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

1. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
ON ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT
AND TECHNOLOGY
A Clean Environment
Towards Sustainable Development
Putrajaya, Malaysia
August 4–6, 2003
1

2. AN ENVIRONMENTAL
EVALUATION
OF A FISHING VILLAGE
IN KUDAT, SABAH,
MALAYSIA
DR. ARBA’AT HASSAN
UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI
MALAYSIA
arbaat@yahoo.com 2

3. FIG 1: MALAYSIA, LOCATION OF
SABAH
3

4. TOPICS FOR
PRESENTATION
A. Introduction
B. Objectives
C. Problems
D. Methodology
E. Data Analysis
F. Conclusions
G. Recommendations
4

5. A. Introduction
5

6. A. Introduction
 Geography: Kudat─a district in
Sabah
 Location: northeast coast
 Area: 1,300 km2
(Fig. 1 & 2)
 Population: 65,989 (Sabah, 2003)
 Products: wet + dry rice-paddy,
rubber, cocoa, palm oil, & fishing
industry. 6

7. FIG 2: LOCATION OF KUDAT,
SABAH
7

8. FIG 3: KG BAHAGIA, KUDAT
8

9. A. Introduction…
 Research area: Kg Bahagia, Kudat
 Location: near sea, 1.5km to town
(Fig. 3)
 Population: ± 3,000 (Sabah,
2003)
 Economy: low income
9

10.  Problems: socio-economy &
development
 Socio-economy: low income
(fishing & agriculture)
 Development: access road,
housings, schools, water supply
─ poor
10

11.  Education standard: low
 Knowledge & Awareness: low
 Public health/Hygiene: low
 Living env’t: filthy & smelly
 Low edu & envt’l std: affect
community quality of living
11

12. B. Objectives
12

13. B. Objectives
1. To evaluate status socio-economic
+ environment
2. To estimate degree of problems
3. To assist policy maker identifies
problems
4. To recommend possible solutions
13

14. C. Problems
14

15. C. Problems
1. Employment
2. Water supply
3. Sanitation
4. Garbage disposal
5. Schooling
6. Housing
15

16. 1. Employment
 > 50% residents: fishermen
 Properties: old fishing boats
 Income: minimal (day-by-day
basis)
16

17. i. Employment
17

18. i. Employment
18

19. 2a. Water Supply
 Water supply: improper/unsafe
 Source: man-made wells
 Condition: salty, brownish, &
smelly (use for all purposes)
19

20. 20

21. ii) Water Supply
21

22. 2b. Electricity Supply
 Location: ± 1.5 km to town
 Electricity supply: poor
 Residents use: candles,
kerosene
lights,
few: 22

23. 3. Sanitation
 Sanitation/toilets: not proper
 Defecation in the sea
along the beach
in the bush
behind big rocks +
on the ground
 Consequences: create problems at
residential area, playing ground +
beach itself
23

24. vii) Housing Facilities
24

25. 4. Garbage Disposal
 Facility: not available
 Dump sites:
 in the sea
 along the beach
 anywhere
convenience
25

26. v) Garbage Disposal
26

27. vii) Housing Facilities
27

28.  Schools: not found
 Children: go to adjacent
school
 Education level: minimal ─
affecting quality of living
5. Schooling
28

29. 6. Housing
 Settlement: not properly
planned
 Houses: close to each other,
side-by-side
 Improve living quality: difficult
for better access road + other
facilities 29

30. vii) Housing Facilities
30

31. D. Methodology
31

32. D. Methodology
 Data collection:
i. field observations
ii. oral interviews
iii. questionnaire surveys
 Data organization: tabulation &
SAS
 32

33. Methodology
33

34. E. Data Analysis
34

35. E. Analysis
 Analysis of problems:
I. Demographic
II. Perceptions (knowledge on
environmental & need)
 Results: in % and χ means
35

36. Likert Scale
 Respondents perceptions based
on five-point scale:
4 = A complete extent
3 = A moderate extent
2 = A little extent
1 = No extent
0 = Do not know
36

37. ITEM RESPONDENTS
Male 120 (52%)
Female 110 (48%)
Table 1: Demographic Data
(n=230)
37

38. AGES RESPONDENTS
(%)
< 30 12
31 – 35 20
36 – 40 36
> 40 32
Table 2: Ages (years)
38

39. OCCUPATIONS RESPONDENTS (%)
Govt servants 08
Fishermen 40
Self-employed 20
Not-employed 32
Table 3: Occupations
39

40. FACILITIES MEAN
RESPONSES
Clean water 4.00
Electricity 4.00
Sanitary 3.96
Garbage disposal 3.96
Table 4: Facility Needs
40

41. TYPES MEAN
RESPONSES
Man-made wells 3.92
Ponds 1.52
Rivers 1.28
Neighborhood 1.72
Table 5: Water Resources
41

42. TYPES MEAN
RESPONSES
Own toilets 0.16
Beach/Sea 4.00
Bush 1.32
Anywhere 1.64
Table 6: Sanitation
42

43. METHODS MEAN
RESPONSES
Burning 3.56
Burying 1.64
Beach/Sea 3.88
Anywhere 1.48
Table 7: Disposing Garbage
43

44. EXTENT RESPONDENTS (%)
Complete Extent 0
Moderate 20
Little Extent 56
Don’t Know 24
Table 8: Perceptions of
Knowledge
on Environment
44

45. F. Conclusions
45

46. F. Conclusions
 Need basic facilities (A Complete
Extent)
 Income level: below std of living
 Education + knowledge on
environment: low (A Little Extent)
 All research findings have impact on
social & environment (A Moderate
Extent)
46

47. G.
Recommendations
47

48. G. Recommendations
 Improve basic needs: education,
health programs, and infrastructure
 Improve level of economy
 Promote program to upgrade fishing
boats
 Conduct further research. Provide
recommendations to District Authority
48

49. THANK
YOU 49