Assessment of socio-economic functions of tropical lowland transformation systems in Indonesia - sampling framework and methodological approach

Faust, Heiko et al. Working Paper Assessment of socio-economic functions of tropical lowland transformation systems in Indonesia - sampling framework and methodological approach EFForTS Discussion Paper Series, No. 1 Provided in Cooperation with: Collaborative Research Centre 990: Ecological and Socioeconomic Functions of Tropical Lowland Rainforest Transformation Systems (Sumatra, Indonesia), University of Goettingen Suggested Citation: Faust, Heiko et al. (2013) : Assessment of socio-economic functions of tropical lowland transformation systems in Indonesia - sampling framework and methodological approach, EFForTS Discussion Paper Series, No. 1, GOEDOC, Dokumenten- und Publikationsserver der Georg- August-Universität, Göttingen, https://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:gbv:7-webdoc-3901-8 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/117313 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/ - Dokumenten- und Publikationsserver der Georg-August-Universität Göttingen 2013 Assessment of socio-economic functions of tropical lowland transformation systems in Indonesia - sampling framework and methodological approach Faust, H., Schwarze, S., Beckert, B., Brümmer, B., Dittrich, C., Euler, M., Gatto, M., Hauser-Schäublin, B., Hein, J., Holtkamp, A. M., Ibanez, M., Klasen, S., Kopp, T., Krishna, V., Kunz, Y., Lay, J., Mußhoff, O., Qaim, M., Steinebach, S., Vorlaufer, M., Wollni, M. EFForTS discussion paper series Nr. 1 Faust, H. ; Schwarze, S. ; Beckert, B. ; Brümmer, B. ; Dittrich, C. ; Euler, M. ; Gatto, M. ; Hauser- Schäublin, B. ; Hein, J. ; Holtkamp, A. M. ; Ibanez, M.; Klasen, S. ; Kopp, T. ; Krishna, V. ; Kunz, Y. ; Lay, J. ; Mußhoff, O. ; Qaim, M. ; Steinebach, S.; Vorlaufer, M. ; Wollni, M.: Assessment of socio-economic functions of tropical lowland transformation systems in Indonesia : sampling framework and methodological approach Göttingen : GOEDOC, Dokumenten- und Publikationsserver der Georg-August-Universität, 2013 (EFForTS discussion paper series 1) Verfügbar: PURL: http://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl/?webdoc-3901 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons License 3.0 “by-nd”, allowing you to download, distribute and print the document in a few copies for private or educational use, given that the document stays unchanged and the creator is mentioned. You are not allowed to sell copies of the free version. Bibliographische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliographie; detaillierte bibliographische Daten sind im Internet über <http://dnb.ddb.de> abrufbar. Erschienen in der Reihe EFForTS discussion paper series ISSN: 2197-6244 Herausgeber der Reihe SFB 990 EFForTS, Ecological and Socioeconomic Functions of Tropical Lowland Rainforest Transformation Systems (Sumatra, Indonesien) - Ökologische und sozioökonomische Funktionen tropischer Tieflandregenwald-Transformationssysteme (Sumatra, Indonesien) Georg-August-Universität Göttingen Johann-Friedrich-Blumenbach Institut für Zoologie und Anthropologie, Fakultät für Biologie und Psychologie Abstract: EFForTS is a collaborative research center (CRC) which focuses on Ecological and socioeconomic Functions of Tropical Lowland Rainforest Transformation Systems in Sumatra, Indonesia. The paper presents the common sampling frame of the socio economic sub-projects. The investigations and data collections intertwine and complement one another. Thus the methodological approach reflects the idea of an interdisciplinary and integrative research approach. Lead by hypotheses we structured our sampling procedure hierarchically. Starting at the household level in the core villages of the research regions we investigate additional local villages. Further we extend the data collections on the regional level with household, village and trader surveys. The national and international levels we reach by stakeholder interviews with governmental and non-governmental experts. The applied methods are composed of qualitative and quantitative empirical studies. Keywords: socioeconomic functions, agricultural transformation systems, sampling framework, methods, Jambi, Indonesia Assessment of Socio-Economic Functions of Tropical Lowland Transformation Systems in Indonesia - Sampling Framework and Methodological Approach Faust, H., Schwarze, S., Beckert, B., Brümmer, B., Dittrich, C., Euler, M., Gatto, M., Hauser-Schäublin, B., Hein, J., Holtkamp, A. M., Ibanez, M., Klasen, S., Kopp, T., Krishna, V., Kunz, Y., Lay, J., Mußhoff, O., Qaim, M., Steinebach, S., Vorlaufer, M., Wollni, M. EFForTS Discussion Paper Series No. 1 (September 2013) Funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) through the CRC 990 “EFForTS, Ecological and Socioeconomic Functions of Tropical Lowland Rainforest Transformation Systems (Sumatra, Indonesia)” www.uni-goettingen.de/en/310995.html SFB 990, University of Goettingen Berliner Straße 28, D-37073 Goettingen, Germany ISSN: 2197-6244 II Managing editors: At the University of Goettingen, Germany Prof. Dr. Christoph Dittrich, Institute of Geography, Dept. of Human Geography (Email: [email protected]) Dr. Stefan Schwarze, Dept. of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, (Email: [email protected]) At the Universities of Bogor and Jambi, Indonesia Prof. Dr. Zulkifli Alamsyah, Dept. Of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Jambi (Email: [email protected]) Dr. Satyawan Sunito, Dept. of Communication and Community Development Sciences, Faculty of Human Ecology, Bogor Agricultural University (IPB) (Email: [email protected]) III Table of contents Abstract 1 1. Introduction 2 1.1 Scope and objectives of EFForTS in Jambi 2 1.2 Scope and objective of Human Dimensions Group 3 1.3 Research area 4 2. Conceptual procedure of qualitative studies 5 2.1 Research hypotheses / Research questions 6 2.2 Village case studies 6 2.2.1 Stakeholder interviews 10 2.2.2 Participatory tools 11 2.3 Household case studies 13 2.3.1 Problem-centered interviews 13 2.3.2 Timelines 14 2.4 Comparative cultural study 14 3. Conceptual procedure of quantitative studies 15 3.1 Research hypotheses 15 3.2 The village survey 16 3.2.1 Sampling Procedure 16 3.2.2 Objectives of the village survey and questionnaire design 17 3.3 The household survey 18 3.3.1 Sampling procedure 18 3.3.2 Objectives of the household survey and questionnaire design 19 3.3.3 Ecological extension of the household survey 19 3.4 Trader survey 20 4. Economic field experiments 20 4.1 Risk attitudes 20 4.2 Trust preferences 21 4.3 Incentive Mechanisms for sustainable land use options 22 References 24 List of authors and contributions 28 Appendix 29 IV List of figures Fig. 1: Joint sampling framework of Human Dimensions Group 3 Fig. 2: Research areas 5 Fig. 3: Village case studies 7 Fig. 4: Participatory village mapping 12 Fig. 5: Village survey 17 Fig. 6: Shares of rubber and oil palm cultivation on village level 18 List of tables Table 1: Structure of the Holt and Laury Lottery 21 Table 2: Design of the compensation mechanisms 23 1 Abstract EFForTS is a collaborative research center (CRC) which focuses on Ecological and socioeconomic Functions of Tropical Lowland Rainforest Transformation Systems in Sumatra, Indonesia. The paper presents the common sampling frame of the socio economic sub-projects. The investigations and data collections intertwine and complement one another. Thus the methodological approach reflects the idea of an interdisciplinary and integrative research approach. Lead by hypotheses we structured our sampling procedure hierarchically. Starting at the household level in the core villages of the research regions we investigate additional local villages. Further we extend the data collections on the regional level with household, village and trader surveys. The national and international levels we reach by stakeholder interviews with governmental and non-governmental experts. The applied methods are composed of qualitative and quantitative empirical studies. Keywords: socioeconomic functions, rainforest transformation systems, sampling framework, methods, Jambi, Indonesia 2 1. Introduction 1.1 Scope and objectives of EFForTS in Jambi Around the world, the expansion of agriculture and the extraction of natural resources are increasingly competing with natural ecosystems. In many tropical areas, rainforests are cleared in order to exploit timber and other forest products as well as plant crops for food, feed and fuel use. Commonly it is assumed that, when natural forests are cleared, all forest functions and services are lost. Against this background, natural forest conservation would be the only way to preserve these functions and services. However, given increasing human demand for food, feed, fiber and other natural resources, complete conservation is not realistic in many settings and might also not be required from an ecological perspective. Surprisingly, the determinants of different patterns of deforestation and the roles of resulting transformation systems of tropical rainforests for conserving biodiversity as well as ecological and socioeconomic functions have received little attention in scientific research so far. Investigating the functions of rainforest transformation systems is particularly important for lowland rainforests, as these are the most threatened, disappearing at accelerating rates (http://www.uni-goettingen.de/en/310995.html). The Collaborative Research Center (CRC) “Ecological and Socioeconomic Functions of Tropical Lowland Rainforest Transformation Systems” (EFForTS) aims at providing sciencebased guidelines on how to protect and enhance the ecological functions and services of tropical forests, forest remnants and agricultural transformation systems at a landscape scale, while improving human welfare at the same time. The results are expected to contribute to the development of strategies for sustainable management of forest reserves and major rainforest transformation systems of the lowland tropics of Southeast Asia, such as rubber and oil palm plantations. Further, the program aims at providing baseline information on how to integrate agricultural land use and conservation issues, crucial for the implementation of biosphere reserves and similar concepts involving different zones of human impact. In order to implement such zones and promote more integrative land use, detailed knowledge on the functions and services of forest reserves vs. agricultural transformation systems in a landscape context is required. The CRC addresses the following major research questions: • What are the driving forces for deforestation and the establishment of different agricultural transformation systems, and what factors contribute to the preservation of functions of tropical lowland rainforest in an agricultural landscape? • What are the functions and services of forest transformation systems, such as extensive rubber (‘jungle rubber’), and intensive rubber and oil palm plantations? Which characteristics of the transformation systems are responsible for which functions/services? • What are the environmental, economic and social impacts of transforming tropical lowland rainforest into agricultural systems such as rubber und oil palm plantations? • How can the ecological and socioeconomic functions and services of tropical lowland rainforest transformation systems be improved? What are technological, institutional and policy preconditions for implementing landscape systems that reconcile ecological functions, agricultural productivity and human welfare? 9 obtaining concession rights beginning in 1980 (PT Emal, SDM = Savit Desa Makmur). Even though influenced by oil palm companies the individual decision on crops is on rubber rather than oil palm cultivation. 7. Pauh, core plot village, district Pauh, regency Sarolangun is a traditional village with 2.424 farmer households (2012). Approximately 80% of the population originates from Jambi, whereas the remaining 20% are spontaneous migrants mainly stemming from Java. The total village land was about 24,000 ha in 2012. Monoculture rubber (5,750 ha) and oil palm (9,000 ha) are the two major land systems. The increasing importance of oil palm cultivation is pushed forward by private company involvement, in particular, PT Emal. Harapan Rainforest region: 8. Bakti Mulya, additional village, district Sungaibaha, regency Muaro Jambi, is a transmigration settlement established in 1989/90 with an initial number of 750 households. At the time of being migrated every household was provided with a wooden hut and 2.5 ha of land: 2.0 ha for plasma (oil palm ready for harvesting) and 0.5 ha for subsistence purposes. All of the transmigrants hold land tenure certificates. Bakti Mulya is part of a larger transmigrant area consisting of 21 units or transmigrant villages. 9. Bungku, core plot village, district Bajubang, regency Batang Hari was founded in 1973 as resettlement village for the local autochthonous Batin Sembilan population. Official number of households is 2,864, whereas estimations on village level count up to 12,000 inhabitants. The local Batin Sembilan (20%) population is outnumbered by migrants from Java and other parts of Sumatra (80%). The administrative village territory covers an area of 77,000 ha including wide concessions for oil palm plantations (PT Asiatic Persada), timber plantations (PT Agronusa Alam Sejahtera and PT Wanakasita Nusantara,) and ecosystem restoration (PT Restorasi Ekosistem Indonesia/ Harapan Rainforest). Besides parts of the village territory are classified as forest reserve (Taman Hutan Raya Sultan Thaha Syaifuddin-Senami/ TAHURA). Since community land was never clearly defined large parts of the commercial concessions and of the forest reserve are claimed and used by local communities causing different land conflicts. Main cash crop is oil palm (60%) and rubber (40%). Shifting cultivation and cultivation of traditional fruit trees such as Durian is practiced in forest areas claimed by PT REKI (Restorasi Ekosistem Indonesia). 10. Desa Markanding, additional village, district Sungai Bahar is an autochthonous village with founded in the 1940s during the time of Dutch colonial rule. The number of households in 2012 stood at 733, with 30% of the population being local autochthonous and 70% being migrants (Javanese and Bataknese). The area of village land is stated to be approximately 3,810 ha. The share of rubber to oil palm production is 35% to 65%. Shifting cultivation is still in practise in forested area also claimed by the reforestation concession PT REKI. The land use and population development of Markanding is since 1984 being impacted by the introduction of the state owned company PT PN VI (Perseroan Terbatas Perkebunan Nusantara), cultivating oil palm. 11. Desa Marga Mulya, additional village, district Sungaibaha, regency Muaro Jambi is a transmigration settlement established in 1986. The number of households comprises 1,103, 85% Javanese/Sundanese, and 15% mixed origin (mainly Bataknese). The area of village land is 1,814 ha. The predominant cultivation scheme is oil palm (99.8%). The 10 founding of Marga Mulya and its economic development is inseparably related to the establishment of the stately palm oil producing company PT PN VI. 12. Mekar Jaya, additional village, district Bajubang, regency Batanghari is a transmigration village founded in 1987 in cooperation with the state-owned company PT PN VI. At the time of establishment the 335 households were moved, an estimated 70% from Java and 30% from other parts of Sumatra (e.g. Palembang). Opposed to most other transmigrant villages in the research area, Mekar Jaya was set up with a rubber and not a palm oil plasma scheme. Another significant difference to other transmigrant villages here is that people do not hold land title certificates. The village borders the Sultan Thaha Syaifuddin conservation forest which is encroached by a growing village population. 13. Pompa Air, core plot village, district Bajubang, regency Batanghari is an autochthonous village, dated back to the Dutch colonial time. Pompa Air consists of 680 households (2013), Batin Sembilan account for 40% of the inhabitants, 60% migrants from Java and other parts of Sumatra. Village land comprises 6,300 ha. Main land use in the past has been rubber cultivation which is now currently being replaced by oil palms. Land use and population development in Pompa Air is influenced by the establishment of oil palm plantations (PT Asiatic Persada) and forest conservation areas (Sultan Thaha Syaifuddin). 14. Desa Singkawang, core plot village, district Batang Hari, regency Muara Bulian is one of the oldest amongst the research villages in the Harapan area. Today only a slight majority of the 1116 inhabitants consists of the autochthonous population of the area; many people came here from Java and other parts of Sumatra. Being a traditional rubber cultivating village, oil palm was only introduced through a company in 1997. The company set up a contract through which the farmers give 80% of the yield to the company while 20% of the yield remains with the farmer. Like Mekar Jaya, Singkawang also borders Sultan Thaha Syaifuddin conservation forest which is claimed by villagers from Singkawang as well. 2.2.1 Stakeholder interviews and focus group discussions As described by George E. Marcus (1995: 79f) (1995: 79f) research which is “embedded in a world system […] cannot be […] focused on a single site of intensive investigation”. Therefore stakeholder interviews will be conducted on different political scales and as mentioned above in different research sites. Research sites are the research villages (introduced above) and important local, national and transnational nodes of decision making (Flitner and Görg 2008) related to land use transformation. Nodes of decision making are for instances governmental agencies, headquarters of environmental organizations, transnational companies and village governments. Stakeholders or in other words experts are representatives of specific groups which are directly involved in the research topic (transformation systems) or which are observing or studying a topic related to the research topic of the researcher. For instance stakeholder interviews are conducted with representatives of donor agencies and governmental agencies. Donor policies, e.g. through support for conservation and REDD projects (e.g. Harapan Rainforest or Berbak Carbon Project) may alter land use policies and land use decisions. Governmental agencies e.g. through the implementation of transmigration projects have the potential to foster transformational change. To understand the stakeholders’ entitlements we apply semi-structured 11 interviews with key informants of all below mentioned stakeholder groups. Based on the scope of our research we in particular focus on the following stakeholder groups: • Government agencies: 1. national level, 2. provincial level, 3. district level, 4. sub-district level, 5. village level. • Donor agencies (no specific scale or level) • Private sector: 1. transnational companies, 2. Indonesian companies, 3. local agents such as rubber and palm oil factories and rubber and oil palm traders. 4. Village level agents such as farming groups. • Academia: Researcher observing the research topic from Indonesia and beyond, researchers are therefore not “classical” stakeholders. • Non-governmental organizations (NGOs): 1. transnational, 2. national, 3. local. Complementary we conduct focus group discussions with stakeholders on the village level: 1. peasant farmers, 2. customary institution, 3. village leaders, 4. farmer groups, 5. women groups, 6. youth groups, 7. traders. The objective of group discussions is foremost to gain (semi) public opinions connected to social relations and situations. The central idea behind this is to use dynamics of conversations to explore different views and perceptions, supported by more spontaneous and therefore authentic comments in certain situations than those expressed in interviews. Of main interest for the present research collaboration are processes of land use change and their causes. Collective communication patterns hardly capture genuine opinions in single interviews but will rather be obtained in public, social group situations. Individual opinions are not just produced through the group process. They might have existed before, but their verbal expression will be facilitated through the group discussion. The confidence in the group facilitates more openness than in standardized individual interview situations, which are usually conducted by the research team focusing on a single household alone. During the process of group building for focus group discussion it is intended to create manifold groups of individuals of different ethnic backgrounds, gender, and social status. Interviews and focus group discussions are recorded, transcribed and coded with Atlas Ti or MAXQDA. 2.2.2 Participatory tools Participant observation As parts of the interviews as well as the group discussions focus on sensitive topics such as poverty, ethnicity, land size as well as the illegal exploitation of commodities from the Bukit Duabelas National Park (TNBD) and the Harapan Conservation Forest, we build up closeness and trust with the local households. Therefore we chose to begin the field studies with participant observation. During participant observation the researcher takes on a role in the social situation under observation. The researcher gets immersed herself/himself in the social setting under study, getting to know key actors in that location in a role with is either covert or overt, although in practice the researcher will often move between the two roles. The aims of this research tool are to experience events in a manner in which the subjects under study also experience these events and to discover the nature of social reality by understanding the actor’s perception, understanding and interpretation of that social world (Atkinson and Hammersley 2005). 12 Participatory observation is conducted in an unstructured, non-standardized and open manner within the existing social world of the village. This means participation in the community life. Further opportunities utilized to better embed the research team in the daily village life are for instance participation in religious and cultural activities (as mutual church visits with the author or mosque visits with the research assistants), farming group meetings and daily work activities, which range from participation in the daily life of the guest families to participation in school classes or the cleaning of village property. Leisure activities are used to build up trust and closeness as well. These informal ways of obtaining data provide an important corrective against information which will be received from formal interviews (Binternagel 2011: 45f). Participant observation is also the process enabling researchers to learn about the activities of the people under study in the natural setting through observing and participating in those activities. It provides the context for development of sampling guidelines and interview guides (DeWalt and DeWalt 2002) and was used as a starting point for further in depth research. Participatory mapping Participatory mapping is a group-based qualitative research tool that gives participants freedom to shape discussion or minimal intervention from researchers. Mapping can generate a rich understanding of the connections between people, places, natural resources and institutions/organizations over space and/or time. Fig. 4: Participatory village mapping Source: Village case study, Beckert 2012. 13 Village transect Village transects are cross-sectional representation of the different agro-ecological zones. They provide information on land use, vegetation and crops according to topography, land type and ownership. Village or settlement transects are an important method to approach emic concepts and categories of land and resource use. Village transects were combined with resource mapping on village level. Resource maps on village level provide information on natural resources, land use patterns and village boundaries. Social mapping Social mapping depicts the composition and distribution of ethnic/cultural groups within the villages. This method also generates information about the village layout, the infrastructure and supports the tracing of village and population chronic. Social mapping was carried out in cooperation with villagers, preferably with the village secretary (Sekdes) or the head of economic village affairs (Kepala Urusan Pembangunan). The social village mapping was combined with village transects. 2.3 Household case studies The household selection is based on the following criteria: ethnic/cultural group, time since living in the village, subsistence strategies. To cover a wide range of households and cross cut the selected criteria the household case studies usually started in the oldest dusun of a village and continued in a chronological order to the last founded dusun. Within the dusun the households were selected by the ethnic/cultural background of the household heads and the time since living in the village. Household case studies are also coordinated with the quantitative household survey to create a common and in depth database on selected households (n = 60 – 80). 2.3.1 Problem-centered interviews All interviews followed the problem-centered interview approach. This approach is exceptionally suitable for more comprehensive samples of up to 100 interviews, as is the case with the present studies. The interviews are structured by a flexible questionnaire allowing, e.g. for nonstandardized comments and explanations, as well as the incidental coverage of additional aspects when deemed necessary by the interviewer. The design of the questionnaires itself are comprised by headwords of the most important questions, without any rigid order. Questions are randomly asked according to the progression of the interview. There is no fixed pattern; rather similar topics in the guide are summarized to blocks. To obtain the best possible research outcome and to build trust, the interviews are conducted in places as familiar as possible to the respondents, usually at their homes or directly on the plots during lunch break. We try to avoid already conduct interviews at the first contact with respondents. Therefore we establish contacts in advance during participatory observations or earlier group discussions in the village. The interviews are conducted in Bahasa Indonesia supported by Indonesian research assistants whilst being recorded. In a second step, the interviews are transcribed and translated into English. To avoid a loss of side information and to immediately clarify misunderstandings, we discuss and document the relevant outcome and circumstances with the research assistants after each interview (Binternagel 2011: 56). To identify interview partners for problem centered interviews related to specific questions, we mainly used the snowball system. 14 2.3.2 Timelines The timeline method supports the exploration of the temporal dimension of people´s realities. The distinctive feature of this method is that it allows people to apply their own concept of time. Timeline captures the chronology of events as recalled by local people. It is drawn as a sequential aggregate of past events and thus provides the historical landmark of a community. However, it is not history as such but events of the past as perceived and recalled by the people themselves. Timelines giving a general historic profile of villages are the most common ones. Regarding the overall research topic, we conduct timelines modified and focused on the chronology of land use changes in the respective villages. Certain other major development interventions having a direct or indirect bearing on social and environmental changes are also recalled. This includes major migration events, infrastructure projects, or political and legal restraints. Local people may talk about a particular impact but may not recall the exact time period because they might possess own concepts of time and do not remember in terms of the Gregorian calendar but in the chronology of important local events experienced in their lives. With the outcome of the timeline method the researchers are enabled to present the respondents a local timeframe and the households are able to converge perceived changes with dates (Binternagel 2011: 47). Analysis of kinship relations (Genealogy) means the study of families and the tracing of their kinship relations and histories. This participatory tool was conducted with members of the local autochthonous population. It provides information on marriage and inheritance patterns associated with access to resources, land/tree tenure and land use systems. Further it gives information on interaction between cultural groups and shifting ethnic and social identities also related to the allocation of resources and land use systems. 2.4 Comparative cultural study In a first step of the comparative cultural study an overview on cultural groups living in the research locations is compiled. After identifying different groups, similarities and differences between these groups in respect to land/resource use and engagement in different rainforest transformation systems are investigated. For each group the relevance of cultural factors as drivers for preferences in land uses systems shall be analyzed. This implies fieldwork in different places known as “multi-sited ethnography” (Marcus 1998). A total of 10 villages or settlements (about 2 per sociocultural group) were chosen in the explorative phase of the research. We select at least one village or settlement of each cultural group which will constitute a sample for further comparative research between cultural groups within and between the two research “landscapes”. In the villages or settlements, a combination of participant observation and different participatory tools are applied (see 2.2 and 2.3), completed by open and semi-structured interviews. Certain aspects of these interviews are further explored by using structured interviews. Information on the village level is supplemented with external data already collected by other institutions and organizations such as the Provincial Government and NGOs. In order to obtain the necessary quantity and depth of data we cooperate with several research assistants (junior Indonesian scholars). Each of them conducts the field research in one of the research sites chosen and each works with a selected range of identical research question. The data obtained in these different sites will then serve as the basis for the comparison. Regular meetings will be held to discuss the intermediary results and to adapt the research questions if necessary. 15 3. Conceptual procedure of quantitative studies 3.1 Research hypotheses The following hypotheses, which are listed according to data source, will be tested in the course of the research project. Mainly related to village survey H12: Land allocation to different transformation systems is determined by socio-economic and agroecological conditions of the village. H13: Social and institutional capital varies across villages and influences land allocation at the village level. H14: Contractual agreements with oil palm companies vary across villages depending on institutional and social capital variables. Mainly related to household survey H15: There are notable differences in the profitability of different transformation systems. H16: The profitability of a given transformation system varies regionally and between farms. H17: Land use change decisions of farmers are determined by a wide array of farm, household and contextual variables. H18: Policies, institutions and price developments affect micro level decision-making on land use change. H19: The oil palm expansion entails higher average household incomes, more employment and lower poverty levels. H20: The oil palm expansion contributes to higher income inequality. H21: Household income and income distribution effects vary regionally with differences in institutional and policy conditions. H22: Increasing cash crop orientation leads to higher calorie consumption but lower dietary diversity. H23: Nutrition effects vary regionally with differences in institutional and policy conditions. H24: Differences in technical efficiency between smallholders within the same transformation system as well as differences in the distribution of technical efficiency between different transformation systems are substantial. H25: Differences in environmental efficiency between smallholders are substantial, and the best practice frontier functions between the transformation systems differ along intensity gradients. Mainly related to trader survey H26: Product prices (and hence economic outcomes) for smallholders depend crucially on the specific organization of the local value chain. Village traders are able to exercise market power, based on market imperfections on the farmers’ side: asymmetric information and credit constraints. 16 H27: Stakeholders at all stages along the value chain exercise market power, with a special focus on crumb rubber factories and village traders. H28: Crumb rubber factories are able to exercise market power due to cartelization. H29: International market developments are important drivers for the developments in the value chain for oil palms and rubber, moderated by national and regional policy environments. Mainly related to field experiments H30: The majority of Indonesian farmers are risk-averse. H31: Risk aversion varies among Indonesian farmers and depends inter alia on the financial situation of the farm-household. H32: Conversion triggers obtained from the real options approach are significantly higher than conversion triggers obtained from classical investment theory and therefore classical models overestimate the willingness to switch to a more sustainable land use system. H33: The specific starting position (e.g., with and without reconversion options) has a significant impact on the difference between the trigger of the real options approach and of the classical investment theory. H34: The economic-ecological trade-offs of transformation systems with different intensities are misestimated if the risk attitude of decision makers is not taken into account. H35: The willingness to accept of Indonesian farmers to deliver additional ecological functions calculated with normative models is comparable to the results of surveys. H36: Higher individual compensations lead to transformation systems with higher overall levels of ecological and socio-economic functions. H37: Joint compensation mechanisms increase the effectiveness of the payment scheme. H38: Compensation mechanisms can be designed that influence the spatial distribution of transformation systems leading to higher levels of ecological functions. H39: The effectiveness of different compensation mechanisms depends on individual and collective characteristics of decision makers. 3.2 The village survey 3.2.1 Sampling procedure Five regencies, which comprise most of the lowland transformation systems of Jambi province, were selected purposively. These regencies are Sarolangun, Bungo and Tebo as the ones in proximity of the Bukit Duableas National Park as well as Batanghari and Muaro Jambi, representing the Harapan Rainforest research area. In order to capture geographical disparity and regional diversity, the number of villages per regency and district was fixed. From each of the selected regencies, five districts and four rural villages from each of these districts were selected randomly. In addition, the villages where the core research plots are, were also included in the sample. Although there are 6 core plot villages, one of them (Bungku) was already included in the list of random villages. While coverage of 100 villages was initially planned, due to logistical reasons only 98 villages (see appendix for the list of villages). During the survey the exact location of the sample villages was geo-referenced and mapped (Fig. 5). 17 Fig. 5: Village survey 3.2.2 Objectives of the village survey and questionnaire design The overall goal of the village survey is to analyze the determinants of land allocation in lowland rainforest areas at the village level. Special emphasis is put on the role of socio-economic and agro-ecological conditions as well as contractual arrangements for land allocation. In the selected villages, interviews were carried out with a group of key informants, which included the village head as well as other important stakeholders in the village, using a structured questionnaire. The following information was collected in the survey (1) land allocation (2) demographic characteristics (3) economic income activities including contractual arrangements (4) access to resources and technology use (5) institutional aspects (6) conflicts concerning land and resource use (7) input and output prices (8) risk perceptions (9) village organizations. In order to analyze changes over time, data on village-level characteristics and land allocation were recalled for the years 1992, 2002 and 2012. The questionnaire was pre-tested several times in collaboration with the Indonesian counterparts, and was translated to Bahasa Indonesia using the service of a professional translating agency from Jambi. This questionnaire was explained to the enumerators in a workshop held at the University of Jambi (UNJA). The interviews with key informants were conducted between October and December 2012. 18 3.3 The household survey 3.3.1 Sampling procedure In a first step, 40 villages were chosen from the list of villages selected for the village survey in order to reduce time and costs of the household survey. Specifically, four districts and two rural villages from the already selected districts and villages were selected randomly. The core plot village of Bungku was again already included in the list of randomly selected villages leading to 40 randomly and 5 purposively selected villages for the household survey. With the exception of Pematang Kabau (Sarolangun), the household survey was conducted in the same villages as the village survey (see Fig. 5 and Fig.6, list of the selected villages see appendix). Following village selection, a complete list of households from each of the selected villages was developed using a team of 5 enumerators. In the villages without published list of households and occupation, enumerators visited every RT (“Rukun Tetangga”; neighborhood head) and compiled the list with the help of the heads of RTs. The team also collected basic village-level information from the head of the village and the village secretary (e.g. number of farming households, number of traders etc.). The initial estimation of the data collected shows that 35% of the sample farmers cultivate oil palm and 75% rubber (Fig. 6). In three of the sample villages, only marginal area was under plantation crops. Significant diversity is found across the selected villages with respect to a number of characteristics, especially ethnicity and population density. The available secondary data (based on PODES2 2008) supports this observation. Fig. 6: Shares of rubber and oil palm cultivation on village level 2 PODES = Potensi Desa is a statistical village survey which is issued by the Indonesian Central Bureau of Statistics (Badan Pusat Statistik, BPS) 25 Gaveau DLA et al. (2007) Three decades of deforestation in southwest Sumatra: Have protected areas halted forest loss and logging, and promoted re-growth? Biological Conservation 134: 495-504. Giam X et al. (2010) The extent of undiscovered species in Southeast Asia. Biodiversity and Conservation 19: 943-954. Godfray HCJ et al. (2010) Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 327: 812-818. Hanski I, Gilpin M (1997) Metapopulation biology: ecology, genetics, and evolution. Academic Press, San Diego. Harrison, G, List, J (2004) Field experiments. Journal of Economic Literature 42(4): 1009–1055. Hector A, Bagchi R (2007) Biodiversity and ecosystem multifunctionality. Nature 448: 188–190. Holt CA, Laury SK (2002) Risk aversion and incentive effects. American Economic Review 92: 1644-1655. Holt RD et al. (1999) Trophic rank and the species-area relationship. Ecology 80: 1495-1504. Hooper DU et al. (2005) Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecological Monographs 75: 3–35. Ibanez M, Martinsson P (2007): Can we do policy recommendations from a framed field experiment? The case of coca cultivation in Colombia. Working Papers in Economics 306. University of Gothenburg. School of Business, Economics and Law. Kenward RE et al. (2011) Identifying governance strategies that effectively support ecosystem services, resource sustainability, and biodiversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108: 5308-5312. Klasen S et al. (2010) Cash crop choice and rural income dynamics in post-crisis Indonesia. Courant Research Center Working Paper No. 33. Klasen S et al. (2010): Demography, Development, and Deforestation at the Rainforest Margin in Indonesia. Tscharntke T et al. (eds.): Tropical rainforests and agroforests under global change – Ecological and socio-economic valuations. Springer. Berlin: 213-236 Koh LP et al. (2009) Designer landscapes for sustainable biofuels. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 24: 431-438. Lambin EF et al. (2001): The causes of land-use and land-cover change. Moving beyond the myths. In: Global Environmental Change, 11, 261-269. Laumonier Y et al. (2010) Eco-floristic sectors and deforestation threats in Sumatra: identifying new conservation area network priorities for ecosystem-based land use planning. Biodiversity and Conservation 19: 1153-1174. Laurance WF (2008) Theory meets reality: How habitat fragmentation research has transcended island biogeographic theory. Biological Conservation 141: 1731-1744. Levin SA (1992). The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology 73: 1943-1967. Levy M, Levy H (2002) Prospect theory: Much ado about nothing. Management Science 48: 1334-1349. Lichtenberg E et al. (2010) Natural resource economics and conservation: contributions of agricultural economics and agricultural economists. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 92(S1): 469-486. Milfont, T, Duckitt J (2010): Environmental attitudes inventory: a valid and reliable measure to assess the structure of environmental attitudes. Journal of Environmental Psychology 30: 80-94. MA (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment) (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington DC. Marcus, GE (1998) The Emergence of Multi-Sited Ethnography. Marcus GE (ed.) Ethnography through Thick and Thin. Princeton: Princeton University Press 26 Martini E. et al. (2010) Rubber agroforests and governance at the interface between conservation and livelihoods in Bungo district, Jambi province, Indonesia. Working paper 124. Bogor, Indonesia: World Agroforestry Centre. MacArthur RH, Wilson EO (1967) The theory of island biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Meyer KM et al. (2010) Crossing scales in ecology. Basic and Applied Ecology 11: 561-562. Murdiyarso D et al. (2002) Environmental Benefits and Sustainable Land-Use Options in the Jambi Transect, Sumatra, Indonesia. Journal of Vegetation Science 3(13): 429-438 Naeem D et al. (2009) Biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and human wellbeing - An ecological and economic perspective. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Narloch, U et al. (2011) Cost-effectiveness targeting under multiple conservation goals and equity consideration in the Andes. Environmental Conservation 38: 417-425 Narloch U et al. (2013) How to achieve fairness in payments for ecosystem services? Insights from agrobiodiversity conservation auctions, Land Use Policy 35: 107-118 Nelson E et al. (2009) Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7: 4–11. O'Neill RV et al. (1986) A hierarchical concept of ecosystems. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Ostrom E (2009) A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325: 419-22. Paquette A, Messier C (2011) The effect of biodiversity on tree productivity: From temperate to boreal forests. Global Ecology and Biogeography 20: 170-80. Perfecto I, Vandermeer J (2010) The agroecological matrix as alternative to the land sparing/agriculture intensification model. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107: 5786-5791. Polasky S. et al. (2008) Where to put things? Spatial land management to sustain biodiversity and economic returns. Biological Conservation 141: 1505 –1524. Power AG (2010) Ecosystem services and agriculture: tradeoffs and synergies. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 365: 1554 (2959-2971. Raudsepp-Hearne C et al. (2010) Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107: 5242-5247. Priess JA et al. (2007) Linking deforestation scenarios to pollination services and economic returns in coffee agroforestry systems. Ecological Applications 17: 407-417. Rodrigues ASL et al. (2009) Boom-and-Bust development patterns across the Amazon deforestation frontier. Science 324: 1435-1437. Scherer-Lorenzen M et al. (2007) Exploring the functional significance of forest diversity: a new longterm experiment with temperate tree species (BIOTREE). Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 9: 53-70. Schneider DC (2001) The rise of the concept of scale in ecology. BioScience 51: 545-553. Scoones I (2009) Livelihood perspectives and rural development. Journal of Peasant Studies. Vol. 36, No. 1. pp: 171-196. Steffan-Dewenter I et al. (2007) Tradeoffs between income, biodiversity, and ecosystem functioning during tropical rainforest conversion and agroforestry intensification. PNAS 104: 4973-4978. Stork NE et al. (2009) Vulnerability and resilience of tropical forest species to land-use change. Conservation Biology 23: 1438-47. Tscharntke T et al. (2005) Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity - ecosystem service management. Ecology Letters 8: 857-74. 27 United Nations (UN) (2007) Framework Convention on Climate Change. Report of the Conference of the Parties on its thirteenth session. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2007/cop13/eng/06.pdf. [03.05.2013]. Woolthuis RK et al. (2005) Trust, contract and relationship development. Organization Studies 26: 813-840. World Bank (2007) World development report: agriculture for development. Oxford University Press, New York. Wilcove DS, Koh LP (2010) Addressing the threats to biodiversity from oil-palm agriculture. Biodiversity and Conservation 19: 999-1007. Zuckerman M (1971): Dimensions of sensation seeking. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 36: 45-52. 28 List of authors and contributions Project titles and descriptions are available on http://www.uni-goettingen.de/en/412101.html Authors’ addresses via http://www.uni-goettingen.de/en/staff/412128.html (SP = Subproject) Beckert, Barbara, Ph.D. candidate, Human Geography, SP C02: chapter 2.2 Brümmer, Bernhard, Prof. Dr., Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, SP C01: chapter 3.4 Dittrich, Christoph, Prof. Dr., Human Geography, SP C02: chapter 2 Euler, Michael Ph.D. candidate, Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, SP C07: Chapter 3.3 Faust, Heiko, Prof. Dr., Human Geography, SP C02: Chapter 1 and 2 Gatto, Marcel, Ph.D. candidate, Agricultural Economics and Rural Development SP08: Chapter 3.2 and 4.2 Hauser-Schäublin, Brigitta, Prof. Dr., Cultural and Social Anthropology, SP C03: Chapter 2 Hein, J., Ph.D. candidate, German Development Institute (DIE), SP02: Chapter 2.2.1 Holtkamp, Anna Mareike, Ph.D. candidate, Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, SP C01: chapter 3.3.3 Ibanez, M., Jun.-Prof., CRC Poverty, Equity and Growth, SP08: Chapter 3 Klasen, Stephan, Prof. Ph.D., Development Economics, SP C04: Chapter 3 Kopp, Thomas, Ph.D. candidate Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, SP C01: chapter 3.4 Krishna, Vijesh, Dr., Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, SP C07: Chapter 3.2 and 3.3 Kunz, Yvonne, Ph.D. candidate, Human Geography, SP 02: Chapter 2.2 Lay, Jann, Prof. Dr., Development Economics, SP C04: Chapter 3 Mußhoff, Oliver, Prof. Dr., Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, SP C06: Chapter 4 Qaim, Matin, Prof. Dr., Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, SP C07: Chapter 1 and 3 Schwarze, Stefan, Dr., Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, SP C07: Chapter 3 Steinebach, Stefanie, Dr., Cultural and Social Anthropology, SP C03: Chapter 2.2 and 2.3 Vorlaufer, Miriam, Ph.D. candidate, Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, SP C08: Chapter 4 Wollni, Meike, Jun.-Prof. Dr., Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, SP C08: Chapter 4 29 Appendix: Districts and villages covered in the village survey and in the household surveys No. Regency name District name Village name Included in the village surveys (Yes =1; No=0) Type of village (transmigrasi program) (Yes =1; No=0) Total number of households in 20121 Total number of farm households in 2012 1 Number of farmers included in the household survey 1 Batang Hari Bajubang Bungku* 1 0 2864 2864 21 2 Batang Hari Bajubang Pompa Air* 1 0 681 681 20 3 Batang Hari Bathin XXIV Kelurahan Muara Jangga 1 0 600 570 0 4 Batang Hari Bathin XXIV Karmeo 1 0 616 548 0 5 Batang Hari Bathin XXIV Simpang Karmeo 1 0 512 468 18 6 Batang Hari Bathin XXIV Jangga 1 0 365 340 12 7 Batang Hari Maro Sebo Ilir Danau Embat 1 0 315 308 0 8 Batang Hari Maro Sebo Ilir Bulian Jaya 1 1 660 398 24 9 Batang Hari Maro Sebo Ilir Karya Mukti 1 1 425 395 0 10 Batang Hari Maro Sebo Ilir Bukit Sari 1 1 387 372 12 11 Batang Hari Maro Sebo Ilir Senaning 1 0 225 119 6 12 Batang Hari Mersam Sengkati Baru 1 0 525 467 0 13 Batang Hari Mersam Sungai Puar 1 0 756 651 0 14 Batang Hari Mersam Bukit Harapan 1 1 576 551 0 15 Batang Hari Mersam Belanti Jaya 1 1 316 306 0 16 Batang Hari Muara Bulian Sridadi 1 0 1244 324 24 17 Batang Hari Muara Bulian Tenam 1 0 499 77 0 18 Batang Hari Muara Bulian Simpang Terusan 1 0 800 107 18 19 Batang Hari Muara Bulian Singkawang* 1 0 334 296 20 20 Batang Hari Pemayung Jembatan Mas 1 0 869 554 0 21 Batang Hari Pemayung Pulau Betung 1 0 420 387 0 22 Batang Hari Pemayung Pulau Raman 1 0 360 345 12 23 Bungo Bathin III Ulu Lubuk Beringin 1 0 96 85 4 24 Bungo Bathin III Ulu Laman Panjang 1 0 520 450 6 25 Bungo Bathin III Ulu Buat 1 0 292 253 0 26 Bungo Bathin III Ulu Senamant Ulu 1 0 260 174 0 27 Bungo Muko Muko Batin VII Tebing Tinggi 1 0 500 464 12 30 No. Regency name District name Village name Included in the village surveys (Yes =1; No=0) Type of village (transmigrasi program) (Yes =1; No=0) Total number of households in 20121 Total number of farm households in 2012 1 Number of farmers included in the household survey 28 Bungo Muko Muko Batin VII Tanjung Agung 1 0 780 656 18 29 Bungo Muko Muko Batin VII Suka Jaya 1 0 266 50 0 30 Bungo Pelepat Balai Jaya 1 0 330 297 0 31 Bungo Pelepat Sungai Beringin 1 0 277 249 0 32 Bungo Pelepat Mulia Jaya 1 1 534 482 0 33 Bungo Pelepat Ilir Muara Kuamang 1 0 322 273 12 34 Bungo Pelepat Ilir Maju Jaya 1 1 667 616 17 35 Bungo Pelepat Ilir Kuamang Jaya 1 1 430 400 0 36 Bungo Pelepat Ilir Kuning Gading 1 1 670 643 0 37 Bungo Tanah Sepenggal Candi 1 0 968 829 0 38 Bungo Tanah Sepenggal Sungai Gambir 1 0 600 481 0 39 Bungo Tanah Sepenggal Teluk Pandak 1 0 841 761 18 40 Bungo Tanah Sepenggal Tenam 1 0 450 436 12 41 Muaro Jambi Bahar Utara Sungai Dayo 1 1 196 192 8 42 Muaro Jambi Bahar Utara Mulya Jaya 1 1 152 119 8 43 Muaro Jambi Bahar Utara Talang Datar 1 1 286 261 0 44 Muaro Jambi Bahar Utara Pinang Tinggi 1 0 472 40 0 45 Muaro Jambi Kumpeh Ulu Sumber Jaya 1 0 377 226 12 46 Muaro Jambi Kumpeh Ulu Tarikan 1 0 627 75 18 47 Muaro Jambi Kumpeh Ulu Ramin 1 1 451 375 0 48 Muaro Jambi Mestong Baru 1 0 635 620 0 49 Muaro Jambi Mestong Nagasari 1 0 428 375 0 50 Muaro Jambi Mestong Suka Maju 1 0 900 877 0 51 Muaro Jambi Mestong Tanj. Pauh Talang Pelita 1 0 272 270 0 52 Muaro Jambi Muaro Sebo Bakung 1 0 287 214 0 53 Muaro Jambi Muaro Sebo Muaro Jambi 1 0 700 527 0 54 Muaro Jambi Muaro Sebo Tanjung Katung 1 0 632 147 23 55 Muaro Jambi Sungai Gelam Petaling Jaya 1 1 560 440 0 31 No. Regency name District name Village name Included in the village surveys (Yes =1; No=0) Type of village (transmigrasi program) (Yes =1; No=0) Total number of households in 20121 Total number of farm households in 2012 1 Number of farmers included in the household survey 56 Muaro Jambi Sungai Gelam Ladang Panjang 1 0 1902 1670 24 57 Muaro Jambi Sungai Gelam Talang Belido 1 0 1003 927 0 58 Muaro Jambi Sungai Gelam Parit 1 0 675 613 18 59 Muaro Jambi Taman Rago Tebat Patah 1 0 250 216 8 60 Sarolangun Air Hitam Mentawak Ulu 1 1 564 440 0 61 Sarolangun Air Hitam Lubuk Kepayang* 1 0 425 383 20 62 Sarolangun Air Hitam Desa Baru* 1 0 721 600 20 63 Sarolangun Air Hitam Pematang Kabau 0 1 733 620 24 64 Sarolangun Limun Pulau Pandan 1 0 363 276 0 65 Sarolangun Limun Moenti 1 0 235 165 0 66 Sarolangun Limun Temenggung 1 0 1800 1620 0 67 Sarolangun Limun Muara Mansao 1 0 428 380 0 68 Sarolangun Pauh Batu Kucing 1 0 861 840 0 69 Sarolangun Pauh Pangidaran 1 0 204 183 0 70 Sarolangun Pauh Pauh* 1 0 2500 2424 20 71 Sarolangun Pauh Semaran 1 0 423 402 12 72 Sarolangun Pauh Danau Serdang 1 0 274 274 6 73 Sarolangun Pelawan Pematang Kolim 1 1 800 690 24 74 Sarolangun Pelawan Batu Putih 1 1 642 637 18 75 Sarolangun Pelawan Muara Danau 1 0 236 219 0 76 Sarolangun Pelawan Pelawan Jaya 1 0 508 411 0 77 Sarolangun Singkut Bukit Murau 1 1 1653 1488 24 78 Sarolangun Singkut Pasar Singkut 1 1 1338 1300 0 79 Sarolangun Singkut Payo Lebar 1 1 1248 1148 24 80 Sarolangun Singkut Bukit Tigo 1 0 1000 35 0 81 Tebo Rimbo Ilir Sari Mulya 1 1 1102 1030 0 82 Tebo Rimbo Ilir Giri Purno 1 1 640 566 0 83 Tebo Rimbo Ilir Sepakat Bersatu 1 0 335 305 6 32 No. Regency name District name Village name Included in the village surveys (Yes =1; No=0) Type of village (transmigrasi program) (Yes =1; No=0) Total number of households in 20121 Total number of farm households in 2012 1 Number of farmers included in the household survey 84 Tebo Sumay Jati Belarik 1 0 210 204 0 85 Tebo Sumay Teriti 1 0 328 221 12 86 Tebo Sumay Teluk Langkap 1 0 417 385 0 87 Tebo Sumay Muara Sekalo 1 0 230 114 6 88 Tebo Tebo Tengah Bedaro Rampak 1 0 744 670 0 89 Tebo Tebo Tengah Sungai Keruh 1 0 867 778 0 90 Tebo Tebo Tengah Tebing Tinggi 1 0 1637 1070 1 91 Tebo Tebo Ulu Giriwinangun 1 1 1259 1043 24 92 Tebo Tebo Ulu Pulau Panjang 1 0 552 309 12 93 Tebo Tebo Ulu Tanjung Aur 1 0 414 400 0 94 Tebo Tebo Ulu Rantau Langkap 1 0 444 406 19 95 Tebo Tebo Ulu Teluk Kasai Rambahan 1 0 293 277 0 96 Tebo VII Koto Teluk Kayu Putih 1 0 1418 1354 0 97 Tebo VII Koto Aur Cino 1 0 700 615 20 98 Tebo VII Koto Sungai Abang 1 0 1100 1040 0 99 Tebo VII Koto Muara Tabun 1 0 255 250 6