Poverty Alleviation Model for Livestock Business Households in Gandus District, Palembang

Marieska Lupikawaty; Neneng Miskiyah; Purwati Purwati; Keti Purnamasari; Julito Contado Aligaen

doi:10.59261/inkubis.v8i3.454

Authors

Marieska Lupikawaty Politeknik Negeri Sriwijaya
Neneng Miskiyah Politeknik Negeri Sriwijaya
Purwati Politeknik Negeri Sriwijaya
Keti Purnamasari Politeknik Negeri Sriwijaya
Julito Contado Aligaen Iloilo Science and Technology University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.59261/inkubis.v8i3.454

Keywords:

Poverty Alleviation, Welfare, Livestock Business, SEM-PLS, Geographic Information System

Abstract

Background: Since 2017, the Palembang City Agriculture and Food Security Office has implemented a Pegagan duck livestock assistance program to alleviate poverty in Gandus District. However, its impact on poverty alleviation has never been formally evaluated. This study is urgently needed to assess the program’s effectiveness, provide evidence for improving its implementation, and support its potential replication in other districts of Palembang City.

Objective: This study aims to (i) develop a poverty alleviation model for livestock business households, (ii) evaluate the distribution of poverty alleviation program assistance by the Palembang City Agriculture and Food Security Office, and (iii) map poor families in Gandus District using Geographic Information System (GIS) software.

Methods: Data were collected through library research and field research. Two analytical techniques were employed: Structural Equation Modeling–Partial Least Squares (SEM-PLS) analysis and mapping of poor families using a Geographic Information System (GIS).

Results: The SEM-PLS analysis revealed that investment had a positive and significant effect on welfare (t-statistic = 3.744, p = 0.000), while poverty had a significant effect on income (t-statistic = 2.978, p = 0.003). However, the relationships between income and investment, income and consumption, and poverty and welfare were not statistically significant. Poverty mapping using GIS showed that Pulokerto Village had the highest poverty rate (10.25%), whereas Karang Jaya Village had the lowest (6.54%) among the five villages in Gandus District.

Conclusion: Investment significantly improves household welfare, while poverty significantly affects household income. GIS mapping also revealed spatial differences in poverty levels among villages in Gandus District, supporting more targeted poverty alleviation efforts.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Alkire, S., & Foster, J. (2011). Counting and multidimensional poverty measurement. Journal of Public Economics, 95(7–8), 476–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.11.006

Arias-Sosa, L. A., & Rojas, A. L. (2021). A review on the productive potential of the Muscovy Duck. World's Poultry Science Journal, 77(3), 565-588.

Badan Pusat Statistik. (2018). Palembang dalam angka.

Banerjee, A., Duflo, E., Goldberg, N., Karlan, D., Osei, R., Parienté, W., Shapiro, J., Thuysbaert, B., & Udry, C. (2015). A multifaceted program causes lasting progress for the very poor: Evidence from six countries. Science, 348(6236), Artikel 1260799. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1260799

Bedi, T., Coudouel, A., & Simler, K. (2007). More than a pretty picture: Using poverty maps to design better policies and interventions. World Bank Publications.

Diatmika, I. P. G. (2021). The effect of the utilization of village fund on family welfare in Buleleng District, Bali. 556, 18–24.

Dinas Pertanian dan Ketahanan Pangan Kota Palembang. (2019). Distribusi bantuan program pengentasan kemiskinan masyarakat miskin Kecamatan Gandus tahun 2017.

Dos Santos, T. M. (2017). Poverty as lack of capabilities: an analysis of the definition of poverty of Amartya Sen. PERI.

Gweshengwe, B., & Hassan, N. H. (2020). Defining the characteristics of poverty and their implications for poverty analysis. Cogent Social Sciences, 6(1), 1768669. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2020.1768669

Hu, S., Ge, Y., Liu, M., Ren, Z., & Zhang, X. (2022). Village-level poverty identification using machine learning, high-resolution images, and geospatial data. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 107, 102694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2022.102694

Kementerian Komunikasi dan Informatika. (2018). Kementerian Komunikasi dan Informatika.

Li, S.-P., Dong, Y.-Q., Zhang, L.-X., & Liu, C.-F. (2021). Off-farm employment and poverty alleviation in rural China. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 20(4), 943–952. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(21)63616-X

Lupikawaty, M. (2022, January). Welfare Evaluation of the Duck Breeding in Gandus Subdistrict, Palembang. In Proceedings of the 5th FIRST T3 2021 International Conference (FIRST-T3 2021).

Moser, C. (2016). Gender, asset accumulation and just cities: Pathways to transformation. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315766966

Nugroho, A., Amir, H., Maududy, I., & Marlina, I. (2021). Poverty eradication programs in Indonesia: Progress, challenges and reforms. Journal of Policy Modeling, 43(6), 1204-1224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2021.05.002

Osei, C. D. (2020). Rural poverty alleviation strategies and social capital link: The mediation role of women entrepreneurship and social innovation. SAGE Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020925504

Putri, S. R., Wijayanto, A. W., & Sakti, A. D. (2022). Developing relative spatial poverty index using integrated remote sensing and geospatial big data approach: A case study of east java, Indonesia. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 11(5), 275. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi11050275

Suparta, W., & Prastyadi, M. A. (2024). The Influence of Dependency Ratio, Per Capita Income, Informal Agricultural Sector Labor, and the Percentage of Sick Population on Poverty Levels in Eastern Indonesia. Contemp. Readings L. & Soc. Just., 16, 1095.

Suresh, J. (2023). Poverty is lack of capabilities: A literature review. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 7(3), 462-476.

Wang, Y., Liang, C., & Li, J. (2019). Detecting village‐level regional development differences: A GIS and HLM method. Growth and Change, 50(1), 222-246.