AGRARIS: Journal of Agribusiness and Rural Development Research Vol. 4 No. 1 Januari -Juni 2018 NURLIZA1*, EVA DOLOROSA2, AGUSMINI ERAWATI3 1 2Agribusiness Dept., Faculty of Agriculture, University of Tanjungpura 3BAPPEDA Sambas District, Jl. Pembangunan, Kab. Sambas, Kalimantan Barat Email Korespondensi: nurliza.spmm@gmail.com Strategic Policy of Coastal Sustainability based on Local Condi- tions and Needs in Sambas Regency, West Kalimantan h t t ps : / / doi .or g/ 10.18196/ agr .4161 ABSTRACT Recently, there has been a growing contro- versy on strategic policy issues in coastal areas. Coastal regions have the most diverse, complex, and productive ecosystems due to demographic and economic pressure. This ecosystems are important for food security. On the other hand, coastal problems are national issues, not just state or local issues. This research aims to propose the priority dimension of a stakeholder role in a strate- gic policy to promote the coordination and sustainability of socioeconomic activities in coastal areas involving stakeholders as pri- mary data, i.e. fishermen, merchants, pri- vate, and government using SUSTAIN indi- cators with AHP and Rap-Coastal methods. The result reveals that governance dimen- sion was still the most priority and the most sustainable index to achieve policies; moni- toring tools; human resources capacity building, implementation of good man- agement practices; and public participation. Meanwhile, social well-being di- mension was the most priority to achieve the economy through transportation; and attaining the goal of equity was the priority for government policy. There are three sensitive aspects of coastal sustainability management, including integrated program, identified parties actively informed and involved, and partnership be- tween local governments and communities. Keywords: coastal management, governance, strategic policy, sustainability. INTRODUCTION Coastal zones are unique areas with diverse species that connect land and sea. The zones are economically valuable and extremely important for human activities as they provide many benefits to humans, such as biodiversity, food sources, and renewable energy. Coastal zones also provide an intangible ben- efit, i.e. an aesthetic value, recreation, an essential contribution to cultural heritage, and supporting human activities. However, the economy and human activities related to fishery, aquacul- ture, and tourism activities are environmentally sensitive since they give real pressure as part of the world’s coasts, i.e. loss of biodiversity, contamination by hazardous substances, non-indigenous species and marine litter, and land-claim development (RCS, 2010). Furthermore, the exploitation of coastal resources often causes serious environmental problems, such as the global climate change and the rise of sea-level, unexpected natural episodic events, and unexpected man-made disasters (Zsamboky, Fernández-Bilbao, Smith, Knight, & Allan, 2011). Recently, adaptive and collaborative approaches to manage coastal areas and shared governance processes has emerged. The coastal management in many regions (Siry, 2009; Harvey & Katon, 2010; Newmann, Vafeidis, Zimmermann, & Nicholls, 2015; Goble, Hill, & Phillips, 2017) has also devel- oped over time and reflects global trends due to the growing emphasis on pub- mailto:nurliza.spmm@gmail.com 60 AGRARIS: Journal of Agribusiness and Rural Development Research lic participation, ecological concern, improved integration among sectors, less engineered solution, and the centrality of the concept of sustainability (Kenchington, Stocker, &Wood, 2012). Nevertheless, many people and the govern- ment are not fully aware of the significant relevance between the coastal areas management and the commitment of the government, which has a responsibility for planning and making decisions, as well as producing regulations which cover a large proportion of land and sea areas in the coastal zone, both at national policy and local implementation scales to consciously integrate social, cultural, ecological and economi- cal aspects. Hence, it is equally important to understand the people, as their unique cultures and economies are connected to coasts for understanding the ecological model to manage the coastal sustainable task. A coherent approach in formulat- ing policies for sustainable protection, usage and manage- ment of coastal resources which supports long-term sustain- able growth with technical innovation and expansion is needed, particularly to address the challenge and new ways to integrate multiple considerations into adaptive implemen- tation in order to respond to the local conditions and needs. What is more concerning is that there is a pronounced lack of experience in implementing the assessment tools in general and practice. The discrepancy between expectations and practical application is one of the key issues that should be addressed. Another issue is a lack of methodology stan- dard. Often, there is confusion, whether some actions should be considered as a tool as their tools. Therefore, this research tried to propose priority dimen- sion of a stakeholder role in a strategic policy to promote the coordination and sustainability of socioeconomic activities in coastal areas with combination of AHP and Rap-Coastal methods to prove the leading dimension drawn from eco- nomic, environmental quality, social well-being, and gover- nance dimensions objectives into coastal management and policy making based on the local conditions and needs. This priority dimension is expected to make the coastal manage- ment process more efficient and effective. This also provides the groundwork for sustainable coastal management policies, plans or programs, which can be assessed into decision mak- ing for future coastal developments, exploitation of coastal resources, and the management of certain coastal issues, par- ticularly Sambas district in West Kalimantan that has the largest coastal area of 198.36 km2 for achieving sustainable coastal areas management. METHODS The research was conducted in the Sambas region as the largest coastal areas in West Kalimantan, Indonesia, using primary data through purposive sampling that were collected from stakeholders as primary data, including fishermen, merchants, government (Marine and Fishery Agency and Regional Development and Planning Agency) using a set of semi-structured questions employed in interviews. Interview was used as a data collection method as it generates good results due to better sampling, the fewer respondents to get the same results, also elicits distractions, faster and cheaper; and flexible (Turner, 2010; Mack, Woodsong, MacQueen, Quest, & Namey, 2011; Alshenqeeti, 2014). The findings are structured based on SUSTAIN indica- tors to create a fully implementable policy tool to deliver sustainability coast management, i.e the economics, environ- mental quality, social well-being, and governance dimensions (SUSTAIN-Partnership, 2012). The sustainability dimensions were formulated to answer the priority of the strategy. The chain of evidence and the clear linkages between the dimen- sions will be established through research questions, relevant litera ture and data tools used to attain conclusions (Schernewski, Schönwald, & Katarzyte, 2014). The data were analyzed in two sections. The first was de- composing the problem into a hierarchy of sub problems to measure the weight of each dimension of sustainable coastal management using Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) with 9 scale criterias (1=equal importance up to 9= extreme impor- tance) with expert choice software for making a decision through following steps: (1) Define the problem and deter- mine the desired solution; (2) Create a hierarchical struc- ture; (3) Form a pairwise comparison matrix; (4) Normalize data; (5) Calculating the eigenvector value and testing its consistency; (6) Repeat steps, 3, 4, and 5 for the entire hier- archy level; (7) Calculating the eigenvector of each pairwise comparison matrix; (8) The consistency-test for the hierar- chy (Saaty, 2008; Saaty & Vargas, 2012). The second was ordinating the entities in attribute space with Rap-Coastal that was adopted from Rap-Fish method using MDS (multi- dimensional scaling) with a scale from the worst possible (“Bad”) to the best possible score (“Good”) with following steps: (1) Determine the initial configuration of objects in dimensional space; (2) Calculating the euclideal distance between the objects of the configuration; (3) perform mono- tonic regression; (4) calculate the value of STRESS; (5) ad- just the object configuration as the second stage. In the stan- 61 Vol.4 No.1 Januari-Juni 2018 dard method, scores are assigned on a scale of zero to ten (either 10 or 0 represents Good or Bad - this can be mixed among the attributes if necessary) as it recently has become a standard (Kavanagh & Pitcher, 2004). RESULTS DAN DISCUSSIONS RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS The characteristics of fishermen as one of the stakeholders in priority strategic policy in coastal areas was presented in Table 1. Table 1 shows that the fishers is predominantly by Malay ethnic with majority 40-70 years old as well as the characteristics of coastal populations in other districts in West Kalimantan, which illustrates the effect of age and experience of fishermen on the income level of fishers (Jamal, 2016). Moreover, the majority of fisher’s education is elementary school; the ownership of the boat is also very limited and there are even some fishers who act as tenants/shareholders; the number of family members is dominated by more than 4 people and most fisher’s families have additional income to support family needs; fisher’s wives had strategic roles to maintain the household; and so- cial activities were limited. The position in the com- munity was entirely as a direct beneficiary of the existing environmental resources, thus demonstrat- ing the continuous exploitation of fishery resources without understanding its boundaries and only a small part exploiting fishery resources combined with conservation measures. Furthermore, the social characteristics based on the category/status of fishers shown that the fish- ers were full-time, tenants, individuals, coastal, small, subsistent, non-formal, traditional, local, and micro which provide certain characteristics related to gender systems, patron-client relations, resource exploitation patterns, social leadership due to the influence of the environment characteristics. More- over, the fishers also characterized by three patterns that is more than one day, one day, and the mid- day fishing pattern. While, the attributes that used as the indicators in governance, economy, environ- mental quality and social well-being were presented in Table 2. TABLE 1. CHARACTERISTICS OF FISHERMEN IN COASTAL AREAS Characteristics Freq (person) Percentage Age of householder: ≤40 ages 10 33.34 40 - 50 ages 12 40.00 51 - 60 ages 5 16.66 61 - 70 ages 3 10.00 Ethnic group: Bugis 1 3.33 Malay 29 96.67 Education: ≥ Elementary School 22 73.33 > Junior High School 5 16.67 > Senior High School 4 13.33 Ownership of ships/boats: None 3 10.00 1 27 90.00 Family members: ≤ 4 8 26.67 5 - 6 19 63.34 > 6 3 10.00 Additional work of householder: Yes 19 63.33 No 11 36.67 Parties that play a role in the economic activities of fisheries: Intermediary Traders 4 13.33 Fisherman Owner 8 26.67 Fisherman 18 60.00 Role of fishing behavior: Exploitation without understanding the boundaries 20 66.67 Exploiting combined with conservation actions 10 33.33 Category/status of fisherman: Ministry of Fisheries Statistics: Full Fishers 21 70 Main Part Fishers 9 30 Ownership of Fishing Means (Fisheries Sharing Law): Fishermen 28 93.33 Owner 2 6.67 Team work: Individual Fishers 29 96.67 Business Group Fishers 1 3.33 Kind of waters: Sea Fishers 18 60 Teritory Fishers 10 33.33 Exclusive Economic Zone Fishers 2 6.67 Fisheries Law: Fishers 6 20 Small Fishers 24 80 Livelihood: Subsistence Fishers 19 63.33 Native/indigenous/aboriginal fisher 11 36.67 Aspects of professional skills: Non-formal Fisher 29 96.67 Formal Akademic Fisher 1 3.33 62 AGRARIS: Journal of Agribusiness and Rural Development Research TABLE 2. THE INDICATORS OF GOVERNANCE, ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND SOCIAL WELL-BEING DIMENSIONS Dimensions Indicators Means Governance Policy and sustainability strategy 9.29 Monitoring tool for sustainability 7.67 The improvement of human resources capacity 8.00 Implementation of appropriate management practices 8.50 Stakeholder engagement/ community participation 7.75 Economic Economic opportunities 4.00 Land use 10.00 Transportation 4.40 Fisheries and Aquaculture 2.00 Environmental quality Biodiversity and natural resource management 2.00 Energy and Environmental Change 2.00 Land use 8.00 Water resources and pollution 2.00 Social well-being Demographics 2.00 Equity 6.00 Local identity and culture 10.00 Public health and safety 4.80 The results answer the research questions about strategic priority to achieve sustainable coastal management. They shows that CI result was less than 0.1 (or 0.07). So, the an- swers to comparisons made by this method through the amount of redundancy in the approach are meeting the re- quirements. The AHP values of all dimensions are presented in Figure 1. In Figure 1, the governance dimension is the most priori- tized, followed by the economic, environmental quality, and social well-being that commonly happened in the coastal zone management decisions due to inequalities of dimensions contribution involved in the decision (EU, 2012). Further- more, the success and sustainability of efforts to strengthen the public sector organizations and processes depend on le- gitimate public authority that can be earned through good governance as a proven ability to reinforce public sector sys- tems and processes that respond to the citizens’ needs, while being subject to public evaluation (CommGAP, 2011). The goals of governance dimensions were analyzed using AHP for each dimension of sustainable coastal management as presented in Table 3. TABLE 3. GOVERNANCE GOALS IN SUSTAINABILITY COASTAL MANAGEMENT DIMENSIONS Goals Value result of AHP Governance Economics Environmental Quality Social Well- being Policies 0.638 0.228 0.078 0.056 Monitoring tools 0.595 0.226 0.111 0.068 Human resources capacity building 0.633 0.222 0.090 0.055 Implementation of good management practices 0.601 0.219 0.116 0.064 Public participation 0.601 0.219 0.116 0.064 Mean 0.614 0.223 0.102 0.061 This research revealed that governance dimension had the highest value (0.614) in the sustainability coastal man- agement compare than the others and still the most priori- tized to meet the policies for sustainability (Pisano et al., 2011; Urama et al., 2014), followed by monitoring tools (IEEP, 2011; OECD, 2015); human resource capacity building, implemen- tation of the good management practices (UNIDO, 2010; Uneke et.al., 2012); and public participation (Yee, 2010; OECD, 2015). The governance role is proved in many as- pects of the environment and sustainable coastal manage- ment work such as financial contribution aspects through cost shifting including recycling due to the limitation of lo- cal government budgets (UNEP, 2009; ADB, 2010; Helgeson & Ellis, 2015; Asmawi et.al., 2015) and natural resources strategies development (DENR, 2010; LGANT, 2010; Huffman, 2015; DENR, 2016). FIGURE 1. THE STRATEGIC PRIORITY DIMENSION OF SUSTAINABLE COASTAL MANAGEMENT 63 Vol.4 No.1 Januari-Juni 2018 The involvement of the government in enhancing capac- ity (GESAMP, 2001; Brugere, 2006; OECD, 2012; SCBD, 2015) is positively correlated with tangible factors, such as the population and expenditure, and negatively correlated with extensiveness of lands (Zerenler, 2009; Husein, 2012). However, the capability of local governments was limited to place sturdy environmental conditions on approvals and gen- erally best accomplished by negotiating conditions instead of refusing developments or imposing restrictive conditions that might bring on appeals for anticipating and preventing the gradual degradation (River, 2005; River, 2009). The government at local and wider scale tried to facili- tate the forestall gradual shifts through strategic plans by for- malizing the environmental values (Cohn, 2003; Schultink, 2007), for example the strategic land (UCLG, 2012). The literatures indicates that starting capability, responsiveness, and accountability as central features of good governance are needed to support the success of the sustainability goals (UNDP, 2011; Akhmouch, 2012; UN, 2015). Meanwhile, the results of the assessment of the goal of economic, environ- mental quality, and social well-being dimensions are presented in Table 4. This research revealed that social well-being dimension had the highest value (0.465) compare than the others and the most prioritized to meet the economic purpose as the main goal for the society and community (Ivkoviæ et.al., 2014) since it will give a benefit to the society that implies the ob- jective of well-being dimension (the adequate economic de- velop ment) a nd the ensui ng p osi ti ve p erc epti on of people towards the right stage within the society. Moreover, the social well-being is qualitative aspect and a social dimension as well as the structural policy and public aware- ness rather that advanced material living standards and quan- titative growth (Böhnke, 2005). It was also argued that the monitoring and quantification of well-being goal in an eco- nomic and a non-economic dimension had totally different levels of overall well-being goal (Ivkoviæ et.al., 2014) as the result of the qualitative aspects, progress of the social dimen- sion, the structural policy and public awareness (Böhnke, 2005). Besides, transportation was the highest value (0.609) in social well-being dimension. This is in line with the notion about the importance of providing infrastructures for sus- tainable coastal management (CRC, 2006; ADB, 2010; SCCG, 2015) and providing an essential economic and so- cial activities as a critical dimension for households’ socio- economic well-being (Dodson et.al., 2006; Stanley et.al., 2011) for the access to transport systems and the systems connec- tion. This finding was followed by the role of fisheries and aquaculture (NOAA, 2013; MMO, 2013), land use (Race et al., 2007; OECD, 2009; Nevado-Peña et.al., 2015), and eco- nomic opportunity (UNRISD, 2012; CAE, 2013; UNDP, 2013). Meanwhile, the environmental quality goal should be achieved with the priority on governance dimension, similar to the social well-being goal. Attaining the equity in social TABLE 4. DIMENSIONS VALUE IN SUSTAINABILITY COASTAL MANAGEMENT Economics/Environmetal quality/Sosial well-being Goals Dimensions Value of AHP Governance Economics Environmental Quality Social Well-being Economics: Economy opportunity 0.588 0.238 0.118 0.059 Land use 0.061 0.101 0.249 0.589 Transportation 0.057 0.114 0.220 0.609 Fisheries & aquaculture 0.069 0.120 0.208 0.602 Mean 0.194 0.143 0.199 0.465 Environmental quality: Biodiversity and natural resources 0.609 0.187 0.133 0.071 Energy & climate change 0.609 0.187 0.133 0.071 Water resources and pollution 0.575 0.251 0.119 0.055 Land use 0.532 0.257 0.138 0.072 Mean 0.598 0.208 0.128 0.066 Social well-being: Demography 0.532 0.257 0.138 0.072 Equity 0.618 0.225 0.099 0.058 Local and cultural Identity 0.588 0.235 0.118 0.059 Public health and safety 0.609 0.187 0.133 0.071 Mean 0.587 0.226 0.122 0.065 64 AGRARIS: Journal of Agribusiness and Rural Development Research well-being goal was the most priority for government dimen- sions due to the government authority to allocate their ex- penditure to preserve the biodiversity, soil and cultural heri- tage for natural resource management and environmental protection infrastructure (CBD, 2008; UNCTAD, 2013). Therefore, the society needs to take part in progressive ac- tions to solve the serious environmental problems and safe- guard the environment with all levels of stakeholder involve- ment (OECD, 2011) by decoupling economic growth from environmental impact and maintaining sustainable produc- tion and consumption patterns (UNEP, 2011; Hennicke & Khosla, 2014). Next, attaining the goal of equity in social well-being goal was the most prioritized for government policy due to the growing recognition of equity as a central goal of their pro- gramming (UN, 2009). However, the policy priorities are not consistently or coherently explored (CCSSO & ASPEN-In- stitute, 2016). Taking equity as a guiding principle has long been an important policy goal (Son, 2011). Equity can also assist how to ensure fair treatment for all citizens. There is still considerable inequity in developing countries (Kim, 2008; FOSU, 2010). The inequality reinforces patterns had intergenerational transmission and various formal and in- formal institutions (Mare, 2011; Alesina & Giuliano, 2014). So, there are five core priorities approved for addressing equity, i.e. providing public services for fair treatment, such as health and education, improving quality delivery, strength- ening the institutions (UNDP, 2011; Dingle et.al. 2013), and infrastructure (OECD, 2006; WEF & PWC, 2012); empow- ering disadvantaged groups (Tucker & Eva, 2012) as strength- ening organizations for producer organizations, social move- ments, and trade unions (Jones, 2009; Fernando, 2012); so- cial protection to ensure that nobody at a minimum level of wellbeing creates cycles of disadvantage (Domelen, 2007; Mukherjee, 2012); redistribution to improve equity by reduc- ing inequality, such as land reform to provide the poor with productive assets (Boyce et al., 2005; Cotula et al., 2006; Meinzen-Dick, 2009), priority access to public services in health and education. Furthermore, RAP-COASTAL analysis on governance dim ensi ons a s the most priori tized i n the goa ls of sustainability coastal management dimensions that second sections in data analysis used the MDS technique ordina- tion method. It proved that sustainability index value for governance dimension was 74.91 (very sustainable) as pre- sented in Figure 2. In Figure 2, Rap-Coastal results indicate that the error between MDS and Monte Carlo analysis was small, which indicate that the data input errors and data loss can be avoided. Sustainability ordinal scaling was also good and RSQ value was closer to 1 proving that the data were increasingly mapped perfectly. Meanwhile, leverage analysis as a deter- mining aspect of the sensitive variables that affected the gov- ernance dimension for the sustainability of coastal manage- ment was presented in Figure 3. In Figure 3, there were three sensitive attributes which affect the sustainability coastal management for governance dimension. Thus, the evaluations and interventions on these sensitive attributes must be done proportionally by consider- ing the correlation amongst them. The first is an integrated program intended to enhance the sustainability of coastal areas. More attention should be given to coastal regions and small islands, particularly because of the intensity of con- flicts related to resources use among sectors, including agri- (a) MDS sustainability index (b) Monte Carlo sustainability index FIGURE 2. MDS SUSTAINABILITY INDEX (A) AND MONTE CARLO SUSTAINABILITY INDEX (B) FOR GOVERNANCE DIMENSION 65 Vol.4 No.1 Januari-Juni 2018 culture, aquaculture, fisheries, industry, recreation and tour- ism, transport, and urban settlements. Thus, a holistic and cross-sectoral approach is needed to achieve sustainable human development, particularly some tangible factors driving local government capacity to initiate environmental programs, such as the beliefs and commit- ment from the councilors and community, local government officials’ perceptions of their roles and responsibilities to influence the institutions such as effective regional environ- mental agencies (River, 2009; Brokaj, 2014). This finding is in line with Agenda 21, the Barbados Program of Action for little Island Developing States and also theRio+5 Forum. The proximity to areas with special environmental values, such as world heritage areas, can even aid their environmental commitment and effectiveness providing clues for long- run sustainable management with  sensible support from alternative agencies (River, 2009). The second is identifying all parties informed and actively involved (Jones, 2010; Epstein & Widener, 2011) to enforce and promote in different ways, i.e. the government in the lower levels tried to develop a strategy and actions that flow from the national level, reporting indicators and measure- ments across the public sector, or legislation to require sustainability reporting. The third is the effective and equal partnerships between local governments and communities (Chirenje et.al, 2013; NILO, 2015) for full privatization that assume initiative and co-responsibility in focusing on the sustainability and envi- ronmental effect of private firms (Ran, 2010) and to access the finance, knowledge of technologies, managerial efficiency, and entrepreneurial spirit that are combined with the social responsibility, environmental awareness, local knowledge and job generation concerns of local governments. This is in line with current trends to emphasize the active involvement and participation of the civil society at massive, with local gov- ernments, businesses, and the community for the success of any local initiative (Srinivas, 2017). CONCLUSIONS The priority dimension of a stakeholder role in a strate- gic policy to promote the coordination and sustainability of socioeconomic activities in coastal areas reveals that the gov- FIGURE 3. SENSITIVE ATTRIBUTE OF SUSTAINABILITY COASTAL MANAGEMENT 66 AGRARIS: Journal of Agribusiness and Rural Development Research ernance dimension is the most prioritized factor, followed by the economic, the environmental quality, and the social well-being in the coastal zone management decisions. The governance dimension to achieve policies, followed by moni- toring tools; human resources capacity building, implemen- tation of good management practices; and public participa- tion. Thus, the starting capability, responsiveness, and ac- countability as central features of good governance are needed to support the success of the sustainability goals. While, the social well-being was the most prioritized fac- tor to meet the economic purpose as the goal for every soci- ety and community. Meanwhile, the transportation was the highest value as it provides essential economic and social activities of households’ socio-economic well-being, followed by fisheries and aquaculture, land use, and economy oppor- tunity. Furthermore, attaining the equity in social well-being goal was the most prioritized for government dimensions through providing public services for fair treatment; empow- ering disadvantaged groups; social protection; redistribution to improve equity by reducing inequality. There were three sensitive attributes which affect the sustainability of coastal management for governance dimen- sion. The first is an integrated program using a holistic and cross-sectoral approach through tangible factors, i.e. the be- liefs and commitment from the councilors and community, the perception of local government officials’ roles and re- sponsibilities to influence the institutions agencies. The sec- ond is identifying all parties informed and actively involved to enforce and promote in different ways, i.e. the lower levels of government tried to develop a strategy and actions, re- porting indicators and measurements across the public sec- tor, or legislation to require sustainability reporting. The third is the effective and equal partnerships between local govern- ments and communities to complete privatization that as- sume initi ative and co-responsibility in focusing on sustainability and environmental effect of private firms. Hence, the collaboration of local governments and stakehold- ers was needed to access the finance, knowledge of technolo- gies, managerial efficiency, and entrepreneurial spirit that are combined with the social responsibility, environmental awareness, local knowledge and job generation concerns. REFERENCES ADB. (2010). INDIA: Sustainable Coastal Protection and Management. Metro Manila: The Asian Development Bank and The Government of India. Akhmouch, A. (2012). Condition for Success 1 ‘’Good Governance’’. Marseille: Water Governance Programme of the Organization for Eco- nomic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Alesina, A., & Giuliano, P. (2014). Culture and Institutions. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University. Alshenqeeti, H. (2014). Interviewing as a Data Collection Method: A Criti- cal Review. English Linguistics Research, 3(1), 39-45. Asmawi, M. Z., Mahamod, L. H., Mohamed, M. Z., & Paiman, T. (2015). Sustainable governance in realation to the financial aspect in manag- ing coastal areas: Malaysian experience. Journal of the Malaysian In- stitute of Planners 13, 123-138. Böhnke, P. (2005). First European Quality of Life Survey: Life Satisfaction, Happiness and Sense of Belonging, European Foundation for the Im- provement of Living and Working Conditions. Luxembourg: European Communities. Boyce, J. K., Rosset, P., & Stanton, E. A. (2005). Land Reform and Sustain- able Development. Amherst: Political Economi Research Institute (PERI). Brokaj, R. (2014). Local Government’s Role in the Sustainable Tourism Development of a Destination. European Scientific Journal 10(31), 103-117. Brugere, C. (2006). Agriculture–Fisheries–Aquaculture Conflicts at the Land–Water Interface? A Perspective from New Institutional Econom- ics. Environment and Livelihoods in Tropical Coastal Zones (pp. 258- 273). Oxfordshire: Cab International. CAE. (2013). Measure the Impact of Culture on Well-being: A Definition Shape by A Desire for the Future. Brussels: Culture Action Europe. CBD. (2008). The Economic and Social Aspects of Biodiversity: Benefits and Costs of Biodiversity in Ireland. Dublin: Government of Ireland. CCSSO, & ASPEN-Institute. (2016). Advancing Equity through ESSA: Strat- egies for State Leaders. Washington, D.C.: The Council of Chief State School Officers and The Aspen Education & Society Program. Chirenje, L. I., Giliba, R. A., & Musamba, E. B. (2013). Local communities’ participation in decision-making processes through planning and budgeting in African countries. Chinese Journal of Population Re- sources and Environment, 10-16. Cohn, J. P. (2003). Integrating Land Use Planning & Biodiversity. Washing- ton DC: Defenders of Wildlife. CommGAP. (2011). Brief for Policymakers: The Contribution of Govern- ment Communication Capacity to Achieving Good Governance Out- comes. Washington DC: The World Bank. Cotula, L., Toulmin, C., & Quan, J. (2006). Better land access for the rural poor: Lessons from experience. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organi- zation of the United Nations (FAO). CRC. (2006). Coastal Managemen in Australia: Key institutional and gov- ernance issues for coastal natural resource management and plan- ning. Indooroopilly Qld: Cooperative Research Centre for Coastal Zone, Estuary and Waterway Management (Coastal CRC). DENR. (2010). Improving Natural Resource Management in South Aus- tralia: Regional Integration of South Australia’s Environment and Natu- ral Resource Management Delivery. Adelaide: Department of Envi- ronment and Natural Resources, State of South Australia. DENR. (2016). South Australian Natural Resources Management Invest- ment Strategy 2016. Adeleide: South Australian Govenrment Entities Partnering. Dingle, A., Powell-Jackson, T., & Goodman, C. (2013). A decade of im- provements in equity of access to reproductive and maternal health services in Cambodia, 2000–2010. International Journal for Equity in Health, 12-51. Dodson, J., Buchanan, N., Gleeson, B., & Sipe, N. (2006). Investigating the Social Dimensions of Transport Disadvantage: Towards New Con- cepts and Methods. Urban Policy and Research 24(4), 433-453. 67 Vol.4 No.1 Januari-Juni 2018 Domelen, J. V. (2007). Reaching the Poor and Vulnerable: Targeting Strat- egies for Social Funds and other Community-Driven Programs. Wash- ington, D.C.: Human Development Network, Wold Bank. Epstein, M. J., & Widener. S. K. (2011). Identification and Use of Sustain- ability Performance Measures and Decision Making. Journal of Cor- porate Citizenship 40, 43-73. EU. (2012). Integrated Coastal Zone Management: outcomes and lessons learned. Luxembourg: European Union. Fernando, P. (2012). Working with social movements. Paris: OECD. FOSU, A. K. (2010). Growth, Inequality and Poverty Reduction in Devel- oping Countiries: Recent Global Evidence. Paris: OECD. GESAMP. (2001). Planning and Management for Suustainable Coastal Aquaculture Development. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organiza- tion of the United Nations. Harvey, N., & Katon, B. (2010). Coastal management in Australia. Adelaide: University of Adelaide Press. Helgeson, J., & Ellis, J. (2015). The Role of the 2015 Agreement in En- hancing Adaptation to Climate Change. Paris: OECD. Hennicke, P., & Khosla, A. (2014). Decoupling Economic Growth from Resource Consumption. Berlin: Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH. Huffman, J. L. (2015). Environmental Regulation and Natural Resource Management. Engage 16(2), 41-43. Husein, R. (2012). Examining Local Jurisdictions’ Capacity and Commitmen for Hazard Mitigation Policies and Strategies along the Texas Coast. Texas: Texas A&M University. IEEP. (2011). Tools for Sustainable Development. London: Institute for European Environmental. Ivkoviæ, A. F. (2014). Measuring Objective Well-Being and Sustainable Development Management. Journal of Knowledge Management, Economics and Information Technology 4(2), 1-29. Ivkoviæ, A. F., Ham, M., & Mijoè, J. (2014). Measuring Objective Well-Being and Sustainable Development Management. Journal of Knowledge Man- agement, Economics and Information Technology 4(2), 1-29. Jamal, M. B. (2016). Analisis Faktor-Faktor Yang Mempengaruhi Pendapatan Nelayan (Studi Nelayan Desa Klampis, Kec. Klampis, Kab. Bangkalan). Jurnal Ilmiah Mahasiswa Fakultas EKonomi dan Bisnis, http://jimfeb.ub.ac.id/index.php/jimfeb/article/view/1026. Jones, H. (2009). Equity: downplayed, but crucial for development. Lon- don: ODI (Overseas Development). Jones, H. (2010). Sustainability reporting matters: what are national gov- ernments doing about it? London: ACCA (the Association of Char- tered Certified Accountants). Kavanagh, P., & Pitcher, T. J. (2004). Implementing Microsoft Excel Soft- ware for Rapfish: A Technique for the Rapid Appraisal of Fisheries Status. Vancouver, Canada: Fisheries Center Reaearch Report 12(2). Kenchington, R., Stocker, L., & Wood, D. (2012). Sustainable Coastal Man- agement and Climate Adaptation: Lesson from Regional Approaches in Australia. Collingwood: CSIRO Publishing. Kim, S. (2008). Spatial Inequality and Economic Development: Theories, Facts, and Policies. Washington, D.C.: The International Bank for Re- construction and Development/The World Bank. LGANT. (2010). Review of the Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan A Position Paper for the Local Government Sector. Darwin: Local Government Association of the Nothern Territory. Mack, N., Woodsong, C., MacQueen, K. M., Quest, G., & Namey, E. (2011). Qualitative Research Methods: A Data Collector’s Field Guide. North Carolina, USA: Family Health International (FHI). Mare, R. D. (2011). A Multigenerational View of Inequality. Demography 48(1), 1–23. Meinzen-Dick, R. (2009). Property Rights for Poverty Reduction?. Rome: Economi and Social Affairs, United Nations. MMO. (2013). Social impacts of fisheries, aquaculture, recreation, tour- ism and marine protected areas (MPAs) in marine plan areas in En- gland. Newcastle upon Tyne: The Marine Management Organization. Mukherjee, A. (2012). Social Protection A question of delivering on rights and resources. London: Commonwealth Secretariat Discussion Paper Number 1. Nevado-Peña, D., López-Ruiz, V.-R., & Alfaro-Navarro, J.-L. (2015). The Effects of Environmental and Social Dimensions of Sustainability in Response to the Economic Crisis of European Cities. Sustainability 7, 8255-8269. Newmann, B., Vafeidis, A. T., Zimmermann, J., & Nicholls, R. J. (2015). Future Coastal Population Growth and Exposure to Sea-Level Rise and Coastal Flooding - A Global Assessment. PLOS ONE 10(6), e0118571. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118571. NILO, A. (2015). Civil Society & Other Stakeholders: Leaving no one be- hind when implementing the Agenda 2030. New York: Sustainable Development, United Nations. NOAA. (2013). Human Dimensionsof the CCIEA: A summary of concepts, methods, indicators, and assessments. Silver Spring, Maryland: Na- tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. OECD. (2009). Farmland Conversion: Spatial dimension of agricultural and land-use policies. Paris: The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). OECD. (2015). Governance challenges and Suggested tools for the imple- mentation of the water-related Sustainable Development Goals. 215 UN-Water Annual International Zaragoza Conference, 15-17 January 2015 (pp. 1-10). Zaragoza: Inited Nations. OECD. (2012). Greening Development: Enhancing Capacity for Environ- mental Management and Governance. Paris: The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). OECD. (2011). OECD Perspectives: Spain Policies for a sustainable reovery. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). OECD. (2006). Promoting Pro-Poor Growth: Infrastructure. Paris: OECD. Pisano, U., Berger, G., Endl, A., & Sedlacko, M. (2011, September). Sus- tainable development governance & policies in the light of major EU policy strategies and international developments. ESDN Quarterly Reports, pp. 1-50. Race, D., Farquharson, B., Birckhead, J., Vernon, D., & Bathgate, A. (2007). Understanding rural life–assessing the social dimensions when en- couraging land-use changes in rural areas. 51st Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, Queenstown, New Zealand, 13 – 16 February 2007 (pp. 1-17). Queenstown: The NSW Government. Ran, W. (2010). The roles of government and NGOs in environmental protection through producing, sharing, and disseminating informa- tion. ICEGOV ’10 Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, October 25 - 28, 2010 (pp. 223-231). Beijing, China: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?- id=1930368. RCS. (2010). Coastal management: Wetland issues in Integrated Coastal Zone Management.Ramsar handbooks for the wise use of wetlands, 4th edition, Vol.12. Gland, Switzerland: www.ramsar.org/resolutions. River, S. W. (2005). Enhancing the sustainability efforts of local govern- ments. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Develop- ment 1(1), 46–64. River, S. W. (2009). The role of local government in environmental and heritage management. Canberra: Australia State of the Environment http://jimfeb.ub.ac.id/index.php/jimfeb/article/view/1026. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118571. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?- http://www.ramsar.org/resolutions. 68 AGRARIS: Journal of Agribusiness and Rural Development Research Committee, Department of Environment and Heritage. Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Services Sciences 1(1), 83-98. Saaty, T. L., & Vargas, L. G. (2012). Models, Methods, Concepts & Appli- cations of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York: Springer Publish- ing. SCBD. (2015). egrated Coastal Management for the Achievement of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets: Practical Guidance for Implementation Based on Experience and Lessons Learned from Coastal and Ocean Gover- nance in the Seas of East Asia. Montréal, Quebec: The Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. SCCG. (2015). Sustainable Coastal Management: Policy recommendations to political parties contesting the 2015. Sydney: Sydney Coastal Coun- cils Group Inc. Schernewski, G., Schönwald, S., & Katarzyte, M. (2014). Application and evaluation of an indicator set to measure and promote. Ocean & Coastal Management 101, 2-13. Schultink, G. (2007). Sustainable Land Use and Urban Growth Manage- ment: Demand-Supply Factors and Strategic Planning Considerations. Journal of Agricultural, Food, and Environmental Science 1(1). Siry, H. Y. (2009). Decentralized Coastal Zone Management in the South- east Asian Region: Tales from Three Countries. Japan: UNNFF Inau- gural Asia-Pacific. Son, H. H. (2011). Equity and Well-Being: Measurement and Policy Prac- tice. New York: Asian Development Bank (ADB). Srinivas, H. (2017). The Role of Local Governments in Fostering Business Partnerships for Environmental Sustainability. Japan: Global Develop- ment Research Center (GDRC). Stanley, J., Hensher, D. A., Stanley, J., Currie, G., Greene, W. H., & Vella- Brodrick, D. (2011). Social Exclusion and the Value of Mobility. Jour- nal of Transport Economics and Policy 45(2), 197–222. SUSTAIN-Partnership. (2012). Measuring Coastal Sustainability: A Guide forthe self assessment of sustainability using indicators and means of scoring them. Netherlands: European Union: European Regional De- velopment Fund. Tucker, J., & Eva, L. (2012). Empowerment and equity. Paris: OECD. Turner, D. W. (2010). Qualitative Interview Design: A Practical Guide for Novice Investigators. The Qualitative Report, 15(3), 754-760. UCLG. (2012). The Role of Local and Regional Authorities in the UN De- velopment Agen Post-2015. Barcelona: United Cities and Local Gov- ernments (UCLG). UN. (2009). Creating an Inclusive Society: Practical Strategies to Promote Social Integration. Rome: United Nations (UN). UN. (2015). Responsive and Accountable Public Governance. New York: Department of Economic and Social Affairs. UNCTAD. (2013). Sustainable tourism: Contribution to economic growth and sustainable development. Rome: United Nations. UNDP. (2013). Humanity Divided: Confronting Inequality in Developing Countries. Inequality of what? Inequality between whom? New York: The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). UNDP. (2011). Towards Human Resilience: Sustaining MDG Progress in an Age of Economic Uncertainty. New York: United Nations Develop- ment Programme, Bureau for Development Policy. Uneke, C. J., Ezeoha, A. E., Ndukwe, C. D., Oyibo, P. G., & Onwe, F. D. (2012). Enhancing Leadership and Governance Competencies to Strengthen Health Systems in Nigeria: Assessment of Organizational Human Resources Development. Healthc Policy 7(3), 73–84. UNEP. (2011). Decoupling natural resource use and environmental im- pacts from economic growth, A Report of the Working. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). UNEP. (2009). Sustainable Coastal Tourism: An integrated planning and management approach. Nairobi: The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). UNIDO. (2010). Good Organization, Management, and Governance Prac- tices: A Primer for Providers of Services in Resource Efficient and Cleaner Production (RECP). Vienna: United Nations Industrial Devel- opment Organization. UNRISD. (2012). Social Dimensions of Green Economy and Sustainable Development. Geneva: United NAtions Research Institute for Social Development. Urama, K., Ozor, N., & Acheampong, E. (2014). Achieving Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Through Transformative Governance Prac- tices and Vertical Alignment at the National and Subnational Levels in Africa. Ontario: African Technology Policy Studies Network (ATPS). WEF, & PWC. (2012). Strategic Infrastructure Steps to Prioritize and De- liver Infrastructure Effectively and Efficiently. Geneva: World Economic Forum. Yee, S. (2010). Stakeholderr Engagement and Public participation in Envi- ronmental Flow and River Heart Assessment. China: Water Venter Organization. Zerenler, M. (2009). Strategic Utilization of IT for Corporate Crisis Man- agement: the Empirical Study on Textile and Automotive Suppliers Sectors. International Journal of Business and Management 4(1), 3-8. Zsamboky, M., Fernández-Bilbao, A., Smith, D., Knight, J., & Allan, J. (2011). Impacts of climate change on disadvantaged UK coastal communi- ties. United Kingdonm: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Goble, B. J., Hill, T. R., & Phillips, M. R. (2017). An Assessment of Inte- grated Coastal Management Governance and Implementation Using the DPSIR Framework: KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Coastal manage- ment, 45(2), 107-124.