Environmental change and health risks in coastal Semarang, Indonesia: importance of local indigenous knowledge for strengthening adaptation policies

Figures & data

Table 1. Area and respondent characteristics

	Tambak Lorok	Mangunharjo
Research area
Community groups	5	5
Neighbourhood groups	38	29
Households	1360	1631
Inhabitants	8686	5679
Survey households
Households included	100	100
Average number of family members	4.4	4.7
Dependency ratio (%) †	30.7	44.9
Male/female ratio	0.3 (23/77)	0.3 (24/76)
Mean age of respondent (sd)	43.2 (11.4)	42.1 (12.0)
Relation to head of household (%)
Head of household	27.0	28.0
Spouse	64.0	65.0
Child	8.0	6.0
Grandchild	1.0	1.0
Educational level (%) ‡
No education	6.0	4.0
Less than elementary school	12.0	5.0
Elementary school	23.0	25.0
Junior high school	30.0	34.0
Senior high school	19.0	27.0
University, tertiary or higher vocational education	5.0	4.0
Don’t know	5.0	1.0
Primary occupation (%)
Private sector (swasta)	23.0	18.0
Entrepreneur (wiraswasta)	14.0	8.0
Trader	11.0	10.0
Fisherman	7.0	3.0
Farmer	0.0	2.0
Paid housekeeper	4.0	0.0
Unemployed	3.0	6.0
Housewife	33.0	45.0
Student	1.0	0.0
Retired	2.0	1.0
Other (construction worker)	2.0	7.0
Income per month in IDR‡
No income	39.0	49.0
< 500.000	6.0	5.0
500.000–1.000.000	19.0	11.0
1.000.000–1.500.000	10.0	10.0
1.500.000–2.000.000	18.0	10.0
≥2.000.000	7.0	13.0
Don’t know	1.0	2.0

† Dependent household members include; anyone ≤15 years assumed to be unemployed (Statistics Indonesia (BPS) et al., 2013), retirees, disabled people or those not working for any other reason.

‡ Exchange rate at the time of survey, 1.00.000 IDR = 72.36 US dollar (31 December 2015).

Table 2. Wealth scores

Wealth quintile †	Tambak Lorok (n = 100)	Mangunharjo (n = 100)	Combined
Lowest	−1.895 to −0.977	−1.497 to −0.657	−1.771 to −0.809
Second	−0.481	−0.295	−0.368
Medium	0.082	0.177	0.131
Fourth	0.827	0.657	0.751
Highest	4.308	6.207	6.207

† Wealth quintiles show the range of wealth scores among population quintiles. Lowest quintile represents 0% to 20% poorest people, highest the richest 20%.

Figure 1. Perceived changes in dry season

Figure 2. Perceived changes in wet season

Table 3. Knowledge of environmental change and impact

	Tambak Lorok (n = 100)	Mangunharjo (n = 100)
Knowledge of environmental change (% yes)	66.0	56.0
Flood	31.7	24.8
Rain and strong wind	28.8	21.5
Temperature change	22.1	28.1
Drought	5.8	15.7
Direct human changes to environment (tree felling, building development)	6.7	0.8
Other (changes in weather/seasons, land subsidence, rob)	4.8	9.1
Impact of environmental change (% yes) †	84.6	80.0
Health	60.3	56.4
Environment	28.2	34.6
Crops	0.0	11.5
Cattle or fish	7.7	10.3
Other (mosquitoes, air or water pollution, economy)	3.8	4.3

† Question only applied when respondents were familiar with environmental change.

Table 4. Domains and mechanisms of coping

	Tambak Lorok (n = 100)	Mangunharjo (n = 100)
Health (% yes)	65.0	65.0
Consumption of foods and drinks	40.0	21.6
Behaviour	23.5	18.9
Self-medication	14.1	10.8
Use of mosquito net or insect repellent	9.4	20.7
Clothing	5.9	8.1
Seeking treatment (traditional and non-traditional)	5.9	15.3
Other (keep house or environment clean, exercise more) †	1.2	4.5
House (% yes)	81.0	54.0
Raised floor	62.9	32.1
Strengthened walls	11.3	18.5
Changed roof	8.1	12.3
Changed building material	12.1	11.1
Improved sanitation	4.8	21.0
Other (keep house clean) †	0.8	4.9
Income (% yes)	7.0	3.0
Migration (% yes)	19.0	18.0
Migration because of environmental change	12.0	4.0
Health insurance (% yes)	59.7	73.2

† Respondents answered cleaning to cope with environmental change, with a primary focus on either health or home.

Table 5. Economic impact of coping mechanisms

	Tambak Lorok (n = 100)	Mangunharjo (n = 100)
Action taken to enable coping mechanism(s) (%)
Yes †	89.0	64.0
Work extra	68.0	76.1
Pawn possessions	3.2	6.0
Sale or trade of goods	4.3	4.5
Sale of livestock	0.0	0.0
Extra loan	24.5	13.4
No, enough money	7.0	22.0
No, no environmental threat	4.0	14.0

† Participants were asked for examples if answered ‘yes’ (multiple answers possible).

Statistics Indonesia (BPS), National Population and Family Planning Board (BKKBN), Kementerian Kesehatan (MOH) & ICF international, 2013. Indonesia demographic and health survey 2012. Jakarta, Indonesia: BPS, BKKBN, Kemenkes, and ICF International.

 Google Scholar