Farmers planning and Agroecological transition insights from the special region of Yogyakarta Indonesia

Australian Geographer
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/cage20
Farmers, planning and Agroecological transition:

insights from the special region of Yogyakarta,
Indonesia
Sri T. Pandangwati, Benjamin Cooke & Melissa Neave
To cite this article: Sri T. Pandangwati, Benjamin Cooke & Melissa Neave (2024) Farmers,
planning and Agroecological transition: insights from the special region of Yogyakarta,
Indonesia, Australian Geographer, 55:2, 229-257, DOI: 10.1080/00049182.2024.2350813
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00049182.2024.2350813
View supplementary material
Published online: 22 May 2024.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 95
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cage20
AUSTRALIAN GEOGRAPHER
2024, VOL. 55, NO. 2, 229–257
https://doi.org/10.1080/00049182.2024.2350813
Farmers, planning and Agroecological transition: insights

from the special region of Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Sri T. Pandangwatia, Benjamin Cookeb and Melissa Neaveb
a
Department of Architecture and Planning, Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta,
Indonesia; bCentre for Urban Research and School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University
Melbourne, Australia
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The development of more resilient and sustainable food systems Received 24 November 2022
depends on the integration of ecological and sustainability Accepted 29 April 2024
concepts into agricultural systems. One proposed way to achieve
KEYWORDS
this is to shift to ‘agroecology’. This concept appears promising, Agroecology; sustainable
but there is a need to translate it in specific socio-ecological agriculture; niche
contexts, given that agroecological innovations develop locally innovation; spatial planning;
and are responsive to local conditions. The objective of this paper farming; Indonesia
is to examine the relevance of an Agroecological Transition for
the Special Region of Yogyakarta (SRY), Indonesia, with an
emphasis on farmers’ perspectives and experiences. Data were
gathered from policy documents, field observations and 34 semi-
structured interviews with farmers. Findings indicate that
although there is limited discourse about agroecology in current
policies, some farmers and NGOs have developed agroecological
niche innovations. It may be possible to up-scale these niches to
a broader context, with planning policies having a potential role
in supporting this transition. Furthermore, farmers identify that
the planning system can contribute to food sovereignty and
Agroecological Transition by preserving agricultural land,
managing regional cropping patterns and supporting the
development of urban agriculture. These insights broaden
existing knowledge around the potential of sustainable food
planning through agroecology.
Introduction
Integrating ecological and sustainability principles into agricultural systems has been
identified as critical for creating more resilient and sustainable food systems (FAO
2015). One of the ways to approach this objective is through the lens of agroecology,
which has been fostered by social movements that encompassed farmers’ practices of sus-
tainable agriculture. For instance, in Cuba, the collective experience of traditional
farmers and scholars who have been practising, studying, and promoting more sustain-
able agricultural methods for several decades has served as the foundation for the agroe-
cological movement (Fernandez et al. 2018). The food sovereignty and agroecological
CONTACT Sri T. Pandangwati sri.tuntung@ugm.ac.id Jalan Grafika No. 2 Yogyakarta 55281 Indonesia
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/00049182.2024.2350813
© 2024 Geographical Society of New South Wales Inc.
230 S. T. PANDANGWATI ET AL.
movement in Indonesia was also originally driven by peasant farmers’ practices and
social movements before being partially adopted by government agencies (Schreer and
Padmanabhan 2020). These agroecological movements aim to create a more environ-
mentally sustainable and equitable food system.
The focus of agroecology is to create productive, environmentally conserving, socio-
culturally just and economically feasible agricultural systems (Altieri and Nicholls 2017;
FAO 2015; Hecht 2018). During the 1930s-1960s, agroecology was primarily a scientific
field of study linking ecology and agriculture, but it evolved to also encompass social
issues following the 1960s environmental movement that opposed intensive industrial
farming (Altieri and Nicholls 2017; Wezel et al. 2009). As such, agroecology now not
only refers to ecologically friendly agriculture, but also includes social justice and cultural
considerations in its framing of the food system (Altieri and Nicholls 2017; Gliessman
2007). Agroecological research has also broadened its scope from studies mainly at the
farm and agroecosystem scale, to comprehensive investigations of large-scale food
systems (Wezel et al. 2009). Likewise, Méndez, Bacon, and Cohen (2013) identify two
predominant interpretations of agroecology: the one that views agroecology as a
theory based on natural science and the broader perspective that engages with multidis-
ciplinary, participative, and action-based approach.
The process of shifting from a conventional agri-food system to a more agroecological
system has also received specific research attention and is referred to as an ‘Agroecolo-
gical Transition’. This transition usually includes the development of alternative systems
within the current agri-food network (Schiller et al. 2019). Thus, overall agroecology
seeks solutions for the impacts of global industrial agriculture to enhance the socio-eco-
logical sustainability of a food system.
As well as being a field of study, agroecology is also viewed as an agricultural practice
(Guzmán and Woodgate 2015; Méndez, Bacon, and Cohen 2013; Wezel et al. 2009).
Guzmán and Woodgate (2015) argue that the science of agroecology has developed
from studying farmers’ practices of sustainable agriculture, which evolved from long-
term experiences and interactions with nature. A study by James, Wolff, and Wittman
(2023) also shows that various agroecological actors in Southern Brazil view it as ‘a Phil-
osophy of Life’ that is rooted in indigenous wisdom that emphasises taking care of the
land and natural environment. An example of agroecology as a way of life in Indonesia
(explored later) is the use of Pranata Mangsa, an indigenous cosmology that provides
guidance for farming in harmony with nature (Zaki et al. 2020). Agroecological practices
are also deeply rooted to the spiritual relation to God and the natural world in places like
Zona da Mata, Brazil (Botelho, Cardoso, and Otsuki 2016).
Moreover, agroecology has been identified as a promising concept in the Global South
(Altieri et al. 2015; FAO 2015; Levidow, Pimbert, and Vanloqueren 2014) and has evolved
as part of the social movement for food sovereignty (Guzmán and Woodgate 2015).
Agroecology and food sovereignty have become essential elements of sustainable food
and agricultural policy in many developing countries such as India, the Philippines,
Sri Lanka and Ecuador (Gunaratne, Radin Firdaus, and Rathnasooriya 2021). In India,
a peasant social movement called Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF) has concen-
trated on agricultural policy planning and extension services across Indian state govern-
ments. ZNBF has rescued many agricultural households from debt and poverty by
lowering the direct costs of farming and modifying agricultural practices (Khadse et al.
AUSTRALIAN GEOGRAPHER 231
2018). In the Philippines, Farmers and Scientists for Agricultural Development

(MASIPAG) have been promoting farmer-driven sustainable agriculture grounded on
agroecological principles (Jack, Plahe, and Wright 2022). In Sri Lanka, food sovereignty
and agroecology have been advocated by the Movement for National Land and Agricul-
tural Reform (MONLAR) through national and worldwide policy forums (Daele 2013).
In Ecuador, agroecology firstly emerged during 1980–1990 through the work of research-
ers, agroecologists and peasant organisations that promoted revitalisation of integrated
and diverse agrarian systems as an alternative agricultural approach (Intriago et al.
2017). Agroecology and food sovereignty has also been manifested into a strategic aim
and a statutory responsibility of the national government in many Latin American
countries since the 2000s (Giraldo and McCune 2019).
The existing studies have also analysed the agroecology of several Indonesian regions.
For instance, Seminar et al. (2017) examined the process of knowledge-sharing amongst
the horticultural farmers affiliated with the peasant’s union, Serikat Petani Indonesia
(SPI) in Bogor, West Java and found that through this knowledge-sharing process,
farmers were not only enhancing their knowledge of agroecology and food sovereignty,
but also agricultural governance and policies. Likewise, Nasution et al. (2022) explored
the agroecological practices of local farmers in Asahan, North Sumatera. Elsewhere in
Indonesia, Armitage (2003) has demonstrated the opportunity to integrate cutting-
edge adaptive management theory and practise with traditional agroecological knowl-
edge in the Banawa-Marawola region of Central Sulawesi. These studies define agroecol-
ogy as both an eco-friendly and socially just farming approach. However, others define
agroecology as merely biophysical characteristics of agricultural land such as rainfall,
elevation, air temperature, soil type, etc. (Maria et al. 2019; Samijan and Jauhari 2021;
Sirappa 2018; Widiyanto 2019). For instance, Widiyanto (2019) mapped the landscape
of the agroecological zones in Yogyakarta Province and linked it with the mapping of
local food potential. Maria et al. (2019) also defines agroecology as a biophysical zone
and uses this concept to compare sustainable conservation practices in three different
agroecology zones. This agroecological zone mapping aims to provide guidance for
growing what is suitable to the existing biophysical characteristics. However, more
studies are needed to critically contextualise and examine how translatable agroecology
is within an Indonesian context.
Alongside growing interest in agroecology is the increasing attention that food and its
spatial implications have received from planning scholars. For instance, Specht, Bohn,
and Rojo (2022) edited a special issue proposing three approaches for food system tran-
sitions: spatial planning, citizen-led governance, and agroecological transition. There
have also been several works that conceptualise an agroecological urbanism and identify
frameworks through which planning should address agroecological farmers’ needs. For
example, Gonzalez De Molina and Lopez-Garcia (2021) conceptualises a framework
called Agroecology-based Local Agri-food Systems (ALAS) that builds upon four
pillars (environment, economy, social equity and food sovereignty). Likewise, Simón-
Rojo (2021) suggests that food poverty can be addressed by using urban planning instru-
ments to bring about the qualities of agroecology across the urban--rural continuum. She
notes that urban planning may facilitate adequate food-related infrastructure to foster
community relations within a neighbourhood that lacks social networks and local
resources. She also suggests that in a strong social environment, participative and
collaborative approaches of urban planning may be effective to enhance the development

of alternative food networks. Moreover, addressing rural agriculture and peasant prac-
tices in the current literature, Tornaghi and Dehaene (2020) propose the concept of
‘agroecological urbanism’ to reformulate agroecological transitions in relation to urban
planning. They suggest three ways for establishing agroecological urbanism: (1) imple-
menting strategies that recognise post-capitalist economic principles and non-extractive,
community-focused spatial linkages; (2) caring for ecosystems and solidarity with non-
humans; (3) providing adequate facilities to enhance communities’ resourcefulness.
Despite this important work, the existing research does not explore farmers’ perspec-
tives on agroecological transitions in great depth (Lopez-Garcia et al. 2021) and recent
debates on agroecological transitions point to the absence of farmers participation at
food planning processes. Lopez-Garcia et al. (2021) have begun to address this gap by
examining eight cases in Europe and Latin America in which farmers were actively
involved and empowered in the co-creation of agroecological transitions. Meanwhile,
in recent decades, urban planning has been increasingly attentive to citizens’ voices in
general (Alizadeh, Sarkar, and Burgoyne 2019; Wilson, Tewdwr-Jones, and Comber
2019), though few have integrated farmer perspectives of planning (see Gullino, Devec-
chi, and Larcher 2018; Llambí et al. 2005; Pandangwati 2021; Thompson 2010 for excep-
tions). Thus, studies exploring farmers’ aspirations on the role of planning for supporting
agroecological transitions are needed, especially in Indonesia.
We remedy this research gap by exploring the potential for agroecological transitions
in the Special Region of Yogyakarta (SRY), Indonesia. Altieri and Nicholls (2017) suggest
that agroecological innovations are not uniform but develop locally through farmer par-
ticipation and in response to local conditions. For this reason, we focus on how farming
practices in the SRY might align with the notion of agroecology and identify challenges or
opportunities that might present themselves in shifting towards agroecological
approaches.
We argue that a coordinated agroecological transition at scale will likely require a con-
siderable contribution from land use planning. While the capacity of planners and plan-
ning governance to support a transition to a sustainable food system has been prevalent
in the recent urban planning literature, this work has yet to be connected to agroecolo-
gical transitions specifically. Thus far, planners have been invited to take part in investi-
gating how planning policies affect food systems more broadly, and how food could be
included as a part of planning education (Pothukuchi and Kaufman 2000). It has also
been suggested that land use planning systems should be used to help preserve agricul-
tural land and food should be embedded in planning instruments such as zoning (Borrelli
2018). However, existing research – particularly from developing countries – has not
explored farmers’ perspectives in great depth. In most cases, farmers are positioned as
passive beneficiaries of development rather than active contributors to development pos-
sibilities (Soubry, Sherren, and Thornton 2020). In a planning context, current literature
also focuses on farmers’ perceptions of land use change (Kouassi et al. 2021; Paudel et al.
2019) but has not explored how local farmers expect planners and planning authorities to
support an agroecology transition. Therefore, in this paper we explore farmers’ percep-
tions on the roles of planning for fostering an agroecological transition.
This paper outlines the study area and methods before presenting the key findings on
agroecological transition in the SRY and how planning could foster an agroecological
transition through preserving agricultural land, managing regional sowing time and
cropping patterns, and supporting urban farming. These findings are discussed in the
context of the current literature on planning and agroecology before we conclude with
some recommendations for planning practices and policies such as the inclusion of
agroecology considerations in spatial planning interventions for farmland protection,
state-led interventions to scale-up existing agroecological practices, integration of agri-
cultural development and spatial planning, and urban and regional planning that is
more sensitive to food issues.
Historical overview of agriculture in The Special Region of Yogyakarta

The Special Region of Yogyakarta (SRY) provides an appropriate geographic base for this
study because it represents an Indonesian region in which interest and activity around an
agroecological transition is present. This region is also experiencing rapid urbanisation
and environmental change, which make it interesting to critically examine the relevance
of agroecology in such a dynamic context. The SRY covers an area of 3,185.80 km2
(Figure 1) that includes the capital city (Yogyakarta) and four regencies (Sleman,
Bantul, Kulonprogo and Gunungkidul). The population of SRY is 3,668,719, with
30.69 per cent of the population living in Sleman Regency where the growth of the urba-
nised area is concentrated (BPS 2021). The urban area of this region covers the capital
city and some areas of Sleman and Bantul Regencies. Approximately 76 per cent of
the land in this province is farmland (BPS Provinsi D.I Yogyakarta 2017). However,
the total area of rice fields in this region decreased from 56,364 ha in 2012–55,292 ha
in 2016 with this decline mainly occurring in Sleman (BPS Provinsi D.I Yogyakarta
2016). This highlights the challenge for sustaining local food production locally.
Figure 1. The Special Region of Yogyakarta.

The Ngayogyakarta Hadiningrat Sultanate formerly ruled the SRY region (Keraton
Ngayogyakarta Hadiningrat 2019) and although rice was the main commodity, local
farmers also grew other crops. To guide their agricultural practices and bring them
into harmony with nature, many generations of farmers in the SRY practised an indigen-
ous cosmology called Pranata Mangsa which shows how ancient farming is attentive to
the natural environment and guides farmers to observe and learn from nature (Zaki et al.
2020). For instance, farmers in dry and arid lands used to grow and eat cassava and corn
as the main crops because they are suitable to the existing natural conditions. Farmers
also implement crop rotation to naturally rejuvenate the soil and multiple cropping to
maintain biodiversity. However, regardless of their sustainable agendas, farmers were
landless and earned their livelihoods as tenant farmers under the feudal system. The
Sultan and the Duke were the landowners of this region and the commoners had no
land ownership. Farmers were allowed to use some of the land, but they were required
to pay rent by giving up some of their harvest to the aristocrats (Setiawati 2011).
During Dutch colonisation, an export-oriented agricultural industry was developed,
although the existing traditional agriculture system was not radically changed and con-
tinued to be dominated by landless farmers and smallholders (Reuter and MacRae 2019).
At the beginning of the twentieth century, Sultan Hamengkubuwono VIII and the Dutch
colonial authority reorganised the land ownership structure in the SRY to enable private
investment and since then farmers have been granted ownership of that land (Munsyarief
2013). However, many farmers continued to live in poverty due to forced labour and the
obligation to pay taxes to the colonial authority. During the 1950s, their land was taken
over by the colonial ruler for intensive cultivation of cash crops and this led to massive
starvation in the SRY and other regions in Java (Subroto 1985).
Farmers are still perceived as a lower social class, even after the Republic of Indonesia
gained its independence. In response to this, agrarian-social movements emerged. These
movements date back to 1945 when Barisan Tani Indonesia (the Indonesian Peasant
Front), an organisation associated with the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI), was
founded. The Indonesian Peasant Front took political and socialist approaches in advo-
cating for the peasantry. During this era, many sugar plantations were converted back to
rice fields to ensure food supply for the peasantry, and farmers started to use artificial
fertiliser and machines, but this practice only grew moderately due to President Sukar-
no’s opposition to foreign aid (Reuter and MacRae 2019).
Since the Sultan, Hamengkubuwono IX, played a vital role in Indonesia’s independence
movement, his former territory was designated as a special region in 1950. This special
autonomy allows the Sultan to be the governor for life (Prayitno 2017) and grants auton-
omy to the Sultanate to manage aristocratic land called Sultan Ground (Republik Indonesia
2012). Some of this land is used by local farmers for agriculture without them having to pay
rent to the sultanate (Nugroho and Mashdurohatun 2021; Subejo et al. 2019).
During the New Order era (1966–1998), foreign aid and the green revolution initiatives
became widespread and the state strongly controlled farmers and food systems (Reuter and
MacRae 2019). As such, governance authorities still have a strong influence on farmers’
decisions. The 1970s witnessed the establishment of supermarkets in Indonesia’s major
cities, which contributed to the growth of intensive vegetable farming in Java (Hanggoro
2019). In 1976, bilateral collaboration between Indonesia and Taiwan promoted the culti-
vation of foreign vegetable commodities in the SRY and some regions in Central and West
Java (Taipei Economic and Trade Office 2016). During the Green Revolution era of the
1980s, Indonesia attained rice self-sufficiency because of the national government’s
strong control over agricultural activity. Indigenous and heirloom food crops were also
largely replaced by hybrid and GMO varieties to increase yield and meet market
demands (Reuter and MacRae 2019). This shift was achieved through centralised policies
and training programs. Agricultural research and policies were disseminated by agricul-
tural extension agents to farmers; a system inherited from the colonial government (Oude-
jans Jan 2006). Although farmers were forced to increase production there was no
guarantee of a selling price and the state often kept the price low for the sake of consumers
and the food-processing industry. Moreover, this Green Revolution resulted in traditional
agricultural practices being abandoned, farmers’ agency being undermined and agroecol-
ogy being adversely impacted (Darmawan et al. 2006; Reuter and MacRae 2019).
Over the reformation era (1998--now), the total area of agricultural land in Indonesia
has been steadily declining. Data indicate that in Indonesia, agricultural land conversion
accounts for about 100,000 ha per year, which represents 0.2% of total agricultural land
area in Indonesia (Pujiriyani and Soetarto 2022). Responding to this issue, current agri-
cultural and food security policies have transitioned from rice-focused production to the
prioritisation of agricultural competitiveness, biodiversity, and environmental sustain-
ability (Kementerian Pertanian Republik Indonesia 2020). Additionally, a residential
food garden programme has been running since 2012 with the goal of improving
local, urban and family food security (Kementerian Pertanian Republik Indonesia 2012).
Despite this turn towards more sustainable practices, there are still concerns about
how local governments, particularly those in the SRY, are implementing laws that
support farmers’ welfare and whether farmers are still having difficulty achieving land
ownership and influencing agricultural policy. These issues are important to achieve
food sovereignty. Despite the rise in farmer social movements in recent years, they
have seldom been at the core of agriculture governance. This dynamic underscores the
multiplicity of constraints farmers face and the significance of selecting an Indonesian
area as the contextual foundation for this study.
Research methods
This study applied a qualitative approach that enables in-depth exploration and analysis
of stories and insights of local farmers. This research involved field observations and 34
semi-structured interviews with vegetable farmers in four locations in the SRY: the urban
area of Yogyakarta, the hilly area and the coastal area of Bantul Regency, and the upland
area of Sleman Regency (Figure 1) and the data for this study were collected between July
and November 2018. Purposive sampling was used to ensure a broad representation of
farmers. Thus, in each location we recruited farmers with different farm-sizes, farm
types and farming methods. The recruitment process involved site visits to farms and
farmers markets to approach potential participants. Basic demographics of the partici-
pants who were interviewed for this research are presented in Table 1. Pseudonyms
have been used to de-identify individuals and to ensure the confidentiality of the partici-
pants. This research has been granted ethics approval by the Design and Social Context
College Human Ethics Advisory Network as a sub-committee of the RMIT Human
Research Ethics Committee on 7 May 2018.
Table 1. Summary of Participants’ Profile.

Farming
Point of Main distribution Age experience Farm
No Pseudonym Production system range Gender (year) size (m2)
1 Darmo Hilly area of wholesalers > 60 Male >30 1,200
2 Lestari Bantul Regency 51–60 Female 20–30 20,000
3 Sholeh 41–50 Male 20–30 2,000
4 Heri 31–40 Male 10–20 1,500
5 Jumadi 51–60 Male 20–30 20,000
6 Yani 41–50 Female 20–30 2,300
7 Agung Coastal area of wholesalers <31 Male 10–20 9,000
8 Isman Bantul Regency 51–60 Male >30 1,400
9 Asih 41–50 Female 20–30 700
10 Hartono > 60 Male >30 700
11 Joko 41–50 Male >30 1,400
12 Kasman > 60 Male >30 5,000
13 Wiwid 51–60 Male >30 500
14 Adit Upland area of supermarket 31–40 Male 10–20 2,000
15 Setyo Sleman <31 Male <10 2,000
16 Sukaryo & Regency > 60 Male & >30 700
Sulastri Female
17 Wondo 31–40 Male 10–20 4,000
18 Ardi 41–50 Male 20–30 600
19 Karno 41–50 Male 20–30 2,000
20 Sukarman 41–50 Male >30 800
21 Tatang 41–50 Male 10–20 700
22 Yulianto 31–40 Male <10 1,500
23 Teguh Upland area of farmers market 41–50 Male <10 800
24 Iwan & Ismi Sleman <31 Male & <10 800
Regency Female
25 Anto Urban area of farmers market 31–40 Male <10 1,000
26 Rendi Yogyakarta <31 Male <10 25,000
27 Agustin <31 Female <10 25,000
28 Dedi Urban area of direct sale/self- 51–60 Male 10–20 20
29 Dewi & Bagus Yogyakarta consumption/ 41–50 Male & <10 300
sharing Female
30 Slamet 41–50 Male 10–20 1,000
31 Tika 41–50 Female 10–20 100
32 Ana > 60 Female <10 100
33 Basuki 51–60 Male 20–30 40
34 Asdi > 60 Male 10–20 40
After completing each interview, a field observation was conducted by touring the par-
ticipants’ farms. This enabled the researcher to collect visual and socio-spatial data in
addition to the interview data. Interview transcripts were analysed by using thematic
analysis approach in NVivo 12. Themes were self-emerged in the analysis process. The
term agroecology also emerged during the analysis process although it is not directly
mentioned by participant farmers. We found several sustainable practices and intentions
to shift to more sustainable practices in interview responses and field observations results
that were characteristic of agroecology in practice.
Results
Agroecological transition in the SRY
Our exploration of farming practices shows that some farmers were transitioning to
agroecological systems. For instance, Ardi (a farmer from the upland area of Sleman
Regency) explained, ‘We are still searching how to fix this disease naturally … we are
afraid of using too many chemicals.’ When dealing with a new plant disease, he tried
different control methods he deemed ‘natural’, instead of applying chemical pesticides.
Another farmer from the upland area of Sleman Regency, Karno said, ‘We follow [the
temperature increase] by choosing the right crops … don’t force crops to grow that are
not suitable [to the current conditions].’ In response to rising temperatures, he altered
his crop choices and grew vegetables that were suitable for warmer conditions. While
not referring to the term ‘agroecology’, these farmers were aiming to reduce their use
of chemical pesticides and fertilisers and grow food crops that were considered by
them to be more suitable to current (and shifting) ecological conditions. Figures 2 and
3 provide two examples of food gardens in Yogyakarta that indicate farmer’s preferences
for undertaking more traditional agricultural approaches.
Some farmers managed pests and diseases by cultivating vibrant flowers to attract
natural predators, thus creating an ecology that could replace the role of pesticides
and pest traps (Figure 4). They manage the pests by taking advantage of natural processes
and biological relationships among organisms living on the farm. For example, a farmer
from the coastal area of Bantul Regency, Kasman said, ‘I have been growing flowers for
one year and the pests really decrease.’ These flowers attract the predators of the pests,
which can help farmers to manage the pests and diseases naturally. As explained by
another farmer from the coastal area of Bantul Regency, Wiwid, ‘These sunflowers are
for controlling Gemini virus on chilies. The flowers attract insects that are usually
attack chilies.’ This practice was first initiated by the local government and farmers
have continued practising it due to a noticeable pest decline. This practice aligns with
the agroecological principles of fostering a farming ecology and depicts the implemen-
tation of approaches that aim to facilitate ecosystem functioning (Altieri and Nicholls
2017; Gliessman 2007).
In addition, some participants made their own pesticides from the various wild plants
available around their neighbourhood. Sukaryo (a farmer from the upland area of Sleman
Figure 2. Jenderalium Botanical Garden: An organic farm in Sleman.

Figure 3. A permaculture garden at Bumi Langit Institute in Bantul.
Regency) said, ‘I usually make pesticides using shredded bitter yam … ’ A farmer from
the hilly area of Bantul Regency, Darmo also explained, ‘Plenty medicinal tubers and
spices are available in my garden, and they often grow wild around here.’ These plants
are bitter, and this can be used to help keep pests away from other plants. They are
also considered to have limited ecological impact and are economically affordable.
Finally, certain farmers installed insect traps as a pest management tool. The Depart-
ment of Agriculture provided some light traps (Figure 5) that farmers installed on their
farms. But as an alternative, the farmers also made insect traps using recycled plastic
bottles (Figure 6). The fact that the farmers followed and have continued to implement
local government initiatives regarding ecological pest management, indicates that
farmers can be responsive to centrally planned and organised agroecological initiatives
Figure 4. Flowers grown at the edges of a chili farm in Bantul.

Figure 5. A light trap provided by the Department of Agriculture.
that are demonstrated to have worked. As we will discuss further, this is an important
finding in terms of agroecological planning and governance.
Farmers change and update their practices over time. Our observations show that
some farmers have altered their farming practices to be more responsive to and in
tune with ecological conditions. As a farmer from the hilly area of Bantul Regency,
Sholeh noted, ‘Since I applied more organic fertiliser and reduced the artificial one,
the soil quality has been improved’. A senior farmer from the same area, Darmo, also
explained that he has not always used organic farming methods. He used to be a conven-
tional farmer and admitted that chemical fertilisers did boost his food production.
However, he experienced degrading soil quality over time and decided to alter his
farming practices.
I did use chemical fertilisers, but my grandparents didn’t use any chemicals. I observed that
chemicals can boost my farm production, but over time the soil changed … Then, I decided
to slowly shift to organic fertiliser and eventually I haven’t been using chemical fertiliser for
six years (Darmo-the hilly area).
This shows the potential for farmers to change practices across generations, which is
important when considering the development of plans and policies aimed at encouraging
agroecological principles.
Opportunities and tensions: the roles of planning in Agroecological transition

The concept of agroecology has not received much attention from the government in
Indonesia, nor has its underlying principle of integrating ecological principles of
social justice and ecology into food production. While in other places such as
Figure 6. An insect trap installed by a local farmer in Bantul.
Cuba, India and Italy, the government has actively supported sustainable agroecology
through policy interventions (Anderson et al. 2021; Fernandez et al. 2018; Poponi
et al. 2021), the implementation of the agroecology concept in Indonesia is still
limited to organic farming policy (Aji, Wangsit, and Ningrum 2019; Schreer and
Padmanabhan 2020). Although strategies for establishing environmentally sustain-
able and socially just farming have been mentioned in many national and local
policy documents and regulations in Indonesia, the aims of these policies haven’t
been developed.
Considering this, the following section presents participants’ responses to questions
about the potential for planning to support agroecological transitions. These materials
are grouped according to three broad trends that were identified in the results, namely
preserving agricultural land, managing sowing and cropping patterns, and facilitating
the development of urban agriculture.
Preserving agricultural land

As land access is seen as the foundation of agroecology, planning policies have the poten-
tial to help the transition to an agroecological system by protecting agricultural land. One
objective of an agroecological transition is to convert industrial food systems towards a
more sustainable trajectory. This goal not only requires the food system to be more eco-
logically sensitive, economically viable and socio-culturally just, but it also means achiev-
ing a secure and continuous food supply into the future. Preserving agricultural land is
considered critical in this, and as noted earlier, extensive agricultural land conversion
into residential and commercial uses has been a significant threat for sustaining food pro-
duction in Java (Irawan 2016; Rondhi et al. 2018). A similar pattern is occurring in the
SRY where every year, roughly 250 ha of farmland is converted to non-agricultural uses
(Setiawan and Yolanda 2019).
Participant farmers suggested that agricultural land use control is critical for enabling
sustainable food production in the region. Respondents indicated their intentions to
maintain farming activities but expressed concern about the future of their industry.
Several farmers explicitly pointed to the need for regulation to preserve agricultural
land. For example,
I hope this agricultural land can be preserved. That is what spatial planning is for … So,
farmers can continue farming like this (Isman-the coastal area).
There should be eternal farmlands which are preserved for a period by implementing a kind
of incentives such as tax exclusion for farmlands (Karno-the upland area).
There should be a kind of land fertility census to identify where productive lands are
located … So, the data can be used … to justify preservation of farmlands (Agustin-the
urban area).
This finding suggests that farmers consider agricultural land preservation to be the start-
ing point for enabling a large-scale agroecological transition. The goal of an agroecolo-
gical transition is to establish agricultural sustainability, which means that it should
not only include upscaling the use of ecologically sensitive farming approaches but
should also ensure the continuity of agricultural activities within the region. Agricultural
land preservation plays a critical role in protecting agricultural land from conversion to
non-agricultural uses.
The idea of protecting farmland and providing incentives for farmers has been accom-
modated in the current regulation on agricultural land preservation (Republik Indonesia
2009). This policy aims to protect farmland from conversion to non-agricultural uses in
Indonesia by classifying certain farmland as LP2B (Sustainable Agricultural Land), which
by law cannot be converted to non-agricultural uses. Local governments are required to
analyse and identify LP2B farmlands that must be protected in their territories and issue
regional laws that regulate control over these farmlands. This agricultural land preser-
vation policy should be capable of limiting agricultural land conversion because it also
reduces the forcing factors that encourage farmers to sell their land by implementing
incentives and protections aimed at increasing the economic viability of farming
activities.
However, questions remain regarding the implementation of this regulation. Farm-
land conversion to non-agricultural uses remains ongoing, and thus the farmers inter-
viewed in this study spoke as if no practical policy exists. Inadequate dissemination of
the regulation and of the spatial data required to identify protected farmlands to land-
owners and village officials led to poor law enforcement of the farmland protection regu-
lation (Apriyanto, Fikri, and Azhar 2021; Putri and Wibisono 2022; Zakaria and
Rachman 2013). Local governments also struggled to address conflicting interests
between the need to maintain food production and the need for housing and investment
(Penggalih et al. 2019). As this policy affects private land, providing incentives for
farmers to maintain food production that aligns with the needs of individual farmland
owners is crucial. This emphasises the significance of local informed policy and the
need to listen to farmers’ lived experience.
Interestingly, Teguh suggested that the farmland preservation policy does not work
because it is applied only to private land, but that it may be more effective for govern-
ment-owned lands:
I think lands owned by the government such as Sultan Ground lands [lands owned by the
Sultan] and village treasury lands, are the ones that are practically possible to be preserved.
(Teguh-the upland area).
Teguh’s perspective accords with the farmland protection policies in some European
countries like France and Italy, which are delivered through the allocation of lands
owned (or bought) by government or public institutions to farmers, especially those
who are willing to implement agroecological practices (Perrin et al. 2018; Perrin and
Baysse-Lainé 2020). Unlike the Indonesian policy, which solely assigns responsibility
to private landowners, the allocation of public land to farmers shows that local govern-
ments are actively willing to intervene when it comes to farmers’ access to land. This is
critical, especially in peri-urban areas where land prices are increasing. Reflecting on the
work by Perrin and Baysse-Lainé (2020), there is an opportunity for the SRY to enable
agroecological transitions by allocating the Sultanate’s land and other government-
owned lands to agroecological farmers. However, addressing the reason why the
current regulatory system regarding farmland protection does not work effectively
would be a prerequisite for further regulation to support agroecology though land use
planning.
Although the implementation of farmland protection policies is challenging, it is
needed to support farmers to preserve their farmlands and improve their economic
circumstances. Participant responses also indicate the need for a state-led intervention
to alleviate farmland conversion pressures, indicating the importance of understand-
ing agricultural land use conversion in local contexts and of listening to farmers’
insights.
Managing regional sowing time and cropping patterns

The management of local planting dates and crop rotation schedules is crucial for
farmers to continue producing continuously and lower the risk of lower prices at
harvest. Farmers in the SRY usually grow the same crop at the same time as each
other and this is governed by weather conditions. For instance, many farmers grow shal-
lots and chilies during the dry season when weather conditions are best for these crops.
Thus, farmers can produce good-quality products during this season, but the selling price
may not always be good, as indicated by the following statement:
The price was low because farmers in other regions also harvested at the same time, and
more farmers in this region got free seedlings from the government [at the same period].
This also might make the price lower [at the harvest time] (Darmo-the hilly area).
As Darmo suggests, government intervention by providing seedlings for farmers came

with unexpected consequences for those who took advantage of the offer. Although it
decreased the input cost and increased total production within the region, it also
lowered the selling price. Joko, a farmer from the coastal region, suggests that there
should be a kind of sowing time management within regions, so that each region can
have a different harvest time. Another farmer from the same region, Wiwid added
that this regional sowing time management might not only decrease the possibility of low
prices during harvest time, but also ensure a continuous local food supply.
Farmers should not grow [the same crop] at the same time. It must be spatially managed.
For example, farmers in Central Java grow this month, Eastern Java farmers grow
another month … not all farmers in different provinces grow at the same time (Joko-the
coastal area).
If the sowing time of shallots in each region can be managed, this may provide continuous
supply of shallots throughout the year (Wiwid-the coastal area).
The idea of centrally managing sowing times seems promising from both the food supply
side and for farmers’ incomes but would need to be a part of a spatial planning approach.
Although this is a logical suggestion, not all food commodities can be grown throughout
the year. Moreover, growing off-season is against agroecological principles and creates
more risks and potentially more costs for farmers who will need to apply pesticides,
water and/or artificial heating/cooling (Schreinemachers et al. 2016). Although
growing off-season can be done well in engineered environments, such as in greenhouses
where temperature and humidity can be controlled through technology, this approach
requires significant input costs. Thus, even though growing off-season may generate
fairer incomes for farmers, there should be careful consideration regarding the conse-
quences of promoting this farming approach.
Moreover, Karno from the upland area, discussed the importance of managing crop-
ping patterns across regions, ‘For example, region A is best for growing chilies, so farmers
should focus on that commodity, so that they can improve the production quality, con-
tinuity and income.’ Currently, farmers are free to grow whatever they choose. Karno’s
idea accords with Liu and Luo (2018, 14) who suggest that regional planning should
incorporate the plan of ‘crop pattern layouts’ to provide guidance for farmers and farm-
land holders in managing their farmlands.
Based on farmers’ responses, a spatial plan has the potential for managing sowing
times within regions and ensuring that agricultural policies are location and commodity
focused; strategies that are amenable to farmers. These ideas may be effective for main-
taining continuous food supply and improving the agricultural economy. However, they
may also promote monocultures by encouraging the development of a particular com-
modity within a region. Farmers’ responses demonstrate that they are interested in
improving the profitability of their farming business and to do so are willing to
neglect the potential negative impacts. Hence, it is important to ensure that farmers
grow crops based on what grows best and avoid out of season growing. Agroecological
principles may play a role in helping governments make these more strategic decisions
to avoid negative unexpected outcomes and impacts. Socio-economic considerations
are part of agroecology, given its concern with socially just food systems, so strategies
to improve farmers’ livelihood need to be factored into spatial planning and decision
making as well.
The Agroecological Zone (AEZ) is a geospatial-based approach that can be used to
manage the cropping pattern within the region. The primary idea of the AEZ approach
is to coordinate crop choices with agroecological conditions such as soil type, land fea-
tures and climate. Scholars have used this approach to identify regional cropping patterns
that match with social-biophysical characteristics. For instance, Nabati et al. (2020) used
the AEZ to analyse crop suitability in a semi-arid region in Iran. Prasetyo, Hasiholan, and
Hartomo (2012) also used it to identify crop potential for alleviating food insecurity in
Boyolali, Indonesia. Similarly, Widiyanto (2019) used the AEZ to identify local food
crops in Yogyakarta. The Indonesian Ministry of Agriculture has also published an
atlas (that draw on similar ideas to the AEZ process) mapping the locations of the
lands most suitable for growing several strategic commodities which is used as a refer-
ence for developing Agricultural Development Master Plans at provincial levels (Kemen-
terian Pertanian Republik Indonesia 2017). Thus, this AEZ analysis represents a
potentially useful tool in the land use and development planning stages as a strategy to
promote agroecological food crops patterns.
Considering the potential application of AEZ, the current situation of being free to
choose what to grow is not preferable for some participant farmers, who would like
the government to regulate what they produce. Although this call for centralised plan-
ning came from a few participants and cannot be generalised for the whole farming
population, it was discussed in response to the problem of deflated selling prices for agri-
cultural products during harvest season in areas where farmers are often growing the
same crop (Bimantio 2019; Khaliqi 2019; Padapi et al. 2023). Furthermore, the long
history of centralised agricultural policies during colonisation explained above and the
green revolution era in Indonesia might have indirectly shaped some farmers’ percep-
tions regarding government policies, the role of government in agriculture more
broadly and their own capacity to engage with these systems.
Ultimately, the call for centralised planning presents an intriguing divergence from
previous research that presents agroecology as more grass roots and decentralised.
However, it can be applied in ways that still support broader agroecology agendas. Learn-
ing from Sikkim in India, for example, state-led programs can look at ways to support
and scale up existing agroecological practices without undermining farmers’ agency
(Anderson et al. 2021).
Supporting the development of urban farming

Agroecological transition, in the opinion of farmer participants, needs to be facilitated by
planning policies that promote agroecological-farming techniques in urban settings
through urban infrastructure provision and land use planning. One way to enable an
agroecological transition is by creating an alternative option within the dominant agri-
cultural system, and urban farming is a prime example of this. Urban farming systems
have been developed globally and many are founded in agroecological principles,
which implement ecologically sensitive methods, maintain cultural diversity, and empha-
sise the importance of local resources and knowledge.
Acknowledging the significance of urban farming, several cities globally have been for-
mulating strategies marrying agriculture with urban planning to foster the agroecological
transition (e.g. Brannen 2011; Donovan, Larsen, and McWhinnie 2011). In Australia,
food sensitive urban planning and design (FSUPD) as developed by Donovan, Larsen,
and McWhinnie (2011) has been used as a guideline for planners to integrate food con-
siderations into local planning policies. Another example is New York City, which has a
municipal strategic plan that specifically covers urban planning and design strategies for
supporting food growing in various settings as well as food distribution and food waste
management (Brannen 2011).
Compared with these strategies, the national urban farming program in Indonesia
called Kawasan Rumah Pangan Lestari (Urban Sustainable Home Food Garden), has
not incorporated planning and urban design. (Kementerian Pertanian Republik Indone-
sia 2012). However, under this program, urban farming communities are growing in
Indonesian cities and are using principles that correspond with the agroecological prin-
ciples of Wezel et al. (2009). Five basic principles of this urban farming program are: (1)
utilising residential vacant spaces for growing food, (2) food diversification based on local
commodities, (3) conservation of genetic resources of food crops, (4) village nursery, and
(5) improving household income and welfare. During the 2018 fieldwork for the current
research, approximately 50 urban farming communities were registered in the City of
Yogyakarta.
Urban farming has enhanced food access, urban greening and placemaking. An urban
farmer, Ana mentioned that urban farming has improved access to organic vegetables as
well as increased urban greenery and highlighted how urban farming in her neighbour-
hood has been attracting tourists and visitors. This depicts a space for urban agroecology,
which represents social and ecological transformation within urban farms and food
gardens (Egerer and Cohen 2020).
When I need food, I can just pick it from our gardens … No pesticide and all are organic …
People passing this neighbourhood, including some foreign tourists, often stop by the
garden and take photos. This makes me proud … I love seeing my neighbourhood green
(Ana-the urban area).
While Kawasan Rumah Pangan Lestari accords with agroecological principles, it does
not focus heavily on the link between farming and ecology. It also does not engage
directly with spatial planning, which we argue is very necessary in this context.
There is also no urban farming design guideline involving collaboration between agri-
culture and planning/design in Indonesia. A gap remains regarding the spatial organ-
isation of urban farming, and this should be addressed by planners and urban
planning authorities. Integrating urban farming and agroecology into planning and
design processes might be challenging if there is no collaboration between agricultural
and planning authorities. This integration is nonetheless critical for facilitating urban
farming as a niche intervention to build up and enable a large-scale agroecological
transition. The literature on sustainability transition highlights the importance of
niches as a source of ground-breaking invention (Doyon 2018; Smith and Raven
2012). In the concept of sustainability transition, niche interventions can gradually
restructure the regime (Bui et al. 2016).
Due to the challenges of farming in urban areas where resources such as land and
water are limited and expensive, urban agriculture requires a design that differs from
rural agriculture. To create flourishing urban farms, spatial planners, urban designers,
and landscape architects who are knowledgeable about cities and urban infrastructure
need to collaborate with farmers and agroecological experts. Basuki, an urban farmer
mentioned a call for neighbourhood planning and urban farming integration, as indi-
cated by the following statement:
I would like to emphasise the need to integrate RPLP [Residential Development Plan] with
urban farming development. (Basuki–the urban area)
This emphasises the need for collaboration between urban farmers and planners to co-
design urban farms and food-sensitive urban neighbourhoods. For instance, Meenar,
Morales, and Bonarek (2017) suggest that a comprehensive typology of regulatory
options and an improved knowledge of the ways in which municipal, state, and
federal laws can promote urban agriculture are necessary for planners. Huang and
Drescher (2015) also mention that there is a need to fill the gaps between the adoption
of policies and the use of planning tools to support urban agriculture and include
urban agriculture in the process for development reviews. In addition, Mendes et al.
(2008) suggest that municipal land inventories could be developed to include urban agri-
cultural potential in planning policy. These approaches might assist in making urban
farming a more integrated part of the food system by focusing on agricultural activities
that do not require much space. An urban farmer, Slamet indicates their hope for this:
My dream is to develop an urban version of Agropolitan. The idea is how households can
earn from their fish, vegetables, and livestock. Urban farming can focus on for example duck
eggs hatching and sell the duckling or fish hatchery which does not need lots of space
(Slamet-the urban area).
Slamet’s idea of focussing on hatcheries is interesting because this opens agribusiness

opportunities for urban people regardless of their limited resources and enables them
to take part in providing food to the urban population. His idea also demonstrates the
need to manage urban farming at different levels, not only at the neighbourhood level
but also at multi-neighbourhood and city levels. In such a system, spatial planning
could be implemented such that each neighbourhood focuses on a different food pro-
duction or distribution component, while at the same time their activities are integrated,
creating cohesive actions for building urban food sovereignty. Slamet also mentioned
Agropolitan, an approach in rural planning whose main objective is creating a city
based on an agribusiness system and socio-economically empowering its surrounding
rural communities (Friedmann 1979). Agropolitan focuses on creating a rural-urban
network to enhance the agricultural economy and increase the value of agricultural pro-
ducts through processing and marketing in rural areas. This concept has been applied for
development policy and research in many Indonesian rural regions (e.g. Buang et al.
2011; Syarifudin and Ishak 2020). By bringing up the concept of Agropolitan, Slamet
emphasises the need to go beyond growing food in the city and include food processing
and marketing in the urban farming system. In this case, spatial planning also has the
potential to manage and integrate urban farming across different neighbourhoods
within the city.
Discussion
The findings provide two important insights. First, there was some evidence of niche
innovations that show the potential for an agroecological transition in the SRY. Even
though the term agroecology was not specifically mentioned by participant farmers,
their efforts to shift to a more ecologically sensitive farming method accords with the
notion of agroecological transition. Therefore, during the data analysis process we
framed these practices as agroecological in nature. Farmers also possess critical local
knowledge and have a history of experimenting with different innovations. As such,
when aiming to support an agroecological transition, especially for achieving the ‘social
justice’ principles of agroecology, planning and policy interventions should be attentive
to farmers’ voices (Altieri and Nicholls 2017; Gliessman 2007).
Second, the results of this study reveal local farmers’ perspectives on how spatial
planning might reinforce any possible agroecological transition. According to partici-
pant farmers’ aspirations, spatial planning should be able to protect agricultural land.
Farmland preservation is viewed as an entry point for a broad scale agroecological
transition, given that land is the basic component of agroecosystem and the SRY is
currently facing agricultural land conversion stress. Furthermore, spatial planning
should promote urban farming to enable an agroecological transition that extends
to urban agroecosystems. Lastly, farmers also suggested that regional planning
should include strategies to manage regional sowing time and cropping patterns.
The types of planning interventions referred to here, comprise various aspects of
urban design, land use planning, landscape planning, strategic planning, environ-
mental planning, urban planning, regional planning, infrastructure planning, develop-
ment planning, etc.
Planning regulations or planners’ commitment to support farmers and their agroeco-
logical practices may be beneficial, but planners should also have adequate knowledge on
agriculture and related fields. For instance, to be able to design a city that promotes
agroecology, urban planners must be familiar with the process and approaches used in
sustainable food production as well as the infrastructure needed by farmers (Popoola
et al. 2022). Planners also need to be well-informed about things like edible landscape
design and management (Philips 2013; Shi 2023). Understanding these concepts might
enable them to create regenerative urban designs that support agroecological practices
within the city (Hemenway 2015; Tomlik 2009). Including farmers in the design
process can help to ensure that informed planning decisions are made.
Furthermore, there is an opportunity for planners to include agroecology consider-
ations in land ownership and land use interventions for farmland protection, to encou-
rage farmer efforts that go beyond supporting conventional farming. Such a move would
not be unprecedented. For instance, French local governments support sustainable agri-
culture practices through allocating government-owned (or purchased) land to farmers
who are keen to implement agroecology, and by providing these farmers with more
advantageous lease agreements (Perrin and Baysse-Lainé 2020). The Rome municipality
and the Latium region in Italy also allocated 450 ha of abandoned public land to young
people practising sustainable farming and they successfully created multifunctional agri-
culture (Perrin et al. 2018). Similarly, Terre de Liens, a grass-root organisation in France,
has bought over 6,400 hectares of farmland through crowd-funding which are then leased
to organic and peasant farmers for extended periods to promote agroecological farming
(Calo et al. 2021).
The findings also highlight the significance of state-led structural interventions, and
this is a critical point in terms of agroecological transition governance. Even though
farmers have developed some niche agroecological innovations at the farm level, they
need state-led interventions that manage processes at broader scales. This is in line
with the existing literature which suggests that the state must promote agroecological
transition through developing regulations to push the dominant regime to change and
by allocating resources to support niche innovations (Magrini et al. 2019; Schiller et al.
2020; Triboulet et al. 2019). Moreover, there have been some cases where the state has
been extensively engaged in enabling agroecology/sustainable agriculture. For instance,
in Cuba, the government has made a range of policy intervention to improve agroecolo-
gical farming systems, such as decentralising land ownership, reorganising food supply
chains, promoting participatory knowledge construction and co-learning in agricultural
research, and developing urban agriculture program (Fernandez et al. 2018). In India,
state-led policy interventions have been successful in supporting organic integrated
farming (Anderson et al. 2021), while a ‘biodistrict’ model of bringing together multiple
agri-food actors (farmers, consumers, industry, municipal government) to promote
organic agriculture-based local resource management has been achieved in Italy (Ander-
son et al. 2021; Poponi et al. 2021). These developments highlight that state-led interven-
tions need not undermine farmers’ agency or ignore the diversity of agricultural
landscapes (Anderson et al. 2021).
Although in practice, top-down interventions have not always proved successful for
enabling changes either at regime or local levels in Indonesia, the finding of this study
indicates that some farmers are responsive to state-led interventions. This observation
indicates the significance of understanding policy legacies (Thow et al. 2021). When
thinking about the potential for agroecological transition, in some places it might
make more sense to build up exclusively from grassroots initiatives due to historic gov-
ernment scepticism. For the SRY, the roll out of state-based agroecological initiatives that
included grassroots voices in policy design, and continued support for farm and commu-
nity level agroecological innovations, would both be valuable, and in keeping with the
‘social justice’ principles of agroecology.
However, this empirical work also suggests that integrating agroecology into plan-
ning requires considerable collaboration between agricultural development and
spatial planning agencies across scales. The challenges for this integration may be
conflicting interests between maintaining agricultural sustainability and accommodat-
ing urban development. Local planning authorities involved in the development of
regulations on agricultural land protection in Indonesia are facing significant chal-
lenges in identifying the locations of farmland that must be protected, which is hin-
dering effective implementation of these regulations (Laksana 2020). The fact that
local planners are still struggling with efforts to protect agricultural land from
rapid land use change, raises questions regarding the capacity of spatial planning
to enable agroecology transition. Furthermore, the fact that spatial planning regu-
lations exist to protect farmland but their translation and implementation at the
local and regional level has largely failed, suggests that attention to how governance
frameworks operate (or not) is critical in understanding transition potential and
where action is best focused. It appears that greater enforcement of spatial planning
regulations at local levels will be a prerequisite for any regime shift towards agroe-
cology. Agroecology ideas being implemented in the SRY have mainly extended from
grassroot movements, but agroecological transitions have not yet worked at territor-
ial levels.
Moreover, spatial planning needs to be more food sensitive to sustain agriculture and
enable agroecology transition. It must not only reduce conversion of agricultural land,
but also include spatial interventions that can promote productive, economically com-
petitive, environmentally sustainable and socio-culturally just agriculture. On the other
hand, agroecology needs to be attentive to challenges identified in this research such as

farmer livelihoods and varying capacities of local governments to push the dominant
regime.
Conclusion
In terms of agroecological transition, the findings of this study reveal limited discourse
about agroecology in current policies and activities in the SRY. Although, at the grass-
roots level, some farmers and NGOs have developed agroecological niche innovations,
there is a need to up-scale these to a broader context with support from planning policies.
The SRY needs to accommodate food system planning and agroecological innovations in
the existing urban/regional planning systems to foster agroecological transition. It also
needs to consider local knowledge and local innovations in the development of an agroe-
cological system.
Farmers’ perceptions about the role of planning for supporting food security identified
some gaps that can be filled by further developing food system planning to integrate
spatial planning and agricultural development. Agricultural land preservation, managing
regional sowing times and supporting urban agriculture are three key examples of per-
ceived roles for planning in supporting an agroecological transition. Agricultural land
preservation has recently been tied to spatial planning (zoning) and regulated by law,
but some issues, such as identification of preserved farmland and law enforcement, chal-
lenge its implementation at the local level.
In terms of future research, there is a need to identify other kinds of food-planning
integration either suggested by farmers or evident in the existing literature that have
not been trialled in the SRY. Moreover, the current residential food garden system
that has been developed in the SRY, amongst other Indonesian regions, provides an
opportunity for planners to support programs like this, by identifying vacant spaces
that offer potential for farming, creating community food strategies and designing net-
works better linking residential farms, distribution outlets, composting centre and
other means of production. Regardless of urban or rural context, engaging with and
enabling existing agroecological innovations will be critical for ensuring that the ecologi-
cal sensitivity and socially just principles of agroecology are properly fostered in efforts to
scale up activity.
This research contributes to the broader literature on agroecology and planning by
highlighting the importance of land tenure management for farmland protection (e.g.
farmland ownership and land use intervention) as a basis and an instrument for pro-
moting agroecological transition. Indonesia also can adapt several examples of farm-
land protection from Europe that involve renting lands owned by government, public
institutions, and/or civic organisation to agroecological farmers, so farmland protec-
tion can go beyond supporting conventional farming. Moreover, the results of this
study reinforce that there are opportunities for planners and farmers to co-develop
urban agroecology that not only enhances urban food production but also improves
the social, economic and environmental wellbeing of urban communities. Addition-
ally, a call for state-led interventions highlights a divergence from trends in the litera-
ture, where the focus has been largely on grass roots and decentralised forms of
agroecology. Hence, government-led interventions such as through the AEZ approach
could potentially be developed to support farmers’ agroecological practices without

undermining their agency. However, further research needs to address how planning
could integrate the AEZ analysis to promote agricultural diversity amongst regions.
There is also an opportunity to further analyse how small-scale agroecological prac-
tices can be scaled up through socio-spatial strategies, which are linked to an appreci-
ation of farmers’ resilience and adaptive capacity.
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge the support we have received for this research through the provision of an Aus-
tralian Government Research Training Program Scholarship. We also would like to thank two
anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes on contributors
Dr. Sri Tuntung Pandangwati is a lecturer in urban and regional planning at Universitas Gadjah
Mada. Her research interests include planning for sustainable and resilient food systems and
regional planning. She is particularly interested in research that explores the nexus of spatial plan-
ning and food sovereignty.
Associate Professor Benjamin Cooke teaches in sustainability and urban [lanning at RMIT and is a
member of the Centre for Urban Research RMIT. His research interests include human-environ-
ment relations, urban natures, environmental stewardship, private land conservation and cultural
land governance.
Dr. Melissa Neave is a senior lecturer in sustainability and urban planning at RMIT and is a
member of the Centre for Urban Research RMIT. She is an environmental geographer with experi-
ence in natural resource management and a particular interest in water resources.
References
Aji, Gutomo Bayu, Stevanus Wangsit, and Vanda Ningrum. 2019. Reorientasi Kebijakan Pertanian
Organik Sesudah “Go Organik 2010” dan Program “Seribu Desa Pertanian Organik” di
Indonesia. Jakarta, Indonesia: Universitas Bakrie Press.
Alizadeh, Tooran, Somwrita Sarkar, and Sandy Burgoyne. 2019. “Capturing Citizen Voice Online:
Enabling Smart Participatory Local Government.” Cities 95: 102400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cities.2019.102400.
Altieri, Miguel A, and Clara I Nicholls. 2017. “Agroecology: A Brief Account of Its Origins and
Currents of Thought in Latin America.” Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 41 (3–4):
231–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2017.1287147.
Altieri, Miguel A, Clara I Nicholls, Alejandro Henao, and Marcos A Lana. 2015. “Agroecology and
the Design of Climate Change-Resilient Farming Systems.” Agronomy for Sustainable
Development 35 (3): 869–890. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-015-0285-2.
Anderson, Colin Ray, Janneke Bruil, M. Jahi Chappell, Csilla Kiss, and Michel Patrick Pimbert.
2021. “Power, Governance and Agroecology Transformations.” Agroecology Now!
Transformations Towards More Just and Sustainable Food Systems, 153–173. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-030-61315-0_10.
Apriyanto, Mulono, KMS Novyar Satriawan Fikri, and Ali Azhar. 2021. “Sosialisasi Konsep Lahan
Pertanian Pangan Berkelanjutan di Kecamatan Batang Tuaka, Kabupaten Indragiri Hilir.”
PaKMas: Jurnal Pengabdian Kepada Masyarakat 1 (1): 08–14. https://doi.org/10.54259/
pakmas.v1i1.24.
Armitage, Derek R. 2003. “Traditional Agroecological Knowledge, Adaptive Management and the
Socio-Politics of Conservation in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia.” Environmental Conservation 30
(1): 79–90. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892903000079.
Bimantio, Mohammad Prasanto. 2019. “System Dynamic Simulation of Salacca-Pondoh’s
Business as Usual Condition in Sleman District, Yogyakarta Province, Indonesia.” Jurnal
Teknik Industri 21 (1): 25–32. https://doi.org/10.9744/jti.21.1.25-32.
Borrelli, Nunzia. 2018. “Connecting Food Systems and Urban Planning: The Experience of
Portland, Oregon.” In Integrating Food Into Urban Planning, edited by Yves Cabannes, and
Cecilia Marocchino, 102–116. London: UCL Press.
Botelho, Maria Izabel Vieira, Irene Maria Cardoso, and Kei Otsuki. 2016. “I Made a Pact with God,
with Nature, and with Myself: Exploring Deep Agroecology.” Agroecology and Sustainable Food
Systems 40 (2): 116–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2015.1115798.
BPS. 2021. “Hasil Sensus Penduduk 2020”. Badan Pusat Statistik. Accessed June 3, 2021.
https://yogyakarta.bps.go.id/pressrelease/2021/01/21/1077/hasil-sensus-penduduk-2020.html.
BPS Provinsi D.I Yogyakarta. 2016. “Luas Lahan Pertanian 2014-2016.” Badan Pusat Statistik.
Accessed June 5, 2018. https://yogyakarta.bps.go.id/indicator/53/59/1/luas-lahan-pertanian.
html.
BPS Provinsi D.I Yogyakarta. 2017. “Luas Penggunaan Lahan dan Alat-Alat/Mesin Pertanian di
Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta.” Badan Pusat Statistik. Accessed June 5, 2018. https://
yogyakarta.bps.go.id/publication/2018/12/05/c4bf85f1ea7932e0dd5fc519/luas-penggunaan-
lahan-dan-alat-alat-mesin-pertanian-provinsi-daerah-istimewa-yogyakarta-2017.html.
Brannen, Sarah. 2011. “FoodWorks: A Vision to Improve NYC’s Food System.” The New York City
Council. Accessed June 5, 2018. https://s30428.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2019/09/
foodworks_fullreport_11_22_10_1.pdf.
Buang, A., A. Habibah, J. Hamzah, and Y. S. Ratnawati. 2011. “The Agropolitan way of re-
Empowering the Rural Poor.” World Applied Sciences Journal 13 (3): 1–6.
Bui, Sibylle, Aurélie Cardona, Claire Lamine, and Marianne Cerf. 2016. “Sustainability
Transitions: Insights on Processes of Niche-Regime Interaction and Regime Reconfiguration
in Agri-Food Systems.” Journal of Rural Studies 48: 92–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jrurstud.2016.10.003.
Calo, Adam, Annie McKee, Coline Perrin, Pierre Gasselin, Steven McGreevy, Sarah Ruth Sippel,
Annette Aurélie Desmarais, et al. 2021. “Achieving Food System Resilience Requires
Challenging Dominant Land Property Regimes.” Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 5:
683544. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.683544.
Daele, Wim Van. 2013. “The Political Economy of Desire in Ritual and Activism in Sri Lanka.” In
International Development Policy: Religion and Development, edited by Gilles Carbonnier,
Moncef Kartas, and Kalinga Tudor Silva, 159–173. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. https://
doi.org/10.1057/9781137329387_12.
Darmawan, Kazutake Kyuma, Arsil Saleh, H. Subagjo, Tsugiyuki Masunaga, and Toshiyuki
Wakatsuki. 2006. “Effect of Green Revolution Technology During the Period 1970–2003 on
Sawah Soil Properties in Java, Indonesia: Ii. Changes in the Chemical Properties of Soils.”
Soil Science and Plant Nutrition 52 (5): 645–653. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-0765.2006.
00054.x.
Donovan, Jenny, Kirsten Larsen, and J. McWhinnie. 2011. “Food-Sensitive Planning and Urban
Design: A Conceptual Framework for Achieving a Sustainable and Healthy Food System”.
The National Heart Foundation of Australia. Accessed June 7, 2018. https://www.vichealth.
vic.gov.au/-/media/ResourceCentre/PublicationsandResources/healthy-eating/Food-systems—
food-supply/FoodSensitivePlanning_UrbanDesign_FullReport.pdf.
Doyon, Andréanne. 2018. “Niches: Small-Scale Interventions or Radical Innovations to Build up
Internal Momentum.” In Enabling Eco-Cities: Defining, Planning, and Creating a Thriving
Future, edited by Dominique Hes, and Judy Bush, 65–87. Singapore: Palgrave Pivot. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-981-10-7320-5_5.
Egerer, Monika, and Hamutahl Cohen, eds. 2020. Urban Agroecology: Interdisciplinary Research
and Future Directions. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
FAO. 2015. “Agroecology for Food Security and Nutrition”. FAO. Accessed August 11, 2018.
http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4729e.pdf.
Fernandez, Margarita, Justine Williams, Galia Figueroa, Garrett Graddy-Lovelace, Mario
Machado, Luis Vazquez, Nilda Perez, Leidy Casimiro, Graciela Romero, and Fernando
Funes-Aguilar. 2018. “New Opportunities, new Challenges: Harnessing Cuba’s Advances in
Agroecology and Sustainable Agriculture in the Context of Changing Relations with the
United States.” Elementa Science of the Anthropocene 6: 76. https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.337.
Friedmann, John. 1979. “Basic Needs, Agropolitan Development, and Planning from Below.”
World Development 7 (6): 607–613. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(79)90096-2.
Giraldo, Omar Felipe, and Nils McCune. 2019. “Can the state take agroecology to scale? Public
policy experiences in agroecological territorialization from Latin America.” Agroecology and
Sustainable Food Systems 43 (7-8): 785–809. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2019.1585402.
Gliessman, Stephen R. 2007. Agroecology: The Ecology of Sustainable Food Systems. 2nd ed. Boca
Raton: CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/b17881.
Gonzalez De Molina, Manuel, and Daniel Lopez-Garcia. 2021. “Principles for Designing
Agroecology-Based Local (Territorial) Agri-Food Systems: A Critical Revision.” Agroecology
and Sustainable Food Systems 45 (7): 1050–1082. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2021.
1913690.
Gullino, Paola, Marco Devecchi, and Federica Larcher. 2018. “How Can Different Stakeholders
Contribute to Rural Landscape Planning Policy? The Case Study of Pralormo Municipality
(Italy).” Journal of Rural Studies 57: 99–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.12.002.
Gunaratne, Mahinda Senevi, R. B. Radin Firdaus, and Shamila Indika Rathnasooriya. 2021.
“Climate Change and Food Security in Sri Lanka: Towards Food Sovereignty.” Humanities
and Social Sciences Communications 8: 229. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00917-4.
Guzmán, Eduardo, and Graham Woodgate. 2015. “Transformative Agroecology: Foundations in
Agricultural Practice, Agrarian Social Thought, and Sociological Theory.” In Agroecology: A
Transdisciplinary, Participatory and Action-Oriented Approach, edited by V. Ernesto Méndez,
Christopher M. Bacon, Roseann Cohen, and Stephen R. Gliessman, 37–54. Boca Raton, FL:
CRC Press.
Hanggoro, H. T. 2019. “Awal Mula Ritel Skala Besar di Indonesia.” Historia. Accessed March 20,
2019. https://historia.id/ekonomi/articles/awal-mula-ritel-skala-besar-di-indonesia-6jJgJ.
Hecht, Susanna B. 2018. “The Evolution of Agroecological Thought.” In Agroecology, edited by
Miguel A. Altieri, John G. Farrell, Susanna B. Hecht, Matt Liebman, Fred Magdoff, Bill
Murphy, Richard B. Norgaard, and Thomas O. Sikor, 1–19. Boca Raton: CRC Press. https://
doi.org/10.1201/9780429495465.
Hemenway, Toby. 2015. The Permaculture City: Regenerative Design for Urban, Suburban, and
Town Resilience. London, UK: Chelsea Green Publishing.
Huang, Dilys, and Michael Drescher. 2015. “Urban Crops and Livestock: The Experiences,
Challenges, and Opportunities of Planning for Urban Agriculture in two Canadian
Provinces.” Land Use Policy 43: 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.10.011.
Intriago, Richard, Roberto Gortaire Amézcua, Elizabeth Bravo, and Chris O’Connell. 2017.
“Agroecology in Ecuador: Historical Processes, Achievements, and Challenges.” Agroecology
and Sustainable Food Systems 41 (3-4): 311–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2017.
1284174.
Irawan, Bambang. 2016. “Konversi Lahan Sawah: Potensi Dampak, Pola Pemanfaatannya, dan
Faktor Determinan.” Forum Penelitian Agro Ekonomi 23 (1): 1–18. https://doi.org/10.21082/
fae.v23n1.2005.1-18.
Jack, Gavin, Jagjit Plahe, and Sarah Wright. 2022. “Development as Freedom? Insights from a
Farmer-led Sustainable Agriculture non-Governmental Organisation in the Philippines.”
Human Relations 75 (10): 1875–1902. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267221090779.
James, Dana, Rebecca Wolff, and Hannah Wittman. 2023. “Agroecology as a Philosophy of Life.”
Agriculture and Human Values 40 (4): 1437–1450. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-023-10455-1.
Kementerian Pertanian Republik Indonesia. 2012. “Kawasan Rumah Pangan Lestari (KRPL)”.
Kementerian Pertanian Republik Indonesia. Accessed April 9, 2018. http://www.litbang.
pertanian.go.id/krpl/.
Kementerian Pertanian Republik Indonesia. 2017. Atlas Peta Potensi Pengembangan Cabai dan
Bawang Merah Provinsi D.I. Yogyakarta Skala 1:250,000. Jakarta: Kementerian Pertanian.
Kementerian Pertanian Republik Indonesia. 2020. “Rencana Strategis Kementerian Pertanian
Tahun 2020-2024”. Kementerian Pertanian Republik Indonesia. Accessed January 15, 2024.
https://ppid.pertanian.go.id/doc/1/Draft%20Renstra%202020-2024%20edited%20BAPPENAS
%20(Final).pdf.
Keraton Ngayogyakarta Hadiningrat. 2019. “Cikal Bakal Keraton Kasultanan Yogyakarta.”
Keraton Ngayogyakarta Hadiningrat. Accessed April 17, 2019. https://www.kratonjogja.id/
cikal-bakal/detail.
Khadse, Ashlesha, Peter Michael Rosset, Helda Morales, and Bruce G. Ferguson. 2018. “Taking
Agroecology to Scale: The Zero Budget Natural Farming Peasant Movement in Karnataka,
India.” The Journal of Peasant Studies 45 (1): 192–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.
2016.1276450.
Khaliqi, M. 2019. “The Impacts of Harvest on Price Index of Producer (Case Study: Hamparan
Perak Subdistrict, Deli Serdang Regency, Indonesia).” IOP Conference Series: Earth and
Environmental Science 260 (1): 012010. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/260/1/012024.
Kouassi, Jean-Luc, Amos Gyau, Lucien Diby, Yeboi Bene, and Christophe Kouamé. 2021.
“Assessing Land use and Land Cover Change and Farmers’ Perceptions of Deforestation and
Land Degradation in South-West Côte D’Ivoire, West Africa.” Land 10 (4): 429. https://doi.
org/10.3390/land10040429.
Laksana, Satya. 2020. “Some Difficulties to Protect Agricultural Land from Conversion.” Bappenas
Working Papers 3 (2): 157–167. https://doi.org/10.47266/bwp.v3i2.66.
Levidow, Les, Michel Pimbert, and Gaetan Vanloqueren. 2014. “Agroecological Research:
Conforming—or Transforming the Dominant Agro-Food Regime?” Agroecology and
Sustainable Food Systems 38 (10): 1127–1155. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2014.951459.
Liu, Hongbin, and Xiaojuan Luo. 2018. “Understanding Farmers’ Perceptions and Behaviors
Towards Farmland Quality Change in Northeast China: A Structural Equation Modeling
Approach.” Sustainability 10 (9): 3345. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093345.
Llambí, Luís D., Julia K. Smith, Nory Pereira, Ana Carlota Pereira, Francis Valero, Maximina
Monasterio, and María Vicenta Dávila. 2005. “Participatory Planning for Biodiversity
Conservation in the High Tropical Andes: Are Farmers Interested?” Mountain Research and
Development 25 (3): 200–205. https://doi.org/10.1659/0276-4741(2005)025[0200:PPFBCI]2.0.
CO;2.
Lopez-Garcia, Daniel, Mamen Cuellar-Padilla, Alexandre de Azevedo Olival, Nina Paula
Laranjeira, V. Ernesto Méndez, Santiago Peredo y Parada, César Adriano Barbosa, et al.
2021. “Building Agroecology with People. Challenges of Participatory Methods to Deepen on
the Agroecological Transition in Different Contexts.” Journal of Rural Studies 83: 257–267.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.02.003.
Magrini, Marie-Benoît, Guillaume Martin, Marie-Angélina Magne, Michel Duru, Nathalie Couix,
Laurent Hazard, and Gaël Plumecocq. 2019. “Agroecological Transition from Farms to
Territorialised Agri-Food Systems: Issues and Drivers.” In Agroecological Transitions: From
Theory to Practice in Local Participatory Design, edited by Marie-Benoît Magrini, Guillaume
Martin, Marie-Angélina Magne, Michel Duru, Nathalie Couix, Laurent Hazard, and Gaël
Plumecocq, 69–98. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01953-2_5.
Maria, Maria, Irham Irham, Slamet Hartono, and Lestari Rahayu Waluyati. 2019. “The
Conservation Sustainability for Critical Land of Agriculture: Case Study in Various
Agroecology Zone, Java Island.” AIP Conference Proceedings 2120 (1): 040003. https://doi.
org/10.1063/1.5115641.
Meenar, Mahbubur, Alfonso Morales, and Leonard Bonarek. 2017. “Regulatory Practices of Urban
Agriculture: A Connection to Planning and Policy.” Journal of the American Planning
Association 83 (4): 389–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2017.1369359.
Mendes, Wendy, Kevin Balmer, Terra Kaethler, and Amanda Rhoads. 2008. “Using Land
Inventories to Plan for Urban Agriculture: Experiences from Portland and Vancouver.”
Journal of the American Planning Association 74 (4): 435–449. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01944360802354923.
Méndez, V. Ernesto, Christopher M. Bacon, and Roseann Cohen. 2013. “Agroecology as a
Transdisciplinary, Participatory, and Action-Oriented Approach.” Agroecology and
Sustainable Food Systems 37 (1): 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10440046.2012.736926.
Munsyarief. 2013. Menuju Kepastian Hukum Atas Tanah: Kasultanan Dan Pakualaman Di
Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta. Yogyakarta: Penerbit Ombak CV.
Nabati, Jafar, Ahmad Nezami, Ehsan Neamatollahi, and Morteza Akbari. 2020. “GIS-based Agro-
Ecological Zoning for Crop Suitability Using Fuzzy Inference System in Semi-Arid Regions.”
Ecological Indicators 117: 106646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106646.
Nasution, F. A., A. Anshari, Husni Thamrin, M. H. Thamrin, Y. I. Indainanto, and Y. Aqmarina.
2022. “How Agroecology Practices in Lobu Rappa Village Can Improve Peasant Community
Welfare.” IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1115 (1): 012099. https://
doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1115/1/012099.
Nugroho, Dwinanta, and Anis Mashdurohatun. 2021. “The Governance of Sultan Ground Land
Position and Pakualaman Ground in the Framework of National law and the Special law of
Yogyakarta Special Region in Achieving Justice.” International Journal of Business, Economics
and Law 24 (2): 101–108.
Oudejans Jan, H. M. 2006. Perkembangan Pertanian Di Indonesia. Yogyakarta, Indonesia: UGM
Press.
Padapi, Astrini, R. Fitriani, Ayu Wulandary, and Iranita Haryono. 2023. “Modification of Hayami
Value-Added Analysis Calculations in the Processing of Cayenne Pepper.” Anjoro:
International Journal of Agriculture and Business 4 (2): 82–91. https://doi.org/10.31605/
anjoro.v4i2.2399.
Pandangwati, Sri Tuntung. 2021. “An investigation of farmer adaptation under multiple social-
ecological stressors in the Special Region of Yogyakarta, Indonesia.” PhD diss., RMIT
University. https://researchrepository.rmit.edu.au/esploro/outputs/doctoral/An-investigation-
of-farmer-adaptation-under/9922122157101341.
Paudel, Basanta, Yili Zhang, Jianzhong Yan, Raju Rai, and Lanhui Li. 2019. “Farmers’ Perceptions
of Agricultural Land use Changes in Nepal and Their Major Drivers.” Journal of Environmental
Management 235: 432–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.01.091
Penggalih, Paksi, Hermin Wahyuni, Trisakti Haryadi, and Alia Raya. 2019. “Komunikasi
Organisasi Sebagai Penguatan Kelembagaan Di Sektor Pertanian (Kasus Alih Fungsi Lahan
Pertanian di Kabupaten Sleman).” In Pembangunan Pertanian dan Peran Pendidikan Tinggi
Agribisnis: Peluang dan Tantangan di Era Industri 4.0, edited by Ahmad Zainuddin, Ebban
Bagus Kuntadi, Illia Seldon Magfiroh, Indah Ibanah, Diana Fauziyah, Dimas Bastara
Zahrosa, Anis Mahdi, and Kintani Sekarkundi Lahitani, 569–574. Jember: UPT Percetakan
dan Penerbitan Universitas Jember.
Perrin, Coline, and Adrien Baysse-Lainé. 2020. “Governing the Coexistence of Agricultural
Models: French Cities Allocating Farmlands to Support Agroecology and Short Food Chains
on Urban Fringes.” Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies 101 (2-3): 261–
286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41130-020-00105-z.
Perrin, Coline, Brigitte Nougarèdes, Laura Sini, Paola Branduini, and Luca Salvati. 2018.
“Governance Changes in Peri-Urban Farmland Protection Following Decentralisation: A
Comparison Between Montpellier (France) and Rome (Italy).” Land Use Policy 70: 535–546.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.09.027.
Philips, April. 2013. Designing Urban Agriculture: A Complete Guide to the Planning, Design,
Construction, Maintenance and Management of Edible Landscapes. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley
& Sons.
Poponi, Stefano, Gabriella Arcese, Enrico Maria Mosconi, Francesco Pacchera, Olimpia Martucci,
and Grazia Chiara Elmo. 2021. “Multi-actor Governance for a Circular Economy in the Agri-
Food Sector: Bio-Districts.” Sustainability 13 (9): 4718. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094718.
Popoola, Ayobami, Bolanle Wahab, Hangwelani Magidimisha Chipungu, and Lovemore
Chipungu. 2022. “Integration of Urban Farming Into City Infrastructure Development.”
CSID Journal of Infrastructure Development 5 (1): 4–20. https://doi.org/10.32783/csid-jid.v5i1.
148.
Pothukuchi, Kameshwari, and Jerome L Kaufman. 2000. “The Food System: A Stranger to the
Planning Field.” Journal of the American Planning Association 66 (2): 113–124. https://doi.
org/10.1080/01944360008976093.
Prasetyo, Sri Yulianto Joko, Bistok S. Hasiholan, and Kristoko Dwi Hartomo. 2012. “The
Agroecological Zone Using Fuzzy Logic for Land Suitability and Regional Sustainable Food
Insecurity in Boyolali, Central of Java Indonesia.” International Journal of Computer Science
Issues (IJCSI) 9 (6): 191.
Prayitno, Budi. 2017. “Co-habitation Space: A Model for Urban Informal Settlement
Consolidation for the Heritage City of Yogyakarta, Indonesia.” Journal of Asian Architecture
and Building Engineering 16 (3): 527–534. https://doi.org/10.3130/jaabe.16.527.
Pujiriyani, Dwi Wulan, and Endriatmo Soetarto. 2022. “Land Injection Vs Land Conversion:
Seeking the Solution to the Discontinuity of Agricultural Land Provision.” Marcapada:
Jurnal Kebijakan Pertanahan 1 (2): 172–179. https://doi.org/10.31292/mj.v1i2.19.
Putri, Aminah Sunardiyono, and Bambang Hari Wibisono. 2022. “Implementasi Kebijakan Lahan
Pertanian Pangan Berkelanjutan.” Jurnal Kebijakan Publik 13 (4): 323–330. https://doi.org/10.
31258/jkp.v13i4.8163.
Republik Indonesia. 2009. Undang-Undang Nomor 41 Tahun 2009 Tentang Perlindungan Lahan
Pertanian Pangan Berkelanjutan. Jakarta: Republik Indonesia.
Republik Indonesia. 2012. Undang-undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 13 Tahun 2012 Tentang
Keistimewaan Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta. Jakarta: Republik Indonesia.
Reuter, Thomas, and Graeme MacRae. 2019. “Regaining Lost Ground: A Social Movement for
Sustainable Food Systems in Java, Indonesia.” Anthropology of Food. https://doi.org/10.4000/
aof.10292.
Rondhi, Mohammad, Pravitasari Pratiwi, Vivi Handini, Aryo Sunartomo, and Subhan Budiman.
2018. “Agricultural Land Conversion, Land Economic Value, and Sustainable Agriculture: A
Case Study in East Java, Indonesia.” Land 7 (4): 148. https://doi.org/10.3390/land7040148.
Samijan and S. Jauhari. 2021. “Land Suitability Evaluation According to Agroecological Zone
Information for Agricultural Commodity Development in Coastal Area of Tegal Central Java
Indonesia.” IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 653 (1): 012059. https://
doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/653/1/012059.
Schiller, Katharina, Wendy Godek, Laurens Klerkx, and P. Marijn Poortvliet. 2020. “Nicaragua’s
Agroecological Transition: Transformation or Reconfiguration of the Agri-Food Regime?”
Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 44 (5): 611–628. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.
2019.1667939.
Schiller, Katharina J F, Laurens Klerkx, P Marijn Poortvliet, and Wendy Godek. 2019. “Exploring
Barriers to the Agroecological Transition in Nicaragua: A Technological Innovation Systems
Approach.” Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 44 (1): 1–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/
21683565.2019.1602097.
Schreer, Viola, and Martina Padmanabhan. 2020. “The Many Meanings of Organic Farming:
Framing Food Security and Food Sovereignty in Indonesia.” Organic Agriculture 10 (3): 327–
338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13165-019-00277-z.
Schreinemachers, Pepijn, Mei-huey Wu, Md Nasir Uddin, Shahabuddin Ahmad, and Peter
Hanson. 2016. “Farmer Training in Off-Season Vegetables: Effects on Income and Pesticide
Use in Bangladesh.” Food Policy 61: 132–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.03.002.
Seminar, Annisa Utami, Sarwititi Sarwoprasodjo, Dwi A. Santosa, and Rilus A. Kinseng. 2017.
“Agroecological Education Aimed at Achieving Food Sovereignty.” Journal of Developments
in Sustainable Agriculture 12 (1): 34–44. https://doi.org/10.11178/jdsa.12.34.
Setiawan, Silvy Dian, and Friska Yolanda. 2019. “Alih Fungsi Lahan di DIY Capai 250 Hektare per
Tahun.” Republika. Accessed June 2, 2021. https://nasional.republika.co.id/berita/nasional/
daerah/poasot370/alih-fungsi-lahan-di-diy-capai-250-hektare-per-tahun.
Setiawati, Nur Aini. 2011. Dari Tanah Sultan Menuju Tanah Rakyat: Pola Pemilikan, Penguasaan,
dan Sengketa Tanah di Kota Yogyakarta Setelah Reorganisasi 1917. Yogyakarta: STPN Press.
Shi, Xiaoying. 2023. “The Urban Food Forest: Creating a Public Edible Landscape.” URBAN
DESIGN International 28 (3): 189–201. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41289-022-00191-z.
Simón-Rojo, Marian. 2021. “Powering Transformative Practices Against Food Poverty with Urban
Planning.” Urban Agriculture & Regional Food Systems 6 (1): e20021. https://doi.org/10.1002/
uar2.20021
Sirappa, Marthen P. 2018. “Land Suitability for Rice by Agro-Ecological Zone in Majene Regency,
West Sulawesi, Indonesia.” Journal of Agricultural Studies 6 (1): 68–84. https://doi.org/10.5296/
jas.v6i1.12408.
Smith, Adrian, and Rob Raven. 2012. “What is Protective Space? Reconsidering Niches in
Transitions to Sustainability.” Research Policy 41 (6): 1025–1036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
respol.2011.12.012.
Soubry, Bernard, Kate Sherren, and Thomas F. Thornton. 2020. “Are we Taking Farmers
Seriously? A Review of the Literature on Farmer Perceptions and Climate Change, 2007–
2018.” Journal of Rural Studies 74: 210–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.09.005.
Specht, Kathrin, Katrin Bohn, and Marian Simón Rojo. 2022. “Planning Food System Transitions:
Exploring Spatial, Citizen-Driven, and Agroecological Approaches.” Urban Agriculture &
Regional Food Systems 8 (1): 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1002/uar2.20029.
Subejo, Subejo, Dyah Woro Untari, Ratih Ineke Wati, and Gagar Mewasdinta. 2019.
“Modernization of Agriculture and use of Information and Communication Technologies by
Farmers in Coastal Yogyakarta.” Indonesian Journal of Geography 51 (3): 332–345. https://
doi.org/10.22146/ijg.41706.
Subroto, P. 1985. Sistem Pertanian Tradisional Pada Masyarakat Jawa: Tinjauan Secara Arkeologis
dan Etnografis. Jakarta: Depdikbud RI.
Syarifudin, Deden, and Riza Fathoni Ishak. 2020. “The Importance of Rural Social Productive
Space to Increase the Social Capital of Agribusiness Community in Agropolitan Area.” Jurnal
Wilayah dan Lingkungan 8 (1): 67–83. https://doi.org/10.14710/jwl.8.1.67-83.
Taipei Economic and Trade Office. 2016. “4 Dekade Kerjasama Taiwan-Indonesia di Bidang
Perikanan dan Pertanian Menghasilkan Kesejahteraan Rakyat.” Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Republic of China. Accessed April 18, 2019. https://www.roc-taiwan.org/id_id/post/625.html.
Thompson, Aaron William. 2010. “Views of Agriculture: Understanding Farmers’ Attitudes to
Identify Strategies for Improving Rural Landscape Planning.” PhD diss., Purdue University.
https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/dissertations/AAI3444870/.
Thow, Anne Marie, Charles Apprey, Janelle Winters, Darryl Stellmach, Robyn Alders, Linda Nana
Esi Aduku, Georgina Mulcahy, and Reginald Annan. 2021. “Understanding the Impact of
Historical Policy Legacies on Nutrition Policy Space: Economic Policy Agendas and Current
Food Policy Paradigms in Ghana.” International Journal of Health Policy and Management
10: 909–922. https://doi.org/10.34172/ijhpm.2020.203.
Tomlik, Tracey. 2009. “The integration of permaculture into a land use plan for the City of Guelph,
ON.” PhD diss., University of Guelph. https://hdl.handle.net/10214/25324.
Tornaghi, Chiara, and Michiel Dehaene. 2020. “The Prefigurative Power of Urban Political
Agroecology: Rethinking the Urbanisms of Agroecological Transitions for Food System
Transformation.” Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 44 (5): 594–610. https://doi.org/
10.1080/21683565.2019.1680593.
Triboulet, Pierre, Jean-Pierre Del Corso, Michel Duru, Danielle Galliano, Amélie Gonçalves,
Catherine Milou, and Gaël Plumecocq. 2019. “Towards an Integrated Framework for the
Governance of a Territorialised Agroecological Transition.” In Agroecological Transitions:
From Theory to Practice in Local Participatory Design, edited by Jacques-Eric Bergez, Elise
Audouin, and Olivier Therond, 121–147. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-
01953-2_7.
Wezel, A., S. Bellon, T. Doré, C. Francis, D. Vallod, and C. David. 2009. “Agroecology as a Science,
a Movement and a Practice. A Review.” Agronomy for Sustainable Development 29 (4): 503–515.
https://doi.org/10.1051/agro/2009004.
Widiyanto, Dodi. 2019. “Local Food Potentials and Agroecology in Yogyakarta Special Province,
Indonesia.” Forum Geografi 33 (1): 64–81. https://doi.org/10.23917/forgeo.v33i1.7795.
Wilson, Alexander, Mark Tewdwr-Jones, and Rob Comber. 2019. “Urban Planning, Public
Participation and Digital Technology: App Development as a Method of Generating Citizen
Involvement in Local Planning Processes.” Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics
and City Science 46 (2): 286–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399808317712515.
Zakaria, Amar Kadar, and Benny Rachman. 2013. “Implementasi Sosialisasi Insentif Ekonomi Dalam
Pelaksanaan Program Perlindungan Lahan Pertanian Pangan Berkelanjutan (PLP2B).” Forum
Penelitian Agro Ekonoi 31 (2): 137–149. https://doi.org/10.21082/fae.v31n2.2013.137-149.
Zaki, Muhamad Khoiru, Keigo Noda, Kengo Ito, Komariah Komariah, Sumani Sumani, and
Masateru Senge. 2020. “Adaptation to Extreme Hydrological Events by Javanese Society
Through Local Knowledge.” Sustainability 12 (24): 10373. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410373.

Farmers planning and Agroecological transition insights from the special region of Yogyakarta Indonesia

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Farmers planning and Agroecological transition insights from the special region of Yogyakarta Indonesia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Australian Geographer

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/cage20

Farmers, planning and Agroecological transition:

Sri T. Pandangwati, Benjamin Cooke & Melissa Neave

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00049182.2024.2350813

View supplementary material

Published online: 22 May 2024.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Farmers, planning and Agroecological transition: insights

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

2018). In the Philippines, Farmers and Scientists for Agricultural Development

collaborative approaches of urban planning may be eﬀective to enhance the development

Historical overview of agriculture in The Special Region of Yogyakarta

Figure 1. The Special Region of Yogyakarta.

Table 1. Summary of Participants’ Proﬁle.

Figure 2. Jenderalium Botanical Garden: An organic farm in Sleman.

Figure 3. A permaculture garden at Bumi Langit Institute in Bantul.

Figure 4. Flowers grown at the edges of a chili farm in Bantul.

Figure 5. A light trap provided by the Department of Agriculture.

Opportunities and tensions: the roles of planning in Agroecological transition

Figure 6. An insect trap installed by a local farmer in Bantul.

Preserving agricultural land

Managing regional sowing time and cropping patterns

As Darmo suggests, government intervention by providing seedlings for farmers came

Supporting the development of urban farming

Slamet’s idea of focussing on hatcheries is interesting because this opens agribusiness

hand, agroecology needs to be attentive to challenges identiﬁed in this research such as

could potentially be developed to support farmers’ agroecological practices without

You might also like