URBAN AGRICULTURE AS AN ALTERNATIVE POLICY FOR MANAGEMENT OF DESAKOTA REGIONS by: Dr. agr. Didit Okta Pribadi
INTRODUCTION Urban sprawl in Asia leads to development of megacities having > 10 million inhabitants and encompassing cities, town, villages, and rural areas (UN-Habitat and UNESCAP, 2015). Urban sprawl occurred in the dense agricultural zones and created a specific feature called desakota where urban and rural systems are intermingled to form a seemingly chaotic land use pattern (McGee, 1991; Yokohari et al., 2000; Moench & Gyawali, 2008) While some scholars regarded desakota is a temporary features during urbanization, emerging food security, poverty, and environmental issues have enhanced the role of desakota in supporting urban resilience and sustainability (McGee, 2010; Rustiadi, et al., 2015). Still, management of desakota regions is a big issue
Urban agriculture offers a promising concept as it emphasizes the integration of agriculture into urban socioeconomic and ecological systems (Mougeot, 2000) Multifunctionality and connectivity to the urban system become a key to manage peri-urban agriculture (PUA) (Zasada, 2011) However, the application of the concept is hindered by a lack of understanding of: (1) farming types in peri-urban areas and their particular response to rapid urban expansion (2) the potential ecological and social benefits derived from these farming types (3) effective policies for integrating agriculture into urban development and for enhancing their social and ecological benefits
To close the knowledge gap, this study has objectives as follows: 1) to investigate the character of urban sprawl and its impact on the dynamics of PUA. 2) To analyze the relationships between PUA types and socioeconomic issues as well as environmental issues. 3) To asses the potential of PUA contributing to the urban sustainability through multifunctional farming. 4) To draw conclusions towards development of policies which effectively support multifunctional PUA
Macro Trend of Urbanization PUA Response to Urbanization PUA management based on farming types adaptation to urbanization ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK Meso Socioeconomic functions of PUA Ecological functions of PUA Types, areas, and different functions of PUA that should be preserved Micro PUA Farm Characteristics PUA Farm Adaptation Transformation of rural-traditional farming into multifunctional and sustainable PUA Policies for PUA management Farm types adaptation to urbanization Functions and services of farmland at the landscape level Farming capacities to develop multifunctional practices
MATERIAL AND METHODS STUDY AREA 6,256 km2 with a population 27.96 million in 2010 183 sub-districts and 1,495 villages in 2011 The northern part alluvial zone, while the southern part mountainous area
MICRO MESO MACRO METHODS DATA METHODS OUTCOME Series of satellite images Series of socioeconomic data Field observation of agricultural land use Land use change analysis Multivariate statistic of socioeconomic panel data Spatial mapping and clustering of farming types The dynamics of PUA and different farming types during rapid urbanization in JMA Socioeconomic data by village Socioeconomic data by sub district Land use maps, soil types, rainfall, topography, farmland management Correspondence Analysis Geographically Weighted Regression (GWR) Peak Flow Model Soil Erosion Model PUA zoning analysis The link of PUA in a particular area with the urban socioeconomic and ecological system Questionnaire based interviews with farmers Descriptive Analysis Benefit-Cost Ratio Analysis Correspondence analysis Farm s capacity to adapt to urbanization and develop multifunctional practices
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION MACRO STUDY Main Findings Continuation of urban sprawl caused farmland conversion and fragmentation in the peri-urban region. 1.00 0.80 Built Up Ratio 0.60 0.40 0.20 Log. (1993) Log. (2003) Log. (2008) y = 0,2051ln(x) - 0,1951 R² = 0,5785 y = 0,2143ln(x) - 0,1528 R² = 0,5166 y = 0,1923ln(x) - 0,0852 R² = 0,4629 0.00 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Density (Population Number/Ha) Type of neighborhood Only built up / non built up area Mixed built up and non built up area Percent of Neighborhood Number 1972 1983 1995 2005 2012 81.1 69.1 28.9 26.0 23.6 19.0 30.9 71.1 74.0 76.4
Hectares Interestingly, farmland loss was lower than urban land take as it shifted to further areas and penetrated the forest. 250000 200000 150000 100000 50000 0-50000 -100000-150000 -200000 Land Use Type Losses Gains
PUA contribution to support food security and regional economy was enhanced at the time of economic crisis in 1998 and 2007 GDP CONTRIBUTION (PERCENTAGE) 7,00 6,00 5,00 4,00 3,00 2,00 1,00 0,00 GDP (MILLION RP) 6.000.000 5.000.000 4.000.000 3.000.000 2.000.000 1.000.000 0 SCORE FACTOR OF GDP OF PERIURBAN PRIMARY SECTOR 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0-0.5-1.0-1.5 1993 1994 1995 2009 2008 1996 1997 2007 2004 20052006 2002 2003 2001 1999 2000 1998 2010 YEAR YEAR -2.0-2.5-2.0-1.5-1.0-0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 SCORE FACTOR OF GDP OF URBAN AND PERIURBAN SECONDARY AND TERTIARY SECTOR PUA still supports the livelihood of many peri-urban dwellers through on-farm and off-farm activities, although the number of landless farmers is increasing.
Lowland horticulture and inland aquaculture benefit from the nearby urban markets, whereas lowland and upland paddy & food crops, upland horticulture, and livestock were pushed away from the urbanized areas
PAPER I
MESO STUDY (I) main findings PUA had a close economic link with low and middle class residential areas and small-medium scale urban economic activities. Dimension 2; Eigenvalue:.20753 (13.35% of Inertia) 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0-0.5-1.0-1.5-2.0 Villa Hotel Farmer Household Stall Household Food Stall Small Scale Industry Restaurant Mini-market Non Permanent Traditional Market Permanent Traditional Market -2.5-2.5-2.0-1.5-1.0-0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 Dimension 1; Eigenvalue:.23985 (15.43% of Inertia) Increasing poverty were followed by increasing numbers of farmers in the southeast and decreasing numbers of farmer in the north of JMA. North capital intensive farming Southeast low capital farming Poor Almost Poor
Self Employed Free Workers Non-Paid Workers PUA had a close economic link with low and middle class residential areas and small-medium scale urban economic activities. PUA had a capability to support food security policy only in the surroundings of Jakarta, east, and northeast of JMA dominated by staple food production farming Income Food Prices Farmers
PAPER II
SOIL EROSION USLE MODEL RUNOFF PEAK FLOW MODEL MESO STUDY (II)- main findings Expansion of PUA in the catchment areas led to increased runoff and soil erosion
MAPS OF ZONES THAT INFLUENCE RUNOFF AND SOIL EROSION 74%, 81%, 58% of PUA land located in critical zones (2,3,4) in Kali Bekasi, Ciliwung, and Cisadane respectively, dominated by dryland horticulture and mixed garden. Only a minor proportion of PUA land (9-10%) should be reforested Soil and water conservation application in PUA farming is important
PAPER III UNDER REVIEW
MICRO STUDY Main Findings Table 1. Farmers Characteristics in the Ciliwung Upstream Area (Source: Author s survey) Characteristics Farmers No. in percent (%) Education No school 11 10.9 Primary education (elementary 77 76.2 school) Secondary education 12 11.8 (highschool) University 1 1.0 Age Productive age (15-64) 78 77.2 Above productive age (>64) 23 22.8 Area of origin Local 76 75.2 Immigrant 25 24.8 Status Full-time farmer type 1 40 39.6 Full-time farmer type 2 33 32.7 Part-time 28 27.7 Agricultural type Horticulture 54 53.5 Paddy 43 42.6 Other food crops 4 4.0 Land access type Own property 13 12.9 Rent 26 25.7 Mortgaged land 3 3.0 Production-sharing 34 33.7 Property guard 22 21.8 Land encroachment 3 3.0 Farmers in the CSA are not well educated, not all are local people, most of them are full-time farmers, and still in the working age.
Paddy Field Horticulture Horticulture emerged as large-scale farming further from the settlements, whereas paddy fields showed subsistence farming in the smaller and fragmented land near the settlements. Both were developed on land not owned by farmers.
Full time, younger, and higher capital farmers tend to develop horticulture, whereas part time, older, and lower capital farmers tend to develop paddy field. Both have lack of strong multifunctionality (i.e. strong socioeconomic and environmental value) due to declining productivity for horticulture and low benefit for paddy fields, thus farming sustainability will be threatened - unsustained Farmers capacity to apply strong multifunctionality should be supported and it is determined by their individual capacity (age, work time, capital), intrinsic motives (profit or subsistence), and land tenure situation.
High Profit Secure Multifunctional agriculture Farmer Capacity Farmer Motive Insecure Access on Land Lack of environmental conservation Increasing skill, capital, time Diversifying Non-food product Non-marketable public benefit Securing Minimize risk in dynamics peri-urban setting Low Subsistence Lack of generating income and jobs, but providing food for the poor
PAPER IV
CONCLUSION At the macro level, PUA should not be neglected and needs to be managed as it keeps persisting as one of the major land use type that could support urban resilience, especially at the time of crisis. At the meso level, PUA zones which have different functions across the landscapes should be developed by considering farming types, size, distribution, and their adaptation to urbanization. At the micro level, multifunctional farming should be applied to maintain farming business. Developing multifunctional farming is not only farmers responsibility, but also other stakeholders e.g. government and urban society to develop non-food marketable product and services (e.g. agrotourism, agro-education, etc.) and non marketable public benefits (e.c. enhancing food security, supporting peri-urban economy, increasing environmnetal quality).