Abstract
There is currently limited research assessing the ecological potential of coral restoration programmes of habitat enhancement and restoration of benthic and mobile populations for influencing the attitudes (and subsequent behaviours) of the communities where they are based. Our qualitative study investigated the impact of a coral reef restoration programmes on local environmental attitudes in a rural fishing community in north Bali, Indonesia. We conducted semi-structured interviews with individuals and multi-stakeholder focus groups (n = 31) in Tianyar Village, where the NGO ‘North Bali Reef Conservation’ (‘Yowana Bhakti Segara’) was based. Our results highlight several factors that influenced environmental behaviours, including perceived value of coral reefs (e.g.,changes in fishing yield), drivers of support for coral reef restoration (e.g., local leaders’ influence) and barriers to coral reef restoration support (e.g., lack of investment). Overall, our data indicate that the restoration programme has influenced positive environmental attitudes within the community through improvements in waste management, increased support for restoration work, and the establishment of new environmental regulations. Based on our results, we make five recommendations: (1) continuing environmental education within the community, (2) strengthening regulations and improving enforcement, (3) increasing financial and logistical support for waste management and ecotourism, (4) continuing the construction and deployment of artificial reefs, ensuring ‘best practice’ recommendations are followed, and (5) utilising the influence of local leaders to create positive environmental behaviours.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Coral reefs are critically important to tropical coastlines, providing ecosystem services such as food provision, shoreline protection, biogeochemical cycling, and tourism (Principe et al., 2012; Woodhead et al., 2019) estimated at over US $1 trillion globally (Costanza et al., 2014). However, the health of coral reefs is declining globally at unprecedented rates (Andrello et al., 2021; IPCC, 2021) resulting in losses in associated biodiversity, abundance, and reef structural complexity (Hughes et al., 2018; Pandolfi et al., 2011). Climate change induced coral bleaching is identified as the main reason for coral reef degradation worldwide (Cornwall et al., 2021; IPCC, 2021). Other localised issues such as destructive/over-exploitative fishing techniques (Andrello et al., 2021; Bacalso & Wolff, 2014), nutrient enrichment (Andrello et al., 2021; Lapointe et al., 2019), and pollution (Clukey et al., 2018) pose additional threats to these ecosystems. Heron et al. (2017) estimated that climate-related losses of reef ecosystem services will total approximately US $500 billion by 2100, with the greatest of these impacts experienced by people who rely upon reef services for day-to-day subsistence.
The bleaching of corals is one of the greatest threats to corals reefs worldwide (Hughes et al., 2017; Sully et al., 2019) indicating the urgent need for an immediate, large-scale reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (Ben-Romdhane et al., 2020). However, small-scale restoration tools may be utilised to capture some of the benefits of ecosystem services from healthy coral reefs to support local communities that depend on them (Hein et al., 2021; Hughes et al., 2023). These include the construction of artificial reefs (Boakes et al., 2022a), establishing propagated coral out-planting projects (Howlett et al., 2022), waste management and environmental education within the community (Sigit et al., 2019), and establishment and enforcement of marine protected areas (MPA) (Pedju, 2018; Zhao et al., 2020).
Ecological ‘restoration’ has been defined as “the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed” (SER, 2004). However, ecological ‘conservation’ describes a broader process that includes preservation and protection (Parsons et al., 2017). Our study focuses primarily on tools that actively aim to aid the recovery of previously degraded coral reefs. Consequently, we use the term ‘restoration’ throughout.
Research indicates that programmes to restore coral reefs increase their overall sustainability and success when they involve local communities (Bennett & Dearden, 2014; Grúňová et al., 2017; Kusumawati & Huang, 2015). Support for marine environment restoration programmes relies heavily on local people’s perceptions of personal benefit (Bennett, 2016; Gurney et al., 2014), overall well-being (Diedrich et al., 2017), and /or financial gain (Berkes, 2010).Footnote 1 A programme with community support will experience greater engagement from local people (ibid.) that is expected to lead to a general improvement in the community’s overall support for protecting the environment (e.g., Liu et al., 2010; Rokicka, 2002), although there is currently limited research among coastal communities.
Education programmes on environmental protection also potentially increase immediate and long-term community support for restoration (dos Santos et al., 2005; Leisher et al., 2012). However, multiple studies have highlighted that an increase in knowledge alone is insufficient for substantial changes to a community’s support for coral reef restoration (Brown et al., 2017; Grúňová et al., 2017; Trialfhianty, 2017). Several other factors in engaging local communities in marine restoration programmes: (1) Inclusion of local people in restoration decision-making processes (Lundquist & Granek, 2005) (e.g., compliance with MPA regulations has been shown to be higher when local fishers are involved in their creation (Glaser et al., 2010)); (2) establishing regulations that are clearly understood by local people (Suparno et al., 2019) and ensuring that they are effectively enforced by a respected authority (Doherty et al., 2013); and (3) influence from local leaders has been shown to ‘bridge the gap’ between local people and marine restoration objectives, and also to promote positive environmental attitudesFootnote 2 within the community (Trialfhianty, 2017).
Environmental psychologists have employed various models to gain a deeper understanding of what shapes EAs and thus motivates subsequent PEBs (see Schwartz, 1977; Dunlap & Liere, 1978; Ajzen, 1985; Stern et al., 1999). We identified three constructs emerging from these theories: i) ‘Attitude’ reflects an individual’s or community’s perception of engaging in a particular behaviour (e.g., perceived personal financial gain); ii) ‘Subjective Norm’ refers to the belief that other individuals or groups will approve or disapprove of a given behaviour (e.g., influence from local leaders (Ajzen, 1985)); iii) ‘Perceived Behavioural Control’ reflects the perceived difficulty of enacting a given behaviour, and is based on relevant factors that may facilitate or impede it (e.g., lack of investment). It is expected that individuals with differing levels of these three theoretical constructs will systematically differ in their EAs and PEBs (Aral & López-Sintas, 2023).
Our aim was to investigate if and how a coral reef restoration programme in Tianyar Village, north Bali, had facilitated changes in environmental attitudes and behaviours within the local community through qualitative research. More specifically, we were interested in understanding the attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control that influenced a community’s support for their local coral reef restoration programme (Bennett & Dearden, 2014; Grúňová et al., 2017; Kusumawati & Huang, 2015). Research on EAs of coastal communities is limited and inconclusive in Bali and wider Indonesia. However, it has been shown that environmental issues Indonesia could be greatly reduced through PEBs (see Ulhasanah & Goto, 2018; Adam et al., 2021). Our research is especially pertinent because it engages with the opinions of generally under-represented communities in a low-middle income nation to gather data for a unique set of recommendations for improving coral reef restoration in other parts of the world.
We conducted our qualitative research in Bali, an island province of Indonesia during July and August 2021 (Fig. 1). Indonesia is a low-middle income country (Sujarwoto et al., 2018) and contains 12.5% of the world’s total coral reef area (Susiloningtyas et al., 2018). Bali has the second highest documented reef fish species richness in the Asia–Pacific. Data from 2017 indicated that 50% of Bali’s corals are in good health, while 20% are declining, and 30% are poor (Marine and Fisheries Office 2017 data, as cited in Wicaksana, 2020). The primary reasons for the decline are associated with climate change (Prasetia et al., 2017; Suparno et al., 2019; Tito et al., 2019), destructive fishing practices (Doherty et al., 2013; Frey & Berkes, 2014) and marine pollution (Germanov et al., 2019; Suteja et al., 2021).
Methods
Study Site
Following a decline in coral health in recent decades, the active restoration of Indonesia’s reefs has been initiated by community groups, international NGOs, and the government (both on a local and central scale). The most notable restoration tools employed include the establishment of three MPAs (Pedju, 2018), deployment of artificial reefs as habitat enhancement tools on many degraded reefs (Wicaksana, 2020; Boakes, Hall, Ampou et al., 2022a), and the development of ecotourism destinations that promote coral reef restoration (Trialfhianty, 2017). Sustainability-related programmes, specifically in Bali, have been shown to obtain greater support from the wider community when the initial ideas are discussed at community meetings (desa adat) ( Table 3 glossary) (Trialfhianty, 2017; Wardana, 2019; Yunitawati & Clifton, 2019).
We collected qualitative data in Tianyar Village in Bali’s Karangasem regency, where primary occupations are fishing and selling fish (De Brauwer et al., 2017). The 3 km coastline includes a natural coral reef considered healthy (> 40% coral cover, ≥ 3,480 g/100m2 herbivorous fish biomass and ≥ 1,680 g/100m2 commercial fish biomass (Díaz-Pérez et al., 2016)) as well as an empty, degraded area (< 5% coral cover, < 960 g/100m2 herbivorous fish biomass and ≥ 420 g/100m2 commercial fish biomass (Díaz-Pérez et al., 2016)), where reefs were destroyed by unsustainable fishing techniques and boat anchoring (personal communications). Tianyar village attracts relatively few tourists, especially in comparison to the mass tourism areas in the south of the island.
The coral reef restoration non-government organisation (NGO) ‘North Bali Reef Conservation’ (locally known as ‘Yowana Bhakti Segara’) was based in the village at the time of data collection. Established in 2017, NGO was well-known for its community coral reef restoration efforts, notably the deployment of approximately 15,000 artificial reef (AR) structures (1 m × 0.5 m) in areas of previously destroyed reef. Its work is funded by ongoing international donations and occasional government grants, and (at the time of data collection) was the only organisation of its kind in the local area. Its ARs are located inside a no-take-zone MPA established and regulated by the local community, which was familiar with foreign-assisted coral restoration projects and was involved in the establishment of environmental targets, as well as providing scientific and logistical support (personal communication). In an earlier study (Boakes, Hall, Jones et al., 2022b) we described the work of this community in successfully restoring an area of reef in North Bali to its earlier level of marine biodiversity similar to a nearby healthy natural reef. Based on this previous research, we were able to assess how the EAs of the community in Tianyar Village have changed as a result of the restoration programme. Social research is rarely undertaken in the region, especially in area of EAs in coastal communities, allowing new insights for local governing bodies and marine management authorities (see also e.g., Bennett & Dearden, 2014; Kusumawati & Huang, 2015; Grúňová et al., 2017).
Interviews and Focus Group Discussions
Between July–August 2021 we conducted both semi-structured interviews and multi-stakeholder focus group discussions with 31 participants. Following Gelcich et al. (2009), we conducted 11 in-depth, semi-structured interviews with key informants of groups from a cross section of the community, including community leaders (from the local government, educational institutions, businesses and religious groups), fishers, fishmongers, tourism workers, and school students. Additionally, following Legare et al. (2020), we conducted two multi-stakeholder fisher focus group discussions each of 10 participants, which allowed us to assess if individual opinions differed in a group rather than face-to-fact context (Kellmereit, 2015).
Participants for both interviews and focus groups were selected purposefully aided by a village leader familiar with the community, based on our perceptions of how a participant might enhance our understanding of how coral reef restoration activities had influenced environmental attitudes in the community (Creswell & Creswell, 2017; Kuper et al., 2008). Participants were selected based on the nature of their employment (e.g., fishers), perspective (whether for and against coral reef restoration – as advised by members of the community), and/or social diversity (e.g., age, gender, and educational background). Chosen participants were initially approached (either via a phone call or in-person) and asked if they were willing to participate in our study (Kruglov & Davidson, 1953). Out of the 32 people we approached, one declined. Participants were given written information about our research goals and methods and Bournemouth University's ethical review process (reference number: 37431), and asked to indicate their consent to participate in the project. Following Wager and Williams (2013), to reduce bias in the interviews, we further explained that their names and responses would remain anonymous and be allocated a code (e.g., interviewee 1 = I1 / focus group 1 = FG1) to ensure anonymity. The interviews and focus groups were conducted in a variety of locations according to the preference and availability of the interviewee. In the instances where participants expressed no preference, interviews were conducted in a private meeting room. The interviews were conducted in a mixture of Indonesian and Balinese by a local researcher fluent in both languages.
The Theory of Planne Behaviour (TPB) was used as a framework to categorise key topics emerging from the interview responses (Kumar Chaudhary et al., 2017; Steg and de Groot (2018). Based on the literature (and our understanding of the topic and case study at the time), our framework identified three main factors that affected attitudes and behaviours towards coral restoration, which we used to design our interview and focus group questions (Table 1).
Interviews and focus groups were recorded on a SONY ICD -UX533F recorder, and initiated with general questions or conversation topics such as “Tell me about your typical day,” and then proceeded to topics related to food, work, or the marine environment (Grimm & Needham, 2012; Patton, 2014) before addressing more specific topics (Table 1). Not all questions were asked in every interview, but chosen according to the interviewee’s background (e.g., only fishers or fish sellers were asked about fishing yield).Footnote 3 Focus group discussions lasted between 1–2 h, and all interviews lasted between 30 min to 2 h.
Sample Size and Characteristics
Justification of sample size often depends on the research topic, quality of data, cultural factors, and interviewees’ responses (Marshall et al., 2013; Morse, 2000; Patton, 2014). Mason (2010) reported that, from 560 studies, the mean sample size was 31, and Marshall et al. (2013) suggested that single case studies should include 15 to 30 interviews. However, qualitative researchers generally agree that rather than pre-determining a sample size, it is more useful to finish at a given degree of saturation (Moura et al., 2021). ‘Saturation’ refers to the point at which additional interviews no longer offer new insights and information about the given topic (Charmaz, 2006; Dworkin, 2012). Following Moura et al. (2021), we decided that when we reached saturation we would interview two more participants. We reached this point after 31 interviews (11 one–one interviews, and two focus groups each with 10 people). Due to the similarity of responses between focus groups and individuals, we also decided that findings in the results section would be presented jointly.
Additionally, finding female participants willing to be interviewed proved problematic (see Table 2). However, we were able to recruit female respondents from a wide range of occupational and social groups (e.g., fish sellers, education workers, students, tourism workers). Interviews with female respondents were discontinued after it was clear that we had recorded a wide variety of their opinions from a broad range of groups.
Qualitative Analysis
Interviews were translated into English and then transcribed by ZB and LMP (authors fluent in both languages). This was done manually due to the lack of speech recognition software in Indonesian and Balinese. We then followed four stages: (1) coding, (2) assigning themes, (3) structuring and (4) comparing answers between interviews and focus groups.
Stage 1 followed the thematic coding analysis guidelines of Braun and Clarke (2006), which involved the generation of numerous category codes, without limiting the number of codes (Charmaz, 2006). For stage two, we listed key emerging ideas (McKinley & Ballinger, 2018; Saldaña, 2021) from words or phrases interviewees used frequently ( Nyumba et al., 2018). Each interview question (Table 1) directly corresponded with one of the key emerging themes. Stage 3 involved identifying reoccurring themes with connecting and/or opposing views (Charmaz, 2006). Finally, in stage four we compared the responses of the individual participants with those of the focus groups.
Results and Discussion
Perceived Value of Coral Reefs
The community’s perceptions of the value of coral reefs emerged as a key positive factor influencing EAs towards coral reef restoration and were divided between two main themes (1) development of marine ecotourism, and 2) increased fishing yield (Fig. 2). The interviewees described how Tianyar’s coral reefs had earlier been exposed to coral mining (manual removal of patches of reef used a valuable construction material) that resulted in serious coral degradation. Since these harmful activities were stopped, an improvement of EAs in the village has led to the (reported) recovery of the marine environment:
“Comparing the situation now to five years ago, we have observed a substantial improvement in coral health and overall cleanliness of the environment” (FG1).
Interviewees described the coral reef restoration work that has taken place:
“Before the conservation programme started, there was only bare sand, but now after we have deployed around 8000 artificial reef structures, a large number of fish populations have come back again. The corals now grow by themselves, so natural recruitment is happening, without our intervention to transplant the corals” (I1).
Several participants commented that this work has had direct benefits on the marine environment and stated that after four to five years of restoration, the coral reef is now in good condition. Two main reasons emerged for community support of these restoration efforts: concern for the environment and perceived economic prospects associated with coral reefs, mostly ecotourism development (cf. Rizzi et al. (2020) who showed that perceived financial self-benefit is an important factor in driving PEBs). Generally, our participants indicated enthusiastic support for the development of marine ecotourism due to its potential to provide new, relatively well-paid jobs and improve livelihoods:
“Tianyar has high potential to be developed as a marine tourism destination, because we have very beautiful natural coral reefs and many variations of fish species” (I1).
“I am hoping to become a dive guide or instructor so that I can teach new guests to dive” (I5).
It has been widely acknowledged that eco-tourism developments can provide economic opportunities to areas with high unemployment (Garrod et al., 2003; Shani et al., 2012). Alongside generating socio-economic benefits, eco-tourism can also help to protect (and often actively restore) local environments (Mangubhai et al., 2020).
Our respondents indicated that the community’s reef restoration efforts in Tianyar were largely driven by motivations to improve their livelihoods, for example: “the conservation programme has improved our incomes and quality of life, and that is one primary reason we choose to support it” (FG1). Berkes’ (2010) study on a fisher community in Les Village, Bali, found that fishers chose to engage in their local coral restoration project because they felt they would benefit financially from doing so (notably through increasing their fishing yields). Additionally, our personal communication with the local community in Nusa Penida (Boakes, Hall, Ampou et al., 2022a) showed that coral restoration had led to the generation of tourism, which created new, higher-paid jobs for local people. These improvements in livelihoods generated local support to continue work to protect local coral reefs (cf. Romañach et al. (2018) regarding mangrove reforestation in India). Concerns were raised several times during our interviews that many people had joined restoration efforts purely for economic reasons, without a genuine desire to protect the environment. For example:
“I don't think the local people genuinely care or are aware about environmental protection. Even though they join conservation groups, I have observed that their actions are not representative of environmental awareness at all. For instance, they keep throwing away waste while they are sitting on the beach” (I1).
Stem et al. (2003) and Boakes, Hall, Ampou et al. (2022a) note that it can be problematic if support for marine restoration is driven purely by financial gain because it will consequently diminish should profits decrease.
One interviewee (I2) described the local community as “50% of people as fisher, 30% as farmer, 20% as trader,” reflecting the continued centrality of fishing for the local community and their perceptions of the value of coral reefs. Research has shown that localised fisheries yield can increase as a result of artificial reefs (ARs) through increased production of commercial species (Ramos et al., 2019; Santos & Monteiro, 1997) as well as establishment MPAs as a result of the ‘spill-over effect’ (Di Lorenzo et al., 2020; Lenihan et al., 2021). Some interviewees discussed the benefits of the restoration work to fish populations:
“[because of the MPA and ARs] fish have come back to the area, particularly fish that are commonly consumed by local people, such as snapper fish. There are [now] so many of them and this is benefitting local fishers” (I1).
Despite this, most fishers did not report experiencing an increase in fishing yield, likely because the species they target are often caught far from the AR / MPA, and are not species generally found on the artificial reef. It is also important to note that ‘no change’ in fishing yield may be positive, as MPA establishment can sometimes lead to initial reductions in yield, especially if it prohibits fishing in a previously productive fishing area (Goñi et al., 2011).
Drivers of Support for Coral Reef Restoration
Drivers of support for coral reef restoration fell into three main themes (1) influence from local leaders,
2) formal and informal education, and 3) social media (Fig. 2). Bakari et al. (2017) showed that successful changes in EAs are often created by local leaders who influence attitudes among their constituents, a finding reflected in our interview data:
“[local leader name] has an important role in influencing local people too, for example through beach cleaning, or turtle hatchling protection” (I4).
“Local leaders encourage people that are throwing away litter on the beach to change their habits. The leaders can influence people's behaviours” (FG1).
Local leaders who have positive EAs and have influenced others within the community were described as having: “connected foreign volunteers and scientists with members of the fisher conservation group and the general community” (I1) (see also Schwartz, 1992, 2012; McLeod et al., 2009; Frey & Berkes, 2014; Trialfhianty, 2017).
Other reasons for local support of restoration efforts include the view that the sea is a source of food and livelihood:
“As indigenous people in Tianyar, the sea is important as a food source for us and for many of my family’s livelihoods. This for us is an important reason to protect the marine environment” (I7).
Another respondent cited Hindu religious beliefs and traditional scriptures as a reason to support restoration efforts:
“In Sundari Bungkah Lontar [traditional scripture] it is mentioned that the function of the sea on earth is like vital arteries in our body. So if the sea is unhealthy it will make us unhealthy as well” (I2).
Our interviews also revealed limited environmental knowledge among community members. For example:
“Local people lack knowledge and understanding about the importance of conserving the environment” (I3)
“Information about coral conservation and the environment has been spread traditionally through members meetings” (FG1),
which was described as “an ineffective way of communicating environmental issues and coral reef conservation” (FG2). Fishers have a relatively limited understanding of the ecological and socio-economic benefits of coral reef restoration since there is very limited formal education on environmental awareness in Bali and wider Indonesia (Parker & Prabawa-Sear, 2019). One respondent I1 discussed the link between high-level formal education and environmental care: “I think there is a link between the level of formal education and the level of environmental awareness. Those who have studied [at university] in cities have seen good waste management systems, with waste bins and plastic sorting points. When they come back to the village they won't throw away their waste anymore, but will find a bin instead” (1I) (see also Littledyke, 2008; Strieder Philippssen et al., 2017).
However, interviewees explained that informal teaching sessions with children in the village appear to be an effective method of environmental education:
“Before the educational programme [Yayasan Widya Sari] started, most young people had no idea about the marine life on their beach. They now know how beautiful their local marine life is because they have been able to go snorkelling with international volunteers and see it” (I5).
These sessions were provided mostly by international volunteers, many of whom visit specificially to teach students about the environment:. “The environmental activities were first initiated by international volunteers here and I believe they have played an important and positive role in changing local people’s attitudes” (I5). Throughout our study we found local perceptions on the presence of foreigners were generally very positive (however, see also Cohen, 1982; Fabinyi, 2010; Boakes, Hall, Ampou et al., 2022a; among others).
The importance of informal education as a powerful tool for changing EAs has been widely noted (Parker & Prabawa-Sear, 2019; Steg & De Groot, 2018; Varela-Candamio et al., 2018). Our interviews indicated that the youngest generation in Tianyar are the most aware about the environment (see also Williams & Page, 2011). Based on the Environmental Citizenship Model (Hungerford & Volk, 1990), our study community in this case study can be described as at an earlier stage of educational involvement (basic sensitivity to and knowledge of the environments). The community’s level of involvement environmental initiatives would largely depend upon their education and awareness of the environment. Further increasing environmental education within the village would encourage more of the community towards ‘ownership’ and ‘empowerment’ variables, which would further improve EAs, generate PEBs and lead to greater support for coral reef restoration.
Barriers to Coral Reef Restoration Support
Barriers to coral reef restoration support proved to be a key negative factor influencing EAs towards coral reef restoration and comprised three main themes: (1) lack of investment, 2) resistance to change, and 3) lack of environmental regulations (Fig. 2). Lack of investment was consistently cited as the main factor hindering the development of ecotourism, especially in terms of waste managementFootnote 4:
“…we want to improve our waste management, but we haven’t received the financial support to do it” (I6).
“There is still limited help from the government, and no trucks taking the plastic away” (I5). “…most waste gets thrown away or goes into holes that are dug into the ground, or is burnt” (I7).
Substantial financial investments are often needed to create long term changes to EAs (Lavelle et al., 2015).Footnote 5 Regions in north Bali receive relatively few tourists compared to mass tourism centres in the south and are consequently not a likely priority for investment (Kostić & Petrović, 2013; Khamdevi & Bott, 2018).
Resistance to change, the second barrier to reef restoration efforts, can be a contributing factor that predicts behavioural intention and thus behavioural outcomes (Nordfjærn et al., 2014). Some conflicts and issues related to ecotourism were reported by fishers:
“…there are some people who argue with us when no fishing zones are established. They insist that the sea belongs to everyone, and they can fish anywhere they want” (FG2).
“So far, we haven’t experienced issues, but we hope we can still do our job as fishers [with the development of ecotourism]. If we are marginalised, I think we will fight. It is very important to make conservation, tourism, and fishing zones” (FG1).
“…. potential issues with stakeholders, for example “boat owners complaining about divers or snorkellers in the areas where they went to fish” (I4).
It appeared that this resistance to change was driven by concern for their livelihoods and culture, which they fear might impacted by the proposed development. Marine restoration and eco-tourism projects are far more likely to succeed when stakeholder opinions are listened to and their concerns addressed. In the case of development of eco-tourism in Tianyar, it is necessary to accommodate the concerns of stakeholders within planning processes (Pedju, 2018; Waayers et al., 2012). Responses showed that most resistance to change (especially in terms of waste management) came from the older generation. Intervention strategies may improve EAs, including provision of education and consideration of stakeholder feedback,Footnote 6 as well as setting community goals with signed pledges (Steg & De Groot, 2018).
Participants generally agreed that local environmental regulations, as well as enforcement practices to support them, are insufficient and hindered positive changes to EAs:
“We need more rules from the local government for environmental protection” I4.
“… authorities need to be involved with strictly enforcing environmental regulations. Otherwise local people will not follow them” (I8).
This latter view is also reflected in the West Bali Marine Park MPA, where poorly enforced regulations led to user non-compliance (Doherty et al., 2013), suggesting that enforcement of regulations by authorities are necessary for success. Additionally, one informant noted that:
“There is a lack of communication of environmental rules and this needs to be made clearer. For example, sometimes fishers aren't certain if they're allowed to fish in an area or not - this is a common theme across Bali's marine protected areas” (I4).Footnote 7
Some respondents commented that plans were being developed to create regulations:
“… we are planning to create village rules to protect the environment, particularly the marine environment. But it may take quite a long time to do this” (I2).
FG2 noted the importance of the Desa Adat and the Pecalang (Table 3):
“… the pecalang play an important role in Desa Adat law enforcement. These rules are often more effective than the government laws that are enforced by police because people are more fearful of Pecalang.”
Recommendations
The following recommendations are based on the responses and opinions of interviewees.
Continuing Community Environmental Education
There should be continued support for the work of the ‘Yayasan Widya Sari’ (the local learning centre) and similar initiatives to raise young people’s awareness about environmental issues and marine restoration (Blythe et al., 2021; Varela-Candamio et al., 2018). Engaging with ‘The Environmental Citizenship model’ (Hungerford & Volk, 1990) would further increase environmental education within the village encouraging more community identification with ‘ownership’ and ‘empowerment’ that would lead to greater support for coral reef restoration. As our results indicate that Tianyar fishers have a relatively limited understanding of the economic benefits of coral reef restoration, specifically with regards to increased fishing yield, we recommend further resources be allocated to increase their awareness of these benefits, which would likely generate more support for the restoration programme (Leisher et al., 2012).
Strengthening Regulations and Improving Enforcement
In consultation with stakeholders the local government should strengthen environmental regulations in the village, specifically with regards to waste management, including imposition of fines for disposing of waste on the beach and other public areas, as well as creating clear zones for marine users. These regulations need to be strictly enforced by the relevant authorities to ensure compliance. We also recommend that alongside the establishment of official government regulations, the Desa Adat (and their associated Pecalang security force) establish and enforce locally specific laws to protect the environment.
Increasing Support for Eco-Tourism
Village leaders’ ability to approach local government and access various state-owned enterprises and social responsibility government grants is crucial to develop ecotourism within the village (Bhuiyan et al., 2011). However local universities may also assist village leaders in creating ecotourism initiatives, as well as expand potential sources of grants. As with all our recommendations, we emphasize the crucial importance of engaging local stakeholders in the development of ecotourism initiatives.
Continue Constructing Artificial Reefs
ARs have been used across Bali as a habitat enhancement tool to successfully restore marine biodiversity and abundance (Puspasari et al., 2020; Syam et al., 2017) while at the same time enhancing positive local attitudes towards their environment. In terms of achieving restoration objectives, it is important that programmes follow guidelines of ‘best practice’ (Boakes, Hall, Jones et al., 2022b).
Utilising the Influence of Local Leaders
The influence of local leaders in shaping EAs within the local community is widely recognised (McLeod & Palmer, 2015; Steg & De Groot, 2018; Trialfhianty, 2017), including the use of intervention strategies to increase pro-environmental behaviours through the widespread provision education and feedback, as well as setting community goals with signed pledges. This is particularly relevant in terms of Tianyar’s communities lack environmental knowledge and waste management problem.
Many of our recommendations for our study in one village in Bali are also relevant for marine and terrestrial restoration in the global north. Embedding the generation of positive EAs within the wider community, based on clear personal gains, social norms and overcoming barrier to change is very different to many initiatives used in global north countries, where the overwhelming response to plastic pollution has been based on an approach encouraging use of reusable products, such as water bottles or coffee cups (Stafford & Jones, 2019a). However, the hope that undertaking one PEB will lead to ‘spill-over’ into more beneficial behaviours is disputed by current evidence (Maki et al., 2019; Stafford & Jones, 2019b). A holistic, community-based approach such as we recommend here or as adopted by the Coast4C projects in the Philippines (Blanco, 2021), may provide the necessary conditions to facilitate positive EAs in coastal communities, but such approaches may require development, or redevelopment, of closer knit communities than currently exist in many countries (e.g., Monbiot, 2017).
Conclusion
Our results highlight several factors that influence local attitudes towards the restoration of coral reefs, including perceived value of coral reefs (such as perceived changes in fishing yield), drivers of support for coral reef restoration (such as influence from local leaders), and barriers to support for coral reef restoration (such as lack of investment), and suggest that the restoration programme had influenced EAs within the community, which potentially have led to an increase in PEBs (notably, increased support for the coral reef restoration programme and its objectives). These behavioural changes are mostly driven by the perceived economic prospects that the community associate with restoration programme. This qualitative research adds new knowledge to the existing scientific literature on the topic of EAs and coral reef restoration programmes, however this case study is limited to one fishing village in north Bali. It is recommended that qualitative research continues to be conducted in Indonesia (and other low-middle income nations) to further investigate the link between ecological restoration and EAs.
Data Availability
To remain GDPR compliant on the holding of social and economic data the aggregated data are available on request to the corresponding author.
Notes
Environmental attitudes (EAs) are important in the field of environmental conservation and restoration because they often determine behaviours (of an individual or a community) that can impact environmental quality (Gifford & Sussman 2012; Milfont 2007). Individuals’ attitudes are formed from their experiences, social factors, and observational learning (Cherry 2018), and their internal and stable responses to objects, ideas, or people are reflected in their EAs. These can be specific to behaviours, such as perceived behavioural importance, or based on value orientations, such as ecocentrism (Naiman et al., 2023). Eas are strong positive predictors of pro-environmental behaviours (PEB) (Ertz & Sarigöllü 2019), which can be defined as all possible actions aimed at reducing threats to and/or safeguarding the environment (Steg & Vlek 2009). Hofman et al. (2020) created a list of 34 PEBs that can be undertaken by individuals to protect the marine environment, including reducing /refusing plastics, following good diving / snorkelling etiquette, and volunteering time to support environmental causes. The social landscape of a community strongly influences individuals’ EAs (Mainzer & Luloff 2017), which in some cases, can lead to poorly informed behaviours that are damaging to the environment (Moran 2016).
We provide a glossary (Table 3) for multiple important key words used by participants (in Indonesian and Balinese) that have no direct translation to English.
The lack of waste management on the island, as highlighted by the interviews, caused Bali to declare a state of ‘Garbage Emergency’ in 2017 (Garcia et al., 2019).
In contrast, Terrier and Marfaing (2015) showed that although large environmental initiatives sometimes require substantial financing, other small behavioural changes (such as reducing single use plastics) are much less onerous.
This is particularly relevant in terms of the community’s lack of environmental knowledge and waste management problem. However, this is a particularly sensitive topic, and if someone’s waste management practices are criticised: “… they will be offended, and this will trigger conflict between us. Local leaders need to approach them and talk to them personally” (FG2).
See also Suparno et al. (2019).
References
Adam, D. H., Siregar, Z. M. E., & Supriadi, Y. N. (2021). Environmental Concern and Environmental Knowledge, Attitude toward Pro-Environmental Behavior as Predictors of Pro-environmental Behavior: Evidence from Textile Industry in Indonesia. Calitatea, 22(182), 138–144.
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In: Action control. Springer, 11–39.
Andrello, M., Darling, E. S., Wenger, A., Suárez‐Castro, A. F., Gelfand, S., & Ahmadia, G. N. (2021). A global map of human pressures on tropical coral reefs. Conservation Letters, e12858.
Aral, Ö. H., & López-Sintas, J. (2023). Environmental behavior patterns across clusters of European Union countries: Uncovering heterogeneity in the attitude-behavior-context relationship. Journal of Cleaner Production, 135936.
Bacalso, R. T. M., & Wolff, M. (2014). Trophic flow structure of the Danajon ecosystem (Central Philippines) and impacts of illegal and destructive fishing practices. Journal of Marine Systems, 139, 103–118.
Bakari, H., Hunjra, A. I., & Niazi, G. S. K. (2017). How does authentic leadership influence planned organizational change? The role of employees’ perceptions: Integration of theory of planned behavior and Lewin’s three step model. Journal of Change Management, 17(2), 155–187.
Ben-Romdhane, H., Jabado, R. W., Grandcourt, E. M., Perry, R. J. O., Al Blooshi, A. Y., Marpu, P. R., Ouarda, T. B. M. J., & Ghedira, H. (2020). Coral reefs of Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates: Analysis of management approaches in light of international best practices and a changing climate. Frontiers in Marine Science, 7, 541.
Bennett, N. J. (2016). Using perceptions as evidence to improve conservation and environmental management. Conservation Biology, 30(3), 582–592.
Bennett, N. J., & Dearden, P. (2014). Why local people do not support conservation: Community perceptions of marine protected area livelihood impacts, governance and management in Thailand. Marine Policy, 44, 107–116.
Berkes, F. (2010). Linkages and multilevel systems for matching governance and ecology: Lessons from roving bandits. Bulletin of Marine Science, 86(2), 235–250.
Bhuiyan, M. A. H., Siwar, C., Ismail, S. M., & Islam, R. (2011). The role of government for ecotourism development: Focusing on east coast economic region. Journal of Social Sciences, 7(4), 557.
Blanco, A. (2021). Making seaweed farming even better for the ocean – watch our brand new video to see how we reduce plastic waste. Coast4C: Cronulla AU. [online]. Available from: https://coast4c.com/how-do-we-reduce-plastic-pollution-from-seaweed-farming-watch-out-brand-new-video/
Blythe, J., Baird, J., Bennett, N., Dale, G., Nash, K. L., Pickering, G., & Wabnitz, C. C. C. (2021). Fostering ocean empathy through future scenarios. People and Nature.
Boakes, Z., Hall, A. E., Ampou, E. E., Jones, G. C. A., Suryaputra, I. G. N. A., Mahyuni, L. P., Prasetyo, R., & Stafford, R. (2022a). Coral reef conservation in Bali in light of international best practice, a literature review. Journal for Nature Conservation [online], 126190. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2022.126190
Boakes, Z., Hall, A., Jones, G., Prasetyo, R., Stafford, R., & Yahya, Y. (2022b). Artificial coral reefs as a localised approach to increase fish biodiversity and abundance along the North Bali coastline. AIMS Geosciences, 8(2), 303–325. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3934/geosci.2022018
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Brown, K., Eernstman, N., Huke, A. R., & Reding, N. (2017). The drama of resilience: learning, doing, and sharing for sustainability. Ecology and Society, 22(2).
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. sage.
Cherry, K. (2018). Attitudes and behavior in psychology. Very Well Mind.
Choi, W.-S., & Lee, S.-B. (2012). The effect of servicescape of an eco-friendly restaurant on customer perceived value, attitude and behavior intention. Culinary Science and Hospitality Research, 18(5), 45–62.
Clukey, K. E., Lepczyk, C. A., Balazs, G. H., Work, T. M., Li, Q. X., Bachman, M. J., & Lynch, J. M. (2018). Persistent organic pollutants in fat of three species of Pacific pelagic longline caught sea turtles: Accumulation in relation to ingested plastic marine debris. Science of the Total Environment, 610, 402–411.
Cohen, E. (1982). Marginal paradises: Bungalow tourism on the islands of Southern Thailand. Annals of Tourism Research, 9(2), 189–228.
Cornwall, C. E., Comeau, S., Kornder, N. A., Perry, C. T., van Hooidonk, R., DeCarlo, T. M., Pratchett, M. S., Anderson, K. D., Browne, N., & Carpenter, R. (2021). Global declines in coral reef calcium carbonate production under ocean acidification and warming. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(21).
Costanza, R., De Groot, R., Sutton, P., Van der Ploeg, S., Anderson, S. J., Kubiszewski, I., Farber, S., & Turner, R. K. (2014). Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change, 26, 152–158.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.
De Brauwer, M., Harvey, E. S., McIlwain, J. L., Hobbs, J.-P.A., Jompa, J., & Burton, M. (2017). The economic contribution of the muck dive industry to tourism in Southeast Asia. Marine Policy, 83, 92–99.
Díaz-Pérez, L., Rodríguez-Zaragoza, F. A., Ortiz, M., Cupul-Magaña, A. L., Carriquiry, J. D., Ríos-Jara, E., Rodríguez-Troncoso, A. P., del García-Rivas, M., & C. (2016). Coral reef health indices versus the biological, ecological and functional diversity of fish and coral assemblages in the Caribbean Sea. PLoS ONE, 11(8), e0161812.
Diedrich, A. (2007). The impacts of tourism on coral reef conservation awareness and support in coastal communities in Belize. Coral Reefs, 26(4), 985–996.
Diedrich, A., Stoeckl, N., Gurney, G. G., Esparon, M., & Pollnac, R. (2017). Social capital as a key determinant of perceived benefits of community-based marine protected areas. Conservation Biology, 31(2), 311–321.
Di Lorenzo, M., Guidetti, P., Di Franco, A., Calò, A., & Claudet, J. (2020). Assessing spillover from marine protected areas and its drivers: A meta-analytical approach. Fish and Fisheries, 21(5), 906–915.
Doherty, O., Milner, C., Dustan, P., Campbell, S., Pardede, S., Kartawijaya, T., & Alling, A. (2013). Report on Menjangan Island’s coral reef: A Bali Barat National Park marine protected area. Atoll Research Bulletin, 19(599), 1–18.
dos Santos, M. N., Monteiro, C. C., & Lasserre, G. (2005). Observations and trends on the intra-annual variation of the fish assemblages on two artificial reefs in Algarve coastal waters (southern Portugal). Scientia Marina, 69(3), 415–426.
Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. D. (1978). The “new environmental paradigm.” The Journal of Environmental Education, 9(4), 10–19.
Dworkin, S. L. (2012). Sample size policy for qualitative studies using in-depth interviews.
Ertz, M., & Sarigöllü, E. (2019). The behavior-attitude relationship and satisfaction in proenvironmental behavior. Environment and Behavior, 51(9–10), 1106–1132.
Fabinyi, M. (2010). The intensification of fishing and the rise of tourism: Competing coastal livelihoods in the Calamianes Islands. Philippines. Human Ecology, 38(3), 415–427.
Frey, J., & Berkes, F. (2014). Can partnerships and community-based conservation reverse the decline of coral reef social-ecological systems? International Journal of the Commons, 8(1). Available from: https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.408
Garcia, B., Fang, M. M., & Lin, J. (2019). Marine plastic pollution in Asia: All hands on deck! Chinese Journal of Environmental Law, 3(1), 11–46.
Garrod, B., Wilson, J. C., & Bruce, D. M. (2003). Defining marine ecotourism: a Delphi study. Marine Ecotourism: Issues and Experiences. Channel View, Clevedon, Australia, 17–36.
Gelcich, S., Godoy, N., & Castilla, J. C. (2009). Artisanal fishers’ perceptions regarding coastal co-management policies in Chile and their potentials to scale-up marine biodiversity conservation. Ocean & Coastal Management, 52(8), 424–432.
Germanov, E. S., Marshall, A. D., Hendrawan, I. G., Admiraal, R., Rohner, C. A., Argeswara, J., Wulandari, R., Himawan, M. R., & Loneragan, N. R. (2019). Microplastics on the menu: Plastics pollute indonesian manta ray and whale shark feeding grounds. Frontiers in Marine Science, 6, 679.
Gifford, R., & Sussman, R. (2012). Environmental attitudes.
Glaser, M., Baitoningsih, W., Ferse, S. C. A., Neil, M., & Deswandi, R. (2010). Whose sustainability? Top–down participation and emergent rules in marine protected area management in Indonesia. Marine Policy, 34(6), 1215–1225.
Goñi, R., Badalamenti, F., & Tupper, M. H. (2011). Fisheries-Effects of marine protected areas on local fisheries: Evidence from empirical studies. Marine Protected Areas: A Multidisciplinary Approach, 72, 73.
Grimm, K. E., & Needham, M. D. (2012). Moving beyond the “I” in motivation: Attributes and perceptions of conservation volunteer tourists. Journal of Travel Research, 51(4), 488–501.
Grúňová, M., Brandlová, K., Svitálek, J., & Hejcmanová, P. (2017). Environmental education supports conservation action by increasing the immediate and long-term environmental knowledge of children in West Africa. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 16(1), 3–16.
Gurney, G. G., Cinner, J., Ban, N. C., Pressey, R. L., Pollnac, R., Campbell, S. J., Tasidjawa, S., & Setiawan, F. (2014). Poverty and protected areas: An evaluation of a marine integrated conservation and development project in Indonesia. Global Environmental Change, 26, 98–107.
Hein, M. Y., Vardi, T., Shaver, E. C., Pioch, S., Boström-Einarsson, L., Ahmed, M., Grimsditch, G., & McLeod, I. M. (2021). Perspectives on the use of coral reef restoration as a strategy to support and improve reef ecosystem services. Frontiers in Marine Science, 299.
Heron, S. F., Eakin, C. M., Douvere, F., Anderson, K. L., Day, J. C., Geiger, E., Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Van Hooidonk, R., Hughes, T., & Marshall, P. (2017). Impacts of climate change on World Heritage coral reefs: a first global scientific assessment.
Hofman, K., Hughes, K., & Walters, G. (2020). Effective conservation behaviours for protecting marine environments: The views of the experts. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 28(10), 1460–1478.
Howlett, L., Camp, E. F., Edmondson, J., Edmondson, J., Agius, T., Hosp, R., Coulthard, P., Edmondson, S., & Suggett, D. J. (2022). Adoption of coral propagation and out-planting via the tourism industry to advance site stewardship on the northern Great Barrier Reef. Ocean & Coastal Management, 225, 106199.
Hughes, T. P., Baird, A. H., Morrison, T. H., & Torda, G., 2023. Principles for coral reef restoration in the anthropocene. One Earth.
Hughes, T. P., Kerry, J. T., Álvarez-Noriega, M., Álvarez-Romero, J. G., Anderson, K. D., Baird, A. H., Babcock, R. C., Beger, M., Bellwood, D. R., & Berkelmans, R. (2017). Global warming and recurrent mass bleaching of corals. Nature, 543(7645), 373–377.
Hughes, T. P., Kerry, J. T., Baird, A. H., Connolly, S. R., Dietzel, A., Eakin, C. M., Heron, S. F., Hoey, A. S., Hoogenboom, M. O., & Liu, G. (2018). Global warming transforms coral reef assemblages. Nature, 556(7702), 492–496.
Hungerford, H. R., & Volk, T. L. (1990). Changing learner behavior through environmental education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 21(3), 8–21.
IPCC. (2021). The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Kellmereit, B. (2015). Focus groups. International Journal of Sales, Retailing & Marketing, 4(9), 42–52.
Khamdevi, M., & Bott, H. (2018). Rethinking tourism: Bali’s failure. In: IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. IOP Publishing, 12171.
Kim, M. J., Hall, C. M., & Kim, D.-K. (2020). Predicting environmentally friendly eating out behavior by value-attitude-behavior theory: Does being vegetarian reduce food waste? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 28(6), 797–815.
Kostić, M., & Petrović, M. (2013). The importance of biodiversity conservation as a factor of ecotourism development at the Goc mountain. Hotel and Tourism Management, 1(1), 56–66. https://htmanagementvb.com/index.php/HITM/article/view/152
Kruglov, L. P., & Davidson, H. H. (1953). The willingness to be interviewed: A selective factor in sampling. The Journal of Social Psychology, 38(1), 39–47.
Kumar Chaudhary, A., Warner, L. A., Lamm, A. J., Israel, G. D., Rumble, J. N., & Cantrell, R. A. (2017). Using the Theory of Planned Behavior to Encourage Water Conservation among Extension Clients. Journal of Agricultural Education, 58(3), 185–202.
Kuper, A., Lingard, L., & Levinson, W. (2008). Critically appraising qualitative research. Bmj, 337.
Kusumawati, I., & Huang, H.-W. (2015). Key factors for successful management of marine protected areas: A comparison of stakeholders׳ perception of two MPAs in Weh island, Sabang, Aceh, Indonesia. Marine Policy, 51, 465–475.
Lapointe, B. E., Brewton, R. A., Herren, L. W., Porter, J. W., & Hu, C. (2019). Nitrogen enrichment, altered stoichiometry, and coral reef decline at Looe Key, Florida Keys, USA: A 3-decade study. Marine Biology, 166(8), 1–31.
Lavelle, M. J., Rau, H., & Fahy, F. (2015). Different shades of green? Unpacking habitual and occasional pro-environmental behavior. Global Environmental Change, 35, 368–378.
Legare, C. H., Akhauri, S., Chaudhuri, I., Hashmi, F. A., Johnson, T., Little, E. E., Lunkenheimer, H. G., Mandelbaum, A., Mandlik, H., & Mondal, S. (2020). Perinatal risk and the cultural ecology of health in Bihar, India. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 375(1805), 20190433.
Leisher, C., Mangubhai, S., Hess, S., Widodo, H., Soekirman, T., Tjoe, S., Wawiyai, S., Larsen, S. N., Rumetna, L., & Halim, A. (2012). Measuring the benefits and costs of community education and outreach in marine protected areas. Marine Policy, 36(5), 1005–1011.
Lenihan, H. S., Gallagher, J. P., Peters, J. R., Stier, A. C., Hofmeister, J. K. K., & Reed, D. C. (2021). Evidence that spillover from Marine Protected Areas benefits the spiny lobster (Panulirus interruptus) fishery in southern California. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 1–9.
Littledyke, M. (2008). Science education for environmental awareness: Approaches to integrating cognitive and affective domains. Environmental Education Research, 14(1), 1–17.
Liu, J., Ouyang, Z., & Miao, H. (2010). Environmental attitudes of stakeholders and their perceptions regarding protected area-community conflicts: A case study in China. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(11), 2254–2262.
Lundquist, C. J., & Granek, E. F. (2005). Strategies for successful marine conservation: Integrating socioeconomic, political, and scientific factors. Conservation Biology, 19(6), 1771–1778.
Mahyuni, L. P. (2016). Corporate social responsibility of hotels in Bali–Indonesia: practices, drivers and barriers.
Mainzer, S., & Luloff, A. E. (2017). Informing environmental problems through field analysis: Toward a community landscape theory of pro-environmental behavior. Community Development, 48(4), 483–498.
Maki, A., Carrico, A. R., Raimi, K. T., Truelove, H. B., Araujo, B., & Yeung, K. L. (2019). Meta-analysis of pro-environmental behaviour spillover. Nature Sustainability, 2(4), 307–315.
Mangubhai, S., Sykes, H., Manley, M., Vukikomoala, K., & Beattie, M. (2020). Contributions of tourism-based Marine Conservation Agreements to natural resource management in Fiji. Ecological Economics, 171, 106607.
Marshall, B., Cardon, P., Poddar, A., & Fontenot, R. (2013). Does sample size matter in qualitative research?: A review of qualitative interviews in IS research. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 54(1), 11–22.
Mason, M. (2010). Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative interviews. In: Forum qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: qualitative social research.
McKinley, E., & Ballinger, R. C. (2018). Welsh legislation in a new era: A stakeholder perspective for coastal management. Marine Policy, 97, 253–261.
McLeod, E., & Palmer, M. (2015). Why conservation needs religion. Coastal Management, 43(3), 238–252.
McLeod, E., Szuster, B., & Salm, R. (2009). Sasi and marine conservation in Raja Ampat. Indonesia. Coastal Management, 37(6), 656–676.
Milfont, T. L. (2007). Psychology of environmental attitudes. Unpublished doctoral thesis, The University of Auckland, Auckland, NZ.
Monbiot, G. (2017). Out of the wreckage: A new politics for an age of crisis. Verso Books.
Moran, E. F. (2016). People and nature: An introduction to human ecological relations. John Wiley & Sons.
Morse, J. M. (2000). Determining sample size.
Moura, C. O. de, Silva, Í. R., Silva, T. P. da, Santos, K. A., Crespo, M. da C. A., & Silva, M. M. da (2021). Methodological path to reach the degree of saturation in qualitative research: grounded theory. Revista Brasileira de Enfermagem, 75.
Naiman, S. M., Stedman, R. C., & Schuldt, J. P. (2023). Latine culture and the environment: How familism and collectivism predict environmental attitudes and behavioral intentions among US Latines. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 85, 101902.
Nordfjærn, T., Şimşekoğlu, Ö., & Rundmo, T. (2014). The role of deliberate planning, car habit and resistance to change in public transportation mode use. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 27, 90–98.
Nyumba, O., & T., Wilson, K., Derrick, C. J., and Mukherjee, N. (2018). The use of focus group discussion methodology: Insights from two decades of application in conservation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 9(1), 20–32.
Pandolfi, J. M., Connolly, S. R., Marshall, D. J., & Cohen, A. L. (2011). Projecting coral reef futures under global warming and ocean acidification. science, 333(6041), 418–422.
Parker, L., & Prabawa-Sear, K. (2019). Environmental Education in Indonesia: Creating Responsible Citizens in the Global South? Routledge.
Parsons, E. C. M., MacPherson, R., & Villagomez, A. (2017). Marine “conservation”: You keep using that word but I don’t think it means what you think it means. Frontiers in Marine Science, 4, 299.
Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. Sage publications. https://books.google.co.id/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ovAkBQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Qualitative+research+%26+evaluation+methods:+Integrating+theory+and+practice&ots=ZR309xxBA-&sig=Lk2EqeEpN2SvdDzDnVgkZB8s_3M&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Qualitative%20research%20%26%20evaluation%20methods%3A%20Integrating%20theory%20and%20practice&f=false
Pedju, F. M. K. (2018). Stakeholders’ perceptions of the impacts of tourism on the social and ecological resilience of marine protected areas in Bali, Indonesia.
Prasetia, D., Supriharyono, M., Anggoro, S., & Sya’Rani, L. (2017). Coral Bleaching on Lembongan Island, Nusa Penida, Bali. In: . Atlantis Press.
Principe, P., Bradley, P., Yee, S., Fisher, W., Johnson, E., Allen, P., & Campbell, D. (2012). Quantifying coral reef ecosystem services. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Research Triangle Park, NC.
Puspasari, R., Wiadnyana, N. N., Hartati, S. T., Rachmawati, R., & Yahya, Y. (2020). The Effectiveness of Artificial Reefs in Improving Ecosystem Health to Increase Coral Reef Resilience. Jurnal Segara, 16(2), 115–126.
Ramos, J., Lino, P. G., Himes-Cornell, A., & Santos, M. N. (2019). Local fishermen’s perceptions of the usefulness of artificial reef ecosystem services in Portugal. PeerJ, 6, e6206.
Rizzi, F., Annunziata, E., Contini, M., & Frey, M. (2020). On the effect of exposure to information and self-benefit appeals on consumer’s intention to perform pro-environmental behaviours: A focus on energy conservation behaviours. Journal of Cleaner Production, 270, 122039.
Rokicka, E. (2002). Attitudes toward natural environment: A study of local community dwellers. International Journal of Sociology, 32(3), 78–90.
Romañach, S. S., DeAngelis, D. L., Koh, H. L., Li, Y., Teh, S. Y., Barizan, R. S. R., & Zhai, L. (2018). Conservation and restoration of mangroves: Global status, perspectives, and prognosis. Ocean & Coastal Management, 154, 72–82. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0964569117301710
Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. sage.
Santos, M. N., & Monteiro, C. C. (1997). The Olhao artificial reef system (south Portugal): Fish assemblages and fishing yield. Fisheries Research, 30(1–2), 33–41.
Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. In: Advances in experimental social psychology. Elsevier, 221–279.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In: Advances in experimental social psychology. Elsevier, 1–65.
Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 919–2307.
SER. (2004). Society for ecological restoration international science & policy working group.
Shani, A., Polak, O., & Shashar, N. (2012). Artificial reefs and mass marine ecotourism. Tourism Geographies, 14(3), 361–382.
Sigit, D. V, Miarsyah, M., Komala, R., Suryanda, A., Fadrikal, R., & Ichsan, I. Z. (2019). Improvement of knowledge and attitude in conservation of mangrove and coral reefs through environmental education community network model. In: . IOP Publishing, 12201.
Stafford, R., & Jones, P. J. S. (2019a). Viewpoint-Ocean plastic pollution: A convenient but distracting truth? Marine Policy, 103, 187–191.
Stafford, R. & Jones, P. J. S., (2019b). We should not separate out environmental issues, but the current approach to plastic pollution can be a distraction from meaningful action. A response to Avery-Gomm et al. Marine Policy, 107, 103585.
Steg, L. E., & De Groot, J. I. M. (2018). Environmental psychology: An introduction. Wiley.
Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(3), 309–317.
Stem, C. J., Lassoie, J. P., Lee, D. R., & Deshler, D. J. (2003). How’eco’is ecotourism? A comparative case study of ecotourism in Costa Rica. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 11(4), 322–347.
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G. A., & Kalof, L. (1999). A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Human ecology review, 81–97.
Strieder Philippssen, J., Soares Angeoletto, F. H., & Santana, R. G. (2017). Education level and income are important for good environmental awareness: A case study from south Brazil. Ecología Austral, 27(1), 39–44.
Sujarwoto, S., Tampubolon, G., & Pierewan, A. C. (2018). Individual and contextual factors of happiness and life satisfaction in a low middle income country. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 13(4), 927–945.
Sully, S., Burkepile, D. E., Donovan, M. K., Hodgson, G., & Van Woesik, R. (2019). A global analysis of coral bleaching over the past two decades. Nature Communications, 10(1), 1–5.
Suparno, N., Currier, K., Milner, C., Alling, A., & Dustan, P. (2019). Ecological changes in the coral reef communities of Indonesia’s Bali Barat National Park, 2011–2016. Atoll Res Bull, 620, 1–35. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5479/SI.0077-5630.620
Susiloningtyas, D., Handayani, T., & Amalia, A. N. (2018). The impact of coral reefs destruction and climate change in Nusa Dua and Nusa Penida, Bali, Indonesia. In: . IOP Publishing, 12054.
Suteja, Y., Atmadipoera, A. S., Riani, E., Nurjaya, I. W., Nugroho, D., & Cordova, M. R. (2021). Spatial and temporal distribution of microplastic in surface water of tropical estuary: Case study in Benoa Bay, Bali. Indonesia. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 163, 111979.
Syam, A. R., Edrus, I. N., & Hartati, S. T. (2017). Coral fish population changes in the surrounding artificial reefs of the Lebah coastal waters, Karangasem. Bali. Indonesian Fisheries Research Journal, 13(2), 101–116.
Terrier, L., & Marfaing, B. (2015). Using social norms and commitment to promote pro-environmental behavior among hotel guests. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 44, 10–15.
Tito, C. K., Ampou, E. E., & Wibawa, T. A. (2019). Stressor-Response of Reef-Building Corals to Climate Change in the Menjangan Island, West Bali National Park, Indonesia. In: . IOP Publishing, 12011.
Trialfhianty, T. I. (2017). The role of the community in supporting coral reef restoration in Pemuteran, Bali. Indonesia. Journal of Coastal Conservation, 21(6), 873–882.
Ulhasanah, N., & Goto, N. (2018). Assessment of citizens’ environmental behavior toward municipal solid waste management for a better and appropriate system in Indonesia: A case study of Padang City. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, 20(2), 1257–1272.
Varela-Candamio, L., Novo-Corti, I., & García-Álvarez, M. T. (2018). The importance of environmental education in the determinants of green behavior: A meta-analysis approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 170, 1565–1578.
Waayers, D., Lee, D., & Newsome, D. (2012). Exploring the nature of stakeholder collaboration: A case study of marine turtle tourism in the Ningaloo region. Western Australia. Current Issues in Tourism, 15(7), 673–692.
Wager, E., & Williams, P. (2013). “Hardly worth the effort”? Medical journals’ policies and their editors’ and publishers’ views on trial registration and publication bias: quantitative and qualitative study. Bmj, 347.
Wardana, A. (2019). Contemporary Bali: Contested Space and Governance. Palgrave Macmillan.
Wicaksana, I. B. A. (2020). 2020 Bali’s Coral Conservation: From pandemic challenge to Government coral garden project. Bali Tourism Journal, 4(2), 35–39.
Williams, K. C., & Page, R. A. (2011). Marketing to the generations. Journal of Behavioral Studies in Business, 3(1), 37–53.
Woo, E., & Kim, Y. G. (2019). Consumer attitudes and buying behavior for green food products: From the aspect of green perceived value (GPV). British Food Journal.
Woodhead, A. J., Hicks, C. C., Norström, A. V., Williams, G. J., & Graham, N. A. J. (2019). Coral reef ecosystem services in the Anthropocene. Functional Ecology, 33(6), 1023–1034.
Yunitawati, D. & Clifton, J. (2019). Governance in the early stages of marine protected area development: A case study of Nusa Penida District Marine Conservation Area, Indonesia. Marine Policy, 103653.
Zhao, Q., Stephenson, F., Lundquist, C., Kaschner, K., Jayathilake, D., & Costello, M. J. (2020). Where Marine Protected Areas would best represent 30% of ocean biodiversity. Biological Conservation, 244, 108536.
Funding
Zach Boakes, the first author, was supported by a studentship with Bournemouth University, UK, as well receiving the 2021 ‘Emerging Scientist’ grant from Earthwatch Institute. Luh Putu Mahyuni was supported by Universitas Pendidikan Nasional through a research grant scheme number: 136/I-5/UND/III/2021.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Zach Boakes wrote most of the manuscript (with contributions from all authors) and carried out the fieldwork. Luh Putu Mahyuni designed the research questions, carried out the fieldwork and assisted with obtaining local research permits. Rick Stafford originally presented the idea of the research and supervised throughout, alongside Alice Hall. Marin Cvitanovic provided critical feedback throughout, which helped shape the design of the paper.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Permits
A research permit was obtained from Indonesia’s Ministry of Research (BRIN). Research permit number: 15/SIP.EXT/IV/FR/5/2023.
Research Ethic
We further confirm that any aspect of the work covered has involved human participants was approved by the Bournemouth University Ethics Committee (reference number: 37431). Written consent to publish potentially identifying information, such as details or the case and photographs, was obtained from the patient(s) or their legal guardian(s).
Conflict of Interest
Author (ZAB) was involved with the initial start-up and management of NGO. He personally knew some of the participants, which may be considered as potential competing interests. Participants responses were anonymised throughout. After fieldwork finished, research results were presented to local stakeholders to maintain objectivity. ZAB declares no financial conflicts of interest. All other researchers had connections with the NGO and declare no other conflicts of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Boakes, Z., Mahyuni, L.P., Hall, A.E. et al. Can Coral Reef Restoration Programmes Facilitate Changes in Environmental Attitudes? A Case Study on a Rural Fisher Community in North Bali, Indonesia. Hum Ecol 51, 891–905 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-023-00452-7
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-023-00452-7