The improvement of horticultural villages sustainability in Central Java Province, Indonesia

Joko Sutrisno; Eddy Tri Haryanto; Puji Harsono; Bambang Pujiasmanto; Reismaya Wanamertan Nugroho

doi:10.1515/opag-2022-0222

Article Open Access

The improvement of horticultural villages sustainability in Central Java Province, Indonesia

Joko Sutrisno , Eddy Tri Haryanto , Puji Harsono , Bambang Pujiasmanto and Reismaya Wanamertan Nugroho

Published/Copyright: September 6, 2023

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Submit Manuscript Author Information Explore this Subject

From the journal Open Agriculture Volume 8 Issue 1

Abstract

The potential for vegetables in Indonesia is enormous. However, activities both upstream and downstream are still not well developed so that Indonesia is still importing horticulture to meet domestic needs. Because the potential for horticulture has not been maximized, the Ministry of Agriculture is holding a Horticultural Village program, one of which is in Central Java. The Horticultural Village Program that has been running requires a strategy to increase its sustainability. This research was conducted in Central Java to determine strategies to improve the sustainability of the horticultural village program. The method used in this study is multidimensional scaling (MDS) with the rapid appraisal for horticultural village (RAP-HORVI) technique or RAP-HORVIs. This research method will produce an index value that will determine the sustainability status of all dimensions used, namely, input, process, output, and outcome. The result of this analysis is that the Horticultural Village in Central Java is in a quite sustainable status. The results of this MDS show that 12 sensitive attributes can be used as strategies in increasing the value and sustainability status of Horticultural Villages in Central Java, namely, business management training, availability of production tools and materials, suitability of production input facilities, technical training, availability of capital, optimizing the use of infrastructure assistance, checking on farmers/micro, small, and medium enterprises beneficiaries of SK CPCL, intensive assistance by trainers, increasing planting area, increasing the number and variety of plant types, planning the area of land ready for planting, and increasing business capital.

Keywords: MDS; RAP-HORVI; strategy; sustainability

1 Introduction

The agricultural sector contributes to the development of a country, in terms of providing food needs, employment, and sources of raw materials for various sectors [1]. The sustainability of the agricultural sector has driven the wheels of the economy, at both the regional and national levels. The growth of the agricultural sector even remained positive when the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak occurred, especially in the horticulture subsector. According to the Ministry of Agriculture, the horticulture subsector grew 7.85% during the COVID-19 pandemic. This indicates a very good contribution of the horticulture subsector to the structure of the National gross domestic product [2]. Horticultural commodities have high economic value compared to other commodities because they have high selling values, various types, and large market absorption potential at home and abroad [3]. On the other hand, in terms of technical cultivation, especially vegetables, horticultural commodities require good growing conditions. Horticultural commodities risk being damaged more easily and taking up much space [4]. The production cost is relatively higher than food commodities [5]. Even though these commodities are classified as having high economic value, the price on the market fluctuates significantly from time to time [6]. The risks farmers face are quite large, but their success in the upstream and downstream sectors will significantly benefit farmers.

Indonesia has a great potential for horticultural cultivation because the tropical climate allows for various seasons for fruit, vegetable, and flower commodities throughout the year [7]. In addition, horticultural commodities can grow in the lowlands and highlands. Fruits and vegetables play an important role in meeting the community’s food needs. Because its nutritional content is good for health, the need for quantity and quality must be pursued [8]. Central Java is one of Indonesia’s most significant contributors to horticultural commodities. This is because the population of Central Java Province reaches 34 million people, so the number of requests is high. The conditions for developing horticultural crop production in Central Java Province fluctuate yearly. Some factors that affect the increase and decrease in crop production are bad weather, limited water availability, OPT attacks, seed quality, and frequency of fertilization [9].

As a country with great horticultural potential, Indonesia still imports horticultural commodities several times because of unmet needs [10]. Limited land, lack of intensive assistance, and unsupported infrastructure have resulted in the horticulture subsector not yet developing, from both the upstream and downstream sides [11]. This prompted the Ministry of Agriculture through the Directorate General of Horticulture to intervene with various horticultural development programs, such as developing horticultural villages, growing micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs), and digitizing agriculture. The development of horticultural villages is one of the main concentrations of the Ministry of Agriculture, which utilizes village administrative areas with an area of 5–10 hectares depending on the commodities developed in the village. Horticultural villages carry the concept of “one village one variety,” and superior commodities are selected based on market demand to ensure the marketing of the results [12]. Commodities that are developed must be in accordance with the agroecosystem of the development location, get enthusiasm from the local community, and there is a big commitment from local regional leaders. The villages participating in this program will receive assistance in the form of quality seeds, inputs, control of environmentally friendly plant pests, postharvest facilities and their processing, village registration, and product certification. The implementation of the horticultural village program involves a process from upstream to downstream, starting from input, process, output, to outcome. In its journey, the horticulture village program encountered several problems such as unclear institutions, lack of assistance, and limited infrastructure for agricultural production. The planning that has been made carefully by the government has not been evenly distributed in all regions. Potential areas for several leading commodities in Central Java are still experiencing limitations in the distribution of seeds and fertilizers. Consistency and increased production are also not matched by good market information. Limited market information causes prices set by farmers to be detrimental to them as producers. The horticulture village program largely determines the condition of the farmers involved in it, and it is a way for the government to fulfill domestic horticultural needs. As a commodity with high economic value, horticulture has a large market potential for commercialization [13]. In addition, the horticultural village program is a forum for farmers and MSME actors to work together, improve the soft skills of farmers, especially in building horticultural villages through meetings held together with the agricultural institutions involved, and provide space for local communities to be able to optimize superior commodities that can be cultivated simultaneously. Good communication among farmers, MSME actors, surrounding communities, and related agricultural institutions is needed in developing a horticultural village program. Efforts to maintain this program are certainly not easy because it is hoped that the horticulture village program will not only run for a short period but also will continue into the future. This research provides the results of an evaluation of the horticultural village program from a sustainability perspective. This study is different from the previous studies conducted by Stanny et al. [14] who analyzed the sustainability of the horticulture subsector using five dimensions, namely, ecological, economic, social, technological, and institutional, and by Mar’Atusholikha et al. [15] and Leha et al. [16] who focus on the sustainability of one type of horticultural product. The sustainability analysis of the horticultural village program is an interesting discussion because it involves an assessment component from the side of farmers, MSMEs, and the government. The results of this analysis will become a reference in determining the strategy for developing a horticulture village program in Central Java Province so that it is able to increase its sustainability value based on sensitive attributes in each dimension. This is important because there is still a lack of strategic steps to develop a horticultural village program so that it can be implemented for a long time. The synergy between the dimensions of input, process, output, and outcome is an integral component of the concept of the horticultural village program that does not only pay attention to the upstream side but also pay attention to the downstream side. Therefore, this study aims to analyze the horticultural program’s sustainability status, from the input, process, and output stages, to the outcomes and sustainability improvement strategies.

2 Materials and methods

This research was conducted in villages that received assistance for the growth of horticultural MSMEs in Central Java Province, namely, Batang Regency, Temanggung Regency, Brebes Regency, Purbalingga Regency, and Pati Regency. This research was conducted in 2022. There were 146 respondents in this study consisting of 28 farmer groups, 105 farmers, 5 MSMEs, and 9 agencies. The commodities cultivated by the horticultural villages in each region differ, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1

Horticultural commodities for each region

Region	Commodity
Batang regency	Shallots, big chilies, garlic, medicinal plants, durian, longan, jasmine
Temanggung regency	Cayenne pepper, garlic, avocado
Brebes regency	Shallots, garlic, potato, longan
Purbalingga regency	Shallots, big chilies, leaf vegetables, cardamom, durian
Pati regency	Big chili, mango, longan, durian, mangosteen, medicinal plants

Source: Ministry of Agriculture [17].

Data were analyzed using the multidimensional scaling (MDS) method. The technique used in this analysis is the rapid appraisal for horticultural village (RAP-HORVI). RAP-HORVI is a modification of the Rapid Appraisal for Fisheries developed by Kavanagh [18], Pitchers, and Preikshot [19]. This study used the method to analyze the sustainability index and status of horticultural villages in Central Java Province using input, output, outcome, and process dimensions. The dimension consists of input, process, output, and outcome. Each dimension consists of attributes that are analyzed in Table 2.

Table 2

Dimensions and indicators for measuring sustainability status

Dimension	Indicator
Input	Corporate availability
	Access to capital
	Availability of capital
	Availability of production tools and materials
	Independent supply of inputs
	Suitability of seed quality
	Suitability of production input facilities
	Business management training
	Technical training
	Business experience
	Human resource capacity
	Labor availability
Process	Adoption rate of mechanization technology
	Technology adoption rate
	The capacity of mentoring and counseling
	Intensity of mentoring and counseling
	Group dynamics
	Village government support
	Local government support
	Utilization of infrastructure assistance
	Accuracy of technical guidance material
	The suitability of the beneficiary farmers/MSME groups with CPCL decree
	Timeliness of program implementation
	Conformity of implementation of facilities against plans/targets
Output	The role of corporate bodies/business entities/institutional management of horticultural villages
	GAP implementation level
	GHP/postharvest application level and product processing
	Plant pest attack levels
	Facilitated cropping conditions
	Increased planted area
	Realization of the planted area
	Satisfaction of groups/MSMEs receiving assistance with the horticulture program
Outcome	Establishment of horticulture area/horticulture village
	Performance of corporate bodies/business entities/institutional management of horticulture villages
	Labor absorption
	Increase in working capital
	Product improvement/development
	Level of income/business feasibility
	Product marketing access
	The reach of product marketing access
	Selling price fluctuation
	Selling price level
	Outcome handling level
	Production quality performance
	Productivity improvements

Source: Modified indicator.

Each dimension uses assessment attributes with a “good” value category for the best condition and a “bad” value for the worst condition. The definitive value used is the mode value obtained from all respondents. The results of this analysis produce an index value in the range of 0–100. The index values are grouped into several categories based on their sustainability status. The sustainability status of the horticulture village is presented in Table 3.

Table 3

Sustainability status indicators

Index value	Sustainability criteria
0.00–25.00	Not sustainable
25.01–50.00	Less sustainable
50.01–75.00	Quite sustainable
75.01–100.00	Sustainable

Source: Thamrin et al. [20].

In the MDS analysis, the goodness of fit is explained by using the stress value and the R ². If the stress value is <0.25, then the output of the MDS analysis has good results, or the smaller the stress value, the better the output. The output will be better if each dimension’s R ² value is close to 1 or 100% [21]. After conducting a goodness-of-fit analysis, a sensitivity analysis was conducted by looking at the results of the leverage analysis output. The value used to see the sensitivity of each attribute is the root mean square (RMS). According to Riptanti et al. [22], when the RMS value for Leverage is higher, the role of this attribute in increasing the value of the horticultural village sustainability index will be more sensitive. The selected attribute is the attribute with the highest RMS value, reaching more than half the value in each dimension of sustainability [19]. Monte Carlo analysis was used to predict the error rate of the analysis at a 95% confidence interval obtained from the difference between the Monte Carlo value and the MDS index value. According to Riptanti and Irianto [23], a good Monte Carlo value is less than 0.5 (<0.5). If the difference is smaller, then this indicates a variation in scoring due to relatively small differences in perception. The repeated analysis process of MDS is relatively stable, with a low error rate in entering data [21].

3 Results and discussion

3.1 The sustainability of horticultural village

3.1.1 Input sustainability

The MDS index value of the input dimension (Figure 1a) is 61.07, which means it is quite sustainable. The input dimensional stress values are 0.13 and R ² is 0.96. Based on the results of the goodness of fit, the input dimension gives good results. The input dimension is considered to be in the quite sustainable category, which means that the attributes in the input dimension are sufficient to support the horticultural village program. The results of the leverage analysis (Figure 1b) show that the sensitive attributes with the highest RMS value of up to half of the value of the input dimension (>3.00) are business management training, availability of production tools and materials, suitability of production input facilities, technical training, and availability of capital. This shows that the five attributes can be a lever factor to increase the value of the sustainability index.

Figure 1

(a) Input dimension sustainability index value and (b) input dimension sensitive attributes.

The successful implementation of the horticultural village program cannot be separated from the availability of inputs. This availability is related to not only the infrastructure that supports the cultivation of horticultural commodities but also the farmers’ experience and technical capabilities in farming management. Farmers have run the horticultural village program for approximately 10 years. Some of them have even been running for more than 20 years. The length of time farmers are closely related to their experience of land tenure, planning for the future, and anticipating all risks that might occur [24]. Farmers are faced with the situation of wisely determining input needs for cultivation so that cost efficiency and yield optimization occur. This, of course, requires farmers to choose the best input, in terms of both optimum quality and quantity [25]. Unfavorable weather factors and pest attacks are a problem for farmers because they can decrease crop yields. This affects horticultural commodities, which are easily damaged and rotten when the factors that influence their growth are not supportive.

Based on the results of the Monte Carlo analysis, the difference between the MDS index value and the Monte Carlo value is 0.02 or less than 0.5. It means that there is no significant difference in the results between the results of the RAP-HORVI analysis and the results of the Monte Carlo analysis. It shows good analysis results and a small error rate.

3.1.2 Process sustainability

The MDS index value of the process dimension (Figure 2a) is 59.99, which means it is quite sustainable. The process dimension stress values are 0.14 and R ² is 0.95. Based on the results of the goodness of fit, the process dimension gives good results. The process dimension is considered to be in the quite sustainable category, which means that the attributes in the process dimension are sufficient to support the horticultural village program. The results of the leverage analysis (Figure 2b) show that the sensitive attributes with the highest RMS value of up to half of the process dimension value (>1.75) are the utilization of infrastructure assistance, the suitability of beneficiary farmer/MSME groups with decree of farmers’ candidate and locations’ candidate (SK CPCL), and the capacity of mentoring and counseling. This shows that these three attributes can be a lever factor to increase the value of the sustainability index.

Figure 2

(a) Process dimension sustainability index value and (b) input dimension sensitive attributes.

The running of the horticultural village program cannot be separated from the factors that support it. This program received support from the regional government as the policy maker and facilitator. Farmers need additional information, especially related to technology that farmers can implement. In addition, agricultural infrastructure and technical guidance assistance are still not evenly distributed in several regions. Agricultural facilities and infrastructure include fertilizers, seeds, machinery, road access, irrigation, cultivation to postharvest equipment, warehouses, and access to finance [26]. Most farmers still use simple technology in the cultivation process, such as tillage and planting. On the other hand, farmers have to face challenges in each cultivation process, such as the availability of seeds and fertilizers, access to markets or agricultural shops, irrigation conditions, and new farming methods. All of these components certainly affect the income received by farmers in connection with effectiveness and efficiency [27].

Based on the results of the Monte Carlo analysis, the difference between the MDS index value and the Monte Carlo value is 0.28 or less than 0.5. It means that there is no significant difference in the results between the results of the RAP-HORVI analysis and the results of the Monte Carlo analysis. It shows good analysis results and a small error rate.

3.1.3 Output sustainability

The MDS index value of the output dimension (Figure 3a) is 61.04, which means it is quite sustainable. The output dimension stress values are 0.13 and R ² is 0.95. Based on the results of the goodness of fit, the output dimension gives good results. The output dimension is considered to be in the quite sustainable category, which means that the attributes in the output dimension are sufficient to support the horticultural village program. The results of the leverage analysis (Figure 3b) show that the sensitive attributes with the highest RMS value of up to half of the value of the output dimension (>3.50) are an increase in planted area, facilitated planting conditions, and realization of the planted area. This shows that these three attributes can be a lever factor to increase the value of the sustainability index.

Figure 3

(a) Output dimension sustainability index value and (b) input dimension sensitive attributes.

The output dimension is related to the realization of the program carried out by the horticultural village program actors. The existence of a horticultural village provides satisfaction for farmers regarding the realization of the planting area and planting conditions facilitated by the government. The realization of planting area has an impact on increasing the production of the horticulture subsector in each region [28]. This realization is accompanied by assistance for farmers in applying good hygiene practices (GHP) and good agriculture practices (GAP). The application of GHP and GAP plays an important role in producing quality products to match market preferences with the required quality standards [29]. So far, the farmers have carried out this practice quite well. This then affects the level of pest attacks on farmers’ land not too much so that the product produced is of good quality and quantity. However, good implementation at the farm level has not been well supported by local institutional bodies, even though institutions have a large role in the development of horticultural villages.

Based on the results of the Monte Carlo analysis, the difference between the MDS index value and the Monte Carlo value is 0.15 or less than 0.5. It means that there is no significant difference in the results between the results of the RAP-HORVI analysis and the results of the Monte Carlo analysis. It shows good analysis results and a small error rate.

3.1.4 Outcome sustainability

The MDS index value of the outcome dimension (Figure 4a) is 46.57, which means it is less sustainable. The stress value of the outcome dimension is 0.15 and R ² is 0.95. Based on the results of the goodness of fit, the outcome dimension gives good results. The outcome dimension is considered less sustainable, which means that the attributes in the outcome dimension do not support the horticultural village program. The results of the leverage analysis (Figure 4b) show that the sensitive attribute with the highest RMS value of up to half of the outcome dimension value (>1.25) is an increase in working capital. This shows that these attributes can be a lever factor to increase the value of the sustainability index.

Figure 4

(a) Outcome dimension sustainability index value and (b) input dimension sensitive attributes.

Most farmers are satisfied with the program because their production and income are higher than before joining the horticulture village program. On average, farmers sell their crops at the local and district levels. Not many farmers sell them outside the district because it requires more expensive packaging and transportation costs. Access to the market is still easy for farmers, so it does not take long to reach the sales location. The condition of the roads and transportation used greatly support farmers in streamlining their costs and time [30]. The thing to note is that farmers need capital to expand horticulture farming [31] because, so far, most farmers have not received additional capital, either from working capital or investment. This condition needs special attention from the horticulture village management agency so that the program can run not only in a short period of time but also can be done sustainably.

Based on the results of the Monte Carlo analysis, the difference between the MDS index value and the Monte Carlo value is 0.01 or less than 0.5. It means that there is no significant difference in the results between the results of the RAP-HORVI analysis and the results of the Monte Carlo analysis. It shows good analysis results and a small error rate.

3.2 Strategy to improve the sustainability of horticultural villages

Based on the results of an analysis of all dimensions of sustainability, the sustainability index of horticultural villages in Central Java is 57.17, which means it is quite sustainable. Leverage analysis results show 11 sensitive attributes out of 45 attributes. These sensitive attributes can be used to increase the sustainability index in each dimension through several strategies presented in Table 4.

Table 4

Strategies for increasing the sustainability status of sensitive attributes

No.	Sensitive attribute	Strategy
1.	Business management training	Conducting training for farmers who are managed by agricultural trainers by inviting business practitioners or collaborating with academics to develop horticultural commodities in the local area [32,33]
2.	Availability of production tools and materials	Providing input assistance from the government to each farmer group so that they can be managed independently [34,35]. To be implemented properly, this assistance needs to be monitored periodically by officers [36]
3.	Suitability of production input facilities	Production input facilities are adjusted to the needs of the commodities cultivated by paying attention to optimizing the use of inputs so that efficiency occurs [37]
4.	Technical training	Cultivation technical training to farmers by agricultural trainers periodically to increase the knowledge and skills of farmers [38]. This training can also involve experienced academics and practitioners [39]
5.	Availability of capital	Ease of requirements for farmers to apply for capital (loans), both formal and informal loans [40]. Loans for farmers provide benefits to using agricultural inputs more optimally [41]
6.	Utilization of infrastructure assistance	Optimizing the use of agricultural infrastructure assistance according to the procedure for its use [42]
7.	Appropriateness of farmers/MSME groups beneficiaries of SK CPCL	Conducting repeated checks regarding who is entitled to obtain decree of farmers’ candidate and locations’ candidate (SK CPCL) by involving the local District/City Agriculture Office, agricultural trainers, village government, and farmers’ group [43]
8.	Assistance and counseling capacity	Intensive assistance to farmers by agricultural trainers by involving active farmers. Farmers are not left alone in accessing information and finding problems that are happening. Farmers are given assistance so that the steps carried out are directed and according to procedures [44]
9.	Increase in planting area	Utilizing vacant land and unused idle land to be used as agricultural land [45]
10.	Facilitated cropping conditions	Increase the number of plants in one area of land and the variety of types of plants cultivated [46]
11.	Realization of planting area	Making optimum land planning for planting by looking at climate and weather conditions and estimated costs [47,48]
12.	Increase in venture capital	Form cooperatives in collaboration with Regionally Owned Enterprises (BUMDes) to make it easier for farmers to access capital [49,50]

4 Conclusion

The results of the sustainability analysis show that, overall, the horticultural village is in a quite sustainable status with an MDS index of 57.17. To increase the sustainability index’s value, the leverage analysis results can be used as a leverage indicator. The results of the leverage analysis show that 12 sensitive attributes can be used to increase the value and status of sustainability, namely, business management training, availability of production tools and materials, suitability of production input facilities, technical training, availability of capital, optimizing the use of infrastructure assistance, checking on farmers/MSMEs beneficiaries of SK CPCL, intensive assistance by trainers, increasing planting area, increasing the number and variety of plant types, planning the area of land ready for planting, and increasing business capital.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank to Directorate General of Horticulture Ministry of Agriculture, Indonesian Horticultural Association (PERHORTI), and Universitas Sebelas Maret for their support.

Funding information: This research was funded by Ministry of Agriculture.
Author contributions: JS: conceptualization, methodology, original draft, data analysis, review; ETH: conceptualization, methodology, data curation, review; PH: conceptualization, methodology, data curation, review; BP: conceptualization, methodology, supervision; RWN: original draft, data analysis, review, editing.
Conflict of interest: The authors state no conflict of interest.
Data availability statement: The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

[1] Khairad F, Noer M, Mahdi M. Analisis pertumbuhan ekonomi kawasan sentra produksi subsektor tanaman pangan di Provinsi Sumatera Barat. J Reg Rural Dev Plan. 2018;2(2):171–84. 10.29244/jp2wd.2018.2.2.171-184.Search in Google Scholar

[2] Coordinating Ministry for Economic Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia. Export-oriented horticultural development increases productivity, quality, and continuity of horticultural products. Jakarta: Coordinating Ministry for Economic Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia; 2021.Search in Google Scholar

[3] Andri KB, Tumbuan WJFA. Farming and marketing analysis of horticultural farmers in Bojonegoro. J LPPM Bid EkoSosBudKum. 2016;3(2):43–56.Search in Google Scholar

[4] Ariwaodo CA. Handling strategies and facilities for horticultural crops. OALib. 2022;9(5):1–29. 10.4236/oalib.1108577.Search in Google Scholar

[5] Wollo N. Comparison of production costs and benefits of horticultural crops and field crops under irrigation. In Proceedings of the Inaugural and EHSS Conference. Vol. 1; 2006. p. 1–30.Search in Google Scholar

[6] Qiao Y, Kang M, Ahn B. Analysis of factors affecting vegetable price fluctuation: A case study of South Korea. Agriculture. 2023;13(577):1–16. 10.3390/agriculture13030577.Search in Google Scholar

[7] Davis TD, Hariyadi P. Horticultural research and education opportunities in Indonesia. HortScience. 2013;48(3):292–5. 10.21273/hortsci.48.3.292.Search in Google Scholar

[8] Central Bureau of Statistics. Analisis rumah tangga usaha hortikultura di Indonesia: Hasil survey rumah tangga usaha tanaman hortikultura tahun 2014. Jakarta: Central Bureau of Statistics; 2014 (Indonesian).Search in Google Scholar

[9] Al Emran S, Krupnik TJ, Aravindakshan S, Kumar V, Pittelkow CM. Factors contributing to farm-level productivity and household income generation in coastal Bangladesh’s rice-based farming systems. PLoS One. 2021;16(9):1–27. 10.1371/journal.pone.0256694.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[10] Nugroho AD. Does covid-19 have effects on the Indonesian horticultural subsector? Bulg J Agric Sci. 2021;27(5):865–74.Search in Google Scholar

[11] Tanjung GS, Suryantini A, Utami AW. The priorities of leading sub-sector in the sector of agriculture, forestry, and fisheries in economic development in bangka belitung province. Agraris. 2021;7(2):160–75. 10.18196/AGRARIS.V7I2.11615.Search in Google Scholar

[12] Ministry of Agriculture. Directorate general of horticulture strategic plan for 2020–2024. Jakarta: Directorate General of Horticulture, Ministry of Agriculture; 2021.Search in Google Scholar

[13] Dong DS. The importance of gardening economy in socio-economic development in Vietnam. Cent Eur Manag J. 2022;30(4):1233–7. 10.57030/23364890.cemj.30.4.125.Search in Google Scholar

[14] Stanny YA, Barus B, Pravitasari AE. Sustainability of horticulture in agriculture era 4.0 in Lembang Sub-district, West Java. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. Vol. 694; 2021. 10.1088/1755-1315/694/1/012059.Search in Google Scholar

[15] Mar’atusholikha V, Widiatmaka, Firmansyah I. Sustainability of garlic cultivation at Tegal Regency, Central Java Province, Indonesia. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. Vol. 399; 2019. 10.1088/1755-1315/399/1/012027.Search in Google Scholar

[16] Leha E, Sutjahjo SH, Nurmalina R, Anwar S, Kurniawan R. Sustainability analysis of superior horticulture agribusiness development in East Sumba Regency, East Nusa Tenggara Province, Indonesia. J Resour Dev Manag. 2018;49:56–67.Search in Google Scholar

[17] Ministry of Agriculture. Directorate General of Horticulture performance report for 2022. Jakarta: Directorate General of Horticulture, Ministry of Agriculture; 2022.Search in Google Scholar

[18] Kavanagh P, Pitcher TJ. Implementing microsoft excel software for sustainability. Fish Cent Res Rep. 2004;12(2):2–80.Search in Google Scholar

[19] Pitcher TJ, Preikshot D. RAPFISH: A rapid appraisal technique to evaluate the sustainability status of fisheries. Fish Res. 2001;49(3):255–70.10.1016/S0165-7836(00)00205-8Search in Google Scholar

[20] Thamrin, SSH, Herison C, Sabiham S. Sustainability analysis of West Kalimantan- Malaysian border for the development of agropolitan region. J Agro Ekonomi. 2007;25(2):103–24.10.21082/jae.v25n2.2007.103-124Search in Google Scholar

[21] Alder J, Pitcher TJ, Preikshot D, Kaschner K, Feriss B. How good is good? A rapid appraisal technique for evaluation of the sustainability status of fisheries of the North Atlantic. Sea Around Us Methodol Rev. 2000;136–82. http://bridgetferriss.weebly.com/uploads/2/4/6/1/24614157/alderferriss_2000_rapfish_ubc_fish_report.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

[22] Riptanti EW, Masyhuri M, Irham I, Suryantini A. The improvement of dryland farming sustainable management in food-insecure areas in East Nusa Tenggara, Indonesia. Bulg J Agric Sci. 2021;27(5):829–37.Search in Google Scholar

[23] Riptanti EW, Irianto H. Strategy to improve the sustainability of ‘porang’ (Amorphophallus muelleri Blume) farming in support of the triple export movement policy in Indonesia. Open Agriculture. 2022;7:566–80. 10.1515/opag-2022-0121.Search in Google Scholar

[24] Karki S, Burton P, Mackey B. The experiences and perceptions of farmers about the impacts of climate change and variability on crop production: A review. Clim Dev. 2020;12(1):80–95. 10.1080/17565529.2019.1603096.Search in Google Scholar

[25] Iman A, Harahap FS. Adoption levels against farmer cultivation technology soybean (Glycine Max L) on the influence of socio-economic foundation in the district of South Kualuh North Labuhan Batu Regency. Int J Sci Technol Manag. 2021;2(3):692–5. 10.46729/ijstm.v2i3.232.Search in Google Scholar

[26] Padmini NLR, Wuisang CEV, Supardjo S. Kawasan agropolitan modayag di Kabupaten Bolaang Mongondow Timur. Spasial. 2016;3(3):236–45 (Indonesian). 10.35793/sp.v3i3.14257.Search in Google Scholar

[27] Sangha KK, Ahammad R, Mazahar MS, Hall M, Owens G, Kruss L, et al. An integrated assessment of the horticulture sector in Northern Australia to inform future development. Sustainability. 2022;14(18):1–18. 10.3390/su141811647.Search in Google Scholar

[28] Bitew G, Melaku A, Gelaw H. The impact of the expansion of large-scale agriculture in drylands of Ethiopia; Implications for sustainable natural resources management. London, United Kingdom: IntechOpen; 2022. p. 1–15. 10.5772/intechopen.108705.Search in Google Scholar

[29] Mdluli F, Thamaga-Chitja J, Schmidt S, Shimelis H. Production hygiene and training influences on rural small-scale organic farmer practices: South Africa. J Fam Ecol Consum Sci. 2014;42(February 2013):17–23.Search in Google Scholar

[30] Morgan AK, Dogbey E, Arimeyaw WA, Owusu FAS. Effect of road transport accessibility on agricultural produce marketing and livelihoods of farmers in the Kasena-Nankana West District of Ghana. J Dev Pract. 2019;5:39–46. http://journals.dbuniversity.ac.in/ojs/index.php/jdp/article/view/742.Search in Google Scholar

[31] Xu J, Huang J, Zhang Z, Gu X. The impact of family capital on farmers’ participation in farmland transfer: Evidence from rural China. Land. 2021;10(12):1–20. 10.3390/land10121351.Search in Google Scholar

[32] Brumfield RG, Ozkan B, Vezne R. A train-the-trainer program to train extension educators to teach business management skills to women farmers. Int J Econ Manag Syst. 2017;2:86–90.Search in Google Scholar

[33] Muniafu M, Wambalaba F, Wanyama W, Nduati G, Ndirangu D. Using OER as a tool for agribusiness management training for hard-to-reach rural farmer populations. J Async Learn Netw. 2013;17(2):21–30. 10.24059/olj.v17i2.358.Search in Google Scholar

[34] Siwu AAR, Mandei JR, Ruauw E. Dampak program bantuan sarana produksi pertanian terhadap pendapatan petani cabai di Desa Kauneran Kecamatan Sonder. Agri-Sosioekonomi. 2019;14(3):347–54 (Indonesian). 10.35791/agrsosek.14.3.2018.22653.Search in Google Scholar

[35] Hantoro FRP, Prasetyo E, Hermawan A. Dampak penggunaan alat dan mesin pertanian terhadap produksi padi di Kabupaten Tegal. Pangan. 2020;29(3):171–80 (Indonesian). 10.35791/agrsosek.14.3.2018.22653.Search in Google Scholar

[36] Nikola TM, Kehinde O, Mile P. Are agricultural subsidies efficient tool for agricultural sector of the republic of Macedonia? Bulg J Agric Sci. 2017;23(3):363–9.Search in Google Scholar

[37] Yu Y, Wang L, Lin J, Li Z. Optimizing agricultural input and production for different types of at-risk peasant households: An empirical study of typical counties in the Yimeng Mountain area of Northern China. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(21):1–22. 10.3390/ijerph192113938.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[38] Saleh JM. Systematic review: Training needs of agriculture extension workers. Asian J Agric Ext Econ Sociol. 2019;34(2):1–13. 10.9734/ajaees/2019/v34i230197.Search in Google Scholar

[39] Rust NA, Stankovics P, Jarvis RM, Morris-Trainor Z, Vries JR, Ingram J, et al. Have farmers had enough of experts? Environ Manage. 2022;69(1):31–44. 10.1007/s00267-021-01546-y.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[40] Ashari A. Policy optimization of credit program for agricultural sector in Indonesia. Anal Kebijak Pertan. 2019;7(1):21–42.Search in Google Scholar

[41] Khanal AR, Omobitan O. Rural finance, capital constrained small farms, and financial performance: Findings from a primary survey. J Agric Appl Econ. 2020;52(2):288–307. 10.1017/aae.2019.45.Search in Google Scholar

[42] Mazibuko N, Antwi M, Rubhara T. Agricultural infrastructure as the driver of emerging farmers’ income in south africa. A stochastic frontier approach. Agron Colomb. 2020;38(2):266–71. 10.15446/agron.colomb.v38n2.81292.Search in Google Scholar

[43] Nugroho P, Pudjiastuti AQ, Sumarno S. Peningkatan produksi padi di Kabupaten Malang melalui program upsus pajale selama pandemi covid-19. Agrikultura. 2022;32(3):199–206. Indonesian 10.24198/agrikultura.v32i3.35176.Search in Google Scholar

[44] Padmowihardjo S. Penyuluhan pendampingan partisipatif. J Penyul. 2006;2(1):1–2 (Indonesian).10.25015/penyuluhan.v2i1.2143Search in Google Scholar

[45] Ardiwijaya VS, Sumardi TP, Suganda E, Temenggung YA. Rejuvenating idle land to sustainable urban form: Case study of Bandung metropolitan area, Indonesia. Procedia Env Sci. 2015;28:176–84. 10.1016/j.proenv.2015.07.024.Search in Google Scholar

[46] Cappelli SL, Domeignoz-Horta LA, Loaiza V, Laine AL. Plant biodiversity promotes sustainable agriculture directly and via belowground effects. Trends Plant Sci. 2022;27(7):674–87. 10.1016/j.tplants.2022.02.003.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[47] Suhardono A. Optimasi penggunaan lahan pertanian dengan program linier (Lokasi studi: J.I. Sumber Buntu,Kecamatan Jabung, Kabupaten Malang. J Tek Pengair. 2012;2(1):55–61 (Indonesian).Search in Google Scholar

[48] Song G, Zhang H. Cultivated land use layout adjustment based on crop planting suitability: A case study of typical counties in Northeast China. Land. 2021;10(2):1–19. 10.3390/land10020107.Search in Google Scholar

[49] Setiana A, Syahza A, Suarman S. Strategi pengembangan BUMDes di Kecamatan Pangkalan Lesung Kabupaten Pelalawan, Riau. Sorot. 2021;16(1):47–59 (Indonesian). 10.31258/sorot.16.1.47-59.Search in Google Scholar

[50] Candemir A, Duvaleix S, Latruffe L. Agricultural cooperatives and farm sustainability–A literature review. J Econ Surv. 2021;35(4):1118–44. 10.1111/joes.12417.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2023-04-11

Revised: 2023-07-25

Accepted: 2023-08-17

Published Online: 2023-09-06

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/opag-2022-0222

Keywords for this article

MDS; RAP-HORVI; strategy; sustainability

Creative Commons

BY 4.0