The provisioning services represented by food production in the village forests do not provide the same services value as carbon storage. The composition of land use and local accessibility to the village forest differentiates the value of the sago plantation production. Unlike the six other village forests, sago plantations hardly exist in Lukun, as the forest is in a remote location more than 17 kilometers from the Lukun settlements. In contrast, vast sago plantations exist in Sungai Tohor Barat, Sungai Tohor, Nipah Sendanu, and Sendanu Darul Ikhsan, and most sago starch mills are scattered among these villages. Sungai Tohor Barat has 301.54 hectares of sago plantations, which are mostly owned by a landlord who also owns a sago starch mill on the shore. The 13 sago starch mills owned by local Sungai Tohor villagers also boost the sago production in the neighboring villages, including in the six village forests. Discussion with the local community and LPHDs about sago production as part of the ecosystem services program allowed by the government increased motivation to manage the production zones of the village forests. According to the social forestry regulation, the village forests are divided into conservation and cultivation zones. However, the community already understood that according to the peat ecosystem characteristics of the village forests, peat preservation is a crucial part of the sago plantation system.

In the planning process of each village forest, LPHDs have their own strategy to maximize the space for the community needs. For example, Sungai Tohor divides its village forest into areas for forest conservation and for food production, where the food production areas are designated for sago plantations. They proposed that some of the sago areas be designated for shared management while the status of the remainder is still being negotiated with the owners, especially those not from the village.

## 12.4.4 Cultural Services Identification

Placing value on non-monetary services shifts the motivation of the local community from economic benefits (for example from timber collection) to preserving the natural peat ecosystem. The most apparent result of this shift was the noticeable local interest in ecotourism. From the local perspective, peat ecotourism is a system that balances the peat biodiversity and water conservation with the sago (or any other agriculture) production, together with improvements of living standards.

The Sungai Tohor villagers, pioneering peat conservation environmentalists, have already established a 14.57-hectare site for ecotourism and research. In 2018, 30–40 visiting domestic and international researchers, NGO staff, members of the media, and tourists visited this site.

The Sungai Tohor peat forest ecotourism and sago education site is about 5 km from the local harbor, while the mangrove ecotourism attraction is 2 km closer (Fig. 12.6). Unlike the peat forest, the mangrove ecotourism area has attracted more than 100 visitors per month. The village government collects entrance fee revenue and uses it for infrastructure development, such as the road access to the mangrove site and maintenance of tourism facilities. Ecotourism has not yet been implemented in the other villages due to a lack of accessibility and the composition of land use; for example, in Tanjung Sari and Sungai Tohor Barat villages, most land is used for plantations and settlements.

The benefits of peat ecotourism include education via peat forest monitoring, improved living conditions, sago agro-ecosystem education, sago production,

Fig. 12.6 Sungai Tohor ecotourism site

community involvement in peat conservation, endemic tree species planting, protection of canal water levels, and protection of the natural peat forest. Peat ecotourism also offers aesthetic value by allowing a mixed landscape of peat forest, sago plantations, sustainable sago production systems, and sago home industries. Although the ecotourism program of Sungai Tohor Village has not yet been formally established, the fame of the village as a peat research site and the eagerness of local environmentalist community have already demonstrated the benefits of peat ecotourism. The composition of the peat landscape, from the peat dome forest to the shore (Fig. 12.7), creates an ideal sustainable peat forest ecosystem, highlighted by a sequenced transfer of energy to sago food production.

This sequence begins with the peat forest in the peat dome, which intersects with the village forest (Fig. 12.7). This section consists of walking along the peat track routes and planting trees. At lower elevations, sago is harvested from the sago plantations. Local activities around the processing of the harvested sago take place in the sago starch mills and various sago industries—including home industries. Distribution and sales of sago is then conducted in the markets and at the shipping port. This geolocation introduces tropical peat village ecotourism, attracts visitors, and improves the locals' standard of living with the enjoyment of the forest scenery, clear air, and abundant water for swimming and fishing. The sustainable sago

Fig. 12.7 Composition of a tropical peat ecotourism model

production system together with the forest scenery and clean air provide aesthetic value, which encourages visitors to support the ecotourism program's revenue generation.

Fresh air, birdsongs, forest cover, and abundant water provide aesthetic value to the location. The improved aesthetic value together with the sustainable semitraditional sago production systems in turn create socio-cultural value. It is impossible to quantify these values in the spatial assessment, but for future valuations of cultural services, the spatial information, together with the monitoring of village forest management, will be able to supplement a qualitative approach. Biodiversity enrichment through tree planting and peat education in the form of research activity and ecotourism have also become part of cultural services in the broader scope of forest management.

#### 12.5 Conclusion

The peat ecosystem service valuation conducted for this study was determined by spatial data utilization, community participation, and the coverage area of valuation. However, the purpose of this study was also to support the LPHD members in their village forest management by providing the services data. Based on the results of this approach, we agree with the prioritization of ecological values to conserve the remaining forest to ensure the sustainability of peatlands. However, trading carbon may not be a feasible mechanism to conserve the peat forest at the local village level. On the contrary, the persistent efforts of local environmentalists such as the LPHD members to conserve and enrich the natural peat biodiversity has attracted not only the Indonesian government, but also international organizations and researchers to support conservation action.

The participatory role of the community (mainly implemented via the LPHD members) is essential for residents to quickly understand the holistic character of the local natural resources. The LiDAR datapoints and aerial photographs were able to capture the natural resource assets using a simplified scientific method, which is useful for the initial valuation, and the LPHD can further evaluate ecosystem services using drone images. The spatial assessment with active community participation contributed to a more comprehensive local understanding of the tropical peat ecosystem. The integrated spatial assessment involved community participation based on local environmental knowledge. The keys to the success of assessment were its modest techniques, community participation, and quantifiable values.

The village social forestry scheme has accommodated the rights of use regarding state forest land. In the case of the seven villages of this study, the absence of customary land (Tanah Adat), non-contested village boundaries, and community control over the village forests are advantages for the village community in their management of the village forests. Conserving the natural condition of the 74% secondary forest cover in the seven village forests has become an ecological priority for the local communities, and ecosystem services can be considered a basis for sustainable management. The contribution of the remaining peat and mangrove forests to above ground carbon stocks varies according to each designated village forest. The tremendous peat forest volume in Lukun Village is quite valuable in this regard, with the other six village peat forests following behind. Preservation of natural forest in peat domes stabilizes the hydrology system, which is necessary for sago plantations.

The local people prefer the eco-friendly economic communal benefit as the basis for estimating the value of ecosystem services. The active community participation in the food production assessment suggested that sago could be considered a shared asset. The ecosystem service approach not only promoted economic benefits for sago plantation shareholders and conservation of the remaining forest, but also broke the perception that ecosystem services should be treated as a hindrance. The local community has realized that the socio-cultural value of cultural services is mainly non-monetary. However, some village communities have started to establish tropical peat ecotourism not only to reap educational, aesthetic, and socio-cultural values, but also to generate support for the local economy. Therefore, a social forestry scheme with economic, socio-cultural, and ecological considerations motivates the community to achieve sustainable peat forest management.

#### References

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), 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 license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license 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.

## Chapter 13 Conclusion

Takamasa Osawa, Wahyu Prasetyawan, Akhwan Binawan, and Masaaki Okamoto

Abstract The issues, stakeholders, and solutions related to the peatland problem cannot be easily defined or easily addressed. The problem can thus be seen as one of today's "wicked problems," which have no true or false solutions, but rather better or worse ones. In addressing this kind of problem, academic researchers and NGO staff can play an important role to identify social and ecological issues and their interrelationships, and to facilitate communication among local residents and other stakeholders. These activities should be done as continuous and flexible collaboration with local communities to find the better solutions to the peatland problem—or to realize a better future for society—together with those involved in the problem. This is the transdisciplinary approach that the authors seek.

Keywords Complexity of the peatland problem · Transdisciplinary approach · Collaboration · Commitment

## 13.1 The Peatland Problem: Defying Definitive Formulation

This volume addresses a range of issues that emerge from the peatland degradation and fires occurring in Indonesia. It specifically looks at the local governance of peatland, using Rantau Baru Village in Riau Province as its main case study.

W. Prasetyawan

Syarif Hidayatullah Islamic State University, Tangerang Selatan, Banten, Indonesia

A. Binawan

#### M. Okamoto Center for Southeast Asian Studies, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan

T. Osawa (✉)

Institute of Liberal Arts and Science, Kanazawa University, Kanazawa, Ishikawa, Japan e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Perkumpulan Ara Sati Hakiki, Jl. Kayu Putih, Perumahan Athaya IV, Pekanbaru, Riau, Indonesia

Researchers from a range of academic and activist backgrounds participated in the investigation, allowing them to address the issues from multiple perspectives.

First analyzing the mapping of peatlands, the volume immediately identifies the dysfunction of government policies in both the formulation and implementation of spatial planning (Chap. 2). The volume then turns to Rantau Baru, investigating the link between land use and villagers' aspirations for the future (Chap. 3). The next two chapters examine fishing in the Kampar River, as it is the main source of livelihood in the village. Chapter 4 points to the decrease of fish resources in recent years in village fishing grounds, while Chap. 5 highlights the limits of traditional fishing methods and the potential of fishing tourism for village development. The following five chapters shed light on the social issues that emerged in Rantau Baru during the process of implementing government policies to prevent peatland fires and improve livelihoods. These social dimensions include the idealized promotion of local wisdom (Chap. 6), unequal gender participation in village spatial planning (Chap. 7), the asymmetry of political power in decision-making about village budget expenditures (Chap. 8), the impact of low incomes and limited access to education on environmental protection measures implemented in cash-poor areas (Chap. 9), and the consequences of land grabbing (Chap. 10). Chapters 11 and 12 examine government policies aimed at addressing peatland degradation and fires in two additional villages in Riau. Chapter 11 highlights how government programs have accelerated economic disparities, while Chap. 12 examines the advantages of promoting ecosystem services valuation to achieve sustainable peatland use. Several chapters provide concrete suggestions to resolve or mitigate the issues raised. These suggestions include establishing a freshwater protected area (Chap. 4), promoting fishing tourism from urban areas (Chap. 5), and expanding customary common lands with the support of the district government (Chap. 10). The authors in this volume have concretely engaged with the social and ecological problems affecting peatlands, committed to affected communities, and collaborated with the various actors involved—that is, we have carried out the transdisciplinary approach we believed is necessary to address peatland degradation in its real complexity.

Although we summarize various issues emerging around peatlands as "the peatland problem," the chapters confirm that the problem also involves a wide range of inter-related environmental and social challenges. For example, while increasing global carbon emissions (Chap. 1) and land grabbing (Chap. 10) are each distinct problems of their own, they are also caused by the exploitation of the peat environment. Responses to such problems are also inextricably linked, as the response to any one issue may create new challenges. For example, as demonstrated in Chaps. 8 and 12, policies that support the prevention of peatland fires exacerbated the inequality of political and economic power in local communities. While the peatland problem begins with the drainage, drying, and burning of peatlands, these actions in turn cause a cascade of additional, and distinct, social and environmental problems that is not completely predictable. Therefore, the "peatland problem" cannot be definitively formulated in any single dimension.

Similarly, the agencies of the stakeholders involved in the peatland problem cannot be addressed in a formulaic way. Stakeholders' attempts to respond to (or ignore) peat degradation and fire are complex and sometimes contradictory. These responses therefore cannot be simplified into a single motivation or trajectory. For example, while the central government has adopted a moratorium policy on peatland development, it has not yet taken steps to ban peatland development in a strong and effective manner (Chap. 2); while oil palm companies provide a certain amount of budget to prevent peatland fires, they also promote the expansion of oil palm plantations that may cause or increase fire events (Chaps. 8 and 10); and, while villagers are threatened by frequent peatland fires and strongly concerned about the future of their community, they also sell peatland to outsiders, plant oil palm, and drain peatlands themselves (Chaps. 3 and 10). The peatland problem is the product of a complex interplay of diverse stakeholders' knowledge, interests, and aspirations. It is therefore impossible to assign stakeholders' attitudes to a reductive dichotomy of development versus conservation.

In this situation, we cannot identify a single formulated or fixed solution to the peatland problem. Trade-offs between environmental conservation and economic activities are complex phenomena that cannot be solved with a simple to-do list. Banning peatland use entirely, for example, may deprive local people of their economic development potential and lead to poverty, even in areas where oil palm can be grown without causing fire. Or it may create new, unpredictable patterns of peatland exploitation that leads to increased fire incidents and ecosystem degradation.

In short, the issues, stakeholders, and solutions related to the peatland problem cannot be easily defined or easily addressed. Peatland degradation is one of today's "wicked problems", with "no definitive formulation, no stopping rule, and no test for a solution" (Ludwig 2001, p. 759; see also Rittel and Webber 1973). Such problems have no true or false solutions, but rather have "better or worse" or "satisfying or unsatisfying" ones (Rittel and Webber 1973, pp. 162–163). Fundamentally, there is no single solution to the peatland problem, because with each response, new challenges arise, including the breakdown of ecosystems and conflicts between stakeholders.

## 13.2 A Transdisciplinary Approach: Continuously Directed toward the Future

How, then, given its local, national, regional, and global significance, should the peatland problem be addressed? One possible way is to promote understandings of how different stakeholders think about the peatland problem and to increase mutual understanding among them (Ludwig 2001). As noted above, the motivations and orientations of stakeholders are not one-dimensional or held in isolation. Each actor has unique intentions, interests, and desires formed in a complex social context. Promoting mutual understanding of these intentions, interests, and desires positively impact communication, negotiation, and cooperation among different stakeholders, which can contribute to "better" solutions to the peatland problem.

It is also necessary to pay attention to the specific interface where the concrete social and environmental issues of the peatland problem emerge—that is, the local communities and the environment around them. Each location has its own unique social and environmental characteristics, to which no one-size-fits-all solution can be applied. Even within a location, a variety of social and environmental issues result from peatland degradation and fires, and one issue may cause several additional and inter-related issues to emerge. These must be addressed in both concrete and longterm ways. Given that long-term and detailed efforts are required, the main agents of peatland restoration activities are the people of local communities. However, central and local governments, companies, and urban residents are also principal drivers of the peatland problem; local people do not have sufficient capital or labor to address the problem alone (Chap. 6). Therefore, all actors must be involved in solving the peatland problem, and appropriate support should be provided by non-locals who are also implicated in the problem.

Academic researchers and NGO staff play an important role in the pursuit of "better" solutions by: (1) identifying social and ecological issues and their interrelationships; and (2) facilitating communication among local residents and other stakeholders. These efforts require flexible, continuous, and tailor-made approaches to address the challenges that emerge in the community. Researchers and NGOs may not always provide innovative, ultimate, or universal solutions. However, given that the peatland problem involves so many stakeholders and at the same time affects such a broad array of social and environmental conditions, it is necessary to maintain continuous and patient responses, staying close to and following up on issues as they emerge in the local community and surrounding environment.

With this outlook in mind, the researchers involved in this investigation have begun to implement suggestions to mitigate or solve the social and ecosystem challenges in Rantau Baru. Here, recent negotiations with the district government around customary land rights and the conservation of floodplains and peat swamps along the Kampar River are of particular importance.

First, to strengthen customary land rights, we are working to reinforce mutual understanding between the villagers and district government officials under the initiative of the local NGO, Hakiki. From 2020 to 2022, we held several meetings with senior officials of the Pelalawan District government, in which we presented maps of Rantau Baru customary territory (Chap. 10) and requested protection of rights to customary territory.<sup>1</sup> In addition, in 2021, we produced a short film on honey collection from sialang trees (see Chap. 3), which demonstrated the village custom of maintaining the sialang forest as common lands. We also organized a workshop to screen the film in the village for government officials. We plan to hold

<sup>1</sup> This action was supported by the Association of Malay Adat (Lembaga Adat Melayu Riau), which requested the district head (bupati) of Pelalawan to protect sialang forests from deforestation by industries (Chap. 3).

similar workshops for additional stakeholders, including urban residents and oil palm/acacia companies. Although these meetings and workshops will not immediately change the situation in Rantau Baru, the maps will be an important reference when the district government designates the adat area (wilayah adat: see Chap. 10), and demonstration of customary management of sialang forests appearing in the film will support negotiations aimed at strengthening the customary rights of the villagers.

Second, in October 2022, we began a new project to establish protected areas in the floodplain and swamps of Rantau Baru. As mentioned in Chap. 3, during the last decade, oil palm plantations have been expanding onto the floodplain and peat swamps near the Kampar River. However, most of the palm trees planted in these areas were destroyed by seasonal floods and are not providing sufficient returns to the villagers (see Chap. 3). Wetlands are drained for oil palm plantations, destroying the submerged forests and peat swamps that provide important spawning grounds and habitat for small fishes at the bottom of the river's food chain (see Chap. 4). Protecting these wetlands will increase fish resources in the future. As part of our project, ecologists and social scientists will assess the social and ecological processes associated with these protection activities. Hakiki members are also working to spread awareness of the potential of protection areas. The villagers have begun to embrace the aims of the protection activities and actively engage in discussing the details of the protection scheme.

These activities do not provide ultimate solutions to the various issues that have emerged due to peatland degradation and fire in the village. It is also quite possible that our attempts will give rise to new issues. However, what characterizes our activities is our continuous and flexible engagement with the social and environmental issues in the village, including any new issues that may emerge. In this process, Rantau Baru villagers, NGO activists, university researchers, local government officials, and other stakeholders are closely linked and work together in a collaboration. This is done to find better solutions to the peatland problem —or, to realize a better future for the society—together with those involved in the problem. This ongoing and dynamic commitment to the village community is the transdisciplinary approach we believe is necessary to mitigate and resolve the highly complex and mixed-interest problems of peatland degradation and fire.

#### References

Ludwig D (2001) The era of management is over. Ecosystems 4(8):758–764. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10021-001-0044-x

Rittel HWG, Webber MM (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory planning. Policy Sci 4(2):155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), 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 license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license 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.

## Column 1: Using Small, Unmanned Aircraft (Drones) to Create Maps

Kazuo Watanabe, Akhwan Binawan, and Masaaki Okamoto Center for Southeast Asian Studies, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan Perkumpulan Ara Sati Hakiki, Jl. Kayu Putih, Perumahan Athaya IV, Pekanbaru, Riau, Indonesia

Around 2014, the use of small, unmanned aircraft called drones began to spread throughout the world. The most common uses for drones include video and landscape photography. It is also possible to create ground images of large areas by overlaying multiple photos taken by drones. Although it is possible to do the same with high-resolution satellite imagery, such as that used to create the village map described in Chap. 2, it is difficult to obtain clear images of the entire area of interest with satellite imagery due to the influence of clouds and the high cost, therefore the use of drones to create maps has been spreading rapidly recently. In our research in M Village, we attempted to create a base map for a part of the RW1 hamlet. To do this, local NGOs flew drones over the area to obtain cloud-free, timely, and higher resolution images than satellite images.

The area surrounded by the red frame in Fig. 1 was set in advance by the flight plan creation software, and a drone was flown over the area with DJI's Phantom 3 Professional with automatic navigation. The actual flight took about 4 h (not including preparation and waiting time due to sudden changes in weather conditions) to cover an area of 412 hectares, including lectures to local NGO staff so that they can continue to operate the drone in the future, and acquired 3500 images. The acquired photos were processed by SfM (Structure from Motion) using Agisoft's Metashape (formerly PhotoScan) to create a single orthomosaic image. The ground resolution of this image is 5 cm, or ten times finer than the WorldView satellite image.

Figure 2 compares a satellite image and a drone image, and demonstrates how clear the image acquired by the drone is. In addition, since the drone flies at a low altitude of about 100 meters above the ground, no cloud cover obscures the ground,

Fig. 1 Automatic navigation route of drone above Village M (Photo taken by Watanabe, February 2016)

Fig. 2 WorldView satellite image (Left: photo provided by © 2016 Maxar Technologies) and the drone image (right) of Village M (Photo taken by Watanabe, February 2016)

as is the case with manned aircraft and satellite images. By using drones, we can acquire images of the necessary locations by ourselves whenever we need them, making it very convenient when updating maps.

However, mapping with drones also has its limitations. The most important of these is the range of images that can be taken. During our study, the actual flight time took approximately 4 h, but the battery lasted only less than 20 minutes, forcing us to raise and lower the drone about 20 times to change the battery. In addition, as we only brought six batteries to the site, so even though we recharged them during the flight, they could not recharge fast enough, resulting in a very long standby time. Therefore, it actually took two full days to capture only one part of one RW. Since it would take about 1 month to acquire data for the entire M Village using this drone, improvements such as increasing the number of drones or using a type of drone with a longer flight time capacity are necessary. In addition, as the number of images taken becomes enormous, high-specification workstations with the ability to create orthomosaic images will also be necessary. It has become clear that there are also hardware issues that must be resolved when using drones to create wide-area village maps.

## Column 2: Questionnaire Survey in Rantau Baru

Wahyu Prasetyawan and Takamasa Osawa

Syarif Hidayatullah Islamic State University, Tangerang Selatan, Banten, Indonesia Institute of Liberal Arts and Science, Kanazawa University, Kanazawa, Ishikawa, Japan

The main research site of Chaps. 3–10 is the village of Rantau Baru, where our multidisciplinary research team conducted various research activities, including participant observation and interviews, online interviews (see Column 3), participatory mapping (Binawan and Osawa, Chap. 10), and a household questionnaire survey. Table 1 outlines the survey, which is frequently referred to in the chapters; the complete set of questions is available in Appendix 1.

After preparing the questions regarding the six main topics noted in Table 1, we conducted two pre-tests to confirm the relevance and adjust the content and wording of the questions. The pre-tests revealed that the overly scientific and complicated language of some questions were a barrier and that older respondents found it difficult to understand the official Indonesian language used in the questions. Based on this feedback, we revised the questionnaire several times before finalizing a total of 123 questions.

The survey targeted all 164 houses that had registered residents living in the village on January 27, 2020. The "head of household" (kepala keluarga) is a role addressed in the Indonesian family register. Usually, the husband of a married couple living in the same house takes this role, while an ex-wife or widow comes to take it in the case of divorce or bereavement. In some cases, more than one head of household lived in a house. Considering the gender balance of the interviewees, we selected one respondent from each house, either the head of household or their spouse. One NGO member and six post-graduate students from Riau University who are well versed in the local dialect of Malay stayed in the village and conducted the survey through face-to-face interviews. They were able to gather responses from 152 of the 164 houses in Rantau Baru, or 94% of the total.

Table 1 Parameters of the Questionnaire Survey in Rantau Baru Village

## Column 3: Fieldwork during the Covid-19 Pandemic

Kurniawati Hastuti Dewi, Akhwan Binawan, and Takamasa Osawa Research Center for Politics, National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN), Jakarta Selatan, Indonesia Perkumpulan Ara Sati Hakiki, Jl. Kayu Putih, Perumahan Athaya IV, Pekanbaru, Riau, Indonesia Institute of Liberal Arts and Science, Kanazawa University, Kanazawa, Ishikawa, Japan

The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic that began in 2019 had become a significant global issue by 2020. As such, COVID-19 affected our research activities in Rantau Baru. The disease spread to Indonesia at the beginning of March 2020. By April 17, large-scale social restrictions referred to as the Pembatasan Sosial Berskala Besar (PSBB) were applied in the Riau provincial capital, Pekanbaru. By 12 May, the Ministry of Health (Kementerian Kesehatan) agreed to apply the PSBB in several other districts within Riau, including Pelalawan (Johanes 2020; Sehatnegeriku 2020). The PSBB imposed strong restrictions on crossing district and province borders. These restrictions were then imposed intermittently throughout 2020 and 2021.

After finishing the quantitative research questionnaire in February 2020, we intended to carry out qualitative research through fieldwork within the village. Due to the PSBB, however, it became impossible to visit Rantau Baru and communicate with the villagers. Therefore, we decided to conduct online meetings and interviews instead. Akhwan Binawan living in Pekanbaru visited Rantau Baru when the PSBB was temporally lifted (Fig. 3). As such, he was able to arrange the meetings and interviews.

The interviews, which involved 15 participants (five female, ten male), were conducted in November and December 2020. The selection procedure for the villagers was based on purposive sampling in that they were chosen to join the online interviews according to the purpose of the interview questions. As previously noted, targeted participants included village officials, traditional leaders, female

Fig. 3 After long days with no school due to Covid-19, the children of Rantau Baru came back to their elementary school. All children had their body temperatures checked before entering the classroom. (Photo taken by Binawan, September, 2021)

village leaders, leaders in women's farming groups such as the Kelompok Wanita Tani (KWT) and members of Pemberdayaan Kesejahteraan Keluarga (PKK). Binawan arranged the schedule so that a maximum of two respondents were interviewed per meeting or day. Before the online interviews, he met the respondents to ensure that no changes to the online interview schedule were needed and then arranged similar schedules for the following participants. On the day of each interview, Binawan met the respondents in their homes and brought them to nearest restaurant/coffee shop. Reservations for each location were made in advance to ensure a stable internet connection and a productive online interview. The duration of each interview was approximately 1 h per person. In these interviews, each researcher was located in either Japan or Jakarta and asked participants different questions according to their research focus.

Through the interviews, we obtained a variety of interesting data including villager experiences, detailed economic circumstances, opinions on peatland use, and historical anecdotes as shown in relevant chapters. In order to understand the respondents' opinions and experiences of the online interviews, we designed a simple feedback questionnaire. Each of the 15 participants completed the questionnaire after their interview. As shown in Table 2 below, the questionnaire consisted of nine questions.

Table 2 Impression of the online interviews

Interview results indicate that the majority of participants did not feel nervous before their interview. In addition, they did not experience more stress during online interviews compared to face-to-face interviews. In terms of the duration, the majority of participants did not feel this was a problem. Participants did not express any issues with having multiple interviewers either. The majority of participants did not indicate any problems with the interviewer's expressions (of words, attitude, and emotions on the monitor) or with listening to the audio through a loudspeaker. In terms of answering questions, most participants did not have any difficulty with explaining their thoughts. All participants were happy to attend an additional online interview, and most were willing to accept the researcher's visit from outside the district despite the pandemic.<sup>1</sup> This summary suggests that the online interviews went smoothly. This may be because the researchers had visited the village before (December 2018, August 2019, November 2019, and January and February 2020) and so the villagers knew the researchers beforehand.

Online interviews were not the ideal method to gather data due to difficulties such as lack of internet access alongside limited communication and interaction with respondents. In addition, as the researchers had not participated in the village life for a long time, it was often difficult to propose situational and timely questions to the participants. Nevertheless, based on our research, we noted some merits of online interviews. In terms of cost and time, online interviews were cheaper and more efficient compared to face-to-face interviews. In addition, online interviews enabled multiple researchers to propose different questions according to their focus. In turn, this allowed us to better understand issues with multidisciplinary perspectives. In sum, according to our research, online interviews can be a viable alternative to faceto-face interviews. When combined with other research methods such as fieldwork, online interviews contribute to a valid social science methodology in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic.

<sup>1</sup> Researcher's visits from outside the district during the pandemic were offered in the question on the following terms: "if the researchers are isolated for two weeks in a hotel in Pekanbaru before coming to the village."

## Appendix 1: Questionnaire

**House Code :**

**Interviewer Code :**

**Questionnaire Number :** (number interviewed )

**I. Start time of the interview: …………………………**

#### **1. Basic Information**

	- 1. Male 2. Female

	- 1. Not married
	- 2. Married
	- 3. Divorce
	- 4. Widow/Widower

#### Appendix 1: Questionnaire 305

	- 1. Islam 2. Catholic 3. Protestant

4. Others, please specify: …………………………

**6.** What is your **ethnicity** and your spouse's ethnicity?

1. Malay 2. Javanese 3. Batak 4. Minang 5. Chinese/Chinese Indonesian

	- 1. Meliling 2. Melayu Datok Mudo 3. Melayu Datok Tuo
	- 4. Coastal Malay 5. Others, Please specify: ……… 8. Don't know

#### **8.** What is the main **language** you speak at home?

**9. SHOW THE CARD B.** Do you strongly disagree **(STS),** disagree (**TS),** neutral (**N),** agree **(S),** or strongly agree **(SS)** with the statements below?

**10.** How many years have you **lived** in this village?

Write: …………………………………………… years

#### **11.** How many **children** (alive) do you have now?

…………… people

**12.** How old is each child now? What is gender?

#### **13.** How many people are living in this house?

**14.** What is **the main job** and **side job** (if any) of yourself and your husband/wife?

#### **15. SHOW THE CARD C.** Which job are you most proud of? (Choose any one)

1. Teacher 2. Doctor 3. Civil servant 4. Fisher 5. Farmer 6. Private employee

7. Lecture 8. Politician 9. Soldier 10. Police 11. Others, please specify: …………………

#### **2. Peatland Preservation**

**16.** Can you tell the difference between peatland and mineral soil?

1. Yes

2. No **skip to Question 23**

	- 1. Yes
	- 2. No ⇒ **skip to Question 23**
	- 1. Farming/Gardening
	- 2. Fish roasting
	- 3. No used

.....................................................................................................................................

**21.** Below are the various types of peatland utilization activities for farming/gardening that you do.

In your experience, which activities are usually carried out by women only, men only, or by both women and men?

#### **22. SHOW THE CARD E.** Where did you learn how to cultivate peatland? (Choose more than one)

#### **23. SHOW THE CARD F .** How often do you participate in training or socialization on peatland conservation?

#### **24. SHOW THE CARD B.** Do you strongly disagree **(SD),** disagree **(D),** neutral **(N),** agree **(A),** or strongly agree **(SA)** with the statements below?

**25. SHOW THE CARD G.** In the past year, how often have you received information about the construction and management of canal blocks and boreholes in this village?

	- **1.** Good enough
	- **2.** Deteriorating
	- **3.** Damaged

.....................................................................................................................................

**28. SHOW THE CARD H.** If there is a peatland management and conservation program implemented by the community in Rantau Baru and you can enjoy the benefits, and all the villagers share the costs together.

So, how much are you willing to pay for the program per month?

#### **30. SHOW THE CARD J.** How often have you met with the leader or members of MPA inthe past year?

#### **31.** (**For women only)**

**SHOW THE CARD J .** How often do you get involved in the activities of the following organizations/groups?

#### **3. Community Participation**

**32. SHOW THE CARD K.** In the last six years, how often have you attended the development planning meetings or musrenbang at each of the following levels? The event is held once a year.

	- 1. Yes
	- 2. No

#### **34. SHOW THE CARD J.** How often have you met the following people in the past year?

#### **4. Fisher Activities**

	- 1. Yes
	- 2. No ⇒ **skip to Question 45**
	- 1. Kampar River
	- 2. Canal created by companies
	- 3. Karang Lake
	- 4. Suwak Teluk Bederas
	- 5. Boko-Boko River
	- 6. Sepunjung Lake
	- 7. Others, mention: …………………………

#### **38. SHOW THE CARD M.** What equipment do you use to catch fish?

	- 1. Far More than 10 years ago
	- 2. More than 10 years ago
	- 3. Same
	- 4. Less than 10 years ago
	- 5**.** Far less than 10 years ago

**44.** The following is a profile of the daily activities of men and women in fishing families. Which activities are usually done by women only, men only, or byboth women and men ?

	- 1. Good enough
	- 2. Start decreasing
	- 3. Decreasing

So, how much are you willing to pay for the program per month?

4. Does not belong ⇒ **skip to Question 50**

**49.** In total, how many rowing boats and motorized boats do you own?

………………………………………………Boats

	- 1. Yes
	- 2. No ⇒ **skip to Question 53**
	- 1. Group
	- 2. Individual

Write: ……………………………………………………………………………

	- 1. Market
	- 2. Collector/agent
	- 3. Household/consumption ⇒ **skip to Question 55**
	- 4. Not processing fish ⇒ **skip to Question 55**

**54.** In the past three months, on average, how much is the price of processed fish per kilogram? Name the top three types of processed fish sold.

#### **5. Land Tenure**

	- 1. Around old road ⇒ **skip to Question 56**
	- 2. Around new road ⇒ **skip to Question 67**
	- 3. Next to Malako Kucik in Sei. Kampar ⇒ **skip to Qustion 78**
	- 4. Around the house ⇒ **skip to Question 89**
	- 5. Other places/villages, please specify: ………………………………………
	- ⇒ **skip to Question 100 6.** Never received/owned land ⇒ **skip to Question 111**

Describe: …………………………… ha

**57.** When was the land acquired? (you can name more than one)

Describe: ……………………………………………………

	- 1. Myself
	- 2. My Husband/Wife
	- 3. Biological father
	- 4. Biological mother
	- 5. Father-in-law
	- 6. Mother-in-law
	- 7. Son
	- 8. Daughter
	- 9. Grandson
	- 10. Granddaughter
	- 11. Others, please specify:………………………
	- 12. Have Never had the certificate
	- 88. Don't know

**59.** How was the land acquired? 1. Grant 2. Inheritance 3. Purchase 4. Pawn 5. Others, please specify: …………………………………………………………………………… **60.** What type of soil is it? 1. Peat 2. Mineral soil 3. Mix -more peat 4. Mix -more mineral soil **61.** Has the land ever been burned? If so, around what year? You can mention more than one if it burned several times. 1. Yes. Describe: year……………………,……………………,………………,…………… 2. Never **62.** Has the land been sold? If so, around what year was it sold? How many hectares were sold at that time? 1. Yes. Describe: year**A**.……………(**B.**……… ha) ⇒ **If all the land has been sold, skip to Question 67** 2. No **63.** What is the land used for? (You can answer more than one) 1. Palm 2. Shrubs 3. Forest 4. Don't use it for anything 5. Others, please specify: …………………………………………………………………………… **64.** If you are to sell the land to a villager with the same ethnicity, how would the sale price be? 1. Low price 2. Regular price 3. Expensive price 4. Unwilling to sell, even if the selling price is expensive **65.** If you are to sell the land to a person from this village with a differentethnicity, how would the sale price be? 1. Low price 2. Regular price 3. Expensive price 4. Unwilling to sell, even if the selling price is expensive

**66.** If you are to sell the land to someone from outside the village, how would the sale price be ?

#### **<2ɿNew Road>**

**67.** How much land is that? (total around the new road)

Describe: …………………………… ha

**68.** When did you get the land? (you can mention more than one)

Descibe: year ……………………………………………………

	- 1. Myself
	- 2. My husband/Wife
	- 3. Biological father
	- 4. Biological mother
	- 5. Father-in-law
	- 6. Mother-in-law
	- 7. Son
	- 8. Daughter
	- 9. Grandson
	- 10. Granddaughter
	- 11. Others, please specify:………………………
	- 12. Never had that letter
	- 88**.** Don't know

#### **70.** How was the land acquired?

	- 1. Peat
	- 2. Mineral soil
	- 3. Mix -more peat
	- 4. Mix -more mineral soil
	- 1. Yes. Describe: year……………………,……………………,………………,…………… 2. No role

2. No

#### Appendix 1: Questionnaire 317

	- 1. Palm
	- 2. Shrubs
	- 3. Forest
	- 4. No use for anything
	- 5. Others, please specify: ……………………………………………………………………………
	- 1. Low price
	- 2. Regular price
	- 3. High price
	- 4. Unwilling to sell, even if the selling price is expensive
	- 1. Low price
	- 2. Regular price
	- 3. High price
	- 4. Unwilling to sell, even if the selling price is expensive

**77.** If you sold the land to someone from outside the village, how would the sale price be?

#### **<3ɿNext to Malako Kucik in Sei. Kampar >**

**78.** How much land is that? (total land next to Malako Kucik)

Describe: …………………………… ha

**79.** When did you get the land? (you may mention more than one )

Describe: year ……………………………………………………

	- 1. Myself
	- 2. My husband/Wife
	- 3. Biological father
	- 4. Biological mother
	- 5. Father-in-law
	- 6. Mother-in-law
	- 7. Son
	- 8. Daughter
	- 9. Grandson
	- 10. Granddaughter
	- 11. Others, please specify:………………………
	- 12. Never had that letter
	- 88. Don't know

**<4ɿAround the House>**

	- 1. Low price
	- 2. Regular price
	- 3. High price
	- 4. Unwilling to sell, even if the selling price is high

**98.** How would the sale price be if you sell the land to a person from this village with a different ethnicity?

**99.** How would the sale price be if you sell the land to someone from outside the village?

#### **<5. Other places/villages>**

**100.** How much land is that? (total)

Describe: …………………………… ha

**101.** When did you get the land? (You can mention more than one)

Describe: year ……………………………………………………

	- 1. Myself
	- 2. My husband/Wife
	- 3. Biological father
	- 4. Biological mother
	- 5. Father-in-law
	- 6. Mother-in-law
	- 7. Son
	- 8. Daughter
	- 9. Grandson
	- 10. Granddaughter
	- 11. Others, please specify:………………………
	- 12. Never had that letter
	- 88. Don't know

**103.** How was the land acquired?

**104.** What type of soil is it? 1. Peat 2. Mineral soil 3. Mixed -more peat 4. Mixed -more mineral soil **105.** Has the land ever been burned? If so, around what year? You c ould mention more than one if it burned several times. 1. Yes. Describe: year……………………,……………………,………………,…………… 2. No role **106.** Has the land been sold? If yes, around what year was it sold? How many hectares were sold at that time? 1. Yes. Describe: year**A**.…………………( **B**.…………………ha) ⇒ **When all the land is sold, skip to Question 111** 2. No **107.** What is the land used for? (You can answer more than one) 1. Palm 2. Shrubs 3. Forest 4. Don't use it for anything 5. Others, please specify: …………………………………………………………………………… **108.** If you were to sell the land to a villager of the same ethnicity, how would the sale price be? 1. Low price 2. Regular price 3. High price 4. Unwilling to sell, even if the selling price is high

**109.** How would the sale price be if you sell the land to a person from this village with a different ethnicity?

**110.** How would the sale price be if you sell the land to someone from outside the village ?

#### **6. Daily Life**

**111.** Do you have your honey tree (*pohon sialang*)? If yes, how many trees?

**112.** How long have you been managing *sialang* trees?

Describe*: ………………………………………* years

**113.** In total, **how many bedrooms** are **there** in your house ( any rooms used by anyone as a place to sleep regularly)?

Descrive: …………………………… rooms

**114.**  What is the **ownership status of** your **house**?

#### **116. SHOW THE CARD Q.** Where do you get water for drinking and cooking in this house?

**117.** How many motorcycles do you own?

Describe: *………………………………………* motorcycles

	- 1. Elementary School
	- 2. Junior High School
	- 3. High School
	- 4. Diploma
	- 5. Undergraduate School
	- 6. Graduate School
	- 7. Neve went to school

#### **119.** At what age did you experience the following?

**120.** The following are types of activities in daily life.

In your experience, which activities are usually carried out by women only, men only, or by both women and men?

**121.** In your experience, who is the most decisive in managing money in the family?

#### **122.** What is the **average expenditure** in this house for **Electricity** per month?

Rp ………………………………………………per month

**123.** Overall**,** what is the **average expenditure of** your family in this house per month?

Rp ………………………………………………per month

#### **<If the respondent has difficulty answering this question, SHOW THE CARD R.>**

#### **THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COOPERATION THAT YOU PROVIDE**

**Interview completed** at: ……………………

## Appendix 2: Photographs

The confluence of the Kampar and Bokol Bokol rivers. The Bokol Bokol is a tributary that flows from the peatland into the Kampar River near Rantau Baru Village

A fisherman setting a trap in a shallow area of the Kampar River

Rantau Baru Village during the rainy season

#### Appendix 2: Photographs 327

The flooded main road of Rantau Baru Village

Smoking fish for sale in Rantau Baru Village

Large fish traps (Pengilar) in the making

Community members learning how to use a GPS Logger

Discussion of the village and customary community borders

Setting up a drone for the participatory mapping in Rantau Baru Village

Online interview with Rantau Baru villagers

Belida (Chitala lopis)

Pantau/Tabingal (Rasbora sp.)

Selais (Kryptopterus sp.)

Tapa (Wallago leeri)

Baung (Mystus sp.), Juaro/Patin (Pangasius sp.) and Ikan Putih-putih (Puntioplites waandersi)

## References


*3.2. Adverse Events*

Since there was no treatment of the participants, the risk of inducing study-related adverse events was considered low. Nevertheless, some adverse events were recorded and included a cat bite during a veterinary visit, chronic urticaria, erythema, common cold, and pruritus (Table 2). The participant bitten by their cat during an immunization procedure at the veterinary practice was referred to their doctor and received prophylactic antibiotic treatment. They fully recovered from the wound after 1 week. Another participant #10 (excluded from analysis) suffered from an urticaria and presented with strong pruritus and wheal formation. The symptoms were treated with topical urea, macrogol-6-laurylether and fexofenadine-hydrochloride.

There were no severe adverse events observed in the cat population. Several minor clinical signs were noted upon immunization with Fel-CuMV and were judged to be normal vaccination reactions in cats. They disappeared within 72 h of administration. All reactions during and after injection of Fel-CuMV were less frequent on the second and third dosing occasions. There were no treatment related changes in body weight or temperature observed over the study period. Cat owners reported no change in the behavior or appearance (e.g., fur condition) of the cats.

**Table 2.** Adverse events.

*Viruses* **2020** , *12*, 288


**2.2 How anthracyclines damage DNA?**

*Advances in Precision Medicine Oncology*

**158**

**Figure 5.**

**Figure 4.**

*sequences.*

*nucleotide sequences.*

towards their therapeutic effects.

on mitochondrial toxicity. The effect of doxorubicin binding on the morphology of the single stranded DNA was further quantitatively analyzed using Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM). AFM studies strengthen the probable mechanism of intercalative binding mode as consequences of doxorubicin interaction with DNA [15].

*Intercalation of epirubicin and idarubicin between GC basepairs. Crystal structure of epirubicin getting intercalated between AT and GC basepairs. Crystal structure of idarubicin getting intercalated between GC bases. Structures are taken from protein data bank. Red dots represent crystallized water molecules. Figure clearly depicts intercalation of epirubicin and idarubicin in GC bases of DNA and preferential binding with*

*Intercalation of daunorubicin between GC basepairs. Crystal structure of daunorubicin getting intercalated between GC bases. Structures are taken from protein data bank. Light green color depicts AT baseparing and dark green color shows GC bases. Red dots represent crystallized water molecules. Figure clearly depicts intercalation of doxorubicin in GC bases of DNA and preferential binding with nucleotide*

Other studies found that B-DNA is preferred over Z-DNA by the daunorubicin for binding. Allosteric conversion of the Z form into B form has also been observed in some cases. Ionic concentration in which usually Z form of DNA is present changes to B form on the binding of daunorubicin to poly dGdC or resist to change from B form to Z form [16]. There are several pieces of evidence suggesting drug binding to DNA results in the inhibition of specific DNA function contributing

Anthracyclines are known to damage DNA by several mechanisms which include topoisomerase-II poisoning, free radical formation, and DNA-anthracycline adduct formation. The semiquinone radical of anthracycline can intercalate between DNA base pair resulting in DNA damage by forming reactive oxygen species (ROS).