Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Vol. 13 No. sp7 (2026): International Conference on Agricultural Sustainability

Integrating FAO-based land suitability evaluation with regional economic analysis to identify flagship agricultural commodities in Lalundu and Bambakaenu transmigration areas, Central Sulawesi, Indonesia

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.14363
Submitted
4 March 2026
Published
03-09-2026

Abstract

Land suitability studies commonly assess biophysical conditions without incorporating regional economic performance, thereby reducing their relevance to site-specific commodity development planning. This study integrates Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)-based land suitability evaluation and regional economic analysis to identify flagship agricultural commodities in the Lalundu and Bambakaenu transmigration areas, Donggala Regency, Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. Field surveys, soil sampling and land characterisation were conducted from August to December 2025, across 33313.72 hectares (ha) delineated into 20 land mapping units (LMUs); climatic analysis drew on 10-year records (2015–24). An FAO matching approach classified each LMU for five perennial crops (cocoa, coconut, coffee, durian and oil palm) into four suitability classes: highly suitable (S1), moderately suitable (S2), marginally suitable (S3) and not suitable (N). Location quotient (LQ) and shift–share analysis (SSA) were used to assess regional economic performance using agricultural production data from 2020–24. All five commodities were predominantly classified as S3, covering over 92 % of the study area, with water availability, rooting conditions, nutrient availability and retention and erosion risk as the principal limiting factors. Feasible improvement measures increased the potential S2 area for oil palm and coconut from 362.24 ha (1.09 %) to 8854.51 ha (26.59 %), but did not alter the suitability class for cocoa, durian and coffee unchanged; LMU 6 (2103.51 ha; 6.31 %) remained unsuitable (N) for all crops because of permanent rooting constraints. The LQ and SSA results identified oil palm as the flagship commodity in Lalundu (Rio Pakava Subdistrict), with a five-year average LQ of 3.58 and a net shift of +34.98 %. Cocoa was identified as the flagship commodity in Bambakaenu (Pinembani Subdistrict), with an LQ of 3.20 and the highest net shift among the evaluated commodities (+699.79 %). Assessing biophysical suitability or economic performance in isolation risks commodity misalignment; the integrated framework provides a replicable basis for evidence-based land-use planning in transmigration and other frontier agricultural regions.

References

  1. 1. Rojikhah A, Leksono AS, Rachmansyah A. Evaluation of environmental carrying capacity based on land capability for agriculture development in the Melolo transmigration area, East Sumba. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci. 2023;1239(1):012036. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1239/1/012036
  2. 2. Purbandini L, Prayoga RA, Fatimah S, Haryati N, Susilo SRT, Danarti, et al. Transmigration as a solution to equitable development: a literature study of the transmigration programme in Indonesia. 2025:249–76. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-83608-216-320251016
  3. 3. Widiatmaka W, Ambarwulan W, Mulya SP, Ginting-Soeka BD, Bondansari B. Evaluation of physical and economic land of main agricultural commodities of transmigrants in marginal dry acidic land of Rantau Pandan SP-4, Jambi Province. J Nat Resour Environ Manag. 2014;4(2):152–60. https://doi.org/10.19081/jpsl.2014.4.2.152
  4. 4. Djuraini MF, Lihawa F. Analysis of deforestation potential through an oil palm land suitability approach in Tojo Una-Una Regency, Central Sulawesi Province. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci. 2025;1557(1):012008. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1557/1/012008
  5. 5. Manfarizah M, Karim A, Basri H, Muyassir M, Rusdi M, Mulia AP. Characteristics of soil physical and chemical properties on Arabica coffee land in Bener Meriah Regency. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci. 2024;1297(1):012034. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1297/1/012034
  6. 6. Admasu S, Desta H, Yeshitela K, Argaw M. Analysis of land suitability for apple-based agroforestry farming in Dire and Legedadi watersheds of Ethiopia: implication for ecosystem services. Heliyon. 2022;8(11):e11217. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4207728
  7. 7. Dorosh Y, Ibatullin S, Sakal O, Kupriianchyk I, Bratinova M. Assessment of the agricultural potential of a territorial community based on soil suitability mapping for crop cultivation. In: International Conference of Young Professionals “GeoTerrace-2024”; 2024. p. 1–5. https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.2024510068
  8. 8. Everest T, Sungur A, Özcan H. Determination of agricultural land suitability with a multiple-criteria decision-making method in northwestern Turkey. Int J Environ Sci Technol. 2020;18(5):1073–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-020-02869-9
  9. 9. Sarcinelli O, Romeiro AR, Pereira LC, Gomes S. Land use capability and the sustainable scale: an overview of agriculture in São Paulo State, Brazil. Nat Resour. 2022;13(8):171–80. https://doi.org/10.4236/nr.2022.138011
  10. 10. Jing W, Yu K, Wu L, Luo P. Potential land use conflict identification based on improved multi-objective suitability evaluation. Remote Sens. 2021;13(12):2416. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13122416
  11. 11. Dang M. Assessment of crop-land suitability by the multi-criteria evaluation approach and geographic information system: a scoping review. Agric Eng Int CIGR J. 2024;26(2).
  12. 12. Gbode IE, Ajayi VO, Coulibaly A, Abel D, Ziegler K, Weber T, et al. Analysis of crop suitability index for current and future climates using statistically downscaled CMIP6 outputs over Africa. Meteorol Appl. 2025;32(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/met.70022
  13. 13. Ganzour SK, Ghabour TK, Ali RR, Abdel Kawy WAM, El-Desoky AI. Integrating geospatial analysis and the suitability–resources quality index to optimize crop suitability for sustainable agriculture. Front Sustain Food Syst. 2025;9:1703891. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2025.1703891
  14. 14. Purbata AG, Nur M, Simanjuntak AP, Oktavian R, Firmansyah R. Analysis of the determination of leading aquaculture commodities in Riau Province. Asian J Aquat Sci. 2025;8(1):62–71. https://doi.org/10.31258/ajoas.8.1.62-71
  15. 15. Putri EY, Alwi LO, Herdhiansyah ND, Asriani N. Analysis of leading food crop commodities in regencies/cities of Southeast Sulawesi Province. Tekper J Teknol Manaj Ind Pertan. 2025;6(2):70–81. https://doi.org/10.33772/tekper.v6i2.60
  16. 16. Eviati, Sulaeman, Herawaty L, Anggria L, Usman, Tantika HE, et al. Analisis kimia tanah, tanaman, air, dan pupuk: petunjuk teknis. 3rd ed. Bogor: Kementerian Pertanian Republik Indonesia; 2023.
  17. 17. Bouyoucos GJ. Hydrometer method improved for making particle size analyses of soils. Agron J. 1962;54(5):464–5. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1962.00021962005400050028x
  18. 18. Thomas GW. Soil pH and soil acidity. In: Sparks DL, editor. Methods of soil analysis, part 3 – chemical methods. Madison: SSSA/ASA; 1996. p. 475–90. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssabookser5.3.c16
  19. 19. Walkley A, Black IA. An examination of the Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Sci. 1934;37(1):29–38. https://doi.org/10.1097/00010694-193401000-00003
  20. 20. Bremner JM, Mulvaney CS. Nitrogen-total. In: Page AL, Miller RH, Keeney DR, editors. Methods of soil analysis, part 2 – chemical and microbiological properties. 2nd ed. Madison: ASA/SSSA; 1982. p. 595–624. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronmonogr9.2.2ed.c31
  21. 21. Bray RH, Kurtz LT. Determination of total, organic and available forms of phosphorus in soils. Soil Sci. 1945;59(1):39–45. https://doi.org/10.1097/00010694-194501000-00006
  22. 22. Sumner ME, Miller WP. Cation exchange capacity and exchange coefficients. In: Sparks DL, editor. Methods of soil analysis, part 3 – chemical methods. Madison: SSSA/ASA; 1996. p. 1201–29. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssabookser5.3.c40
  23. 23. Balai Besar Sumber Daya Lahan Pertanian. Peta tanah eksplorasi/semi-detail Indonesia [Internet]. Bogor: BBSDLP, Kementerian Pertanian; [cited 2025 Dec 16]. Available from: https://bbsdlp.litbang.pertanian.go.id/
  24. 24. Badan Informasi Geospasial. Peta Rupabumi Indonesia dan data penggunaan lahan [Internet]. Cibinong: BIG; [cited 2025 Dec 16]. Available from: https://tanahair.indonesia.go.id/
  25. 25. Badan Informasi Geospasial. DEMNAS: Digital Elevation Model Nasional [Internet]. Cibinong: BIG; [cited 2025 Dec 16]. Available from: https://tanahair.indonesia.go.id/demnas/
  26. 26. Badan Pusat Statistik Kabupaten Donggala. Kabupaten Donggala dalam angka 2025 [Internet]. Donggala: BPS Kabupaten Donggala; 2025 [cited 2026 Jan 22]. Available from: donggalakab.bps.go.id
  27. 27. Djaenudin D, Marwan H, Subagjo H, Hidayat A. Petunjuk teknis evaluasi lahan untuk komoditas pertanian. 2nd ed. Bogor: Balai Besar Penelitian dan Pengembangan Sumberdaya Lahan Pertanian; 2011.
  28. 28. Dhamira A, Anggrasari H. Indonesian climatic factors and its effect on cocoa productivity. West Sci Interdiscip Stud. 2024;2(5):963–74. https://doi.org/10.58812/wsis.v2i05.873
  29. 29. Santosa E, Sakti GP, Fattah Z, Zaman S, Wachjar A. Cocoa production stability in relation to changing rainfall and temperature in East Java, Indonesia. J Trop Crop Sci. 2018;5(1):37–45. https://doi.org/10.29244/jtcs.5.1.6-17
  30. 30. Pirker J, Mosnier A, Kraxner F, Havlík P, Obersteiner M. What are the limits to oil palm expansion? Glob Environ Change. 2016;40:73–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.06.007
  31. 31. Lisso L, Lindsay JB, Berg A. Evaluating the topographic factors for land suitability mapping of specialty crops in Southern Ontario. Agronomy. 2024;14(2):319. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14020319
  32. 32. Naba W, Wolde B. Techniques for conservation tillage under 15–25% slope: soil and water conservation, maize yield and yield components in Basketo Zone, Southern Ethiopia. Omo Int J Sci. 2023;6(1):68–80. https://doi.org/10.59122/13439yxz
  33. 33. Pravitasari AE, Kusumaningtyas AR, Mulya SP, Wulandari S, Stanny YA, Hor S. Land suitability analysis and direction for plantation commodities development in Pekalongan Regency, Central Java. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci. 2023;1133(1):012053. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1133/1/012053
  34. 34. Rayes ML, Nurdin N, Listyarini E, Agustina C, Rauf A. Analysis of degraded land suitability and regional comparative advantages for maize development in the Gorontalo sustainable agriculture areas, Indonesia. J Degrad Min Lands Manag. 2023;11(1):4909–25. https://doi.org/10.15243/jdmlm.2023.111.4909
  35. 35. Mulyani A, Mulyanto B, Barus B, Panuju DR, Husnain. Potential land reserves for agriculture in Indonesia: suitability and legal aspect supporting food sufficiency. Land. 2023;12(5):970. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12050970
  36. 36. Widyatmoko W, Dewi R. Dynamics of transmigration policy as supporting policy of palm oil plantation development in Indonesia. J Indones Soc Sci Humanit. 2019;9(1):35–55. https://doi.org/10.14203/jissh.v9i1.139
  37. 37. Rist L, Feintrenie L, Levang P. The livelihood impacts of oil palm: smallholders in Indonesia. Biodivers Conserv. 2010;19(4):1009–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-010-9815-z
  38. 38. Euler M, Schwarze S, Siregar H, Qaim M. Oil palm expansion among smallholder farmers in Sumatra, Indonesia. J Agric Econ. 2016;67(3):658–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12163
  39. 39. Gatto M, Wollni M, Qaim M. Oil palm boom and land-use dynamics in Indonesia: the role of policies and socioeconomic factors. Land Use Policy. 2015;46:292–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.03.001
  40. 40. Dharmawan B, Satriani R, Prasetyo K, Budiyoko B, Widowati EH, Widiyanti SH. Developing the agricultural commodities on regional scale: an initiative corporation at development area districts in Central Java, Indonesia. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci. 2025;1518(1):012010. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1518/1/012010
  41. 41. Putri DI, Fajeri H, Hamdani. Analysis of leading commodities of plantation sub-sectors in Tanah Laut District, South Kalimantan Province. Eur J Agric Food Sci. 2024;6(5):62–6. https://doi.org/10.24018/ejfood.2024.6.5.861
  42. 42. Raharja S, Marimin M, Machfud, Papilo P, Safriyana S, Massijaya MY, et al. Institutional strengthening model of oil palm independent smallholder in Riau and Jambi Provinces, Indonesia. Heliyon. 2020;6(5):e03875. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03875
  43. 43. Mulia S, McMahon PJ, Purwantara A, Bin Purung H, Djufry F, Lambert S, et al. Effect of organic and inorganic amendments on productivity of cocoa on a marginal soil in Sulawesi, Indonesia. Exp Agric. 2019;55(1):1–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479717000527

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.