University of Florida Thesis Or Dissertation Formatting Template

THE DAYAK AT THE CROSSROADS: TRADITIONAL AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES AND THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN WEST BORNEO, INDONESIA

WILLY A. DAELI

A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2018

To my family

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First of all, I would like to thank God for providing me the strength to undertake this study. I would like to thank my family (Mom, Dad, Sara, and Devira) who never stopped supporting and praying for me while I was overseas. I also would like to thank

CIFOR-USAID who funded this research and providing an opportunity for me to study in

University of Florida where I can meet and learn from many amazing people in their respective fields. I sincerely thank my advisors and committee members: Dr. Martha

Monroe who never tires of guiding and teaching me to do scientific research and writing,

Dr. Alison Adams who always provide positive vibes and interesting theoretical perspectives, and Dr. Rachel Carmenta who from the beginning provided support and inputs that are very useful for the process of writing and my personal growth as a researcher. I would like to offer my sincere thanks to Dr. Steve Lawry, Dr. Yves

Laumonier, Cynthia Maharani, Indahwati, and other CIFOR colleagues for input and sharing experience about the research sites. I am grateful to have a lab mates who always provide valuable comments and help me during my stay in the States. I am also grateful to have the Gators from Indonesia. Finally, I would like to thank all villagers from six Dayak communities in Kapuas Hulu, West Borneo, Indonesia, for the hospitality and willingness to help me during the data collection process. This thesis could not happen without the help from all of you.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... 4

LIST OF TABLES ...... 7

LIST OF FIGURES ...... 8

ABSTRACT ...... 9

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 10

Background: The Challenges of Change for Dayak Communities ...... 11 Introduction to the Following Chapters ...... 12

2 WHEN POLICY AND CULTURE COLLIDE: THE BURN BAN AND TRADITIONAL FIRE MANAGEMENT IN DAYAK COMMUNITIES IN WEST BORNEO, INDONESIA ...... 15

Fires in Indonesia, Burn Ban, and Swidden Communities ...... 15 Mental Model Framework ...... 17 Methods ...... 19 3CM and Qualitative Interviews ...... 19 Study Population and Sampling Framework...... 21 Results and Discussion...... 22 3CM Analysis for Six Communities ...... 22 3CM Analysis for Each Community Category ...... 22 The first cluster: the functions of fire ...... 23 The second cluster: traditional fire management ...... 26 The third cluster: the impacts of burn ban ...... 30 Praxis-Kosmos and Causal Dynamics in Dayak’s Mental Models ...... 35 Summary ...... 38

3 STANDING ON THE VERGE OF CHANGE: FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE AGRICULTURAL DECISION IN DAYAK COMMUNITIES IN WEST BORNEO, INDONESIA ...... 46

The Complexities of Swiddeners’ Decision Making System ...... 46 Changes in Swidden Agriculture ...... 47 Mental Model ...... 49 Method ...... 51 Qualitative and 3CM Methods ...... 51 Study Population and Sampling Framework...... 53 Results ...... 53

3CM Analysis for 6 Communities ...... 53 Six Components in Mental Model Contribute to Agricultural Decision ...... 54 Cluster 1: agricultural ritual ...... 54 Cluster 2: agricultural resources ...... 55 Cluster 3: access to labor ...... 56 Cluster 4: land tenure and rubber trees ...... 58 Cluster 5: alternative income...... 59 Cluster 6: resources to practice permanent agriculture ...... 60 The Possibilities of Changes in Agricultural Practices ...... 62 Factors that support change to semi-permanent ...... 62 Factors supporting a change to permanent...... 63 Factors that motivate shifting every year ...... 64 Factors that support combined practices with 2 fields ...... 65 Discussion ...... 66 Relationship between Components in Dayak’s Mental Model ...... 66 Three Type of Groups in Agricultural Changes ...... 69 Summary ...... 72

4 CONCLUSION ...... 79

APPENDIX

A IRB LETTER OF APPROVAL ...... 82

B INFORMED CONSENT ...... 83

C LIST OF 3CM CARDS ...... 84

D INTERVIEW GUIDE...... 86

LIST OF REFERENCES ...... 88

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... 102

LIST OF TABLES

Table page

2-1 Sampling framework ...... 40

2-2 List of clusters and selected cards of six communities ...... 41

2-3 List of cards and cluster numbers by type of community ...... 42

3-1 Sampling framework ...... 74

3-2 Cards in each cluster ...... 75

3-3 Type of field based on the cycle years ...... 75

3-4 Motivating factors in agricultural decisions ...... 76

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure page

2-1 Field sites ...... 43

2-2 Cluster analysis result for six communities ...... 43

2-3 Cluster analysis results for communities living close to national park ...... 44

2-4 Cluster analysis results for communities living close to oil palm plantation .. 44

2-5 Cluster analysis results for communities living in transitional area ...... 44

2-6 The stability and instability condition in the mental model of Dayak communities ...... 45

3-1 Field locations ...... 76

3-2 Cluster analysis result of six communities ...... 77

3-3 Rules of community mutual cooperation based on family members ...... 77

3-4 Eight types of decisions in agricultural practices ...... 77

3-5 Combinations of factors that shape eight different agricultural changes ...... 78

3-6 Interconnection of components in Dayak’s mental model ...... 78

Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science

THE DAYAK AT THE CROSSROADS: TRADITIONAL AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES AND THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN WEST BORNEO, INDONESIA

Willy Avriely Daeli

May 2018

Chair: Martha Carrie Monroe Major: Forest Resources and Conservation

Change in agricultural practices in Kapuas Hulu, West Borneo, Indonesia cannot be separated from the influence of external and internal factors. External factors such as a burn ban policy, economic opportunities, and new knowledge of permanent plot agriculture as well as internal factors in the form of efforts to maintain their culture affect decisions about agricultural practices. This research uses mental model analysis through the combination of qualitative interviews and Conceptual Content Cognitive Mapping

(3CM) to understand cognition structures that form the basis of decision making regarding family agriculture. Findings from this study suggest there is a complex combination

Corpus component (local knowledge system), Praxis (local management), Kosmos (local beliefs), financial consideration, and external forces that interact with each other in the mental model of Dayak farmers. This combination results in various decisions about conducting agricultural practices.

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

Tropical forest degradation and deforestation has become a major problem for developing countries, including Indonesia (Sloan & Sayer, 2015). Forest degradation in

Indonesia reached 1.5% annually between 1990 and 2005, and is predicted to continue

(Hansen et al., 2009; Langner, Miettinen, & Siegert, 2007). Borneo is one of the islands in Indonesia where the most forest area is vulnerable to deforestation. Borneo had an old-growth rainforest cover of 76% (55.8 million ha) of the total area in 1973, but this was reduced to about 26% (19.5 million ha) by 2016 due to fires and agricultural expansion (Gaveau, 2017).

Deforestation and agricultural practices are often regarded as two issues that cannot be separated. One type of agricultural practices that is often associated with deforestation is swidden agriculture or shifting cultivation (Angelsen, 1995). This practice of agriculture is very common in Borneo and is conducted by indigenous communities called Dayak (Erni, 2015; Seavoy, 1973). In general, swidden agriculture is the practice of subsistence agriculture that involves rotating the field in a larger forest area and using slash and burn techniques to clear the trees or vegetation (Colfer,

Alcorn, & Russel, 2015; Wadley, 2007).

Various international agencies have sought to integrate swidden communities into programs (e.g. REDD) (Kallio et al., 2016) and understand the characteristics that define this particular agricultural practice (Mertz, Padoch, et al., 2009). The Dayak have a system of traditional knowledge in their practice of swidden agriculture that enable them to classify their primary or secondary forest for rice fields, organize a complex system of community land management (Joshi, Wijaya, Sirait, & Mulyoutami, 2004;

Siahaya, Hutauruk, Aponno, Hatulesila, & Mardhanie, 2016), and use fire with traditional practices (Padoch & Pinedo-Vasquez, 2010). Negative stigma have been attached to swidden agriculture that may contribute to policy approaches that negatively impact the continuity of this traditional practice (Noordwijk, Mulyoutami, Sakuntaladewi, & Agus,

2008; Padoch et al., 2007; Thrupp et al., 1997). Misconceptions among government and non-governmental institutions about swidden agriculture could lead to an increasing vulnerability of the indigenous Dayak community (CIFOR, 2014; Cramb et al., 2009).

Background: The Challenges of Change for Dayak Communities

The vulnerable status of the Dayak community is due to external forces that challenge them to change their agricultural practices. Recently, one source of pressure derives from the catastrophic fires in 2015. These massive fires reduced air quality in

Indonesia, as well as Singapore and Malaysia (neighboring countries of Indonesia) due to particulates carried by the wind (Holmes, 2015; Shen, 2014). The Government of

Indonesia issued new rules through the Presidential Instruction No. 11/2015 on The

Improvement of Forest and Land Fire Control, to authorize ministers, military, police, national disaster management agency, governors, regents/mayors, and those related to the need for readiness to mitigate fire through a fire prevention program, within the authority of each institution (Cabinet Secretariat of the Republic of Indonesia, 2015).

The instruction was followed by a stern warning of dismissal of any military or police staff who failed to reduce the number of fires in their areas (Soeriaatmadja, 2016). This situation, as reported by the local media in Borneo, impacts the Dayak because a prohibition on fire means restriction of swidden agriculture (Oeji, 2016; C. Rogers, 2016;

Sutan, 2016). The offices of the police issued warning letters that essentially prohibit the

burning of land in any form and by anyone, and with fines and imprisonment sanctions according to legislation (Irawan, 2015; Public Relations of Police Resort of Sanggau,

2016).

However, the burn ban is not the only challenging factor for Dayak communities.

From an economic standpoint, swidden agriculture may not be feasible as the main livelihood because of the imbalance between income and effort (Widyawati, 2016).

Even with all the risks and hardships of conducting swidden agriculture, many Dayak choose to continue this practice (CIFOR, 2014). Some Dayak families also rely on income from rubber (Hevea brasiliensis) gardens, forest products, handicrafts, or employment with oil-palm companies. External trends and alternative livelihood opportunities directly link to the different practices of swidden agriculture among Dayak communities (Cramb et al., 2009). There remains the possibility of changes in swidden agriculture practices (Jong, Chokkalingam, & Perera, 2001). Some of the Dayak communities still follow traditional swidden agriculture practices, meaning that they move the fields every year (i.e. open secondary forest each year), while some of them settle in the same field for several years before moving to new fields, which will certainly reduce rice yields (Padoch, Harwell, & Susanto, 1998; Rasul & Thapa, 2003). These challenges present opportunities to the Dayak communities as if they are standing at a crossroads, weighing where they want to go. My research aims to analyze their opportunities and responses to the challenges of change.

Introduction to the Following Chapters

Chapter 2: The burn ban is an indirect driver that mandates change in traditional agricultural practices. Dayak communities which practice swidden agriculture are affected by this policy. The policy creates concern among rural farmers and those

implementing the policy. There is a need to understand the fire use and fire management system used in swidden agriculture by rural farmers (Carmenta,

Vermeylen, Parry, & Barlow, 2013). The purpose of this chapter is to provide a holistic description of the meaning of fire and the fire management system in 6 Dayak communities in 3 different locations in Kapuas Hulu, West Borneo, Indonesia. This holistic perspective is obtained through a mental models framework using a combination of qualitative interviews and Conceptual Content Cognitive Map (3CM) tools.

Chapter 3: Dayak families have to make a choice between continuing traditional farming practices that they have done over the years or adapting to existing conditions in response to drivers of change. Although some studies show that the choice of adapting to existing conditions is inevitable (Mertz, Padoch, et al., 2009; Padoch et al.,

1998; van Vliet et al., 2012), understanding these factors may clarify impacts as they make decisions (Cramb et al., 2009). This chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the variables underlying the factors that are used to evaluate their selection of agricultural practices. This chapter also explains the possible changes in agriculture practices that may occur. A mental model framework elicited through a combination of qualitative interviews and 3CM is used to understand the decision-making process by swidden families in Kapuas Hulu, West Borneo, Indonesia.

Chapter 4 (Conclusion): The challenge of change for traditional agricultural practices is inevitable for Dayak communities in Kapuas Hulu, West Borneo, Indonesia.

The results of this study shows that there are two types of challenges of change, namely changes coming from within groups and changes coming from external forces.

The combination of components within their mental models shows that the challenges of

change that come from within the group tend to be agreed upon and accepted, while the challenges of change coming from outside which often is coercive tend to be less well received. Government programs and future research should pay more attention to the combination of components (Kosmos, Praxis, Corpus, and financial consideration) in farmers’ mental models that explain the decision-making system used by Dayak communities to better understand the challenges of change.

CHAPTER 2 WHEN POLICY AND CULTURE COLLIDE: THE BURN BAN AND TRADITIONAL FIRE MANAGEMENT IN DAYAK COMMUNITIES IN WEST BORNEO, INDONESIA

Fires in Indonesia, Burn Ban, and Swidden Communities

Forest and peat fires represent one of the most critical and challenging environmental issues in Indonesia, and have been recognized at the local, national and international levels (Edwards & Heiduk, 2015). At the level of daily life of local communities, thick haze from the fires in 2015 disrupted economic, school, and social activities; and harmed health (Vaughn & Carmenta, 2016). Over 500,000 cases of respiratory infections, and 100,300 cases of premature death, were recorded in 2015

(Glauber, 2016; Koplitz et al., 2016). NASA satellite imagery showed 120,000 fire hotspots concentrated on Indonesian peat lands, likely an underestimate of the real figure as peat fires are cool smoldering fires which hotspot algorithms might miss.

Some have argued these fires were the worst since massive fires in 1997/98

(Voiland, 2015) and observers called the situation the ‘biggest environmental crime of the 21st century’ (Meijaard, 2015). The total burned area in 2015 amounted to at least

2.6 million ha; in Borneo alone it exceeded 806,800 ha (LAPAN, 2015). These anthropogenic fires caused losses in the agricultural, forestry, disaster management, transportation, public health and education sectors with a total more than USD 16.1 billion (Glauber, 2016). Socio-economic losses was expected to be equal to or even exceed the fires in 1997/1998 (France-Presse, 2015; World Bank, 2015). Singapore and

Malaysia, neighboring countries of Indonesia, also suffered social and economic losses from massive Indonesian fires and haze in 2015, and pressured the Indonesian government to take immediate action (Holmes, 2015; Tan, 2016).

In late 2015, the Indonesian government issued a new policy called ‘Presidential

Instruction no. 11/2015 on the improvement of forest and land fire control’ as a response to the fires’ gravity. It commands the ministers, military, police, national disaster management agency, governors, regents/mayors to take firm action to prevent all ground fires. Furthermore, there is a ban on all forms of burning including small-scale burning for traditional agricultural practices as a result of this policy (Kalimantan News,

2015; Oeji, 2016; Sutan, 2016). The police offices in Borneo issued warning letters to local communities that essentially prohibited the burning of land in any form and by anyone, and with fines and imprisonment sanctions in accordance with the law (Irawan,

2015; Public Relations of Police Resort of Sanggau, 2016).

While the ‘mega-fires’ were mostly on peat land frontiers and associated with pursuit of oil palm (Sloan, Locatelli, Wooster, & Gaveau, 2017), this policy directly affects local farming communities including those on mineral soil engaging in small- scale swidden such as the Dayak communities in West Kalimantan. The Dayak are indigenous people scattered throughout West Kalimantan that rely on shifting cultivation

(also known as swidden agriculture) as integral to their livelihood strategy (Padoch et al., 2007). Dayak communities in West Kalimantan have been practicing shifting cultivation for centuries based on their cultural rights to land and resources (Padoch et al., 2007; Siahaya et al., 2016). Generally, swidden agriculture includes annual clearing through a technique called tebang dan bakar (slash and burn) and crop rotation (Mertz,

Padoch, et al., 2009; Padoch & Pinedo-Vasquez, 2010; Sellato, 2002). That technique makes swidden agriculture in Borneo one of the causes of deforestation (Angelsen,

1995) and high risk related to escaped agricultural fires especially if it is associated with

a long dry season (Spessa et al., 2015). Considering the way this traditional agricultural practice has been done, Dayak communities are directly impacted by the burn ban policy (C. Rogers, 2016).

There is a very little understanding of the use and management of fire in these agricultural practices (Carmenta, Parry, Blackburn, Vermeylen, & Barlow, 2011). This creates potential constraint between the implementation of fire policy and fire management in agricultural practices conducted by rural smallholder farmers (Carmenta et al., 2013). To gain a holistic understanding of the impacts of fire policy, this research assesses mental models of members of six Dayak communities in three different locations in Kapuas Hulu, West Borneo Indonesia regarding how they are addressing the burn ban. The mental models framework provides a way of understanding how a community perceives the burn ban in the context of their experience and at the same time evaluates options in respond.

Mental Model Framework

The study of mental models was initiated by Craik (1943) who introduced mental models as the framework that people use to explain how the world works. Mental models are held by individuals but are formed through observation and social interactions. Individuals engage in shared experiences that they internalize and then translate that experience into cultural knowledge (Quinn, 2005, 2011). It then transforms into shared mental models as they interact in similar social, cultural, and environmental settings. These processes ultimately represent the mental models of a group (Denzau &

North, 1994; Klimoski & Mohammed, 1994; Langan-Fox, Code, & Langfield-Smith,

2000; Langan-Fox, Wirth, Code, Langfield-Smith, & Wirth, 2001). Shared mental models

within communities are as the basis for the establishment of norms and laws that influence culture (Halbrendt et al., 2014).

Studies show that shared knowledge and experiences are important for the study of mental models in natural resource management (NRM) since decision-making processes within a group often rely on shared mental models (Davis & Wagner, 2003;

Jones, Ross, Lynam, Perez, & Leitch, 2011; Kellert, Mehta, Ebbin, & Lichtenfeld, 2000).

Generally NRM researchers use mental models to mediate differences and limitations between stakeholder groups in order to develop communication tools for these groups

(Abel, Ross, & Walker, 1998; Morgan, Fischoﬀ, Bostrom, & Atman, 2002; Özesmi &

Özesmi, 2004). Some mental model studies attempt to map collective knowledge between individuals in order to understand decision-making processes (Dray, Perez, Le

Page, D’Aquino, & White, 2007; Kolkman, Kok, & van der Veen, 2005). To understand decision-making process in NRM, Jones et al. (2011) argue that mental models provide an overview of stakeholders’ perceived causal dynamics meaning the capacity of a mental model to represent cause-and-effect dynamics of a phenomenon. In other words, mental models provide the explanation of how individuals create prediction processes (i.e., cause and effect) to explain particular phenomena or describe the big picture of a complex situation (Doyle & Ford, 1998; Rouse & Morris, 1986).

Mental models of indigenous people are likely to include Corpus, Praxis, and

Kosmos. Corpus refers to the local cognitive systems and classification systems. Praxis can be defined as local management systems, and Kosmos is all the things related to local beliefs, symbols and rituals (Barrera-Bassols & Zinck, 2003; Toledo, 2002). The components in Dayak’s mental models should provide an explanation of interaction

between Praxis and Kosmos. This research will explore the extent to which the burn ban is affecting the relationship between Corpus, Praxis, and Kosmos.

Methods

3CM and Qualitative Interviews

This study is a combination of qualitative interviews with a direct elicitation approach as a prompt technique to assess mental models as well as the components of

TEK. The direct elicitation characteristic lies in procedures that ask participants to form or assemble their own understanding of a phenomenon, (Borgatti, 1998; Jones et al.,

2011). One way to conduct direct elicitation is to use the Conceptual Content Cognitive

Map (3CM). 3CM was developed by Kearney and Kaplan (1997) who asked people to select and group words to express their cognitive maps (e.g., environmental topics or problems). 3CM is widely used in Natural Resource Management as a tool to understand how individuals and groups perceive and understand natural resource problems (Fischer & Bliss, 2006; Kant & Brubacher, 2008; Kearney & Bradley, 1998;

Kearney, Bradley, Kaplan, & Kaplan, 1999; Tikkanen, Isokääntä, Pykäläinen, &

Leskinen, 2006). The advantages of this tool are participants are given the opportunity to explore their own cognitive structure, it facilitates communication, and acts as a prompt to understand how participants think about a problem (Austin, 1994; Biedenweg

& Monroe, 2013; Kearney, 2015; Kearney & Kaplan, 1997).

This study used 3CM with reference to the close-ended implementation of 3CM procedure as described by Kearney (2015, p. 4), as follows. First, I proposed a specific scenario along with several additional prompts. Participants were asked to identify the items that they perceived are important and relevant to the topic by selecting cards from a set of 50. They grouped the selected cards into categories according to what went

together in their mind. No specific guidelines are given for organization or for number of categories. Then, participants indicated why they grouped those items together. Specific scenario used in this research was the question: “How does the burn ban affect your community? Imagine that you are telling someone from another village about your experience. What things would you want them to know about how the burn ban affected this place?” Close-ended implementation of 3CM is useful to make the mental objects explicitly seen during grouping and labelling process (Kearney & Kaplan, 1997).

Because of the high number of illiterate participants, each card had a text in Indonesian language and a corresponding color photograph. The procedure was pilot tested with three groups within one community that has similar characteristics to the study locations.

Based on their field findings, Biedenweg and Monroe (2013) noted that the main obstacle in using 3CM among rural communities was in grouping the cards. As noted by Weller and Romney (1988, p. 11): “sometimes informants are not used to responding to questions with lists of items and probes may be useful.” Departing from these constraints, Biedenweg and Monroe (2013) suggest integrated methods to do 3CM.

Based on this suggestion, 3CM data collection was complemented with qualitative interviews. Qualitative interviews also served as a triangulation of 3CM, because they provided deep information and understanding of the meaning of the activities undertaken by the participants (Creswell, 2007; J. M. Johnson & Rowlands, 2012).

3CM data analysis was done by using Anthropac 1.0 software. Anthropac provides visualization of the interwoven patterns that make up the clusters in a cognitive map (Borgatti, 1996). Each cluster has an explanation of the relevance of factors that is

important to the participants and is the the basis and representation of the mental models (Kearney & Kaplan, 1997). To understand the mental models, the interviews were transcribed and coded. The coding process involves two steps: open coding and selection of code categories (Glaser & Strauss, 2006; Saldaña, 2009). The selected codes are combined with 3CM clusters to explain the mental model components.

Study Population and Sampling Framework

Data collection was conducted for seven weeks (about one week in each community) in June and July 2017 in six communities in Kapuas Hulu, West

Kalimantan, Indonesia (Figure 2-1). The population was selected to maximize variation.

Maximum variation allows the researcher to purposefully pick cases to capture a wide range of important variation and common patterns of responses on specific issue

(Patton, 2002). That variation was achieved by selecting two communities living close to the National Park, two communities living close to oil palm plantations, and two communities living in transitional areas, not adjacent to National Park or oil palm plantations. The economic and environmental opportunities afforded by both enterprises contributed to variation in reliance upon agriculture, an important factor in decision making.

Within each community, participants were chosen based on non-probability, purposive sampling. Purposive sampling is used in this study because the study population is not small enough (>20) to include everyone and is socially connected

(Guest, 2015). The participants were purposively selected based on their livelihoods, leadership roles, and gender (Bernard, 2011). This captures a wide range of perspectives regarding response to the burn ban. Twelve participants from each community were selected (Table 2-1) (Guest, 2015; Morgan et al., 2002; Romney,

Weller, & Batchelder, 1986). Each interview took a total of about one and a half hours, with 20-30 minutes to do 3CM sorting and 40-60 minutes for interview.

Results and Discussion

3CM Analysis for Six Communities

Participants from six communities (n = 72) along with all the card options (n = 50) were analyzed by cluster analysis by items. Participants chose an average of 25 cards and typically made 3 or 4 clusters. Anthropac 1.0 generalized the aggregate of the selected cards and clusters made by participants into 3 clusters. This illustrates a general mental model held by the communities in responding the burn ban (Figure 2-2).

The cards that form each cluster are listed in Table 2-2.

When analyzing all responses together (n=72), three clusters are evident (Figure

2-2). The cards in cluster 1 describe the role of fire in agricultural practices and cultural life; cluster 2 shows the role of the socio-cultural aspects of fire management in the practice of shifting cultivation; cluster 3 explains perceptions of the burn ban and its effects in agricultural practices. These three clusters represent how knowledge and perception of the burn ban are organized in the mental models of 6 communities.

3CM Analysis for Each Community Category

Despite differences in community location, the mental model aggregates from each of the three pairs of communities (categories) reveal very similar patterns (Figure

2-3, 2-4, and 2-5 and Table 2-3). The first category is communities living close to

National Park (n=24) (Figure 2-3), the second category is communities living close to company oil palm plantation (n=24) (Figure 2-4), and the third category is communities living in transitional area (n=24) (Figure 2-5). They were each analyzed with the total choice of cards (n = 50).

The Anthropac analysis shows the result of respondents’ competence matrix for the communities living close to National Park: 22.772 for Eigen Value (EV) and 32,513 for Eigen Ratio (ER), for communities living close to company oil palm plantation:

23,013 for EV and 285,216 for ER, for the third category is 22.734 for EV and 46,638 for

ER. These results indicate that the data exhibit a strong fit to the consensus model for each category supporting an assertion that, despite individual differences, all respondents in the sample belong to a single culture. It also means I am allowed to compare them as three categories where each category has 2 communities with ideal numbers of EV and ER because these exceed the minimum limit (3) (Borgatti, 1996, p.

128).

The first cluster: the functions of fire

There are two groups of cards that formed the first cluster about the role of fire.

The first can be seen in communities living close to National Park and in transitional area: fire, fertilizer, seeds, agricultural practice procedure, and ritual. The second can be seen in communities close to a company oil palm plantation: fire, fertilizer, seeds, agricultural practice procedure, ritual, oil palm, harvest/yield, and type of fallow. These card specifically speak about the function of fire for the six communities.

Participants explained in interviews that the first stage in conducting shifting cultivation farming practices is for each family to select the location and type of fallow to be managed for the year. This is done in April and May. After determining the location and type of fallow, the second stage is clearing the land by cutting the existing vegetation during May and June. After clearing the land, they wait for cut the vegetation to dry by relying on the hot sun in the dry season during July and August. When

remnants of the vegetation are dry, they will burn the vegetation. Based on these stages, the burning activity is the culmination of the first 4 steps in shifting cultivation.

Participants from the six communities explained that fire is an integral part of their traditional agricultural practices that have been done for many generations. Fire burns the remnants of vegetation and creates useful natural fertilizer that is essential to help the growth of rice. They have ancestor rice seeds that have been passed down from generation to generation and which must be planted every year. For them, ancestor rice seeds are the personification of their field protectors which in their belief system will determine the success of the harvest. One participant (no. 56, customary leader) shared his thought:

We believe it can bring bad luck if we do not plant ancestor rice seeds. Even if, for example, somebody getting married and moving into a new house or new village, he or she will take ancestors rice seeds with him or her, even if only a pinch.

They cannot imagine how they would plant rice seedlings if the location of the fields is still filled with wood and vegetation remains. As one participant (no. 62, male swiddener) said:

So the ancestor rice seeds can only be planted in hilly land, it cannot be planted in flat ground, and to clear the hill land we have to burn it.

Several participants explained they had tried not to burn the fields, and relying only on chemicals, as one participant (no. 43, male swiddener):

I tried not to burn because I was busy doing other work, so at that time I was just using fertilizer and herbicide. The harvest was not as good as when I burned. The result was no more than a sack of rice at that time, so I had to buy more.

Few farmers skip the step of burning their field because yields are much lower than in the years when they burned.

In addition to the function of fire as catalyst to providing natural fertilizer in the form of ash, the participants also explained fire is an important part in the ritual. After all the members of the community have finished burning their fields, usually in the last week of August or the early week of September, they will gather together to perform the ritual. This kind of ritual is very common in the six communities. One participant (no. 27, administrative village leader) said:

Bebasuh arang [washing the charcoal ritual] the essence is we give thanks because the difficult stages have passed and we beg for the blessing of the universe so that the process of planting rice seeds can be smooth and the harvest is good.

In performing the ritual, each family will carry the charcoal from their respective fields.

The customary leader will deliver some prayers of thanksgiving (in the local language) to the spirits. The prayers essentially convey that the initial process and most intense process in agricultural practices has been completed. The fields have been burned, and the burnt remains will be a useful fertilizer for the seeds of the rice, which will make them flourish. The chanting of the prayers continues with each person putting the charcoal on their feet and then washing it with water. As the symbolic acts are completed, they express their hope for the next stage, which is planting the rice. This ritual continues by eating the traditional food and drink as a sign of gratefulness.

The similarity of cards selected by communities living close to oil palm plantation, and the differences marked by the additional cards about oil palm, harvest, and type of fallow cards by these communities indicate these communities perceive the function of fire includes natural fertilizer and ritual. Almost every day they work in oil palm plantations owned by the company, so they have limited time to move every year and open a large field. One participant (no. 60, female swiddener) from this location said:

Since the oil palm plantation was established around 2008, people including me have stopped moving around each year. I have been almost 4 years on the same land. If nuan [you] ask whether we keep burning the land or not, yes we still burn it, it cannot grow rice without burning, the soil will not be fertile. Now the land is smaller, maximum of 1 hectare, just to ngidupkan [plant] ancestor rice seeds. When we were still moving every year, it can be up to 3 hectares.

They choose to manage smaller fields. Smaller field sizes produce smaller harvest, but this is not a problem since the majority of people from these communities earn extra income working at the oil palm plantations. They still do swidden agriculture just to plant and harvest ancestor rice seeds. Although the size of the fields is smaller, fire remains an important tool to reduce vegetation and create fertilizer. However, they argue the use of fire is not as frequent nor as massive as it was when they moved to new fields every year.

The second cluster: traditional fire management

The second component is represented by very similar cards in the six communities: community mutual cooperation, shifting cultivation, community decision, family decision, individual decision, customary law, rubber gardens, money, and experiences of fire incidents. These cards can be seen in cluster 2 of communities living close to National Park and in transitional areas, and cluster 2 and 3 of communities living close to oil palm plantation (the two clusters are intertwined with each other)

(Figure 2-3). These clusters are specifically about traditional fire management.

Participants explain that in an effort to maximize the function of fire while increasing prudence in its use, the six communities have a norm of mutual cooperation to manage fire. Community mutual cooperation entails forming small groups that help each other in the first four stages and in the later stages in conducting shifting cultivation. For the six communities, the fourth stage is the most important stage in

which the function of community mutual cooperation is highly relied upon by the community. As families select their fields, they will communicate the location of those fields and divide into working groups. People who choose a field location adjacent to each other will form a group. The number of group members is very flexible depending on the family decisions and individual decisions. Community mutual cooperation is conducted with some basic rules that consider the participation of the number of family members, as one participant (no. 64, male swiddener) explained:

So after we decide the group, we set the schedule, for example today to your place, tomorrow to my place, and so on. If you send 3 people from your family to my place, tomorrow I will send also 3 people to your place. We do this group work from opening the land to planting rice seeds. Moreover, when burning land, we cannot do it alone, we need a lot of help from others [from the communities].

In term of fire management, community mutual cooperation serves to create boundaries on each side of the field where fire might spread, for example, the side of the fields adjacent to rubber gardens. This activity is done by clearing a distance of 2 - 3 meters (6.5 to 9.8 feet) to ensure the fire will not spread from the burning field. This is the most difficult stage and requires more effort, as they must ensure that none of vegetation or weed remnants can be fuel for fire. In some cases they even dig trenches

30-60 cm (0.9 - 1.9 foot) deep to make sure there are no roots, as one participant (no.

31, female swiddener) told me:

That is the most exhausting stage after opening the land, because we have to make sure the ground is clean of anything, so the fire does not spread.” The excavated boundaries will be dampened with water to prevent the fire from spreading.

When they finish making the boundaries, they will start burning the fields based on the group work schedule, as one female swiddener (no.16) said:

Creating a boundary before burning the land is a necessity, must be done. If we do not make borders and fire spreads to other people's land, we can be punished by customary law. After we burn, we walk around to check on the fire that is still alive, so the fire must die, if it is alive, it can be dangerous and we can be blamed if it spreads.

Before burning they will bring a sprayer tank that is usually used to spray herbicide but is filled with water. Usually they burn during the day when the wind blows. Winds can help speed up the burning process. Before burning they will analyze wind direction and start burning from the side that they deem most vulnerable. The members of the group will spread around the fields with a sprayer to watch and make sure the fire does not spread or outside the burn field. Before the afternoon, they make sure the fire is completely extinguished.

Traditional fire management practices are also related to rubber tree planting and customary law. Shifting cultivators usually combine farming practices with rubber tree planting. They usually plant rubber around the fields to be managed. Although this is not a necessity, the combination of swidden agriculture with rubber trees is very common in these six communities, primarily due to the dissemination of local and superior rubber tree seedlings initiated by local agencies and NGOs. The growing number of rubber tree plantations also reduces the risk of fire spreading around the fallow. Efforts to minimize the risk of fire spreading to rubber tree plantations are addressed by customary law that govern the burning activity.

The main thing regulated by the customary law is the sanction for landowners who allow fire from field-burning activities to spread to rubber gardens that are not their own and cause losses to rubber tree owners. Sanction are usually in the form of money paid by the burners to the owner of the rubber gardens. The amount of compensation varies between Rp 50.000 - 100.000/tree (USD 3.71 - 27; October 16th 2017). This

sanction is calculated on the basis of the number of burned rubber trees and their age.

The more burned rubber trees and the older their age (usually above 8 years due to age

8 years of rubber latex can be harvested), the greater amount of compensation.

The sanctions are meaningful. They act to encourage appropriate behavior and the fines are levied against those who do not follow the community expectation. In the following example, the uncle was forced to pay the fines (from female swiddener no.

38):

At that time my uncle accidentally burned someone else's rubber garden. So at that time he insisted on burning his land by himself, not telling others to be helped. Finally hit fines to millions of rupiah, a lot of rubber burned.

The experience of fire in rubber gardens and ensuing sanctions is the basis of their application of sustainable fire management, which is practices through community mutual cooperation.

The relationship between community mutual cooperation and the effort to avoid sanctions can be seen in binding social rules between the farmers who want to burn their fields and owners of rubber gardens. Some of the most common rules encountered in the six communities govern communication between the owner of the field and the owner of the rubber:

 Before starting to burn the fields, the owner of the field should invite or at least notify the owner of the rubber trees adjacent to the field to be burned about the time of burning.

 If the owner of the field does not invite or at least notify the owner of the rubber plantation, and the fire spreads to the rubber trees that does not belong to him/her, the owner of the field is sanctioned as by customary law.

 The owner of the rubber trees that has been invited or informed must be present when the owner of the field burns the field, to help keep a watch on the fire so it does not spread into his/her rubber gardens.

 If the owner of the rubber trees is not present even if he or she has been invited or informed by the owner of the field, and the rubber trees are burned, sanctions will not be imposed on the owner of the field.

The third cluster: the impacts of burn ban

The third component of mental model is shown by cluster 3 from communities living close to National Park and in the transitional area, and cluster 4 from communities living close to oil palm plantations. There are three similar sets of cards for communities living close to National Park: burn ban, government, extension, solution, police, weather, harvest/yield, type of fallow, and National Park. Communities living in transitional area selected: burn ban, government, extension, solution, police, weather, harvest/yield, and type of fallow. The third set from communities living close to oil palm plantation included: burn ban, government, extension, and solution. These different sets show that although there are similarities in the third component of mental models, there remains a perceptual difference in the impact of burn ban.

In Kapuas Hulu, West Kalimantan, in the summer of 2017, banners and billboards about burn ban were posted on every corner. They gave the same warning:

Do not burn forest and land. The burners will be sentenced to 15 years and a fine of Rp

15 billion (15 billion rupiah = USD 1,112,677.50; USD 1 = Rp 13,481; October, 16th,

2017). Local police in each sub-district asked me to inform the local community not to open the fields by burning. The news of this burning ban had spread to local communities living in remote villages far from the city by 2015. Participants explained that the ban creates feelings of injustice for them in all six communities who clearly have economic limitations. This is represented by the selection of cards in all communities for burn ban, government, extension, and solution. Swidden agriculture is undeniably the

main livelihood for the majority in this community. Participants acknowledge that this particular agricultural practice requires the use of fire related to its various functions.

However, the participants express the feeling that they have been accused of being one of the main causes of the fire and haze catastrophe in West Kalimantan and

Indonesia in general, as one participant (no. 50, administrative village leader) said:

Frequent fires near the lake, to Pulo Majang, Semitao, etc. Nobody opens the field in there. The haze all the way to Singapore and Malaysia. But why are we being blamed? Decades of burning fields never made a major fire or caused haze for days because we have our own system.

They feel the burn ban should not apply to them because they have a cultural system that regulates burning and that does not harm the environment or others. Furthermore, this element of injustice is incarnate from the absence of a solution from the government on how to do shifting cultivation or agricultural practices without burning. Some participants even say that they at least expect the government to help the local community by sending fire extinguishers, as expressed by one participant (no. 58, male swiddener):

If only the burn ban comes with the help such as excavator to help us open the fields. If they cannot help us with that, they should provide rice for us to eat for a year. The life of a swiddener is already difficult, this policy makes it more [difficult].

For them, the burn ban without solutions and support is bad news amidst the challenge of survival, due to the limitations of livelihoods and the plummeting prices of rubber latex, which is one source of income.

This condition is further exacerbated by the different implementations of the burn ban, which creates confusion among local communities. This confusion is represented by the selection of cards related to police, weather, and National Park. Participants living close to the National Park said the warning about burn ban was announced by

police and national park officers who came to their village. In 2016 community members responded to burn ban by joining rallies at Local Parliament Building in the city. This rally was continued with an audience between the police and local community representatives. The result of the hearing was that the local community will be allowed to burn the fields, but burning must be done in small patches (for example: 2 hectares of field have to be burned in a 1 hectare plot one day and 1 hectare the next day). National park officers also provide the same solution. However, participants said that this is not a good solution because burning activity is highly dependent on weather factors. Dry weather is necessary to ensure the remnants of vegetation dry thoroughly, and are easy to burn. It is very difficult to predict which days the sun will be shining, due to uncertain weather changes. For them this solution only slows down the whole process, and complicates the rotation schedule that is set in community. As one participant said:

We cannot burn little by little. We cannot predict whether it will rain tomorrow or not. We may be late for planting [rice] seeds. If we are late and the rainy season comes, the seeds will rot and cannot grow well.

Communities living in the transitional area said that the police in their region added another solution, saying the community may burn, but must be in small patches, and only in the morning. For the participants, this solution does not solve the problem because a successful burn needs dry conditions and strong winds, and neither occur in the morning, as explained by a female swiddener (no. 31):

Usually we burn during the day when the wind blows faster makes the fire easier to spread and accelerates the process of burning land. Fire cannot be lit in the morning because there are lots of dew and no wind.

The lack of adequate solutions and assistance from the regulators leave the six communities to continue the practice of burning. In some cases this has led to conflict with the police, mainly in the communities living in transitional areas, where open fields

occur on the roadside. The participants in one community still remember the conflict with the police in 2016. At that time they were burning the land, and they admitted that the fire at that time was enormous. However, according to them it is normal and can still be handled. Suddenly the police show up and threaten to arrest them if the fire is not immediately extinguished. Community members responded forcefully to the police threat, expressing the reason that clearing the fields should be done by burning and agriculture is their sole source of income. Resistance from community members caused the police to relent and instead of arresting them, the police helped members of the community extinguish the fire. In another community also in transition area, participants said conflict with the police resulted in the arrest of a community member. It was in the first week of August 2016 when the field burning took place, the police circulated warning letters banning burning fields that are on the roadside, especially on certain dates. They expected an official to pass through the road of jalan lintas utara (the north cross road) to get to the state border, but community members already had burning schedules and they were hurrying due to the weather and time, so they continue burning. Police came while they were burning and some of the farmers ran away, but one person was arrested and taken to the police office in town. Angry community members then went to the police station and demanded the police release the detained farmer. Police finally did, as told by a male swiddener (no. 66):

At that time we were very angry. It makes no sense when police caught people who burned the fields because they want to eat, they just want to plant the rice. Lucky that time the police want to release them.

Direct contact with the police experienced by communities living close to National

Park and in transitional area seemed to have some effect on their agricultural practices.

This is represented by the card about the harvest/yields and type of fallow in these two

communities. The interviews allowed participants to explain they are worried that the burn ban will affect the harvest. They feel they have no choice but to continue to burn, but they change the type and location of the fields. Participants living close to the

National Park chose to stay in last year’s fields. They said that because the fields had been managed last year (semi-permanent), they did not create so much fire to attract the attention of the police, as one participant (no. 1, administrative village leader) said:

Since there was the burn ban, I noticed that many people opened the same field [not shifting], because the fires were not too big, but the expenses for fertilizers and herbicides became bigger.

Although the harvest is not as large as when they move to new field, at least they do not have to deal with the police. However, they are unsure how to find additional income if the harvest is not sufficient. Participants who are living in transitional areas chose the locations of field that are far from the roadside, which are typically forests that have not been managed for over 5 or 10 years, and some said they opted to open primary forest for their rice fields. Prior to direct contact with the police, the majority of community members choose the location of the field adjacent to the road (usually fields under 5 years old) because it is easier for them to visit the fields and bring the harvest to their homes, as said by a male swiddener (no. 72):

Now many people open fields deep inside of the forest. Rarely anyone wants to open a field by the side of the road. They fear of being caught by the police.

They believe this is the best solution to obtain a satisfactory harvest, as primary or older secondary forest are usually more fertile and at the same time they avoid the police.

In contrast to these two communities, communities living close to oil palm plantation do not worry about the police enforcing the law. The warning about burn ban came only in the form of police warning letters circulated to every village office.

Participants said it was natural for the police not to worry about their burning activities because they only open small fields and have other livelihood alternatives such as oil palm. In addition, according to them, the palm oil companies help them to extinguish the fire by joining the community mutual cooperation activities, in case the burned fields are adjacent to company’s oil palm plantations. The communities just have to tell the company, and the company will send the firefighters with fire extinguishers, as told by a female swiddener (no.38):

Here it is a little easier because we can ask the company to help put out the fire, many fields are side by side with the company's plantation. But still the essence of opening the field means burning the fields though only slightly.

Praxis-Kosmos and Causal Dynamics in Dayak’s Mental Models

Praxis and Kosmos are intertwined with each other in their operations in the mental model of six Dayak communities (Figure 2-4). Praxis or local management system can be seen from the aspects of community mutual cooperation, experience of fires incident, and customary law (Duerden & Kuhn, 1998; Horvath, Dickerson,

MacKinnon, & Ross, 2002). Management system focuses on sustainable use of natural resources and adaptation strategies undertaken by Dayak communities to their environment (Barrera-Bassols & Zinck, 2003). Management system is represented by how Dayak communities apply these aspects to fulfill the function of fire as catalyst for natural fertilizer. These aspects represent how the Dayak communities manage the environment in relation to traditional agricultural practices. Kosmos focuses on the interaction between values and social relations to support the survival of cultural and spiritual identity (Lewis & Sheppard, 2005; Rappaport, 1979; Toledo, 2002), and is related to the community's understanding of spiritual beings that affect the roles and

relationships between human and non-human in an environmental setting (M. Johnson,

1992). Kosmos is represented by the function of fire as ritual and regeneration of ancestor rice seeds.

The components of the Kosmos underlie Praxis. Praxis base held by the six

Dayak communities builds on a common perception of fire function as a catalyst for natural fertilizers useful for ancestor rice seeds. The cultural obligation to plant ancestor rice seeds that must be passed to future generations is the embodiment of belief systems where ancestor rice seeds are the personification of the field protectors. The practice of ritual after burning the fields is a representation of the fulfillment of cosmological values related to the relationship with the spirits that in their belief system has been and will continue to give success in the burning process. In an effort to fulfill the fire function, they performed similar community mutual cooperation practices found in the six communities to cooperate with each other to minimize the spread of fire to locations prone to burning. A slight difference is indicated by communities living adjacent to oil palm plantation, where the use of fire is less massive because they do not have to open large fields, due to availability of alternative income. Community mutual cooperation practices are governed by customary law to ensure smooth implementation. Management systems conducted by the six communities are inseparable from the shared knowledge about fire.

Praxis and Kosmos are part of the mental models of the Dayak. Praxis and

Kosmos interact and complement each other and establish stability conditions in the swidden agricultural practices. This stability condition is not easy to change because it

is part of their daily life and culture. This is the basis of decision making to continue to burn even though there is a burn ban.

Another part of the mental model of six Dayak communities is causal dynamics caused by burn ban (Figure 2-4). Causal dynamics is seen from the feeling of injustice felt by the six communities and arises as a result of the external challenge to the stability conditions of Praxis and Kosmos. This is also supported by the confusion in the implementation of burn ban, as seen in how some communities reject unrealistic solutions of burn ban. They feel that the burn ban is inconsistent with Praxis and

Kosmos.

Furthermore, causal dynamics can be seen in how the Dayak change their agricultural practices as a result of negotiations between Praxis and Kosmos with a feeling of injustice, confusion, and direct or indirect contact with police. Communities living close to National Park have direct contact with the police that make them change their agricultural practices into semi-permanent, although they still use fire and meet aspects of Praxis and Kosmos. Meanwhile, the change of agricultural practice to semi- permanent by communities living close to an oil palm plantation is also influenced by more stable alternative livelihoods. The more extreme case is shown by the community in the transitional area. They prefer to open primary or older secondary forests to implement Praxis and Kosmos and avoid police. The causal dynamics in Dayak’s mental models represent the instability conditions caused by the burn ban. The burn ban challenges them to change their traditional agriculture practice system but by continuing to implement the stability conditions established by Praxis and Kosmos.

Summary

This study identifies components in mental models of six Dayak communities to understand how they perceive burn ban. The results suggest conditions of stability and instability. The instability condition should be a concern for policy makers. Various studies have shown both direct and indirect negative effects of policy on traditional farming practices (swidden agriculture) in different contexts (Cramb et al., 2009; Mertz,

Padoch, et al., 2009; Noordwijk et al., 2008; Thrupp et al., 1997). Shifting cultivators are often "forced" to change traditional agricultural practices to comply with conservation standards (Padoch & Pinedo-Vasquez, 2010), especially related to the practice of using fire that is considered not sustainable (Rohadi, 2017). This study shows the same result as Carmenta et al. (2013) who suggest fire policy implemented using a top-down and culturally inappropriate approach, without attempting to understand local reality, may be unsuccessful . A better solution would be to integrate local reality (Praxis and Kosmos) into fire policy-making processes and implementation (Barlow et al., 2012; Carmenta et al., 2016; Kull, 2002; Meijaard et al., 2013).

Reflecting on these cases in Kapuas Hulu, local communities need a more flexible policy approach. It is unrealistic for them to change the stability condition, formed by Praxis and Kosmos, that have been part of their socio-cultural life for generations (Hume, 2006). As a result, they negotiate Praxis and Kosmos by changing to more environmentally unsustainable agricultural practices (i.e. opening primary forest or older secondary forest or using excessive amounts of chemical fertilizer). The Dayak need a more complex and sufficient solution than simply banning the use of fire, or limiting the size or timing of a burn. Maintaining their livelihood and culture necessitates the use of fire. Policy solutions should not to turn a blind eye to the interactions between

the Praxis, Kosmos, and causal dynamics. These are critical components of the local reality that maintains a stable community.

Table 2-1. Sampling framework Category Community Participant Admini- Custo- Female Male Total strative mary swidde- swidde- village leader ners ners leader 1. Close to 2 2 2 10 10 24 National communities Park 2. Close to 2 2 2 10 10 24 company communities oil palm plantation 3. Transitional 2 2 2 10 10 24 area communities Total 72

Table 2-2. List of clusters and selected cards of six communities Card Card Number Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Community mutual 2 x cooperation Rubber tree 6 x Extension 7 x Seeds 8 x Family decision 9 x Individual’s decision 10 x Community’s decision 11 x Money 13 x Ritual 15 x Shifting cultivation 16 x Agricultural practices 18 x procedure Type of the fallow 19 x Weather 21 x Fire 22 x Fertilizer 23 x Harvest 27 x Government 31 x Police 32 x Burn ban 33 x Solution 35 x Oil Palm 46 x National Park 48 x Customary law 49 x Experience of fires incident 50 x

Table 2-3. List of cards and cluster numbers by type of community Cluster Number Communities Communities Communities

living close to living close to living in Card number Card national park oil palm transitional plantation area Community mutual 2 2 2 2 cooperation Rubber tree 6 2 3 2 Extension 7 3 4 3 Seeds 8 1 1 1 Family decision 9 2 2 2 Individual’s 2 2 2 10 decision Community’s 2 2 2 11 decision Money 13 2 3 2 Ritual 15 1 1 1 Shifting cultivation 16 2 2 2 Agricultural 1 1 1 18 practice procedures Type of the fallow 19 3 1 3 Weather 21 3 - 3 Fire 22 1 1 1 Fertilizer 23 1 1 1 Harvest 27 3 1 3 Government 31 3 4 3 Police 32 3 - 3 Burn ban 33 3 4 3 Solution 35 3 4 3 Oil Palm 46 - 1 - National Park 48 3 - - Customary law 49 2 3 2 Fires Incident 50 2 3 2

Figure 2-1. Field sites

Figure 2-2. Cluster analysis result for six communities

Figure 2-3. Cluster analysis results for communities living close to national park

Figure 2-4. Cluster analysis results for communities living close to oil palm plantation

Figure 2-5. Cluster analysis results for communities living in transitional area

Figure 2-6. The stability and instability condition in the mental model of Dayak communities

CHAPTER 3 STANDING ON THE VERGE OF CHANGE: FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE AGRICULTURAL DECISION IN DAYAK COMMUNITIES IN WEST BORNEO, INDONESIA

The Complexities of Swiddeners’ Agricultural Decision

Swidden agriculture, also known as shifting cultivation, is part of livelihood (either fully or partly) for 14 to 34 million rural people in Southeast Asia (FAO, 2015; Mertz,

Leisz, et al., 2009; UNEP, 2012). The large population of swiddeners are often misunderstood, resulting in policy that negatively impacts them (Cairn, 2007; McElwee,

1999). The most often repeated misunderstanding is that swidden agriculture causes deforestation (Angelsen, 1995), despite the fact that it has little effect on forest cover compared to other land uses (Lawrence, Peart, & Leighton, 1998). Another misunderstanding is that swidden agriculture is undertaken by backward, indigenous people (Erni, 2015). There is a need to understand the complexity of factors that play a role in the decision making of swiddeners as they conduct agricultural practices (Hume,

2006; Padoch & Pinedo-Vasquez, 2010).

Swiddeners' decision-making is complex, fluctuating, and contextual. It is strongly related to agricultural practices formed by social and ecological systems interacting at several levels (Thompson et al., 2007). It can be influenced by the dynamic conditions surrounding them, such as interconnected markets (Fader, Gerten, Krause, Lucht, &

Cramer, 2013) and alternative livelihood opportunities in rural areas (Reardon,

Stamoulis, & Pingali, 2007). In addition, their decisions also depend on family size, the farm markets, and land ownership (Farmar-Bowers & Lane, 2009). Research on swiddeners’ behavior and decision making should inform policy interventions that promote change and innovation (Feola, Lerner, Jain, Montefrio, & Nicholas, 2015).

Research is needed that also captures the complexity of swiddeners’ behavior in conducting agricultural practices without oversimplifying it (Feola & Binder, 2010).

Swidden agriculture is practiced by Dayak communities for subsistence livelihoods in rural Borneo, Indonesia (Mertz, Padoch, et al., 2009). This includes rotating plots of crops (van Vliet et al., 2012; van Vliet, Adams, Vieira, & Mertz, 2013) and slash and burn techniques in land clearing (Padoch & Pinedo-Vasquez, 2010).

Dayak communities have implemented this agricultural practice for over two centuries

(Sellato, 2002). Within that span of time, various changes have occurred in swidden agriculture practices (e.g. change from shifting every year to permanent plot agriculture)

(Cramb et al., 2009; Padoch et al., 2007). Using a mental model framework, I analyzed the commonalities and differences in their perceptions to determine factors that affect decisions about agriculture practices. One factor, the burn ban following the Presidential

Instruction No. 11/2015, is not included in this analysis as it was discussed in Chapter 2.

Changes in Swidden Agriculture

Swidden agriculture is not only a subsistence farming practice, but is strongly related to the social, economic, and ecological systems (Conklin, 1957; Dove, 1983).

The changes in systems create different perception among the swiddeners themselves.

For example, some farmers now believe that swidden agriculture is no longer viable as a sole source of livelihood because of the imbalance between income and effort

(Widyawati, 2016). Dayak communities prefer diverse livelihoods options (e.g., income from rubber trees, forest products, jobs in town, or oil-palm companies) rather than being dependent only on swidden rice cultivation (CIFOR, 2014). Economic factors, become one of the foundational reasons of change in the swidden agriculture practices.

Although swidden agriculture practices are no longer the dominate land use in

Southeast Asia (Chi et al., 2013; Li, Feng, Jiang, Liao, & Zhang, 2014), Dayak communities in Borneo continue to conduct swidden agriculture and consume their local rice varieties, in addition to seeking alternative livelihood opportunities (CIFOR, 2014).

The Dayak’s preference to conduct swidden agriculture interacts with other aspects and creates changes in the practices in several ways. First, they may establish semi- permanent plots, a swidden agriculture practice that involves longer cycling systems using the same dry rice fields over several years (Boserup, 1965; Roder, 1997).

Second, they may establish permanent plots. managing the same wet rice fields rather than move to new fields (Padoch et al., 1998; Rasul & Thapa, 2003; Seavoy, 1973).

Third, farmers may establish a combination of both wet and dry rice fields (Rambo,

1998).

Intensification land use of swidden agriculture is driven by various factors, such as external trends, livelihood strategies, demographic change, market expansion, political, social and cultural trends, interactions, livelihood security, and human and social capital (van Vliet et al., 2012, Cramb et al. 2009). Mertz et al. (2009) and Roder

(1997) suggest demographic changes are the most important aspect, where Fox et al.

(2009) find the political-economic aspect the most important driver, and Mayer (2003) suggests pressure to reduce forest fires as one of the main factors. However, the various factors that have been identified by these researchers only explain changes in one direction that is away from shifting plots every year. One of the aims of this study is to identify the drivers of changes that cause any and all changes in agricultural

practices, with the additional possibility of abandoning permanent plots and restoring traditional swidden practices.

Mental Model

People’s mental models are a collection of small-scale cognitive maps, which serve to collect, organize, and recall information from old and new experiences to enable reasoning and learning (Johnson-Laird, 1980; Kitchin, 1994; Prager & Curfs,

2016). Mental models are partial views of the world meant to compensate for the limitations of human mind to deal with overwhelming amounts of information in a complex system (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1999; Vennix, 1999). Mental models are constructed by an individual, using their own knowledge structures in an attempt to interpret and understand the world, and reasoning against particular events that occur in their lives (Bower & Morrow, 1990; Carley & Palmquist, 1992; D’Andrade, 1995).

Although mental models are constructed on an individual level, the process is shaped by interactions in a common social, cultural, and environmental setting (Quinn, 2005,

2011). Individuals who share a common background might have similar mental models

(Denzau & North, 1994).

Since introduced by Craik (1943), the mental model framework has been widely used in many research domains, especially in Natural Resource Management (NRM)

(Jones et al., 2011). In NRM, mental models are used to identify gaps in knowledge and belief systems among stakeholders that are useful for program implementation

(Friedrichsen, Daroub, Monroe, Stepp, & Wani, 2017). This framework is also commonly used to mediate differences in perceptions among stakeholders in a natural resource setting to develop communication tools (Carlton & Jacobson, 2016; Jabbour et al., 2014). One of the main functions of mental model framework used in this study is to

understand decision-making processes through mapping collective knowledge within six

Dayak communities (Dray et al., 2007; Kolkman et al., 2005).

One factor that affect decisions about agricultural is Traditional Ecological

Knowledge (TEK). TEK is a collection of knowledge and beliefs about the relationships between living things owned by indigenous or tribal groups that has been handed down from generation to generation (Berkes, 1993). TEK is formed by Kosmos (local belief system), Corpus (local knowledge of classification systems), and Praxis (local management system) which are used by individuals in a group to manage their natural resources (Barrera-Bassols & Zinck, 2003; Toledo, 2002). Houde (2007) in his article on dimensions of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) mentions Kosmos, Corpus, and

Praxis with different terminology, such as factual observations, classifications, and system dynamics; management systems and factual knowledge about past and current uses of the environment; and ethics and values, as a vector for cultural identity, and cosmology.

Changes in mental models that create behavioral changes are inseparable from external and internal factors, such as government policy and legislation, contact with other cultural groups, influence of outside market, influence of outside market, colonization, relocation, marginalization by dominant societies, population decline, migration, and economic development pressure (Tang and Gavin, 2016). Changes in mental models can also be related to the aspect of acceptance of innovation. Innovation is a practice of ideas that are considered new to individuals or groups (E. M. Rogers,

1995).

Changes in the mental model associated with acceptance of an innovation depend on the compatibility of an innovation on values, beliefs, and attitudes and social system characteristics of adopters (Muth & Hendee, 1980; E. M. Rogers, 1995). With regard to agricultural practices in particular, the process of testing and experimenting with innovation is an important component of the farmers' decision making system

(Sutherland & Darnhofer, 2012; Tomaš Simin & Janković, 2014). Halbrendt et al. (2014) suggest that the farmers' mental model consists of the interaction between socio- cultural influences and environmental conditions that form agricultural beliefs, predicted outcomes, and actions and behaviors in agricultural practices. A similar concept is offered by Borges, Foletto, & Xavier (2015) that the farmers' decisions are formed by farmers' perceptions, beliefs and psychological constructs, and farmers' objectives and goals.

Studies on farmers' decision making system often focus on only one factor rather than a set of factors, such as economically rational assumptions (Feola & Binder, 2010;

Feola et al., 2015). A model mental study can contribute to looking at the possibility of interrelationship between factors (e.g., TEK, economic rationale, and external factors) in the farmers' or swiddener's decision-making system. This study uses a mental model framework to analyze the cognitive structure that underlies the choice to engage in agricultural practices, including the possibility of change in agricultural practices.

Method

Qualitative and 3CM Methods

This mental model study used a combination of qualitative and direct elicitation approaches. Direct elicitation used Conceptual Content Cognitive Map (3CM) (Kearney

& Kaplan, 1997), which allows participants to reveal their own cognitive structure

through selecting and arranging cards with pictures or words that represent their cognitive maps (Biedenweg & Monroe, 2013; Kearney, 2015; Kearney & Kaplan, 1997).

This tool is widely used in various studies on the perception of groups and individuals in

NRM (Fischer & Bliss, 2006; Kant & Brubacher, 2008; Kearney et al., 1999; Tikkanen et al., 2006). It involves these steps: 1) Propose a specific scenario (“Imagine that you are telling someone from another village about your agricultural practices. What things are important to explain your agricultural practices other than the burn ban.”), 2) Ask participants to identify things on cards (written in Indonesian language with corresponding color photograph) that they perceived are important and relevant to the topic, 3) Ask participants to group the selected cards into categories according to what went together in their mind without specific guidelines, 4) Ask participants to explain each group of cards (Kearney, 2015). The procedure was pilot tested with three groups

(administrative and customary leader, men, and women) in one community that has similar characteristics to the field sites. The pilot study confirmed the value of 50 cards.

3CM data analysis was done with Anthropac 1.0 software. Anthropac provides visualization of the patterns of the cards that make up the common clusters (Borgatti,

1996). Each cluster consists of the relevant factors that are important to the participants and represents their mental models (Kearney & Kaplan, 1997). Qualitative interviews were conducted after the 3CM process for triangulation and to gain a deeper understanding and information about behavior undertaken by the participants

(Biedenweg & Monroe, 2013; J. M. Johnson & Rowlands, 2012; Weller & Romney,

1988). The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and manually coded (open coding) to

illustrate the 3CM clusters. Each interview took about one and a half hours (20-30 minutes to do 3CM and 40-60 minutes for qualitative interviews).

Study Population and Sampling Framework

Data were collected in six communities in Kapuas Hulu, West Borneo, Indonesia over seven weeks (June-July 2017) (Figure 3-1). The selection of communities followed a maximum variation approach by selecting wide range of various agricultural practices

(Table 3-1) (Patton, 2002). Participants were chosen based on purposive sampling because the communities were large (>20) and socially connected (Guest, 2015).

Twelve participants from each community were selected based on their livelihoods, leadership roles, and gender to get a wide range perspective on agricultural practices behavior at the time (1 administrative leader, 1 customary leaders, 5 female farmers and 5 male farmers) (Bernard, 2011) to achieve maximum variation (Guest, 2015;

Morgan et al., 2002; Romney et al., 1986).

Results

The first part of the results section explores the 3CM data in the six communities.

The second part explains six clusters that appear in 3CM analysis as factors that contribute to decisions about agricultural practices. The third section explains how this combination of factors influences choices, and suggests an organizational framework for these factors.

3CM Analysis for 6 Communities

Responses from twelve adults from each of 6 communities (n = 72) were analyzed with cluster analysis by item to identify the common knowledge structure across the 6 communities (Figure 3-2). Participants chose an average of 30 cards and made from 3 to 6 clusters. Anthropac 1.0 used an aggregate of 30 frequently selected

cards and grouped them into 6 clusters (Table 3-2). The resulting EV (Eigen Value) is

66.062 and ER (Eigen Ratio) is 56.738, which exceed the minimum limit (3.0) (Borgatti,

1996, p. 128), and indicate the data in each community strongly fit the consensus model

(consensus agreement). The data support an assertion that, despite the individual differences, the model represents a single culture with respect to this domain.

Six Components in Mental Model Contribute to Agricultural Decision

Cluster 1: agricultural ritual

The cards in this cluster speak to several rituals that are conducted during swidden agriculture. The importance individuals place on ritual is one important factor in decision-making about agricultural practices. The Dayak listen carefully to signs (good and bad) from nature (i.e., bird’s voices, dreams, falling branches or tree trunks, and wild animals on the route to the field) when they are looking for the land to be managed

(in April-May). They bring offerings and ancestor stones (round stones that have been passed down from generation to generation) to the worship location when nature gives a good sign. In the second stage (in June-July), they perform different rituals, such as sacrificing a chicken and smearing the blood on each hand and their machete, and honing machetes using an ancestor stone. They again bring offerings to be placed at the worship location that is usually located near the hut on the edge of the field. In the third stage (in August), they burn the remnants of dry vegetation and perform the ritual of bringing ashes from the burned field, and placing the ashes on their feet to be washed with water as a symbol of thanksgiving that the burning stage has been completed. In the fourth stage, before planting seedlings, they make holes in the ground using a wooden hardwood stick. They plant ancestor rice seeds (a special type of seeds that has been passed down through generations) first on the edges of the fields and in

the middle of the field. Next, they plant the rice seeds to be eaten in the spaces between ancestor rice seeds. There are some cultural taboos in this particular stage, for example it is forbidden for men to shave their hair and beard, women to make rattan- made handicrafts, and for anyone to go to the fields for three days after the seeds are planted. In January and February, they harvest and store ancestor rice seeds separately from other rice seeds for the continuity of ancestor seed regeneration.

The series of rituals throughout the agricultural cycle is part of the Dayak belief system. Every ritual has a purpose. Some are conducted to seek protection and blessing from ancestral spirits. Other rituals demonstrate gratefulness to the spirits.

Taboos in the fourth stage are related to their belief that the rice seeds will not grow perfectly if beard, hair, or rattan is cut. Ancestor seeds are given special treatment because they personify the king and the keepers of all the rice. Traditional agricultural practices must be conducted carefully through ritual because at stake is their food security for one year. One participant (no. 56, customary leader) said:

If we did not perform the ritual, the harvest would be unsatisfactory or even fail, so frankly we, mainly elderly, feel afraid of not doing that because it is our custom.

Cluster 2: agricultural resources

This cluster represents the swiddeners’ options to purchase chemical supplements or open a long-fallow field. Swiddeners select fields each year according to rotational cycles (Table 3-3). Productivity is greater the longer the field is fallow, but preparing older fields requires more work to fell trees and burn brush. Younger fields, however, require agricultural inputs such as fertilizer and pesticide to produce a viable crop. Thus, a careful assessment of agricultural resources is one factor when considering agricultural choices.

The older the age of a fallow, the more fertile its soil, the less grass it will have, and the larger the harvest it will produce, as told by one participant (no. 2, male swiddener):

It is true that if you open talun aya or baee’ lako, the harvest is better. It is just that we have to work harder to cut the big woods in there. But at least we do not have to buy fertilizer, herbicide, and pesticide.

Swiddeners need herbicide, fertilizer, and pesticide to manage younger fallow, as explained by a female swiddener (no.12):

So the younger the field or if we stay in the same field, the less fertile it is because of the too many grasses, and also the more pests [can be found]. So often we are forced to buy fertilizers, herbicides, or pesticides to maximize the harvest, and these are not cheap.

The selection of field types, which is related to harvest result and capital availability is an element of the mental model.

Cluster 3: access to labor

The cards in this cluster refer to agricultural labor and the community norms that govern how families help each other. Tasks are divided by gender, so both the number of people available and their gender are important elements in this factor. Shifting cultivation practices are closely related to community mutual cooperation which is conducted with basic rules that consider the participation of the number of family members (Figure 3-3).

Typically, a community will set up a work schedule to rotate a group of farmers to each family’s field. The first work day in the A’s family field, the second day in the B’s family field, and so on. They conduct a preliminary agreement of the numbers of family member that can participate (e.g. 2 family members). Each family will consistently send

2 family members to work in the fields based on this schedule. If something happens

and family B can only send 1 person to work in E’s family field, then family E will only send 1 person while working in B’s family field. However, family E will still send 2 members family when working in A, C, D’s family fields. If in any occasion, family F suddenly decides to participate in this work schedule, when the work schedule happens to be in C’s family field, then next time family C will work in the F family field by sending family members according to the number delivered by the F family while working in the

C’s family field. However, family A, B, D, E will not participate to work in the F’s family field.

The community mutual cooperation in traditional agricultural practices is used when they cut down the vegetation, burn fields, plant seeds, and harvest, especially when they move to new field every year. However, they work individually in the stage of field management (after burning the field and before the harvest) which underlies the decision making system for choosing agricultural practices for individuals and families who have limited family members (i.e., widows or those who live alone because family members are out of village). The individual work in conducting agricultural practice was told by a female swiddener (no.35):

I have stayed for 5 years in the same field since my husband died. My daughter was married and moved with her husband to another village. I am not strong enough to work alone, especially if I have to move [to new land] every year, not strong enough to manage it. If I stay in the same field, I can do it by myself.

Community mutual cooperation practices are also not separated from the roles of men and women in every process of agricultural practices. Men usually play a greater role in things that require greater energy, such as cutting down large trees and burning fields. Women cut small trees, put out fires, and plant rice seeds, as told by a female swiddener (no. 21):

This year I will manage last’s year field. My husband is going to the forest looking for gaharu (Aquilaria malaccensis) with all the men in the village. No one help cutting the woods if I want to move [to new land]. Usually it is the job for men, women only help to cut small wooden pieces.

At harvest time men and women work together. The availability of family members and their gender serves as a basis for or selecting specific swidden agriculture practices.

Cluster 4: land tenure and rubber trees

This cluster includes how rubber (Hevea brasiliensis) trees can give two benefits for the Dayak related to land ownership and investment for the future. Basically, every family has inherited land from their ancestors, but a possibility remains for families who want to open new land. Typically, land ownership is marked by the rubber trees (or other types of hardwood trees). Land ownership is an issue especially for newcomers who do not have land. Culturally, there is a land-borrowing mechanism for landless newcomers. However, newcomers who borrow the land cannot plant rubber trees on the borrowed field. When a person plants rubber trees, that person will own that land.

Either shifting every year or semi-permanent practice enable people to maintain rubber around all their field.

Rubber trees are not only function as a marker of land ownership, but also as an investment. Usually, swiddeners combine agricultural practices with rubber tree planting

(tapping rubber latex as an alternative income). This investment motivation is often the basis for the decision to open new land for newcomers or for people who want to open new field, as one participant (no. 10, male swiddener) told me:

Last year my father and I opened a new land, just for planting rubber while planting rice so later when the rubbers grow and can be tapped, we go back to that field.

Although the price of rubber is often unstable and has declined since 2013, the communities continue to look forward to this particular commodity, as explained by a male swiddener (no. 53):

It was most comfortable back in 2010 when rubber latex price was still high, around Rp 15,000 [USD 3.00; October 27th, 2017] per liter. Everyone goes noreh [tapping] the rubber trees. Early in the morning they were already in the rubber tree gardens. Now the price is only Rp 3,000 [USD 0.60; October 27th, 2017] per liter, we still hope one day the price will rise again.

Cluster 5: alternative income

This cluster represents access to alternative income opportunities (other than rubber latex). The Dayak are dependent on forest products, such as rattan, certain types of bark for traditional beverages, medicinal plants, and fern stems for weaving.

For protein they usually hunt wildlife (e.g., wild pigs, deer, and others), raise domestic chickens and pigs, and catch fish. They also tend and harvest fruits from orchards and vegetables from gardens. Forest products, family crops, and meat supplement rice.

Families can sell excess food, but there is little profit given the lack of markets, as explained by a female swiddener (no. 33):

We can get money from selling pigs [from hunting], vegetables, and fruit but not every week or even month, rarely only when we have more or when the [pig or fruit] season comes. The buyers are usually from outside the village or neighbors from here, but yes the profit is not much because many are also selling the same thing.

Other alternative income opportunities from forest products have a higher profit value, such as tengkawang (Shorea macrophylla) and gaharu sap (Aquilaria malaccensis) (the extract of tengkawang oil and sap from gaharu tree are used in various industries) but these markets are also uncertain. The market is largely

determined by middlemen from the nearby city who are able to set the price, as mentioned by a male swiddener (no. 15):

This year there happens to be a boss [middleman] coming from Putussibau [nearby city]. He comes erratically. When he comes, almost all men go into the forest, he gives us the money to look for gaharu (Aquilaria malaccensis). The profit is minimal but better than no work.

One example of stable alternative income is employment in an oil palm plantation. Despite many problems surrounding oil palm plantations, such as lack of fair compensation for land and uncertain employment contracts, farmers say the existence of oil palm plantations gives them stable income to meet daily needs, as explained by a male swiddener (no. 52):

Land sharing agreements between companies and communities are not satisfactory, but at least now we have a steady income. I work as a fertilizer sower in the plantation, paid daily, the money is quite enough to buy daily necessities. Just look at the hill behind this long house, it used to be used for the fields, now no one wants to move every year or open a large field since oil palm was established.

Another form of stable alternative income for some was the opportunities to work in the city, as one female swiddener (no. 5) said:

Now there are many [people] working in the city, usually young people looking for the job opportunity in the city, like working in a bank or in a hotel. They usually send money to their parents in the village to support farming.

The support from family members as well as other alternative income opportunities is one of the factors in the decision making system in doing agricultural practices.

Cluster 6: resources to practice permanent agriculture

The cards in this cluster describe the things farmers find useful if they are to successfully adopt permanent agriculture, such as heavy equipment and knowledge.

The communities have been introduced to this practice through government or NGO

programs. According to the participants, these programs need to provide heavy equipment so that the land clearing process is easier. Currently most permanent plots are in swamp land with poor irrigation systems. They are vulnerable to flood during the rainy season and drought during the summer. Another problem is the lack of assistance

(in term of information on how to conduct permanent plot) from the program organizers, thus causing confusion among the Dayak communities who are new to the permanent plot agriculture system, as an administrative village leader (no. 61) said:

The problems of permanent land are lack of good infrastructure, heavy equipment extension, and irrigation systems. The assistance only came once at the beginning, then we were left behind, we got confused.

These problems lead to decrease harvest as one participant (no 3, male swiddener) said:

The harvest in the first year was pretty good, then it keeps on decreasing, so it is similar like doing swidden agriculture. I left the permanent plot for a few years.

Meanwhile, those who are still interested in permanent land must independently spend capital to improve the irrigation system and find information to manage their permanent plot, as expressed by one participant (no.1, administrative village leader):

I am fortunate to have a brother-in-law from Java [one island in Indonesia where farmers use permanent plots] who can help with capital and teach me how to farm in permanent land. While most other people have given up and are unwilling to continue farming on permanent land.

There are some people who have never been interested in permanent plot, as one participant (no. 60, female swiddener) explained:

I am from the beginning not interested in the sawah [permanent] program. That is not our tradition. Our tradition is swidden agriculture. Just look at so many people who have tried permanent plot but failed. Even if someone succeed, it's because they have money or there was someone who told him how to farm [in permanent plot].

The Possibilities of Changes in Agricultural Practices

One participant (no. 62, customary leader) said:

Farming is full of risks, son. We never know what we will do next year. It all depends on the conditions, situations, and willingness.

Farming is full of uncertainty, but still decisions must be made. The clusters from these participants’ mental models reveal the factors that influence agricultural decisions.

Furthermore, these clusters are interrelated. Three most common types of agricultural practices in the six communities are Shift Every Year (SEY) which is a traditional swidden agriculture practice in which people move to new fields every year, Semi-

Permanent (SP) when people manage their fields for 3-5 years before moving to new fields, Permanent (P) agriculture where people do not move to new fields and intensify the use of one field. The differences in each underlying factors of decision making in selecting specific agricultural practices are described in the table (3-4).

The different preferences and availability of these factors influence decisions that could lead farmers to change or continue their agricultural practices. Participants described 8 types of possible changes in agricultural practices: P to SEY, SP to SEY, P to SP, SEY to SP, SEY to P, SP to P, P combine with SEY, P combine with SP (Figure

3-4). These changes and combinations of agricultural practices are not necessarily occurring every year, but are recognized as possibilities, depending on the combination and variation of factors (Figure 3-5).

Factors that support change to semi-permanent

In the progression toward permanent plots, farmers may elect a semi-permanent system, or revert back to semi-permanent after a disappointment with a permanent plot.

A female swiddener (no.9) who changed from P to SP said:

After the harvest decreased, a few years ago I left permanent plot. It just felt awful to skip doing the tradition. I want to move to new land every year but I only have one child to help me, another is working in the bank [in the city]. Opening new land [every year] needs more capital and exhausting.

Meanwhile, a female swiddener (no. 16) who changed from SEY to SP, explained:

A few months ago, my husband was looking for gaharu and earned some money. The money is good enough to buy fertilizer, so this year we decided to manage last year’s field. Last year’s harvest was plentiful. I want to move to a new field but it need more capital and no one will help us because this year my son is going to school in the city.

The combination of factors that underlie both changes are:

 Agricultural ritual: The degree of importance of conducting rituals. Both SEY and SP allow farmers to perform rituals.

 Agricultural resources: The availability of agricultural chemicals that can make an old field profitable. For poorly managed P, changing to SP could increase land productivity. For SEY to SP, farmers believe the harvest will continue to be sufficient.

 Access to labor: SP requires less labor than SEY.

 Land tenure and rubber trees: Both changes are based on the absence of commodity investment.

 Alternative income: Stable alternative income is needed to provide them with capital to buy fertilizer, herbicide, and pesticide to maximize the harvest.

 Resources to practice permanent agriculture: Having been disappointed at P, SP appears to be more feasible. Not having resources for P but lacking labor for SEY, SP appears possible.

Factors supporting a change to permanent

The decision to change to P is possible if farmers abandon SEY and SP. A female swiddener (no. 12) who changed from SEY to P said:

Sawah [permanent plot] is more convenient for me. No need to perform an old ceremony [ritual]. The harvest is better too. Other people do not want to move to permanent because maybe they have no capital and no one knows how [to do permanent plot]. I had my brother helping me and lend the tractor when I open the sawah at the first time.

Another female swiddener (No. 11) who changed from SP to P said:

With a permanent plot, we do not need to think about where to move next year or how much to spend. Especially if it only us [husband and wife – limited family members]. It's a hassle to move around every few years.

The combination of factors that underlie these two changes are:

 Agricultural ritual: Those who choose to do P feel ritual is less meaningful.

 Agricultural resources: Even if they have availability to conduct SEY or SP. They believe they will get better harvest when conducting P. For SEY to P, they will save on the capital to clear the land every year. For SP to P, they feel they have to spend more money to maximize the harvest (in term of buying fertilizer, herbicide, etc.).

 Access to labor: Farming in P is practical for those who have limited labor resources.

 Land tenure and rubber trees: There is no motivation in relation to land ownership and commodity investment, because for them doing P is an investment for the future when compared to doing SEY or SP.

 Alternative income: Capital support from access to alternative income is very helpful in doing P, especially in early stage of opening the field which needs more capital. For those who choose this change, conducting P can give them more time for them to find alternative income opportunities.

 Resources to practice permanent agriculture: Those who choose to make this change have the support and opportunity.

Factors that motivate shifting every year

Despite encouragement to move toward P, some farmers decide to return to

SEY. A male swiddener (no. 71) who changed from P to SEY said:

I left permanent plot because the harvest continued to decline and need a lot of capital to make it work, especially now I have no other income. Additionally it may be because I do not know how to properly farm [in a permanent plot]. So I better move every year, in addition to plant rubber trees I can still do nganjung pedara [ritual]. I have many brothers that can help manage the lands.

A male swiddener (no. 4) who changed from SP to SEY told me:

I do not want to try permanent because many [people] have failed, besides we still have a tradition. This year I moved to a new land assisted by my family because last year harvest was not good enough. Also to plant rubber trees, so later I can sell latex to buy food. Especially for non- fixed income person like me.

From these farmers’ experiences we can see the combination of factors that cause people to choose SEY. The combination of five drivers are:

 Agricultural ritual: Conducting P does not accommodate the belief system held by those who believe in the importance of performing the ritual. Changing from SP to SEY still provides benefits to meet the spiritual needs.

 Agricultural resources: The decrease of land productivity in P and SP and unavailability of capital to maximize the harvest.

 Access to labor: Have access to labor. Conducting SEY requires more effort to build a new hut every year in a new field, and to clear all the large vegetation in the fallow.

 Land tenure and rubber trees: There is motivation for commodity investment because conducting P and SP close the possibility to invest commodities.

 Alternative income: The unstable livelihood opportunity encourages them to perform SEY to meet household needs.

 Resources to practice permanent agriculture: Less familiarity with permanent plot agriculture caused by lack of knowledge, assistance, and heavy equipment support.

Factors that support combined practices with 2 fields

Farmers may also decide to test P as they maintain SEY or SP fields. This enables them to experiment with an innovation while mitigating risk by maintaining the familiar farming practices. Importantly, it enables people to increase their rubber trees.

One participant who combined P with SEY said:

It has been a few years since we open two fields, sawah [permanent] and open new land a little, just in case if one harvest failed. In addition to maintaining the tradition, we can also plant rubber trees.

One participant who combined P with SP said:

This year [I manage] rice fields and last year field. It is okay, I have family who help me to do this, as long as we can eat every day while other [alternative] income does not exist.

The combination of factors that underlie these two combinations are:

 Agricultural ritual: They cannot perform rituals only by doing P, so they choose to combine P practices with SP or SEY.

 Agricultural resources: Conducting SEY or SP requires substantial capital. However, the people who combine either of these two strategies simply open up small fields and do not use large amounts of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides.

 Access to labor: Both changes require greater access to labor to manage two different fields and open a new one (if SEY).

 Land tenure and rubber trees: For the combination of P with SEY, commodity investment is important, while the combination of P with SP does not consider it important.

 Alternative income: The unstable alternative income condition encourages the combination of agricultural practices as a solution to the fluctuating harvest condition (i.e. back-up plan strategy).

 Resources to practice permanent agriculture: Basically, people who practice this combination are familiar enough and have support (e.g. heavy equipment) to do P. However, fluctuating harvest indicate that they do not have sufficient knowledge about the management P, as people who only conduct P.

Discussion

Relationship between Components in Dayak’s Mental Model

The six clusters which are influential in the Dayak decision-making process in selecting agricultural practices represent Kosmos, Corpus, and Praxis systems.

Referring to Houde’s (2007) explanation, the first cluster of rituals in agricultural practices belongs to the cosmological dimension (i.e., Kosmos). The first cluster confirms Dove’s (1993) findings in the Dayak community in West Borneo about ritual practices using bird voices and offerings to spirits. Although he does not specifically address the interrelationships between cosmological preferences and their implications

for the preferences of agricultural practices, he examines that change in ritual is in line with the changes in agricultural practices. The second cluster represents the dimensions of factual observations, classifications, and system dynamics (Houde, 2007)

(i.e., Corpus). The categorization of fallow type related to land productivity in the second cluster is also found by Siahaya et al. (2016) in East Borneo, who suggest that this is an important factor in making decisions about agricultural practices.

Cluster 3, access to labor and cluster 4, land ownership belong to the management system dimension (Houde, 2007) (i.e., Praxis). Access to labor is an important factor in decision making (Padoch, (1985). She found an 'anomaly' situation among Dayak communities in East Kalimantan, where they conduct permanent plot agriculture despite very low human densities as an effort to address shortages in labor.

This third cluster illustrates that access to labor in the family level is one of the decisive factors in choosing agricultural practices. In the context of access to labor and the role of gender, Colfer, Wadley, & Venkateswarlu (1999) found that women in West

Kalimantan have a greater share of the labor. Cluster 3 shows the complementary roles of men and women with men’s role dominating in the early stages (land clearing) and women leading in the planting stage. Availability of both genders is one of the factors in decisions. Regarding cluster 4, land ownership is one of the factors also found by Dove

(1998) who examined the linkage between rubber trees planting and land ownership of

Dayak in West Borneo.

TEK dimensions in Dayak's mental models are modulated by financial considerations. Cluster 2 suggests land productivity is closely related to financial considerations in terms of efforts to increase the harvest, cluster 4 shows land

ownership is influenced by commodity investment decisions, and cluster 5 includes the opportunity of alternative income as an important factor in decisions. The use of chemicals (e.g., fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides) and rubber tree investment form a socio-economic systems underlying decision making in swidden agriculture practices

(CIFOR 2014). The opportunity of alternative income for Dayak people in West Borneo from the extraction of forest products, such as tengkawang and gaharu, are closely related to the condition of unstable market (Großmann, 2017; Lawrence, Leighton, &

Peart, 1995). The presence of an unstable market in the form of local collector

(middleman) was also alluded to by Soehartono and Newton (2002) who examined gaharu trade in some areas in Indonesia, including West Kalimantan. Middlemen are creating a system of debt in a peonage system (Neumann & Hirsch, 2000). Meanwhile, another alternative income in Kalimantan is oil palm where Dayak people work as laborers on plantations (Semedi, 2014). Despite limitation in literature, findings of this research suggest that financial consideration in its relation with alternative income is one basis of decision making in agricultural practices.

In addition to the financial consideration and TEK components, there are external forces in cluster 6 in the form of programs that encourage permanent plot agriculture.

Padoch et al. (1998) examined the practice of permanent agriculture in one Dayak village in West Borneo, and found that one of the motivations in attempting this practice was the possibility of improvement with good management. This is also one of the results of this study, in which Dayak people are motivated to farm in permanent plots if the results are more promising than other agricultural practices. This requires a

beneficial interaction between the swiddener community and other actors such as extension agents (Government and NGO) (F. Bernard et al., 2014).

Mental models of the Dayak are influenced by several components, such as TEK

(Corpus, Praxis, and Kosmos), financial consideration, and external forces. These three things are related to each other (Figure 3-4), allowing for different decisions in agricultural practices. Some research on farmers' decision making focus on the idea that all decisions are motivated by maximizing profit (Edwards-Jones, 2006; McGregor,

Rola-Rubzen, & Murray-Prior, 2001) (i.e., financial consideration). For the Dayak, however, economic rationality does not stand alone but interacts with other components: TEK and external forces. The interconnection of components, rather than a focus on one or two components, create a holistic understanding of agriculture decision making. Policies and programs to support Dayak farmers should consider how all elements interrelate.

Three Type of Groups in Agricultural Changes

The variations of combination of TEK (Corpus, Praxis, and Kosmos), financial considerations, and external forces create eight types of possible changes in agricultural practices. Each possible change is determined by the preferences and availability of all factors represents by the six clusters in the mental model. The basis for decision-making of selecting agricultural practices related to the ritual is closely linked to the dynamics of preferences about the importance of rituals perceived by every member of the family. It is related to the availability of capital and labor depends on the capabilities of each individual and family of the community. The preferences of commodity investment related to land ownership, unstable or stable conditions of

alternative livelihood opportunity, and responses to the opportunity to change to permanent also greatly affects the decision making process along with other factors.

Differences in preferences and availability of these factors lead to the type of changes: away from permanence (P to SP, P to SEY, and SP to SEY), toward permanence (SEY to SP, SP to P, and SEY to P), and combination (P + SEY and P +

SP). The types of farmers who make these decisions can be organized into 3 different groups: traditional group, open to innovation group, and transitional group. In the context of this study, innovation in agricultural practices is in the form of permanent agricultural plot (Tomaš Simin & Janković, 2014). Although some research has shown that the practice of permanent plot agriculture is regularly practiced by some Dayak communities in Borneo (Padoch et al., 1998; Seavoy, 1973), this practice is new to these six communities and is offered by external actors (government and NGOs).

Traditional groups will be more likely to move away from permanence changes

(SP to SEY, P to SP, and P to SEY) or in some cases, to SP from SEY, as long as rituals can be maintained. For traditional groups, the TEK component in the form of performing ritual (cosmological) is one of the key factors that influences agricultural decisions. For many indigenous communities, following ritual practices perpetrated by ancestors is a way to live life to avoid sanctions from the spirits (Coomans, 1987)

(Siahaya et al., 2016). Farming in permanent plots does not allow the Dayak community to perform ritual practices that have been passed down through generations. Moreover, the limitations of knowledge to maximize the harvest results in practice P contribute to this decision. Limited access to alternative income opportunities also plays a role as part of economic rationality. Declining harvest when conducting P cannot be sustainable

without alternative income support. Meanwhile, for the change of SP to SEY, cosmological aspect remains one of determinant factors, but unstable alternative income and limited access to knowledge of permanent agriculture make them do not choose to do P. Traditional groups are not only seen moving away from permanence changes, but also in the toward permanence (SEY to SP) in some cases. SP practice accommodates cosmological aspects, supported by stable alternative income and limited access to knowledge of permanent. Obviously the aspect of ritual, alternative income, and knowledge on permanent plots work together with other aspects, such as land productivity and capital availability, access to labor, land ownership and commodity investment, access to alternative livelihoods in traditional group decision making processes.

For the open to innovation group, the cosmological component is something negotiable. This is seen in toward permanence changes (SEY to P and SP to P). One of the basic visions of the decision to make this change is the readiness to abandon rituals in agricultural practices. This is possible for families who are supported by stable alternative income, increased land productivity and access to capital, and good access to resources to practice permanent plot. These four clusters combine with differences in preferences and availability in terms of access to labor, land ownership, and commodity investment.

The cosmological component also underlies the combination of transitional group practices. The transitional meaning in this context is groups retain the importance of ritual practices that have been passed down through generations but remain open to innovation (permanent plot agriculture). Combination practices with two fields is the best

example of the Dayak community's efforts to bridge TEK, financial consideration, and external forces. The similar motivations of the two changes which appear to be the basis of the decision to practice the combination are the importance of ritual in agricultural practices, the unstable alternative livelihoods condition, and the low level of knowledge in performing permanent plots resulting in less than ideal harvest.

Combination practices allow them to perform rituals and still consider the rational aspects of economic and external forces.

Summary

This study aims to analyze the components of the Dayak mental mode as a basis to understand decision making system for agricultural practices. This study provides a new perspective in terms of the multiple factors that drive decisions along 8 different paths. There are 6 clusters that make up the mental model where the preference and availability of each factor depends on the individual’s perspective and circumstances. Each cluster does not stand on its own but combines with the others representing traditional ecological knowledge, rational economic perspectives, and external forces. Furthermore, the combinations of preferences and availability among clusters form 8 patterns of possible changes in agricultural practices.

This study identifies three groups: traditional group, open to innovation group, and transitional group. Each group tends to choose different agricultural practices.

Swiddeners negotiate their values as they contemplate accepting innovation in agricultural change (Dressler & Pulhin, 2010). Failure to accept and implement innovations in agricultural practices (e.g., permanent agriculture) can be due to inconsistency with values, beliefs, and attitudes of potential adopters (E. M. Rogers,

1995) as well as incompatibility with local needs (Fagerberg & Srholec, 2008; Zanello,

Fu, Mohnen, & Ventresca, 2016). Programs to change traditional agricultural practices toward permanent plot agriculture should also consider not only economic constrainsts, but also the other aspects (e.g., TEK, family size, gender, knowledge, etc.) in the community to increase the potential for program success.

Table 3-1. Sampling framework Communiti- Agricultural practice preferences at the time Number of es Participants Shift Semi- Perma- Combinati- Combina- every permanent plot on of tion of year nent permanent perma- plot and nent plot shift every and year semi- perma- nent Community Yes Yes Yes None None 12 1 Community Yes Yes None None None 12 2 Community None Yes Yes None Yes 12 3 Community Yes Yes None None None 12 4 Community None Yes None None None 12 5 Community Yes Yes None Yes None 12 6 Total 72

Table 3-2. Cards in each cluster Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4 Cluster 5 Cluster 6 (8) Seeds (13) Money (2) (3) (4) Kitchen (7) Community Newcomers garden Extension mutual cooperation (15) Ritual (19) Type of (9) Family (6) Rubber (5) Orchard (14) Heavy fallow decision trees equipment (18) (23) (10) (20) Land (36) Forest (17) Traditional Fertilizer Individual ownership resources Permanent agricultural decision plot practices agriculture (24) Pest (11) (42) Hunting (31) Community Government decision (25) (16) Shifting (43) Fishing (34) Pesticide cultivation Assistance (26) (40) Men’s (46) Oil (35) Herbicide role palm Solution (27) Harvest (41) (38) Swamp Women’s role (47) Irrigation

Table 3-3. Type of field based on the cycle years Community Cycle Year (in local language) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10+ Primary forest 1 Baee’ Baee’ Baee’ lako------Talun Talun Rimba pare sepabaang uk aya 2 Batin Kehokung Talun Talun tokek------Rimba pare 3,4,5,6 Da- Pe------Penge------Rimba mun nge- -rang rang tua muda

Table 3-4. Motivating factors in agricultural decisions Factor/Cluster SEY SP P Agricultural ritual Important Important Not important Agricultural resources Not available Available Available Access to labor Available Not available Not available Land tenure and rubber trees Important Not important Not important Alternative income Not available Available Available Resources to practice permanent Not available Not available Available agriculture

Figure 3-1. Field locations

Figure 3-2. Cluster analysis result of six communities

Figure 3-3. Rules of community mutual cooperation based on family members

Figure 3-4. Eight types of decisions in agricultural practices

Figure 3-5. Combinations of factors that shape eight different agricultural changes

Figure 3-6. Interconnection of components in Dayak’s mental model

CHAPTER 4 CONCLUSION

Using a mental model framework in research on indigenous communities and natural resources management may provide insights to understand their perspectives as they contemplate change. A mental model framework presents an explanation of the knowledge owned and used by indigenous communities in managing agricultural practices. Knowledge reflects both agricultural practices and their traditional culture and is intertwined creating a holistic framework of how indigenous people understand farming. This study focuses on two things that challenge the Dayak in West Borneo.

The first issue is the challenge of changing traditional agricultural practices due to the burn ban issued by the Indonesian government, while the second issue is understanding additional challenges that come from internal and external drivers in the

Dayak communities.

Chapter 2 discusses how Dayak communities understand and respond to the burn ban. This mental model shows that the use of fire in traditional agricultural practices is not simple. It is closely related to the components of the Kosmos (ritual) and

Praxis (local management practices) that shape the conditions of stability in their lives.

When the burn ban policy is implemented with the threat of incarceration and fines, people are forced into a behavior they may not prefer. External intervention disturbs stability resulting in instability (e.g., agricultural change). Farmers report that the external policy has been enforced without taking the Dayak’s perspective into consideration. Such practice will only push the situation to sense of injustice, and ultimately, an undesirable direction.

Chapter 3 discusses the possible changes in Dayak's traditional agricultural practices arising from the interactions between components within their mental model of agricultural decisions. A framework helps us to understand the decision-making system.

The Dayak farmers’ understanding of agricultural practices consists of the components of traditional ecological knowledge (Kosmos, Praxis, and Corpus), financial consideration, and external forces. These three components are interconnected with each other and form the basis of the decision-making process to select agricultural practices. Different combinations of factors that influence the decision, forming eight types of patterns in agricultural practices. These patterns are evident in three different groups among Dayak communities: traditional group, open to innovation group, and transitional group. This chapter shows that a change in agricultural practice is possible if relevant factors favor this path.

Based on the results of chapters 2 and 3, change is coming to the Dayak, and is influenced by many variables, with force being the least acceptable. Change is more likely to happen through natural means with a right approach that acceptable by the communities. To get a right approach, government programs or NGOs should pay attention not only to one variable, but to all components that influence decision processes in Dayak’s mental models.

Future studies should look into the interaction between TEK, economic livelihood decision, and cultural stability that shape the mental model of an indigenous group.

Today, Dayak communities, as well as many other indigenous communities, are at a crossroads. The people from outside the group who pay attention to them can play a role to assist them in choosing the right path or by provide resources to empower them

to make their own choices. These outside groups may be from the Indonesian government who wishes to reduce burning, or from NGOs who believe an evolution toward permanent agriculture will maintain forest cover and reduce atmospheric carbon.

In either case, a holistic understanding of the multiple economic factors that the Dayak consider when making decisions about farming, and a respect for the importance of traditional rituals, will be essential.

APPENDIX A IRB LETTER OF APPROVAL

APPENDIX B INFORMED CONSENT

Thank you for being willing to talk to me today. My name is Willy Daeli. I am from Indonesia and also am a student at the University of Florida. I am working to know more about how you and your community is responding to the problem of burning. I have several questions for you and an exercise with cards. This could take 1-2 hours. Do you think you are interested? Can I tell you more about this? I can’t offer you any reward for talking to me and I cannot imagine any harm that you might experience if you agree to help me. In fact, my report might even help the Dayak in the long term. I will not be using your name in any report of my findings – But I might quote what you say. If I do that, the quote will be attributed to a member of this community, to hide your identity. You can also stop the interview at any time, and that will be fine. You don’t even have to answer all the questions – you can say “pass” if you do not wish to answer one. And we can go back and you can change your answer if you wish. Would you be comfortable if I recorded the conversation? That will allow me to remember exactly what you said. I will delete the recorded interview once I have transcribed the interview. But, you can say no if you don’t want me to turn on the recorder – that’s OK – I will just have to take good notes. If you have any questions about this project, you can contact me through my personal phone or email or contact my advisor, Martha Monroe through her personal phone or email questions or concerns about your rights as research participants may be directed to IRB02 office, University of Florida, Box 112250, Gainesville, FL 32611, (352) 392-0433.

APPENDIX C LIST OF 3CM CARDS

No. Kata-kata (Indonesian language) Words 1 Rumah panjang Long house 2 Gotong royong Community mutual cooperation 3 Pendatang Newcomers 4 Kebun sayur Kitchen garden 5 Kebun buah Orchard 6 Karet Rubber trees 7 Bantuan Extension 8 Bibit Seeds 9 Keputusan keluarga Family’s decision 10 Keputusan individu Individual’s decision 11 Keputusan masyarakat bersama Community’s decision 12 Kredit/pinjaman Credit/loan 13 Uang Money 14 Alat berat Heavy equipment 15 Acara adat Ritual 16 Ladang berpindah Shifting cultivation 17 Sawah menetap Permanent agriculture 18 Cara bertani Agricultural practices procedure 19 Jenis ladang Type of the fallow 20 Kepemilikan tanah Land ownership 21 Cuaca (kemarau dan hujan) Weather 22 Api Fire 23 Pupuk Fertilizer 24 Hama Pest 25 Racun hama Pesticide 26 Racun rumput Herbicide 27 Panen Harvest 28 Bencana Catastrophe 29 Pendidikan Education 30 Kesehatan Health 31 Pemerintah Government 32 Polisi Police 33 Pelarangan pembakaran Burn ban 34 Pendampingan Assistance 35 Solusi Solution 36 Hutan Forest 37 Gambut Peat 38 Paya Swamp

39 Sungai River 40 Peran laki-laki Men's role 41 Peran perempuan Women's role 42 Berburu Hunting 43 Memancing Fishing 44 Bertukang Construction worker 45 Merantau Migration 46 Kelapa sawit Oil Palm 47 Irigasi Irrigation 48 Taman Nasional National Park 49 Aturan Adat Customary law 50 Kebakaran Fires Incident

APPENDIX D INTERVIEW GUIDE

Script Purpose Consent Follow the informed consent Continue if willing Intro Thank you for being willing to talk to me Set the stage. today. Warm up Please tell me a little about yourself. Set tone How long have you been in this Become comfortable community? Sense of place What do you think is special about this Age and role place? Establish potential for What is your role/job here? obtaining information from How often do you travel to nearby town? (or outside whatever) How does this community support itself? Are they dependent on What resources do you use? farming? Who obtains them? Get to the Are you aware of any rules about burning Awareness and opinion of core your fields? prohibition Is there a size allowance/restriction? What have you heard? What do you think about this rule? What are the advantages and disadvantages of this rule? 3CM I’d like you to think How does the burn Select cards ban affect your community? Imagine that you are telling someone from another village about your experience. What things would you want them to know about how the burn ban affected this place? Pause. Here are some things that might be important to tell them. Please select the cards that represent what you would say and put them over there. Pause. Are there other things that aren’t on a card that would be important? Let’s make a few new cards for those things. Now can you please look at the cards you selected and group them? -- organize them in a way that puts similar cards together. Pause. Great. Now can you explain what you have created here? Tell me about this category. What does it represent and why is this

important for someone to know? (continue with all categories) For the negative impacts: How likely do you Explore sense of justice, think these outcomes are? action, resistance How much of a problem would they be? Do you think the government officials Beliefs and attitudes understand these impacts? What do you think your community should Potential injustice and do about it? resistance What possibilities are there for doing something? What do you think will happen? Tell me more about your plans for the Explore intention future. What are your options? What is your plan? How will this community cope with this rule (uncertainty condition)? And why is this a good plan? Is it easy/likely/possible? How do you know? Will other people agree with it? How do you know? Tell me more about why the rule will not Information about affect this community. resistance Do you think there will be consequences? Do you think the rule does not apply here? Do you think everyone in this community Sense of norm, common would agree with your ideas? knowledge, personal vs Could I talk to someone who might think shared opinion differently? Imagine that you are telling someone from another village about your agricultural practices. What things are important to explain your agricultural practices other than the burn ban? (3CM) Is this community exactly the same? What might be different? What has led to these differences? What would be good about that future? What could be a problem? What could change now to make a better future? Closing Thank you very much for your answers and your contribution to my research.

LIST OF REFERENCES

Abel, N., Ross, H., & Walker, P. (1998). Mental Models in Rangeland Research, Communication and Management. The Rangeland Journal, 20(1), 77–91. https://doi.org/10.1071/rj9980077

Angelsen, A. (1995). Shifting cultivation and “deforestation”: A study from Indonesia. World Development, 23(10), 1713–1729. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305- 750X(95)00070-S

Austin, D. (1994). Incorporating cognitive theory into environmental policymaking. The Environmental Professional, 16(3), 262–274.

Barlow, J., Parry, L., Gardner, T. A., Ferreira, J., Aragão, L. E. O. C., Carmenta, R., … Cochrane, M. A. (2012). The critical importance of considering fire in REDD+ programs. Biological Conservation, 154(Supplement C), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.03.034

Barrera-Bassols, N., & Zinck, J. A. (2003). Ethnopedology: a worldwide view on the soil knowledge of local people. Geoderma, 111(3), 171–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7061(02)00263-X

Berkes, F. (1993). Traditional Ecological Knowledge in Perspective. In J. T. Inglis (Ed.), Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Concepts and Cases (pp. 1–10). Ottawa, Canada: International Development Research Centre.

Bernard, F., van Noordwijk, M., Luedeling, E., Villamor, G. B., Sileshi, G. W., & Namirembe, S. (2014). Social actors and unsustainability of agriculture. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 6, 155–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.01.002

Bernard, H. R. (2011). Research Methods in Anthropology (Fifth Edition). New York: AltaMira Press.

Biedenweg, K. A., & Monroe, M. (2013). Cognitive Methods and a Case Study for Assessing Shared Perspectives as a Result of Social Learning. Society & Natural Resources, 26(8), 931–944. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2012.725455

Borgatti, S. P. (1996). Anthropac 4: Reference Manual. Natick, MA: Analytic Technologies.

Borgatti, S. P. (1998). Elicitation Techniques for Cultural Domain Analysis. In J. Schensul & M. LeCompte (Eds.), The Ethnographer’s Toolkit (Vol. 3). Walnut Creek, CA: Altimira Press.

Borges, J. A. R., Foletto, L., & Xavier, V. T. (2015). An interdisciplinary framework to study farmers decisions on adoption of innovation: Insights from Expected Utility Theory and Theory of Planned Behavior. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 10(29), 2814–2825. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJAR2015.9650

Boserup, E. (1965). The Conditions of Agricultural Growth: The Economics of Agrarian Change under Population Pressure. London: Earthscan.

Bower, G. H., & Morrow, D. G. (1990). Mental models in narrative comprehension. Science, 247(4938), 44+.

Cabinet Secretariat of the Republic of Indonesia. (2015, October 24). Instruksi Presiden No. 11 Tahun 2015 tentang Peningkatan Pengendalian Kebakaran Hutan dan Lahan. Retrieved from http://sipuu.setkab.go.id/puu/buka_puu/174708/inpres%20no%2011%20tahun%2 02015.pdf

Cairn, M. (2007). Preface. In M. Cairn (Ed.), Voices from the forest: Integrating indigenous knowledge into sustainable upland farming (pp. 1–4). Washington D.C.: Resources for the Future Press.

Carley, K., & Palmquist, M. (1992). Extracting, Representing, and Analyzing Mental Models. Social Forces; Chapel Hill, N.C., 70(3), 601–636.

Carlton, J. S., & Jacobson, S. K. (2016). Using Expert and Non-expert Models of Climate Change to Enhance Communication. Environmental Communication, 10(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2015.1016544

Carmenta, R., Blackburn, G. A., Davies, G., Sassi, C. de, Lima, A., Parry, L., … Barlow, J. (2016). Does the Establishment of Sustainable Use Reserves Affect Fire Management in the Humid Tropics? PLOS ONE, 11(2), e0149292. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149292

Carmenta, R., Parry, L., Blackburn, A., Vermeylen, S., & Barlow, J. (2011). Understanding Human-Fire Interactions in Tropical Forest Regions: a Case for Interdisciplinary Research across the Natural and Social Sciences. Ecology and Society, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03950-160153

Carmenta, R., Vermeylen, S., Parry, L., & Barlow, J. (2013). Shifting Cultivation and Fire Policy: Insights from the Brazilian Amazon. Human Ecology, 41(4), 603–614. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-013-9600-1

Chi, V. K., Rompaey, A. V., Govers, G., Vanacker, V., Schmook, B., & Hieu, N. (2013). Land Transitions in Northwest Vietnam: An Integrated Analysis of Biophysical and Socio-Cultural Factors. Human Ecology, 41(1), 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-013-9569-9

CIFOR. (2014). ASEAN-Swiss Partnership on Social Forestry and Climate Change (ASFCC) Final Activity Report for the Phase 1 (2012-2013) Kapuas Hulu District, West Kalimantan Province, Indonesia. Bogor, Indonesia: Center For International Forestry Research (CIFOR). Retrieved from www.cifor.org/fileadmin/subsites/asfn/documents/ASFCC_Report_Indonesia.pdf

Colfer, C. J. P., Alcorn, J. B., & Russel, D. (2015). Swidden and Fallows: Reflections on The Global and Local Values of Slash and Burn. In M. F. Cairns (Ed.), Shifting Cultivation and Environmental Change: Indigenous People, Agriculture, and Forest Conservation (pp. 62–86). New York: Routledge.

Colfer, C. J. P., Wadley, R. L., & Venkateswarlu, P. (1999). Understanding local people’s use of time: a pre-condition for good co-management. Environmental Conservation, 26(1), 41–52.

Conklin, H. C. (1957). ETHNOLOGY AND ETHNOGRAPHY: Iban Agriculture: A Report on the Shifting Cultivation of Hill Rice by the Iban of Sarawak. J. D. Freeman, Foreward by E. R. Leach. American Anthropologist, 59(1), 179–180. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1957.59.1.02a00540

Coomans, M. (1987). Manusia Dayak, Dahulu, Sekarang, Masa Depan (Dayak people, past, present, future). Jakarta, Indonesia: Gramedia.

Craik, K. J. W. (1943). The nature of explanation. Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press.

Cramb, R. A., Colfer, C. J. P., Dressler, W., Laungaramsri, P., Le, Q. T., Mulyoutami, E., … Wadley, R. L. (2009). Swidden Transformations and Rural Livelihoods in Southeast Asia. Human Ecology, 37(3), 323–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-009-9241-6

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (Second Edition). California: SAGE Publications.

D’Andrade, R. (1995). The Development of Cognitive Anthropology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Davis, A., & Wagner, J. R. (2003). Who Knows? On the Importance of Identifying “Experts” When Researching Local Ecological Knowledge. Human Ecology, 31(3), 463–489. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025075923297

Denzau, A. T., & North, D. C. (1994). Shared Mental Models: Ideologies and Institutions. Kyklos, 47(1), 3–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 6435.1994.tb02246.x

Dove, M. R. (1983). Theories of swidden agriculture, and the political economy of ignorance. Agroforestry Systems, 1(2), 85–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00596351

Dove, M. R. (1993). Uncertainty, Humility, and Adaptation in the Tropical Forest: The Agricultural Augury of the Kantu’. Ethnology, 32(2), 145–167. https://doi.org/10.2307/3773770

Dove, M. R. (1998). Living rubber, dead land, and persisting systems in Borneo; Indigenous representations of sustainability. Bijdragen Tot de Taal-, Land- En Volkenkunde; Leiden, 154(1), 20.

Doyle, J. K., & Ford, D. N. (1998). Mental models concepts for system dynamics research. System Dynamics Review, 14(1), 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1727(199821)14:1<3::AID-SDR140>3.0.CO;2- K

Dray, A., Perez, P., Le Page, C., D’Aquino, P., & White, I. (2007). Who wants to terminate the game? The role of vested interests and metaplayers in the ATOLLGAME experience. Simulation & Gaming, 38(4), 494–511. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878107300673

Dressler, W., & Pulhin, J. (2010). The shifting ground of swidden agriculture on Palawan Island, the Philippines. Agriculture and Human Values, 27(4), 445–459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-009-9239-0

Duerden, F., & Kuhn, R. G. (1998). Scale, context, and application of traditional knowledge of the Canadian north. Polar Record, 34(188), 31–38. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0032247400014959

Edwards, S. A., & Heiduk, F. (2015). Hazy days: forest fires and the politics of environmental security in Indonesia. Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, 34(3), 65–94.

Edwards-Jones, G. (2006). Modelling farmer decision-making: concepts, progress and challenges. Animal Science, 82(6), 783–790. https://doi.org/10.1017/ASC2006112

Erni, C. (2015). Introduction. In C. Erni (Ed.), Shifting Cultivation, Livelihood and Food Security: New and Old Challenges for Indigenous Peoples in Asia. Bangkok: FAO, IWGIA and AIPP.

Fader, M., Gerten, D., Krause, M., Lucht, W., & Cramer, W. (2013). Spatial decoupling of agricultural production and consumption: quantifying dependences of countries on food imports due to domestic land and water constraints. Environmental Research Letters, 8(1), 014046. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/014046

Fagerberg, J., & Srholec, M. (2008). National innovation systems, capabilities and economic development. Research Policy, 37(9), 1417–1435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.06.003

FAO. (2015). Shifting Cultivation, Livelihood and Food, Security New and Old Challenges for Indigenous Peoples in Asia. (C. Erni, Ed.). Bangkok, Thailand: Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, International Work Group For Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA), and Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact (AIPP). Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4580e.pdf

Farmar-Bowers, Q., & Lane, R. (2009). Understanding farmers’ strategic decision- making processes and the implications for biodiversity conservation policy. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(2), 1135–1144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.05.002

Feola, G., & Binder, C. R. (2010). Towards an improved understanding of farmers’ behaviour: The integrative agent-centred (IAC) framework. Ecological Economics, 69(12), 2323–2333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.07.023

Feola, G., Lerner, A. M., Jain, M., Montefrio, M. J. F., & Nicholas, K. A. (2015). Researching farmer behaviour in climate change adaptation and sustainable agriculture: Lessons learned from five case studies. Journal of Rural Studies, 39, 74–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.03.009

Fischer, A. P., & Bliss, J. C. (2006). Mental and Biophysical Terrains of Biodiversity: Conserving Oak on Family Forests. Society & Natural Resources, 19(7), 625– 643. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920600742393

Fox, J., Fujita, Y., Ngidang, D., Peluso, N., Potter, L., Sakuntaladewi, N., … Thomas, D. (2009). Policies, Political-Economy, and Swidden in Southeast Asia. Human Ecology, 37(3), 305–322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-009-9240-7

France-Presse, A. (2015, December 15). Indonesia forest fires cost twice as much as tsunami clean-up, says World Bank. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/15/indonesia-forest-fires- cost-twice-as-much-as-tsunami-clean-up-says-world-bank

Friedrichsen, C., Daroub, S., Monroe, M., Stepp, J., & Wani, S. (2017). Mental models of soil management for food security in periurban India. https://doi.org/10.2134/urbanag2017.08.0002

Gaveau, D. L. A. (2017). What a diﬀerence 4 decades make: Deforestation in Borneo since 1973 (Fact Sheet) (p. 4). Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR. Retrieved from http://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/factsheet/6552-factsheet.pdf

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2006). The Discovery of Grounded Theory Strategies for Qualitative Research. New Brunswick, USA: Aldine Transaction.

Glauber, A. J. (2016). The Cost of Fire: An Economic Analysis of Indonesia’s 2015 Fire Crisis. Jakarta: World Bank Group. Retrieved from http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/643781465442350600/Indonesia-forest-fire- notes.pdf.

Großmann, K. (2017). Gaharu King – Family Queen: material gendered political ecology of the eaglewood boom in Kalimantan, Indonesia. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 44(6), 1275–1292. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2017.1341408

Guest, G. (2015). Sampling and Selecting Participants in Field Research. In H. R. Bernard & C. C. Gravlee (Eds.), Handbook of Methods In Cultural Ethnography (Second Edition). London: Rowman & Littlefield.

Halbrendt, J., Gray, S. A., Crow, S., Radovich, T., Kimura, A. H., & Tamang, B. B. (2014). Differences in farmer and expert beliefs and the perceived impacts of conservation agriculture. Global Environmental Change, 28(Supplement C), 50– 62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.05.001

Hansen, M. C., Stehman, S. V., Potapov, P. V., Arunarwati, B., Stolle, F., & Pittman, K. (2009). Quantifying changes in the rates of forest clearing in Indonesia from 1990 to 2005 using remotely sensed data sets. Environmental Research Letters, 4(3), 034001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/4/3/034001

Holmes, O. (2015, October 5). Forest fires in Indonesia choke much of south-east Asia. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/05/forest-fires-in-indonesia- choke-much-of-south-east-asia

Horvath, S., Dickerson, M. O., MacKinnon, L., & Ross, M. M. (2002). The Impact of The Traditional Land Use and Occupancy Study On The Dene Tha’ First Nation, XXII(2), 361–398.

Houde, N. (2007). The Six Faces of Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Challenges and Opportunities for Canadian Co-Management Arrangements. Ecology and Society, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02270-120234

Hume, D. W. (2006). Swidden Agriculture and Conservation in Eastern Madagascar: Stakeholder Perspectives and Cultural Belief Systems. Conservation and Society, 4(2), 287.

Irawan, K. C. (2015, July 9). Kebakaran Lahan Tak Kunjung Reda, Kapolda Kalbar Keluarkan Maklumat. KOMPAS.Com. Retrieved from http://regional.kompas.com/read/2015/07/09/0014248/Kebakaran.Lahan.Tak.Kun jung.Reda.Kapolda.Kalbar.Keluarkan.Maklumat

Jabbour, R., Zwickle, S., Gallandt, E. R., McPhee, K. E., Wilson, R. S., & Doohan, D. (2014). Mental models of organic weed management: Comparison of New England US farmer and expert models. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 29(4), 319–333. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170513000185

Johnson, J. M., & Rowlands, T. (2012). The Interpersonal Dynamics of In-Depth Interviewing. In J. F. Gubrium, J. A. Holstein, A. B. Marvasti, & K. D. McKinney (Eds.), The SAGE HAndbook of Interview Research: The Complexity of the Craft (Second Edition, pp. 99–114). California: SAGE Publications.

Johnson, M. (Ed.). (1992). Lore: Capturing Traditional Environmental Knwledge. Ottawa, Canada: International Development Research Centre.

Johnson-Laird, P. n. (1980). Mental Models in Cognitive Science. Cognitive Science, 4(1), 71–115. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0401_4

Jones, N., Ross, H., Lynam, T., Perez, P., & Leitch, A. (2011). Mental Models: An Interdisciplinary Synthesis of Theory and Methods. Ecology and Society, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03802-160146

Jong, W. de, Chokkalingam, U., & Perera, G. a. D. (2001). The evolution of swidden fallow secondary forests in Asia. Journal of Tropical Forest Science. Retrieved from https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/18452

Joshi, L., Wijaya, K., Sirait, M., & Mulyoutami, E. (2004). Indigenous Systems And Ecological Knowledge Among Dayak People In Kutai Barat, East Kalimantan. Bogor: World Agro Forestry. Retrieved from http://www.worldagroforestry.org/downloads/Publications/PDFS/wp04193.pdf

Kalimantan News. (2015, September 15). Bakar Lahan, Masyarakat Kalbar Akan di Penjara 10 Tahun. Kalimantan News.Com. Retrieved from http://kalimantan- news.com/berita.php?idb=31472

Kallio, M. H., Moeliono, M., Maharani, C., Brockhaus, M., Hogarth, N. J., Daeli, W., … Wong, G. (2016). Information Exchange in Swidden Communities of West Kalimantan: Lessons for Designing REDD+. International Forestry Review, 18(2), 203–217. https://doi.org/10.1505/070.018.0202

Kant, S., & Brubacher, D. (2008). Aboriginal expectations and perceived effectiveness of forest management practices and forest certification in Ontario. The Forestry Chronicle, 84(3), 378–391. https://doi.org/10.5558/tfc84378-3

Kearney, A. R. (2015). 3CM: A Tool for Knowing “Where They’re At”. In R. Kaplan & A. Basu (Eds.), Fostering Reasonableness: Supportive Environments for Bringing Out Our Best. Michigan: Ann Arbor. Retrieved from https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/maize/13545970.0001.001/1:22/--fostering- reasonableness-supportive-environments-for?rgn=div1;view=fulltext

Kearney, A. R., & Bradley, G. (1998). Human dimensions of forest management: an empirical study of stakeholder perspectives. Urban Ecosystems, 2(1), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009564812609

Kearney, A. R., Bradley, G., Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1999). Stakeholder Perspectives on Appropriate Forest Management in the Pacific Northwest. Forest Science, 45(1), 62–73.

Kearney, A. R., & Kaplan, S. (1997). Toward a Methodology for the Measurement of Knowledge Structures of Ordinary People: The Conceptual Content Cognitive Map (3CM). Environment and Behavior, 29(5), 579–617. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916597295001

Kellert, S. R., Mehta, J. N., Ebbin, S. A., & Lichtenfeld, L. L. (2000). Community Natural Resource Management: Promise, Rhetoric, and Reality. Society & Natural Resources, 13(8), 705–715. https://doi.org/10.1080/089419200750035575

Kitchin, R. M. (1994). Cognitive Maps: What Are They And Why Study Them? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14, 1–19. https://doi.org/0272- 4944/94/010001+19508.00/0

Klimoski, R., & Mohammed, S. (1994). Team Mental Model: Construct or Metaphor? Journal of Management, 20(2), 403–437. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639402000206

Kolkman, M. J., Kok, M., & van der Veen, A. (2005). Mental model mapping as a new tool to analyse the use of information in decision-making in integrated water management. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 30(4), 317–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2005.01.002

Koplitz, S. N., Mickley, L. J., Marlier, M. E., Buonocore, J. J., Kim, P. S., Tianjia Liu, … Myers, S. S. (2016). Public health impacts of the severe haze in Equatorial Asia in September–October 2015: demonstration of a new framework for informing fire management strategies to reduce downwind smoke exposure. Environmental Research Letters, 11(9), 094023. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/9/094023

Kull, C. A. (2002). Empowering Pyromaniacs in Madagascar: Ideology and Legitimacy in Community-Based Natural Resource Management. Development and Change, 33(1), 57–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7660.00240

Langan-Fox, J., Code, S., & Langfield-Smith, K. (2000). Team Mental Models: Techniques, Methods, and Analytic Approaches. Human Factors, 42(2), 242– 271. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872000779656534

Langan-Fox, J., Wirth, A., Code, S., Langfield-Smith, K., & Wirth, A. (2001). Analyzing shared and team mental models. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 28(2), 99–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-8141(01)00016-6

Langner, A., Miettinen, J., & Siegert, F. (2007). Land cover change 2002–2005 in Borneo and the role of fire derived from MODIS imagery. Global Change Biology, 13(11), 2329–2340. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01442.x

LAPAN. (2015). LAPAN Perkirakan Luas dan Sebaran Daerah Terbakar di Indonesia. Retrieved March 18, 2017, from https://www.lapan.go.id/index.php/subblog/read/2015/2052/LAPAN-Perkirakan- Luas-dan-Sebaran-Daerah-Terbakar-diIndonesia

Lawrence, D. C., Leighton, M., & Peart, D. R. (1995). Availability and Extraction of Forest Products in Managed and Primary Forest around a Dayak Village in West Kalimantan, Indonesia. Conservation Biology, 9(1), 76–88. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1995.09010076.x

Lewis, J. L., & Sheppard, S. R. J. (2005). Ancient Values, New Challenges: Indigenous Spiritual Perceptions of Landscapes and Forest Management. Society & Natural Resources, 18(10), 907–920. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920500205533

Li, P., Feng, Z., Jiang, L., Liao, C., & Zhang, J. (2014). A Review of Swidden Agriculture in Southeast Asia. Remote Sensing, 6(2), 1654–1683. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs6021654

Mayer, J. (2003). Impacts of the East Kalimantan fires of 1982-1983 on village life, forest use, and land use. In C. Padoch & N. Peluso (Eds.), Borneo in Transition: People, Forests, Conservation and Development (pp. 232–268). Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press.

McElwee, P. (1999). Policies of Prejudice: Ethnicity and Shifting Cultivation In Vietnam. Watershed, 5(1), 30–38.

McGregor, M. J., Rola-Rubzen, M. F., & Murray-Prior, R. (2001). Micro and macro-level approaches to modelling decision making. Agricultural Systems, 69(1), 63–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-521X(01)00018-X

Meijaard, E. (2015, October 23). Indonesia’s Fire Crisis — The Biggest Environmental Crime of the 21st Century. Retrieved December 3, 2017, from http://www.jakartaglobe.beritasatu.com/opinion/erik-meijaard-indonesias-fire- crisis-biggest-environmental-crime-21st-century/

Meijaard, E., Abram, N. K., Wells, J. A., Pellier, A.-S., Ancrenaz, M., Gaveau, D. L. A., … Mengersen, K. (2013). People’s Perceptions about the Importance of Forests on Borneo. PLOS ONE, 8(9), e73008. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0073008

Mertz, O., Leisz, S. J., Heinimann, A., Rerkasem, K., Thiha, Dressler, W., … Potter, L. (2009). Who Counts? Demography of Swidden Cultivators in Southeast Asia. Human Ecology, 37(3), 281–289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-009-9249-y

Mertz, O., Padoch, C., Fox, J., Cramb, R. A., Leisz, S. J., Lam, N. T., & Vien, T. D. (2009). Swidden Change in Southeast Asia: Understanding Causes and Consequences. Human Ecology, 37(3), 259–264. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10745-009-9245-2

Morgan, M., Fischoﬀ, B., Bostrom, A., & Atman, C. (2002). Risk communication: A mental models approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Muth, R. M., & Hendee, J. C. (1980). Technology Transfer and Human Behavior. Journal of Forestry, 78(3), 141–144.

Neumann, R. P., & Hirsch, E. (2000). Commercialisation of Non-Timber Forest Products: Review and Analysis of Research. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). Retrieved from http://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/mgntfp3.pdf

Noordwijk, M. van, Mulyoutami, E., Sakuntaladewi, N., & Agus, F. (2008). Swiddens in transition: shifted perceptions on shifting cultivators in Indonesia (Occasional Paper No. 9). Bogor, Indonesia: World Agroforestry Centre.

Oeji. (2016, August 10). Petani Pedalaman Terancam Tak Bisa Berladang – Kalimantan Post. Kalimantan Post. Retrieved from http://www.kalimantanpost.com/petani- pedalaman-terancam-tak-bisa-berladang/

Özesmi, U., & Özesmi, S. L. (2004). Ecological models based on people’s knowledge: a multi-step fuzzy cognitive mapping approach. Ecological Modelling, 176(1), 43– 64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2003.10.027

Padoch, C. (1985). Labor efficiency and intensity of land use in rice production: An example from Kalimantan. Human Ecology, 13(3), 271–289. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01558252

Padoch, C., Coffey, K., Mertz, O., Leisz, S. J., Fox, J., & Wadley, R. L. (2007). The Demise of Swidden in Southeast Asia? Local Realities and Regional Ambiguities. Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography, 107(1), 29–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/00167223.2007.10801373

Padoch, C., Harwell, E., & Susanto, A. (1998). Swidden, Sawah, and In-Between: Agricultural Transformation in Borneo. Human Ecology, 26(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018740615905

Padoch, C., & Pinedo-Vasquez, M. (2010). Saving Slash-and-Burn to Save Biodiversity. Biotropica, 42(5), 550–552. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7429.2010.00681.x

Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (Third Edition). California: SAGE Publications.

Prager, K., & Curfs, M. (2016). Using Mental Models To Understand Soil Management. Soil Use and Management, 32, 36–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/sum.12244

Public Relations of Police Resort of Sanggau. (2016, March 25). Polres Sanggau memasang sejumlah Banner larangan membakar hutan, lahan dan kebun. Retrieved March 18, 2017, from http://www.polressanggau.com/Giat-Polres- Sanggau/polres-sanggau-memasang-sejumlah-banner-larangan-membakar- hutan-lahan-dan-kebun.html

Quinn, N. (2005). Introduction. In N. Quinn (Ed.), Finding culture in talk: a collection of methods (pp. 1–34). New York, USA: Palgrave Miller.

Quinn, N. (2011). The History of the Cultural Models School Reconsidered: A Paradigm Shift in Cognitive Anthropology. In D. B. Kronenfeld, G. Bennardo, V. C. de Munck, & M. D. Fischer (Eds.), A Companion to Cognitive Anthropology (pp. 30– 46). West Sussex, UK: Blackwell Publishing, Ltd.

Rambo, A. T. (1998). The composite swiddening agroecosystem of the Tay ethnic minority of the Northwestern Mountains of Vietnam. In A. Patanothai (Ed.), Land degradation and Agricultural Sustainability: Case Studies from Southeast and East Asia (pp. 43–64). Khon Kaen: Khon Kaen University.

Rappaport, R. A. (1979). Ecology, Meaning and Religion. California: North Atlantic Books.

Rasul, G., & Thapa, G. B. (2003). Shifting cultivation in the mountains of South and Southeast Asia: regional patterns and factors influencing the change. Land Degradation & Development, 14(5), 495–508. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.570

Reardon, T., Stamoulis, K., & Pingali, P. (2007). Rural nonfarm employment in developing countries in an era of globalization. Agricultural Economics, 37, 173– 183. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2007.00243.x

Roder, W. (1997). Slash-and-Burn Rice Systems in Transition: Challenges for Agricultural Development in the Hills of Northern Laos. Mountain Research and Development, 17(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.2307/3673908

Rogers, C. (2016, September 1). No fire, no food: tribe clings to slash-and-burn amid haze crackdown. Mongabay. Retrieved from https://news.mongabay.com/2016/09/no-fire-no-food-tribe-clings-to-slash-and- burn-amid-haze-crackdown/

Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations (Fourth Edition). New York: The Free Press.

Rohadi, D. (2017, September 25). Kebijakan ‘zero-burning’ berpotensi merugikan petani—perlu pendekatan fleksibel. Retrieved December 5, 2017, from https://forestsnews.cifor.org/51573/kebijakan-zero-burning-berpotensi- merugikan-petani-perlu-pendekatan-fleksibel?fnl=id

Romney, A. K., Weller, S. C., & Batchelder, W. H. (1986). Culture as Consensus: A Theory of Culture and Informant Accuracy. American Anthropologist, 88(2), 313– 338. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1986.88.2.02a00020

Rouse, W. B., & Morris, N. M. (1986). On looking into the black box: Prospects and limits in the search for mental models. Psychological Bulletin, 100(3), 349–363. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.100.3.349

Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1999). The advocacy coalition framework: an assessment. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 117– 169). Colorado: Westview Press. Retrieved from http://faculty.cbpp.uaa.alaska.edu/afgjp/PADM606/The%20Advocacy%20Coalitio n%20Framework.pdf

Saldaña, J. (2009). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. London, England: SAGE Publications.

Seavoy, R. E. (1973). The Transition to Continuous Rice Cultivation in Kalimantan*. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 63(2), 218–225. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1973.tb00920.x

Sellato, B. (2002). Innermost Borneo: Studies In Dayak Cultures. Paris: Seven Orients.

Semedi, P. (2014). Palm Oil Wealth and Rumour Panics in West Kalimantan. Forum for Development Studies, 41(2), 233–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/08039410.2014.901240

Shen, R. (2014, May 21). Singapore braces for worst “haze” as Indonesia fails to halt slash-and. Reuters. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-singapore- haze/singapore-braces-for-worst-haze-as-indonesia-fails-to-halt-slash-and-burn- clearances-idUSKBN0E10WZ20140521

Siahaya, M. E., Hutauruk, T. R., Aponno, H. S. E. S., Hatulesila, J. W., & Mardhanie, A. B. (2016). Traditional ecological knowledge on shifting cultivation and forest management in East Borneo, Indonesia. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 12(1–2), 14–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2016.1169559

Sloan, S., Locatelli, B., Wooster, M. J., & Gaveau, D. L. A. (2017). Fire activity in Borneo driven by industrial land conversion and drought during El Niño periods, 1982–2010. Global Environmental Change, 47, 95–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.10.001

Sloan, S., & Sayer, J. A. (2015). Forest Resources Assessment of 2015 shows positive global trends but forest loss and degradation persist in poor tropical countries. Forest Ecology and Management, 352(Supplement C), 134–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.06.013

Soehartono, T., & Newton, A. C. (2002). The gaharu trade in Indonesia: Is it sustainable? Economic Botany, 56(3), 271–284. https://doi.org/10.1663/0013- 0001(2002)056[0271:TGTIII]2.0.CO;2

Soeriaatmadja, W. (2016, January 19). Forest fires: Jokowi warns local officials. The Straits Times. Retrieved from http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/forest- fires-jokowi-warns-local-officials

Spessa, A. C., Field, R. D., Pappenberger, F., Langner, A., Englhart, S., Weber, U., … Moore, J. (2015). Seasonal forecasting of fire over Kalimantan, Indonesia. Natural Hazards and Earth System Science, 15(3), 429–442.

Sutan. (2016, August 30). Pemda di Kalbar Dilematis Terapkan Larangan Bakar Lahan untuk Petani Tradisional. Suara Pemred Kalbar. Retrieved from http://www.suarapemredkalbar.com/berita/kalbar/2016/08/30/pemda-di-kalbar- dilematis-terapkan-larangan-bakar-lahan-untuk-petani-tradisional

Sutherland, L.-A., & Darnhofer, I. (2012). Of organic farmers and ‘good farmers’: Changing habitus in rural England. Journal of Rural Studies, 28(3), 232–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2012.03.003

Tan, H. (2016, August 25). Singapore braces for airpocalypse as fires rage in Indonesia. CNBC. Retrieved from http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/25/haze-news-singapore- air-quality-worsens-overnight-as-indonesia-fire-arrests-jump.html

Thompson, J., Millstone, E., Scoones, I., Ely, A., Marshall, F., & Shah, E. (2007). Agri- food System Dynamics: pathways to sustainability in an era of uncertainty (STEPS Working Paper 4). Brighton: STEPS Centre.

Thrupp, L. A., Hecht, S., Browder, J., Lynch, O. J., Megateli, N., & O’Brien, W. (1997). The Diversity and Dynamics of Shifting Cultivation: Myths, Realities and Policy Implications. Washington D.C.: World Resources Institute. Retrieved from http://www.burmalibrary.org/docs21/Thrupp_Hecht&Browder-1997- Diversity&Dynamics_of_Shifting_Cultivation.pdf.

Tikkanen, J., Isokääntä, T., Pykäläinen, J., & Leskinen, P. (2006). Applying cognitive mapping approach to explore the objective–structure of forest owners in a Northern Finnish case area. Forest Policy and Economics, 9(2), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2005.04.001

Toledo, V. M. (2002). Ethnoecology: a conceptual framework for the study of indigenous knowledge of nature. In J. R. Stepp, F. S. Wyndham, & R. K. Zarger (Eds.), Ethnobiology and biocultural diversity. Atlanta: International Society of Ethnobiology (pp. 511–522). Atlanta: International Society of Ethnobiology.

Tomaš Simin, M., & Janković, D. (2014). Applicability of Diffusion of Innovation Theory in Organic Agriculture. Economics of Agriculture, 61(2), 517–529.

100

UNEP. (2012). GEO (Global Environment Outlook) 5: Environment for the future we want. Valleta, Malta: United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). van Vliet, N., Adams, C., Vieira, I. C. G., & Mertz, O. (2013). “Slash and Burn” and “Shifting” Cultivation Systems in Forest Agriculture Frontiers from the Brazilian Amazon. Society & Natural Resources, 26(12), 1454–1467. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2013.820813 van Vliet, N., Mertz, O., Heinimann, A., Langanke, T., Pascual, U., Schmook, B., … Ziegler, A. D. (2012). Trends, drivers and impacts of changes in swidden cultivation in tropical forest-agriculture frontiers: A global assessment. Global Environmental Change, 22(2), 418–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.10.009

Vaughn, B., & Carmenta, R. (2016, November 1). Living in a toxic haze. Retrieved March 18, 2017, from http://blog.cifor.org/44089/living-in-a-toxic-haze?fnl=en

Vennix, J. A. M. (1999). Group model-building: tackling messy problems. System Dynamics Review; Chichester, 15(4), 379.

Voiland, A. (2015). NASA GISS: Research Features: Observations from a Grim Indonesian Fire Season. Retrieved March 18, 2017, from https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/201512_smoke/

Wadley, R. L. (2007). Slashed and burned: war, environment, and resource insecurity in West Borneo during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 13(1), 109–128. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9655.2007.00416.x

Weller, S. C., & Romney, A. K. (1988). Systematic Data Collection. California: SAGE Publications.

Widyawati, Y. (2016). Analisis Pendapatan Masyarakat Peladang Di Kawasan Perbatasan Kabupaten Kapuas Hulu Kalimantan Barat. Universitas Tanjungpura, Pontianak.

World Bank. (2015). Indonesia’s Fire and Haze Crisis. Retrieved March 18, 2017, from http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2015/12/01/indonesias-fire-and-haze- crisis

Zanello, G., Fu, X., Mohnen, P., & Ventresca, M. (2016). The Creation and Diffusion of Innovation in Developing Countries: A Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Economic Surveys, 30(5), 884–912. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12126

101

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Willy (Will) Daeli was born and grew up in Jakarta, Indonesia. In 2013, he graduated from Universitas Indonesia (University of Indonesia) with a major in anthropology and a Bachelor of Social Science. He joined the Center for International

Forestry Research (CIFOR) Indonesia as a field data collector. For three years he worked with different stakeholders (including local community people to local level policy makers and private sector) from peri-urban through to remote forest areas.

Through these experiences, he wished to understand more about the relation between the local community and the global world – the “Glocal” intersection of natural resource governance. These internationally framed sustainability challenges are primarily a matter of the continuity and sustainability of the environment and forests, which importantly cannot be separated from the efforts at the local level and of local communities to sustain, manage, and use their natural resources. His interest in these things brought him to pursue master’s degree at forest resources and conservation,

University of Florida, funded by CIFOR-USAID. He hopes to continue his education to doctoral degree.

102