Next Article in Journal
Benchmarking Economic Sustainability: What Factors Explain Heterogeneity Between Wine Businesses?
Previous Article in Journal
Robust Optimal Scheduling of Microgrid with Electric Vehicles Based on Stackelberg Game
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 24
10.3390/su152416683
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Food Security of Urban Agricultural Households in the Area of North Bandung, West Java, Indonesia

by
Oekan S. Abdoellah
1,2,
Yusep Suparman
3,
Kinanti Indah Safitri
4,*,
Rahma Maulia Basagevan
4,
Nafa Destri Fianti
4,
Indri Wulandari
2,5 and
Teguh Husodo
2,5
1
Department of Anthropology, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung 40135, Indonesia
2
Center for Environment and Sustainability Science, Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung 40134, Indonesia
3
Department of Statistics, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science, Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung 40132, Indonesia
4
Graduate Studies on Environmental Sciences, Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung 40132, Indonesia
5
Department of Biology, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science, Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung 45363, Indonesia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(24), 16683; https://doi.org/10.3390/su152416683
Submission received: 30 September 2023 / Revised: 31 October 2023 / Accepted: 31 October 2023 / Published: 8 December 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Agriculture)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Urban agriculture is crucial in improving food security through the diversity of food produced by urban farmers. However, there have not been many studies that discuss the food security of urban farmers of three types simultaneously, i.e., subsistence, semi-commercial, and commercial. Therefore, this study has the benefit of looking at the food security condition of urban farmer households. This research was conducted in the North Bandung area, West Java, Indonesia. A sequential mixed method was used to collect quantitative and qualitative data to determine the condition of food security in each urban farmer household. A total of 321 households were used as respondents for this study, consisting of 107 subsistence agriculture households, 107 semi-commercial agriculture households, and 107 commercial agriculture households. Our study found that the average calorie adequacy of farmer households in all urban agriculture types (subsistence, semi-commercial, and commercial) was 84.53%. Meanwhile, the proportion of household food expenditure in all urban agriculture averaged 64.78%. In relation to food security, 53.89% of respondents were included in the food-vulnerable category and only 25.86% of the urban farmer households were included in the food-secure category. The highest food security rate was found in commercial urban agriculture households, which reached 28.04%. In general, these data reflect low household food security across all types of urban agriculture. This reality can be caused by various factors, including limited resources, dependence on food purchases, and interference from external parties.

1. Introduction

The problem of food security, even though it has been widely discussed, is still a problem in several countries around the world, especially in third-world countries [1,2,3]. Because of this, the FAO has formulated a Special Program for Food Security (SPFS) to strengthen national capacities for developing policies and strategies related to urban and suburban agriculture as well as integration with national programs for food security in UN member countries [4]. The FAO’s Special Program for Food Security (SPFS) is a multidisciplinary program that was launched in 1994 and ratified by the World Food Summit in 1996 [5]. The SPFS program aims to integrate a holistic approach to increasing sustainable food production in order to realize food security in various countries [4]. One of the programs promoted in the SPFS is urban agriculture to increase food access for poor communities living in the city core and around urban areas [5]. Therefore, urban agriculture, as part of a development program that has been implemented successfully in various countries such as the United States and Canada [6,7], is used as one of the programs that can improve food security and poverty alleviation efforts [8,9]. According to Korth et al. [10], there are two ways in which urban agriculture can support food security. First, crops, especially vegetables and fruits grown in home gardens, can increase the total amount of food available for household consumption. This is because the farmers have direct access to food and this allows them to consume a diet that is more diverse and rich in micronutrients. Second, urban agriculture can increase household cash income. In addition to saving money on household expenses by lowering the cost of purchasing food, urban farmers can also earn more money by selling or trading their goods, making them appear to have better access to food supplies in terms of both quantity and quality.
However, in practice, the implementation of urban agriculture in realizing food security faces various challenges. One factor is the limited access to land resources. For example, communities in several cities in the United States face difficulties accessing land resources due to high land prices and development pressures [11]. On the other hand, the practice of agriculture in urban areas requires production facilities, infrastructure, and access to inputs, both of which require substantial financial capital. Therefore, in some cases, elements of society that can run agricultural production in urban areas are only middle- and high-income people with sufficient resources and capital. In addition, some people engage in urban food production for intensive-scale commercial business units [12,13]. Actually, there are market roles in creating an investment-friendly climate in the urban agricultural sector, thus potentially encouraging local actors to commercialize their agriculture [13,14,15,16]. It has now been discovered that commercial urban agriculture is aimed at serving the export market [17,18,19]. Thus, urban agriculture has indirectly held back the development of an industrial-based agricultural system.
The integration of farmers into the global food distribution system raises various socio-economic risks, including income uncertainty [20], because farmers lack price guarantees for commodities in global markets [21]. Economic uncertainty and rising food costs encourage farmers to consume cheaper and lower-quality food supplies [22]. In addition, commercialized agricultural activities can cause farm households to separate land for food production for consumption from that used for commercial needs [23]. This condition has an impact on reducing the diversity of food consumed by farming households. Farmers can become less self-sufficient and dependent on local food markets due to a lack of diversified food production for them to consume [24]. Consequently, the conversion of food crops into internationally traded commodities in developing countries has detrimental effects on food security and the environment [25].
There have been many studies on urban agriculture [6,26,27,28]. There is research focusing on urban agriculture as a social movement that was born from community anxiety regarding food fulfillment where the resource mobilization process is carried out independently by the community [6,27]. Also, other studies explain the contribution of urban agriculture to the environment [26,28]. However, research conducted in a comprehensive manner discussing the impact of urban agricultural production, particularly on the food security of urban farmers in various types of urban agriculture, is still scarce. Therefore, this study aims to fill the research gap by studying the food security of urban farmer households engaging in different types of urban agriculture, based on the FAO classification [29], who have already practiced urban agriculture in the area of North Bandung, West Java, Indonesia. FAO [29] classified urban agriculture into three types, namely subsistence, transition (semi-commercial), and commercial. The main objective of this study is to focus more on whether urban agriculture which is increasingly more commercialized results in lower food security compared to the other two types of urban agriculture (semi-commercial and subsistence), which are more oriented towards fulfilling household food needs.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Site Selection

The area of North Bandung, West Java, Indonesia was chosen purposively as the research location because it is one of the strategic areas in West Java Province which has a great influence on the water system in the Bandung basin. This research area is a conservation area and an agglomeration area consisting of Bandung and Cimahi Cities, and the West Bandung and Bandung Regencies (Figure 1). The urban area in North Bandung extends around the Bandung basin, which performs ecological functions for other areas. The North Bandung area is in the Upper Citarum watershed area, which has a strategic role in social, cultural, and economic life as one of the national energy suppliers and water sources for the community [30]. Currently, this function is threatened due to environmental degradation that occurs around the Upper Citarum watershed as a result of intensive agricultural practices without regard for conservation principles. Therefore, this research is crucial to examine urban agricultural practices, which should be the antithesis of intensive agricultural practices and be able to realize food security, especially for urban communities around the Upper Citarum watershed [31].

2.2. Research Design

A mixed method was used in this study. The quantitative method was used for measuring the food security of urban agricultural households. Meanwhile, the qualitative method was used for finding the causes of low or high food security levels in urban agricultural households. As mentioned earlier, the FAO [29] classified the three types of urban agriculture based on their market surplus as a percentage of total production. The three types of urban agriculture include subsistence, transition (semi-commercial), and commercial. The following are the characteristics of the three types of urban agriculture:
  • Subsistence farmers: marketed surplus is less than 25% of total production.
  • Transitional farmers (semi-commercial): marketed surplus ranges from 25% to 50% of total production.
  • Commercial farmers: marketed surplus is more than 50% of total production.

2.3. Data Collection Techniques

The data collection techniques used in this study were interviews using questionnaires, in-depth interviews, and observations. A questionnaire was used to survey subsistence, semi-commercial, and commercial (both domestic and export) urban agricultural households. Following Jonsson and Toole [38] and Maxwell and Frankenberger [39] in measuring food security, the questionnaire was designed to inquire about food frequency for measuring household caloric adequacy. In addition, the questionnaire also included questions related to household monthly total expenditure and food expenditure. Meanwhile, an interview guide instrument was used in this research to collect qualitative data. Interview guidelines were used for in-depth interviews with selected informants to find out the allocation of agricultural products, and farmers’ motives in using their agricultural products as well as food purchasing and consumption decisions. The interview guide used is semi-structured and open-ended, where questions are addressed to the informant and give the informant the opportunity to express their opinion.

2.4. Sampling

In this study, the targeted population was defined as the urban agricultural households in the area of North Bandung. The population was divided into three subpopulations. The sample was selected by means of an equal allocation stratified technique for each subpopulation. Here, we defined municipalities as the stratum. From the selected stratum, we randomly selected urban agricultural households according to the members of urban farming associations listed by governments.
We calculated the sample size based on a power analysis for a three-group one-way analysis of variance [40] in the G* Power program [41]. We set a weak size effect of 0.175, a significance level of 0.05, and a power level of 0.8 in the calculation. These resulted in a minimum sample size of 318 households. We distributed the sample unit equally among the three types of urban agricultural households with one additional household to avoid non-response. Accordingly, for each type of urban agricultural household, we had 107 households. So, the total agricultural household sample was 321 households. Randomizations in selecting households were performed by means of random numbers in Microsoft Excel (Office 365).

2.5. Quantitative and Qualitative Data Analysis

The method of Jonsson and Toole [38] modified by Maxwell and Frankenberger [39] was used to measure household food security, which reflected the measurement of food security from economic access (level of household food expenditure) and household food consumption (level of household calorie adequacy). The level of food security was obtained by calculating the proportion of energy consumption and food expenditure based on Table 1; the percentage was used to compare the number of households and label them as food-secure, food-less-secure, food-vulnerable, and food-insecure.
For comparing the three urban agricultural types, we used one-way ANOVA and chi-square statistical tests with a predetermined significance level of 0.05. Meanwhile, the qualitative data analysis in this study used the interactive model analysis developed by Miles and Huberman [42]. To calculate the adequacy of calories consumed by respondents, the calorie adequacy standard from the Ministry of Health was used. Based on these standards, a person is said to have a low level of adequacy in calories if the number of calories consumed is less than or equal to 80% of the standard issued by the Ministry of Health [43].

3. Results

3.1. Household Caloric Adequacy

In general, the caloric adequacy of urban agricultural households in all urban agriculture types (subsistence, semi-commercial, and commercial) is 84.53% of the calorie adequacy level recommended by the Indonesian government (Table 2). However, if we look more closely, it turns out that there are urban agricultural households—subsistence, semi-commercial, and even commercial—whose average calorie intake is below or equal to 80% of the recommended calorie adequacy standard.
Table 2 also shows that the percentage of calorie adequacy of the commercial-urban-agriculture-type farmers is the highest (85.7%). In contrast, the percentage of calorie adequacy of urban farmers of the semi-commercial urban agriculture type was found to be the lowest (83.58%). However, the difference in the percentages of calorie adequacy of the three types of urban farmers based on the results of statistical tests using one-way ANOVA did not show a significant difference (Table 3).
From the results of observations and interviews with several informants, it is known that the largest source of calories consumed by respondents is rice. In every farmer’s household, they always refer to consuming rice as one of their daily food items. In addition, farmers in the three types of urban agriculture stated that they like to process the vegetables they grow mixed with wheat flour to make fried foods (gorengan) as side dishes and snacks during breaks from gardening activities. Thus, the high consumption of fried food (gorengan) is also a source of caloric intake for urban farmer households. Furthermore, the informants said that other sources of calories that were consumed by many respondents were fast food and instant noodles, which were very easy to obtain from street vendors, food stalls, and local markets.

3.2. The Proportion of Household Food Expenditure

The average urban agricultural household expenditure is 2,577,773 IDR/month (Table 4). From Table 4 it can also be seen that the total household expenditures of subsistence, semi-commercial, and commercial urban farmer households are IDR 2,564,953, IDR 2,067,991, and IDR 3,100,374, respectively. The data show that the household expenditure of commercial urban agricultural households is higher than those of the other two types of urban agricultural households. In fact, the average semi-commercial urban agricultural household expenditure is the lowest (Table 4).
Based on the results of statistical tests using the one-way ANOVA test, there are differences in average household expenditure among urban agriculture types (Table 5).
The data show that most of the household expenditure of all urban farmers in the three types of urban agriculture was used for their food needs. The informants said that the high proportion of food expenditure is due to farmers still experiencing dependence on food from the market. They have to spend most of their budget on household needs for daily food consumption. The subsistence urban agriculture type had the highest proportion of household food expenditure among the three types of urban agriculture, which is 66.18% of total household expenditure/month (Table 6). Furthermore, the proportion of household food expenditure in semi-commercial urban agricultural households turns out to be lower than in other types of urban agricultural households. Meanwhile, the proportion of food expenditure in commercial urban agricultural households is lower than that of subsistence urban agricultural households (Table 6).
The results of statistical tests using the one-way ANOVA of household food expenditure among urban agriculture types show that there are differences in household food expenditure among urban agricultural households (Table 7).

3.3. Household Food Security

The food security level of urban agriculture households is presented in Table 8. From Table 8, it can be seen that of the total number of urban farming households in general, only 25.86% are included in the food-secure category. If viewed based on the type of urban agriculture (subsistence, semi-commercial, and commercial), households categorized as food-secure are 25.23%, 24.30%, and 28.04%, respectively. These data indicate that the majority of urban farming households across all types of agriculture are not in a food-secure condition (Table 8).
In fact, from Table 8 it can also be seen that of all urban agricultural households, as much as 12.46% are included in the food-insecure category. It means that there are still several subsistence, semi-commercial, and commercial urban agriculture households that not only spend above 60% on food but, as previously stated, there are several households from each type whose calorie intake does not meet the recommended calorie adequacy standards.
The study also found that each type of urban agriculture faces different problems in terms of increasing food security. In the case of subsistence urban agriculture, for example, farmers face limitations in engaging in food production independently due to the limited land resources and capital available to them to cover production costs. Therefore, subsistence urban agriculture in North Bandung received support from the city government in terms of access to land and funds to finance production operations to maintain this non-commercial gardening activity.
As for semi-commercial urban agriculture farmers, although some of them are assisted by a social foundation, many of them are not assisted because they grow crops that are not in accordance with what the foundation requires. Therefore, they work with local middlemen to sell their crops. The local middlemen usually visit urban farmers’ gardens daily to bid on freshly harvested vegetables. All harvests in the gardens are brought in entirely by local middlemen. Therefore, only a small portion of the crop is utilized by semi-commercial farmers for household food supplies. In commercial urban agriculture, the output of intensive agricultural activities is not intended to meet household needs. The majority of crops in the commercial type of urban agriculture is mainly sold in supermarkets and on an export scale. Therefore, they only consume a limited number of plant species that do not pass market selection, and to meet their food needs they resort to purchases. According to the farmers, part of the income from their agricultural products is used to buy more diverse food.
Table 9 shows the results of the chi-square test for the food security levels (secure, vulnerable, less secure, and insecure) of all types of urban agriculture (subsistence, semi-commercial, and commercial). From these results, the levels of food security of the three types of urban agriculture do not show a significant difference.

4. Discussion

4.1. Household Caloric Adequacy

From the results of the study, it is known that in general the calories consumed by urban agricultural households in all types of urban farming (subsistence, semi-commercial, and commercial) meet the calorie adequacy standards set by the Ministry of Health fo the Republic of Indonesia. This shows that the average level of calorie adequacy in urban agricultural households is in the sufficient category based on the nutritional consumption classification of the Ministry of Health of the Republic of Indonesia. However, when viewed further, it turns out that there are several urban agricultural households for each type that are unable to meet their caloric needs in accordance with the calorie consumption standards. The insufficiency of calories consumed is more due to poverty.
In every farmer’s household, rice is the main staple food that is consumed daily. Therefore, the consumption of rice shows a high proportion in the daily diet compared to other types of food such as tubers and vegetables [31]. Apart from rice, as mentioned by Abdoellah et al. [31], another source of calories that is widely consumed by farmers in the three types of urban agriculture is instant noodles. According to informants, instant noodles are relatively cheap and easy to obtain in the local market, so they are seen as helpful in meeting their daily food needs. In addition, farmers in the three types of urban agriculture stated that they like to process the vegetables they grow mixed with wheat flour to make fried foods (gorengan) as side dishes and snacks during breaks from gardening activities. Thus, the high consumption of fried food (gorengan) is also a source of caloric intake for urban farmer households.
The high caloric consumption in each type of urban agricultural household is also made possible by their tendency to consume fast food. For these urban farmers, consuming fast food has become a new preference. The practicality of consuming fast food, especially for commercial urban agricultural households, is one of the factors that influence their preferences in choosing fast food [31]. Coupled with the number of emerging street food vendors and fast-food restaurant outlets that are growing in urban areas, this has caused urban agricultural households to choose fast food. Not infrequently among these urban farmers, with the mushrooming of fast-food street vendors, restaurants, and instant noodle products, they are interested in trying various types of new fast food from one fast-food seller or restaurant to another. Apart from that, the circulation of packaged fast food, which is sold massively and freely in stalls, also affects the convenience of getting fast food for urban farmers.

4.2. Household Food Expenditure

The average proportion of household food expenditure from all types of urban agriculture (subsistence, semi-commercial, and commercial) is 64.78% (Table 6). This is a fairly high number. Why can this happen, even though they are farming? The food expenditure for subsistence urban agriculture households is relatively high even though they grow vegetables for household needs. Subsistence urban farmers in North Bandung, as mentioned by Abdoellah et al. [31], face limited land resources, and this causes them difficulties in obtaining sufficient land in urban areas for farming. This condition is not different from the findings of Thibert [44] and Pölling et al. [45]. Most of the subsistence farmers who are located near the city center carry out their production activities on communal land that they rent in groups, on land owned by the city government, or on private land where farmers are given management rights assistance [31]. However, they often clash with actors who have other interests, such as capital owners and property developers who want to establish built-up areas in urban areas. Then, these actors influence the government or landowners to sell land that has been leased or the management rights to which have been given to groups of urban subsistence farmers. In this case, we found a group of urban subsistence farmers often forced to relocate to maintain vegetable production, thus reflecting the uncertainty of urban agriculture activities due to the difficulty of accessing land. This finding is in line with the findings of Davies et al. [46] who stated that one of the obstacles in urban agriculture is related to property rights. Land tenure insecurity makes urban agricultural activities vulnerable to eviction, as happened in the case examined by Lydecker and Drechsel [47]. Therefore, sustainable agriculture, which has social, economic, and environmental benefits, may have to be sacrificed to prioritize urban infrastructure development [48].
In addition, obstacles to meeting the food needs of subsistence urban agricultural households also occur due to internal problems of urban subsistence farmers. Subsistence urban farmers in Bandung City are not purely full-time subsistence farmers. They are a working-class community whose main occupation is in the non-agricultural sector. They are so busy with their primary job that their role in the subsistence type is also limited. Some of them even stated that farming by growing vegetables is just for leisure. Some urban subsistence farmers in the study areas are only involved in communal gardening activities just to show their participation in activities in their home environment. This finding is in line with the findings of Chandra and Diehl [49]. As a result, food production is very low, and unable to meet their consumption needs [31]. That is why food expenditure for subsistence urban agriculture households is relatively high. Therefore, subsistence urban agriculture households are highly dependent on the market to meet their food needs.
Furthermore, in the case of semi-commercial urban agricultural households, the proportion of food expenditure is still high, even though the proportion is lower when compared to other types of urban agricultural households. This is because the profit-sharing allocation set by the social foundation as mentioned above is still not able to reduce farmers’ dependence on food from the market. The lower proportion of food expenditure in semi-commercial urban households is due to the fact that they generally have land for food production partly to meet their own needs and to supplement their income. However, the separation of the allocation between production sold to increase income and self-sufficiency by semi-commercial urban agricultural households does not just happen. There are contributions from social foundations that help semi-commercial urban agricultural households. This is because the basis of the semi-commercial urban agricultural areas is in the peri-urban area of North Bandung. Peri-urban North Bandung is an area with quite extreme slope topography. Erosion risk due to changes in the function of slope areas in agriculture has received a lot of attention from various parties. So, many environmental alliances and social foundations are helping farming communities around the outskirts of North Bandung. Social foundations provide assistance and empowerment to farmers by regulating agricultural production systems in line with social, environmental, and economic interests [31,50]. The involvement of urban agricultural groups in popular food movements is part of a strategy to accumulate social and cultural capital [51]. The social capital obtained by semi-commercial urban farming groups is a network with actors such as social foundations which apparently contribute to the sustainability of their agricultural activities and provide marketing assistance. Meanwhile, they also receive cultural capital in the form of increased agricultural capacity and cultivation training from their social network actors. Even though there is intervention from social foundations, semi-commercial farmers still face problems. Their production land is small and vulnerable because they cultivate sloping land that is less productive. Apart from that, the types of crops planted by semi-commercial farmers, such as sorghum and hanjeli, are not yet familiar as food crops consumed by both farmers and city residents.
Meanwhile, the proportion of food expenditure for commercial urban agricultural households is lower than that of the subsistence urban agricultural households (Table 6), even though the actual proportion of food expenditure to total expenditure is still high. This is because, although commercial urban agricultural households are more concerned with production to meet the needs of the export market and supermarkets, according to them, not all products can meet the set standards. Therefore, production results that cannot meet market requirements are then partly used to meet their food needs [31]. Why is the total expenditure for food in this commercial urban agricultural household still high? This is because in the commercial type of urban agriculture, as previously explained, this type of farmer does not specifically allocate their production for food fulfillment. Commercial urban agriculture households grow cash crops usually for supermarket sales or exports. Meanwhile, they admit that meeting their food needs can be accommodated when their income increases. It means they can buy a variety of food that they do not produce. This finding is in line with the results of research conducted by Linderhof et al. [24]. Almost all of the crops produced by commercial urban farmers are sold, and if there are any poor yields, as mentioned before, they will be used to increase household food supplies. This phenomenon reflects the economic rationality that has led farmers to focus on product commercialization to meet local and global markets. The reflection of economic rationalization in agricultural activities is as an economic effort intended to achieve maximum results (high profits) which in the end ignores the needs of farmers related to subsistence, substitution, or ceremonial [52].

4.3. Household Food Security

The results of this study revealed that food security is relatively low in farming households in all types of urban agriculture. Of the 321 urban farmers studied, only 25.86% had calorie consumption levels above 80% and a proportion of food expenditure below 60%. It shows that only 25.86% of urban agriculture farmers are categorized as food-secure. More than 50% of the households fall into the category of food-vulnerable. There are even some urban agricultural households that fall into the category of food insecurity (Table 8). Those who fall into this category are those who spend most of their household expenses on food needs, but their calorie needs are not met due to poverty. Poverty results in them not having sufficient resources and capital to meet their food needs.
Why are more than 50.00% in the food-vulnerable category? This is because even though the caloric adequacy of urban farmer households has been fulfilled, as previously explained, they have a relatively high proportion of food expenditure. The high proportion of food expenditure was due to farmers still experiencing dependence on food from the market. They had to spend most of the budget (>60%) on household needs for daily consumption. It means that they generally depend on the market to meet their food needs rather than self-producing. Efforts have been made to increase household food security with various programs and are one of the sustainable development agendas, and the Indonesian government is committed to sustainable development programs to end hunger, achieve food security, improve nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture [53]. However, implementing these programs has not effectively achieved the food security goal.
The high proportion of food expenditure among the three types of urban agriculture indicates that urban farmers are at risk of experiencing food insecurity. Moreover, some households even fall into the category of food-less-secure and food-insecure. This condition is certainly threatening. It shows how high the dependence of urban farmers in each type of urban agriculture on the market, roadside vendors, stalls, and others. This is in line with the findings of Davies et al. [46], where most people rely more on purchased food. Thus, they are heavily reliant on the market to meet their food needs. In other words, urban agriculture has not played a significant role yet in household livelihood strategies among urban agriculture farmers. This finding is different from the finding of Rezai et al. [9] that urban agriculture can increase food security.
Several factors that influence the low food security of urban farmer households in the North Bandung area vary considerably in each type of urban agriculture. The low food security of subsistence urban farmers can be caused by the inability of agricultural production capacity to meet farmers’ food needs. Although the government within North Bandung already intervened in shaping the mindset of residents about the importance of growing food, especially the vegetables they consume, in reality, the communal orientation towards food supply alone is not enough to boost the food security of urban subsistence farmers. The food security of urban farmers is still low despite production activities being fully allocated for urban farmer household consumption.
On the other hand, the problems faced by semi-commercial urban farmers in achieving food security are problems that depend on external parties. Semi-commercial urban farmers produce to sell and supplement household food supplies. But in reality, profit-sharing allocations set by social foundations still cannot boost farmers’ food security. Social foundations only provide input assistance and marketing assistance to farmers who comply with the foundation’s regulations, one of which is related to the selection of the types of crops produced. The social foundation determines the types of crops that farmers must produce, namely the obligation to plant moringa, hanjeli, or sorghum. Apart from these three types, social foundations do not provide marketing assistance. The uncertainty of the economic benefits obtained by semi-commercial urban farmers often causes farmers’ income to fluctuate. Local-scale food regimes are ultimately binding on semi-commercial farmers. Food regimes have the power to create relative commodity prices [54]. Farmers have little control over pricing their crops and commodities [55]. Therefore, semi-commercial urban farmers face the problem of poverty, which makes it difficult for some of them to meet their food needs either from their production or from market purchases due to a lack of financial resources.
Finally, the interesting thing from the results of this study is that the commercialization of urban agriculture is not able to increase food security. Even though they consume more calories than other types of urban agricultural households, the commercial farmers’ expenditure on food is still above 60% of their total expenditure. The results of this study are actually contradictory with previous findings such as those of [49,56], who mentioned that higher income commercial farm orientation would enable people to purchase more kinds of food from markets, which in turn affects dietary diversity. The results of this study are actually not different from several previous findings which show that commercialization only has a positive impact on their income but is very marginal for both nutritional needs and food security [24,30,57]. In line with [24], it turns out that the commercialization of urban agriculture is not automatically able to increase caloric intake. There is no consistent evidence for the overall impact of the commercialization of crop-growing farmers on food security [24]. Other researchers such as Davies et al. [46] have shown that there is limited significance in terms of the relationship between urban agriculture and food security. The results of our analysis show that the relationship between agricultural commercialization and food security is very complex [24]. The impact of commercialization can be positive or negative depending on the conditions of the region [24,46].
The formation of economic rationality in the context of farmers in the North Bandung is also a consequence of the role of actors at the regional and international levels. One example is promotional assistance from the Indonesian government by holding agricultural product exhibition events to attract the attention of international wholesalers. The government’s involvement in export activities offers benefits to increase the country’s foreign exchange and support national economic growth. The commitment to economic growth has become a commitment of stakeholders in various countries, especially in the Global South. This is because the southern regions are encouraged by international donor agencies to promote agricultural exports as an economic opportunity and source of prosperity for the community, and have a significant impact on foreign exchange and agro-industrialization [58]. As a result, many commercial urban agriculture farmers in North Bandung have joined the export-scale food trade network due to high economic opportunities. However, to enter into export-scale trade, international wholesalers place high demands on commercial urban agriculture farmers regarding product standardization that must be met including size, shape, color, and texture [31,50]. These requirements are almost the same throughout the Asia Pacific region, related to compliance with international food standards and product certification [59]. This phenomenon reflects that farmers are in an unequal relationship due to the superiority of international wholesalers. This creates food insecurity for farmers as food producers who should have the right to control their products and are more oriented towards providing the best quality foods for households.

5. Conclusions

This study found that only a small number of farmer households in all types of urban agriculture were included in the food-secure category. Most of them fall into the food-vulnerable category, and in fact, there are still farmer households in all types of urban agriculture that are included in the food-insecure category. These data indicate that the household food security of urban farmers in the North Bandung is relatively low. This shows that even though urban farmer households have sufficient caloric needs in general, meeting the adequacy of calories is accompanied by high expenditures for food. Our findings reflect food production activities carried out by urban farmers do not guarantee that urban farmer households will not depend on buying food from the market. This is a consequence of the complex forces affecting the food security of semi-commercial urban farmers, commercialized urban farmers, and subsistence urban farmers’ spending for household food requirement fulfillment.
This research also concludes that the food security program through an urban farming program that has been carried out so far has not been able to increase food security yet, as evidenced by the high dependence of urban farmer households from each type of urban farming households on the market, although with different causal factors depending on each the type of urban farming households. Because of that, it is suggested that the government and other actors should not make the food security program uniform but rather refer to the type of urban agricultural households.
The scope of this research is limited to measuring food security of urban farmer households. However, measuring the food security level of agricultural households in general needs to be carried out for further study. Because various methods of measuring food security are developing rapidly, it is important to explore such as the household income and expenditure surveys (HIES), the food security experience scale, anthropometry, and others. Measuring food security in households carrying out urban agricultural activities can be an important evaluation material to review the effectiveness of urban agricultural policies implemented in various regions. Apart from that, based on field findings, we assume that commercialization is an important factor affecting household food security. However, we have not been able to accommodate the influence between the two variables. In particular, the extent to which the influence of agricultural commercialization can affect food security conditions needs to be measured quantitatively.
From the results of this study, food insecurity is a crucial threat that could potentially occur in the area of North Bandung. Currently, all stakeholders need to be aware of the impact of food insecurity faced by urban agricultural households, which threatens the welfare of urban agricultural households and the sustainability of community food production and supply in the future. Therefore, the formulation of urban agricultural policies needs to prioritize the domain of food security, sovereignty, and sustainability. Handling it requires a collaborative strategy among stakeholders, including the involvement of urban agricultural households in developing an appropriate urban agricultural policy framework.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, O.S.A. and Y.S.; methodology, Y.S.; validation, O.S.A., Y.S. and K.I.S.; formal analysis, K.I.S.; investigation, R.M.B. and N.D.F.; data curation, I.W.; writing—original draft preparation, O.S.A. and K.I.S.; writing—review and editing, O.S.A. and K.I.S.; visualization, Y.S.; project administration, I.W. and T.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by Academic Leadership grants 1959/UN6.3.1/PT.00/2021 and 2203/UN6.3.1/PT.00/2022 (Universitas Padjadjaran).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the community of research sites, informants and respondents as well as the local Agency and Government in the North Bandung region.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Nechifor, V.; Ramos, M.P.; Ferrari, E.; Laichena, J.; Kihiu, E.; Omanyo, D.; Musamali, R.; Kiriga, B. Food security and welfare changes under COVID-19 in Sub-Saharan Africa: Impacts and responses in Kenya. Glob. Food Secur. 2021, 28, 100514. Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211912421000249 (accessed on 2 June 2023). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Prosekov, A.Y.; Ivanova, S.A. Food security: The challenge of the present. Geoforum 2018, 91, 73–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Sasson, A. Food security for Africa: An urgent global challenge. Agric. Food Secur. 2012, 1, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. FAO. The Place of Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculture (UPA) in National Food Security Programmes; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2011; 44p. [Google Scholar]
  5. Beckford, C.L.; Campbell, D.R. Urban Agriculture for Food Security in the Caribbean. In Domestic Food Production and Food Security in the Caribbean: Building Capacity and Strengthening Local Food Production Systems; Palgrave Macmillan: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 109–122. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bauw, I.Z. Gerakan Urban Farming: Studi atas Mobilisasi Sumber Daya oleh Komunitas Bandung Berkebun. Master’s Thesis, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  7. Schutzbank, M. Growing Vegetables in MetroVancouver: An Urban Farming Census. Ph.D. Thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2012; 199p. [Google Scholar]
  8. Prasetiyo, W.H.; Budimansyah, D. Warga Negara dan Ekologi: Studi Kasus Pengembangan Warga Negara Peduli Lingkungan Dalam Komunitas Bandung Berkebun. J. Pendidik. Hum. 2016, 4, 177–186. [Google Scholar]
  9. Rezai, G.; Shamsudin, M.N.; Mohamed, Z. Urban agriculture: A way forward to food and nutrition security in Malaysia. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2016, 216, 39–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Korth, M.; Stewart, R.; Langer, L.; Madinga, N.; Rebelo Da Silva, N.; Zaranyika, H.; van Rooyen, C.; de Wet, T. What are the impacts of urban agriculture programs on food security in low and middle-income countries: A systematic review. Environ. Evid. 2014, 3, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Siegner, A.; Sowerwine, J.; Acey, C. Does urban agriculture improve food security? Examining the nexus of food access and distribution of urban produced foods in the United States: A systematic review. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Van Veenhuizen, R.; Danso, G. Profitability and Sustainability of Urban and Periurban Agriculture; Food & Agriculture Org.: Rome, Italy, 2007; Volume 19. [Google Scholar]
  13. Yi-Zhang, C.; Zhangen, Z. Shanghai: Trends towards specialised and capital-intensive urban agriculture. In Growing Cities Growing Food: Urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda; DSE-ZELL: Feldafing, Germany, 2000; pp. 467–477. [Google Scholar]
  14. Bon, H.; Parrot, L.; Moustier, P. Sustainable urban agriculture in developing countries. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2010, 30, 21–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Mougeot, L.J.A. Agropolis: The Social, Political and Environmental Dimensions of Urban Agriculture; Earthscan: London, UK, 2005; pp. 1–286. [Google Scholar]
  16. Van Veenhuizen, R. Cities Farming for the Future—Urban Agriculture for Green and Productive Cities; ETC Urban Agriculture: Leusden, The Netherlands, 2006; pp. 1–17. [Google Scholar]
  17. Drechsel, P.; Dongus, S. Dynamics and sustainability of urban agriculture: Examples from sub-Saharan Africa. Sustain. Sci. 2009, 5, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Fournier, A. Vulnerability and Livelihood Influences of Urban Agriculture and Fruit and Vegetable Value Chains in Lebanon. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada, September 2019. [Google Scholar]
  19. Koont, S. Sustainable Urban Agriculture in Cuba; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; 250p. [Google Scholar]
  20. Giraldo, O.F. Political Ecology of Agriculture; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  21. Grossman, L.S. The Political Ecology of Bananas: Contract Farming, Peasants, and Agrarian Change in the Eastern Caribbean; University of North Carolina Press: Chapel Hill, NC, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  22. Lawrence, G.; Lyons, K. Food Security, Nutrition and Sustainability. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2010, 11, 3–9. [Google Scholar]
  23. Ecker, O. Agricultural transformation and food and nutrition security in Ghana: Does farm production diversity (still) matter for household dietary diversity? Food Policy 2018, 79, 271–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Linderhof, V.; Janssen, V.; Achterbosch, T. Does agricultural commercialization affect food security: The case of crop-producing households in the regions of post-reform Vietnam? Towards Sustain. Glob. Food Syst. 2019, 15, 35–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Guthman, J. Excess consumption or over-production?: US farm policy, global warming, and the bizarre attribution of obesity. In Global Political Ecology; Routledge: London, UK, 2011; pp. 51–66. [Google Scholar]
  26. Duvernoy, I.; Zambon, I.; Sateriano, A.; Salvati, L. Pictures from the other side of the fringe: Urban growth and peri-urban agriculture in a post-industrial city (Toulouse, France). J. Rural Stud. 2018, 57, 25–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Regina, R.R. Urban Farming Hidroponik di Karah-Jambangan, Surabaya. Edimensi Arsit. Petra 2017, 5, 481–488. [Google Scholar]
  28. Goodman, W.; Minner, J. Will the urban agricultural revolution be vertical and soilless? A case study of controlled environment agriculture in New York City. Land Use Policy 2019, 83, 160–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Food and Agricultural Organization. Horticultural Marketing: A Resource and Training Manual for Extensión Offícers; FAO: Rome, Italy, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  30. Abdoellah, O.S.; Hadikusumah, H.Y.; Takeuchi, K.; Okubo, S.; Parikesit. Commercialization of homegardens in an Indonesian village: Vegetation composition and functional changes. Agrofor. Syst. 2006, 68, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Abdoellah, O.S.; Suparman, Y.; Safitri, K.I.; Mubarak, A.Z.; Milani, M.; Surya, L. Between food fulfillment and income: Can urban agriculture contribute to both? Geogr. Sustain. 2023, 4, 127–137. Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666683923000135 (accessed on 15 June 2023). [CrossRef]
  32. Ministry of Home Affairs Republic of Indonesia. Decree Minister of Home Affairs Republic of Indonesia Number 050-140 of 2022 about Providing and Updating Codes, Data on Government Administration Areas and Islands in 2021; Ministry of Home Affairs Republic of Indonesia: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  33. Geospatial Information Agency. Indonesia Geospatial Portal, Digital Elevation Model (2019–2022) [Internet]. 2022. Available online: https://tanahair.indonesia.go.id/demnas/#/ (accessed on 25 June 2023).
  34. Supriyatin, R.; Pravitasari, A.E.; Pribadi, D.O. Pemetaan Karakteristik Wilayah Urban Dan Rural Di Wilayah Bandung Raya Dengan Metode Spatial Clustering. J. Geografi. 2020, 12, 125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Budiyantini, Y.; Pratiwi, V. Peri-urban Typology of Bandung Metropolitan Area. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 2016, 227, 833–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. De Zeeuw, H. The development of Urban Agriculture; Some lessons learnt. In Keynote Paper for the International Conference Urban Agriculture, Agri-Tourism and City Region Development; RUAF: Beijing, China, 2004; p. 20. [Google Scholar]
  37. Mougeot, L.J.A. Urban Agriculture: Definition, Presence, Potentials and Risks, and Policy Challenges; Cities Feeding People Series; International Development Research Centre (IDRC): Ottawa, Canada, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  38. Jonsson, U.; Toole, D. Household Food Security and Nutrition: A Conceptual Analysis; United Nations Children’s Fund: New York, NY, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  39. Maxwell, S.; Frankenberger, T.R. Household Food Security: Concepts, Indicators, Measurements: A Technical Review; Unicef: New York, NY, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  40. Dupont, W.D.; Plummer, W.D., Jr. Power and sample size calculations for studies involving linear regression. Control. Clin. Trials 1998, 19, 589–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Faul, F.; Erdfelder, E.; Buchner, A.; Lang, A.G. Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav. Res. Methods 2009, 41, 1149–1160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Miles, M.B.; Huberman, A.M.; Saldaña, J. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  43. Arida, A.; Sofyan; Fadhiela, K. Analisis Ketahanan Pangan Rumah Tangga Berdasarkan Proporsi Pengeluaran Pangan Dan Konsumsi Energi. Agrisep 2015, 16, 20–34. Available online: https://media.neliti.com/media/publications/13198-ID-analisis-ketahanan-pangan-rumah-tangga-berdasarkan-proporsi-pengeluaran-pangan-d.pdf (accessed on 15 June 2023).
  44. Thibert, J. Making local planning work for urban agriculture in the North American context: A view from the ground. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2012, 32, 349–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Pölling, B.; Prados, M.J.; Torquati, B.M.; Giacch, G.; Recasens, X.; Paffarini, C.; Alfranca, O.; Lorleberg, W. Business models in urban farming: A comparative analysis of case studies from Spain, Italy and Germany. Morav. Geogr. Rep. 2017, 25, 166–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Davies, J.; Hannah, C.; Guido, Z.; Zimmer, A.; McCann, L.; Battersby, J.; Evans, T. Barriers to urban agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa. Food Policy 2021, 103, 101999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Lydecker, M.; Drechsel, P. Urban agriculture and sanitation services in Accra, Ghana: The overlooked contribution. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2010, 8, 94–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Aubry, C.; Ramamonjisoa, J.; Dabat, M.H.; Rakotoarisoa, J.; Rakotondraibe, J.; Rabeharisoa, L. Urban agriculture and land use in cities: An approach with the multi-functionality and sustainability concepts in the case of Antananarivo (Madagascar). Land Use Policy 2012, 29, 429–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Chandra, A.J.; Diehl, J.A. Urban agriculture, food security, and development policies in Jakarta: A case study of farming communities at Kalideres–Cengkareng district, West Jakarta. Land Use Policy 2019, 89, 104211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Safitri, K.I.; Abdoellah, O.S.; Suparman, Y.; Mubarak, A.Z.; Margareth. The Existence of Subsistence, Semi-Commercial and Commercial Urban Agriculture in Bandung Metropolitan, Indonesia. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Plan. 2021, 16, 1425–1436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Mincyte, D.; Dobernig, K. Urban farming in the North American metropolis: Rethinking work and distance in alternative food networks. Environ. Plan. A Econ. Space 2016, 48, 1767–1786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Wolf, E.R. Petani Suatu Tinjauan Antropologis; Diterbitkan Untuk Yayasan Ilmu-Ilmu Sosial; CV. Rajawali: Jakarta, Indonesia, 1985. [Google Scholar]
  53. Ministry of National Development Planning. Technical Guidelines for Preparing Action Plans for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Technical Guidelines for Preparing Action Plans Edition II Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs); Jakarta, Indonesia. 2020. Available online: https://sdgs.bappenas.go.id/website/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Buku-Pedoman-Rencana-Aksi-SDGs.pdf (accessed on 22 June 2023).
  54. Winders, B.; Heslin, A.; Ross, G.; Weksler, H.; Berry, S. Life after the regime: Market instability with the fall of the US food regime. Agric. Hum. Values 2015, 33, 73–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Anderson, M.D. Roles of rural areas in sustainable food system transformations. Development 2015, 58, 256–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Mehraban, N.; Ickowitz, A. Dietary diversity of rural Indonesian households declines over time with agricultural production diversity even as incomes rise. Glob. Food Secur. 2021, 28, 100502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Carletto, C.; Corral, P.; Guelfi, A. Agricultural commercialization and nutrition revisited: Empirical evidence from three African countries. Food Policy 2017, 67, 106–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Hall, D. The Political Ecology of International Agri-Food Systems. In The Routledge Handbook of Political Ecology; Perreault, T., Bridge, G., McCarthy, J., Eds.; Routledge Taylor and Francis Group: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  59. Liu, P. Regulations, Standard and Certification for Export Agriculture Product; Food and Agriculture Organization: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2007. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 15 16683 g001
Figure 1. Location of the North Bandung area, West Java, Indonesia. Source: Map of the area of North Bandung, West Java, Indonesia (2023) [32,33,34,35,36,37] (https://www.mendeley.com/reference-manager/library/all-references, accessed on 2 June 2023.)
Figure 1. Location of the North Bandung area, West Java, Indonesia. Source: Map of the area of North Bandung, West Java, Indonesia (2023) [32,33,34,35,36,37] (https://www.mendeley.com/reference-manager/library/all-references, accessed on 2 June 2023.)
Sustainability 15 16683 g001
Table 1. Food Security Level.
Table 1. Food Security Level.
Energy IntakeProportion of Food Expenditure (PFE)
Low
(<60% of Total Expenditure)		High
(≥60% of Total Expenditure)
Sufficient
(>80% of calorie adequacy level)		Food-secure
(Food-secure)		Food-vulnerable
(Food-insecure)
Not Sufficient
(≤80% of calorie adequacy level)		Food-less-secure
(Food-insecure)		Food-insecure
(Food-insecure)
Source: [38].
Table 2. Average household calorie adequacy (%).
Table 2. Average household calorie adequacy (%).
TypeNutrition
MeanStd Dev.
Subsistence84.298.16
Semi-Commercial83.587.55
Commercial85.706.30
Total84.537.40
Table 3. One-way ANOVA of household calorie adequacy among urban agriculture types.
Table 3. One-way ANOVA of household calorie adequacy among urban agriculture types.
Variation SourceSum SquaresDfMean SquareF-Valuep-Value
Urban agriculture types0.0220.0122.2940.103
Residual1.733180.005
Total1.76320
Table 4. Average household expenditure and household food expenditure (monthly).
Table 4. Average household expenditure and household food expenditure (monthly).
Average Household ExpenditureAverage Household Food Expenditure
No.TypeMeanSt.
Dev		MeanSt.
Dev
1SubsistenceIDR 2,564,9531,352,133.45IDR 1,657,009880,540.37
2Semi-CommercialIDR 2,067,9911,146,779.51IDR 1,260,748729,920.77
3CommercialIDR 3,100,3742,897,505.08IDR 1,736,9161,546,150.67
4OverallIDR 2,577,7732,000,133.81IDR 1,551,5581,126,359.21
Table 5. One-way ANOVA of household total expenditure among urban agriculture types.
Table 5. One-way ANOVA of household total expenditure among urban agriculture types.
Variation SourceSum SquaresDfMean SquareF-Valuep-Value
Urban agriculture types57,047,479,595228,523,739,7977.4160.001
Residual1,223,123,802,8033183,846,301,266
Total1,280,171,282,398320
Table 6. The proportion of food expenditure (%).
Table 6. The proportion of food expenditure (%).
No.TypeMeanSt. Dev
1Subsistence66.18%0.170664872
2Semi-Commercial64.02%0.173319166
3Commercial64.14%0.193121113
4Overall64.78%0.179028519
Table 7. One-way ANOVA of household food expenditure among urban agriculture types.
Table 7. One-way ANOVA of household food expenditure among urban agriculture types.
Variation SourceSum SquaresDfMean SquareF-Valuep-Value
Urban agriculture types13,915,155,76326,957,577,8815.6430.004
Residual392,064,065,4203181,232,905,866
Total405,979,221,183320
Table 8. Household food security of urban agricultural types (%).
Table 8. Household food security of urban agricultural types (%).
NoCategoriesTypeOverall
SubsistenceSemi-CommercialCommercial
1Food-secure25.2324.3028.0425.86
2Food-vulnerable57.9449.5354.2153.89
3Food-less-secure3.7410.289.357.79
4Food-insecure13.0815.898.4112.46
Table 9. Chi-square test for food security level among urban agriculture types.
Table 9. Chi-square test for food security level among urban agriculture types.
Food Security LevelChi-SquareDfp-Value
Secure0.31320.855
Vulnerable0.70520.703
Less secure3.44020.179
Insecure2.45020.294
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Abdoellah, O.S.; Suparman, Y.; Safitri, K.I.; Basagevan, R.M.; Fianti, N.D.; Wulandari, I.; Husodo, T. Food Security of Urban Agricultural Households in the Area of North Bandung, West Java, Indonesia. Sustainability 2023, 15, 16683. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152416683

AMA Style

Abdoellah OS, Suparman Y, Safitri KI, Basagevan RM, Fianti ND, Wulandari I, Husodo T. Food Security of Urban Agricultural Households in the Area of North Bandung, West Java, Indonesia. Sustainability. 2023; 15(24):16683. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152416683

Chicago/Turabian Style

Abdoellah, Oekan S., Yusep Suparman, Kinanti Indah Safitri, Rahma Maulia Basagevan, Nafa Destri Fianti, Indri Wulandari, and Teguh Husodo. 2023. "Food Security of Urban Agricultural Households in the Area of North Bandung, West Java, Indonesia" Sustainability 15, no. 24: 16683. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152416683

APA Style

Abdoellah, O. S., Suparman, Y., Safitri, K. I., Basagevan, R. M., Fianti, N. D., Wulandari, I., & Husodo, T. (2023). Food Security of Urban Agricultural Households in the Area of North Bandung, West Java, Indonesia. Sustainability, 15(24), 16683. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152416683

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop