sustainability
Article
Food Security of Urban Agricultural Households in the Area of
North Bandung, West Java, Indonesia
Oekan S. Abdoellah 1,2 , Yusep Suparman 3 , Kinanti Indah Safitri 4, * , Rahma Maulia Basagevan 4 ,
Nafa Destri Fianti 4 , Indri Wulandari 2,5 and Teguh Husodo 2,5
1
2
3
4
5
*
Citation: Abdoellah, O.S.; Suparman,
Y.; Safitri, K.I.; Basagevan, R.M.;
Fianti, N.D.; Wulandari, I.; Husodo, T.
Food Security of Urban Agricultural
Households in the Area of North
Bandung, West Java, Indonesia.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16683.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
su152416683
Academic Editor: Michael S. Carolan
Department of Anthropology, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Padjadjaran,
Bandung 40135, Indonesia; oekan@unpad.ac.id or oekanabdoellah54@gmail.com
Center for Environment and Sustainability Science, Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung 40134, Indonesia;
mauraku.wulandari621@gmail.com (I.W.); teguhhusodo@gmail.com (T.H.)
Department of Statistics, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science, Universitas Padjadjaran,
Bandung 40132, Indonesia; yusep.suparman@unpad.ac.id
Graduate Studies on Environmental Sciences, Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung 40132, Indonesia;
rahma21018@mail.unpad.ac.id (R.M.B.); nafadestri@ymail.com (N.D.F.)
Department of Biology, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science, Universitas Padjadjaran,
Bandung 45363, Indonesia
Correspondence: kinanti19001@mail.unpad.ac.id
Abstract: Urban agriculture is crucial in improving food security through the diversity of food
produced by urban farmers. However, there have not been many studies that discuss the food
security of urban farmers of three types simultaneously, i.e., subsistence, semi-commercial, and
commercial. Therefore, this study has the benefit of looking at the food security condition of urban
farmer households. This research was conducted in the North Bandung area, West Java, Indonesia.
A sequential mixed method was used to collect quantitative and qualitative data to determine the
condition of food security in each urban farmer household. A total of 321 households were used as
respondents for this study, consisting of 107 subsistence agriculture households, 107 semi-commercial
agriculture households, and 107 commercial agriculture households. Our study found that the
average calorie adequacy of farmer households in all urban agriculture types (subsistence, semicommercial, and commercial) was 84.53%. Meanwhile, the proportion of household food expenditure
in all urban agriculture averaged 64.78%. In relation to food security, 53.89% of respondents were
included in the food-vulnerable category and only 25.86% of the urban farmer households were
included in the food-secure category. The highest food security rate was found in commercial urban
agriculture households, which reached 28.04%. In general, these data reflect low household food
security across all types of urban agriculture. This reality can be caused by various factors, including
limited resources, dependence on food purchases, and interference from external parties.
Keywords: urban agriculture; caloric adequacy; food expenditure; food security
Received: 30 September 2023
Revised: 31 October 2023
Accepted: 31 October 2023
Published: 8 December 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
1. Introduction
The problem of food security, even though it has been widely discussed, is still a
problem in several countries around the world, especially in third-world countries [1–3].
Because of this, the FAO has formulated a Special Program for Food Security (SPFS) to
strengthen national capacities for developing policies and strategies related to urban and
suburban agriculture as well as integration with national programs for food security in
UN member countries [4]. The FAO’s Special Program for Food Security (SPFS) is a
multidisciplinary program that was launched in 1994 and ratified by the World Food
Summit in 1996 [5]. The SPFS program aims to integrate a holistic approach to increasing
sustainable food production in order to realize food security in various countries [4]. One
of the programs promoted in the SPFS is urban agriculture to increase food access for
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16683. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152416683
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16683
2 of 15
poor communities living in the city core and around urban areas [5]. Therefore, urban
agriculture, as part of a development program that has been implemented successfully
in various countries such as the United States and Canada [6,7], is used as one of the
programs that can improve food security and poverty alleviation efforts [8,9]. According to
Korth et al. [10], there are two ways in which urban agriculture can support food security.
First, crops, especially vegetables and fruits grown in home gardens, can increase the total
amount of food available for household consumption. This is because the farmers have
direct access to food and this allows them to consume a diet that is more diverse and rich in
micronutrients. Second, urban agriculture can increase household cash income. In addition
to saving money on household expenses by lowering the cost of purchasing food, urban
farmers can also earn more money by selling or trading their goods, making them appear
to have better access to food supplies in terms of both quantity and quality.
However, in practice, the implementation of urban agriculture in realizing food security faces various challenges. One factor is the limited access to land resources. For example,
communities in several cities in the United States face difficulties accessing land resources
due to high land prices and development pressures [11]. On the other hand, the practice of
agriculture in urban areas requires production facilities, infrastructure, and access to inputs,
both of which require substantial financial capital. Therefore, in some cases, elements of society that can run agricultural production in urban areas are only middle- and high-income
people with sufficient resources and capital. In addition, some people engage in urban
food production for intensive-scale commercial business units [12,13]. Actually, there are
market roles in creating an investment-friendly climate in the urban agricultural sector,
thus potentially encouraging local actors to commercialize their agriculture [13–16]. It has
now been discovered that commercial urban agriculture is aimed at serving the export
market [17–19]. Thus, urban agriculture has indirectly held back the development of an
industrial-based agricultural system.
The integration of farmers into the global food distribution system raises various
socio-economic risks, including income uncertainty [20], because farmers lack price guarantees for commodities in global markets [21]. Economic uncertainty and rising food costs
encourage farmers to consume cheaper and lower-quality food supplies [22]. In addition,
commercialized agricultural activities can cause farm households to separate land for food
production for consumption from that used for commercial needs [23]. This condition has
an impact on reducing the diversity of food consumed by farming households. Farmers can
become less self-sufficient and dependent on local food markets due to a lack of diversified
food production for them to consume [24]. Consequently, the conversion of food crops into
internationally traded commodities in developing countries has detrimental effects on food
security and the environment [25].
There have been many studies on urban agriculture [6,26–28]. There is research focusing on urban agriculture as a social movement that was born from community anxiety
regarding food fulfillment where the resource mobilization process is carried out independently by the community [6,27]. Also, other studies explain the contribution of urban
agriculture to the environment [26,28]. However, research conducted in a comprehensive
manner discussing the impact of urban agricultural production, particularly on the food
security of urban farmers in various types of urban agriculture, is still scarce. Therefore,
this study aims to fill the research gap by studying the food security of urban farmer
households engaging in different types of urban agriculture, based on the FAO classification [29], who have already practiced urban agriculture in the area of North Bandung, West
Java, Indonesia. FAO [29] classified urban agriculture into three types, namely subsistence,
transition (semi-commercial), and commercial. The main objective of this study is to focus
more on whether urban agriculture which is increasingly more commercialized results in
lower food security compared to the other two types of urban agriculture (semi-commercial
and subsistence), which are more oriented towards fulfilling household food needs.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16683
3 of 15
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Site Selection
The area of North Bandung, West Java, Indonesia was chosen purposively as the
research location because it is one of the strategic areas in West Java Province which
has a great influence on the water system in the Bandung basin. This research area is a
conservation area and an agglomeration area consisting of Bandung and Cimahi Cities, and
the West Bandung and Bandung Regencies (Figure 1). The urban area in North Bandung
extends around the Bandung basin, which performs ecological functions for other areas.
The North Bandung area is in the Upper Citarum watershed area, which has a strategic
role in social, cultural, and economic life as one of the national energy suppliers and water
sources for the community [30]. Currently, this function is threatened due to environmental
degradation that occurs around the Upper Citarum watershed as a result of intensive
agricultural practices without regard for conservation principles. Therefore, this research is
crucial to examine urban agricultural practices, which should be the antithesis of intensive
agricultural practices and be able to realize food security, especially for urban communities
around the Upper Citarum watershed [31].
Figure 1. Location of the North Bandung area, West Java, Indonesia. Source: Map of the area of North
tt
Bandung, West Java, Indonesia (2023) [32–37] (https://www.mendeley.com/reference-manager/
library/all-references, accessed on 2 June 2023.)
2.2. Research Design
A mixed method was used in this study. The quantitative method was used for
measuring the food security of urban agricultural households. Meanwhile, the qualitative
method was used for finding the causes of low or high food security levels in urban
agricultural households. As mentioned earlier, the FAO [29] classified the three types of
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16683
4 of 15
urban agriculture based on their market surplus as a percentage of total production. The
three types of urban agriculture include subsistence, transition (semi-commercial), and
commercial. The following are the characteristics of the three types of urban agriculture:
•
•
•
Subsistence farmers: marketed surplus is less than 25% of total production.
Transitional farmers (semi-commercial): marketed surplus ranges from 25% to 50% of
total production.
Commercial farmers: marketed surplus is more than 50% of total production.
2.3. Data Collection Techniques
The data collection techniques used in this study were interviews using questionnaires,
in-depth interviews, and observations. A questionnaire was used to survey subsistence,
semi-commercial, and commercial (both domestic and export) urban agricultural households. Following Jonsson and Toole [38] and Maxwell and Frankenberger [39] in measuring
food security, the questionnaire was designed to inquire about food frequency for measuring household caloric adequacy. In addition, the questionnaire also included questions
related to household monthly total expenditure and food expenditure. Meanwhile, an
interview guide instrument was used in this research to collect qualitative data. Interview guidelines were used for in-depth interviews with selected informants to find out
the allocation of agricultural products, and farmers’ motives in using their agricultural
products as well as food purchasing and consumption decisions. The interview guide used
is semi-structured and open-ended, where questions are addressed to the informant and
give the informant the opportunity to express their opinion.
2.4. Sampling
In this study, the targeted population was defined as the urban agricultural households
in the area of North Bandung. The population was divided into three subpopulations.
The sample was selected by means of an equal allocation stratified technique for each
subpopulation. Here, we defined municipalities as the stratum. From the selected stratum,
we randomly selected urban agricultural households according to the members of urban
farming associations listed by governments.
We calculated the sample size based on a power analysis for a three-group one-way
analysis of variance [40] in the G* Power program [41]. We set a weak size effect of 0.175,
a significance level of 0.05, and a power level of 0.8 in the calculation. These resulted
in a minimum sample size of 318 households. We distributed the sample unit equally
among the three types of urban agricultural households with one additional household
to avoid non-response. Accordingly, for each type of urban agricultural household, we
had 107 households. So, the total agricultural household sample was 321 households.
Randomizations in selecting households were performed by means of random numbers in
Microsoft Excel (Office 365).
2.5. Quantitative and Qualitative Data Analysis
The method of Jonsson and Toole [38] modified by Maxwell and Frankenberger [39]
was used to measure household food security, which reflected the measurement of food
security from economic access (level of household food expenditure) and household food
consumption (level of household calorie adequacy). The level of food security was obtained
by calculating the proportion of energy consumption and food expenditure based on
Table 1; the percentage was used to compare the number of households and label them as
food-secure, food-less-secure, food-vulnerable, and food-insecure.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16683
5 of 15
Table 1. Food Security Level.
Proportion of Food Expenditure (PFE)
Energy Intake
Sufficient
(>80% of calorie adequacy
level)
Not Sufficient
(≤80% of calorie adequacy
level)
Low
(<60% of Total Expenditure)
High
(≥60% of Total Expenditure)
Food-secure
(Food-secure)
Food-vulnerable
(Food-insecure)
Food-less-secure
(Food-insecure)
Food-insecure
(Food-insecure)
Source: [38].
For comparing the three urban agricultural types, we used one-way ANOVA and
chi-square statistical tests with a predetermined significance level of 0.05. Meanwhile, the
qualitative data analysis in this study used the interactive model analysis developed by
Miles and Huberman [42]. To calculate the adequacy of calories consumed by respondents,
the calorie adequacy standard from the Ministry of Health was used. Based on these
standards, a person is said to have a low level of adequacy in calories if the number of
calories consumed is less than or equal to 80% of the standard issued by the Ministry of
Health [43].
3. Results
3.1. Household Caloric Adequacy
In general, the caloric adequacy of urban agricultural households in all urban agriculture types (subsistence, semi-commercial, and commercial) is 84.53% of the calorie
adequacy level recommended by the Indonesian government (Table 2). However, if we
look more closely, it turns out that there are urban agricultural households—subsistence,
semi-commercial, and even commercial—whose average calorie intake is below or equal to
80% of the recommended calorie adequacy standard.
Table 2. Average household calorie adequacy (%).
Nutrition
Type
Subsistence
Semi-Commercial
Commercial
Total
Mean
Std Dev.
84.29
83.58
85.70
84.53
8.16
7.55
6.30
7.40
Table 2 also shows that the percentage of calorie adequacy of the commercial-urbanagriculture-type farmers is the highest (85.7%). In contrast, the percentage of calorie
adequacy of urban farmers of the semi-commercial urban agriculture type was found to be
the lowest (83.58%). However, the difference in the percentages of calorie adequacy of the
three types of urban farmers based on the results of statistical tests using one-way ANOVA
did not show a significant difference (Table 3).
Table 3. One-way ANOVA of household calorie adequacy among urban agriculture types.
Variation Source
Sum Squares
Df
Mean Square
F-Value
p-Value
Urban agriculture types
Residual
Total
0.02
1.73
1.76
2
318
320
0.012
0.005
2.294
0.103
From the results of observations and interviews with several informants, it is known
that the largest source of calories consumed by respondents is rice. In every farmer’s
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16683
6 of 15
household, they always refer to consuming rice as one of their daily food items. In addition,
farmers in the three types of urban agriculture stated that they like to process the vegetables
they grow mixed with wheat flour to make fried foods (gorengan) as side dishes and
snacks during breaks from gardening activities. Thus, the high consumption of fried food
(gorengan) is also a source of caloric intake for urban farmer households. Furthermore, the
informants said that other sources of calories that were consumed by many respondents
were fast food and instant noodles, which were very easy to obtain from street vendors,
food stalls, and local markets.
3.2. The Proportion of Household Food Expenditure
The average urban agricultural household expenditure is 2,577,773 IDR/month (Table 4).
From Table 4 it can also be seen that the total household expenditures of subsistence, semicommercial, and commercial urban farmer households are IDR 2,564,953, IDR 2,067,991, and
IDR 3,100,374, respectively. The data show that the household expenditure of commercial
urban agricultural households is higher than those of the other two types of urban agricultural
households. In fact, the average semi-commercial urban agricultural household expenditure
is the lowest (Table 4).
Table 4. Average household expenditure and household food expenditure (monthly).
Average Household
Expenditure
Average Household Food
Expenditure
No.
Type
Mean
St.
Dev
Mean
St.
Dev
1
2
3
4
Subsistence
Semi-Commercial
Commercial
Overall
IDR 2,564,953
IDR 2,067,991
IDR 3,100,374
IDR 2,577,773
1,352,133.45
1,146,779.51
2,897,505.08
2,000,133.81
IDR 1,657,009
IDR 1,260,748
IDR 1,736,916
IDR 1,551,558
880,540.37
729,920.77
1,546,150.67
1,126,359.21
Based on the results of statistical tests using the one-way ANOVA test, there are
differences in average household expenditure among urban agriculture types (Table 5).
Table 5. One-way ANOVA of household total expenditure among urban agriculture types.
Variation Source
Urban agriculture types
Residual
Total
Sum Squares
Df
Mean Square
57,047,479,595
1,223,123,802,803
1,280,171,282,398
2
318
320
28,523,739,797
3,846,301,266
F-Value
7.416
p-Value
0.001
The data show that most of the household expenditure of all urban farmers in the
three types of urban agriculture was used for their food needs. The informants said that
the high proportion of food expenditure is due to farmers still experiencing dependence on
food from the market. They have to spend most of their budget on household needs for
daily food consumption. The subsistence urban agriculture type had the highest proportion
of household food expenditure among the three types of urban agriculture, which is 66.18%
of total household expenditure/month (Table 6). Furthermore, the proportion of household
food expenditure in semi-commercial urban agricultural households turns out to be lower
than in other types of urban agricultural households. Meanwhile, the proportion of food
expenditure in commercial urban agricultural households is lower than that of subsistence
urban agricultural households (Table 6).
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16683
7 of 15
Table 6. The proportion of food expenditure (%).
No.
Type
Subsistence
Semi-Commercial
Commercial
Overall
1
2
3
4
Mean
St. Dev
66.18%
64.02%
64.14%
64.78%
0.170664872
0.173319166
0.193121113
0.179028519
The results of statistical tests using the one-way ANOVA of household food expenditure among urban agriculture types show that there are differences in household food
expenditure among urban agricultural households (Table 7).
Table 7. One-way ANOVA of household food expenditure among urban agriculture types.
Variation Source
Sum Squares
Df
Mean Square
F-Value
p-Value
Urban agriculture types
Residual
Total
13,915,155,763
392,064,065,420
405,979,221,183
2
318
320
6,957,577,881
1,232,905,866
5.643
0.004
3.3. Household Food Security
The food security level of urban agriculture households is presented in Table 8. From
Table 8, it can be seen that of the total number of urban farming households in general,
only 25.86% are included in the food-secure category. If viewed based on the type of
urban agriculture (subsistence, semi-commercial, and commercial), households categorized
as food-secure are 25.23%, 24.30%, and 28.04%, respectively. These data indicate that the
majority of urban farming households across all types of agriculture are not in a food-secure
condition (Table 8).
Table 8. Household food security of urban agricultural types (%).
No
Categories
1
2
3
4
Food-secure
Food-vulnerable
Food-less-secure
Food-insecure
Type
Overall
Subsistence
Semi-Commercial
Commercial
25.23
57.94
3.74
13.08
24.30
49.53
10.28
15.89
28.04
54.21
9.35
8.41
25.86
53.89
7.79
12.46
In fact, from Table 8 it can also be seen that of all urban agricultural households,
as much as 12.46% are included in the food-insecure category. It means that there are
still several subsistence, semi-commercial, and commercial urban agriculture households
that not only spend above 60% on food but, as previously stated, there are several
households from each type whose calorie intake does not meet the recommended calorie
adequacy standards.
The study also found that each type of urban agriculture faces different problems
in terms of increasing food security. In the case of subsistence urban agriculture, for
example, farmers face limitations in engaging in food production independently due to the
limited land resources and capital available to them to cover production costs. Therefore,
subsistence urban agriculture in North Bandung received support from the city government
in terms of access to land and funds to finance production operations to maintain this
non-commercial gardening activity.
As for semi-commercial urban agriculture farmers, although some of them are assisted
by a social foundation, many of them are not assisted because they grow crops that are
not in accordance with what the foundation requires. Therefore, they work with local
middlemen to sell their crops. The local middlemen usually visit urban farmers’ gardens
daily to bid on freshly harvested vegetables. All harvests in the gardens are brought in
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16683
8 of 15
entirely by local middlemen. Therefore, only a small portion of the crop is utilized by
semi-commercial farmers for household food supplies. In commercial urban agriculture,
the output of intensive agricultural activities is not intended to meet household needs. The
majority of crops in the commercial type of urban agriculture is mainly sold in supermarkets
and on an export scale. Therefore, they only consume a limited number of plant species
that do not pass market selection, and to meet their food needs they resort to purchases.
According to the farmers, part of the income from their agricultural products is used to buy
more diverse food.
Table 9 shows the results of the chi-square test for the food security levels (secure,
vulnerable, less secure, and insecure) of all types of urban agriculture (subsistence, semicommercial, and commercial). From these results, the levels of food security of the three
types of urban agriculture do not show a significant difference.
Table 9. Chi-square test for food security level among urban agriculture types.
Food Security Level
Chi-Square
Df
p-Value
Secure
Vulnerable
Less secure
Insecure
0.313
0.705
3.440
2.450
2
2
2
2
0.855
0.703
0.179
0.294
4. Discussion
4.1. Household Caloric Adequacy
From the results of the study, it is known that in general the calories consumed by
urban agricultural households in all types of urban farming (subsistence, semi-commercial,
and commercial) meet the calorie adequacy standards set by the Ministry of Health fo the
Republic of Indonesia. This shows that the average level of calorie adequacy in urban
agricultural households is in the sufficient category based on the nutritional consumption
classification of the Ministry of Health of the Republic of Indonesia. However, when viewed
further, it turns out that there are several urban agricultural households for each type that
are unable to meet their caloric needs in accordance with the calorie consumption standards.
The insufficiency of calories consumed is more due to poverty.
In every farmer’s household, rice is the main staple food that is consumed daily.
Therefore, the consumption of rice shows a high proportion in the daily diet compared
to other types of food such as tubers and vegetables [31]. Apart from rice, as mentioned
by Abdoellah et al. [31], another source of calories that is widely consumed by farmers in
the three types of urban agriculture is instant noodles. According to informants, instant
noodles are relatively cheap and easy to obtain in the local market, so they are seen as
helpful in meeting their daily food needs. In addition, farmers in the three types of urban
agriculture stated that they like to process the vegetables they grow mixed with wheat flour
to make fried foods (gorengan) as side dishes and snacks during breaks from gardening
activities. Thus, the high consumption of fried food (gorengan) is also a source of caloric
intake for urban farmer households.
The high caloric consumption in each type of urban agricultural household is also
made possible by their tendency to consume fast food. For these urban farmers, consuming
fast food has become a new preference. The practicality of consuming fast food, especially
for commercial urban agricultural households, is one of the factors that influence their
preferences in choosing fast food [31]. Coupled with the number of emerging street food
vendors and fast-food restaurant outlets that are growing in urban areas, this has caused
urban agricultural households to choose fast food. Not infrequently among these urban
farmers, with the mushrooming of fast-food street vendors, restaurants, and instant noodle
products, they are interested in trying various types of new fast food from one fast-food
seller or restaurant to another. Apart from that, the circulation of packaged fast food, which
is sold massively and freely in stalls, also affects the convenience of getting fast food for
urban farmers.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16683
9 of 15
4.2. Household Food Expenditure
The average proportion of household food expenditure from all types of urban agriculture (subsistence, semi-commercial, and commercial) is 64.78% (Table 6). This is a fairly
high number. Why can this happen, even though they are farming? The food expenditure
for subsistence urban agriculture households is relatively high even though they grow vegetables for household needs. Subsistence urban farmers in North Bandung, as mentioned
by Abdoellah et al. [31], face limited land resources, and this causes them difficulties in
obtaining sufficient land in urban areas for farming. This condition is not different from
the findings of Thibert [44] and Pölling et al. [45]. Most of the subsistence farmers who
are located near the city center carry out their production activities on communal land
that they rent in groups, on land owned by the city government, or on private land where
farmers are given management rights assistance [31]. However, they often clash with actors
who have other interests, such as capital owners and property developers who want to
establish built-up areas in urban areas. Then, these actors influence the government or
landowners to sell land that has been leased or the management rights to which have
been given to groups of urban subsistence farmers. In this case, we found a group of
urban subsistence farmers often forced to relocate to maintain vegetable production, thus
reflecting the uncertainty of urban agriculture activities due to the difficulty of accessing
land. This finding is in line with the findings of Davies et al. [46] who stated that one of the
obstacles in urban agriculture is related to property rights. Land tenure insecurity makes
urban agricultural activities vulnerable to eviction, as happened in the case examined by
Lydecker and Drechsel [47]. Therefore, sustainable agriculture, which has social, economic,
and environmental benefits, may have to be sacrificed to prioritize urban infrastructure
development [48].
In addition, obstacles to meeting the food needs of subsistence urban agricultural
households also occur due to internal problems of urban subsistence farmers. Subsistence
urban farmers in Bandung City are not purely full-time subsistence farmers. They are a
working-class community whose main occupation is in the non-agricultural sector. They
are so busy with their primary job that their role in the subsistence type is also limited.
Some of them even stated that farming by growing vegetables is just for leisure. Some
urban subsistence farmers in the study areas are only involved in communal gardening
activities just to show their participation in activities in their home environment. This
finding is in line with the findings of Chandra and Diehl [49]. As a result, food production
is very low, and unable to meet their consumption needs [31]. That is why food expenditure
for subsistence urban agriculture households is relatively high. Therefore, subsistence
urban agriculture households are highly dependent on the market to meet their food needs.
Furthermore, in the case of semi-commercial urban agricultural households, the proportion of food expenditure is still high, even though the proportion is lower when compared to other types of urban agricultural households. This is because the profit-sharing
allocation set by the social foundation as mentioned above is still not able to reduce farmers’ dependence on food from the market. The lower proportion of food expenditure in
semi-commercial urban households is due to the fact that they generally have land for food
production partly to meet their own needs and to supplement their income. However, the
separation of the allocation between production sold to increase income and self-sufficiency
by semi-commercial urban agricultural households does not just happen. There are contributions from social foundations that help semi-commercial urban agricultural households.
This is because the basis of the semi-commercial urban agricultural areas is in the peri-urban
area of North Bandung. Peri-urban North Bandung is an area with quite extreme slope
topography. Erosion risk due to changes in the function of slope areas in agriculture has
received a lot of attention from various parties. So, many environmental alliances and social
foundations are helping farming communities around the outskirts of North Bandung.
Social foundations provide assistance and empowerment to farmers by regulating agricultural production systems in line with social, environmental, and economic interests [31,50].
The involvement of urban agricultural groups in popular food movements is part of a
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16683
10 of 15
strategy to accumulate social and cultural capital [51]. The social capital obtained by
semi-commercial urban farming groups is a network with actors such as social foundations
which apparently contribute to the sustainability of their agricultural activities and provide
marketing assistance. Meanwhile, they also receive cultural capital in the form of increased
agricultural capacity and cultivation training from their social network actors. Even though
there is intervention from social foundations, semi-commercial farmers still face problems.
Their production land is small and vulnerable because they cultivate sloping land that is
less productive. Apart from that, the types of crops planted by semi-commercial farmers,
such as sorghum and hanjeli, are not yet familiar as food crops consumed by both farmers
and city residents.
Meanwhile, the proportion of food expenditure for commercial urban agricultural
households is lower than that of the subsistence urban agricultural households (Table 6),
even though the actual proportion of food expenditure to total expenditure is still high.
This is because, although commercial urban agricultural households are more concerned
with production to meet the needs of the export market and supermarkets, according
to them, not all products can meet the set standards. Therefore, production results that
cannot meet market requirements are then partly used to meet their food needs [31]. Why
is the total expenditure for food in this commercial urban agricultural household still
high? This is because in the commercial type of urban agriculture, as previously explained,
this type of farmer does not specifically allocate their production for food fulfillment.
Commercial urban agriculture households grow cash crops usually for supermarket sales
or exports. Meanwhile, they admit that meeting their food needs can be accommodated
when their income increases. It means they can buy a variety of food that they do not
produce. This finding is in line with the results of research conducted by Linderhof
et al. [24]. Almost all of the crops produced by commercial urban farmers are sold, and if
there are any poor yields, as mentioned before, they will be used to increase household
food supplies. This phenomenon reflects the economic rationality that has led farmers
to focus on product commercialization to meet local and global markets. The reflection
of economic rationalization in agricultural activities is as an economic effort intended to
achieve maximum results (high profits) which in the end ignores the needs of farmers
related to subsistence, substitution, or ceremonial [52].
4.3. Household Food Security
The results of this study revealed that food security is relatively low in farming
households in all types of urban agriculture. Of the 321 urban farmers studied, only 25.86%
had calorie consumption levels above 80% and a proportion of food expenditure below
60%. It shows that only 25.86% of urban agriculture farmers are categorized as food-secure.
More than 50% of the households fall into the category of food-vulnerable. There are even
some urban agricultural households that fall into the category of food insecurity (Table 8).
Those who fall into this category are those who spend most of their household expenses on
food needs, but their calorie needs are not met due to poverty. Poverty results in them not
having sufficient resources and capital to meet their food needs.
Why are more than 50.00% in the food-vulnerable category? This is because even
though the caloric adequacy of urban farmer households has been fulfilled, as previously
explained, they have a relatively high proportion of food expenditure. The high proportion
of food expenditure was due to farmers still experiencing dependence on food from the
market. They had to spend most of the budget (>60%) on household needs for daily
consumption. It means that they generally depend on the market to meet their food
needs rather than self-producing. Efforts have been made to increase household food
security with various programs and are one of the sustainable development agendas, and
the Indonesian government is committed to sustainable development programs to end
hunger, achieve food security, improve nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture [53].
However, implementing these programs has not effectively achieved the food security goal.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16683
11 of 15
The high proportion of food expenditure among the three types of urban agriculture
indicates that urban farmers are at risk of experiencing food insecurity. Moreover, some
households even fall into the category of food-less-secure and food-insecure. This condition
is certainly threatening. It shows how high the dependence of urban farmers in each type
of urban agriculture on the market, roadside vendors, stalls, and others. This is in line with
the findings of Davies et al. [46], where most people rely more on purchased food. Thus,
they are heavily reliant on the market to meet their food needs. In other words, urban
agriculture has not played a significant role yet in household livelihood strategies among
urban agriculture farmers. This finding is different from the finding of Rezai et al. [9] that
urban agriculture can increase food security.
Several factors that influence the low food security of urban farmer households in
the North Bandung area vary considerably in each type of urban agriculture. The low
food security of subsistence urban farmers can be caused by the inability of agricultural
production capacity to meet farmers’ food needs. Although the government within North
Bandung already intervened in shaping the mindset of residents about the importance of
growing food, especially the vegetables they consume, in reality, the communal orientation
towards food supply alone is not enough to boost the food security of urban subsistence
farmers. The food security of urban farmers is still low despite production activities being
fully allocated for urban farmer household consumption.
On the other hand, the problems faced by semi-commercial urban farmers in achieving
food security are problems that depend on external parties. Semi-commercial urban
farmers produce to sell and supplement household food supplies. But in reality, profitsharing allocations set by social foundations still cannot boost farmers’ food security.
Social foundations only provide input assistance and marketing assistance to farmers
who comply with the foundation’s regulations, one of which is related to the selection
of the types of crops produced. The social foundation determines the types of crops
that farmers must produce, namely the obligation to plant moringa, hanjeli, or sorghum.
Apart from these three types, social foundations do not provide marketing assistance. The
uncertainty of the economic benefits obtained by semi-commercial urban farmers often
causes farmers’ income to fluctuate. Local-scale food regimes are ultimately binding on
semi-commercial farmers. Food regimes have the power to create relative commodity
prices [54]. Farmers have little control over pricing their crops and commodities [55].
Therefore, semi-commercial urban farmers face the problem of poverty, which makes it
difficult for some of them to meet their food needs either from their production or from
market purchases due to a lack of financial resources.
Finally, the interesting thing from the results of this study is that the commercialization
of urban agriculture is not able to increase food security. Even though they consume
more calories than other types of urban agricultural households, the commercial farmers’
expenditure on food is still above 60% of their total expenditure. The results of this study
are actually contradictory with previous findings such as those of [49,56], who mentioned
that higher income commercial farm orientation would enable people to purchase more
kinds of food from markets, which in turn affects dietary diversity. The results of this study
are actually not different from several previous findings which show that commercialization
only has a positive impact on their income but is very marginal for both nutritional needs
and food security [24,30,57]. In line with [24], it turns out that the commercialization of
urban agriculture is not automatically able to increase caloric intake. There is no consistent
evidence for the overall impact of the commercialization of crop-growing farmers on food
security [24]. Other researchers such as Davies et al. [46] have shown that there is limited
significance in terms of the relationship between urban agriculture and food security. The
results of our analysis show that the relationship between agricultural commercialization
and food security is very complex [24]. The impact of commercialization can be positive or
negative depending on the conditions of the region [24,46].
The formation of economic rationality in the context of farmers in the North Bandung is
also a consequence of the role of actors at the regional and international levels. One example
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16683
12 of 15
is promotional assistance from the Indonesian government by holding agricultural product
exhibition events to attract the attention of international wholesalers. The government’s
involvement in export activities offers benefits to increase the country’s foreign exchange
and support national economic growth. The commitment to economic growth has become
a commitment of stakeholders in various countries, especially in the Global South. This is
because the southern regions are encouraged by international donor agencies to promote
agricultural exports as an economic opportunity and source of prosperity for the community,
and have a significant impact on foreign exchange and agro-industrialization [58]. As a
result, many commercial urban agriculture farmers in North Bandung have joined the
export-scale food trade network due to high economic opportunities. However, to enter
into export-scale trade, international wholesalers place high demands on commercial urban
agriculture farmers regarding product standardization that must be met including size,
shape, color, and texture [31,50]. These requirements are almost the same throughout the
Asia Pacific region, related to compliance with international food standards and product
certification [59]. This phenomenon reflects that farmers are in an unequal relationship due
to the superiority of international wholesalers. This creates food insecurity for farmers as
food producers who should have the right to control their products and are more oriented
towards providing the best quality foods for households.
5. Conclusions
This study found that only a small number of farmer households in all types of urban
agriculture were included in the food-secure category. Most of them fall into the foodvulnerable category, and in fact, there are still farmer households in all types of urban
agriculture that are included in the food-insecure category. These data indicate that the
household food security of urban farmers in the North Bandung is relatively low. This
shows that even though urban farmer households have sufficient caloric needs in general,
meeting the adequacy of calories is accompanied by high expenditures for food. Our
findings reflect food production activities carried out by urban farmers do not guarantee
that urban farmer households will not depend on buying food from the market. This
is a consequence of the complex forces affecting the food security of semi-commercial
urban farmers, commercialized urban farmers, and subsistence urban farmers’ spending
for household food requirement fulfillment.
This research also concludes that the food security program through an urban farming
program that has been carried out so far has not been able to increase food security yet,
as evidenced by the high dependence of urban farmer households from each type of
urban farming households on the market, although with different causal factors depending
on each the type of urban farming households. Because of that, it is suggested that the
government and other actors should not make the food security program uniform but
rather refer to the type of urban agricultural households.
The scope of this research is limited to measuring food security of urban farmer
households. However, measuring the food security level of agricultural households in
general needs to be carried out for further study. Because various methods of measuring
food security are developing rapidly, it is important to explore such as the household
income and expenditure surveys (HIES), the food security experience scale, anthropometry,
and others. Measuring food security in households carrying out urban agricultural activities
can be an important evaluation material to review the effectiveness of urban agricultural
policies implemented in various regions. Apart from that, based on field findings, we
assume that commercialization is an important factor affecting household food security.
However, we have not been able to accommodate the influence between the two variables.
In particular, the extent to which the influence of agricultural commercialization can affect
food security conditions needs to be measured quantitatively.
From the results of this study, food insecurity is a crucial threat that could potentially
occur in the area of North Bandung. Currently, all stakeholders need to be aware of the
impact of food insecurity faced by urban agricultural households, which threatens the
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16683
13 of 15
welfare of urban agricultural households and the sustainability of community food production and supply in the future. Therefore, the formulation of urban agricultural policies
needs to prioritize the domain of food security, sovereignty, and sustainability. Handling it
requires a collaborative strategy among stakeholders, including the involvement of urban
agricultural households in developing an appropriate urban agricultural policy framework.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, O.S.A. and Y.S.; methodology, Y.S.; validation, O.S.A.,
Y.S. and K.I.S.; formal analysis, K.I.S.; investigation, R.M.B. and N.D.F.; data curation, I.W.; writing—
original draft preparation, O.S.A. and K.I.S.; writing—review and editing, O.S.A. and K.I.S.; visualization, Y.S.; project administration, I.W. and T.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: This study was supported by Academic Leadership grants 1959/UN6.3.1/PT.00/2021 and
2203/UN6.3.1/PT.00/2022 (Universitas Padjadjaran).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank the community of research sites, informants
and respondents as well as the local Agency and Government in the North Bandung region.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Nechifor, V.; Ramos, M.P.; Ferrari, E.; Laichena, J.; Kihiu, E.; Omanyo, D.; Musamali, R.; Kiriga, B. Food security and welfare
changes under COVID-19 in Sub-Saharan Africa: Impacts and responses in Kenya. Glob. Food Secur. 2021, 28, 100514. Available
online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211912421000249 (accessed on 2 June 2023). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Prosekov, A.Y.; Ivanova, S.A. Food security: The challenge of the present. Geoforum 2018, 91, 73–77. [CrossRef]
Sasson, A. Food security for Africa: An urgent global challenge. Agric. Food Secur. 2012, 1, 2. [CrossRef]
FAO. The Place of Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculture (UPA) in National Food Security Programmes; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2011; 44p.
Beckford, C.L.; Campbell, D.R. Urban Agriculture for Food Security in the Caribbean. In Domestic Food Production and Food
Security in the Caribbean: Building Capacity and Strengthening Local Food Production Systems; Palgrave Macmillan: New York, NY,
USA, 2013; pp. 109–122.
Bauw, I.Z. Gerakan Urban Farming: Studi atas Mobilisasi Sumber Daya oleh Komunitas Bandung Berkebun. Master’s Thesis,
Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 2015.
Schutzbank, M. Growing Vegetables in MetroVancouver: An Urban Farming Census. Ph.D. Thesis, University of British Columbia,
Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2012; 199p.
Prasetiyo, W.H.; Budimansyah, D. Warga Negara dan Ekologi: Studi Kasus Pengembangan Warga Negara Peduli Lingkungan
Dalam Komunitas Bandung Berkebun. J. Pendidik. Hum. 2016, 4, 177–186.
Rezai, G.; Shamsudin, M.N.; Mohamed, Z. Urban agriculture: A way forward to food and nutrition security in Malaysia. Procedia
Soc. Behav. Sci. 2016, 216, 39–45. [CrossRef]
Korth, M.; Stewart, R.; Langer, L.; Madinga, N.; Rebelo Da Silva, N.; Zaranyika, H.; van Rooyen, C.; de Wet, T. What are the
impacts of urban agriculture programs on food security in low and middle-income countries: A systematic review. Environ. Evid.
2014, 3, 21. [CrossRef]
Siegner, A.; Sowerwine, J.; Acey, C. Does urban agriculture improve food security? Examining the nexus of food access and
distribution of urban produced foods in the United States: A systematic review. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2988. [CrossRef]
Van Veenhuizen, R.; Danso, G. Profitability and Sustainability of Urban and Periurban Agriculture; Food & Agriculture Org.: Rome,
Italy, 2007; Volume 19.
Yi-Zhang, C.; Zhangen, Z. Shanghai: Trends towards specialised and capital-intensive urban agriculture. In Growing Cities
Growing Food: Urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda; DSE-ZELL: Feldafing, Germany, 2000; pp. 467–477.
Bon, H.; Parrot, L.; Moustier, P. Sustainable urban agriculture in developing countries. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2010, 30,
21–32. [CrossRef]
Mougeot, L.J.A. Agropolis: The Social, Political and Environmental Dimensions of Urban Agriculture; Earthscan: London, UK, 2005;
pp. 1–286.
Van Veenhuizen, R. Cities Farming for the Future—Urban Agriculture for Green and Productive Cities; ETC Urban Agriculture:
Leusden, The Netherlands, 2006; pp. 1–17.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16683
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
14 of 15
Drechsel, P.; Dongus, S. Dynamics and sustainability of urban agriculture: Examples from sub-Saharan Africa. Sustain. Sci. 2009,
5, 69. [CrossRef]
Fournier, A. Vulnerability and Livelihood Influences of Urban Agriculture and Fruit and Vegetable Value Chains in Lebanon.
Ph.D. Thesis, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada, September 2019.
Koont, S. Sustainable Urban Agriculture in Cuba; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; 250p.
Giraldo, O.F. Political Ecology of Agriculture; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019.
Grossman, L.S. The Political Ecology of Bananas: Contract Farming, Peasants, and Agrarian Change in the Eastern Caribbean; University
of North Carolina Press: Chapel Hill, NC, USA, 1998.
Lawrence, G.; Lyons, K. Food Security, Nutrition and Sustainability. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2010, 11, 3–9.
Ecker, O. Agricultural transformation and food and nutrition security in Ghana: Does farm production diversity (still) matter for
household dietary diversity? Food Policy 2018, 79, 271–282. [CrossRef]
Linderhof, V.; Janssen, V.; Achterbosch, T. Does agricultural commercialization affect food security: The case of crop-producing
households in the regions of post-reform Vietnam? Towards Sustain. Glob. Food Syst. 2019, 15, 35–65. [CrossRef]
Guthman, J. Excess consumption or over-production?: US farm policy, global warming, and the bizarre attribution of obesity. In
Global Political Ecology; Routledge: London, UK, 2011; pp. 51–66.
Duvernoy, I.; Zambon, I.; Sateriano, A.; Salvati, L. Pictures from the other side of the fringe: Urban growth and peri-urban
agriculture in a post-industrial city (Toulouse, France). J. Rural Stud. 2018, 57, 25–35. [CrossRef]
Regina, R.R. Urban Farming Hidroponik di Karah-Jambangan, Surabaya. Edimensi Arsit. Petra 2017, 5, 481–488.
Goodman, W.; Minner, J. Will the urban agricultural revolution be vertical and soilless? A case study of controlled environment
agriculture in New York City. Land Use Policy 2019, 83, 160–173. [CrossRef]
Food and Agricultural Organization. Horticultural Marketing: A Resource and Training Manual for Extensión Offícers; FAO: Rome,
Italy, 1989.
Abdoellah, O.S.; Hadikusumah, H.Y.; Takeuchi, K.; Okubo, S.; Parikesit. Commercialization of homegardens in an Indonesian
village: Vegetation composition and functional changes. Agrofor. Syst. 2006, 68, 1–13. [CrossRef]
Abdoellah, O.S.; Suparman, Y.; Safitri, K.I.; Mubarak, A.Z.; Milani, M.; Surya, L. Between food fulfillment and income: Can
urban agriculture contribute to both? Geogr. Sustain. 2023, 4, 127–137. Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S2666683923000135 (accessed on 15 June 2023). [CrossRef]
Ministry of Home Affairs Republic of Indonesia. Decree Minister of Home Affairs Republic of Indonesia Number 050-140 of 2022 about
Providing and Updating Codes, Data on Government Administration Areas and Islands in 2021; Ministry of Home Affairs Republic of
Indonesia: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2022.
Geospatial Information Agency. Indonesia Geospatial Portal, Digital Elevation Model (2019–2022) [Internet]. 2022. Available
online: https://tanahair.indonesia.go.id/demnas/#/ (accessed on 25 June 2023).
Supriyatin, R.; Pravitasari, A.E.; Pribadi, D.O. Pemetaan Karakteristik Wilayah Urban Dan Rural Di Wilayah Bandung Raya
Dengan Metode Spatial Clustering. J. Geografi. 2020, 12, 125. [CrossRef]
Budiyantini, Y.; Pratiwi, V. Peri-urban Typology of Bandung Metropolitan Area. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 2016, 227,
833–837. [CrossRef]
De Zeeuw, H. The development of Urban Agriculture; Some lessons learnt. In Keynote Paper for the International Conference Urban
Agriculture, Agri-Tourism and City Region Development; RUAF: Beijing, China, 2004; p. 20.
Mougeot, L.J.A. Urban Agriculture: Definition, Presence, Potentials and Risks, and Policy Challenges; Cities Feeding People Series;
International Development Research Centre (IDRC): Ottawa, Canada, 2000.
Jonsson, U.; Toole, D. Household Food Security and Nutrition: A Conceptual Analysis; United Nations Children’s Fund: New York,
NY, USA, 1991.
Maxwell, S.; Frankenberger, T.R. Household Food Security: Concepts, Indicators, Measurements: A Technical Review; Unicef: New York,
NY, USA, 1995.
Dupont, W.D.; Plummer, W.D., Jr. Power and sample size calculations for studies involving linear regression. Control. Clin. Trials
1998, 19, 589–601. [CrossRef]
Faul, F.; Erdfelder, E.; Buchner, A.; Lang, A.G. Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression
analyses. Behav. Res. Methods 2009, 41, 1149–1160. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Miles, M.B.; Huberman, A.M.; Saldaña, J. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA,
USA, 2018.
Arida, A.; Sofyan; Fadhiela, K. Analisis Ketahanan Pangan Rumah Tangga Berdasarkan Proporsi Pengeluaran Pangan Dan
Konsumsi Energi. Agrisep 2015, 16, 20–34. Available online: https://media.neliti.com/media/publications/13198-ID-analisisketahanan-pangan-rumah-tangga-berdasarkan-proporsi-pengeluaran-pangan-d.pdf (accessed on 15 June 2023).
Thibert, J. Making local planning work for urban agriculture in the North American context: A view from the ground. J. Plan.
Educ. Res. 2012, 32, 349–357. [CrossRef]
Pölling, B.; Prados, M.J.; Torquati, B.M.; Giacch, G.; Recasens, X.; Paffarini, C.; Alfranca, O.; Lorleberg, W. Business models in
urban farming: A comparative analysis of case studies from Spain, Italy and Germany. Morav. Geogr. Rep. 2017, 25, 166–180.
[CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16683
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
15 of 15
Davies, J.; Hannah, C.; Guido, Z.; Zimmer, A.; McCann, L.; Battersby, J.; Evans, T. Barriers to urban agriculture in Sub-Saharan
Africa. Food Policy 2021, 103, 101999. [CrossRef]
Lydecker, M.; Drechsel, P. Urban agriculture and sanitation services in Accra, Ghana: The overlooked contribution. Int. J. Agric.
Sustain. 2010, 8, 94–103. [CrossRef]
Aubry, C.; Ramamonjisoa, J.; Dabat, M.H.; Rakotoarisoa, J.; Rakotondraibe, J.; Rabeharisoa, L. Urban agriculture and land use in
cities: An approach with the multi-functionality and sustainability concepts in the case of Antananarivo (Madagascar). Land Use
Policy 2012, 29, 429–439. [CrossRef]
Chandra, A.J.; Diehl, J.A. Urban agriculture, food security, and development policies in Jakarta: A case study of farming
communities at Kalideres–Cengkareng district, West Jakarta. Land Use Policy 2019, 89, 104211. [CrossRef]
Safitri, K.I.; Abdoellah, O.S.; Suparman, Y.; Mubarak, A.Z.; Margareth. The Existence of Subsistence, Semi-Commercial and
Commercial Urban Agriculture in Bandung Metropolitan, Indonesia. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Plan. 2021, 16, 1425–1436. [CrossRef]
Mincyte, D.; Dobernig, K. Urban farming in the North American metropolis: Rethinking work and distance in alternative food
networks. Environ. Plan. A Econ. Space 2016, 48, 1767–1786. [CrossRef]
Wolf, E.R. Petani Suatu Tinjauan Antropologis; Diterbitkan Untuk Yayasan Ilmu-Ilmu Sosial; CV. Rajawali: Jakarta, Indonesia, 1985.
Ministry of National Development Planning. Technical Guidelines for Preparing Action Plans for Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs). Technical Guidelines for Preparing Action Plans Edition II Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs); Jakarta, Indonesia.
2020. Available online: https://sdgs.bappenas.go.id/website/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Buku-Pedoman-Rencana-AksiSDGs.pdf (accessed on 22 June 2023).
Winders, B.; Heslin, A.; Ross, G.; Weksler, H.; Berry, S. Life after the regime: Market instability with the fall of the US food regime.
Agric. Hum. Values 2015, 33, 73–88. [CrossRef]
Anderson, M.D. Roles of rural areas in sustainable food system transformations. Development 2015, 58, 256–262. [CrossRef]
Mehraban, N.; Ickowitz, A. Dietary diversity of rural Indonesian households declines over time with agricultural production
diversity even as incomes rise. Glob. Food Secur. 2021, 28, 100502. [CrossRef]
Carletto, C.; Corral, P.; Guelfi, A. Agricultural commercialization and nutrition revisited: Empirical evidence from three African
countries. Food Policy 2017, 67, 106–118. [CrossRef]
Hall, D. The Political Ecology of International Agri-Food Systems. In The Routledge Handbook of Political Ecology; Perreault, T.,
Bridge, G., McCarthy, J., Eds.; Routledge Taylor and Francis Group: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2015.
Liu, P. Regulations, Standard and Certification for Export Agriculture Product; Food and Agriculture Organization: Jakarta,
Indonesia, 2007.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.