Special Issue: The Online International Symposium on the Sanitation Value Chain 2020 (SVC2020)

Original Article

Farmers’ Perceptions and Potential Use of Tofu

Wastewater-Anaerobic Digestion Effluent (TW-ADE):
A Survey in Giriharja Hamlet, North Sumedang,
Indonesia

Melany UNTARI1, Neni SINTAWARDANI2, Widyarani2, Erliza NOOR3, Umi HAMIDAH2*

1
Natural Resources and Environmental Management Science Study Program, IPB University, Indonesia
2
Research Unit for Clean Technology, National Research and Innovation Agency, Indonesia
3
Department of Agroindustrial Technology, IPB University, Indonesia

Abstract
An existing anaerobic wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) in Giriharja Hamlet, Indonesia, processes
approximately 20–40 m3/day of tofu whey. The WWTP effluent (tofu wastewater-anaerobic digestion
effluent, TW-ADE) is an alternative water source for agriculture in the area, particularly during water
shortages. However, farmers’ acceptance and willingness to use TW-ADE are essential considerations. This
study aimed to identify the perception of Giriharja Hamlet farmers on the quality, quantity, and potential
benefits of TW-ADE and evaluate factors that influence farmers’ perceptions of the potential benefits of
TW-ADE. Likert scale and ordinal logistic regression models were used to assess farmer perceptions and
the factors that influence them. Farmer perceptions and the factors that influenced were obtained through
interviews and the data analyzed using the Likert scale and ordinal logistic regression models. Most of
the respondents (88%) agreed that TW-ADE had an unpleasant odor, but 56% of respondents agreed that
it no longer caused pollution to the environment. The TW-ADE potential benefits assessment shows the
farmers tended to doubt the potential benefits of TW-ADE for fertilizer content and suitability as irrigation
water. The age factor (36−60 years old) had a positive acceptance of the potential benefits of TW-ADE. On
the other hand, ≤ five years of farming experience factor and agricultural land area factor (≤ 0.25 ha and
0.26–0.50 ha) negatively influences farmers’ perceptions of the potential benefits of TW-ADE. The results
conclude that experienced farmers have good perceptions of the potential benefits, and inexperienced young
farmers do not. Therefore, to plan workshops or meetings in this area, it is advisable to invite experienced
farmers as speakers. In other words, the results suggest that experienced farmers are the key people for the
sustainable implementation of treated TW-ADE in Giriharja Hamlet.
Keywords: anaerobic wastewater treatment plant (WWTP), farmers perception, irrigation water, Giriharja
Hamlet, potential use, tofu wastewater-anaerobic digestion effluent (TW-ADE)

Introduction
As the backbone of food security, the agricultural sector consumes 70% of global water consumption (Stephan et
al. 2018). Therefore, water availability for crop irrigation is a vital part that will influence food supply sustainability.
However, the availability of water resources worldwide is projected to change significantly following changes in
climate and population (Rodell et al. 2018), socio-economic (Li et al. 2020), and various levels of water pressure
due to overexploitation of groundwater and surface water (Chen et al. 2013). Therefore, the global challenge in
managing water resources in the agricultural sector is to ensure sustainable water supply to meet crop irrigation
* Correspondence Sanitation Value Chain Vol. 5 (2) pp.071–081, 2021
umih001@brin.go.id Published by Research Institute for Humanity and Nature
https://doi.org/10.34416/svc.00070
72 Sanitation Value Chain Vol. 5 (2) pp.071–081, 2021

needs and face global food demand by 46% by 2050 (Keating et al. 2014). One solution to solve the problem of
water availability for crop irrigation is the use of treated wastewater.
Treated wastewater is a reliable alternative water resource in drought and water scarcity (Khanpae et al. 2020).
Moreover, treated wastewater available in high volumes and relatively low organic matter content can be used in
agricultural irrigation (Ayaz et al. 2015; Libutti et al. 2018). However, the sustainable implementation of the use of
treated wastewater for crop irrigation depends on the acceptance and willingness of farmers, which is influenced
by perceptions related to human health and the environment, religious beliefs, disgust factors, socio-economic,
educational, level of human contact with wastewater, cultural conditions, and political issues (Massoud et al.
2018; Deh-Haghi et al. 2020; Khanpae et al. 2020). Therefore, community empowerment is the key to this initial
process of public engagement.
Degradable organic matter is converted into methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2) removed from the system as
biogas during the anaerobic process, while water and most nutrients remain. The effluent from anaerobic digestion
contains a large amount of water, organic matter, nitrogen, phosphorus, and other micronutrients (Xu et al. 2018).
Wastewater from tofu production contains a high organic concentration that might pollute the environment if it is
not appropriately treated. Proteins are the major organic components of tofu wastewater (Widyarani et al. 2019).
The anaerobic wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) in Giriharja Hamlet, Kebonjati Village, North Sumedang,
Indonesia, was built by researchers of the Research Unit of Clean Technology, Indonesian Institute of Sciences
(LPTB-LIPI) under the Lien Environmental Fellowship program as a community biogas generator with a grant
from Nanyang Water and Environment Research Institute, Nanyang Technological University (NEWRI-NTU)
Singapore. The anaerobic WWTP treated tofu whey from nine tofu industries and produced about 120 m3/day
biogas as the main output. Biogas is distributed centrally to 88 surrounding households to substitute for liquified
petroleum gas (LPG) (Mutaqin et al. 2019). The WWTP generates tofu wastewater anaerobic digestion effluent
(TW-ADE) at approximately the same volume as the influent, about 20–40 m3/day.
The properties of tofu whey and TW-ADE from anaerobic WWTP in Giriharja Hamlet reported by Ajijah
et al. (2020); TW-ADE has neutral pH and contained 613.5 mg/L COD (chemical oxygen demand), 1.3 mg/L
phosphates and 12.8 mg/L nitrates. Anaerobic WWTP reduced tofu whey COD by more than 90% but kept
the nitrogen and phosphate contents (Ajijah et al. 2020). Currently, TW-ADE is channelled into a final storage
tank, then discharged into the Cileuweung River, a water source for Giriharja Hamlet farmers to irrigate the rice
fields. The Cileuweung River can meet the irrigation needs for agricultural land during the rainy season, but
the farmers experience water shortages during the dry season. The TW-ADE potentially can be reused directly
for crop irrigation in terms of quality, quantity, and benefits. Some residents around the anaerobic WWTP have
used TW-ADE to water their cultivated plants, but the results have not been well documented. This research
aimed to (a) identify the level of perception of Giriharja Hamlet farmers on the quality, quantity, and potential
benefits of TW-ADE, and (b) evaluate the factors that influence farmers’ perceptions of the potential benefits
of TW-ADE. The results can be considered in the management of TW-ADE as an alternative irrigation water
source in the future.

1. Methodological approach
1.1. Location
This study was conducted in Giriharja Hamlet, North Sumedang, West Java Province, Indonesia, from February
to March 2020. Giriharja Hamlet is an integrated area where tofu industries, wastewater treatment plants
(WWTP), and agricultural land are located nearby (Figure 1). Based on the 2020 Kebonjati Village Population
 Sanitation Value Chain Vol. 5 (2) pp.071–081, 2021 73

Red point: Tofu industries, Green circle: The surveyed agricultural land of Giriharja Hamlet

Figure 1. The Geographic location of Giriharja Hamlet in West Java Province, Indonesia.

Data, Giriharja Hamlet has 2 Community Associations, each consisting of 2 Neighborhood Associations, with
1,259 people in total population and 368 households. Less than 2% of residents work as farmers, and most of them
work as entrepreneurs, including owners of the tofu industry.

1.2. Data Collection

The structured interview method was carried out through a questionnaire as a data collection instrument. Data
is obtained from filling out questionnaires by respondents. The respondents were 25 farmers, both as landowners,
managers, and farm labourers who are active in the agricultural area of Giriharja Hamlet. Determination of
respondents uses purposive sampling selected based on the characteristics of a population and a specific purpose.
The variables included in this study were the farmer characteristics (independent variable) which consist of
demographic and socio-economic characteristics, and farmers’ perception (dependent variable). Besides, an
agricultural profile of the respondents was also collected. The agricultural profile was related to the need and
availability of irrigation water, including agricultural commodities, number of planting periods, water sources in
the rainy season, and water sources in the dry season. The farmers’ perceptions of quality, quantity, and potential
benefits of TW-ADE were evaluated with a five-point Likert scale (Table 1).

1.3. Data Processing and Analysis

Data were processed using IBM SPSS Statistics 22.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, N.Y., USA). The validity of the
statements was evaluated using the Pearson product-moment correlation. Statements with Pearson correlation
lower than r-table at significance level > 0.05 was declared invalid. The criteria’ reliability was evaluated with
Cronbach’s alpha; α > 0.6 indicated that the criteria were reliable. Data were analyzed by calculating the mean,
standard deviation, frequency, and percentage, then presented descriptively and categorized by perception
74 Sanitation Value Chain Vol. 5 (2) pp.071–081, 2021

Table 1. Assessment of Farmers’ Perception.

Criteria Statement
Quality of TW-ADE 1)   Tofu whey is cloudy.
2)   TW-ADE is clear in color.
3)   TW-ADE has an unpleasant odor.
4)   TW-ADE causes pollution to the environment.
Quantity of TW-ADE 5)   TW-ADE can meet water needs in agricultural land.
6)   It is easy to reach the agricultural land from the TW-ADE shelter.
Potential Benefits of TW-ADE 7)   1) TW-ADE has good fertilizer content for plants.
8)   2) TW-ADE could potentially be reused for crop irrigation.
Responses: (1) Strongly Disagree (SD), (2) Disagree (D), (3) Uncertain (U), (4) Agree (A), (5) Strongly Agree (SA)

Table 2. Respondents’ perception Level.

Score Interval Perception Level

4.00–5.00 High
3.00–3.99 Moderate
1.00–2.99 Low

level (Table 2). An ordinal logistic regression model was tested to determine the factors that influence farmers’
perceptions of the potential benefits of TW-ADE. McFadden R2 was used to determine the variability in the
response variable described by the explanatory variable.

2. Results and Discussion

2.1. Characteristics of Farmers
The demographic and socio-economic characteristics of Giriharja Hamlet farmers are presented in Table 3. The
farmers are dominated by men (80%), and the average age is 58 years old. The farmers’ education level was still
low because more than 60% of farmers only had primary school education. Notably, most (52%) of the farmers
in Giriharja Hamlet were senior farmers with more than ten years of farming experience; some even had been
farming for more than 30 years.
As shown in Table 3, only ten farmers (40%) owned the land they worked. The other farmers managed leased
land (12%) or other people’s land with profit sharing (48%). Most (64%) of the farmers were smallholders who
owned and/or managed ≤ 0.25 ha of land. During the rainy season, farmers’ income in the agricultural sector
was generally in the range of IDR 1,000,000–IDR 2,500,000 per planting season. This farmer’s income was
converted from rice selling in the market because farmers do not sell their crops but instead use the rice to meet
family food.
Biogas from the Anaerobic WWTP was distributed and used by 88 households in Giriharja Hamlet. Notably,
the distribution could not reach all the households in the hamlet. About 44% of respondents were biogas users.
 Sanitation Value Chain Vol. 5 (2) pp.071–081, 2021 75

Table 3. Characteristics of Giriharja Hamlet farmers (n = 25).

Characteristics n %
Age
(1) 36−60 years old 11 44
(2) 61−80 years old 14 56
Gender
(1) Male 20 80
(2) Female 5 20
Education level
(1) Primary school 16 64
(2) Junior high school 4 16
(3) Senior high school 5 20
Farming experience
(1) ≤ 5 years 9 36
(2) 6−10 years 3 12
(3) > 10 years 13 52
Agriculture land area
(1) ≤ 0.25 ha 16 64
(2) 0.26−0.50 ha 4 16
(3) 0.51−0.75 ha 4 16
(4) 0.76−1.00 ha 1 4
Land ownership status
(1) Owner 10 40
(2) Person in charge/profit sharing 12 48
(3) Leased land 3 12
Biogas user status
(1) Biogas users 11 44
(2) Non-biogas user 14 56
Income in the agricultural sector
(per planting period in the rainy season)
(1) ≤ IDR 1,000,000 3 12
(2) IDR 1,000,001–IDR 2,500,000 15 60
(3) IDR 2,500,001–IDR 5,000,000 7 28

2.2. Agricultural Profile

The agricultural profile of Giriharja Hamlet, which includes crop commodities, the number of planting periods,
and sources of crop irrigation, is presented in Figure 2. The main agricultural commodity in Giriharja Hamlet was
rice (100%), which mostly (73%) was planted in two periods per year. In the rainy season, 52% of farmers used
river water to irrigate their fields, while 28% used only rainwater and 16% used both. On the other hand, more than
60% of farmers used river water in the dry season. This situation is in accordance with the climate of Sumedang
that is typified as C2 according to Oldeman’s classification. There can only be two planting periods in this climate
type, one for rice and one for the non-rice crop, provided that the second planting period does not fall in the dry
season (Fadholi and Supriatin 2016). Thus, within a year, Giriharja Hamlet farmers could plant rice most two
times during January–May when the rainfall was high (Figure 3).
Some farmers changed their commodities to non-rice crops (20%) and vegetable crops (4%) due to limited water
sources in the dry season. Some farmers continued to plant rice, but other do not plant at all. Farmers usually pumped river
water into their fields, bought spring water, or added TW-ADE to meet their water needs to overcome water shortages.
76 Sanitation Value Chain Vol. 5 (2) pp.071–081, 2021

Crop commodities The amount of planting season

4% 7% 7%

Once
Rice 20% 13%
Twice
Rice, non-rice crops
3 times
Rice, vegetables
76% 73% Others

Water sources in rainy season Water sources in dry season

4% 8%
4%
Springwater Springwater
16%
Rainwater 20% Rainwater
28% 4%
Riverwater Riverwater
Rainwater & riverwater TW-ADE
52% 64%
Others

Figure 2. Agricultural profile of Giriharja Hamlet.

350 30

300 25
250
20
200
15
150
10
100

50 5

0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Rainfall (mm) 280 318 270 213 107 5 0 0 0 104 306 0
Rainy day (day) 15 17 28 17 9 2 0 0 0 0 18 0

Figure 3. The amount of rainfall and rainy days in Sumedang Utara District.

2.3. Perceptions of Farmers

Validity and Reliability of the Questionnaire
The validity and reliability tests on the eight statements compiled in the questionnaire are presented in Table 4.
The validity test results show that all statements in the questionnaire were valid except statement number 2: ‘TW
ADE is clear in color.’ The reliability test result shows that only the third criteria, namely the potential benefits
of TW-ADE, show a high-reliability value (α = 0.881). Therefore, the potential benefit of TW-ADE was used as
response variables to determine the factors that influenced farmers’ perceptions.

Farmers’ Perception
Understanding farmers’ perceptions are essential for sustainable use of TW-ADE to ensure the availability of
crop irrigation water during water shortages and future drought. Giriharja Hamlet farmers’ perceptions of the
quantity, quality, and potential benefits of TW-ADE are presented in Table 5. In general, the respondents had a
 Sanitation Value Chain Vol. 5 (2) pp.071–081, 2021 77

Table 4. The results of the validity and reliability tests.

Pearson Cronbach’s
Statements Correlation Sig. r-table Decision Alpha
Quality of W-ADE:
1. Tofu whey is cloudy. 0.430* 0.032 0.396 Valid
2. TW-ADE is clear in color. 0.283 0.171 0.396 Invalid
0.152
3. TW-ADE has an unpleasant odor. 0.725** 0 0.396 Valid
4. TW-ADE causes pollution to the environment. 0.551** 0.004 0.396 Valid
Quantity of TW-ADE:
5. TW-ADE can meet water needs in agricultural land. 0.775** 0 0.396 Valid
6. It is easy to reach the agricultural land from the TW-ADE 0.426
0.819** 0 0.396 Valid
shelter.
Potential Benefits of TW-ADE:
7. TW-ADE has good fertilizer content for plants. 0.950** 0 0.396 Valid
0.881
8. TW-ADE could potentially be reused for crop irrigation. 0.941** 0 0.396 Valid
*
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed); **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

moderate perception level of all statements, except for the first statement: ‘Tofu whey is cloudy,’ which was high.
Assessment of farmers’ perceptions of the appearance of tofu whey and TW-ADE shows that 88% of respondents
agreed that tofu whey was cloudy, while only 44% of respondents agreed that the color of TW-ADE was clear.
In general, respondents admitted that TW-ADE tended to appear more transparent than tofu whey. This data
concurred with the physical appearance of tofu whey and TW-ADE (Figure 4). Despite the appearance, 88% of
respondents agreed that TW-ADE had an unpleasant odor. However, only 44% of respondents agreed that TW-
ADE caused pollution to the environment. Furthermore, in the follow-up interview, some respondents thought
that the presence of an anaerobic WWTP could significantly reduce river water pollution, which was marked by
a reduction in river water turbidity and unpleasant odors. The relatively low organic matter in TW-ADE would
significantly reduce the pollution load in river water flows.
The TW-ADE quantity assessment shows that 48% of respondents agreed that TW-ADE could meet the water
needs in the agricultural land of Giriharja Hamlet. In comparison, 56% agreed that the distance between the
agricultural land and the TW-ADE reservoir was easy to reach. However, the respondents’ overall perception was
moderate (Table 5), suggesting that the farmers doubt TW-ADE had sufficient quantity and reasonable distance to
meet their irrigation needs. The result shows that technical aspects of TW-ADE availability and the distribution
mechanism of TW-ADE to agricultural land need to be considered. Water demand can be expressed in quantity,
quality, and accessibility (Action Contre La Faim 2005; Las et al. 2014). Some examples of water sources are
underutilized because the farmers do not have easy access. Whether the sources are too far from where the farmers
live or water collection is difficult due to technical inaccessibility.
Assessment of the potential benefits of TW-ADE shows that 48% of respondents agreed TW-ADE had a potential
for fertilizer content. In comparison, 56% agreed that TW-ADE is suitable for crop irrigation. However, the
respondents’ perception was moderate (Table 5), indicating that farmers know the potential benefits of TW-ADE
but still not sufficient to achieve a high level of perception. This data shows that the potential benefits of TW-ADE
still require further identification, which is followed up with informative, accurate, and complete socialization to
increase farmers’ perceptions and acceptance of the use of TW-ADE for crop irrigation (Ricart et al. 2019).
78 Sanitation Value Chain Vol. 5 (2) pp.071–081, 2021

Table 5. Giriharja Hamlet farmers’ perceptions of TW-ADE (n = 25).

Respondent Farmer Perceptions (%) Standard Perception

Statement Mean
SD D U A SA Deviation Level
Quality of TW-ADE
1. Tofu whey is cloudy. 0 4 8 64 24 4.08 0.702 High
2. TW-ADE is clear in color. 0 28 28 32 12 3.28 1.021 Moderate
3. TW-ADE has an unpleasant odor. 4 4 4 72 16 3.92 0.862 Moderate
4. TW-ADE causes pollution to the
12 20 24 40 4 3.04 1.136 Moderate
environment.
Quantity of TW-ADE
5. TW-ADE can meet water needs in
8 20 24 48 0 3.12 1.013 Moderate
agricultural land.
6. It is easy to reach the agricultural
8 24 12 52 4 3.2 1.118 Moderate
land from the TW-ADE shelter.
Potential benefits of TW-ADE
7. TW-ADE has good fertilizer
0 24 28 36 12 3.36 0.995 Moderate
content for plants.
8. TW-ADE could potentially be
0 16 28 44 12 3.52 0.918 Moderate
reused for crop irrigation
SD = Strongly disagree; D = Disagree; U = Uncertain; A = Agree; SA = Strongly Agree.

Figure 4. The appearance of tofu whey and TW-ADE.

Factors Influencing Farmers’ Perceptions

The potential benefit of TW-ADE was used as response variables to determine the factors that influenced
farmers’ perceptions. In ordinal logistic regression, McFadden R2 was used to determine the variability in the
response variable described by the explanatory variable. The results show that McFadden R2 value for the Y1
response variable is 0.499 and the Y2 response variable is 0.502 (Table 6). It means that the eight characteristics
of farmers can explain their effect on farmers’ perceptions of 49.9% for the potential fertilizer content in TW-ADE
and 50.2% for the potential eligibility of TWADE as crops irrigation.
Based on Table 6, the LR ratio confirms the model’s significance, both for the potential fertilizer content in TW-
ADE (Y1) and the suitability of TW-ADE for use in crop irrigation (Y2). Among the characteristics of farmers,
the age 36−60 years old variable (X1.1) had a significant positive influence on Y1 and Y2, the farming experience
≤ five years variable (X4.1) had a significant negative influence on Y1 and Y2, and two agricultural land area
variables namely ≤ 0.25 ha (X5.1) and 0.26–0.50 ha (X5.2) had significant negative influences on Y2. Thus,
the variables of age, farming experience, and agricultural land area were the main factors influencing Giriharja
 Sanitation Value Chain Vol. 5 (2) pp.071–081, 2021 79

Table 6. Model of potential benefits of TW-ADE in the agricultural sector.

Potential fertilizer Potential eligibility of

content in TW-ADE as
Variables Notation Description
TW-ADE (Y1) crop irrigation (Y2)
Coefficient p-value Coefficient p-value
Age X1.1 (1) 36−60 years old 5.077 0.046* 4.69 0.026*
Gender X2.1 (1) Male 0.747 0.68 −1.994 0.302
Education Level X3.1 (1) Primary school 1.981 0.344 2.14 0.275
X3.2 (2) Junior high school −0.069 0.975 −2.643 0.246
Farming experience X4.1 (1) ≤ 5 years −4.582 0.042* −7.433 0.005**
X4.2 (2) 6−10 years −2.037 0.427 −2.813 0.265
Agriculture land area X5.1 (1) ≤ 0.25 ha −36.93 0.994 −18.681 0.000***
X5.2 (2) 0.26˗0.50 ha −38.536 0.994 −21.018 0.000***
Land ownership status X6.1 (1) Owner 5.483 0.088 4.039 0.134
X6.2 (2) Person in charge / profit sharing 2.198 0.493 0.99 0.71
Biogas user status X7.1 (1) Biogas users 1.521 0.295 1.205 0.456
Income in the agricultural X8.1 (1) ≤ IDR 1,000,000 −1.221 0.673 1.332 0.638
sector (per rice production) X8.2 (2) IDR 1,000,001–IDR 2,500,000 −2.735 0.17 −1.681 0.343
McFadden R2 0.499 0.502
LR statistic 32.95 31.75
Prob (LR Statistic) 0.003 0.004
*
p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001

Hamlet farmers’ perceptions of whether to accept or not use TW-ADE in the agricultural sector. Meanwhile,
biogas users or non-biogas users did not significantly influence farmers’ perceptions of the potential benefits of
TW-ADE for crop irrigation.
The positive perception of Giriharja farmers on the potential benefits of TW-ADE, both the fertilizer content and
its suitability for use as crop irrigation, is influenced by age, farmers aged 36–60 years. It concurs with previous
research by Ambreen et al. (2020) that age is a factor that positively affects farmers using processed wastewater
for irrigation, education, income, land area, and land ownership.
Contrary to the age influence, farmers with less than or equal to five years of experience had negative
perceptions about the potential benefits of TW-ADE, both its fertilizer content and its suitability for use as crop
irrigation. These negative perceptions might be formed from lack of knowledge, unreliable sources of information
(Deh-Haghi et al. 2020), and poor farming experience. Besides, the use of TW-ADE for crop irrigation is new
for Giriharja Hamlet farmers, so the memory and precise definition of using TW-ADE for crop irrigation was
still limited. Roy and Chan (2015) found that farmers’ knowledge, skills, and competencies strongly influence
sustainable agriculture.

Conclusion
The tofu wastewater-anaerobic digestion effluent (TW-ADE) from the Anaerobic WWTP at Giriharja Hamlet can
meet local water needs for irrigation. Giriharja Hamlet farmers had a moderate level of perception of the quality,
quantity, and potential benefits of TW-ADE for irrigation. The age variable influenced positive perceptions of the
potential benefits of TW-ADE. In contrast, negative perceptions are influenced by insufficient farming experience
and the area of agricultural land related to the availability and accessibility of TW-ADE. In the future, if the local
government plans to socialize the use of TW-ADE as crop irrigation, it is recommended that experienced farmers
80 Sanitation Value Chain Vol. 5 (2) pp.071–081, 2021

be invited as speakers or core members for the education of young farmers. In other words, experienced farmers
are the key people for the sustainable implementation of effluent as crop irrigation in the Giriharja Hamlet area.
Furthermore, to promote the use of TW-ADE as an alternative source of agricultural water in the future, solutions
to technical issues regarding quantity and accessibility and comprehensive information for farmers about potential
benefits should be available.

Acknowledgement
We thank the farmers, tofu craftsmen and the management of Anaerobic WWTP—Mr. Pepen and Ms. Lilis—in
Giriharja Hamlet to facilitate the research site and many bits of help for this study.

References
Action Contre La Faim 2005. Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Populations at Risk. Hermann Éditeurs Des
Sciences Et Des Arts, Paris.
Ajijah, N., Tjandra, B. C., Hamidah, U., Widyarani and Sintawardani, N. 2020. Utilization of tofu wastewater
as a cultivation medium for Chlorella vulgaris and Arthrospira platensis. IOP Conference Series: Earth and
Environmental Science 483(1): 0–9. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/483/1/012027
Ambreen, F., Bashir, M. K., Ashfaq, M., Ali, G. and Hassan, S. 2020. The use of wastewater for irrigation
purposes : Perceptions and willingness to pay for treated wastewater. SSRG International Journal of Agriculture
& Environmental Science (SSRG-IJAES) 7(4): 9−22.
Ayaz, S. T., Aktaş, Ö., Akça, L. and Findik, N. 2015. Effluent quality and reuse potential of domestic wastewater
treated in a pilot-scale hybrid constructed wetland system. Journal of Environmental Management 156: 115–
120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.03.042
Chen, W., Lu, S., Jiao, W., Wang, M. and Chang, A. C. 2013. Reclaimed water: A safe irrigation water source?
Environmental Development 8(1): 74–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2013.04.003
Deh-Haghi, Z., Bagheri, A., Fotourehchi, Z. and Damalas, C. A. 2020. Farmers’ acceptance and willingness to pay
for using treated wastewater in crop irrigation: A survey in western Iran. Agricultural Water Management 239:
106262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106262
Fadholi, A. and Supriatin, D. 2012. Sistem pola tanam di wilayah Priangan berdasakan klasifikasi iklim Oldeman
(The cropping system in the Priangan area is based on the Oldeman climate classification). Jurnal Geografi Gea
12(2): 56–65. https://doi.org/10.17509/gea.v12i2.1788.g1224
Keating, B. A., Herrero, M., Carberry, P. S., Gardner, J. and Cole, M. B. 2014. Food wedges: Framing the
global food demand and supply challenge towards 2050. Global Food Security 3(3–4): 125–132. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.gfs.2014.08.004
Khanpae, M., Karami, E., Maleksaeidi, H. and Keshavarz, M. 2020. Farmers’ attitude towards using treated
wastewater for irrigation : The question of sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production 243: 118541. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118541
Las, I., Agus, F., Nursyamsi, D., Husen, E., Sutriadi, T., Wiratno, Syahbuddin, H., Jamil, A., Ritung S., Mulyani A.
et al. 2014. Road Map Penelitian dan Pengembangan Lahan Kering Tahun 2014 (2014 Road Map for Dryland
Research and Development). Badan Litbang Pertanian, Kementerian Pertanian, Republik Indonesia.
Li, M., Fu, Q., Singh, V. P., Liu, D., Li, T. and Zhou, Y. 2020. Managing agricultural water and land resources with
trade off between economic, environmental, and social considerations: A multi-objective non-linear optimization
 Sanitation Value Chain Vol. 5 (2) pp.071–081, 2021 81

model under uncertainty. Agricultural Systems 178: 102685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102685

Libutti, A., Gatta, G., Gagliardi, A., Vergine, P., Pollice, A., Beneduce, L., Disciglio, G. and Tarantino, E. 2018.
Agro-industrial wastewater reuse for irrigation of a vegetable crop succession under Mediterranean conditions.
Agricultural Water Management 196: 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2017.10.015
Massoud, M. A., Kazarian, A., Alameddine, I. and Al-Hindi, M. 2018. Factors influencing the reuse of reclaimed
water as a management option to augment water supplies. Environmental Monitoring Assessment 190: 531.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-018-6905-y
Mutaqin, M. I., Janetasari, S. A., Widyarani, Muchlis, Hamidah, U. and Sintawardarni, N. 2019. Biogas
Consumption Pattern in Indonesia: (A Case Study of Sumedang Community Biogas Plant, Indonesia).
International Conference on Sustainable Energy Engineering and Application (ICSEEA): 113–118.
Ricart, S., Rico, A. M. and Ribas, A. 2019. Risk-yuck factor nexus in reclaimed wastewater for irrigation:
Comparing farmers’ attitudes and public perception. Water 11(2): 187. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11020187
Rodell, M., Famiglietti, J. S., Wiese, D. N., Reager, J. T., Beaudoing, H. K., Landerer, F. W. and Lo, M. H.
2018. Emerging trends in global freshwater availability. Nature 557: 651–659. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41586-018-0123-1
Roy, R. and Chan, N. W. 2015. Determinants of Sustainable Irrigated and Rainfed Rice Farming in Determinants of
Sustainable Irrigated and Rainfed Rice Farming in Bangladesh. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology
17(6): 1421–1435.
Stephan, R. M., Mohtar, R. H., Daher, B., Irujo, A. E., Hillers, A., Ganter, J. C., Karlberg, L., Martin, L., Nairizi,
S., Rodriguez, D. J. and Sarni, W. 2018. Water–energy–food nexus: a platform for implementing the Sustainable
Development Goals. Water International 43(3): 472–479. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2018.1446581
Widyarani, Butar Butar, E. S., Dara, F., Hamidah, U., Sriwuryandari, L., Hariyadi, H. R. and Sintawardani,
N. 2019. Distribution of protein fractions in tofu whey wastewater and its potential influence on anaerobic
digestion. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 277: 012012. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-
1315/277/1/012012
Xu, F., Khalaf, A., Sheets, J., Ge, X., Keener, H. and Li, Y. 2018. Phosphorus removal and recovery from anaerobic
digestion residues. Advances in Bioenergy 3: 77–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aibe.2018.02.003