Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

MUCED 2003 PUTRAJAYA: ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION ON FISHING VILLAGE

366 views

Published on

Paper on AN ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION OF FISHING VILLAGE IN KUDAT was delivered at International Conference on Environmental Management and Technology in Putrajaya on Augustn 4-6, 2003

Published in: Environment
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

MUCED 2003 PUTRAJAYA: ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION ON FISHING VILLAGE

  1. 1. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY A Clean Environment Towards Sustainable Development Putrajaya, Malaysia August 4–6, 2003 1
  2. 2. AN ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION OF A FISHING VILLAGE IN KUDAT, SABAH, MALAYSIA DR. ARBA’AT HASSAN UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA arbaat@yahoo.com 2
  3. 3. FIG 1: MALAYSIA, LOCATION OF SABAH 3
  4. 4. TOPICS FOR PRESENTATION A. Introduction B. Objectives C. Problems D. Methodology E. Data Analysis F. Conclusions G. Recommendations 4
  5. 5. A. Introduction 5
  6. 6. A. Introduction  Geography: Kudat─a district in Sabah  Location: northeast coast  Area: 1,300 km2 (Fig. 1 & 2)  Population: 65,989 (Sabah, 2003)  Products: wet + dry rice-paddy, rubber, cocoa, palm oil, & fishing industry. 6
  7. 7. FIG 2: LOCATION OF KUDAT, SABAH 7
  8. 8. FIG 3: KG BAHAGIA, KUDAT 8
  9. 9. A. Introduction…  Research area: Kg Bahagia, Kudat  Location: near sea, 1.5km to town (Fig. 3)  Population: ± 3,000 (Sabah, 2003)  Economy: low income 9
  10. 10.  Problems: socio-economy & development  Socio-economy: low income (fishing & agriculture)  Development: access road, housings, schools, water supply ─ poor 10
  11. 11.  Education standard: low  Knowledge & Awareness: low  Public health/Hygiene: low  Living env’t: filthy & smelly  Low edu & envt’l std: affect community quality of living 11
  12. 12. B. Objectives 12
  13. 13. B. Objectives 1. To evaluate status socio-economic + environment 2. To estimate degree of problems 3. To assist policy maker identifies problems 4. To recommend possible solutions 13
  14. 14. C. Problems 14
  15. 15. C. Problems 1. Employment 2. Water supply 3. Sanitation 4. Garbage disposal 5. Schooling 6. Housing 15
  16. 16. 1. Employment  > 50% residents: fishermen  Properties: old fishing boats  Income: minimal (day-by-day basis) 16
  17. 17. i. Employment 17
  18. 18. i. Employment 18
  19. 19. 2a. Water Supply  Water supply: improper/unsafe  Source: man-made wells  Condition: salty, brownish, & smelly (use for all purposes) 19
  20. 20. 20
  21. 21. ii) Water Supply 21
  22. 22. 2b. Electricity Supply  Location: ± 1.5 km to town  Electricity supply: poor  Residents use: candles, kerosene lights, few: 22
  23. 23. 3. Sanitation  Sanitation/toilets: not proper  Defecation in the sea along the beach in the bush behind big rocks + on the ground  Consequences: create problems at residential area, playing ground + beach itself 23
  24. 24. vii) Housing Facilities 24
  25. 25. 4. Garbage Disposal  Facility: not available  Dump sites:  in the sea  along the beach  anywhere convenience 25
  26. 26. v) Garbage Disposal 26
  27. 27. vii) Housing Facilities 27
  28. 28.  Schools: not found  Children: go to adjacent school  Education level: minimal ─ affecting quality of living 5. Schooling 28
  29. 29. 6. Housing  Settlement: not properly planned  Houses: close to each other, side-by-side  Improve living quality: difficult for better access road + other facilities 29
  30. 30. vii) Housing Facilities 30
  31. 31. D. Methodology 31
  32. 32. D. Methodology  Data collection: i. field observations ii. oral interviews iii. questionnaire surveys  Data organization: tabulation & SAS  32
  33. 33. Methodology 33
  34. 34. E. Data Analysis 34
  35. 35. E. Analysis  Analysis of problems: I. Demographic II. Perceptions (knowledge on environmental & need)  Results: in % and χ means 35
  36. 36. Likert Scale  Respondents perceptions based on five-point scale: 4 = A complete extent 3 = A moderate extent 2 = A little extent 1 = No extent 0 = Do not know 36
  37. 37. ITEM RESPONDENTS Male 120 (52%) Female 110 (48%) Table 1: Demographic Data (n=230) 37
  38. 38. AGES RESPONDENTS (%) < 30 12 31 – 35 20 36 – 40 36 > 40 32 Table 2: Ages (years) 38
  39. 39. OCCUPATIONS RESPONDENTS (%) Govt servants 08 Fishermen 40 Self-employed 20 Not-employed 32 Table 3: Occupations 39
  40. 40. FACILITIES MEAN RESPONSES Clean water 4.00 Electricity 4.00 Sanitary 3.96 Garbage disposal 3.96 Table 4: Facility Needs 40
  41. 41. TYPES MEAN RESPONSES Man-made wells 3.92 Ponds 1.52 Rivers 1.28 Neighborhood 1.72 Table 5: Water Resources 41
  42. 42. TYPES MEAN RESPONSES Own toilets 0.16 Beach/Sea 4.00 Bush 1.32 Anywhere 1.64 Table 6: Sanitation 42
  43. 43. METHODS MEAN RESPONSES Burning 3.56 Burying 1.64 Beach/Sea 3.88 Anywhere 1.48 Table 7: Disposing Garbage 43
  44. 44. EXTENT RESPONDENTS (%) Complete Extent 0 Moderate 20 Little Extent 56 Don’t Know 24 Table 8: Perceptions of Knowledge on Environment 44
  45. 45. F. Conclusions 45
  46. 46. F. Conclusions  Need basic facilities (A Complete Extent)  Income level: below std of living  Education + knowledge on environment: low (A Little Extent)  All research findings have impact on social & environment (A Moderate Extent) 46
  47. 47. G. Recommendations 47
  48. 48. G. Recommendations  Improve basic needs: education, health programs, and infrastructure  Improve level of economy  Promote program to upgrade fishing boats  Conduct further research. Provide recommendations to District Authority 48
  49. 49. THANK YOU 49

×