Data Description RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1. Data Description

The number of households in SUSENAS 2005 National Socioeconomic Survey for Java was 86.708 households. Based on the poverty line issued by CBS, 16.36 of the households were categorized as poor. A poor household was a household having an income per capita below Rp. 150.799 for urban areas and Rp.117.259 for rural areas. There were 14.57 families in urban areas of Java categorized as poor and 21.25 household in rural areas of Java categorized as poor. The average per capita expenditure of poor household in urban areas in Java was Rp.120,188 while the average per capita expenditure of poor families in rural areas in Java was Rp 95.329. There were 5 municipalities that had more than 35 poor households. Based on Food Security Agency 2005, an area that has a level of poverty exceeding 35 would be considered as the first priority zone, areas with a poverty level of 25.00-34.99 would be considered as the second priority zone, and areas with a poverty level of 20.00-24.99 would be considered as the third priority zone. The average percentage of poor in Java was 17.88. From 78 regencies and 32 cities studied, Trenggalek and Batang 40 had the highest percentage of poor families in the Java. While Depok City, East Jakarta, Central Jakarta, West Jakarta and South Jakarta had the lowest percentage of poor families 1 in Java. Appendix 1 showed municipalities that had the highest percentage of poor families in Java. From Figure 6 it can be seen that there were six main source of income of the poor households. Most of the poor households worked in the field of agriculture and husbandry 46.18. This indicated that people who worked in the field of agriculture and husbandry were more reluctant towards poverty. Agriculture and husbandry was followed by small scale retailers, building constructions, public transportation, money transfer, and housekeeping. Meanwhile other sources of income include industry, education, trade, forestry, government employees, and etc. Figure 6 M It is stated in Arian associated with poverty 2004, chronic food in insecurity as a food in China 2001 the causes such as the socio-politic agricultural land area pe anomalies, the low appl the low food production limited off-farm income of food insecurity in the to produce food. In othe policies domestic and in crisis. Java is very reluc 2005, the average perc There were 37 municip insecure households. K had the highest percenta Sukabumi, Ciamis, Cia Small Sc Reta Sellers, 1 Public Transportation, 6.8 Money Transfer, 4.07 House Keeping, 3.07 Others, 19. Main Source of Fix Income of Poor Households iani 2004 that chronic food insecurity condition ty issues. As mentioned in Simatupang 1999 an insecurity is increasing caused by poverty chr insecurity poverty gap. Meanwhile, according es of food insecurity at the household level is very tical situation of agriculture and farmers, lack of per capita, low productivity and fertility of the lan plication of modern agricultural techniques the ion, low purchasing power of households as a re e. Meanwhile, according to Witoro 2003 The ma hese countries is the weakness of developing acce ther cases, lack of food and poverty can be cause international as well as disasters such as war or luctant to food insecurity. Based on analysis o ercentage of food insecure household in Java wa cipalities in Java predicted to have more than Kudus, Batang, Pati, Pemalang, Temanggung, a tage of food insecure families in Java 80. M ianjur, Indramayu, Pandeglang, and Sumedan Agricultu Husban 46.18 Building Construction, 8. 10 l Scale tail 12.02 9.74 ons are often and AusAID chronic food g to UNDP ery complex, f productive land, climate e impact on result of the main causes ccess to land sed by trade or economic of Susenas was 67.40. n 70 food , and Jepara Meanwhile ang had the lture and andry, 18 lowest percentage of food insecure families in the Java 50. Appendix 2 showed the percentage of food insecure households and the national ranks used by Food Security Agency and a ranked based on the quartiles. Based on a benchmark research conducted by Food Security Agency 2005, Java had 7 food insecure municipalities, which included Bondowoso, Probolinggo, Situbondo, Jember, Brebes, Serang, and Lebak. This research also indicated that in Java there were 33 municipalities considered as the second priority food insecure municipalities. To decide whether an area is considered a food insecure area the Food Security Agency used a composite indicator using ten indicators which included food availability, food and livelihood access, and health nutrition indicators. There are differences between the priority based on the Food Security Agency and priority based on a quartile method on the calorie intake data. It can be seen that the priority based on composite indicators first priority had a relatively lower percentage of insecure households compared to other municipalities that are considered as the second and third priority. Hence using the food insecure map should be done cautiously. The reasons was food insecurity varied among areas, hence the interpretation of food security also differed from a place to another. An area could be in the group of Priority 1 mainly because this district had very low food and livelihood access, female literacy, high infant mortality, low life expectancy, and poor health infrastructure. Meanwhile another area was food insecure mainly because of infrastructure deficiencies and had very low level of self sufficiency in cereal productions. The list of indicators used in the Food Security Map can be seen in the Appendix 9. The Food Security Composite Indicator FSCI was calculated by using Principal Component Analysis to calculate the weights for the indicators used for deriving FSCI final score for each municipality. The 10 indicators were first converted to z-score as a standardization pre requisite for conducting the analysis. PCA was used to assign weight to all 10 indicators and not eliminate indicators, because all indicators were considered to be important. Five principal components were extracted and the final FSCI were a result of multiplying weights from PCA with the corresponding z-scores of indicators which resulted : FSCI= 0.955 Availabilit 0.862 Female Li Status Under Fi Centre Further research on the enhance the accuracy indicators can be seen in In 2005, the avera areas was relatively sma average amount of mon rural areas. The average was Rp.71.000, which w 64.79 Rp. 78.000 of 69.24 Rp. 66.000 of law, increasing the prop Thats because there ass household food expendi budget to buy other tha and others Ariani 2004 Figu The results of this Ariani 2004. Ariani stu not poo poo not poo poo not poo poo a ll ur b a n ru ra l lity + 0.858 Road + 0.635 Poor People + 0.653 El Literacy + 0.977 Inverse Life Expectancy + 0.792 Five + 0.979 IMR + 0.840 Clean Water + 0.6 the affectivity of these indicators should be an of the indicator. Food insecurity map based in Appendix 10. erage share of income used for purchasing food maller than in rural areas for all households. Mea money spent for food was higher in urban areas co ge expenditure used to purchase food for poor h was around 67.15 of the total income. For u of income was used to purchase food, while for of income was used to purchase food. Accordin roportion of food expenditure indicates declinin ssuming the budget constraint, increasing the pro diture will lead to further decline in the proport han food such as: for clothing, housing, educati 4. gure 7 Share of Java Food Expenditure 2005 his research was also similar with a research con studied the trend of food-insecure households in 20 40 60 80 poor poor poor poor poor poor Electricity + 92 Nutrition .657 Health analyzed to ed on these od in urban eanwhile the compared to r households r urban poor or rural poor ing to Engel ing welfare. roportion of ortion of the ation, health, onducted by n 1999-2000 using restriction of less than 1680 kcalscapitaday 80 from 2100 kcalcapitaday. Susenas data analysis of 2005 also showed that: 1 the proportion of vulnerable food households in Java was larger than in Outer Java, 2 the proportion of vulnerable food households in urban areas were lower than in rural areas, 3 the higher the average household income the lower the amount of household food insecurity, 4 the proportion of food-insecure households with livelihoods in the agricultural sector was lower than non-agricultural sectors. Meanwhile for Unemployment, the percentage of job-seekers in Indonesia was quite high. Based on a research conducted by Survey IHS 2005 the average percentage of unemployment in urban and rural areas in Java was 38.6 and 33.8. Therefore it has been estimated that from a population of 122,406,000 people in Java there are 42.842.100 unemployed people. Hence, overall the percentage of unemployment in Java was around 35. Appendix 3 showed municipalities that had the highest unemployment percentage in Java. Sukabumi City, Pandeglang, Banjar, Kerawang, Lebak had the highest proportion of unemployment 50 in Java. While Pekalongan, Semarang, Jepara, Wonosobo, Temanggung, and Pacitan has the lowest unemployment percentage 20 in Java island.

4.2. Satscan and ULS Evaluation