
































Microsoft Word - SS_RR_5_5529-Other-21329-1-18-20220521.edited_OK.docx


 

 Epidemiology and Society Health Review| ESHR 
Vol. 4, No. 2, 2022, pp. 54-60 ISSN 2656-6052 (online) | 2656-1107 (print) 
 
 

 

      10.26555/eshr.v4i2.5529  

 
54 

 
 

  

Research Article 
 
Local Wisdom Fly Trap Effectiveness in the Culinary Area 
of Bantul Beach Tourism, Yogyakarta 
 
Asep Rustiawan* and Muchamad Rifai  

Faculty of Public Health, Universitas Ahmad Dahlan, Yogyakarta, Indonesia 
 
*Correspondence: asep.rustiawan@ikm.uad.ac.id. Phone: +6285743847969 
 
Received 06 January 2022; Accepted 07 January 2022; Published 2 August 2022 
 

ABSTRACT 

Background: Flies are insects that can contaminate food with various harmful disease 
agents. It is not yet known which fly trap is the most effective at trapping flies. There are 
three types of fly traps as local wisdom for the culinary area of Bantul Beach, which is used 
to control fly populations: sticky paper, plastic bowls, and plastic bottles. This study aims to 
determine the effectiveness of sticky paper, plastic bowls, and plastic bottles in trapping 
flies. 
Method: This research was an experimental study with three fly traps: sticky paper, plastic 
bowls, and plastic bottles. Measurements were made by placing fly traps in 12 seafood 
stalls in the culinary area of Bantul Beach. The number of trapped flies was counted by hand 
counter. Data were analyzed using the One-Way ANOVA test, significance level (α) = 0.05, 
and Post Hoc Test Multiple Comparison advanced test. 
Results: Sticky paper could trap 297 flies (69.4%), followed by 121 plastic bowls (28.3%) 
and ten plastic bottles (2.3%). The analysis showed that sticky paper had significantly 
different effectiveness in trapping flies compared to plastic bowls (p = 0.032) and plastic 
bottles (p = 0.004). In contrast, the efficacy of plastic bowls and bottles was not significantly 
different (p = 0.130). 
Conclusion: The effectiveness of sticky paper in trapping flies was significantly different 
from that of plastic bowls and plastic bottles, while the efficacy of plastic bowls and plastic 
bottles was not significantly different.  

Keywords: Coastal tourism culinary; Effectiveness; Fly; Fly traps 

INTRODUCTION 

The coast of Bantul Regency, Special Region of Yogyakarta (DIY), has become a popular 
culinary tourism destination for processed seafood. The number of tourists visiting this tourist 
location increases every year. In 2016, the number of tourists who visited was 2.2 million 
people, then in 2017, it grew to 2.8 million visits and rose again to 3.6 trips in 2018 (1,2). This 



 
Rustiawan (Local Wisdom Fly Trap Effectiveness in the Culinary Area of Bantul Beach Tourism, Yogyakarta) 

 
 

 
Vol. 4, No. 2, 2022, pp. 54-60 55   10.26555/eshr.v4i2.5529 

   

increase in the number of visits will impact the economic development of the surrounding 
community. According to a preliminary study at the end of 2020 (pandemic period), the number 
of seafood-processed culinary stalls operating on the beach of Bantul amounted to 80 stalls. 
They spread over four central beach locations: Parangtritis beach on the east side of Bantul 
with a total of 21 stalls, Depok beach with 26 stalls, Goa Cemara beach with 11 stalls and 
Baru beach on the west side of Bantul with a total of 22 stalls.  

The increase in people's income due to the development of culinary tourism is undeniable. 
However, seafood processed culinary also has problems for public health (3,4). Many culinary 
managers have limited infrastructure and knowledge, and the habit of implementing a healthy 
lifestyle is still low. This situation is reflected in the sanitation of culinary stalls and an 
unsanitary environment. Ultimately, this triggers the growth and proliferation of fly populations 
(5). 

Several flies from the family Syrphidae, Calliphoridae, Empididae, Tachinidae, and Muscidae, 
help pollinate plants and support the sustainability of natural ecosystems through the process 
of breaking down waste into other needed organic materials (6-8). However, flies that land on 
feces can transfer the dirt into the food and drink of the humans it infests (9,10). Flies can be 
dangerous for consumers, such as diarrhea, dysentery, cholera, typhus, hepatitis, and myiasis 
in humans and animals (11-15). Flies cause myiasis by laying eggs in wounds so that when 
they hatch, the larvae enter the damage and cause more extensive wounds (wound myiasis) 
(16,17). Flies can also spread diphtheria-causing agents (18,19) and anthrax (20,21). Flies 
transfer disease agents by contaminating the food they infest through vomit, feces, or 
transmitting disease agents attached to their bodies (22,23).  

According to the information of 12 culinary managers spread over four coastal locations, 
namely Parangtritis Beach, Depok, Goa Cemara, and Baru Beach, they know that flies are 
dangerous to health and have controlled the fly population by using fly traps. There are three 
types of fly traps they know and circulate among the community as local wisdom fly traps: 
sticky paper, plastic bowls, and plastic bottles. The use of the three types of fly traps by the 
community has several reasons. Sticky paper is a fly trap easily obtained by the public 
because it is widely sold at low prices in stalls around the culinary area. Plastic bowls are used 
because of the tool's durability, which can be used many times in trapping flies. The community 
obtained this bowl as a fly trap for the assistance given by the government. Plastic bottles are 
used to utilize used goods and reduce environmental pollution. The technique of making fly 
traps from used plastic bottles was obtained from training held by the government. 

The effectiveness of fly traps used to control fly populations has been measured in various 
locations (24-27). However, based on literature studies, no publications present the results of 
different tests of effectiveness in trapping flies from fly traps of local wisdom in the Bantul 
Beach tourism culinary area. This information is essential to know to provide input to the 
community on which type of fly trap should be used. This study aims to determine the 
differences in the effectiveness of sticky paper, plastic bowls, and plastic bottles in trapping 
flies. 

 



 
Rustiawan (Local Wisdom Fly Trap Effectiveness in the Culinary Area of Bantul Beach Tourism, Yogyakarta) 

 
 

 
Vol. 4, No. 2, 2022, pp. 54-60 56   10.26555/eshr.v4i2.5529 

   

METHOD 

This research was carried out in 12 seafood stalls in the culinary area of Bantul beach tourism, 
namely Parangtritis beach, Depok, Goa Cemara, and Baru beach. The study used a quasi-
experimental design with a post-test-only design (28), which allowed researchers to measure 
the number of flies trapped by each type of fly trap studied and then analyze the differences 
in their effectiveness. The research was carried out in the field, and the confounding variables 
cannot be fully controlled (29). 

The tools and instruments used were fly traps of local wisdom of the Bantul Beach tourism 
culinary community: sticky paper, plastic bowls, plastic bottles, stopwatches, hand counters, 
roll meters with a length of 5 meters, and filling sheets. The three fly traps were installed in 
culinary seafood stalls in the kitchen, dining room, and courtyard. The distance between fly 
traps were ± 2 meters. The bait followed the local community's custom: shrimp paste for plastic 
bowls and bottles. No additional bait was given for sticky paper because it already emits an 
aroma. Measurements were taken during the day for 2 hours. After 2 hours, the number of 
trapped flies was counted, processed, and analyzed using the One-Way ANOVA statistical 
test because the results of the variance test were not different/homogeneous (p-value = 
0.103). The level of significance used was at 0.05 (30).  

RESULTS 

The number of flies trapped by the fly trap shows the effectiveness of the fly trap in trapping 
flies. The number of trapped flies by type of fly trap is presented in Table 1. Sticky paper was 
a fly trap that can trap the most flies compared to plastic bowls and plastic bottles. Sticky paper 
trapped as many as 297 flies with an average of 24.8. A plastic bowl trapped 121 flies with an 
average of 10.1 flies, while a plastic bottle only trapped as many as ten flies with an average 
of 0.8. Furthermore, a homogeneity test results obtained p-value = 0.103 (α> 0.05), which 
means that the variance of the data was homogeneously distributed. Accordingly, further 
statistical tests were should be carried out using One-Way ANOVA. 

Table 1. Number of flies trapped by fly trap type  
 

Beach location Seafood 
Stall 

Observed 

Number of flies caught in the fly trap 
Sticky paper Plastic bowl Plastic bottle 

Parangtritis P1 1 0 0 
P2 17 0 0 
P3 19 3 0 

Depok D1 10 8 0 
D2 28 25 0 
D3 57 49 0 

Goa Cemara  G1 43 8 1 
G2 42 12 0 
G1 57 7 3 

Baru B1 11 1 4 
B2 4 5 1 
B3 8 3 1 

Amount 297 121 10 
Average               24.75        10.08       0.83 



 
Rustiawan (Local Wisdom Fly Trap Effectiveness in the Culinary Area of Bantul Beach Tourism, Yogyakarta) 

 
 

 
Vol. 4, No. 2, 2022, pp. 54-60 57   10.26555/eshr.v4i2.5529 

   

 

Table 2 shows the results of the One-Way ANOVA test shows the value of the sum of the 
squares in the variance between groups of 13962.88, and the variance value in the group is 
4009.33. The degree of validity between groups is 2 with a mean square of 6981.44. The 
degree of validity in the group is 6, with a mean square of 668.22. In this study, the calculated 
F value was 10.44 and a significance value of 0.01 which means significant (0.01<0.05). This 
means there was a substantial difference between the number of flies trapped by sticky paper 
fly traps, plastic bowls, and plastic bottles. Furthermore, further tests were carried out with the 
Post Hoc Test Multiple Comparison to determine which type of fly trap had a significant 
difference in trapping flies. 

Table 2. ANOVA test results  

Group Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig 
Between Groups 13962.88 2 6981.44 

10.448 0.01 Within Groups 4009.33 6   668.22 
Total 17972.22 8  

 

Table 3 shows a significant difference between sticky paper and plastic bowls in trapping flies 
with a p-value = 0.032 (0.032 <0.05). Likewise, there was a significant difference between 
sticky paper and plastic bottles with a p-value = 0.004 (0.004 <0.05). In contrast, there was no 
significant difference between plastic bowls and plastic bottles with p-value = 0.130 (0.130> 
0.05). The data meant that the effectiveness of trapping sticky paper fly traps differs from 
plastic bowls and plastic bottles. In contrast, the effectiveness of plastic bowls and plastic 
bottles was no different. 

Table 3. The results of the different tests of flies trapped by fly traps  
 

Treatment Sticky paper Plastic bowl Plastic bottles 

Sticky paper - 0.032 0.004 
Plastic bowl 0.032 - 0.130 
Plastic bottles 0.004 0.130 - 

DISCUSSION  

The results of the ANOVA statistical test and the Post Hoc Test Multiple Comparison follow-
up tests showed that sticky paper fly traps had significantly different effectiveness in trapping 
flies than plastic bowl fly traps, even substantially different from plastic bottles. Meanwhile, 
plastic bowl fly traps and bottles have the same or no different effectiveness. The results 
showed that the number of flies trapped by the sticky paper fly trap was 297 flies or 69.4%, 
followed by the bowl fly trap, as many as 121 flies or 28.3%, then the plastic bottles fly trap 
with the number of flies trapped as many as ten flies or 2.3 %. 

The sticky paper had the highest fly trapping effectiveness (64.9%) and was statistically 
significantly different from plastic bowls (28.3%) and plastic bottles (2.3%). This happens 
because the catch area of the sticky paper is much broader than the catch area of plastic 
bowls and plastic bottles. Meanwhile, catching plastic bowls is wider than plastic bottles, so 



 
Rustiawan (Local Wisdom Fly Trap Effectiveness in the Culinary Area of Bantul Beach Tourism, Yogyakarta) 

 
 

 
Vol. 4, No. 2, 2022, pp. 54-60 58   10.26555/eshr.v4i2.5529 

   

trapping plastic bowl flies (28.3%) is more effective than plastic bottles (2.3%). However, the 
difference between the effectiveness of plastic bowls and plastic bottles is not statistically 
significant. The catchment area affects the catch of the target insect (31): the more 
comprehensive the fishing area, the more excellent the opportunity to trap flies. In addition, 
flies have a habit of perching and do not like to fly continuously (32). This habit allows the fly 
to land on the sticky paper surface and then get trapped. Flies also have a habit of living in 
groups (33). Therefore, flies attached to the sticky paper will invite other flies to land on the 
sticky paper. Thus, the number of flies that stick to the sticky paper increases over time. 

The sticky paper has a more pungent and diffuse odor than plastic bowls and bottles. The 
smell of fish on sticky paper is evenly distributed over the entire surface of the paper and 
spreads freely into the environment. In contrast, the smell of shrimp paste on plastic bowls 
and plastic bottles is more concentrated in the space of the bowl and bottle where the bait is 
located, so that little is spread to the environment. Thus, the odor stimulus produced by sticky 
paper becomes more robust and more diffuse to the environment than the odor stimulus from 
plastic bowls and bottles. That makes sticky paper can invite more flies to get trapped (34,35). 
Research results Nadeak et al. (25), who examined the effectiveness of fly traps with various 
baits, concluded that shrimp bait was more effective than tomato fermented bait because the 
aroma released by shrimp bait was more pungent than tomato fermented bait. Fitriana and 
Mulasari’s research results (36) also concluded that shrimp bait was most effective in 
attracting flies because it had a more pungent aroma than fish bait, jackfruit, shrimp paste, 
and mango. Similarly, research conducted by Savitriani and Maftukhah (27) stated that flies 
preferred fish gill bait to wet shrimp and bagasse bait because fish gills emitted a more pungent 
odor than wet shrimp and bagasse.  

CONCLUSION 

The effectiveness of trapping sticky paper fly traps differs from plastic bowls and plastic 
bottles. In contrast, the efficacy of plastic bowls is no different from that of plastic bottles. 

Authors' contribution 

AR contributed to data collection, analysis, report writing, and manuscript publication. MR 
contributed to data collection, report writing, and licensing.  

Funding Statement 

This research has not received external funding.  

Conflict of interest 

There is no conflict of interest in this research.  

REFERENCES 

1. Poerwanto E. Visited by 3.6 million tourists. Bantul, Yogyakarta; 2018. Available from: 
https://bisniswisata.co.id/visited-36-juta-turis-achievement-pariwisata-bantul-lalui-target/ 

2. Visitingjogja. DIY tourism statistics 2018. Bantul, Yogyakarta; 2019. Available from: 
https://visitingjogja.com/download/statistik-pariwisata/ 



 
Rustiawan (Local Wisdom Fly Trap Effectiveness in the Culinary Area of Bantul Beach Tourism, Yogyakarta) 

 
 

 
Vol. 4, No. 2, 2022, pp. 54-60 59   10.26555/eshr.v4i2.5529 

   

3. De Sousa C. The Impact of Food Manufacturing Practices on Food-borne Diseases. 
Brazilian Arch Biol Technol. 2008;51(4):815–23. Available from: 
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-89132008000400020 

4. Ghosh M, Wahi S, Kumar M, Ganguli A. Prevalence of enterotoxigenic Staphylococcus 
aureus and Shigella spp. in some raw street vended Indian foods. Int J Environ Health 
Res. 2007;17(2):151–6. Available from: https://sci-hub.tw/10.1080/09603120701219204 

5. Chaiwong T, Srivoramas T, Sueabsamran P, Sukontason K, Sanford MR SK. The blow 
fly, Chrysomya megacephala, and the house fly, Musca domestica, as mechanical vectors 
of pathogenic bacteria in Northeast Thailand. Trop Biomed. 2014;31(2):336–46. 

6. Cickova H, Newton GL, Lacy RC KM. The use of fly larvae for organic waste treatment. 
Waste Manag. 2015;35:65–80. 

7. Lalander C, Diener S, Magri ME, Zurbrügg C, Lindström A VB. Faecal sludge 
management with the larvae of the black soldier fly (Hermetia illucens)-from a hygiene 
aspect. Sci Total Env. 2013;458(460):312–8. 

8. Rader R, Bartomeus I, Garibaldi LA, Garratt MPD, Howlett BG, Winfree R et al. Non-bee 
insects are important contributors to global crop pollination. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 
2016;113(1):146–51. 

9. Andiarsa D, Setianingsih I, Fadilly A, Hidayat S, Setyaningtyas DE HB. Bacteriological 
description of flies and culicidae (Ordo: Diptera) in the Research and Development Center 
P2B2 Tanah Bumbu. Dis Vector J. 2015;9(2):37–44. 

10. Barreiro C, Albano H, Silva J, Teixeira P. Role of Flies as Vectors of Foodborne 
Pathogens in Rural Areas. ISRN Microbiol. 2013;2013:1–7. Available from: 
https://downloads.hindawi.com/archive/2013/718780.pdf 

11. Kassiri H, Zarrin M, Veys-Behbahani R, Faramarzi S, Kasiri A. Isolation and Identification 
of Pathogenic Filamentous Fungi and Yeasts From Adult House Fly (Diptera: Muscidae) 
Captured From the Hospital Environments in Ahvaz City, Southwestern Iran. J Med 
Entomol. 2015;52(6):1351–6. 

12. Pava-Ripoll M, Pearson REG, Miller AK, Ziobro GC. Detection of foodborne bacterial 
pathogens from individual filth flies. J Vis Exp. 2015;(96):1–9. Available from: 
https://www.scienceopen.com/document_file/36431376-ac9b-473e-9d7c-
a8f850832208/PubMedCentral/36431376-ac9b-473e-9d7c-a8f850832208.pdf 

13. Bahrndorff S, De Jonge N, Skovgard H, Nielsen JL. Bacterial communities associated 
with houseflies (Musca domestica L.) sampled within and between farms. PLoS One. 
2017;12(1):1–15. Available from: 10.1371/journal.pone.0169753. 

14. Hall MJR. Screwworm flies as agents of wound myiasis. FAO. 1992;8–17. Available from: 
http://www.fao.org/docrep/u4220t/u4220T07.htm 

15. Guerra B, Fischer J, Helmuth R. An emerging public health problem: Acquired 
carbapenemase-producing microorganisms are present in food-producing animals, their 
environment, companion animals and wild birds. Vet Microbiol. 2014;171(3–4):290–7. 
Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2014.02.001 

16. Wardhana AH, Muharsini S. Myiasis Cases Caused by Chrysomya bezziana in Java 
Island. In: Proceeding of National Seminar "Teknologi Peternakan dan Veteriner 2005". 
2005.p.1078-1084 

17.  Yolanda N, Winata SM. Wound Myasis pada Anak. CDK-219. 2014;41(8):601–4.	
18. Hotez PJ, Remme JHF, Buss P, Alleyne G, Morel C, Breman JG. Combating tropical 

infectious diseases: Report of the Disease Control Priorities in Developing Countries 
Project. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;38(6):871–8. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1086/382077 

19. Soto-Arias JP, Groves RL, Barak JD. Transmission and retention of Salmonella enterica 
by phytophagous hemipteran insects. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2014;80(17):5447–56. 
Available from: https://sci-hub.se/10.1128/AEM.01444-14 

20. Blackburn JK, Van Ert M, Mullins JC, Hadfield TL, Hugh-Jones ME. The necrophagous 
fly anthrax transmission pathway: Empirical and genetic evidence from wildlife epizootics. 
Vector-Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2014;14(8):576–83. Available from: https://sci-



 
Rustiawan (Local Wisdom Fly Trap Effectiveness in the Culinary Area of Bantul Beach Tourism, Yogyakarta) 

 
 

 
Vol. 4, No. 2, 2022, pp. 54-60 60   10.26555/eshr.v4i2.5529 

   

hub.se/10.1089/vbz.2013.1538 
21. Fasanella A, Adone R H-JM. Classification and management of animal anthrax outbreaks 

based on the source of infection. Ann Ist Super Sanit. 2014;50(2):192–5. Available from: 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263513840_Classification_and_management_
of_animal_anthrax_outbreaks_based_on_the_source_of_infection 

22. Onwugamba FC, Fitzgerald JR, Rochon K, Guardabassi L, Alabi A, Kühne S, et al. The 
role of 'filth flies' in the spread of antimicrobial resistance. Travel Med Infect Dis. 
2018;22(December 2017):8–17. Available from: 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tmaid.2018.02.007 

23. Sarwar M. Insect borne diseases are transmitted by some important vectors of class 
insecta hurtling public health. Int J Bioinformata Biomed Eng. 2015;1(3):311–7. Available 
from: http://www.aiscience.org/journal/paperInfo/ijbbe?paperId=2133 

24. Komariah, Pratita S MT. Vector Control. Bina Husada Heal J. 2016;6(1):34–43. Available 
from: https://repository.dinus.ac.id/docs/ajar/pengtangan_veektor.pdf 

25. Nadeak ESM, Rwanda T, Iskandar I. Effectiveness of Bait Variations in the Use of FlyTrap 
at the Tanjungpinang City Ganet Final Disposal Site. J Andalas Masy Health. 
2017;10(1):82. Available from: http://jurnal.fkm.unand.ac.id/index.php/jkma/ 

26. Andini T, Siregar SD, Siagian M. The Effectiveness of Modified Fly Grill Technology to 
Reduce Flies Density at Meat Sales Places at Sukaramai Market, Medan City. J Health 
Glob. 2019;2(2):54. 

27. Savitriani S, Maftukhah NA. The Effectiveness of Bait Variations in Fly Traps in Control of 
Flies Density. Ruwa Jurai J Environmental Health. 2021;15(1):16. Available from: 
https://ejurnal.poltekkes-tjk.ac.id/index.php/JKESLING/article/view/Shela Savitriani%2C 
Nur Afni Maftukhah/1217 

28. Sugiyono. Statistics for research. Bandung: Alphabeta; 2019. 
29. Creswell JW. Research design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Approaches. 

Yogyakarta: Student Library; 2017. 
30. Sarmanu. Basic research methodology: Quantitative, qualitative & statistical. Surabaya: 

Airlangga University Press; 2019. 
31. Schowalter T. Insect ecology an ecosystem approach 2nd edition. New York: Elsevier inc; 

2006. 
32. Directorate General of P2MPLP. Technical instructions on fly eradication. Jakarta; 1992. 
33. Sucipto CD. Tropical Disease Vectors. Yogyakarta: Gosyen Publishing; 2011. 
34. Azwar A. Introduction to environmental health science. Jakarta: Mutiara Sumber Widya; 

1995. 
35. Puspitarani F SD. Application of Ultraviolet Lights on Fly Trap Equipment to the Number 

of Trapped House Flies. J Public Heal Res Dev. 2017; Available from: 
http://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/index.php/higeia 

36. Fitriana E, Mulasari SA. The Effectiveness of Bait Variations in Fly Traps in Controlling 
Flies Density at Temporary Disposal Sites (TPS) Jalan Andong Yogyakarta. J Indonesian 
Environmental Health. 2021;20(1):59–64. Available from: 
https://ejournal.undip.ac.id/index.php/jkli/article/view/32411/18920 

 
	
 


