Just would like to share with you this article about the sustainability of a relocated fishing village in Kuala Kedah, Malaysia.
[To cite this article : Karim, H. A. & Idris, M. K. (2008), The
Sustainability of a Relocated Fishing Community in Kuala Kedah, 9th SENVAR + 2nd
ISESEE 2008 Conference, FSPU, UiTM Shah Alam, 1-3 December 2008, ISBN
978-967-305-256-1]
The Sustainability of a Relocated Fishing Community in
Kuala Kedah
1. INTRODUCTION
Fishing
constitutes a part of the agricultural sector of the nation’s economy. It
contributes to the overall GDP although the portion is small. In 1998, the
fisheries sector contributes about 1.62 percent of the national Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) with total production amounted to 1.35 million tonnes valued at
RM4.53 billion (Salehan Lamin 2001). In 2004 the fisheries landings of the
country amounted to 1.51 million tonnes, with an estimated value of RM5.59
billion. Its contribution to GDP amounted to 1.73 percent (FAO, United Nations
2005).
The work of the fishermen is very hard
and dangerous yet these men continued their work because it is the only skill
that they learnt from their forefathers. The monetary rewards of working as
traditional fishermen are not lucrative unless they use commercial fishing
vessels and employ the convenience of the satellite technology to locate the
shoals of fish. The inherited way of
life of the traditional fishermen has been known to date from the early days of
the Malay Archipelago. Therefore the fishing
villages are in some ways reminders of the nostalgic past of the Malay people.
Throughout the years, some of the fishing villages has undergone unplanned
expansion that in many ways the village has transformed from an idyllic
`postcard’ villages into dilapidated slums. This is due to the natural
population increase of fishing community and also through the in-migration of
legal and illegal immigrants. This expansion process occurred in some of the
fishing villages in Kuala Kedah and that the haphazard growth of the fishing
village creates an unhealthy environment for the community. The original
fishing villages in Kuala Kedah are also prone to flooding during high tide and
there had been incidents of fire breakouts. The state government of Kedah had
decided to restructure the scattered growth of the fishing villages and build
new resettlement areas near to the original fishing villages. The intention is
not only to relocate the fishing community but also to redevelop the coastal
area with modern projects and infrastructure.
Table 1: The employment figures on fishermen in
Kedah and Malaysia
|
Employment Information
|
Kedah
|
Malaysia
|
|
Employed citizens in all types of
occupation
|
504,784
|
7,360,434
|
|
Percentage of employed citizens in Malaysia
|
6.86%
|
100%
|
|
Percentage of fishermen according to the
total employed citizens
|
1.73%
|
1.19%
|
|
Percentage of Malay fishermen
|
91.3%
|
50.9%
|
|
Percentage of Chinese fishermen
|
8.0%
|
19.9%
|
|
Percentage of Indian fishermen
|
0.2%
|
0.89%
|
|
Percentage of other ethnic fishermen
|
0.4%
|
28.3%
|
|
Number of fishermen in Kedah and Malaysia
|
8,777
|
88,250
|
|
Percentage of fishermen in Malaysia
|
9.95%
|
100%
|
Source: Malaysian Population Census,
Statistic Department of Malaysia,
2000
Table 1 show the percentage of
fishermen in Malaysia
is only 1.19 percent and that in Kedah are only 1.73 percent. Yet the fishermen
in Kedah constitute almost 10 percent of all the fishermen in Malaysia. The
majority of fishermen in Kedah are Malays (91.3%), while the Chinese and Indian
fishermen are only 8 percent and 0.2 percent respectively.
2. THE
SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY CONCEPTS
Sustainability is about the
conservation and protection of the environment and that any development must
not in any way destroy the environment that we live in. According to the World
Commission of Environment and Development (WCED) (1987), sustainable
development is one that meets the needs the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Many years ago many
people were unaware of the consequences of ignoring the sustainable issue but
now every development must take into account the effect of development on the
sustainability of the human habitat and the natural environment. Bowers (1997)
said that sustainability means constraining human economic activity so as to
protect the life-support systems. Sustainable development is then economic
development or growth subject to constraints such as requiring substantial
changes of life-styles away from resource-intensive consumption within
developed countries. Similarly, the Third World
countries must also divert away from the high resource using and the high
polluting patterns of the West. The changed way of life is focusing on using
only what we need and not encouraging wastage. By doing this less energy will
be utilised and more time given to replenish the renewable resources. According
to Munro (1995) development is any activity or process that increase the human
capacity or the environment capacity towards fulfilling the needs of the people
or to improve the quality of their lives.
Sustainable communities are cities
and towns that prosper because people work together to produce a high quality
of life that they want to sustain and constantly improve. They are communities
that flourish because they build a mutually supportive, dynamic balance between
social well-being, economic opportunity, and environmental quality (PCSD 1997).
Community is known as a group of people who may or may not live in the same
locality but for this study the concept of community is rooted in the locally
based activities which intertwined with the daily lives of the people in the
community to give a sense of a local network of mutual support. The locality is
the place or the neighbourhood that provide the locus for the community. Principles
of sustainability can be applied to the neighbourhood to make it
self-sustaining and stimulating living environments. There are always
potentials and possibilities that a planned community becoming sustainable
communities by applying the principles of sustainability in its neighbourhood.
Achieving it relies on concerted effort from a plethora of agencies - public,
private, voluntary and community sectors (Barton 2000). Sustainability has been
popularly described as the cooperation between three domains; the social, the
economic and the environment. Therefore this study will look into the
well-being of the community and the opportunity of economic development as well
as the safety and health issues of the physical environment.
The conceptual framework flowchart
in Figure 1 shows the life conditions of the traditional fisherman are normally
associated with poverty and the lack of opportunities for self development. The
work of the traditional fisherman does not need any educational qualifications
although secondary school education is sufficient for the modern fishing
industry. They normally have limited skills and lack of education
qualifications. On the housing aspect, the traditional homes of fisherman are
confined in the crowded fishing villages where in some cases the environment is
considered unhealthy and unsafe.
[so sorry the flowchart refused to be copied, anyone interested please email me at drhafazah@gmail.com]
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework Flowchart
Relocation
exercises carried out by the local government are meant to improve living
conditions by providing planned housing neighbourhoods. Although these
neighbourhoods provide a healthier and safer surroundings with modern
infrastructure and utilities, the community cannot escape the social
responsibility of keeping their homes and surroundings clean and safe. Concerted
efforts by the local government and the local community can eventually create a
sustainable community.
3. THE
METHODOLOGY
The sustainability of the relocated
fishing community will be approached through qualitative methods such as
through observations, informal and formal interviews. A sample of 70 households
was selected through stratified random sampling where the study area was
divided into seven zones and ten samples were randomly selected from each
zones. The questionnaire were used to interview the head of households regarding
the perceptions of satisfaction, comfort, usage, conditions on the following
domains such as social, economic and the physical environment.
The subjective indicators were
measured by the Likert scale of one to five. The least value denotes the most
negative perception and the highest values denotes the most positive perception
for example value 1 equals very bad, most uncomfortable, very far, while value
5 equals very good, most comfortable and very near. The qualitative approach in
this study requires qualitative assessment which will take into account the
consensus of the respondents. This means that the highest percentage for any of
the value ranging from one to five will be accepted as the consensus. Therefore
the consensus for each indicator in one domain will be accumulated and the
total will show the level of overall qualitative assessment of each domain.
Table 2: Examples of Subjective Indicators
|
Measures of
well-being
|
Social
Indicators
|
Economic
Indicators
|
Physical
Environment
Indicators
|
|
Comfort
|
Adequate space
for
family
activities
Friendly
neighbours
Community
activities
|
Income
Household
belongings
Savings
|
Clean
surroundings
Clean air
Clean water
Trees and
shrubs
|
|
Convenience
|
Friends nearby
Relatives
nearby
Helpful
neighbours
|
Jetty nearby
Planting fruit
trees
and vegetables
nearby
|
Access to
utilities
Access to
facilities
Usage of
facilities
|
|
Safety
|
Sense of
security
Community
surveillance
|
Stable income
|
Lack of
criminal activities
|
|
Satisfaction
|
Family’s
health
Education
attainment
|
Family’s
economy
|
Image of the
area
Cleanliness
Availability
of utilities
and facilities
|
4. THE
STUDY AREA
The new
settlement is located in Kuala Kedah near to the old fishing village (and
jetty) which can be accessed by boat (500 meters) and by road (4 kilometers).
The new settlement which is 65 square acres, named Taman Kota Nelayan is only
one kilometer from the Kuala Kedah town and ten kilometers from Alor Star, the
state capital. The planned housing area provided 700 units of housing lots with
dimensions of 60 feet by 40 feet. On these plots of land were built free-standing
housing units to house the relocated fishermen and their families who came from
two fishing villages. The house is rather small but they are given the remaining
land in their housing lots to plant vegetables and fruit trees for their own
consumption. The housing area is planned rather monotonously with rows of plots
of land with houses but there is a system of roads, drainage, water supply and
electricity. The area is also provided with three community halls, a mosque,
kindergarten (part of the mosque), children playground, four units of shops,
five public telephones and four community garbage disposal bins. Schools are
located in neighbouring housing schemes and are accessible by private
transportation. Table 3 shows the comparison of physical characteristics and
the availability of facilities between the original fishing village and the new
housing area.
After moving into the new relocated area,
the residents enjoyed a lot of advantages in terms of provision of utilities,
infrastructure and facilities that they could not enjoy before. The only one
convenience that they still lack is the lack of bus service which is considered
a very important service to the housing area. The residents are from the low
income group and even if they own a car, it cannot accommodate the schedule of
every member of the family. Other than the lack of bus service, Table 3 gives a
strong indication that the relocation programme is very beneficial to the well-being
of the fishing community.
Table
3 : The physical characteristics and available
facilities
|
Physical
Characteristics/Facilities
|
Original Fishing Village
|
New Relocated Area
|
Beneficial for residents
|
|
Location of villages
|
Scattered
|
Restructured
|
Yes
|
|
Pattern of housing
|
Haphazard
|
Planned housing layout
|
Yes
|
|
Road system
|
Footpaths only
|
System of access roads
|
Yes
|
|
Drainage system
|
None
|
Available
|
Yes
|
|
Lighting
|
Oil lamps and electricity
|
Electricity
|
Yes
|
|
Piped Water
|
Available
|
Available
|
Yes
|
|
Sewage system
|
None
|
Available
|
Yes
|
|
Community Hall
|
None
|
3 units
|
Yes
|
|
Kindergarten
|
Outside the village
|
Available
|
Yes
|
|
Mosque/surau
|
Surau
|
Mosque
|
Yes
|
|
Children playground
|
Outside the village
|
Available
|
Yes
|
|
Shops
|
Outside the village
|
4 units
|
Yes
|
|
Public telephone
|
Outside the village
|
6 units
|
Yes
|
|
Public bus service
|
None
|
None
|
Lacking
|
|
Garbage disposal
|
None
|
6 communal garbage bins
|
Yes
|
5. THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE OF THE COMMUNITY
According
to the Kota Setar Local Plan (2005) there are 3850 people living in Taman Kota
Nelayan and all of them are Malays. The main occupation and economy of the community
is fishing. The largest percentage of head of household is more than 56 years
of age (47%), the second largest is between 46 to 55 years (19%) and the third
largest is between 36 to 45 years (11%). The percentage of fishermen who never
went to school is 20 percent while those with only a primary school education
are 56 percent. The rest had a secondary school education. The average number
of people in a household is 5.3 people.
The
average income of the fishermen is about RM500 to RM550 a month which is below
the poverty line index for Malaysia (RM691). The gross income of the fishermen
depends on the value of the catch and the average catch of fish would fetch
around RM30. A big one would fetch RM70 to RM100 but this type of catch occurs
only about three times a month depending on the availability of prawns in the
catch. After the relocation, all of the relocated fishermen continued working
as fishermen with 75 percent working on their own using the motor powered small
fishing boats and 25 percent working for Chinese tekong(boss) who use
large fishing vessels. The normal working schedule is going out to sea between
four to six days a week but with the increase in diesel petrol, these fishermen
can only afford to go four days a week. The price of diesel petrol per working
day before the hike was RM15 but now is RM30. Therefore the fishermen have to
limit the numbers of working days to avoid wastage. Sixty-one percent of the
respondents own a motorcycle while 21 percent own cars.
6. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The
findings will be presented in the three groupings of the social, economic and
physical environment domain. Each domain comprise of indicators that refer to a
certain category such as the condition of housing which in turn is comprised of
several sub-indicators including the condition of kitchen, the condition of
toilets, the condition of bedroom and the condition of the living room. The
summation of the values given to all the sub-indicators will eventually give
the score to each indicator.
6.1
Social Domain
There are several indicators chosen in this
domain such as; family conditions, neighbour relations, community interactions,
level of family and community’s health, perceptions of the house, the level of
education and the aspect of social problems (Please refer to Table 4). The
respondents had given a `Good’ rating to their `family condition’, neighbour
relations, community interaction and, level of family and community’s health.
Contributing factors to the family conditions include the perceptions of comfort
of the family living in the housing unit, the convenience of accessibility in
their daily lives and the safety of their family. Neighbour relations also
receive a `Good’ rating because the community have good interactions and share common
activities. They have a lot in common; they share the same socio-economic
characteristics and almost the same social and economic problems.
The overall community interaction is also
good due to community cohesion and a local network of mutual support. The
respondents are also happy with the overall health level of their family and
community. The provision of drainage system, sewerage system and proper garbage
disposal site contributed to this positive perception. Furthermore the
respondents used to live in a dilapidated and slum-like fishing village and
moving into a planned housing area had been a great improvement in their lives.
Regarding with the condition of the house and the level of education, the
respondents feel only satisfactory. The lowest score in the social domain is
the aspect of social problems because there are incidents of drug abuse amongst
the teenagers, fights and incidents of theft.
Table 4 : The Scores for the Social Domain
|
Social
Domain
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
1
|
Family
condition
|
|
|
|
x
|
|
|
2
|
Neighbour
relations
|
|
|
|
x
|
|
|
3
|
Housing
condition
|
|
|
x
|
|
|
|
4
|
Community
interaction
|
|
|
|
x
|
|
|
5
|
Resident’s
level of education
|
|
|
x
|
|
|
|
6
|
Level
of health
|
|
|
|
x
|
|
|
7
|
Lack
of crimes and social problems
|
|
x
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
0
|
1
|
2
|
4
|
0
|
Note:
1=Bad 2= Unsatisfactory 3=Satisfactory 4=Good 5= Very good
The
(x) marks the consensus of the community’s perceptions or the community’s opinions
|
6.2
Phsical Environment Domain
The physical environment of the housing
area includes the man-made surroundings such as the provisions of
infrastructure and utilities (Please refer to Table 3). Table 5 shows the
ratings given by the respondents regarding the indicators selected in this
domain.
Table 5 : The
Scores for the Environmental Domain
|
Environmental
Domain
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
1
|
Cleanliness
of housing area
|
|
|
|
x
|
|
|
2
|
Pollution
|
|
|
|
x
|
|
|
3
|
Community
facilities
|
|
|
|
x
|
|
|
4
|
Children
playground
|
|
|
x
|
|
|
|
5
|
Safety
|
|
x
|
|
|
|
|
6
|
Infrastructure
and utility
|
|
|
|
x
|
|
|
7
|
Transportation
|
x
|
|
|
|
|
|
8
|
Accessibility
to neighbouring areas
|
|
x
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
4
|
0
|
|
Note:
1=Bad 2= Unsatisfactory 3=Satisfactory 4=Good 5= Very good
The
(x) marks the consensus of the community’s perceptions or the community’s
opinions
|
In this domain, respondents gave a `Good’
rating to the provision of facilities, utilities and infrastructure (although
the children playground need to be improved), the cleanliness and the lack of
pollution in the area. There is a need for more police patrols and additional
roads that connect to neighbouring areas. The least rating for this domain is
the lack of public transportation which makes mobility very difficult for the
residents. The lack of public transport is intolerable because the community
lack the affordability of owning private transportation.
6.3
Economic Domain
The main employment sector in this
community is the traditional fishing sector which does not contribute highly to
the income of the community. The economic domain receive the worst rating
because the respondents are very unhappy with their income and also unhappy
with the other three elements; marketing efforts, application of modern
technology, work opportunities and making side-income. Apart from fishing, the
fishermen and their family do not supplement their income by doing any small
businesses because they do not have extra funds. The lack of educational
attainment also hinders their exposures to modern technology and the
application in their fishing techniques. Furthermore the economic constraints
also add to the difficulty in acquiring any modern technological gadgets. All
this add up to their economic constraints. Thus the findings show that the community
needs to do something about their economic situation because this is the most
important aspect in maintaining sustainability.
Table 6 : The Scores for the Economic Domain
|
Economic
Domain
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
1
|
Monthly
income
|
x
|
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
Marketing
efforts
|
|
x
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
Application
of modern technology
|
|
x
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
Opportunities
and side-income
|
|
x
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
1
|
3
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Note:
1=Bad 2= Unsatisfactory 3=Satisfactory 4=Good 5= Very good
The
(x) marks the consensus of the community’s perceptions or the community’s
opinions
|
6.4
The Overall Findings
The three domains discussed earlier do not
directly measure the sustainability of the fishing community but indirectly measure
the proxies of sustainability such the satisfaction of the respondents towards
the three domains that make up the well-being of the community. Table 6 covers
the total scores for the perceptions of well-being of the community and it
shows that the relocated fisherman community scored well even though there are
problems within the economic domain. The relocation of the fishing community
has to some extent influence the perceptions of well-being and that the
community is mostly satisfied with their social and physical environmental
domain.
Table
7: The total scores for
the perceptions of the well-being (and sustainability) of the community
|
Well-Being
Domains
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
Social
Domain
|
0
|
1
|
2
|
4
|
0
|
|
Environmental
Domain
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
4
|
0
|
|
Economic
Domain
|
1
|
3
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Overall
Total
|
2
|
6
|
3
|
8
|
0
|
|
Note: 1=Bad
2= Unsatisfactory 3=Satisfactory 4=Good 5= Very good
|
The study also surveyed the opinions of the
fishermen regarding the social values that they feel strongly about and found
that the top three values chosen by the majority of the respondents are
monetary related; (i) having enough money (93%) (ii) owning a car (74%) and (iii)
earning a high salary (73%).These percentages probably show that the fishermen
would be happier if they have more money, a car and a high salary which could
actually help them improve their capabilities to increase their income for
example; helping to start a small business. The findings from the survey had
shown that there is a problem of sustaining the economic domain in the fishing
community and there is an urgent need to solve this problem.
7. CONCLUSION
The
study of the relocated fishing community had shown that there are some
characteristics of social sustainability but it also shows the characteristics
of economic decline. Fishing as an occupation that is not sustainable if it is
carried out using traditional methods like using the small boats and
traditional fishing gears. Additional problem to the fishermen is the increase
in price of diesel to run the motors and that the price of the fish is
controlled even when the price of diesel has increased. The LKIM (Malaysian
Board of Development for Fisheries) has recognized this problem and has given
subsidies in the form of diesel for the fishermen but this will not help the
fishermen in the long run. The Board has to create management and business
cooperation for the fishermen to learn of the new methods of fishing and to
group their manpower, skills and funds so that they can maximize productivity.
This idea has been carried out by the settlers of FELDA (Federal Land
Development Authority) where they create a cooperative for their business
ventures and has proven to be successful. The fishermen can also learn about
value added methods to the processed marine-based food from MARDI (Malaysian
Agriculture Research and Development Institute). The fishing community can also
benefit from learning about the water conservation and harnessing the rain
water for local use. Another way of useful knowledge would be the harnessing of
solar power that can also be beneficial to the community. Government agencies
can be roped in to help the plight of the fishermen so that their community can
be sustainable economically and environmentally. And also by helping the fishermen in Kedah we are actually
fighting poverty, and confronting the economic imbalance and inequity that
exist in Malaysia.
This paper has achieved the main objectives of the study whereby the findings
has shown that the relocation programme are able to help the fishing community
to be socially and physically sustainable but they need more help from the
authorities to sustain their economic conditions.
8. REFERENCES
Barton, H.
(2000). Sustainable communities. London: Earthscan.
Bowers, J.
(1997). Sustainability and environmental
economics. Singapore:
Longman.
Elliot, J.A.
(1994). An introduction to sustainable
development. 2nd. ed. London:
Routledge
Muhd. Kamal
Idris. (2008). Kajian komuniti mampan di
penempatan semula nelayan. Programme of Bachelor
Degree of Town and Regional Planning, Faculty of Architecture, Planning and Surveying, University Technology MARA.
Unpublished Dissertation.
(15 August 2008)
Salehan Lamin.
(2001). `Situation of monitoring, control & surveillance in Malaysia’. Report of the National
Workshop on Fisheries Monitoring Control and Surveillance in Support of Fisheries Management. Goa,
India: FAO,
United Nations ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/field/006/ad495e/ad495e06.pdf (5 September 2008)
United Nations (2005). Report of the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organizations) Regional Workshop on The Elaboration of
National Plans of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate
Illegal, Unreported and
Unregulated Fishing. Rome,
Italy: FAO, United Nations http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5849e/y5849e00.htm#Contents
(5 September
2008)
WCED (World
Commission on Environment and Development) (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
