Table 5. Descriptive statistics of the respondents on conservation agreements for 2010
| |
| |
|
Key Variables |
N |
Range |
Mean |
Std. Deviation |
Frequency/ # of individuals |
| |
|
I. Participation in CA |
100 |
2 |
1.2 |
±0.46 |
- |
a) No answer b) Yes c) No |
|
|
|
|
3 75 22 |
|
II. Type of CA schemes joined |
100 |
4 |
2.3 |
±0.18 |
- |
a) Clonal material b) Communal jungle rubber c) Mini-hydro d) Fish conservation |
|
|
|
|
45 45 55 34 |
|
III. Willingness to continue or participate |
100 |
2 |
1.10 |
±0.62 |
- |
a) No answer b) Yes c) No |
|
|
|
|
15 60 25 |
|
IV. Conservation agreement is enough to maintain the rubber
agroforests |
100 |
2 |
1.04 |
±0.60 |
- |
a) No answer b) Yes c) No |
|
|
|
|
15 66 19 |
|
V. Preferred land use for financial reasons |
100 |
5 |
1.62 |
±1.15 |
- |
a) No answer b) Rubber agroforest c) Monoculture rubber d) Oil palm plantation e) Others (e.g., rice) |
|
|
|
|
13 44 18 20 5 |
|
VI. Preferred land use for agro-biodiversity conservation |
100 |
6 |
1.33 |
±1.10 |
- |
a) No answer b) Rubber agroforest c) Forest d) fallow areas e) Other f) Not sure |
|
|
|
|
15 56 5 10 10 4
|
|
| |
|