Economic Valuation of the Mangrove Forest in Metinaro Coastal, Timor-Leste ()
1. Introduction
Metinaro is a unique area in managing mangrove forest compared to other areas in Timor Leste. The uniqueness is known based on the fact that the location is surrounded by hills but has a mangrove forest with the area of 249.88 ha which spreads along a coastal line. The mangrove forest the mangrove forest gives benefits to the local community, ecologically, and economically and socially. The forms of uses of the mangrove ecosystem made by the local community as in other coastal areas in developing countries are as the source of firewood, the place for catching games, fish, crabs, shrimps, building materials, landfill, and place to raise livestock.
Metinaro people see the mangrove forest as public property which can be made use of freely that its preservation is ignored. Generally, the mangrove forest is used as the place that provides food, timber, and healthful material and an environment which can be differentiated into five functions, i.e., physical, biological, chemical, economical, a recreational, and scientific a place to do a research. The people are aware that the economic value of the mangrove forest ecosystem is high enough that the area becomes the main target of various exploitative activities and this makes it shrink in size from time to time. Hamilton and Snedaker (1994) in Dahuri et al., (2004), notes that around 58 direct and indirect products can be obtained from mangrove which includes firewood, building material, fertilizer, paper raw material, food material, materials for medicine and drink, household equipment, textile raw material, leather, wax, and a place for recreation. In the last 8 years period (2006-2014) degradation occurred in the ecosystems such as mangrove forest, barrier reef, sea grass as the supports of the main marine biotas on Metinaro beach. Three main biotas (mangrove, barrier reef, and seagrass) of the supports of marine biotas have undergone significant enough degradation (Talakua, 2013). As the triggers are the opening of a new area in Metinaro beach as shrimp, fish, crab ponds and the exploitation of mangrove wood. On the one hand, the mangrove forest ecosystem degradation in Metinaro has reached a critical level. On the other hand, the resources of the mangrove forest are potential in supporting the welfare of the people and the productivity of the surrounding areas. Thus, there is a need to consider the economic value of the mangrove forest to obtain the benefit and cost of the resource in terms of money which take the environmental aspect into account. The total economic value is the instrument which is seen as an appropriate instrument to calculate profits and losses for household welfare as the effect of natural resource allocation (Talakua, 2013). Furthermore, the valuation of total mangrove forest resource is done through all functions and benefits of the forest both marketable and nonmarketable, which form the effort to improve information which can give the contribution to the management of sustainable mangrove forest. In terms of total economic value, the management of the mangrove forest is very important for raising income for the welfare of Metinaro Coastal community, in every area and nation, the welfare of the community is always the main concern in today’s community development. The community is expected to guard and preserve the mangrove forest ecosystem in order its exploitation is sustainable to achieve Timor-Leste community welfare in general and Metinaro community in particular. Based on the explanation in the background above, the aim of this study is to analyze the total economic value of the mangrove forest and the environment in Metinaro Coastal, Timor-Leste, so that a method to manage the mangrove forest ecosystem which is economically and environmentally viable can be found.
2. Methods of Research
2.1. Time of Research
This research was done on the first of December 2014-the first of January 2015 in Metinaro Sub District, Timor-Leste.
2.2. Equipments and Materials
2.2.1. The Equipment
The maps used in this study were among others, the geographical map of the earth morphology or the map of the area) with the scale which was adjusted to the area of the study.
2.2.2. The Materials
A writing book and ballpoints and some other materials used to record and to know the social, economic and cultural aspects of the local community.
2.3. Population and Sample
2.3.1. Population
In qualitative research, the relation between population and sample is very close, since the population is the whole objects that are studied (Suyanto & Sutinah, 2005). Thus, the population in this study was all the people (4631) who live in Metinaro, Timor-Leste.
2.3.2. Sample
Some of the people in Metinaro who use the mangrove forest directly.
2.4. Sampling Technique
This study used the purposive sampling technique to draw a sample on the site of study. Purposive sampling is a sampling technique to select a sample of data sources with a certain consideration (Sugiyono, 2010). Then, this certain consideration, for example, those persons are regarded the people who know best about what is expected, or maybe they are the authorities so that it will make it easier for the researcher to explore objects/social situations under investigation. Thus, in this study, the sample was selected, taken and believed to make it easy for the researcher to obtain data expected. The sample consisted of some people who directly accessed the mangrove forest in Metinaro, Timor-Leste studied.
2.5. Types of Data
2.5.1. Primary Data
The primary data were obtained directly through a field survey method from the people who accessed the mangrove forest ecosystem directly. The researcher used quantitative descriptive study.
2.5.2. The Type of Secondary Data
The secondary data came from the village office and other related offices.
2.6. Sources of Data
2.6.1. Primary Data Source
The primary data were obtained directly from the site of research in the form of accurate information coming from the first source, usually the respondents. An interview is a form of verbal communication, thus a kind of conversation aimed at obtaining information (Nasution, 2003).
2.6.2. Secondary Data Source
Secondary data do not come from the first source which is the means to answer questions studied, but from related offices and mass media.
2.7. Technique of Data Collection
The technique of data collection is a method which can be used by a researcher to collect data (Mihidin & Abdulrahman, 2007). Data are facts or information about a certain incident which can be used as material to arrange information which is reliable, and the information is expected to give information which is supported by facts and accurate data about a certain incident which is believed to be true. The questionnaire was used to collect social economic data. It is a technique of data collection in the form of posting written questions through a list of questions that have been prepared first which have to be answered by respondents (Mihidin & Abdulrahman, 2007). The respondents in this study consisted of 93 heads of families who have been selected at random, with the reason that the respondents can directly access the mangrove forest as their source of incomes.
2.8. Technique of Data Analysis
2.8.1. Total Economic Value (TEV)
This approach was used to add up the total economic use identified and quantified. According to Suzana et al. (2011), the total economic value of the mangrove forest is the sum of all uses of the mangrove forest identified and qualified. The total use was found by using the following equation.
TEV = DV + IV + OV + EV...
Note:
TEV = Total economic value (NET)
DV = Direct value (ML)
IV = Indirect value (MTL)
OV = Optional value (MP)
EV = Existence value (ME) (Suzana, et al., 2011)
The technique of computation was used to value a natural resource so that the total economic value is the addition of all the economic values of the mangrove forest ecosystem with the result of data processing from various users that exist in Metinaro area as follows:
2.8.2. Direct Use (ML)
Direct use is the value resulted from the direct use of the mangrove forest as fish caught, firewood, and tourism (in Rupiah) (Fauzi, 2002).
ML = ML1 + ML2 + ML3 + ... + MLn
Note:
ML = Direct Use
ML1 = Direct use of firewood
ML2 = Direct use of building material
ML3 = Direct use of palm leaves
ML4 = Direct use of fish
ML5 = Direct use of shrimps
ML6 = Direct use of crabs
2.8.3. Indirect Use (MTL)
Indirect use is the value felt indirect about the goods and services produced by a resource and environment (Fauzi, 2002). According to Fahrudin (1996), the indirect value of a mangrove forest is obtained from the ecosystem indirectly like as something that restrains or resists abrasion. Mayudin (2012) states that indirect value consists of the use as something that restrains or resists abrasion, prevents sea water intrusion, and supplies fertile soil, which can be written mathematically as follows:
MTL = MTLa + MTLi + MTLh + MTLe
Note:
MTLa = Indirect use as the blocking of Coastal abrasion
MTLb = Indirect use as the prevention of seawater intrusion
MTLh = Indirect use as the supplier of fertile soil
MTLe = Indirect use as mangrove ecotourism. But reforestation becomes very important in Metinaro today.
2.8.4. Optional Use
According to Fahrudin (1996), the optional use is a value that shows someone’s willingness to pay to preserve the mangrove ecosystem for future use. While according to Ruitenbeek (1991), this value is approached by referring to biodiversity value of the mangrove forest in Indonesia, that is, 1500/km2/anually or USD.15/ ha/annually.
(insert in rupiah)
Note:
ME = existence use
MEi = existence use for the ith respondent to the nth respondent.
n = total number of respondents (persons) (Hiariey, 2009).
2.9. The Conversion of All Uses and Functions into Rupiah
After all of the uses can be identified, then it is quantified into money (rupiah) with the following values as follows.
2.9.1. Market Value
Market value by computing the economic value of the commodities that can be used from the mangrove resource. According to Hiariey (2009), the market value approach is used for the components of the resource that can be sold, for example, mangrove wood and fish.
2.9.2. Nondirect Price
To value the biological component (the provision of feed) and to value the use of physical component (wave breaker).
2.9.3. Contingent Value Method (CVM)
This approach is used to c\quantify/compute the optional value of a component of resource which cannot be sold in the market, for example, the existence value. According to Fauzi (2002), the last step of CVM is done by converting the means of the sample. This process involves the conversion of the mean of the sample into the mean of the whole population, one of the examples is the conversion of the sample mean into the mean of the number of households in the population (N), in this case, the population of Metinaro district.
3. Results and Discussion
Mangrove forest ecosystem in Metinaro has given many economic uses to the surrounding community who have lived there for a long time. According to the results of survey and questionnaire data, there are some types of use obtained by Metinaro community from the mangrove forest ecosystem, and this use can be grouped into 4, i.e., direct use, nondirect use, optional use, and existence use, and as the consequence, the result of the survey and questionnaire about various uses obtained from the mangrove forest ecosystem is discussed below.
3.1. Direct Use Value
The mangrove forest ecosystem has an important role and functions as the economic resource and ecological resource for human life (Zulkarnaini & Mariana, 2016). The direct use is the result obtained by the community as the result of direct interaction with the natural resource to meet the people’s needs and the resource is used as the source of livelihood. Based on the result of questionnaire, in general, the direct use of the mangrove forest obtained by the people of Metinaro consists of the use of the forest products and the use of fishery which is included in 6 (six) categories of use which are obtained in a larger quantity by the people, based on the order of details of the direct use which include:
3.2. Direct Use as Firewood
Wood is one of the fuels used by the people in Metinaro, usually as the main fuel since oil is expensive and difficult to find. According to the people of Metinaro, one of the types of wood which can produce a high temperature and lasts long is mangrove wood. The species which are often used by the local people as firewood are Rhizophora sp., Bruguiera sp., and Ceriops sp. The species that are felled to produce charcoal is generally Rhizophora spp. since it has a high enough calory while-while for firewood almost all trees are used (Setyawan & Winarno, 2006). The people who get firewoods from the mangrove forest usually use it for their household requirements and some of them are sold. The people of Metinaro get the woods Twice to three times a week with 4 to 6 bundles at a time. The price of a bundle of firewood as fixed by the local community is USD.0.24 or equivalent to Rp.3175, thus according to Bloomberg Dollar Index on Tuesday on the 16th of December 2014 at 09:04, the exchange rate was Rp.12,700/1US$D, thus the value of mangrove firewood can be seen in Table 1.
Table 1. Direct value as firewood.
No. |
Description |
Unit |
Total |
Average |
1. |
Number of respondents |
person |
93 |
93 |
2. |
Price per unit |
Rp/bundle |
U$D.0.25 cent/bundle |
Rp 3175 |
3. |
Value |
Rp/year |
U$D.1543.5 cents/year |
Rp 19,599,275 a year |
Source: Primary data in December 2014.
3.3. Value of Wood as Building Materials (House or Fence)
Based on the result of the questionnaire about the use of mangrove wood for house construction from all the respondents, not all of the people use mangrove as their building material, and to build a unit of the house the quantity varies depending on the size of the house built. The people of Metinaro regularly take building wood with a frequency 4 to 5 times a year, sometimes 6 - 7 times in a year depending on the need. If the people use mangrove wood, they fix a price at US$D.2.00 and is equal to Rp.25,400 for wood with a small diameter, at USD.10 or 127,000 for a medium size and at USD.15.00 (Rp.190.500) at the minimum each piece. Mangrove wood for house construction is more durable compared to other kinds of wood and this makes the people choose mangrove wood to build a house. For building materials, in addition to using Rhizophora spp, people also use Sonneratia spp. and Bruguiera spp. (Setyawan & Winarno, 2006). The mangrove wood used to build a house can last for more than 5 years, this makes the people of Metinaro have no problem when it comes to the need for wood. Although the use of mangrove wood becomes less frequent today, mangrove wood is still used for garden fences and for making animal pens which are increasingly more common. This can be seen in Table 2.
Table 2. Direct value of house building material.
No. |
Description |
Unit |
Total |
Average |
1. |
Number of respondents |
Person |
93 |
93 |
2. |
Number of use |
a) large piece |
>6 |
6 - 8 pieces |
|
|
b) medium piece |
>30 |
30 - 40 pieces |
|
|
c) small piece |
>60 |
60 - 85 pieces |
3. |
Price/unit |
a) large piece |
15 dollars |
Rp.1,143,000 up to Rp.1,524,000 |
|
|
b) medium piece |
10 dollars |
Rp.1,143,000, up to Rp.1,524,000 |
|
|
c) small piece |
2 dollars |
Rp.1,524,000 up to Rp.2,159,000 |
4. |
Cost for taking |
Expenditure |
5 dollars |
Rp.63,000- |
5. |
Duration of use |
Year |
>5 years |
- |
6. |
Value |
Rp per year |
U$D1948 |
Rp 24,739,600 per year |
Source: Primary data in December 2014.
3.4. Direct Use of Palm Leaves
Economically, the people of Metinaro are still below the poverty line and that is why they choose palm leaves as their house roofs since the price are cheap, they are easy to make, and the people are comfortable enough and are in the habit of using them as house roofs. Especially to protect them from hot tempererature during the day time. Based on the questionnaire distributed to the respondents, not all of them use palm leaves as house roofs, since some of them use corrugated irons as house roofs. Not all the people who use palm leaves use them as house roofs but some use them as kitchen roofs. The number of palm leaves used by the people for houses is great enough, depending on the size of the houses and the kitchens built at USD.0.50 cent (Rp.6350) a ready to use the leaf. Every time palm leaves are taken as roofs, the people can use up to 7 big bundles (70 leaves) of palm leaves. Every time the people buy them they usually spend about USD$.5.00 (Rp.63,500) for buying fuel, cigarettes, betel nut, and food. The palm leaves used by the people for house roofs can last up to 3 years. This can be seen in Table 3.
Table 3. Direct use of palm leaves.
No. |
Description |
Unit |
Total |
Average |
1. |
Number of respondents |
Person |
93 |
93 |
2. |
Number of use |
Sheet |
7 big bundles |
70 sheets |
3. |
Price per unit |
Rp/sheet |
U$D.0.50 cent/sheet |
Rp 444,500- |
4. |
Cost for taking them |
expenditure |
U$D.5.00 |
RP 632,500- |
5. |
Duration of use |
year |
>3 years |
- |
6. |
Value |
Rp per year |
U$D.35.00- |
RP 508 per year |
Source: Primary data in December 2014.
3.5. Direct Value of Fish
Some of the people in Metinaro are fishermen with a variation in the frequency of fishing each day, thus the catches also vary from 2 kg to 9 kg at one time. The catch is mostly sold to collectors especially coral fishes like red fish, bubara, garopa since they are expensive compared to pelagic such as gutila/kapas, mop mar, kombong, cakalang, nipih, Carden, gabus, etc. The other fishes caught are not sold but are consumed alone or given to their relatives. The prices of fish sold vary depending on whether the collector buys directly in the location of fish caught at the price per kg between USD.2.00 (Rp.25,400) up to USD.25.00 (Rp.317,500). In terms of the selling price for the species of fish, it is cheap enough compared to the price in other places. Because the people are poor, they sell at the price the buyers can afford in order the fish is sold out. In relation to the fund which is not enough for meeting daily needs, the people cannot buy fish containers, ice to preserve fish if it is not sold out, thus they would better sell the catch to the collector at varied prices depending on the species. See Table 4.
Table 4. Direct use of fish.
No. |
Unit |
Total |
Average |
1. Number of respondents person |
|
93 |
- |
2. Price per unit |
Rp/kg |
U$D 2.00 the cheapest |
Rp 25,400 |
|
|
U$D 25.00 the most expensive |
Rp 317,500 |
3. Value |
Rp/year |
U$D 3758.25 |
Rp 47,729,775/year |
Source: Primary data in December 2014.
3.6. Value of Shrimps
Based on the respondents’ response to the questionnaire, the activity to catch shrimps is not regular and is usually done once in a week or depending on when shrimps can be caught since it is difficult to catch shrimps because the mangrove ecosystem as a spawning ground and nursery ground has been damaged. Every time people fish shrimps they can only get 1 - 2 kg, so that on the average with the price for 1 kg at USD.7.00 (Rp 88,900). The expense for every time the people fish shrimps is around USD.1.00 (Rp.12,700) up to USD.5.00 (Rp.63,500). This can be seen from Table 5.
Table 5. Direct use of shrimps.
No. |
Description |
Unit |
Total |
Average |
1. |
Number of respondents |
person |
93 |
93 |
2. |
Price per unit |
Rp/kg |
U$D.7.00 |
Rp.88,900/kg |
3. |
Value |
Rp/year |
U$D.1999 |
Rp.25,387,300/year |
Source: Primary Data in December 2014.
3.7. Direct Use of Crabs
The activity to catch crabs is not regular, but on average, it is done once a week or depending on the time when they can be caught since it is difficult to catch crabs since the mangrove forest ecosystem as spawning and nursery grounds has been damaged. Every time people catch crabs, they can get 1 to 2 kg only, thus on average with the price for 1 kg at USD.6.00 (Rp.76,200). However, the expense for each time of the activity of catching crabs is around USD.1.00 or (Rp.12,700) up to USD.5.00 (Rp.63,500). This can be seen in Table 6.
Table 6. Direct use of crabs.
No. |
Description |
Unnit |
Total |
Average |
1. |
Total of respondents |
Person |
93 |
93 |
2. |
Price per unit |
Rp/kg |
U$D.6.00-/kg |
Rp.76,200/kg |
3. |
Value |
Rp/year |
U$D.1052 per year |
Rp.13,360,400-per year |
Source: Primary Data in December 2014.
Based on the result of analysis of the direct use of mangrove ecosystem in Metinaro, the total direct use value can be quantified as shown in Table 7.
Table 7. Quantification of direct value of mangrove forest ecosystem.
No. |
Types of direct use |
Net use value (Rp/year) |
1. |
Value of firewood |
Rp.19,599,275/year |
2. |
Value of building wood |
Rp.24,739,600/year |
3 |
Value of palm leaves |
Rp.508,000/year |
4. |
Value of fish |
Rp.47,729,775/year |
5. |
Value of shrimps |
Rp.25,387,300 year |
6. |
Value of crabs |
Rp.13,360,400/year |
|
Total |
Rp.131,324,350/year |
Source: Primary Data in December 2014.
3.8. Indirect Use Value
In addition to direct use of the mangrove forest ecosystem as mentioned above, there is also the use that is not directly felt about goods and services produced by the resources and their environments especially the mangrove forest ecosystem. The responses to the questionnaire about the indirect use of the mangrove forest in Metinaro show that the respondents feel that the mangrove forest restrains abrasion and erosion, but the indirect use actually cannot be measured by the market value but we need to consider the cost approach in conducting a conservation. The use of the mangrove forest as something that restrains abrasion and erosion need to be approached by considering the cost of building a wave breaker (Marhayana et al., 2012). The length of the coast in Metinaro where mangroves grow based on GPS tracking is about 12.000 meters, thus the activity of constructing wave breakers to prevent abrasion and erosion and the reforestation done along the coast which has undergone a damage is estimated at U$D.361.00 or Rp.4,584,700, and if the average age of the wave breaker and the activity of reforestation is 5 years, then based on the result of quantification of the indirect use of the mangrove forest in Metinaro, the total indirect use is U$D.361.00 per year or Rp.45,847/ha/year. On the other hand, the ecological benefit, as protection, control and maintenance are very important but the people’s concern of it is rather low. The ecological service, including the protection against flood and hurricane, control of erosion, and the maintenance of water quality are very important for the sustainability of the cultivation system (Ronnback, 1999).
3.9. Option Use
Mangkay et al. (2013), option value for mangrove forests being estimated with the benefits transfer method, i.e. by way of estimating the benefit of resources from other places then the benefit is transferred to obtain an estimate of the local resource benefits. In line with the above view, Purnobasuki (1992) in Maedar (2008) states that the benefit value of the option is estimated by referring to biodiversity value of the mangrove forest (biodiversity) of the mangrove forests in Indonesia, i.e., U$D.1.500/km/year or U$D.15/ha/year. Based on the map of the spread of the mangrove forest ecosystem in the area of Metinaro with the total mangrove forest today of 249.88 ha, then if we multiply it with biodiversity of the mangrove forest mangrove di Metinaro st US$.15/ha/year, then the value of the mangrove forest ecosystem in Metinaro today reaches U$D.55.00 or Rp.698,500 per year, thus the total benefit value of the option of mangrove forest ecosystem in Metinaro is U$D.0.55 cents/ha/year or Rp.6985/ha/year.
3.10. Existence Value
In addition to some benefits above, there is another benefit which is very important in this study, which is existence value of the mangrove forest in Metinaro. The computation of the existence value is based on contingent value method (CVM) or survey method. According to Pearce (2001), the economic measurement which is relevant is the willingness of individuals to pay for their benefits. The survey was done to find out the people’s willingness to pay/WTP for the existence and every benefit obtained from the mangrove forest ecosystem. The result of the survey and questionnaire with 93 respondents shows that 5 respondents are willing to pay for the existence of the mangrove ecosystem while the rest are not willing to pay for the reason that they do not have money to pay it. The percentage of the benefit value of the existence is that from the 93 respondents the ones willing to pay is 5% or 4.65%, thus the people’s concern about the existence of the mangrove forest in Metinaro is rather low. This shows that the people have different values concerning the existence of mangrove forest around Metinaro because they have the perception that the area does not belong to anyone and thus they do not need to pay for its existence to the authorized agency. Based on the responses to the questionnaire, the average value of the benefit obtained from the existence of the mangrove forest in Metinaro is U$D.976.00-per year or Rp.12.395.200 per year. The area of the mangrove forest in Metinaro existence now is around 249.88 ha, so that the total values of the existence of mangrove forest in Metinaro is around U$D.9.76. cent /ha/year or Rp.123.952-/ha/year.
3.11. Total Economic Use of the Mangrove Forest Ecosystem in
Metinaro, Timor-Leste
Based on the result of analyses of all values of the mangrove forest ecosystem in Metinaro, Timor-Leste which consist of direct use, indirect use, option use, and existence value, which were then quantified from dollars into rupiahs, then the total economic use is found as shown in Table 8.
Table 8. Total economic value of mangrove forest in Metinaro, Timor-Leste.
No. |
Type of use |
Value (Rp/year) |
Value (Rp/ha/year) |
1. |
Direct use |
Rp.131,324,350 per year |
Rp.1313243.5/ha/year |
2. |
Indirect use |
Rp.4,584,700 per year |
Rp.45,847/ha/year |
3. |
Option use |
Rp.698,500 per year |
Rp.6985/ha/year |
4. |
Existence use |
Rp.12,395,200 per year |
Rp.123,952/ha/year |
|
Total |
Rp.149,002,750 per year |
Rp.1490027.5-/ha/year |
Source: Primary Data in December 2014.
Based on Table 8 above, the total economic value of the mangrove forest is very high. It is very important for the people of Metinaro. Thus it can be said that the value of the mangrove forest ecosystem has the most important role in the community of Metinaro. This result shows that the e function of mangrove has an important role in supporting the local community livelihood (Malik et al., 2015). This corresponds to the respondents’ opinion that the existence of mangrove around their village gives a positive impact on their life. One of the impacts that they feel is the stock of firewood and fish which is abundant so that it is known that one of the benefits of the mangrove forest ecosystem is a place to look for firewood and a refuge for fish and other marine animals. It is this that makes some people try to damage the forest but on the other hand, some of them keep and maintain the condition of the ecosystem from a more serious damage.
The total economic value consists of direct value and existence value. The people of Metinaro make use of natural resources inside and around the mangrove forest in a limited way. This can be seen from their condition which is traditional enough with limited human resources and simple implements. When we see direct value and existence value in Table 8 there is a significant difference, although the people say that the direct value that feels is almost comparable to the existence of the mangrove forest. The people’s appreciation of the existence of a natural resource is comparable to the economic value from the direct value that they get. Thus, if the direct value that they get is high, it can ascertain that it will be proportional to the existence value. If the direct value keeps increasing it will decrease the indirect value. When people exploit the resource on a large scale, it will put a pressure on the mangrove natural resource, and if this continues, the mangrove natural resource will be eroded and become extinct. Finally, the direct value will be over together with the loss of the natural resource.
The next proportion is option value, the existence of the mangrove forest as one element in biodiversity which is valued at $15/ha/year. Considering the area of mangrove forest in Metinaro as large as 249.88 ha, this value is small. It will be different if the value of the biodiversity of the mangrove forest is greater than the value which was set before. Although the option value and the existence value of the mangrove forest in Metinaro are small, however, the mangrove forest as a biodiversity has a very great potential for meeting the need of Metinaro community at present.
4. Conclusion
1) The direct use value of the mangrove forest in Metinaro which is used by the local people directly consists of 6 types, which are: firewood, wood for building material, palm leaves, fish, crabs, and shrimps. The total economic value of the six types of benefit above includes the total direct use value of Rp.131,324,350 per year; the total of the indirect use value of Rp.4,584,700 per year; the total of option value of Rp.698,500/year and the total of existence value of Rp.12,395,200 per year.
2) The ecosystem of mangrove forest in Metinaro with the area of 249.99 ha can produce the total economic value of Rp.149,002,750 per year or Rp.1490027.5/ ha/year for the community of Metinaro with the total population of 4631. The high economic value is not proportional to the level of the people’s welfare since the money goes more to the meeting of the need for custom or tradition which is relatively higher than for rehabilitation of damage in the mangrove forest ecosystem.
Acknowledgements
The completion of this article cannot be separated from help, motivation, and roles of various people. Thus on this occasion, the writer would like to express his deepest gratitudes to Professor Dr. Ir. MTh. Sri Budiastuti, M. Si, as the Promotor who always gave constructive guidance, motivation, and direction both during the research until the completion of this article, Dr. Joko Sutrisno, MP, as Co-promotor 1 who always gave guidance and direction until the completion of this article, and Dr. Sunarto, MS, as Co-promotor 2 who always gave motivation and direction during the research until the completion of this article.