Sciscitatio,Blegur et al. Juli 2020 Sciscitatio, Vol.Vol. 1, No. 1, No. 2, Juli 2: 57-63 2020 Community Perception Surrounding Riung National Park to the Conservation of Komodo Dragon

Willem Amu Blegur1*, Tjut Sugandawati Djohan2, and Su Ritohardoyo3 1Faculty of Agriculture, Timor University, Kefamenanu, Indonesia 2Faculty of Biology, Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia 3Faculty of Geography, Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia

ABSTRACT People on Benteng Tengah, Nangamese and Latung have been living in Flores Island and smaller island nearby Flores, like Ontoloe, long before the establishment of national park. In 1992 and 1996, the government established Nature Conservation of Wolo Tado, Nature Conservation of Riung and Marine Nature Conservation of 17 Pulau. This decision led to government’s policy to prohibit the opening of land by burning. Local people used to open a land for agricultural purpose by setting a fire in order to regenerate the savanna to promoting the growth of young grass leaves. People use young grass to feed their cattle. This prohibition causes the people had to herd their cattle far from they live. As the consequence, threat from Komodo (Varanus komodoensis) to attack cattle is increased and people consider Komodo as pest that has to be terminated. This research aimed to study people’s knowledge about Komodo status as endangered species and its implication. Data were collected from people who lives in Benteng Tengah, Nangamese, and Latung, Regency of Ngada, East Nusa Tenggara. Data were obtained from respondents using interviews and questionnaires. Perception of local people who lives in Benteng Tengah (93%), Nangamese (93%) and Latung (100%) showed that people are aware about Komodo’s habitat vegetation. Good perception on Komodo and habitat vegetation will maintain komodo sustainability.

Keywords: community perception, fire, Komodo, savanna

Introduction initiated good behavior (Notoadmodjo, 2007; Human perception to Komodo (Varanus Nasution, 2009) especially to protect Komodo komodoensis) of East Nusa Tenggara, Indonesia dragon and its habitat vegetation. Perception is very important for its sustainability. The came from internal and external stimuli more positive of human perception is good directly or indirectly and then influenced for conservation of Komodo. In 1992 and one’s activities (Walgito, 2009; Sarwono and 1996, Main island of Flores and surrounding Meinarno, 2011) in using natural resources, small island such as Ontoloe island were for example the exploitation of mangrove or established as Nature Conservation. The hunting animals (Pearce and Turner, 1990; area of Nature Conservation included Ngakan et al., 2006; Meena et al., 2014). For Nature Conservation of Wolo Tado, Nature people whose life is dependent on taking Conservation of Riung and Marine Nature advantage of nature, they would use natural Park of 17 Pulau. Since years ago, the people resources wisely, even though when they had inhabit main island of Flores and lives their to burn savanna on small scale or to hunt daily routine. In Small Island (Ontoloe), animals. Savanna woodland would survive people from main island visits occasionally to and provide grasses or bushes for livestock plant seaweed. They are civilian from Benteng and wild animals. It is natural resources for Tengah, Nangamese and Latung. Good cattle, buffaloes, goats, and deers (O’Higgins, knowledge produced good perception and 2007; Vigilante et al., 2009; Kull and Laris, 2009; Miranda et al., 2009; Sanjay, 2012). *Corresponding author: People interacted with wild animals Willem Amu Blegur directly or indirectly. Sometimes people Faculty of Agriculture, Timor University hunt them for foods, skins or furs. When Jln. Eltari Km. 9, Sasi, Kefamenanu, East Nusa Tenggara, Indonesia 85613 wild animals entered inhabited land, Email: [email protected] people tended to kill them especially

57 Blegur et al. Sciscitatio, Vol. 1, No. 2, Juli 2020 for animal which disturbed agricultural were including sex, ages, total member of production, in examples rice, cassavas and family, education, basic and side jobs, land vegetables (Graham et al., 2005; Lamarque status, land use and family income. The et al., 2009; Gandiwa et al., 2013; Li et al., main respondent was people who worked as 2013; Bekele and Kumssa, 2014; Mojo et al., farmers or breeders because their activities are 2014). To protect wild animals especially connected to habitat vegetation of Komodo threaten animals, the government created and to Komodo itself. Total respondents that conservation areas like national parks. were taken according to quota samples from The establishment of national parks each study village (Table 1). separated people with wild animals but In-depth interview lists (Table 2) was people’s activities are still connected to wild intended to gain community perception animals. This establishment are sometimes about komodo as endangered species. One of conducted by converting one’s private land the ways to protect Komodo is by conserving status to national park area owned by the its vegetation habitat by doing small and government. The area conversion could scheduled burning in savanna to avoid initiate negative response from society bushes invasion and colonization. around the area. People felt unpleasant and not allowed to cultivate land inside or Table 1. Respondents sample for questionnaires near the national park area. They could not Villages Benteng Tengah Nangamese Latung plant or herd their cattle or other activities Population 450 412 205 surround it. The prohibition interrupted the Sample 30 30 20 welfare of the people (Bitanyi et al., 2012; Total 80 Gandiwa, 2012; Gandiwa et al., 2013). Source: BPS Riung, 2014 and primary data In Flores, the conversion of private land to conservation area was decided by Ministry Table 2. Respondents sample for in-depth interview of Forestry, then as a consequence, people are Villages prohibited to burn savanna in this area. This Respondents Benteng Nangamese Latung prohibition which was concerned by Balai Tengah Konservasi Sumber Daya Alam (BKSDA) Elders 2 2 2 Riung disturbed savanna availability in main Adults 2 2 2 island Flores. Cervus timorensis lost their food Youth 2 2 2 resources especially young grass and young SHS Students 2 2 2 bushes. Varanus komodoensis lost their foods Village heads 1 1 1 and tended to attack livestock. Then people BKSDA Riung 2 assumed that Komodo dragon as pest to be officers hunted or killed. Source: village head of Benteng Tengah, Nangamese The objective of this research was to and Latung, 2014, primary data study about people knowledge on Komodo as endangered species which should be Respondents for in-depth interview protected. were head of village of Benteng Tengah, Nangamese and Latung, two elders (aged Materials and Methods up to 65 years old) from every village, two Data collection for community perception adults from every village, two youth from were conducted using questionnaires and every village, two students of Senior High in-depth interview on October 2015. The School from every village, and 2 persons from closed questionnaire provided were multiple BKSDA Riung officer (Table 2). choices and should be choose by respondents. They would choose the optional answer Data analysis about vegetation, damage, and prevention Data were analyzed and calculated by of damage to vegetation of Komodo habitat giving value for every alternative option, and sustainability. Open questionnaire numbering 1 – 3. People’s choices were

58 Blegur et al. Sciscitatio, Vol. 1, No. 2, Juli 2020 summed. The results were showed in tables Ontoloe. Interval values from every criterion and descriptive analysis was interpreted were calculated using category scale or from those tables. Descriptive analysis for interval (I), with formula as follows: community perception would investigate the influenced of sex, ages, education I = Upper total score – Lowest total score background, farming, and husbandry 3 activities and income of the people who lives in main island Flores and small island, Results

Figure 1. Social data of Benteng Tengah, Nangamese and Latung. Data were collected by purposive random sampling to males as farmer or breeder.

Figure 2. People’s knowledge and perception to: a). Komodo and habitat vegetation; b). Threaten of komodo and vegetation habitat; c). Avoidance to threaten of a komodo and vegetation habitat. Legend: clear = Low, dotted = Middle, dark = High.

59 Blegur et al. Sciscitatio, Vol. 1, No. 2, Juli 2020

Discussion as Bajawa and Nangapenda. In addition, The community perception of Komodo some students moved to city to get higher influenced behavior the people whose lived education. These phenomenon influenced there as local people to protect it. People in the daily habits to impart knowledge from old research site participate to protect Komodo generation to next-generation especially the by efforts to avoid threat to vegetation habitat knowledge about Komodo. of Komodo. People’s welfare is one stimulus that influenced community perception about Social Community and Perspective to Komodo. As mentioned before that farming Komodo is a common work for these people, therefore, People from Benteng Tengah, it influenced the monthly income. People Nangamese, and Latung had good from these three villages Benteng Tengah knowledge and perception about Komodo (63%), Nangamese (60%), and Latung (55%) and vegetation habitat of Komodo (Figure 2: were predominantly had lower monthly 93%, 93%, 100%). Education level of primary income: Rp 300.000 – Rp 600.000. The people school dominated in three study areas (Figure get salary by selling agricultural products like 1: 50%, 73%, and 45%), but education level vegetables, corn, candlenuts, and coconuts. did not influence the community perception Husbandry is an alternative source of money, about Komodo and its vegetation habitat. therefore savanna woodland availability in Result from questionnaires and in-depth their living area is very important. interviews showed that old people (Figure 2: 50%, 47%, and 50%) felt comfortable The Community and Rusa Timor about the existence of Komodo. It is an icon The presence of Rusa Timor (Cervus of Riung town and East Nusa Tenggara timorensis) did not disturb agricultural province. Similar respond showed by youths farming of the community. The meat of C. and students of Senior High School. But for timorensis as wild animal was one of the people who basically worked as farmers and protein sources for the community. Hunting sometimes went to herd their cattles or as might be following the rule of indigenous breeders and carpenter worried about the hunting. Indigenous hunting is held every presence of Komodo (30%). Even though year at the end of August. Before doing it, sometimes they met Komodo and had people performed traditional celebration positive perception about it, the hesitation as a indication of early farming activities. rose because of prohibition to burn savanna When the research data was collected, deer even on small scale. population has decreased 40%. People who had land less than 2 ha (Figure 1) in Benteng Tengah (77%), Nangamese (93%), Relation among Komodo, Wild Animals and and Latung (70%) did another activities to Vegetation increase their welfare. The alternative option The perception about threats to Komodo is husbandry. People from Benteng Tengah and its habitat vegetation in Benteng Tengah, and Nangamese had large animals like cattle Nangamese and Latung are middle to high and horses (53% and 50%). In Latung, people (Figure 2; 57%, 60% and 95%). The character had medium size of animals like goats and pigs of the Komodo in main island Flores and (60%). They usually sell the animals to increase small island Ontoloe are cautious and wild. their income. They run whenever met people on their area. The family with more family members It is different with komodo in Labuan Bajo at home would support their daily activities. which is more benign to humans (Jessop et Small family with less than 5 persons are al., 2006); Ciofi and de Boer (2004) stated that dominant in Latung (55%), Nangamese (54%) they did not get any Komodo in their traps and Benteng Tengah (40%), respectively. after investigation in mangrove in Padar These types of family initiated young men Island. But, sometimes people in Benteng to find any jobs in surrounding town, such Tengah, Nangamese and Latung saw it in

60 Blegur et al. Sciscitatio, Vol. 1, No. 2, Juli 2020 mangrove area and savanna woodland. They are available. Deer are vanished because no understand that Komodo is in danger. young grass and young bushes availability The existence of Komodo are supported in savanna woodland. People took trees in a by the presence of deer wild goats, wild small portion because they use for household cattle, and wild buffaloes as their prey. Their needs only (Wahyuni and Mamonto, 2012). life was influenced by savanna woodland They did not clear the area by cutting down availability. As we explained before, savanna the trees. To them whose owned agricultural regeneration and availability are initiated by land, cutting and clearing land is always fire on a small scale in Flores. Young grasses continued by small scale of burning. It is the and young bushes, such as H. contortus fastest way to open the land. Agricultural is important diet for deer (Ginantra et al., waste is also faster to be decomposed by the 2014). Observation in Ontoloe showed that small scale of burning. Komodo eat bats like Cynopterus sp. They need branches of R. mucronata to hang it on. Fire on Savanna Woodland In Flores island, deer find fresh water by The culprit who burn savanna woodland moving into mangrove ecosystem especially is not recognized yet both by BKSDA Riung in dry season. In rainy season, they could officers and indigenous people. There are drink water in legong forest ecosystem two types of fire culprits. The first type is a (Ginantra et al., 2014). Deer usually take person who was unpurposive in burning, like cover under canopy of trees as we found deliberately cigarette fire left over to savanna. dungs inside canopy area. People did not The second type is purposive person. Some cut down trees frequently both in Flores and of them are breeder or herder, they burned Ontoloe islands. Some people take couple savanna to provide young grass and young of tree branches for using it in their houses bushes to their livestock. BKSDA Riung as firewood or to build their houses. They officer stated that they have done some usually choose stems of S. ovata. socialization to these local breeder/herder. They necessitated to the breeders and farmers The Usage of Savanna Woodland by the to provide fire brigade when they burn their People savanna woodland. It would help to stop People understanding about vegetation fire for spreading to other areas. But the usage as a source of prey of komodo and information regarding the socialization from shading is high. Questionnaires results BKSDA is denied by local people. According (Figure 2) to respondents in Benteng to the local people, there are no socialization Tengah, Nangamese and Latung indicated by BKSDA Riung. This communication high knowledge and good perception in problem generated conflict between people community. In-depth interview results who works as farmers and breeders with from group of head villages, elders, farmers, BKSDA Riung offices. breeders, fishermen, and students of Senior A few years ago, indigenous people High School were the same. People’s were collaborated to extinguish the fire understanding initiated a good perception with BKSDA Riung officers voluntarily. of Komodo and its vegetation habitat. People whom ever felt harm by the fire were Ritohardoyo (2005), stated that positive concerned with extinguishing fire because knowledge in the community is support good they got “benefits” of it. (Ganet al., 2015). But perception and initiate a better behavior in for people who need to use the fire for new using resources. Local people thought that grass resources will let the fire on and tend to Komodo is an asset for them to be protected. be passive with the fire in savanna woodland. In fact, there are conflicts among people Indigenous people have traditional as breeder with Komodo and people with rights admitted by the Rio Convention in BKSDA Riung officers. Komodo attacked cow 1992 and in article 18B of constituent 1945 and goat while roamed in their surrounding of Republic of Indonesia. Giving traditional area. Komodo lost their food because no deer rights to indigenous people to manage the

61 Blegur et al. Sciscitatio, Vol. 1, No. 2, Juli 2020 forest by conducting small scale of burning don’t know that small burning will help to is reasonable. These habits would maintain maintain savanna woodland regeneration savanna availability in Flores island, but and sustainability. It is done deliberately to not in Ontoloe island. Once again, there is provide food for their livestock. After that no grassland for deer (Ginantra et al., 2014), Komodo prey will available. Then komodo cattle, goats and buffaloes disturbed by fire in existence will sustain. Ontoloe Island. When it happened, komodo Acknowledgement dragon will lost their food resources. We thank to officers from BKSDA Riung for permission and helping in data collection; Threats Prevention of Komodo and Achmad Arifiendy from Komodo Survival Vegetation Habitat Program for funding and discussion; Krisni The people in Benteng Tengah, from Faculty of Biology UGM for ideas; Nangamese, and Latung understand that Father Meo and family for kindness when I they must prevent any threat to Komodo and took the data. its habitat vegetation (87%, 83%, and 100%). They know that without any protection, References Komodo will be extincted from Flores and Bekele, A & T. Kumssa. (2014). Attitude and Ontoloe Island. As we explained before, Perceptions of Local Resident toward burning habits will maintain savanna the Protected Area of Abija-Shalla availability, it would maintain grasses and Lakes National Park (ASLNP), Ethiopia. bushes for Komodo’s prey include deer, Ecosystem and Ecography, 1(4), 1-5. cattle and goats. A few years ago, some Bitanyi, S. M., Nesje, L. J. M., Kusiluka, S. people voluntarily provided goats and W. Chenyambuga, & B. P. Kaltenborn. chicken meat for Komodo, but, they lacked (2012). Awareness and perception of of fund so it was discontinued. When BKSDA local people about wildlife hunting in Riung prohibited small burning in savanna western Serengiti communities. Tropical in Flores Island, it would disturb savanna. Conservation Science, 2(5), 208-224. Komodo dragon tend to attack livestock Ciofi, C., & M. E. de Boer. (2004). Distribution animals. For people who experiencing and Conservation of the Komodo attacked by Komodo, they assumed it as pest Monitor (Varanus komodoensis). and supposed to be hunted or killed (Inskip Herpetological, 14, 99 – 107. et al., 2014). But for those who care about it Gan, J., A. Jarret, & C. J. Gaither. (2015). will protect them. In 2005, there were some Landowner response to wildlife risk: people who brought back Komodo to BKSDA Adaptation, mitigation or doing Riung to be identified dan saved before have nothing. Journal of Environmental released to nature. Management, 159, 186 – 191. Gandiwa, E. (2012). Local knowledge and Conclusion perception of animal population People are aware to protect Komodo abundances by communities adjacent as endemic and endangered species, not to the northern Gonarezhou National only in Riung but all around the world. The Park, Zimbabwe. Tropical Conservation community in Riung region has various Science, 3(5), 255-269. background that influencing their perception Gandiwa, E., I. M. A. Heitkönig., A. M. on Komodo (Varanus komodeonsis). People Lokhorst., H. H. T. Prins, & C. Leeuwis. in Latung show the highest positive (2013). CAMPFIRE and Human- community perception on Komodo and Wildlife Conflict in Local Communities habitat vegetation (100%) but at Benteng Bordering Northern Gonarezhou Tengah and Nangamese 93%. Peoples from National Park, Zimbabwe. Ecology dan these villages are participated indirectly Society, 18(4), 7-22. to join in Komodo protection action by Ginantra, K., S. Putra, W. Suarna, & W. small burning in savanna woodland. They Kasa. (2014). Botanical Composition of

62 Blegur et al. Sciscitatio, Vol. 1, No. 2, Juli 2020

forage by Timor Deer (Cervus timorensis management efforts in Cheha Woreda Blainville) in A Monsoon Forest and of Guraghe Zone, Ethiopia. Human- Savanna of West Bali National Park. Wildlife Interaction, 8(1), 67-77. International Journal of Pure & Applied Nasution, Z. (2009). Solidaritas Sosial dan Bioscience, 2(5), 205-213. Partisipasi Masyarakat Desa Transisi: Graham, K., A. P. Beckerman, & S. Thirgood. Suatu Tinjauan Sosiologis. Malang. UMM (2005). Human-predator-prey conflicts: Press. ecological correlates, prey losses, and Ngakan, P. O., H. Komarudin., A. patterns of management. Biological Achmad., Wahyudi, & A. Tako. (2006). Conservation, 122, 159-171. Ketergantungan, Persepsi dan Partisipasi Inskip, C., Z. Fahad, R. Tully, T. Roberts, & Masyarakat terhadap Sumberdaya Hayati D. MacMillan. (2014). Understanding Hutan, Studi Kasus di Dusun Pampli carnivore killing behavior: Exploring Kabupaten Luwu Utara, Sulawesi Selatan. the motivations for killing the tiger in Jakarta: Centre for International the Sundarbans, Bangladesh. Biological Forestry Research. Conservation, 180, 42-50. Notoadmodjo, S. (2007). Promosi Kesehatan Jessop, T.S., T. Madsen, J. Sumner. H. dan Ilmu Perilaku. Jakarta: Penerbit PT Rudiharto, J.A. Philips, & C. Ciofi. Rineke Cipta. (2006). Maximum body size among O’Higgins, R. C. (2007). Savanna Woodland insular Komodo dragon populations Degradation Assessment in Ghana: covaries with large prey density. integrating ecological indicators with OIKOS, 112, 422 – 429. local perceptions. Earth & Environment, Kull, C.A & P. Laris. (2009). Fire ecology and 3, 246-281. fire politics in Mali and Madagaskar. Pearce, D. W & R. K. Turner. (1990). Economics Springer, 7, 171-226. of Natural Resources and the Environment. Lamarque, F., J. Anderson., R. Fergusson., M. Hertfordshire: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Lagrange., Y. Osei-Owusu, & L. Baker. Ritohardoyo, Su. (2005). Pengelolaan dan (2009). Human-wildlife conflict in Africa: Pemetaan Potensi Hutan Mangrove di Causes, consequences, and management Pesisir Utara Pulau Sumbawa. Laporan strategies. Roma. Food and Agriculture Penelitian. Yogyakarta: Fakultas Organization of the United Nations. Geografi UGM. Li, J., H. Yin., D. Wang., Z. Jiagong, & Z. Sanjay, G. (2012). Patterns and correlates of Lu. (2013). Human-snow leopard human-elephant conflict around a south conflict in the Sanjiangyuan Region Indian reserve. Biological Conservation, on the Tibetann Plateau. Biological 148, 88-95. Conservation, 166, 116-123. Sarwono, S.W & Eko A. Meinarno. (2011). Meena, V., D. W. Macdonald, & R. A. Psikologi Sosial. Jakarta: Penerbit Montgomery. (2014). Managing success: Salemba Humanika. Asiatic lion conservation, interface Vigilante, T., B. P. Murphy, & D. M. J. problems and peoples’ perception S. Bowman. (2009). Aboriginal fire in the Gir Protected Area. Biological use in Australian tropical savannas: Conservation, 174, 120-126. Ecological effects and management Miranda, H. S., M. N. Sato., W. N. Neto, & lesson. Springer, 6, 143-167. F. S. Aires. (2009). Fires in the cerrado, Wahyuni, N. I., dan R. Mamonto. (2012). the Brazilian savanna. Springer, 15, Persepsi Masyarakat terhadap Taman 427-450. Nasional dan Sumberdaya Hutan: Studi Mojo, D., J. Rothschuh, & M. Alebachew. Kasus Blok Aketawaje, Taman Nasional (2014). Farmers’ perception of the Aketawaje Lolobata. Info BPK Manado, impacts of human-wildlife conflict on 2(1), 1-16. their livelihood and natural resource Walgito, B., (2009). Psikologi Sosial: Suatu Pengantar. Yogyakarta: Penerbit ANDI.

63