Present and future environmental impacts on the coastal zone of Berau (East Kalimantan, Indonesia), a deductive scenario analysis

Abstract

Using the drivers–pressures–state–impact–responses (DPSIR) analytical framework, local stakeholder respondents and experts were interviewed to construct and prioritize a causality network that links ecosystem state of the coastal waters of Berau (East Kalimantan, Indonesia) with societal drivers of change. Particularly on the perceived top priority drivers and pressures, consensus among respondents was considerable. The constructed network was found to be consistent with literature findings from elsewhere in SE Asia. This causality network was then confronted with a local articulation of the SRES scenarios (IPCCs Special Report on Emissions Scenarios: A1, A2, B1, B2), and four plausible trajectories of future change were deduced over a period of 20 years, until 2030. Our scenario articulations differed greatly in the projected immigration influx into the region, in local economic growth and in institutional strength of governance. Under business-as-usual conditions, it is foreseen that fisheries will continue to overexploit the resource, and inland and mangrove deforestation, as well as sediment and sewage loading of the coastal waters, will increase, leading to declines in coral and seagrass extent and depleted fisheries. Scenarios with continued immigration (~A1, A2) will probably aggravate this pattern, whereas those with reduced immigration (~B1, B2) would appear to lead to considerable improvements in the state of the coastal waters of Berau.

Introduction

The Berau district in East Kalimantan, Indonesia, has witnessed a considerable increase in human population since its designation as destination for the Indonesian transmigration programme in the 1980s (Huttche 2002). Registered citizens have increased from 56,000 to 164,000 between 1988 and 2007 (Obidzinski and Barr 2003; Badan Pusat Statistik Kabupaten Berau 2008). These people have mainly found a livelihood in the exploitation or extraction of natural resources (ESG International 2002). More than half of the workforce in the area is engaged in agriculture (which includes forestry, Obidzinski and Barr 2003), and agriculture and mining contribute, respectively, 26 and 35% to the GRDP (ESG International 2002). These human activities are thought to have adverse environmental impacts. Notably, forest clearance, mining and overfishing are considered to affect the coastal zone of Berau (MacKinnon et al. 1997; ESG International 2002; Huttche 2002). At the same time, Berau is located in one of the world’s major biodiversity hot spots (MacKinnon et al. 1997; Tomascik et al. 1997), and environmental degradation may have profound impacts on this biodiversity. For example, Berau’s lowland forests are home to a population of Orang Utan and many otherwise rare mammals, and the coastal waters probably harbour the highest diversity in the Coral Triangle, the centre of marine species richness and a top priority area for marine conservation (Veron 1986; Tomascik et al. 1997; Renema 2006; Hoeksema 2007; De Voogd et al. 2009).

In this scoping study, we attempt to assess the relative importance of a range of environmental impacts in the coastal zone of Berau, chart their relations with possible driving forces and elaborate possible future trends. We applied the drivers–pressures–state (change)–(societal) impact–response (DPSIR) analytical framework (e.g. Smeets and Weterings 1999; Gabrielsen and Bosch 2003; Langmead et al. 2009; Udo de Haes and Heijungs 2009) to qualitatively identify causal relations. We combine this with a regional articulation of global socio-economic scenarios, those of the IPCC SRES working group (SRES = Special Report on Emissions Scenarios, Nakicenovic and Swart 2000; Greeuw et al. 2000; Lorenzoni et al. 2000; Berkhout et al. 2002; Busch 2006; EEA 2009).

Our specific research questions are as follows: (1) What are the plausible major causal pathways linking global and regional drivers to pressures and subsequent state change in the ecosystems of the coastal zone of Berau?; (2) What would be the possible effect of four trajectories of future development based on existing SRES scenarios?

Approach

First, a qualitative DPSIR network of causality was drafted by the authors, as in Langmead et al. (2009). Environmental change due to pressures is interpreted here as being contained in ‘State Change’, whereas ‘Impact’ is interpreted as the impact that this environmental change has on society (cf Langmead et al. 2009; Udo de Haes and Heijungs 2009). This draft DPSIR model was constructed from literature (notably Tomascik and Mah 1994; Oosternan 1999; ESG International 2002; Huttche 2002; Ismuranty et al. 2004; Obidzinski and Barr 2003; Keulartz and Zwart 2004; Wiryawan et al. 2005) and our local and regional field expertise (Terrados et al. 1998; Wesseling et al. 2001; Kamp-Nielsen et al. 2002; Vermaat et al. 2005; Becking and Lim 2009; De Voogd et al. 2009). Our draft DPSIR model was then confronted with the critical views of experts and representatives of local stakeholder groups ("Appendix") and subsequently revised. Using this verified DPSIR model, the four SRES scenarios were deductively downscaled (as in for example Döll and Vassolo 2004, see below), articulated for this specific coastal zone and also reviewed with our respondents. A limited set of aggregate indicators was chosen to reflect the state of the coastal ecosystems, as a compromise between relevance, comprehensiveness and stakeholder understanding (cf English et al. 1994; Langmead et al. 2009): transparency of the water, vitality and cover of corals, cover and extent of seagrass and mangroves, and stocks of commercial fish and shrimp as well as sea turtles.

Stakeholder categories (Grimble and Wellard 1997) were adopted from the in-depth study of local stakeholder relations by Keulartz and Zwart (2004) on the Derawan archipelago, situated along the northern coast of the Berau archipelago. Keulartz and Zwart (2004) used a 3 × 3 matrix to categorize stakeholders based on their role in management (civic, governance and commercial) and their operational scale (local/regional, national and supranational). The representatives of commercial entrepreneurs those we approached chose not to participate, resulting in 11 out of 18 respondents. This partial response may have affected our prioritization and limits the usefulness of comparing respondent categories. Another consequence is that most respondents were comparatively well educated. About half is stakeholder representative, and three quarter has the Indonesian nationality ("Appendix"). Questions posed (for full questionnaire text, see Estradivari 2008) were open-ended, semi-closed as well as multiple choice. Respondents were asked to rank different drivers, pressures and state (change) indicators from a purposefully extensive long-list (Table 1). Where prioritization was needed, statements on effects or importance had to be scored between 1 (bad or insignificant) and 10 (good or highly important). Only high-priority entities (score > 6) and relations with majority consensus among informants were included in the final DPSIR scheme.

Table 1 Long-list of different potentially important drivers, pressures and state changes that have been presented to stakeholder representatives and experts

Since their use in public policy and private business in the 1960s (Ringland 2002), scenarios have become a well-established tool to explore how the world would look somewhere in the distant or near future. Scenarios have been defined as coherent, internally consistent and plausible descriptions of possible future states of the world (Parry 2000; Berkhout et al. 2002; Busch 2006). Scenario descriptions are often qualitative and broad-brush ‘narratives’, contrasting but broad, over-our-head trajectories of world development. The IPPC (Carter et al. 2001; IPCC 2007) and also the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005) have used a common set of four scenarios, the SRES scenarios (Nakicenovic and Swart 2000; Lorenzoni et al. 2000). These have become a successful, well-cited (cf Busch 2006; Hettelingh et al. 2009) attempt to describe strongly contrasting potential directions of world development. Downscaling of scenarios may detail aspects of the distribution of wealth (Van Vuuren et al. 2007), the intensity and planning of land use and natural resource exploitation (Verburg et al. 2006), types and distribution of recreation, the planning and regulation of urban sprawl (Gaffin et al. 2004), adopted lifestyles by the population at large including health and demographic aspects (Döll and Vassolo 2004), as well as governance styles and institutional strength (Busch 2006).

Regional, downscaled scenario articulation was made with a 20-year time horizon, so towards 2030. Adopting the storylines of Berkhout et al. (2002), Cooper et al. (2008) and Langmead et al. (2009), we deployed the SRES approach of two orthogonal trends to our scenarios and focused on regionally plausible dimensions of societal change, i.e. low vs high population immigration and low vs high economic growth and prosperity in the Berau region (Table 2). At the same time, we developed our local scenario articulations to remain reasonably comparable to the four SRES scenarios (Busch 2006). For each driver, and some pressures, we critically explored a plausible trend for the Berau region given the narrative for each scenario (Table 2; cf. Zurek and Henrichs 2007). We presume that global climate change will involve an elevation in sea surface temperature and sea level, but that their extent will still be limited in 2030 (temperature increase between 1990 and 2030 ~1°C for A2, sea level rise ~8 cm; Bindoff et al. 2007; Christensen et al. 2007), compared to effects of human migration, population growth and economic development (Obidzinski and Barr 2003). Therefore, we have focused our analysis on these aspects of the scenarios as driving forces of change. We provide four scenarios in contrast to a business-as-usual trajectory (cf. Langmead et al. 2009).

Table 2 Local articulation of four scenarios for the coastal zone of the Berau district, East Kalimantan, Indonesia, over the coming 20 year, which is up to 2030

Results and discussion

Our respondents were convinced that presently Berau’s coastal waters witness a decline in fisheries yield due to overfishing, a decline in coral and seagrass cover due to increased riverine sediment delivery and sewage loading, and a decline in mangrove cover due to over-exploitation (Fig. 1). Consequent societal impacts appear to be an increased poverty among coastal communities that depend on fisheries and a reduced income from tourism. Also, our respondents foresee a reduced effectiveness of natural coastal defences due to parallel declines in reefs, seagrass beds and mangrove stands. The ultimate, primary driver is thought to be economic development of a sustained human immigration into the regency. Although sea level rise and sea surface temperature should not have risen substantially yet by 2030 (Bindoff et al. 2007), our respondents were aware of its potential impacts. We have presumed, however, that the impacts of rising sea level and sea surface temperature on the selected ecosystem state indicators are yet low until 2030.

Fig. 1
figure1

DPSI model depicting causality links underlying environmental change in Berau’s coastal zone after verification with stakeholders and experts. Drivers, pressures, state change and societal impacts are depicted. Possible societal responses (the R in DPSIR) are left out but could be taken at the level of drivers and pressures

Our respondents ranked various aspects of fisheries as the most important pressure, with deforestation, a driver, as a close second (Fig. 2). Increased tourism and navigation were ranked lowest as drivers of adverse change, and enhanced flooding incidence and an increase in invasive species were ranked low as pressures. Variation in opinion among respondents increased for the lower ranks (Fig. 2, note the size of the standard errors). When we separate two respondent categories (stakeholder representatives and experts), these differ in their judgment of the priority of population growth as a driver and of the last five pressures in Fig. 2 (stakeholders found these more important than experts). This explains the increase in variation. With other words, unanimity was strongest for the highest ranking drivers or pressures. Impacts of fisheries and the decline in fish and turtle stocks are confirmed by Pet-Soede et al. (2000; though for Sulawesi, not Berau), Ismuranty et al. (2004) and Wiryawan et al. (2005). The catch of prized species is reported to drop (Wiryawan et al. 2005). Deforestation is well documented for East Kalimantan. Radday (2007) documented a decline that was particularly steep from 2000 till 2010, whereas the projected area of forest still present in the regency in 2020 amounts to 10% at most. It was still close to 100% in 1950. Also, the rapid increase in the human population due to the transmigration programme is well documented (Huttche 2002; Berau Ruma Kita 2008). Overall, we conclude that current trends in our major drivers, as deduced in the DPSIR articulation with our respondents, are well established in the literature from elsewhere in SE Asia. This correspondence serves as a support for our extrapolation in the scenarios.

Fig. 2
figure2

Ranking by respondents of the importance of the long-listed drivers and pressures (cf. Table 1) leading to coastal ecosystem change in Berau. Presented is the mean importance (+1 standard error, using an importance scale of 1 and 10; see ‘Approach’). Drivers and pressures have been sorted separately. Two respondent categories (stakeholder representatives and experts) differed in their priority setting for 1 driver (population growth) and 5 pressures (beach erosion, shipping activity, flooding, invasive species and sea currents). All were found more important by stakeholder representatives

Our respondents did not differ greatly in their views on the relative importance of trends in drivers, pressures and consequent state of coastal waters for the four scenarios. We have therefore compiled these into one diagram (Fig. 3). The current decline in state or condition of our indicators is thought to continue under the business-as-usual scenario. Notably, the two scenarios with continued immigration into the region (~A1 and A2) lead to enhanced pressures and a more strongly declining state of the coastal waters of Berau, though partly for different reasons (Fig. 3). Particularly, ‘Peopling the world’ (~A2) appears to be detrimental to coastal habitats and resources. The two scenarios with low immigration (~B1 and B2), in contrast, appear to have less adverse effects, in particular when governance at regency level is well established (Local Responsibility, ~B2). In the latter case, respondents foresee a drastic improvement in all state indicators; hence, waters become less turbid, due to reduced silt and sewage loads, corals, seagrass and mangroves recover, and so do the exploitable stocks of fish and shrimp. Turtle exploitation is probably minimized.

Fig. 3
figure3

Qualitative trend projections for the drivers, pressures and state of Berau’s coastal zone for four local variants of the SRES scenarios, derived relative to the present trend and business-as-usual development

In conclusion, we observe that in applying the well-established DPSIR framework of causality, we have been able to convincingly link major drivers of societal change to consequent alterations of ecosystem state, though in a qualitative fashion. Second, we see that downscaling of SRES scenarios over a short-term time span of only 20 years does lead to major differences in the state of Beraus coastal ecosystems. Four contrasting scenarios also lead to major contrasts in the state of the coastal waters of Berau. At the extremes, our respondents foresee either turbid waters with minimal overexploited fish stocks and dwindled natural coastal defences of mangroves or clear waters with substantial fish stock, flourishing seagrass beds and corals and well-developed mangrove bands. Since the major discriminants among the four scenarios used here are migration, economic growth and strength of governance (Table 2), at least two are possibly influenced at the national policy level. Policy makers could have considerable influence here.

References

  1. Badan Pusat Statistik Kabupaten Berau (2008) Berau dalam angka 2008. Badan Pusat Statistik Kabupaten Berau, Indonesia

    Google Scholar 

  2. Becking LE, Lim SC (2009) A new Suberites (Demospongiae: Hadromeridae: Suberitidae) from the tropical Indo-West Pacific. Zool Mededel 83:853–862

    Google Scholar 

  3. Berau Rumah Kita (2008) Profil. http://kabupatenberau.wordpress.com/berau-ku/

  4. Berkhout F, Hertin J, Jordan A (2002) Socio-economic futures in climate change impact assessment: using scenarios as ‘learning machines’. Glob Environ Change 12:83–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bindoff NL, Willebrand J, Artale V, Cazenave A, Gregory J, Gulev S, Hanawa K, Le Quéré C, Levitus S, Nojiri Y, Shum CK, Talley LD, Unnikrishnan A (2007) Observations: oceanic climate change and sea level. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  6. Busch G (2006) Future European agricultural landscapes—what can we learn from existing quantitative land use scenario studies. Agric Eosyst Environ 114:121–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Carter TR, La Rovere EL, Jones RN, Leemans R, Mearns LO, Nakicenovic N, Pittock AB, Semenov SM, Skea J, Gromov S, Jordan AJ, Khan SR, Koukhta A, Lorenzoni I, Posch M, Tsyban AV, Velichko A, Zeng N (2001) Developing and applying scenarios. In: McCarthy JJ, Canziani OF, Leary NA, Dokken DJ, White KS (eds) Climate change 2001: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability; contribution of working group II to the third assessment report of the IPCC. Cambridge, pp 145–190

  8. Christensen JH, Hewitson B, Busuioc A, Chen A, Gao X, Held I, Jones R, Kolli RK, Kwon W-T, Laprise R, Magaña Rueda V, Mearns L, Menéndez CG, Räisänen J, Rinke A, Sarr A, Whetton P (2007) Regional climate projections. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cooper P, Etherington L, Bell S, Farmer A, Williams J (2008) Socio-economic scenarios of European development and integrated management of the marine environment. University of bath, school of management working paper series, 08, 2008

  10. De Voogd NJ, Becking LE, Cleary DF (2009) Sponge community composition in the Derawan Islands, NE Kalimantan, Indonesia. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 396:169–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Döll P, Vassolo S (2004) Global-scale versus regional-scale scenario assumptions: implications for estimating future water withdrawals in the Elbe River basin. Reg Environ Change 4:169–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. EEA (2009) Looking back on looking forward: a review of evaluative scenario literature. EEA technical report no 3/2009. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, p 30

    Google Scholar 

  13. English S, Wilkinson C, Baker V (1994) Survey manual for tropical marine resources. Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville, p 368

    Google Scholar 

  14. ESG International (2002) The value of water resources in Berau Regency, East Kalimantan, Indonesia. Report. ESG International, Ontario

    Google Scholar 

  15. Estradivari E (2008) Trouble or paradise, a scenario analysis of Berau’s coastal zone. MSc-thesis report. Institute for Environmental Studies, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  16. Gabrielsen P, Bosch P (2003) Environmental indicators: typology and use in reporting. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, p 15

    Google Scholar 

  17. Gaffin SR, Rosenzweig C, Xing X, Yetman G (2004) Downscaling and geo-spatial gridding of socio-economic projections from the IPCC special report on emissions scenarios (SRES). Glob Environ Change 14:105–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Greeuw SCH, Van Asselt MBA, Grosskurth J, Storms CAMH, Rijkens-Klomp N, Rothman D, Rotmans J (2000) Cloudy crystal balls, an assessment of recent European and global scenario studies and models. EEA Expert corner report prospects and scenarios no 4, environmental issues series 17, Copenhagen

  19. Grimble R, Wellard K (1997) Stakeholder methodologies in natural resources management: a review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities. Agric Syst 55:173–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hettelingh JP, De Vries BJM, Hordijk L (2009) Integrated assessment. In: Boersema JJ, Reijnders L (eds) Principles of environmental sciences. Springer, Berlin, pp 385–420

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hoeksema B (2007) Delineation of the indo-malayan centre of maximum marine biodiversity: the coral triangle. In: Renema W (ed) Biogeography, time, and place: distributions, barriers, and islands, vol 29. Springer topics in geobiology, pp 117–178

  22. Huttche CM (2002) Ecotourism feasibility report for Berau regency, East Kalimantan, Borneo. The Nature Conservancy, Indonesian Program, Berau, p 102

    Google Scholar 

  23. IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  24. Ismuranty C, Mardiastuti A, Steffen JH (2004) Merintis konservasi pulau Kakaban: Kerangka pengembangan model pengelolaan kolaboratif Kepulauan Derawan berbasis masyarakat. Yayasan Kenakeragaman Hayati, Jakarta, p 96

    Google Scholar 

  25. Kamp-Nielsen L, Vermaat JE, Wesseling I, Borum J, Geertz-Hansen O (2002) Sediment properties along gradients of siltation in South East Asia. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 54:127–137

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Keulartz J, Zwart HAE (2004) Boundaries, barriers, and bridges: philosophical fieldwork in Derawan, Internal report EKP programme. University of Wageningen, The Netherlands, p 37

    Google Scholar 

  27. Langmead O, McQuatters-Gollop A, Mee LD, Friedrich J, Gilbert AJ, Jackson EL, Knudsen S, Todorova V, Minicheva G, Gomoiu MT (2009) Recovery or decline of the Black Sea: a societal choice revealed by socio-ecological modelling. Ecol Model 220:2927–2939

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Lorenzoni I, Jordan A, Hulme M, Turner RK, O’Riordan T (2000) A co-evolutionary approach to climate impact assessment: part I. Integrating socio-economic and climate change scenarios. Glob Environ Change 10:57–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. MacKinnon K, Hatta G, Halim H, Mangalik A (1997) The ecology of Kalimantan. Periplus Editions, Singapore, p 802

    Google Scholar 

  30. MEA, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  31. Nakicenovic N, Swart R (eds) (2000) Emission scenarios. IPCC and Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 570

  32. Obidzinski K, Barr C (2003) The effects of decentralization on forests and forest industries in Berau District, East Kalimantan. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor (xii + 33 pp)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Oosternan A (1999) Economic profile of East Kalimantan. European Union and Ministry of Forestry and Estate Crops, Jakarta, p 19

    Google Scholar 

  34. Parry M (2000) Assessment of potential effects and adaptations for climate change in Europe: the Europe Acacia Project. Jackson Institute, University of East Anglia, Norwich

    Google Scholar 

  35. Pet-Soede L, Cesar HSJ, Pet JS (2000) Blasting away: the economics of blast fishing on Indonesian coral reefs. In: Cesar HSJ (ed) Collected essays on the economics of coral reefs. CORDIO, Sweden, p 244

    Google Scholar 

  36. Radday M (2007) Borneo maps, WWF Germany. http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/extent-of-deforestation-in-borneo-1950-2005-and-projectiontowards-2020

  37. Renema W (2006) Habitat variables determining the occurrence of large benthic foraminifera in the Berau area (East Kalimantan, Indonesia). Coral Reefs 25:351–359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Ringland G (2002) Scenarios in public policy. Wiley, Chicester, p 265

    Google Scholar 

  39. Smeets E, Weterings R (1999) Environmental indicators. Typology and overview. European Environmental Agency, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  40. Terrados J, Duarte CM, Fortes MD, Borum J, Agawin NSR, Bach S, Thampanya U, Kamp-Nielsen L, Kenworthy WJ, Geertz-Hansen O, Vermaat JE (1998) Changes in community structure and biomass of seagrass communities along gradients of siltation in SE Asia. Estuar Coastal Shelf Sci 46:757–768

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Tomascik T, Mah AJ (1994) The ecology of “Halimeda Lagoon”: an anchialine lagoon of a raised atoll, Kakaban Island, East Kalimantan, Indonesia. Trop Biodivers 2:385–399

    Google Scholar 

  42. Tomascik T, Mah J, Nontji A, Mossa MK (1997) The ecology of the Indonesian Seas. Periplus Editions, Singapore (xiv + 642 pp)

    Google Scholar 

  43. Udo de Haes H, Heijungs R (2009) Analysis of physical interactions between the economy and the environment. In: Boersema JJ, Reijnders L (eds) Principles of environmental sciences, pp 207–219

  44. Van Vuuren DP, Lucas PL, Hilderink H (2007) Downscaling drivers of global environmental change: enabling use of global SRES scenarios at the national and grid levels. Glob Environ Change 17:114–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Verburg PH, Schulp N, Witte N, Veldkamp A (2006) Downscaling of land use change scenarios to assess the dynamics of European landscapes. Agri Ecosyst Environ 114:39–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Vermaat JE, Bouwer L, Turner K, Salomons W (2005) Managing European coasts: past, present and future. Environmental science monograph series. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  47. Veron JEN (1986) Corals of Australia and the Indo-Pacific. The Australian Institute of Marine Science, Singapore, p 644

    Google Scholar 

  48. Wesseling I, Uychiaoco A, Aliño P, Vermaat JE (2001) Partial mortality in Porites corals: variation among Philippine reefs. Int Rev Hydrobiol 86:77–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Wiryawan B, Khazali M, Knight M (2005) Menuju Kawasan Konservasi Laut Berau, Kalimantan Timur: Status sumberdaya pesisir dan proses pengembangannya. Program Bersama Kelautan Berau TNC-WWF-Mitra Pesisir/CRMP II USAID, Jakarta

    Google Scholar 

  50. World Bank (1991) Managing development: the governance dimension. World Bank Discussion Paper, Washington, p 61

    Google Scholar 

  51. Zurek M, Henrichs T (2007) Linking scenarios across geographical scales in international environmental assessments. Technol Forecast Soc Change 74:1235–1282

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This paper is based on Estradivari (2008). We thank the local experts and stakeholder representatives in Berau that have shared their views with us. Estradivari thanks Bert Hoeksema and Nicole de Voogd of Naturalis for hospitality and cooperation.

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan E. Vermaat.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 3.

Table 3 Consulted experts and stakeholder representatives

Rights and permissions

Open Access This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vermaat, J.E., Estradivari, E. & Becking, L.E. Present and future environmental impacts on the coastal zone of Berau (East Kalimantan, Indonesia), a deductive scenario analysis. Reg Environ Change 12, 437–444 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-011-0257-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • DPSIR framing
  • Land-coast impacts
  • Deforestation
  • Overfishing
  • Transmigration
  • Global change
  • Ecosystem services