Mulai lagi episode ngobrol dengan diri sendiri. Sudah lama aku tidak mengajak 'dia' berbincang dari hati ke hati lewat tulisan berarti. Sudah lama aku tak mendengarkannya bicara lewat kata yang tersuratkan di jemari. Biasanya kalau lama-lama dicueki, tak digubris, dia akan marah. Marah yang diwujudkannya dalam gelisah dan debaran hati tak menyenangkan. Seakan berbisik, "Kamu salah langkah nak.".

Lho kenapa 'Nak'?

Aku merasa 'aku' lebih tua dari aku yang ini. Dia adalah sosok yang selalu memberiku petuah bijak kehidupan dan semangat meniti jalan panjang. Dia juga yang telah banyak menunjukkan padaku apa yang musti kupilih saat di simpang jalan. Ada kalanya aku benar, ada kalanya aku salah. Kadang aku tak mendengarkannya. Kadang aku terlalu takut dunia luar hingga tak menghiraukan suaraku sendiri. Aku bagai orang yang kehilangan kebijaksaan petuah orang tua, jika aku tak mendengarnya.

Aku yang lebih tua ini biasanya selalu benar, meski semua orang  bilang bahwa kebenaran itu sangat relatif. '  Benarku belum tentu benarmu, begitu juga sebaliknya. Benarku adalah hal yang paling membahagiakanku, melegakan hatiku, dan membuatku mengangguk seraya bergumam, "ya, inilah!". Tak ada sesal dan tak ada gulana. Tapi, hampir semua yang ingin kudefinisikan benar itu tak selamanya mutlak. Selalu ada ruang yang menyisakan sesak karena selalu ada yang terkalahkan. Tak ada kebenaran mutlak. Memang demikian sepertinya. Aku sedikit mengerti artinya.

Berdiskusi dengan diri sendiri adalah satu caraku untuk mengerti. Aku bisa saja bertanya dengan orang, aku bisa membaca puluhan buku filsafat pengetahuan, tapi percuma, jika aku tak mengajak sisi 'orang tua' di dalam diriku sendiri. Apa yang kupahami hanya akan sekedar permukaan. Dan kesadaran dalam jiwaku hanya sekedar khayalan.


Jadi, mari bicara dan diskusi. Buat kamu yang selalu ragu ataupun beryakin palsu, tanpa pernah mendengar kata, dari nurani yang berbicara. Sempatkanlah waktumu, untuk dirimu. 


----- 





(Note: This is my script's summary for my undergrad final research in 2011. You can also get full version of the script here )


The Change of Interaction Pattern Between Forest and Community in Cipeuteuy Village, Kabandungan Sub-District, Sukabumi District, West Java, Indonesia

I. INTRODUCTION

            Interactions between community and nature are forms of socioeconomic activities of local communities to meet their need for life. That interaction is reflected in their activities, such as collecting forest products like food, firewood, fodder and tubers as well as the results of other types of forest services (Widianto 2008). Studies of the interactions and relationships between people and forests have been carried out by the researchers. A study conducted by Baharudin (2006) which examined the interaction of rural communities around the Mount Rinjani National Park shows that local people around the national park use the land for intensive farming. While, study by Ginting (2010) which examined the interaction of communities around the Leuser National Park shows that the local community around the national park take benefit of the forest for ecotourism and they also collect forest products.
            Sociocultural change is something normal and sustainable in accordance with the nature and human nature itself (Lauer 1982 in Dewi 2007). In relation to human interaction with forests, this also applies, where the interaction is also dynamically changing. Research conducted by Yatap (2008) on the influence of socioeconomic variables to changes in the land cover in Gunung Halimun Salak National Park (GHSNP) showed that socioeconomic factors give real effect of changes in land cover in GHSNP. The forms and causes of changes in people's interaction with the forest must be known.
            Cipeuteuy village is directly adjacent to the GHSNP. This village is one of the 1,517 villages directly adjacent to state forest land (MoF, 2007). Before becoming part of the national park in 2006, the forest area around the village Cipeuteuy is intercropping land surrounding communities that are managed together with Perhutani (Cantika 2008). Interaction between forest and communities in this village has existed for a long time. The objectives of this research are to know what kinds of changes in community interaction with forest, to know the factors driving these changes, to know the relationship between socioeconomic variables to the forest land use by the local community.

II. MATERIAL AND METHOD

2.1. Operational Definition

1.    The interaction pattern is defined as a pattern that is formed from the interaction that occurs between communities and forest in this study and it is based on the use of forest land by the community. There are 3 patterns used in this study, which are:
a. The pattern of using the land is the use of land by the community for a particular purpose and permanent use. Examples of this pattern is the use of forest land for permanent agriculture or settlement.
b. The pattern of harvesting is the use of forest by the community for harvesting the forest products occupying the forest land. Examples of this pattern is the harvesting of timber or non-timber forest products.
c.  Pattern without interaction is  the people do not use forest land and do not use or collect forest products.
2.      The change of interaction pattern is the change in the pattern of interaction over time, which are:
a.   Changes of the pattern of using the land to the pattern of harvesting, or to the pattern without interaction.
b.  Change of the pattern of harvesting to the pattern of using the land uses or pattern without interaction.
c.  Change of the pattern without interaction to the pattern of using the land or pattern of harvesting. 

2.2. Time and Location

This study was conducted in two sub-villages namely Cisarua and Pandan Arum which are both located in the Cipeuteuy Village, Kabandungan Sub-district, Sukabumi District of West Java Province, Indonesia. The research activities was conducted during the months from mid-May to June 2011.

2.3. Respondents and data

Respondents in this study are the head of the household who lived in the sub-village of Pandan Arum and Cisarua, Village Cipeuteuy. The data used in this study are primary data and secondary data. Data collected in this research is by interview and observation.

2.4. Method

The selection of respondents as the sample unit is done by a purposive sampling method, which the determination is done intentionally under consideration of research purposes. Processing and analysis of the data used in this research are descriptive analysis and multiple linear regression analysis. Tabulation and descriptive analysis are used to explain the changes in the pattern of interaction between people and forests, and the driving factors for them. Multiple linear regression analysis is to estimate the influence of socioeconomic variables that affect the use of forest land by the community. Analyses were performed using SPSS 17.0. The dependent variable (Y) is the area of forest land use by the public. The independent variable (X) is a socioeconomic characteristics of the community.

III. RESULTS

3.1. The Changes of Interaction Patterns

            In this study, changes in the pattern of interaction are limited to just one stage of change, that is changing before the current interaction patterns into patterns of interaction that is done today. Under this condition, changes of the interaction patterns that may occur are 6 (six) types. Not all people change their interaction with the forest. In some respondents, it was found a relatively constant interaction. In the context of this study, it was found that some respondents did not change the pattern of interaction. Table 1 below states the amount of the respondents and their interaction changes.

Table 1 Respondents with their pattern of interaction changes.
Patterns*
Cisarua
Pandan Arum
Quantity
Percetage (%)
Quantity
Percentage(%)
Pattern 1
2
4.55
0
0
Pattern 2
14
31.81
16
40.00
Pattern 3
6
13.64
4
10.00
Pattern 4
0
0
3
7.50
Pattern 5
20
45.45
13
32.50
Pattern 6
0
0
0
0
Constant
2
4.55
4
10.00
Total
44
100.00
40
100.00
Description : *Pattern of interaction changes, which are:
1.     Change of the pattern of using the land to the pattern of harvesting
2.     Change of the pattern of using the land to the pattern without interaction.
3.     Change of the pattern of harvesting to the pattern of using the land
4.     Change of the pattern of harvesting to the pattern without interaction
5.     Change of the pattern without interaction to the pattern of using the land
6.     Change of the pattern without interaction to the pattern without interaction.

            Change in the pattern of interaction between people and forests in Cisarua and Pandan Arum is not much different. There are two patterns of change are most often committed by the respondents, which are the pattern 2 and 5. The pattern 2 is a pattern of interaction with the change of land use to be without interaction. While the pattern 5 is a change from without interaction into interaction with using the land.

Change of the pattern of using the land to the pattern of harvesting
            Villagers that left the agricultural land in the forest, but still take advantage of some forest products such as firewood and other forest products, are categorized in the community who has made changes of interaction from the pattern of using the land to pattern of harvesting. Some residents in Pandan Arum worked in the forest area but now they do not continue it. However, these villagers still take forest products like firewood from the forest area.

Change of the pattern of using the land to the pattern without interaction
            Some farmers totally left working on agricultural land in the forest. They also do not take the forest products from the forest. The reasons are various, like less fertile soil, the high disturbance from animals like pigs and monkeys, and the far distance from the house. They think that working in the forest is not profitable enough to do. Some of the those farmers still work on their own land and rental land. Some of them work as farm laborers or work in another field than agriculture.

Change of the pattern of harvesting to the pattern of using the land
            There are some farmers were initially just interact with the forest without occupying the land, but now turned into using the land, especially for agriculture. From the statement of some respondents in Pandan Arum, generally people started using the forest area at a time after the big harvest in 1999 by Perhutani. Previously, they only worked only on their own agricultural land or worked as farm laborers.

Change of the pattern of harvesting to the pattern without interaction
            Respondents who had previously interacted with the forest without occupying the land, but they are no longer do it at all included in the group of people who did this type of interaction pattern change. At first, these communities only used forest products for a variety of purposes such as firewood, vegetables, or wood to build houses. Currently, they are no longer doing it because the status of the land became the national park with tight regulation.

Change of the pattern without interaction to the pattern of using the land
            Respondents who initially did not interact at all with the forest, but now they are working on the forest land are categorized in this group. There are 20 respondents (45,45%) in Pandan Arum and 13 respondents (32,50%) in Cisarua are included in this group. Almost all of the respondents explained that the reason they chose farm forestry was because there was no other choice. Before becoming a farmer, most of the respondents worked in the nearby big cities like Bogor or Jakarta. Inadequate salaries and stay away from the family are some of the reasons they decided to return to the village. They chose to work in the forest area because they do not have their own agricultural land.

3.2. Driving Factors of the Interaction Pattern Change

            In this study, the changing patterns of interaction that occurs are not only in one pattern only. A change in one thing does not always lead to a pattern of change alone. Many factors influence the changing patterns of interaction. Table 2 describes the patterns of change and their interaction causes each based on data obtained from the respondents in the study village.

Table 2. The patterns of interaction change and the driving factors.
The change of interaction pattern
Driving factors
Changes of the pattern of using the land to the pattern of harvesting
·               Less of fertile soil in the forest
·               Disturbance from animals like pig and monkey
·               Low harvest and not profitable enough
·               Conflict with the national park officer
·               More agricultural land outside the forest area
·               Age factor
Changes of the pattern of using the land to the pattern without interaction.
·               Less of fertile soil in the forest
·               Disturbance from animals like pig and monkey
·               Low harvest and not profitable enough
·               Conflict with the national park officer
·               More agricultural land outside the forest area
·               Age factor
·               Far distance between forest land and settlement
·               Got new agricultural land outside the forest with better condition
Change of the pattern of harvesting to the pattern of using the land
·               Inadequate farm land or do not have farm land
·               The need for more money
Change of the pattern of harvesting to the pattern without interaction
·               Tight regulation of national park
·               Lifestyle change
·               Age factor
Change of the pattern without interaction to the pattern of using the land
·               Inadequate farm land or do not have farm land
·               The need for more money
·               Farming job is more profitable

The cause for a change in the pattern of interaction is not always equal to each other. One factor may also lead to more than one type of changes. One factor may cause a change in the pattern of interaction in a household, but not necessarily affect other households. Change in patterns of interaction is a combination of several driving factors. Socioeconomic condition is often used as a reason by the people to utilize forest resources. Although they are not too benefited from the farm in the forest, but they have no other choice because of low levels of education and skills.

3.3. Relationship Between Socioeconomic Variables with Forest Land Use Area

The results of this research, shows that each farmer who uses the forest land for agriculture has a land area that is different. There were 47 respondents who work on the forest land. Regression equation generated from multiple analysis of socioeconomic factors with extensive use of forest land in GHSNP with stepwise method is as follows,

Y= -540,172 + 22,87X1 + 30,845X2 + 0,145X3 – 28,922X4 – 47,151X+ 0,001 X6

Description: 
Y = area of forest land use by community
X1 = age
X2 = time settled in the village
X3 = agricultural land outside the forest
X4 = longer working in the woods
X5 = number of family members
X6 = income per month


              The P-value of the regression equation is <0.05, which is equal to 0.02, which means rejecting Ho. This means that the overall socioeconomic factors affect the use of agricultural land at 95% of confidence level. The influence of socioeconomic factors is indicated by the coefficient of determination (R2) of 30.1%. The rest is caused by other than socioeconomic factors. Stepwise regression method was used to determine the selected independent variables and the result is as follows,

Y= 405,955 + 36,135 X2 + 0,143X3
Description:        Y = area of forest land use by community
                                           X2 = time settled in the village
                                           X3 = agricultural land outside the forest             

             The P-value of the regression equation is 0.002 which is <0.05, which means rejecting Ho at the 95% confidence level. The relationship of socioeconomic factors of the selected independent variables with extensive use of forest land by the community indicated by the coefficient of determination of 24.5%. This means that the widespread use of forest land by the community influenced by the time settled in the village and the ownership of agricultural land in the forest area by 24.5%. The rest is influenced by other factors.

IV. CONCLUSION

            The changes of interaction pattern in Pandan Arum and Cisarua in Cipeuteuy village are the change of the pattern without interaction to the pattern of using the land (39.29%), the change of the pattern of using the land to the pattern without interaction (35.71%), the change of the pattern of harvesting to the pattern of using the land (11.90%), the change of the pattern of harvesting to the pattern without interaction (4.25), the change of the pattern of using the land to the pattern of harvesting (2.38%). The percentage of those who do not change their interaction pattern  is 7.14%. The driving factors for the interaction change are various, which are physical condition of the forest land and natural disturbances, agricultural land outside the forest, age, income, forest distance, and lifestyle. New regulation from the GHSP and its enforcement also influenced this change. The socioeconomic variables are the dominant influence on society acreage in the forest are time settled in the village and agricultural land outside the forest.

REFERENCES

Baharudin. 2006. Kajian Interaksi Masyarakat Desa Sekitar Taman Nasional Gunung Rinjani Provinsi Nusa Tenggara Barat [Thesis]. Bogor: Sekolah Pasca Sarjana Institut Pertanian Bogor.

Balai Taman Nasional Gunung Halimun-Salak. 2007. Rencana Pengelolaan Lima Tahunan (Jangka Menengah). Sukabumi: Balai Taman Nasional Gunung Halimun-Salak.

Cantika Febri SP. 2008. Relasi Gender Dalam Pemilikan dan Penguasaan Sumberdaya Agraria [Script]. Bogor: Fakultas Ekologi Manusia Institut Pertanian Bogor.

[Mof] Ministry of Forestry.2007. Buku Informasi 50 Taman Nasional di Indonesia. Jakarta: Direktorat Jenderal PHKA.

Dewi, H. 2007. Perubahan Makna Pertunjukan Jaran Kepang pada Masyarakat Jawa di Kelurahan Tanjung Sari, Medan. http://repository.usu.ac.id/handle/123456789/5622

Simarmata Vidya H. 2009. Kemiskinan dan Reforma Akses Agraria di Desa Perkebunan [Script]. Bogor: Fakultas Ekologi Manusia Institut Pertanian Bogor.

Sutaryono. 2008. Pemberdayaan Setengah Hati, Sub Ordinasi Masyarakat Lokal Dalam Pengelolaan Hutan. Yogyakarta: Lapera Pustaka Utama.

Widada. 2004. Nilai Manfaat Ekonomi dan Pemanfaatan Taman Nasional Gunung Halimun Bagi Masyarakat [Disertation]. Bogor: Program Pasca Sarjana      Institut Pertanian Bogor.

Widianto, Bambang. 2008. Lahan dan Ladang, Ruang dan Bentuk Interaksi Manusia Dengan Lingkungan. Posted on September, 19 2008 http://staff.blog.ui.ac.id/bambang.widianto/category/1/ [ 23 March 2011]


------



Cipeuteuy Village in 201

Tidak tahu kenapa, aku merasa ada kebutuhan mendesak yang terus menggelisahkanku belakangan ini. Banyak hal yang selalu mundur-mundur dari kalender rencana yang kubuat. Apa sih? Mengulur waktu benar-benar menakutkan ya. Padahal, aku juga melakukannya bukannya tanpa sengaja. Aku punya segudang alasan sebenarnya dan alasan carian yang bisa kuutarakan atas kemoloran yang aku lakukan.

Bukankah manusia itu makhluk perencana? Dan, aku merasa bahwa aku adalah satu dari sekian banyak perencana yang baik. Kenapa? Kenapa aku masih merasa di sini-sini saja sedangkan rencanaku sudah bahkan keliling semesta? Yah, gimana yaa… Kembali lagi pada alasan yang sejuta bentuknya. Berujung pada satu kesimpulan sederhana, bahwa aku bukan eksekutor yang baik. Rencana tinggallah rencana, bagai aturan yang hanya jadi tumpukan dokumen saja. Aduh, aku jadi merasa bersalah pada diriku sendiri. Tapi,….

Kemudian muncul tiba-tiba satu konsep yang pernah dimunculkan entahlah oleh siapa. “Ada dua kategori orang di dunia, yaitu tipe konseptor dan eksekutor.” Ada tipe pemikir dan ada tipe pekerja. Ada yang memikirkan matang dan menyusun rencana, ada yang menjalankannya rencana yang sudah ada. Kalau dalam kerja, ada bos si tukang mikir dan ada si buruh tukang kerja. Nah, apa artinya itu? Apakah aku berarti tipe pemikir atau dalam hal ini tipe bos? Hahaha… Dengan alasan, aku suka berencana tapi terlalu malas mengeksekusinya.

Bukan, tentu saja bukan. Pengkategorian itu tak berlaku pada satu pribadi dan rencana hidupnya. Setiap orang harus punya keduanya. Dalam lingkaran pribadinya, setiap orang harus punya rencana dan sekaligus mengeksekusinya. Tidak akan ada buruh dalam diri sendiri kecuali mungkin ada lebih 1 orang yang hidup di dalam satu tubuh manusia. Seorang master-mind pun butuh untuk jadi eksekutor untuk menjadikan rencananya berhasil. Ya, meskipun eksekutor untuk menggerakkan eksekutor lainnya. Membuat orang lain jadi buruh pun harus berawal dari memburuhkan diri sendiri. Kok? Hahaha..

Hidup seru ya. Ada saja hal-hal baru yang bisa ditemui, mulai dari teori ilmiah pengguncang dunia hingga konsep-konsep kecil sendiri seperti ini. Lalu, apa gunanya jika konsep ini telah nemplok di kepala? Entah! Eh, bukan itu. Aku setidaknya tahu bahwa aku bukan eksekutor yang baik untuk rencanaku sendiri. Aku perlu belajar menjadi buruh, buruh untuk rencanaku sendiri. Akan runyam jadinya jika buruh berlagak jadi bos. Akan ruwet jadinya jika disaat aku harus bekerja tapi malah berangan-angan. Tipsnya basi tapi setengah hidup melakukannya. Bagi peran dan bagi waktu, meskipun tak selalu  harus kaku.

Hidup itu memang dinamis, tapi bukan berarti letoy di semua bagian. Ada yang kaku, ada yang lemes. Itulah dinamisnya. Begitu kan ya.

Nah, karena sekarang sudah mulai paham, maka kamu (aku) harus bisa belajar jadi eksekutor juga ya! Karena gagal menjadi eksekutor untuk diri sendiri akan menjadikan kamu eksekutor untuk rencana orang lain. Maksudnya sih buruh. Mau selamanya jadi buruh? Tentu saja jadi buruh bagi seorang yang ngaku tipe konseptor sangat tidak menyenangkan. So, ayo kerja!

Jadilah master-mind sekaligus eksekutor bagi rencanamu sendiri!




26 Juni 2015
Di kamar pagi-pagi, sambil dengerin ‘Up Town Funk’nya Bruno Mars






Kabut berselimut kelabu
Hitam putih berbaur di bumi dan langit
Mengaburkan mata

Tak bisa kupercaya indra,
Hanya rasa
Hambar pula

Oh hati,
Dimana letakmu kini?
Bersemayamkah kau di dada? 
Atau sudah pindahkah kau di kepala?

Berselisih rasa
Akhirnya manis bertemu pahitnya
Apa jadinya?

Chaos,
Berantakan! 





Di antara pilihan pandangan:
- jalan setapak yang bagai tak berujung
- rimba luas yang terbentang di bukit sebelah
- langit biru yang berarak awan putih 
- bukit-bukit hijau yang begitu anggun meliuk mengiring setapak
Dan, 
- kabut tebal yang tiba-tiba menutup semuanya,...

Hanya satu pandangan yang menyitaku,
sampai aku muak, mual.
Jika boleh aku bilang, 
sampai ingin muntah saja.

Satu pandangan yang saat ini bukanlah pilihan, 
tapi kemutlakan.

Aku membenci itu.