PEOPLE S WILLINGNESS TO SUSTAIN AGRICULTURAL ENVIRONMENT IN YOGYAKARTA, INDONESIA Irham *) Senthot Sudirman **) Slamet Hartono *) Azwar Maas *) *) Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta **) Land Science Higher Education, Yogyakarta
INTRODUCTION Cities pull factors: Job opportunities Infrastructures Urban hedonism,etc. Spectacular pop. increase Pollution Other urban externalities Industries Housing Commercial Public facilities
Year 1995-2020 World population increase 73 millions/year 2015 ± 52% of population live in urban areas In developing countries Urban population increase from 1,7 billion (1995) 3.4 billion in year 2020, Rural population increase 300 millions Year 2000 24 million ha of green land (agriculture, forest, etc) converted to urbanized areas. Loss of food supply for 84 million of population, Urban externalities, Rural-urban disharmony
WE MAY IGNORE THIS. Multifunctionality of Agriculture Socioeconomic benefits: Local food availability Source of job opportunity Emergency way out strategy Social safety net Poverty alleviation Cost saving transportation Local rural market creation Environmental benefits: Urban ecosystem balance Source of biodiversity Recycling & Re-using of Balance of O2 and CO2 Improving micro climate Source of amenities Flood control Ground water improvement Source of local cultures Vital roles of Agricultural Environment in Establishing Nature Harmonious Society
AND ALSO WE IGNORE SOME OTHER THINGS.. The importance of understanding farmers appreciation towards their own fundamental property agricultural environment (farm land, farming activities, greenery landscape, etc.). The importance of understanding the urban people s appreciation towards agricultural environmental services they enjoy in their daily live.
WHY IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND From the farmers point of view: in urban and sub urban areas, there is a very strong conflicting interest (trade off) between keeping agricultural activities moving (Moshers terminology) or selling their farm land and divorce with farm activity.. From people s point of view: we are still doubt to their appreciation towards the importance of agricultural activities and farmers live.
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY To estimate the value of agricultural environment in sub urban area of Yogyakarta. To see the farmers willingness to pay for keeping themselves in farming activity. To study the people s awareness towards agricultural sustainability.
AREA OF THE STUDY Six sub districts in sub urban area of Yogyakarta Three sub districts of Sleman District Three sub districts of Bantul District There are 29 villages within those 6 sub districts. Due to the existence of ring road, the study area is divided into 3 clusters (zones): inside ring road (ZDRR), close outside ring road (ZLRR), and far outside ring road (ZJRR). Within those 3 clusters, there are 47 sub clusters. The study was conducted in August 2010 until March 2011.
Java Island Yogyakarta Province Location of the Study
THE RESPONDENTS The respondents are farmer s and non farmer s households Six to ten respondents were taken from each sub cluster. The total respondents: 470 farmer s households 282 non farmer s households
ESTIMATING ENVIRONMENTAL VALUE OF AGRICULTURE NET = NGL + NGTL + NNG NET = Total economic value of Agriculture within sub urban area of Yogyakarta NGL = Direct use value of Agriculture within sub urban area of Yogyakarta NGTL = Indirect use value of Agriculture within sub urban area of Yogyakarta NNG = Existence value of Agriculture within sub urban area of Yogyakarta
Direct Use Value of Farming Activities (NGL) Direct use value (NGL)= summation of farm income in 47 sub-clusters within the sub urban area of Yogyakarta. NGL is calculated as follow: 47 NGL ( A xi i i 1 i )
Notes: Ai = Size of agricultural land lost due to irreversible conversion within 47 sub-clusters (sub-zones) between 1996 to 2006 (ha). Ii = Average farm income in each sub cluster in 2006 by using shadow price (SER = Shadow Exchange Rate) (Rp/ha). i = Number of sub-clusters within sub urban areas in Yogyakarta (47 sub-clusters)
Indirect Use Value of Farming Activities (NGTL) Indirect use values (NGTL) = summation of Willingness to Pay (WTP) of people within sub urban area of Yogyakarta. WTP is withdrawn from 47 sub-cluster within the sub urban area of Yogyakarta. NGTL is calculated as follow: NGTL 47 ( Pop ) xwtp nf i i i 1
Notes: (Pop nf ) i = Number of non farm families within sub urban area of Yogyakarta. WTPi i = Average real WTP from people within sub urban area of Yogyakarta from each sub-cluster (Rp). = Number of sub-cluster (47 sub-cluster).
Existence Use Value of Farming Activities (NNG) Existence value of agriculture (NNG) = summation of Willingness to Accept (WTA) of farmers within sub urban area of Yogyakarta. Value of WTA is estimated from replacement costs as a guarantee for the lost of farming activities. Value of WTA is estimated from 47 subclusters within sub urban area of Yogyakarta.
NGTL is calculated as follow: NNG 47 A x i WTA i i 1 Notes: Ai = Size of agricultural land lost due to irreversible conversion within 47 sub-clusters (sub-zones) between 1996 to 2006 (ha). WTAi i = Average real WTP from people within sub urban area of Yogyakarta from each subcluster (Rp). = Number of sub-cluster (47 sub-cluster).
MEASURING WTA AND WTP WTA of each respondent is obtained from the results of bidding during the interview to figure out the willingness of farmers to accept compensation to sustain farming activities. The higher the WTA the lower the willingness of farmers to sustain their farm. WTP of people is obtained by measuring the willingness of them to pay for the environmental services produced by agriculture (through bidding process). The higher the WTP the higher the willingness of people to sustain agricultural existence.
Factors Affecting WTA Ln WTA = β 0 + β 1 LnX 1 + β 2 LnX 2 + β 3 LnX 3 + β 4 LnX 4 + β 5 LnX 5 + β 6 LnX 6 + β 7 LnX 7 + d 12 ZLRR + d 13 ZJRR + ε Expected signs: β 1, β 4, β 6, β 7 > 0; β 2, β 5, d 12, d 13 < 0; dan β 3 > 0 atau < 0. Notes: R 2 β0 βi ε = Coefficient of determination = Intercept = Coefficients of regression = Error term
WTA = Value of WTA of farmers in each sub-cluster (Rp). X 1 X 2 X 3 X 4 X 5 X 6 X 7 d 12 d 13 = Farm income (Rp/ha/year) = Non farm income (Rp/tahun) = Age of farmer (tahun)) = Education level of farmer(skor) = Size of land (ha) = Knowledge of farmers on multifunctionality of agriculture (%) Family members (persons) = Dummy ZLRR (d 12 = 1 if within ZLRR; d 12 = 0 if others = Dummy ZJRR (d 13 = 1 if within ZJRR; d 13 = 0 if others
Factors Affecting WTP Ln WTP = β 0 + β 1 LnX 1 + β 2 LnX 2 + β 3 LnX 3 + β 4 LnX 4 + β 5 LnX 5 + β 6 LnX 6 + d 12 ZLRR+ d 13 ZJRR + ε Expected signs: β 1, β 3, β 5 > 0; β 4, β 6, d 12, d 13 < 0; dan β 2 > 0 atau < 0. Notes: R 2 = Coefficient of determination β 0 = Intercept β 1 = Coefficients of regression ε = Error term
WTP = Value of WTP of sub urban people of Yogyakarta to secure the existence of agricultural environment (Rp) X 1 X 2 X 3 X 4 X 5 X 6 d 12 d 13 = Age of household head (years) = Household income (Rp/month) = Member of household (persons) = Education level of household head (score) = Knowledge of farmers on multifunctionality of agriculture (%) = Distance of house from farm land (km) = Dummy ZLRR (d 12 = 1 if within ZLRR; d 12 = 0 if other = Dummy ZJRR (d 13 = 1 if within ZJRR; d 13 = 0 if others
PROFILE OF FARMER RESPONDENTS Items ZDRR ZLRR ZJRR Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Age categories (year) 20-30 10 5,00 12 6,67 7 7,78 31-40 17 8,50 17 9,44 11 12,22 41-50 34 17,00 35 19,44 19 21,11 51-60 101 50,50 74 41,11 43 47,78 > 60 38 19,00 42 23,33 10 11,11 Total 200 100,00 180 100,00 90 100,00 Education categories Unfinished elementary 20 10,00 21 11,67 15 16,67 Complete elementary 104 52,00 102 56,67 52 57,78 Complete junior high school 47 23,50 35 19,44 16 17,78 Complete senior high school 23 11,50 18 10,00 6 6,67 Higher education 6 3,00 4 2,22 1 1,11 Total 200 100,00 180 100,00 90 100,00
Items NUMBER OF FAMILY MEMBERS ZDRR ZLRR ZJRR Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Number of family members 0 4 2,00 5 2,78 4 4,44 1 22 11,00 18 10,00 8 9,00 2 38 19,00 28 15,56 9 10,00 3 77 38,50 72 40,00 39 43,33 4 53 26,50 50 27,78 26 28,89 5 6 3,00 7 3,89 4 4,44 Total 200 100,00 180 100,00 90 100,00
EXPERINECE IN FARMING ACTIVITIES ZDRR ZLRR ZJRR Experience in farming Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % 1-5 12 6,00 9 5,00 4 4,44 6-10 18 9,00 14 7,78 7 7,78 11-15 23 11,50 27 15,00 9 10,00 16-20 42 21,00 32 17,78 14 15,56 21-25 50 25,00 46 25,56 21 23,33 > 26 55 27,50 52 28,89 35 38,89 Total 200 100,00 180 100,00 90 100,00
LAND HOLDINGS Items ZDRR ZLRR ZJRR Freq. % Freq % Freq % Average land holdings < 300 m2 32 16,00 16 8,89 5 5,56 301-500 m2 96 48,00 26 14,44 9 10,00 501-750 m2 28 14,00 75 41,67 13 14,44 751-1000 m2 23 11,50 28 15,56 42 46,67 1001-1250 m2 11 5,50 17 9,44 10 11,11 1251-1500 m2 6 3,00 10 5,56 6 6,67 > 1500 m2 4 2,00 8 4,44 5 5,56 Total respondents 200 100,00 180 100,00 90 100,00
AVERAGE OPERATING LAND Items ZDRR ZLRR ZJRR Average operating land Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % < 500 m2 20 10,00 12 6,67 6 6,67 501-1000 m2 76 38,00 17 9,44 8 8,89 1001-1500 m2 32 16,00 30 16,67 10 11,11 1501-2000 m2 26 13,00 66 36,67 12 13,33 2001-2500 m2 17 8,50 20 11,11 13 14,44 2501-3000 m2 14 7,00 15 8,33 31 34,44 3001-3500 m2 9 4,50 12 6,67 6 6,67 > 3500 m2 6 3,00 8 4,44 4 4,44 Total 200 100,00 180 100,00 90 100,00
NON FARM JOBS Items ZDRR ZLRR ZJRR Types of side job Frek. % Frek. % Frek. % Artisants 33 16,50 19 10,56 11 12,22 Construction 39 19,50 26 14,44 13 14,44 Market porter 6 3,00 12 6,67 9 10,00 Farm labor 23 11,50 38 21,11 34 37,78 Non farm labor 60 30,00 56 31,11 11 12,22 Trading 25 12,50 21 11,67 8 8,89 Repair shop 14 7,00 8 4,44 4 4,44 Total respondents 200 100,00 180 100,00 90 100,00
Items Age categories (year) PROFILE OF NON FARMERS RESPONDENTS ZDRR ZLRR ZJRR Frek. % Frek. % Frek. % 20-30 7 7,00 7 7,78 4 8,89 31-40 14 14,00 14 15,56 9 20,00 41-50 44 44,00 31 34,44 11 24,44 51-60 23 23,00 24 26,67 13 28,89 > 60 12 12,00 14 15,56 8 17,78 Total respondents 100 100,0 90 100,0 45 100,0
EDUCATION Education categories ZDRR ZLRR ZJRR Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Incomplete ES 7 7,00 11 12,22 8 17,78 Complete ES 14 14,00 19 21,11 11 24,44 Complete JHS 18 18,00 18 20,00 10 22,22 Complete SHS 46 46,00 32 35,56 13 28,89 Universities 15 15,00 10 11,11 3 6,67 Total resp. 100 100 90 100 45 100
KNOWLEDGE ON MULTIFUNCTIONALITY OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural multifunctions ZDRR ZLRR ZJRR Freq % Freq. % Freq. % Producing food 120 100,00 108 100,00 54 100,00 Producing fibres 90 75,00 78 72,22 36 66,67 Source of jobs 120 100,00 108 100,00 54 100,00 Recreation objects 94 78,33 78 72,22 36 66,67 Local culture conservation 33 27,50 24 22,22 5 9,26 Source of ground water 120 100,00 108 100,00 54 100,00 Flooding controller 120 100,00 108 100,00 54 100,00 Fresh air 119 99,17 105 97,22 49 90,74 Organic recycle 34 28,33 24 22,22 5 9,26 Absorbing CO2 118 98,33 105 97,22 49 90,74 Producing Oxygen (O2) 120 100,00 108 100,00 54 100,00 Source of amenity 120 100,00 108 100,00 54 100,00 Source of biodiversity 33 27,50 24 22,22 5 9,26 Absorbing air pollutants 33 27,50 24 22,22 5 9,26
RESPONDENTS INCOME Pendapatan/Bln ( Rp) ZDRR ZLRR ZJRR Frek. % Frek. % Frek. % 1.000.000-2.000.000 4 4 5 5,56 5 11,11 2.000.001-3.000.000 7 7 8 8,89 12 26,67 3.000.001-4.000.000 10 10 23 25,56 14 31,11 4.000.001-5.000.000 25 25 30 33,33 8 17,78 5.000.001-6.000.000 38 38 15 16,67 5 11,11 6.000.001-7.000.000 10 10 7 7,78 1 2,22 > 7.000.000. 6 6 2 2,22 0 0,00 100 100 90 100 45 100
Swh+Tgl Pkrngn Jml Swh+Tgl Pkrngn Jml Swh+Tgl Pkrngn Jml Swh+Tgl Pkrngn Jml Swh+Tgl Pkrngn Jml Swh+Tgl Pkrngn Nilai Guna Langsung (Milyar Rp) Jml DIRECT USE VALUES 60,00 50,00 54,19 40,00 30,00 20,00 10,00 0,00 7,33 3,54 10,87 12,42 8,51 20,92 12,63 9,76 22,39 15,65 13,04 28,69 16,73 8,77 25,50 32,38 21,81 Kab. Bantul Kab. Sleman Jumlah ZDRR ZLRR ZJRR Bantul Sleman Bantul+Sleman Jenis Lahan Pertanian dan Zona
Rata-rata WTP (Ribu Rupiah) INDIRECT USE VALUES 35,00 30,00 25,00 20,00 15,00 10,00 5,00 0,00 29,14 25,68 24,19 21,46 22,23 22,04 23,25 21,48 19,56 18,02 18,58 18,96 17,08 13,58 15,50 16,98 15,71 9,68 8,88 6,58 7,17 4,47 5,82 0,00 ZDRR ZLRR ZJRR Wilayah
Kec. Banguntapan Kec. Sewon Kec. Kasihan Jml.. Bantul Kec.Gamping Kec. Mlati Kec. Depok Jml. Sleman Agregat WTP (Juta Rp) AGREGATE INDIRECT USE VALUES 1800,00 1600,00 1400,00 1200,00 1000,00 800,00 600,00 400,00 200,00 0,00 238,78 219,74 53,27 511,79 381,69 217,53 450,35 1049,56 1561,35 ZDRR ZLRR ZJRR Jumlah Kab. Bantul Kab. Sleman Jml Bantul + Sleman Wilayah
Kec. Banguntapan Kec. Sewon Kec. Kasihan Rerata zona RerataBantul Kec.Gamping Kec. Mlati Kec. Depok Rerata zona Rerata Sleman Rata-rata WTA (Juta Rp) EXISTENCE VALUES 5,00 4,50 4,00 3,50 3,00 2,50 2,00 1,50 1,00 0,50 0,00 4,46 4,63 4,08 3,99 3,42 3,26 3,47 3,57 3,89 3,38 3,32 3,21 3,54 3,73 3,52 3,30 2,94 2,94 2,89 2,29 2,56 2,58 2,46 1,80 1,42 0,00 ZDRR ZLRR ZJRR Kab. Bantul Kab. Sleman Wilayah
Kec. Banguntapan Kec. Sewon Kec. Kasihan Jml Zona JmlBantul Kec.Gamping Kec. Mlati Kec. Depok Jml Zona Jml Sleman Jml Bantul+Sleman Agregat WTA (Milyar Rp) AGGREGATE EXISTENCE VALUES 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0,000 22,298 11,495 10,803 4,761 4,718 4,579 3,282 3,452 1,506 ZDRR ZLRR ZJRR Kab. Bantul Kab. Sleman Wilayah
Kec. Banguntapan Kec. Sewon Kec. Kasihan Jumlah Zona Kec.Gamping Kec. Mlati Kec. Depok Jumlah Zona Jml Zona Bantul + Sleman Nilai Ekonomi Total (Milyar Rp) TOTAL ECONOMIC VALUE 90,00 80,00 70,00 60,00 50,00 40,00 30,00 20,00 10,00 0,00 15,06 12,13 13,52 40,70 12,84 9,85 14,66 37,35 78,05 ZDRR ZLRR ZJRR Jumlah Kab. Bantul Kab. Sleman Sleman+Bantul Wilayah
Rata-rata WTA (Juta Rp) Bngntpn WILLINGNESS OF FARMERS TO SUSTAIN AGRICULTURAL ENVIRONMENT Swon Kasihan Rerata Gamping Mlati Depok Rerata 5 4,5 4 3,5 3 2,5 2 1,5 1 0,5 0 4,46 4,63 4,08 3,99 4,08 3,89 3,42 3,47 3,57 3,38 3,32 3,21 2,94 3,45 3,45 3,3 3,36 3,54 3,52 2,98 3,26 3,08 2,92 2,97 2,89 2,29 2,58 2,59 2,13 2,46 ZDRR 1,8 ZLRR ZJRR 0 Rerata Zona Kab. Sleman Kab. Bantul Wilayah
FACTORS AFFECTING WTA Variables Expected Reg. sign coefficient Prob. Significance Constant 117.577 Farm income + 0.4643 0.0006 ** Non farm income - 0,5263 0,0536 * Age of farmer ± 0.3073 0.0200 ** Education level of farmer + 0.1328 0.6704 ns Size of land holding - 0.2955 0.0033 ** Knowledge of farmer on multifunctionality of agriculture + 0.3128 0.0678 ** Number of household member + 0.1375 0.0430 ** Dummy ZLRR - -0.2326 0.0000 *** Dummy ZJRR - -0.9574 0.0000 *** R 2 0.889484 Jarque Bera Prob. 84,89% F-test 0.000000 VIF of independent var. < 10
Bngtpn Sewon Kasihan Rerata Gamping Mlati Depok Rerata Rata-rata WTP (Ribu Rp) WILLINGNESS OF PEOPLE TO SUSTAIN AGRICULTURAL ENVIRONMENT 35,00 30,00 25,00 20,00 15,00 10,00 5,00 0,00 25,68 21,48 20,25 13,58 21,46 17,08 15,78 8,80 19,56 15,50 13,88 6,58 22,23 22,04 18,02 16,98 16,64 15,40 9,65 7,17 29,14 26,67 23,25 18,58 24,19 18,96 15,71 16,01 12,92 4,47 0,00 5,82 ZDRR ZLRR ZJRR Rerata Zona Kab. Bantul Kab. Sleman Wilayah
FACTORS AFFECTING WTP Variables Expected sign Reg. coefficient Constant 7.577 Prob. Significance Household income + 0.3643 0.0006 *** Age of respondent ± 0.2073 0.0100 ** Education + 0.0328 0.6704 ns Distance of house from farm - 0.1955 0.0033 *** Knowledge of farmer on multifunctionality of agriculture + 0.2128 0.0678 * Number of household member - -0.0375 0.3430 ns Dummy ZLRR - -0.1326 0.0000 *** Dummy ZJRR - -0.9374 0.0000 *** R 2 0.8994 F-test 0.0000 VIF of independent var. < 10
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION Development of harmonious naturesociety relationship in urban environment can only be achieved when we understand clearly the nature of farmers and urban people awareness towards agricultural environment.
This becomes one of the important preconditions for resilience condition of harmonious rural-urban relation to be established. Sustainable urban development can only be achieved when the nature of farmers and urban people willingness to sustain agricultural environment is clearly understood.
Since the trade off between sustaining and losing agricultural environment is increasing from time to time, therefore, providing appropriate incentives to the farmers become becomes very much important.
Thank you for your kind attention