“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

Cities pull factors:

• Job opportunities

• Infrastructures

• Urban hedonism,etc.

Industries Commercial Housing Public facilities

• Spectacular pop. increase

• Pollution

• Other urban externalities

INTRODUCTION

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

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

WE MAY IGNORE THIS….

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.

Location of the

Study

Yogyakarta Province

Java Island

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

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

ESTIMATING ENVIRONMENTAL

VALUE OF AGRICULTURE

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

1

i

i

i xIANGL

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:

47

1

)(i

iinf WTPxPopNGTL

Notes:

(Popnf)i = Number of non farm families within sub urban

area of Yogyakarta.

= Average real WTP from people within sub

urban area of Yogyakarta from each sub-cluster

(Rp).

i = Number of sub-cluster (47 sub-cluster).

WTPi

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 sub-

clusters within sub urban area of Yogyakarta.

• NGTL is calculated as follow:

Notes:

47

1i

ii WTAxANNG

Ai = Size of agricultural land lost due to

irreversible conversion within 47 sub-clusters

(sub-zones) between 1996 to 2006 (ha).

= Average real WTP from people within sub

urban area of Yogyakarta from each sub-

cluster (Rp).

i = Number of sub-cluster (47 sub-cluster).

WTAi

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 = β0 + β1LnX1 + β2LnX2 + β3LnX3 +

β4LnX4 + β5LnX5 + β6LnX6 + β7LnX7 +

d12 ZLRR + d13 ZJRR + ε

Expected signs: β1, β4, β6, β7 > 0; β2, β5, d12, d13 <

0; dan β3 > 0 atau < 0.

Notes:

R2 = Coefficient of determination

β0 = Intercept

βi = Coefficients of regression

ε = Error term

WTA = Value of WTA of farmers in each sub-cluster (Rp).

X1 = Farm income (Rp/ha/year)

X2 = Non farm income (Rp/tahun)

X3 = Age of farmer (tahun))

X4 = Education level of farmer(skor)

X5 = Size of land (ha)

X6 = Knowledge of farmers on multifunctionality of agriculture

(%)

X7 Family members (persons)

d12 = Dummy ZLRR (d12 = 1 if within ZLRR; d12 = 0 if others

d13 = Dummy ZJRR (d13 = 1 if within ZJRR; d13= 0 if others

Ln WTP = β0 + β1LnX1 + β2LnX2 + β3LnX3 +

β4LnX4 + β5LnX5 + β6LnX6 + d12

ZLRR+ d13 ZJRR + ε

Expected signs: β1, β3, β5 > 0; β4, β6, d12,

d13 < 0; dan β2 > 0 atau < 0.

Notes:

R2 = Coefficient of determination

β0 = Intercept

β1 = Coefficients of regression

ε = Error term

Factors Affecting WTP

WTP = Value of WTP of sub urban people of Yogyakarta to secure

the existence of agricultural environment (Rp)

X1 = Age of household head (years)

X2 = Household income (Rp/month)

X3 = Member of household (persons)

X4 = Education level of household head (score)

X5 = Knowledge of farmers on multifunctionality of agriculture

(%)

X6 = Distance of house from farm land (km)

d12 = Dummy ZLRR (d12 = 1 if within ZLRR; d12 = 0 if other

d13 = Dummy ZJRR (d13 = 1 if within ZJRR; d13= 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 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

NUMBER OF FAMILY MEMBERS

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

EXPERINECE IN FARMING ACTIVITIES

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

LAND HOLDINGS

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

AVERAGE OPERATING LAND

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

NON FARM JOBS

PROFILE OF NON FARMERS

RESPONDENTS

Items ZDRR ZLRR ZJRR

Frek

. % Frek. % Frek. %

Age categories

(year)

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

7,333,54

10,87 12,428,51

20,92

12,639,76

22,39

15,6513,04

28,69

16,73

8,77

25,50

32,38

21,81

54,19

0,00

10,00

20,00

30,00

40,00

50,00

60,00

Sw

h+

Tg

l

Pk

rn

gn

Jm

l

Sw

h+

Tg

l

Pk

rn

gn

Jm

l

Sw

h+

Tg

l

Pk

rn

gn

Jm

l

Sw

h+

Tg

l

Pk

rn

gn

Jm

l

Sw

h+

Tg

l

Pk

rn

gn

Jm

l

Sw

h+

Tg

l

Pk

rn

gn

Jm

l

ZDRR ZLRR ZJRR Bantul Sleman Bantul+Sleman

Nil

ai

Gu

na

L

an

gsu

ng

(M

ily

ar R

p)

Jenis Lahan Pertanian dan Zona

Kab. Bantul

Kab. Sleman

Jumlah

DIRECT USE VALUES

25,6821,46

19,5622,23 22,04

18,58

29,14

23,2521,48

17,08 15,5018,02

16,98 15,71

24,19

18,96

13,58

8,88 6,589,68

7,174,47

0,00

5,82

0,00

5,00

10,00

15,00

20,00

25,00

30,00

35,00

Ra

ta

-ra

ta

WT

P (

Rib

u R

up

iah

)

Wilayah

ZDRR

ZLRR

ZJRR

INDIRECT USE VALUES

238,78 219,7453,27

511,79381,69

217,53450,35

1049,56

1561,35

0,00200,00400,00600,00800,00

1000,001200,001400,001600,001800,00

Ke

c. B

an

gu

nta

pa

n

Ke

c. S

ew

on

Ke

c. K

asi

ha

n

Jml.

. B

an

tul

Ke

c.G

am

pin

g

Ke

c. M

lati

Ke

c. D

ep

ok

Jml.

Sle

ma

n

Kab. Bantul Kab. Sleman Jml Bantul + Sleman

Ag

reg

at

WT

P (

Juta

Rp

)

Wilayah

ZDRR

ZLRR

ZJRR

Jumlah

AGREGATE INDIRECT USE VALUES

4,084,46

3,423,99

3,263,47

3,574,63

3,89

2,943,38 3,322,94

3,21 3,303,54

3,733,52

2,89 2,29 2,56 2,58 2,461,80

0,00

1,42

0,000,501,001,502,002,503,003,504,004,505,00

Ke

c. B

angu

nta

pan

Ke

c. S

ew

on

Ke

c. K

asih

an

Re

rata

zo

na

Re

rata

Ban

tul

Ke

c.G

amp

ing

Ke

c. M

lati

Ke

c. D

ep

ok

Re

rata

zo

na

Re

rata

Sle

man

Kab. Bantul Kab. Sleman

Rat

a-ra

ta W

TA (

Juta

Rp

)

Wilayah

ZDRR

ZLRR

ZJRR

EXISTENCE VALUES

3,282

11,495

4,579

10,803

22,298

4,761 4,7183,452

1,5060,000

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

Ke

c. B

angu

nta

pan

Ke

c. S

ew

on

Ke

c. K

asih

an

Jml Z

on

a

JmlB

antu

l

Ke

c.G

amp

ing

Ke

c. M

lati

Ke

c. D

ep

ok

Jml Z

on

a

Jml S

lem

an

Jml B

antu

l+Sl

em

an

Kab. Bantul Kab. Sleman

Agr

ega

t W

TA (

Mily

ar R

p)

Wilayah

ZDRR

ZLRR

ZJRR

AGGREGATE EXISTENCE VALUES

15,06 12,13 13,52

40,70

12,849,85

14,66

37,35

78,05

0,0010,0020,0030,0040,0050,0060,0070,0080,0090,00

Ke

c. B

an

gu

nta

pa

n

Ke

c. S

ew

on

Ke

c. K

asih

an

Jum

lah

Zo

na

Ke

c.G

am

pin

g

Ke

c. M

lati

Ke

c. D

ep

ok

Jum

lah

Zo

na

Jml

Zo

na

Ba

ntu

l +

Sle

ma

n

Kab. Bantul Kab. Sleman Sleman+Bantul

Nil

ai

Ek

on

om

i T

ota

l (M

ily

ar R

p)

Wilayah

ZDRR

ZLRR

ZJRR

Jumlah

TOTAL ECONOMIC VALUE

WILLINGNESS OF FARMERS TO

SUSTAIN AGRICULTURAL

ENVIRONMENT

4,08

4,46

3,42

3,99

3,47 3,57

4,63

3,89

3,38 3,322,94

3,21

3,3 3,54 3,523,45

2,89

2,29 2,58 2,592,46

1,8

0

2,13

3,45 3,362,98 3,26 3,08

2,97

4,08

2,92

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5B

ngn

tpn

Swo

n

Kas

ihan

Re

rata

Gam

pin

g

Mla

ti

Dep

ok

Re

rata

Kab. Sleman Kab. Bantul

Rat

a-ra

ta W

TA (

Juta

Rp)

Wilayah

ZDRR

ZLRR

ZJRR

Rerata Zona

FACTORS AFFECTING WTA

Variables Expected

sign

Reg.

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 ***

R2 0.889484

Jarque Bera Prob. 84,89%

F-test 0.000000

VIF of independent var. < 10

WILLINGNESS OF PEOPLE TO SUSTAIN

AGRICULTURAL ENVIRONMENT

25,68

21,4619,56

22,23 22,04

18,58

29,14

23,2521,48

17,0815,50

18,02 16,98

15,71

24,1918,96

13,58

8,806,58

9,657,17

4,470,00 5,82

20,2515,78

13,8816,64 15,40

12,92

26,67

16,01

0,00

5,00

10,00

15,00

20,00

25,00

30,00

35,00

Bn

gtp

n

Se

wo

n

Ka

sih

an

Re

rata

Ga

mp

ing

Mla

ti

De

po

k

Re

rata

Kab. Bantul Kab. Sleman

Ra

ta-r

ata

WT

P (

Rib

u R

p)

Wilayah

ZDRR

ZLRR

ZJRR

Rerata Zona

FACTORS AFFECTING WTP

Variables Expected

sign

Reg.

coefficient Prob. Significance

Constant 7.577

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 ***

R2 0.8994

F-test 0.0000

VIF of independent var. < 10

CONCLUSION AND

RECOMMENDATION

• Development of harmonious nature-

society 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