Intro.
114 people responded.
Only 15% of people are not directly affected by the disaster. Actual figures fro each question are below the text.
Analysis
Q1. A wide variety of skills were newly learnt by the participants.
Q2. The actual classes, especially the practical classes, were the most enjoyable part of the class. This shows the structure of the classes and the method of teaching were of a high and appropriate standard.
Q3. 58% of respondants said the peacebuilding activities were ""very worthwhile"" and a further 33% said the activities were ""quite worthwhile"". Meaning 81% of people said that the activities were very or quite worthwhile. Nobody said that the activities were ""not at all worthwhile"". This shows the general success of the peacebuilding activities.
Q4. There was a wide variety of opinons regarding which peacebuilding activity was best in terms of ""helpful and enjoyable"".In general the Japanese movie ""Nausica of the Valley of the Wind"" was least popular while the most popular was the general games day (yตข^ฎ๏j. The symposium and traditinal drum and dance were also popular. This gives insight into the types of activities that will be emphasised next time.
Q.5 The 4 main messages remembered were in short were, 1.to try and be a beneficial member of
society, 2.if you try you can succeed, 3. rebuild a better future for Aceh and 4. to make use of the
knowledge you have gained through the course. These were positive messages giving confidence
to the participants to be good members of society.
Q6. Through the peacebuilding activities, participants felt mostly that they started to think about what is needed for the area to recover from the disaster (37%) and that they were able to forget about the trauma (30%). 22% started to think about what a peaceful Aceh may look like and their own role in it. Only 3% thought of the events as useless. The most important thing is that people were able to move beyond the past and start thinking about the future and their role in that.
Q7. The trainers were given 86% excellence appraisal. This shows that the local agriculture and livestock outreach workers were a good choice as instructors. Reasons were their professionalism, attitude, deep knowledge and practical approach.
Q8. 62% thought PWJ staff were excellent and 10% good. Appreciation was expressed for kindness, helping IDPs and being able to control the program well. 14% thought they were poor for not giving enough aid in kits, and because they were late (Note that staff were travelling over 1 hour per day to the center).
Q.9 The basic suggestion given was ""more"". More training centers, more items in kit at end of course
and more transport support. Other suggestions included better planning. These suggestions are
valuable for understanding the needs and wants of the participants.
Results
Are you ac
A. IDP
B. Direct disaster victim (lost property or family)
C. Resident of Host Community with IDPs residing
D. Hosting IDPs in your own property
E. Resident in Community without IDPs
F. Returnee to original village after fleeing for some time
*Multiple answers possible
Agriculture group answer
| A |
12persons |
| B |
13persons |
| C |
17persons |
| D |
6persons |
| E |
6persons |
| F |
1persons |
|
Livestock group Answer
| A |
13persons |
| B |
12persons |
| C |
12persons |
| D |
9persons |
| E |
11persons |
| F |
2persons |
|
| If your respons is A, are living in a |
Agriculture group answer
| Tent |
4persons |
| Host family |
1persons |
| Barrack |
4persons |
| Makeshift home |
0persons |
| Other |
0persons |
|
Livestock group Answer
| Tent |
3persons |
| Host family |
2persons |
| Barrack |
4persons |
| Makeshift home |
0persons |
| Other |
0persons |
|
|