Are peatland farming systems sustainable? Case study on assessing existing farming systems in the peatland of Central Kalimantan, Indonesia

Figures & data

Table 1. Defined list of the attributes used in Modified-RAPFISH analysis.

Attribute	Bad	Good	Notes
Ecology
Land suitability	0	3	Not suitable (0); marginally suitable (1); quite suitable (2); very suitable (3)
Land fertility	0	3	Percentage of fertile area: <25% (0); 25–50% (1); 51–75% (2); >75% (3)
Climate condition	0	3	Not supportive (0); less supportive (1); quite supportive (2); very supportive (3)
Drought occurrence	0	3	Drought area: increase (0); tend to increase (1); tend to decrease (2); decrease (3)
Flood Occurrence	0	3	Flood area: increase (0); tend to increase (1); tend to decrease (2); decrease (3)
Fire occurrence	0	3	Fire incident: increase (intentionally burning for land preparation) (0); slightly increase (1); remain unchanged (2); decrease (3
Potential of expansion area	0	3	Land potential: not available (0); limited (1); quite available (2); still extensive (3)
Expansion area	0	3	Development of new area: nothing (3); limited (2); quite extensive (1); very extensive (0)
Pest and disease attack	0	3	Frequency and intensity of pest and disease attack: increased rapidly (0); tend to increase (1); tend to decrease (2); decrease (3)
Peat subsidence	0	3	Decreasing of peat layer per year: very high (>6 cm) (0); high (4–6 cm) (1); low (2–4 cm) (2); very low (< 2 cm) (3)
Economic
Land holding by farmer	0	3	Land holding: <1 ha (0); 1–2 ha (1); 2–4 ha (2); >4 ha (3)
Labor availability	0	3	Family labor: <25% (0); 25–50% (1); 51–75% (2); >75% (3)
Labor cost	0	3	Labor cost: very high (0); relatively high (1); reasonable (2); low (3)
Plant productivity	0	3	Productivity per ha:
			Rice: <1 ton (0); 1–2 ton (1); 2–4 ton (2); >4 ton (3)
			Rubber: <0.5 ton (0); 0.5–1 ton (1); 1–1.5 ton (2); >1.5 ton (3)
			Oil Palm (fresh fruit bunches): <1 ton (0); 1–3 ton (1); 3–6 ton (2) >6 ton (3)
Capital adequacy	0	3	Capital loan: >75% (0); 51–75% (1); 25–50% (2); <25% (3)
Product price	0	3	Product price during harvest season: unstable (0); less stable (1); relatively stable (2); stable (3)
Input availability	0	3	How to get production input: Very difficult (0); difficult (1); relatively easy (2); very easy (3)
Input price	0	3	Standard Maximum Retail Price: far above (0); above (1); almost similar (2); equal/same (3)
Financial benefit/BC Ratio	0	3	BC ratio: <1 (0); BC Ratio 1–1.25 (1); BC Ratio 1.25–1.5 (2); BC ratio >1,5 (3)
Contribution to farmer income	0	3	Contribution farm benefit to total farmer income: <25% (30); 25–50% (1); 51–75% (2) >75% (3)
Social
Farmer household number	0	3	The number people in a farm household: drastically decreased (0); decrease (1); remain (2); increase (3)
Farmer education	0	3	Education of farmer: not graduate from elementary school (0); graduate from elementary school (1); graduate from Junior High school (2); graduate from Senior High School and above (3)
Women participation	0	3	Women participation in peatland farming: Do not care (0); less attention (1); only some women are active (2); all women are active (3)
Communication access (cellular phone indicator)	0	3	Area covered by cellular phone: <50% (0); 51–70% (1); 71–90% (2); 91–100% (3)
Transportation accessibility	0	3	Area where affordable for vehicle transportation (4 wheel); <50% (0); 51–70% (1); 71–90% (2); 91–100% (3)
Farmer experience in the peatland farming system	0	3	Farmer knowledge and experience of peatland farming systems: Do not understand (0); it is new information (1); fair understand (2); clearly understand the details (3)
Farmer experience in the peatland GHG	0	3	Farmer knowledge and experience in peatland GHG: Do not understand (0); it is new information (1); fair understand (2); clearly understand the detail s (3)
Local indigenous technology/local wisdom	0	3	Local indigenous technology in the peatland area: not available (0); Available but not yet widely known by farmer (1); Available but not done by farmers (2); Available and applied by farmers (3)
Farmer response to sustainable management	0	3	Farmer response to sustainable management: No response (0); responds only when there is a project (1); quite responsive even when there is no project (2); very responsive and tries to apply (3)
Dissemination and discussion of sustainable peatland management among farmer	0	3	Dissemination and discussion of sustainable peatland management: not done (0); rarely done (1); done but not focused (2); done and focused on sustainable peatland farming systems (3)
Institutional
Existence of farmer group	0	3	Existence of farmer group: Farmer groups do not exist (0); Farmer groups exist but no activity (1); Farmer group exist and rarely have activities (2); Farmer group exist and are active (3)
Advantage of farmer groups	0	3	Percentage farmer group member who get benefit from the group: <25% (0); 25–50% (1); 51–75% (2); >75% (3)
Capital institutional support	0	3	Percentages farmers who have access to institutional capital (government and private): <25% (0); 25–50% (1); 51–75% (2); >75% (3)
Institutional technology support	0	3	Supported with institutional technology: No support (0); less support (1); good support (2); very good support (3)
Institutional extension support	0	3	Percentage of farmer who get access to extension: <25% (0); 25–50% (1); 51–75% (2); >75% (3)
Institutional seed support	0	3	Percentage of those needing superior seed who receive this material: <25% (0); 25–50% (1); 51–75% (2); >75% (3)
Institutional support for agricultural inputs	0	3	Percentages of agriculture inputs needed that can be met: <25% (0); 25–50% (1); 51–75% (2); >75% (3)
Institutional support for integrated pest management	0	3	Percentage of pest and disease target can be fulfilled: <25% (0); 25–50% (1); 51–75% (2); >75% (3)
Institutional support for marketing agriculture products	0	3	Percentage of agricultural product can be easily sold: < < 25% (0); 25–50% (1); 51–75% (2); >75% (3)
Government policy support	0	3	Percentage of government policy that benefits farmers: <25% (0); 25–50% (1); 51–75% (2); >75% (3)
Technology & Infrastructures
Condition water management infrastructure	0	3	Percentage of damaged irrigation canals: >75% (0); 51–75% (1); 25–50% (2); <25% (3)
Transportation infrastructure	0	3	Percentage of damaged roads: >75% (0); 51–75% (1); 25–50% (2); <25% (3)
Infrastructure for extension and technology dissemination (Extension office)	0	3	Not available (0); available but in damage condition (1); available, good condition but does not function well (2); available, good condition and functions well (3)
Infrastructure for agriculture product marketing	0	3	Village market: Not available (0); available but in damaged condition (1); available, good condition but does not function well (2); available, good condition and functions well (3)
Technology application for soil and water management	0	3	Percentage of farmers who applied soil and water technology: <25% (0); 25–50% (1); 51–75% (2); >75% (3)
Technology application for superior seed	0	3	Percentage of farmers who applied superior seed technology: <25% (0); 25–50% (1); 51–75% (2); >75% (3)
Application of agriculture mechanization technology	0	3	Percentage of farmers who applied agriculture mechanization: <25% (0); 25–50% (1); 51–75% (2); >75% (3)
Application of fertilizer technology	0	3	Percentage of farmers who applied fertilizer technology: <25% (0); 25–50% (1); 51–75% (2); >75% (3)
Application of Integrated Pest Management technology	0	3	Percentage of farmers who applied integrated pest and disease technology: <25% (0); 25–50% (1); 51–75% (2); >75% (3)
Technology Application of harvest and post harvest technology	0	3	Percentage of farmers who applied harvest and post harvest technology: <25% (0); 25–50% (1); 51–75% (2); >75% (3)

Figure 1. Two dimensional ordination plots from MDS analyses in different dimensions.

Figure 2. Sustainability of Peatland Farming Systems in ecology, economic, social, institutional and technology & infrastructure dimensions based on Monte Carlo analysis.

Note: Error bars represent mean ± S.D. n = 25.

Table 2. Kurkal’s stress and RSQ for the different dimension.

Dimension	Kurkal’s stress	RSQ
Ecological	0.175	0.941
Economic	0.175	0.940
Social	0.155	0.949
Institutional	0.165	0.944
Technology & Infrastructure	0.182	0.937

Figure 3. Leverage values of attributes in different dimensions.

Figure 4. Kite diagram representing the sustainability of different peatland farming systems in five dimensions.

Table 3. Sustainability index from MDS analysis and Monte Carlo (MC) analysis.

Dimension	Rice			Oil Palm			Rubber
	MDS	MC	Diff.	MDS	MC	Diff.	MDS	MC	Diff.
Ecology	48.51	48.44	0.07	40.97	40.60	0.37	42.83	42.78	0.05
Economic	49.65	49.52	0.13	44.68	45.23	0.55	46.48	46.69	0.21
Social	56.71	56.50	0.21	53.64	53.61	0.03	53.17	52.91	0.26
Institutional	52.25	52.06	0.19	50.49	49.99	0.50	49.12	48.64	0.48
Technology & infrastructure	53.59	53.6	0.01	47.98	47.9	0.08	46.74	46.28	0.46
Sustainability index	52.14	52.02	0.12	47.55	47.47	0.09	47.67	47.46	0.21