic performance were unclear. Nevertheless, it showed that people see Wonokerto Kulon as a place to find fortune but also as a place that is easily to abandon after succeeding obtaining this fortune (Semedi, 2001).
The village of Wonokerto Kulon is densely populated due to the fast population
growth. This is not uncommon for a village in the lowlands of Java. The village consists of 153.8 hectares and houses 5460 people; 2727 males and 2733 females that are part of 1253 households. However, it should be noted that not all of the village land belonged to its inhabitants. For example, from the fishpond of 98 hectares belonged 70 hectares to inhabitants of the neighbouring villages of Api-‐api and Wonokerto Wetan. Consequently, the inhabitants of Wonokerto Kulon had limited access to land, thus most of the villages were condemned to make their living offshore in sea fishery (Semedi, 2001).
Utilization Hectares Per cent
Fishponds 98.6 64.1
Paddy fields 9.0 5.9
Dry land farms 26.5 17.2
Housing 19.7 12.8
Total 153.8 100.0
Table 1. Land utilization in Wonokerto Kulon 1996/1997 (Village record, 1996/1997; Semedi, 2001: 26)
Since the 1960s the job opportunities in Wonokerto Kulon had increased. Up to the 1960s there was barely any other work for the villagers than sea fishing and the related processes like processing and trading. In addition, most of the young women were unemployed because there were no jobs for them. In the 1990s the majority of the population still made a living from in sea fishing and the related processes (Semedi, 2001). However, most of the young females were no longer without a job. Since 1980 batik industries had been emerging in Wiraseda, which provided jobs as batik painters for a large part of the female population (Chotim, 1994; Semedi, 2001). Furthermore, because of the job availability most young girls in the village were postponing their marriage till their late teens or early twenties. Most village girls also attended primary school and some even continued on to junior high school (Semedi, 2001).
Occupation Number Per cent
Farmer 244 6.0
Farm labourer 288 5.6
