Javascript is required
Adetama, D. S., Fauzi, A., Juanda, B., & Hakim, D. B. (2023). Evaluasi pembangunan berkelanjutan dengan rendah karbon pada sektor pertanian padi. Tataloka, 25(1), 50–69. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Balynskaya, N. R. & Vasilyeva, A. G. (2017). Fiscal capacity of the city: The assessment of the influence on the sustainability of urban environment and the quality of living (the case of «second» cities of the Russian Federation). R-Econ., 3(2), 112–119. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Barbier, E. B. & Burgess, J. C. (2024). Economics of peatlands conservation, restoration and sustainable management. SSRN Electron. J., 1–50. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Barchia, M. F., Ishak, A., Utama, S. P., & Novanda, R. R. (2021). Sustainability status of paddy cultivation on marginal peat soils in Indonesia. Bulg. J. Agric. Sci., 27(7), 259–270. [Google Scholar]
Büyüközkan, G. & Karabulut, Y. (2018). Sustainability performance evaluation: Literature review and future directions. J. Environ. Manag., 217, 253–267. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Dommain, R., Dittrich, I., Giesen, W., Joosten, H., Rais, D. S., Silvius, M., & Wibisono, I. T. C. (2016). Ecosystem services, degradation and restoration of peat swamps in the south east asian tropics. In Peatland Restoration and Ecosystem Services: Science, Policy and Practice. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Ekardt, F., Jacobs, B., Stubenrauch, J., & Garske, B. (2020). Peatland governance: The problem of depicting in sustainability governance, regulatory law, and economic instruments. Land, 9(3), 83. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Fauzi, A. (2019). Teknik Analisis Keberlanjutan. Jakarta: PT Gramedia Pustaka Utama. [Google Scholar]
Fauzi, A. (2021). Analisis Risiko dan Keberlanjutan Lingkungan. Tangerang Selatan: Universitas Terbuka. [Google Scholar]
Fauzi, A. & Anna, S. (2002). Evaluasi status keberlanjutan pembangunan perikanan: Aplikasi Pendekatan Rapfish (studi kasus perairan pesisir dki jakarta). J. Pesisir Lautan Indones. J. Coastal Mar. Res., 4(3), 43–55. [Google Scholar]
Fawzi, N. I., Nabillah, R., Suwardi, Mulyanto, B., & Palunggono, H. B. (2024). Progress towards adopting low-carbon agriculture on peatlands for sustainable development in Indonesia. IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci., 1313(1), 012036. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Febria, D., Fithriyana, R., Isnaeni, L. M. A., Librianty, N., & Irfan, A. (2021). Interaction between environment, economy, society and health in the concept of environmental health: Studies on peatland communities. Open Access Maced. J. Med. Sci., 9, 919–923. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Ferré, M., Muller, A., Leifeld, J., Bader, C., Müller, M., Engel, S., & Wichmann, S. (2019). Sustainable management of cultivated peatlands in Switzerland: Insights, challenges, and opportunities. Land Use Policy, 87, 104019. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Gore, C. (2015). The post-2015 moment: Towards sustainable development goals and a new global development paradigm. J. Int. Dev., 27, 717–732. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Gunawan, H. & Afriyanti, D. (2019). Potensi perhutanan sosial dalam meningkatkan partisipasi masyarakat dalam restorasi gambut. J. Ilmu Kehutanan, 13(2), 227. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Harrison, M. E. (2013). Using conceptual models to understand ecosystem function and impacts of human activities in tropical peat-swamp forests. Wetlands, 33(2), 257–267. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Harsono, S. S. (2012). Mitigasi dan adaptasi kondisi lahan gambut di Indonesia dengan sistem pertanian berkelanjutan. Wacana: J. Ilmu Sos. Transformatif, 27(XIV), 11–37. [Google Scholar]
Hein, L., Spadaro, J. V., Ostro, B., Hammer, M., Sumarga, E., Salmayenti, R., Boer, R., Tata, H., Atmoko, D., & Castañeda, J. (2022). The health impacts of Indonesian peatland fires. Environ. Health, 21(1). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Hély, V. & Antoni, J. (2019). Combining indicators for decision making in planning issues: A theoretical approach to perform sustainability assessment. Sustain. Cities Soc, 44, 844–854. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Hermanns, T., Helming, K., König, H. J., Schmidt, K., Li, Q., & Faust, H. (2017). Sustainability impact assessment of peatland-use scenarios: Confronting land use supply with demand. Ecosyst. Serv., 26, 365–376. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Hidalgo Pizango, C. G., Honorio Coronado, E. N., del Águila-Pasquel, J., et al. (2022). Sustainable palm fruit harvesting as a pathway to conserve Amazon peatland forests. Nat. Sustain., 5(6), 479–487. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Humpenöder, F., Karstens, K., Lotze-Campen, H., Leifeld, J., Menichetti, L., Barthelmes, A., & Popp, A. (2020). Peatland protection and restoration are key for climate change mitigation. Environ. Res. Lett., 15(10), 104093. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
IUCN. (2017). Peatland and climate change. https://www.iucn-uk-peatlandprogramme.org/sites/default/files/header-images/171107%20Peatlands%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf [Google Scholar]
Joosten, H. (2015). Peatlands, climate change mitigationand biodiversity conservation. Peatlands, climate change mitigationand biodiversity conservation. Nord. Co-Op., 14. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Kamal, M. A., Utomo, M. R., Hakim, M. L., Qurbani, I. D., & Ikram, A. D. (2023). Peatland management based on local wisdom through rural governance improvement and agroindustry. Int. J. Environ. Sustain. Soc. Sci., 4(3), 774–787. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Kavanagh, P. & Pitcher, T. J. (2004). Implementing microsoft excel software for Rapfish: A technique for the rapid appraisal of fisheries status. Fish. Cent. Res. Rep, 12(2). [Google Scholar]
Khodyko, D. (2020). Sustainable water use: Spatioregional potential and limitations for the economy of Ukraine. Econ. Ann. XXI, 181(1–2), 68–82. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Kiely, L., Spracklen, D. V., Arnold, S. R., Papargyropoulou, E., Conibear, L., Wiedinmyer, C., Knote, C., & Adrianto, H. A. (2021). Assessing costs of Indonesian fires and the benefits of restoring peatland. Nat. Commun., 12(1). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Lees, K. J., Carmenta, R., Condliffe, I., Gray, A., Marquis, L., & Lenton, T. M. (2023). Protecting peatlands requires understanding stakeholder perceptions and relational values: A case study of peatlands in the Yorkshire Dales. Ambio, 52(7), 1282–1296. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Leng, L. Y., Ahmed, O. H., & Jalloh, M. B. (2019). Brief review on climate change and tropical peatlands. Geosci. Front., 10(2), 373–380. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Lestari, N. S., Rochmayanto, Y., Salminah, M., Novita, N., Asyhari, A., Gangga, A., Ritonga, R., Yeo, S., & Albar, I. (2023). Opportunities and risk management of peat restoration in Indonesia: lessons learned from peat restoration actors. Restor. Ecol., 32(1). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Liang, X., Si, D., & Zhang, X. (2017). Regional sustainable development analysis based on information entropy-Sichuan Province as an example. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 14(10), 1219. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Liu, Y., Wang, M., & Feng, C. (2020). Inequalities of China’s regional low-carbon development. J. Environ. Manag., 274, 111042. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Liuta, O., Pihul, N., & Kubakh, T. (2015). Financial capacity of local budget as a basis for sustainable functioning of a territory. Econ. Ann. XXI, 1(1), 78–81. [Google Scholar]
Noor, M. (2016). Lahan Gambut, Pengembangan, Konservasi dan Perubahan Iklim. Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada University Press. [Google Scholar]
Nurhayati, Y., Pudjihardjo, P., Susilo, S., & Ekawaty, M. (2021). The status of tourism village sustainability in Indonesia: Multidimensional scaling Rapfish approach. Int. J. Soc. Sci. Res., 3(1), 20–33. [Google Scholar]
Nursyamsi, D., Noor, M., & Maftu’ah, E. (2015). Peatland management for sustainable agriculture. In Tropical Peatland Ecosystems (pp. 493–511). Springer Tokyo. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Omar, M. S., Ifandi, E., Sukri, R. S., Kalaitzidis, S., Christanis, K., Lai, D. T. C., Bashir, S., & Tsikouras, B. (2022). Peatlands in Southeast Asia: A comprehensive geological review. Earth-Sci. Rev., 232, 104149. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Osawa, T. (2023). Rethinking the local wisdom approach in peatland restoration through the case of Rantau Baru: A critical inquiry to the present-day concept of Kearifan Lokal. Local Gov. Peatland Restor. Riau Indones., 119–145. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Page, S. E., Rieley, J. O., & Banks, C. J. (2011). Global and regional importance of the tropical peatland carbon pool. Glob. Change Biol., 17(2), 798–818. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Paoli, R., Feofilovs, M., Kamenders, A., & Romagnoli, F. (2022). Peat production for horticultural use in the Latvian context: sustainability assessment through LCA modeling. J. Clean. Prod., 378, 134559. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Pitcher, T. J., Lam, M. E., Ainsworth, C., Martindale, A., Nakamura, K., Perry, R. I., & Ward, T. (2013). Improvements to Rapfish: A rapid evaluation technique for fisheries integrating ecological and human dimensionsa. J. Fish Biol., 83(4), 865–889. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Plummer, R. (2005). A review of sustainable development implementation through local action from an ecosystem management perspective. J. Rural Trop. Public Health, 40, 33–40. [Google Scholar]
Pollesch, N. L. & Dale, V. H. (2016). Normalization in sustainability assessment: Methods and implications. Ecol. Econ., 130, 195–208. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Pravitasari, E. A., Rustiadi, E., Mulya, P. S., & Fuadina, N. L. (2018). Developing regional sustainability index as a new approach for evaluating sustainability performance in Indonesia. Environ. Ecol. Res., 6(3), 157–168. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Rahma, H., Fauzi, A., Juanda, B., & Widjojanto, B. (2019). Development of a composite measure of regional sustainable development in Indonesia. Sustainability, 11(20), 5861. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Rahmawati, R., Syekhfani, Nihayati, E., & Prijono, S. (2019). Sustainable peatland management: A case study of peatland development for oil palm plantation in East Kotawaringin Regency, Indonesia. AES Bioflux, 11(1), 1–18. [Google Scholar]
Ratamäki, O., Jokinen, P., Albrecht, E., & Belinskij, A. (2019). Framing the peat: The political ecology of finnish mire policies and law. Mires Peat, 24, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Rendrarpoetri, B. L., Rustiadi, E., Fauzi, A., & Pravitasari, A. E. (2024). Sustainability assessment of the upstream bengawan solo watershed in Wonogiri Regency, Central Java Province, Indonesia. Sustainability, 16(5), 1982. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Rengasamy, N. & Parish, F. (2021). Sustainable peatland management focusing on community-based peatland rehabilitation in Malaysia. Trop. Peatland Eco-Manag., 651–662. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Ríos-Osorio, L. A., Cruz-Barreiro, I. C., & Welsh-Rodríguez, C. M. (2013). The concept of sustainable development from an ecosystem perspective: history, evolution, and epistemology. In WIT Transactions on State of the Art in Science and Engineering (pp. 29–45). WIT Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Ritzema, H., Limin, S., Kusin, K., Jauhiainen, J., & Wösten, H. (2014). Canal blocking strategies for hydrological restoration of degraded tropical peatlands in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Catena, 114, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Rydin, H. & Jeglum, J. K. (2010). The Biology of Peatlands. Oxford Academic. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Saifullah bin Aziz, M., Mondol, M. M. R., Alam, M., Haque, M. M., & Islam, S. R. (2024). Underpinning the criteria for the sustainability assessment of Hakaluki Haor using the RAPFISH tool. Fisheries Research, 278, 107080. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Seifollahi-Aghmiuni, S., Nockrach, M., & Kalantari, Z. (2019). The potential of wetlands in achieving the sustainable development goals of the 2030 Agenda. Water, 11(3), 609. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Shi, Y., Ge, X., Yuan, X., Wang, Q., Kellett, J., Li, F., & Ba, K. (2019). An integrated indicator system and evaluation model for regional sustainable development. Sustainability, 11(7), 2183. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Strezov, V., Evans, A., & Evans, T. J. (2017). Assessment of the economic, social and environmental dimensions of the indicators for sustainable development. Sustain. Dev., 25(3), 242–253. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Surahman, A., Soni, P., & Shivakoti, G. P. (2017). Are peatland farming systems sustainable? Case study on assessing existing farming systems in the peatland of Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. J. Integr. Environ. Sci., 15(1), 1–19. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Surahman, A., Soni, P., & Shivakoti, G. P. (2018). Improving strategies for sustainability of short-term agricultural utilization on degraded peatlands in Central Kalimantan. Environ. Dev. Sustain., 21(3), 1369–1389. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Syafrizal, S. & Resdati, R. (2020). Partisipasi masyarakat dalam restorasi gambutdi desa rimbo panjang. J. Educ. Humaniora Soc. Sci., 3(2), 712–720. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Thornton, S. A. (2017). (Un)tangling the net, tackling the scales and learning to fish: An interdisciplinary study in Indonesian Borneo. Environ. Sci. Biol. Geogr. Educ., 352. [Google Scholar]
Uda, S. K., Hein, L., & Sumarga, E. (2017). Towards sustainable management of Indonesian tropical peatlands. Wetl. Ecol. Manag., 25(6), 683–701. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Wakhid, N. (2018). Dekomposisi Gambut Terkait Perubahan Lahan di Indonesia. 14(2), 122–127. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Warren, M., Hergoualc’h, K., Kauffman, J. B., Murdiyarso, D., & Kolka, R. (2017). An appraisal of Indonesia’s immense peat carbon stock using national peatland maps: Uncertainties and potential losses from conversion. Carbon Balance Manag., 12(2017). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Yasir Haya, L. O. M. & Fujii, M. (2020). Assessment of coral reef ecosystem status in the Pangkajene and Kepulauan Regency, Spermonde Archipelago, Indonesia, using the rapid appraisal for fisheries and the analytic hierarchy process. Marine Policy, 118. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Zhang, X., Schumann, M., Gao, Y., Foggin, J. M., Wang, S., & Joosten, H. (2016). Restoration of high-altitude peatlands on the Ruoergai Plateau (Northeastern Tibetan Plateau, China). In Peatland Restoration and Ecosystem Services (pp. 234–252). Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Zulkarnaini, Meiwanda, G., Lubis, E. E., Nasution, M. S., & Habibie, D. K. (2020). Peatland Management Based on Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). J. Phys.: Conf. Ser., 1655, 012142. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Zulkarnaini, Z., Sujianto, S., & Wawan, W. (2022). Short communication: Sustainability of ecological dimension in peatland management in the Giam Siak Kecil Bukit Batu Landscape, Riau, Indonesia. Biodiversitas J. Biol. Divers., 23(4), 1822–1827. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Search
Open Access
Research article

Sustainability Evaluation of Regency Development in Peatland Areas of Riau Province, Indonesia

ardika perdana fahly1*,
akhmad fauzi2,
bambang juanda3,
ernan rustiadi4
1
Regional and Rural Development Planning Study Program, Faculty of Economics and Management, IPB University, 16680 Bogor, Indonesia
2
Department of Resources and Environmental Economics, Faculty of Economics and Management, IPB University, 16680 Bogor, Indonesia
3
Department of Economics, Faculty of Economics and Management, IPB University, 16680 Bogor, Indonesia
4
Department of Soil Science and Land Resources, Faculty of Agriculture, IPB University, 16680 Bogor, Indonesia
Challenges in Sustainability
|
Volume 12, Issue 2, 2024
|
Pages 102-121
Received: 04-24-2024,
Revised: 06-25-2024,
Accepted: 07-09-2024,
Available online: 07-29-2024
View Full Article|Download PDF

Abstract:

The sustainable development of peatland ecosystems is imperative due to their susceptibility to climate change. This study evaluates the sustainability of regency development in the peatland areas of Riau Province, Indonesia, utilizing the rapid appraisal technique combined with the Rapfish multidimensional scaling (MDS) algorithm. Critical attributes influencing sustainability were identified, including the Gross Regional Domestic Product (GRDP) in the agriculture, forestry, and fisheries sectors, unemployment rates, GRDP growth rates, investment levels, poverty rates, population growth, deforestation rates, waste management practices, environmental conservation efforts, community involvement, local wisdom, occurrence of peat fires, and groundwater level stations. The findings indicate that the sustainability status of regencies in peatland areas predominantly falls between less and moderately sustainable. Consequently, an urgent need exists to accelerate the implementation of new development paradigms, such as green and low-carbon development strategies, to achieve sustainable development goals in peatland regions effectively. Enhanced policies and practices are required to address the identified sustainability dimensions, fostering resilience and promoting long-term ecological balance.
Keywords: Peatland, Rapfish, Regional development, Sustainability evaluation

1. Introduction

The concept of sustainable development is a universally recognized principle guiding development initiatives at various levels, including regional, national, and local scales (G​o​r​e​,​ ​2​0​1​5). Emphasizing the preservation of natural resources and the environment is crucial for meeting present needs, while safeguarding those of future generations and ensuring the sustained availability of goods and services over the long term (F​a​u​z​i​,​ ​2​0​2​1). The goals of sustainable development highlight the significance of not only meeting human needs, such as alleviating hunger and inequality, but also emphasizing the importance of conserving water, soil, and other ecosystems (P​l​u​m​m​e​r​,​ ​2​0​0​5; R​í​o​s​-​O​s​o​r​i​o​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​1​3). Currently, there is an increasing emphasis on peat or wetland ecosystems because of the rising impacts of climate change and global warming (H​u​m​p​e​n​ö​d​e​r​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​0; J​o​o​s​t​e​n​,​ ​2​0​1​5). Peatlands are natural ecosystems of significant importance, celebrated for their biodiversity, climate regulation, and essential role in supporting nearby livelihoods (H​a​r​s​o​n​o​,​ ​2​0​1​2). These ecosystems deliver essential services to local populations, including the preservation of air and water quality, provisioning of both timber and non-timber forest resources, and fostering local fish populations for sustenance (D​o​m​m​a​i​n​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​1​6; H​a​r​r​i​s​o​n​,​ ​2​0​1​3; T​h​o​r​n​t​o​n​,​ ​2​0​1​7). In addition to their role as environmental buffers, peatlands serve as sources of various commodities, such as timber, vegetation, and fauna, including fish and birds (N​o​o​r​,​ ​2​0​1​6). Importantly, forests, particularly peatlands, act as substantial carbon reservoirs, with estimates suggesting that Indonesia's peat carbon stocks range from 13.6 to 57.4 Gt (P​a​g​e​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​1​1; W​a​r​r​e​n​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​1​7). Consequently, peatlands play a pivotal role in mitigating the impacts of climate crises (B​a​r​b​i​e​r​ ​&​ ​B​u​r​g​e​s​s​,​ ​2​0​2​4).

The drainage of peatlands for various economic development endeavors has significant implications for environmental degradation, as it releases the carbon stored within these ecosystems. The destruction of peatlands accounts for 10% of greenhouse gas emissions, with CO2 emissions from dried peat estimated to contribute 1.3 GgCO2 annually, representing 5.6% of worldwide CO2 emissions (I​U​C​N​,​ ​2​0​1​7). Extensive draining of peatlands and recurrent fires are the primary contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrogen oxides (N2O). Forest and land fires, particularly in peatlands, positioned the forestry/land sector as the principal emitter of emissions in Indonesia from 2000 to 2020 (source: https://signsmart.menlhk.go.id/v2.1/app/). Peatland fires not only pose environmental threats but also have profound impacts on health, social, and economic dimensions (H​e​i​n​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​2; K​i​e​l​y​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​1). The short- and medium-term economic benefits of utilizing organic soils or peatlands are currently prioritized over the environmental benefits of their conservation (F​e​r​r​é​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​1​9).

The sustainability of peatland ecosystems highlights the need to prioritize the research question: How is the sustainability of regencies in peatland areas? Various research endeavors focused on the evaluation and assessment of sustainability in peatlands have been conducted, often using a sectoral approach. For instance, studies have explored sustainable development in peat areas for palm oil plantations (R​a​h​m​a​w​a​t​i​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​1​9), the sustainability status of rice farming on peatlands (B​a​r​c​h​i​a​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​1), and peatland management for sustainable agriculture (N​u​r​s​y​a​m​s​i​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​1​5). Moreover, research conducted within a regional context has examined peatland utilization and its impact on changes in land-use functions (H​e​r​m​a​n​n​s​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​1​7), as well as sustainability in the ecological dimension of peatlands (Z​u​l​k​a​r​n​a​i​n​i​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​2). However, few studies have investigated sustainability in peat areas from a regional perspective, particularly at the regency level. Many studies that have measured sustainability have been conducted at the provincial level (A​d​e​t​a​m​a​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3; R​a​h​m​a​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​1​9). Measuring sustainability at the local level, especially in regencies, is still a challenge owing to the complexity of preparing sustainability indicators, complicated methods for measuring sustainability, and lack of resource capacity and data availability at the local level (R​e​n​d​r​a​r​p​o​e​t​r​i​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​4). Given this limitation, it is important to develop an approach that is easy to use and apply to evaluate sustainability at the regency level, especially in peatland areas. The main objective of this study is to evaluate regional sustainability in peatland areas, which can further assist in making more fundamental policy decisions in the future. MDS analysis with the Rapfish algorithm method is easy to use and can be applied to quickly evaluate the sustainability status of regency in peatland areas.

2. Literature Review

Sustainability is a multidimensional concept that includes the economic, social, and environmental aspects that must be considered and integrated (P​o​l​l​e​s​c​h​ ​&​ ​D​a​l​e​,​ ​2​0​1​6). Sustainability evaluation can be developed using a variety of approaches, depending on the objectives, scale, and scope of the study (B​ü​y​ü​k​ö​z​k​a​n​ ​&​ ​K​a​r​a​b​u​l​u​t​,​ ​2​0​1​8). Creating reliable and comprehensive sustainability indicators for peatlands is complex because of the diverse ecosystem services they provide and the different stressors they face (R​y​d​i​n​ ​&​ ​J​e​g​l​u​m​,​ ​2​0​1​0).

In the peatland context, sustainability studies can be found in the sectoral approach. In the agricultural sector, studies show that rice farming has the highest sustainability score in degraded peatlands, followed by oil palm and rubber (S​u​r​a​h​m​a​n​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​1​8). To achieve productive and sustainable land, peatland management should be implemented and integrated with effective water management, soil amelioration, and fertilization (N​u​r​s​y​a​m​s​i​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​1​5). Strategies considered for enabling short-term agricultural utilization of degraded peatlands in a relatively sustainable manner include improvements in soil fertility and suitability for agriculture, infrastructure related to peatland agriculture, institutional capacity, innovation technology and dissemination, farmer knowledge in sustainable peatland agriculture, and plant productivity (Surahman et al., 2019). Unsustainable resource extraction in neotropical peatlands could lead to a high-cost economy (H​i​d​a​l​g​o​ ​P​i​z​a​n​g​o​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​2).

The sustainability index is used to measure the progress of sustainability achieved by a region (R​e​n​d​r​a​r​p​o​e​t​r​i​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​4). The research conducted by R​a​h​m​a​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​ ​(​2​0​1​9​) investigated how economic, social, and environmental factors could be integrated into regional sustainable development indicators using a new composite index. The weighted combinations of economic, social, and environmental aspects provide a balanced perspective that contributes to sustainability. The index could be used as a simple indicator for policymakers, both at the provincial and national levels, to assess the implementation of economic, social, and environmental dimensions of sustainable development in the regions. A​d​e​t​a​m​a​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​ ​(​2​0​2​3​) stated that, in the agricultural sector, conditions vary in terms of sustainability at the provincial level. The existing evaluation of the Business as Usual (BAU) development concept with low carbon shows conditions ranging from less sustainable to quite sustainable in each province. In this study, including a new dimension for sustainability evaluation, it was the low-carbon dimension. Peat decomposition and peat fires are closely related to emissions from peatlands (F​a​w​z​i​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​4). Research on the sustainability of regional development at the local or regency level is rare in Indonesia. Therefore, this study aims to capture the sustainability of development by evaluating sustainability at the regency level, combining the concepts of sustainability with a focus on peatland areas.

3. Methodology

The study area is located in Riau Province. Riau Province is one of the top priority areas for peatland restoration in Indonesia. With an area of approximately 9,026,360 ha, more than half of the Riau Province's area of 4.97 million ha (55.09%) is peatland. It has been mapped to 59 KHG (Peat Hidrological Unit) in 9 regencies: Bengkalis, Siak, Kepulauan Meranti, Kampar, Pelalawan, Indragiri Hulu, Indragiri Hilir, Rokan Hulu, and Rokan Hilir (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Map of study area

This study used the rapid appraisal method along with the Rapfish algorithm to assess the sustainability of sustainable development (P​i​t​c​h​e​r​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​1​3). Rapid Appraisal (Rap) is a multidisciplinary technique used to assess comparative sustainability based on various easily scored attributes (F​a​u​z​i​ ​&​ ​A​n​n​a​,​ ​2​0​0​2). The rapid appraisal method, combined with the Rapfish algorithm, has been utilized in several studies to assess sustainability status across various domains. Examples include evaluating low-carbon sustainability in the rice agriculture sector (A​d​e​t​a​m​a​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3), assessing sustainability in the Bengawan Solo watershed (R​e​n​d​r​a​r​p​o​e​t​r​i​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​4), examining the sustainability of tourism villages (N​u​r​h​a​y​a​t​i​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​1), assessing the status of fisheries sustainability (S​a​i​f​u​l​l​a​h​ ​b​i​n​ ​A​z​i​z​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​4), and analyzing the sustainability of coral reef ecosystems (Y​a​s​i​r​ ​H​a​y​a​ ​&​ ​F​u​j​i​i​,​ ​2​0​2​0). However, there is limited research that specifically examines the sustainability of regional development in peat areas using a Rapfish analysis tool.

3.1 MDS

MDS has been adopted in this study using the Rapfish algorithm with the software R. Utilizing the Rapfish method for sustainability analysis requires specific conditions to ensure accurate measurement, scoring determination, and interpretation of the results (F​a​u​z​i​,​ ​2​0​1​9). This requirement is crucial for minimizing potential errors during the analysis process. Scoring determination in this study draws upon peer review scoring, gray literature, and expert judgment. The sustainability analysis in this study involved several stages (Figure 2). This algorithm arranges units on a spectrum from "bad" to "good" by transforming multidimensional statistics (involving units of analysis with a set of attributes) into lower dimensions while maintaining the "distance" properties between the analyzed cases. The process involves: 1) Identifying attributes for each dimension (economics, social, ecological, institutional, and low-carbon); 2) Assessing each attribute on an ordinal scale based on sustainability criteria for each factor and performing ordination analysis using the MDS method; 3) Compiling the sustainability status of development.

Figure 2. Stages of Rapfish analysis

A score was assigned to each attribute in each dimension to reflect the sustainability conditions of the dimension under examination. The scoring range was established based on the criteria derived from field observations and secondary data analysis. Each dimension encompasses several attributes sourced from the literature, research, and other resources. Each attribute received a score, indicating the sustainability conditions of the dimension under scrutiny. Primary data were derived from peer reviews and expert judgments, while secondary data covering the period from 2015 to 2020 were sourced from the Central Bureau of Statistics of the Republic of Indonesia, the Mangrove and Peatland Restoration Agency of the Republic of Indonesia, the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Indonesia, the Ministry of Environment and Forestry of the Republic of Indonesia, the Nature Conservation Agency of Riau Province, and the Department of Environment and Forestry of Riau Province.

Each attribute was assigned a score representing the sustainable conditions of sustainable development within the studied dimensions. The scoring system adopted the 2013 version of Rapfish scoring, which ranges from 0 to 10 (P​i​t​c​h​e​r​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​1​3). In this study, five dimensions are considered: economics, social, ecological, institutional, and low-carbon, each with particular dimensions and attributes detailed in Table 1.

Table 1. List of dimensions and attributes

Dimension

Attribute

Description

Scoring

Data Sources

References

Economics

GRDP per Capita

The average of GRDP per capita (in thousand Rupiah).

0-2 = ≤ 60,000; 3-4 = 60,001 – 90,000; 5-6 = 90,001 – 120,000; 7-8 = 120,001 – 150,000; 9-10 = ≥ 150,001

Central Bureau of Statistics

L​i​a​n​g​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​ ​(​2​0​1​7​); S​h​i​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​ ​(​2​0​1​9​)

GRDP Growth Rate

The average of GRDP growth rate.

0-2 = ≤ 0; 3-4 = 0.01 – 1.5; 5-6 = 1.51 – 3; 7-8 = 3.01 – 4.5; 9-10 = ≥ 4.51

Central Bureau of Statistics

A​d​e​t​a​m​a​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​ ​(​2​0​2​3​); R​a​h​m​a​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​ ​(​2​0​1​9​)

Unemployment Rate

The average of open unemployment rate.

0-2 = ≤ 8.01; 3-4 = 7.01 – 8; 5-6 = 6.01 – 7; 7-8 = 5.01 – 6; 9-10 = ≥ 5

Central Bureau of Statistics

A​d​e​t​a​m​a​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​ ​(​2​0​2​3​); R​a​h​m​a​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​ ​(​2​0​1​9​)

GRDP in the Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries sector

The average of GRDP in the Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries sector (in thousand Rupiah).

0-2 = ≤ 6,000; 3-4 = 6,001 – 9,000; 5-6 = 9,001 – 12,000; 7-8 = 12,001 – 15,000; 9-10 = ≥ 15,001

Central Bureau of Statistics

A​d​e​t​a​m​a​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​ ​(​2​0​2​3​); H​é​l​y​ ​&​ ​A​n​t​o​n​i​ ​(​2​0​1​9​)

Investment

The average of domestic and foreign investment (PMDN and PMA in billion Rupiah).

0-2 = ≤ 1,000; 3-4 = 1,001 – 2,500; 5-6 = 2,501 – 4,000; 7-8 = 4,001 – 5,500; 9-10 = ≥ 5,500.1

Central Bureau of Statistics

L​i​a​n​g​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​ ​(​2​0​1​7​)

Regional Fiscal Capacity Index (IKFD)

The average of regional fiscal independence index.

0-2 = ≤ 0.5; 3-4 = 0.51 – 1; 5-6 = 1.01 – 1.5; 7-8 = 1.51 – 2; 9-10 = ≥ 2.01

Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Indonesia

B​a​l​y​n​s​k​a​y​a​ ​&​ ​V​a​s​i​l​y​e​v​a​ ​(​2​0​1​7​); L​i​u​t​a​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​ ​(​2​0​1​5​)

Social

Human Development Index (HDI)

The average of Human Development Index (HDI).

0-2 = ≤ 66; 3-4 = 66.01 – 68; 5-6 = 68.01 – 70; 7-8 = 70.01 – 72; 9-10 = ≥ 72.01

Central Bureau of Statistics

A​d​e​t​a​m​a​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​ ​(​2​0​2​3​); R​a​h​m​a​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​ ​(​2​0​1​9​); Z​u​l​k​a​r​n​a​i​n​i​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​ ​(​2​0​2​0​)

Gini Ratio

The average of Gini Ratio.

0-2 = ≥ 0.311; 3-4 = 0.301 – 0.31; 5-6 = 0.291 – 0.30; 7-8 = 0.281 – 0.29; 9-10 = ≤ 0.28

Central Bureau of Statistics

R​a​h​m​a​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​ ​(​2​0​1​9​)

Poverty

The average of poverty percentage.

0-2 = ≥ 15.01; 3-4 = 12.01 – 15; 5-6 = 9.01 – 12; 7-8 = 6.01 – 9; 9-10 = 0 – 6

Central Bureau of Statistics

A​d​e​t​a​m​a​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​ ​(​2​0​2​3​); R​a​h​m​a​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​ ​(​2​0​1​9​)

Population growth rate

The average of population growth rate.

0-2 = ≥ 2.11; 3-4 = 1.41 – 2.1; 5-6 = 0.71 – 1.4; 7-8 = 0.01 – 0.7; 9-10 = 0

Central Bureau of Statistics

A​d​e​t​a​m​a​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​ ​(​2​0​2​3​)

Sufficient sanitation

The average percentage of households with access to adequate sanitation.

0-2 = ≤ 62; 3-4 = 62.01 – 72; 5-6 = 72.01 – 82; 7-8 = 82.01 – 92; 9-10 = ≥ 92.01

Central Bureau of Statistics

R​e​n​d​r​a​r​p​o​e​t​r​i​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​ ​(​2​0​2​4​)

Crime

The average percentage of villages/kelurahan experiencing crime incidents.

0-2 = ≥ 60,01; 3-4 = 50.01 – 60; 5-6 = 40.01 – 50; 7-8 = 30.01 – 40; 9-10 = ≤ 30

Central Bureau of Statistics

S​t​r​e​z​o​v​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​ ​(​2​0​1​7​)

Ecological

Natural disasters

The average percentage of villages/kelurahan experiencing natural disasters.

0-2 = ≥ 50,01; 3-4 = 45.01 – 50; 5-6 = 40.01 – 45; 7-8 = 35.01 – 40; 9-10 = ≤ 35

Central Bureau of Statistics

A​d​e​t​a​m​a​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​ ​(​2​0​2​3​); P​r​a​v​i​t​a​s​a​r​i​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​ ​(​2​0​1​8​)

Environmental Pollution

The average percentage of villages/kelurahan experiencing environmental pollution.

0-2 = ≥ 25,01; 3-4 = 20.01 – 25; 5-6 = 15.01 – 20; 7-8 = 10.01 – 15; 9-10 = 0 – 10

Central Bureau of Statistics

L​i​a​n​g​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​ ​(​2​0​1​7​); S​t​r​e​z​o​v​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​ ​(​2​0​1​7​)

Deforestation

The percentage of gross deforestation.

0-2 = ≥ 10,01; 3-4 = 7.51 – 10; 5-6 = 5.01 – 7.5; 7-8 = 2.51 – 5; 9-10 = 0 – 2.5

Ministry of Environment and Forestry

L​i​a​n​g​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​ ​(​2​0​1​7​)

Biodiversity

The presence of conservation areas, flora, and fauna.

0-2 = No conservation area; 3-4 = 1 – 3 conservation area, a little variation of flora and fauna; 5-6 = 1 – 3 conservation area, more variation of flora and fauna; 7-8 = > 3 conservation area, a little variation of flora and fauna; 9-10 = > 3 conservation area, more variation of flora and fauna.

Nature Conservation Agency of Riau Province

A​d​e​t​a​m​a​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​ ​(​2​0​2​3​); S​t​r​e​z​o​v​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​ ​(​2​0​1​7​)

Waste management

The average percentage of waste management activity in villages/kelurahan.

0-2 = ≤ 5; 3-4 = 5.01 – 7.5; 5-6 = 7.51 – 10; 7-8 = 10.01 – 12.5; 9-10 = ≥ 12.51

Central Bureau of Statistics

L​i​a​n​g​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​ ​(​2​0​1​7​); P​a​o​l​i​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​ ​(​2​0​2​2​)

Critical land

The average percentage of critical land area relative to the total area of the regency.

0-2 = ≥ 50,01; 3-4 = 40.01 – 50; 5-6 = 30.01 – 40; 7-8 = 20.01 – 30; 9-10 = 0 – 20

Central Bureau of Statistics

L​i​a​n​g​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​ ​(​2​0​1​7​); S​t​r​e​z​o​v​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​ ​(​2​0​1​7​)

Institutional

Social forestry

Percentage of villages/kelurahan that have social forestry program.

0-2 = ≤ 1; 3-4 = 1.01 – 2; 5-6 = 2.01 – 3; 7-8 = 3.01 – 4; 9-10 = ≥ 4.01

Central Bureau of Statistics

G​u​n​a​w​a​n​ ​&​ ​A​f​r​i​y​a​n​t​i​ ​(​2​0​1​9​)

Local wisdom related to the Environment

Percentage of villages/kelurahan that have local wisdom relate to environment.

0-2 = ≤ 8; 3-4 = 8.01 – 16; 5-6 = 16.01 – 24; 7-8 = 24.01 – 32; 9-10 = ≥ 32.01

Central Bureau of Statistics

K​a​m​a​l​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​ ​(​2​0​2​3​); O​s​a​w​a​,​ ​(​2​0​2​3)

Environmental Conservation

Percentage of villages/kelurahan that have environmental conservation activity.

0-2 = ≤ 20; 3-4 = 20.01 – 30; 5-6 = 30.01 – 40; 7-8 = 40.01 – 50; 9-10 = ≥ 50.01

Central Bureau of Statistics

S​e​i​f​o​l​l​a​h​i​-​A​g​h​m​i​u​n​i​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​ ​(​2​0​1​9​)

Community participation

Percentage citizen participation on community in villages/kelurahan.

0-2 = ≤ 60; 3-4 = 60.01 – 70; 5-6 = 70.01 – 80; 7-8 = 80.01 – 90; 9-10 = ≥ 90.01

Central Bureau of Statistics

S​y​a​f​r​i​z​a​l​ ​&​ ​R​e​s​d​a​t​i​ ​(​2​0​2​0​)

Peat restoration interventions

Percentage of restoration interventions in villages within Peat Hidrological Unit (KHG).

0-2 = ≤ 10; 3-4 = 10.01 – 20; 5-6 = 20.01 – 30; 7-8 = 30.01 – 40; 9-10 = ≥ 40.01

Mangrove and Peatland Restoration Agency

H​u​m​p​e​n​ö​d​e​r​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​ ​(​2​0​2​0​); L​e​s​t​a​r​i​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​ ​(​2​0​2​3​)

Local regulations related to the environment

Availability of local government regulation about environment.

0-2 = No; 3-4 = Available, but inadequate; 5-6 = Available, but less effective; 7-8 = Effective; 9-10 = Very effective

Department of Environment and Forestry of Riau Province

E​k​a​r​d​t​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​ ​(​2​0​2​0​); L​e​e​s​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​ ​(​2​0​2​3​); R​a​t​a​m​ä​k​i​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​ ​(​2​0​1​9​)

Low-carbon

Peat fires

The average of estimated emissions from peat fires (in GgCO2e).

0-2 = ≥ 13,000.01; 3-4 = 9,000.01 – 13,000; 5-6 = 5,000.01 – 9,000; 7-8 = 1,000.01 – 5,000; 9-10 = ≤ 1,000

Mangrove and Peatland Restoration Agency; Ministry of Environment and Forestry

F​e​b​r​i​a​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​ ​(​2​0​2​1​); R​e​n​g​a​s​a​m​y​ ​&​ ​P​a​r​i​s​h​ ​(​2​0​2​1​); U​d​a​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​ ​(​2​0​1​7​)

Peat decomposition

The average of estimated emissions from peat decomposition (in GgCO2e).

0-2 = ≥ 35,000.01; 3-4 = 25,000.01 – 35,000; 5-6 = 15,000.01 – 25,000; 7-8 = 5,000.01 – 15,000; 9-10 = ≤ 5,000

Mangrove and Peatland Restoration Agency; Ministry of Environment and Forestry

F​a​w​z​i​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​(​2​0​2​4); L​e​n​g​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​ ​(​2​0​1​9​); L​i​u​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​ ​(​2​0​2​0​)

Waste volume

The average of potential waste volume (in tons).

0-2 = ≥ 140,000.01; 3-4 = 100,000.01 – 140,000; 5-6 = 60,000.01 – 100,000; 7-8 = 20,000.01 – 60,000; 9-10 = ≤ 20,000

Department of Environment and Forestry of Riau Province

L​i​a​n​g​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​ ​(​2​0​1​7​)

Groundwater Level Station (TMAT)

The number of groundwater level monitoring stations.

0-2 = ≤ 3; 3-4 = 4 – 6; 5-6 = 7 – 9; 7-8 = 10 – 12; 9-10 = ≥ 13

Mangrove and Peatland Restoration Agency

K​h​o​d​y​k​o​ ​(​2​0​2​0​); O​m​a​r​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​ ​(​2​0​2​2​); W​a​k​h​i​d​ ​(​2​0​1​8​)

Canal blocking

The ratio of canal blocking constructed in villages.

0-2 = ≤ 0.5; 3-4 = 0.51– 2; 5-6 = 2.01 – 3.5; 7-8 = 3.51 – 5; 9-10 = ≥ 5.01

Mangrove and Peatland Restoration Agency

R​i​t​z​e​m​a​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​ ​(​2​0​1​4​)

Adoption of low-carbon technologies

The level of low carbon technology adoption in peatland.

0-2 = No; 3-4 = Few, hard to adopt; 5-6 = Few, easy to adopt; 7-8 = More, hard to adopt; 9-10 = More, easy to adopt

Mangrove and Peatland Restoration Agency; Department of Environment and Forestry of Riau Province

A​d​e​t​a​m​a​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​ ​(​2​0​2​3​)

The calculated scores form the ordination for each dimension. Rapfish assigns scores on a scale of 0 to 100 for each sustainability dimension. The ordination scores obtained from the Rapfish analysis were classified into four categories: unsustainable, less sustainable, moderately sustainable, and sustainable. This categorizes the index value and sustainability status into four categories, as outlined in Table 2.

Table 2. Index value categories and sustainability status (K​a​v​a​n​a​g​h​ ​&​ ​P​i​t​c​h​e​r​,​ ​2​0​0​4)

Index Value

Category

0 – 25

25.01 – 50

50.01 – 75

75.01 – 100

Unsustainable

Less sustainable

Moderately sustainable

Sustainable

3.2 Monte-Carlo Analysis

The goodness of fit indicators for the Rapfish analysis model can be evaluated using Monte-Carlo analysis in the R program. The purpose of this analysis was to identify the sources of diversity errors. Monte-Carlo analysis is a statistical simulation method to evaluate the effects of random error on a process, and to estimate the ‘true’ value of a statistic of interest (Kavanagh et al., 2004). Random errors from computer random number generators are added to the phenomena under test (like a roulette table), and a ‘scatter’ plot and other statistics are generated. The Monte-Carlo graph illustrates that a wider distribution of dots indicates greater disturbance, whereas a narrower distribution suggests a lower disturbance. It is important to note that errors in Rapfish can arise from various factors (F​a​u​z​i​,​ ​2​0​1​9; P​i​t​c​h​e​r​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​1​3), including inaccuracies in determining variable scores, incomplete convergence in MDS, and the possibility that the variables employed may not be suitable for the constructed theme. In this study, the R program was set to a 95% confidence level with 100 iterations.

3.3 Leverage Analysis

The objective of this analysis is to identify the predominant variables and explore any changes in ordination (from bad to good), as each variable is removed individually. This process ensured that the constructed variables accurately represented the themes and dimensions evaluated. Essentially, leverage also serves as a sensitivity analysis, where the length of the bar indicates the extent of influence the variable has on bad-to-good ordination, and the numerical value represents the percentage difference if the variable is excluded from the ordination position. If an attribute's status accurately reflects the status of the unit being assessed, it should contribute equally to the final outcome. In Rapfish, leverage values typically range from 2% to 6%, as determined by the change in Root Mean Square (RMS) (Kavanagh et al., 2004). No one attribute should dominate if a truly multivariate situation exists, and a rough rule of thumb is that the ordination score should not be influenced by more than 8% in any one or two attributes. Sustainability status should be determined by attributes with high leverage values.

4. Results and Discussion

The results of the rapid appraisal analysis utilizing the Rapfish MDS method were conducted in nine regencies on peatland areas in Riau Province. Through this analysis, insights into attributes sensitive to sustainability were gleaned across five dimensions: economic, social, ecological, institutional, and low-carbon. The output encompasses MDS ordination analysis, leverage analysis, Monte-Carlo analysis, and the results of the five dimensions presented through the sustainability kite diagram and radar diagram. The analysis of each dimension is detailed below.

4.1 Economic Dimension

The analysis results on the economic dimension showed a range of diversity, with score values falling between 36.94 and 72.60. The multidimensional ordination of the economic dimension ranges from less sustainable to moderately sustainable (Subgraph (a) of Figure 3). Two regencies, Kepulauan Meranti (36.94) and Bengkalis (44.25), are situated in the red and orange dots, respectively, indicating less sustainable ordination. The remaining seven regencies are positioned as green and blue dots, denoting sustainable ordination levels. These regencies included Indragiri Hulu (52.97), Rokan Hilir (56.62), Rokan Hulu (57.21), Kampar (58.50), Siak (62.17), Pelalawan (71.60), and Indragiri Hilir (72.60).

(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 3. (a) MDS ordination, (b) Monte-Carlo ordination, and (c) Leverage of economic dimension

The subsequent analysis of the economic dimension involves uncertainty analysis using Monte-Carlo analysis of the uniform distribution type with 100 iterations. A Monte-Carlo analysis was conducted to identify the sources of diversity errors. The results of the Monte-Carlo ordination analysis indicated that ordination did not change significantly (Subgraph (b) of Figure 3). The sustainability score for regional development closely resembles the results of the MDS ordination analysis, as evidenced by the proximity of the Monte-Carlo analysis result points to the MDS analysis result points. This suggests minimal errors in attribute score generation, stable repetition processes in the MDS analysis, and few errors in the data input. Furthermore, Monte-Carlo analysis results revealed a spread of units that clustered tightly around the initial score and were dispersed. Notably, in the blue points representing Indragiri Hilir and Pelalawan, the spread accumulated close to the initial score, indicating minimal disruption in these regencies concerning the economic dimension. Conversely, in the red dot representing Kepulauan Meranti, the spread appeared relatively wide from the initial score, signifying a significant disturbance in this regency related to the economic dimension.

In addition to ordination and Monte-Carlo, Rapfish analysis also involves leveraging. Leveraging primarily identifies the dominant attribute that determines ordination. Leveraging calculations assess changes in ordination (from bad to good positions) when individual attributes are excluded. Based on the results of the leverage analysis, four attributes were identified as having nearly equal contributions to determining the sustainability status of regional development regencies on peatland areas, specifically the economic dimension, with scores ranging from 5.58 to 5.88 (refer to subgraph (c) of Figure 3). These attributes include GRDP in the Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries Sectors, unemployment rate, GRDP growth rate, and investment (foreign and domestic investment). Among these, the GRDP attribute of the Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries Sectors emerged as the most influential attribute on economic sustainability ordination, with a score of 5.88. This score indicates the percentage difference if the GRDP attribute of the Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries Sectors is excluded from the ordination position, illustrating that the sustainability ordination position would change by nearly 5.88 percent.

The GRDP generated by the Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries Sector serves as the primary pillar of the regency's economic framework in the peatland area of Riau Province, contributing an average of 23.63% to Riau's overall GRDP. Regencies heavily reliant on primary economic activities include the Indragiri Hulu, Indragiri Hilir, Rokan Hulu, Rokan Hilir, Kampar, and Kepulauan Meranti. In contrast, for Pelalawan and Siak, the agriculture, forestry, and fisheries sectors ranked second in contribution, following the processing and manufacturing sectors. Meanwhile, Bengkalis's economic structure is predominantly shaped by the contribution of the mining sector, particularly in the oil and gas subsectors.

Another significant attribute that influences the ordination of the economic dimension is the unemployment rate. The leveraging analysis revealed a score of 5.715 for the unemployment rate attribute, indicating that its exclusion would result in a 5.715% change in ordination. Across regencies in the peatland area of Riau Province, the average unemployment rate remains below double. Bengkalis exhibits the highest percentage at 9.54%, surpassing the provincial average unemployment rate of 6.66%. Conversely, Indragiri Hulu has the lowest unemployment rate among the regencies, at 4.82%.

The third attribute that influences the leverage of the economic dimension is the growth rate of GRDP. Although the leverage score for the GRDP growth rate attribute differs only slightly from that of the open unemployment rate, with a mere difference of 0.002 points, it underscores the significance of the GRDP growth rate attribute in ensuring economic sustainability. Across regencies in Riau Province during the 2015-2020 period, the average GRDP growth rate was 1.52%, with the highest rates achieved by Rokan Hulu, Indragiri Hilir, and Pelalawan. However, Bengkalis experienced a negative GRDP growth rate, making it the regency with the lowest GRDP growth rate in Riau Province. This decline in GRDP growth in Bengkalis is attributed to its heavy reliance on the oil and gas sector. Thus, diversification of value-added sources is imperative to ensure the sustainability of regional development within the economic dimension.

Investment is another factor that significantly influences economic sustainability. In the leveraging analysis, the investment attribute attained a score of 5.58. Throughout the 2015-2020 period, Riau Province consistently ranked among the top ten provinces in Indonesia in terms of domestic investment (PMDN) and foreign investment (PMA). In 2020, Riau Province secured the 6th position nationally for both PMDN and PMA investments and stood out as the leading province on Sumatra Island, with a total investment value of 49.64 trillion rupiah. The highest realized investment values in Riau Province during the same period were observed in sectors such as food crops, plantations, animal husbandry, chemical and pharmaceutical industries, and the food industry. Investments in the palm oil industry and other plantation sectors, including the rubber and pulp sectors, also played a significant role. Major companies in these sectors are expanding their operations or investing to enhance their production and efficiency. Pelalawan, Bengkalis, and Indragiri Hilir emerged as regencies with the highest average PMDN and PMA realization values in Riau Province from 2015 to 2020, whereas Kepulauan Meranti and Rokan Hilir had the lowest averages. To foster a more conducive and attractive investment climate, local governments must address various aspects, such as regulatory improvements, infrastructure enhancement, the provision of appealing incentives for investors, and more serious attention to environmental and social concerns.

4.2 Social Dimension

The analysis of the social dimension revealed a diverse sustainability status, with two regencies exhibiting a less sustainable status and seven regencies demonstrating a moderate sustainable status (see subgraph (a) of Figure 4). Specifically, Kepulauan Meranti scored 30.18, whereas Rokan Hulu scored 48.96. Conversely, the remaining seven regencies showed a moderately sustainable status, with scores ranging from 55.95 to 71.39. Bengkalis achieved the highest score in the social dimension, with a score of 71.39, classifying it as a sustainable regency in the social dimension.

Error detection for attribute diversity and unit analysis within the social dimension were conducted using the Monte-Carlo method with a uniform distribution type, involving 100 iterations. The results of Monte-Carlo ordination analysis revealed minimal changes in ordination (Subgraph (b) of Figure 4). The sustainability score for the social dimension of regional development closely aligns with the MDS ordination results. This is evident from the close proximity of the Monte-Carlo analysis result points to the MDS analysis result points, indicating few errors in attribute score generation, stable repetition processes in the MDS analysis, and minimal errors in the data input. Notably, in the blue points representing Bengkalis and Siak, the spread accumulated close to the initial score, suggesting minimal disturbance in these units within the social dimension. Conversely, the red dot representing Kepulauan Meranti exhibits a relatively wide spread from the initial score, indicating a significant disturbance in the social dimension within this regency.

Within the social dimension, poverty and the rate of population growth emerged as the two attributes that exerted the most significant influence on sustainability. Poverty stands out as the most influential attribute with a score of 5.90, indicating that the omission of the poverty percentage attribute would result in a 5.90 percent change in the sustainability ordination position (see subgraph (c) of Figure 4). Poverty warrants special attention from the government, given its significant implications for sustainable development, particularly in regency areas. According to the Central Bureau of Statistics data, the average percentage of impoverished individuals in Riau Province from 2015 to 2020 was 7.58%. While this figure remains below the national average of 10.13%, three regencies in Riau Province recorded average poverty percentages exceeding 10%: Kepulauan Meranti (28.99%), Rokan Hulu (10.80%), and Pelalawan (10.31%). Conversely, Siak reported the lowest percentage of impoverished individuals, with an average value of 5.43%. Poverty represents a complex and multidimensional challenge that remains the primary focus of development goals, particularly in regions with peatland areas. The prevalence of poverty, particularly in rural areas, underscores the urgency of poverty alleviation efforts within developmental agendas.

The second attribute that influences the ordination of the social dimension is the rate of population growth. Controlling population growth is crucial for preventing imbalances that can impact welfare. This directly affects the availability of basic facilities, employment opportunities, and other essential infrastructure. Leveraging the population growth rate attribute in this study's social dimension analysis yielded a score of 5.78. This indicates that omitting the population growth rate attribute results in a 5.78 percent change in the sustainability ordination position. Population growth rates vary annually in each regency. On average, Kepulauan Meranti experiences the highest population growth rate, with an average increase of 2.37%, while Indragiri Hilir is the only regency with a negative average population growth rate of -0.85%.

(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 4. (a) MDS ordination, (b) Monte-Carlo ordination, and (c) Leverage of social dimension
4.3 Ecological Dimension

The analysis of the sustainability status of regional development within the ecological dimension revealed a consistent ordination of sustainability status within the same quadrant across all regencies in peatland areas (Subgraph (a) of Figure 5). All regencies are positioned in the less sustainable ordination category, with scores ranging from 27.18 to 47.57. Rokan Hulu attains the lowest sustainability score within the ecological dimension, scoring 27.18, whereas Kepulauan Meranti achieves the highest sustainability score among the regencies, scoring 47.57.

Monte-Carlo analysis revealed a dense distribution around the initial score of the blue dot in the Kepulauan Meranti, suggesting minimal disturbance in this regency within the ecological dimension. Conversely, the red dot representing Rokan Hulu exhibited a relatively wide spread from the initial score, indicating a significant disturbance in the ecological dimension (Subgraph (b) of Figure 5).

Additionally, the results of the leverage analysis revealed that the most influential attribute affecting the ecological dimension was deforestation (Subgraph (c) of Figure 5). Deforestation obtained a score of 5.69, indicating that omitting the deforestation attribute would result in a 5.69 percent change in the sustainability ordination position within the ecological dimension. Changes in forest cover occur because of various factors, such as forest conversion for non-forestry development, deforestation, encroachment, and fire. Analysis of data changes during the 2015-2020 period indicates that the Indragiri Hilir has a notably high deforestation rate, accounting for 29,258.07 hectares, or 15.41% of the deforestation area in Riau Province. Another attribute that influences the ecological dimension is waste management. On average, Siak leads waste processing activities, accounting for 14.89%, followed by Bengkalis at 10.97%, and Pelalawan at 10.17%. Both deforestation and waste management are critical considerations in sustainable development, given their close correlation with peatland management dynamics.

(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 5. (a) MDS ordination, (b) Monte-Carlo ordination, and (c) Leverage of ecological dimension
4.4 Institutional Dimension

In the institutional dimension, sustainability status varies across regencies. Bengkalis attains a score of 77.60, indicating a highly sustainable status within the institutional dimension. Two regencies, Kepulauan Meranti with a score of 71.36, and Siak with a score of 65.33, achieved a moderate sustainable status. Conversely, six regencies fell into the less sustainable score category: Pelalawan (44.05), Rokan Hulu (40.15), Indragiri Hilir (37.12), Kampar (36.12), Indragiri Hulu (30.29), and Rokan Hilir (25.42) (Subgraph (a) of Figure 6).

Monte-Carlo analysis results indicate the spread of units that accumulate tightly and are distributed. In Bengkalis, the blue dot exhibits tightly concentrated scatter around the initial score, suggesting minimal interference in this unit within the institutional dimension. Conversely, the red dot representing Rokan Hulu demonstrates a wider spread from the initial score, indicating a significant disturbance in the institutional dimension (Subgraph (b) of Figure 6).

The environmental preservation attribute has the greatest influence compared to other attributes within the institutional dimension, with a score of 4.95 (Subgraph (c) of Figure 6). Environmental preservation initiatives play a pivotal role in enhancing the sustainability of peatland ecosystems by mitigating the risks of peatland and forest fires, curbing land subsidence and erosion, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and restoring the hydrological functions of peatlands. Kepulauan Meranti leads to environmental preservation activities, with 50.49% of villages engaging in such endeavors. Besides environmental preservation, attributes such as community participation and local wisdom concerning the environment also contribute significantly to the sustainability of the institutional dimension across regencies in peatland areas.

(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 6. (a) MDS ordination, (b) Monte-Carlo ordination, and (c) Leverage of institutional dimension
4.5 Low-Carbon Dimension

In the low-carbon dimension, seven regencies attained less sustainable status, with scores ranging from 32.94 to 49.44. The Indragiri Hilir scored the lowest at 32.94, followed by the Rokan Hilir (38.78), Indragiri Hulu (43.34), Pelalawan (44.66), Rokan Hulu (44.95), Kampar (45.18), and Siak (49.44). Meanwhile, two regencies fell into the category of moderate sustainability: Bengkalis (52.47) and Kepulauan Meranti (64.81) (Subgraph (a) of Figure 7).

The Monte-Carlo analysis results regarding the low-carbon dimension depict a dense distribution around the initial score of the blue dot for the Kepulauan Meranti. This finding suggests minimal interference in this regency concerning the low-carbon dimension. Conversely, the red point representing Indragiri Hilir exhibits a wide spread from the initial score, indicating a significant disturbance in the low-carbon dimension (Subgraph (b) of Figure 7).

Within a low-carbon context, the utilization of peat fires stands out as the most influential factor in determining regional development sustainability, surpassing other attributes. With a score of 6.16, the peat fire attribute is the most influential factor in sustainability ordination, signifying that its elimination would result in a 6.16 percent alteration in the position of low-carbon sustainability (Subgraph (c) of Figure 7). The emissions stemming from peat fires constitute the primary source of emissions in the forestry sector (https://signsmart.menlhk.go.id/v2.1/app/). Other attributes that influence the low-carbon dimension are the groundwater level station (5.57) and peat decomposition (5.30). These two factors are also linked to the emission levels from activities on peatland. The notion of green economy advancement is closely linked to the low-carbon dimension, given that one of the fundamental principles of a green economy is the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

Green and low-carbon economic development serves as a foundation for sustainable development in Indonesia, striving to strike a balance between economic, social, and environmental progress through efforts to minimize greenhouse gas emissions and reduce the exploitation of natural resources. This initiative aligns with Indonesia's pledge to curtail emissions by 2030, aiming for a reduction of 31.89% with domestic resources and 43.20% with international support to enhance the nationally determined contribution (ENDC).

(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 7. (a) MDS ordination, (b) Monte-Carlo ordination, and (c) Leverage of low-carbon dimension
4.6 Multi-Dimensional Analysis

The multi-dimensional analysis results encompass the economic, social, ecological, institutional, and low-carbon dimensions. In the economic dimension, most regencies fall into the moderate sustainable category, with two regencies classified as less sustainable. Similarly, in the social dimension, the majority of regencies also exhibited moderate sustainable, with two regencies categorized as less sustainable. However, in the ecological dimension, all regencies were classified as less sustainable. In terms of the institutional dimension, sustainability status varies, with some regencies showing moderate sustainable, others less sustainable, and the remainder categorized as sustainable. Regarding the low-carbon dimension, most regencies have a less sustainable status, with some even being moderate sustainable. A summary of the sustainability status is presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Sustainability status of each regency by dimension

Regency

Sustainability Status

Economics

Social

Ecological

Institutional

Low-Carbon

Indragiri Hulu

Moderate

Moderate

Less

Less

Less

Indragiri Hilir

Moderate

Moderate

Less

Less

Less

Pelalawan

Moderate

Moderate

Less

Less

Less

Siak

Moderate

Moderate

Less

Moderate

Less

Kampar

Moderate

Moderate

Less

Less

Less

Rokan Hulu

Moderate

Less

Less

Less

Less

Bengkalis

Less

Moderate

Less

Sustain

Moderate

Rokan Hilir

Moderate

Moderate

Less

Less

Less

Kepulauan Meranti

Less

Less

Less

Moderate

Moderate

The sustainability analysis also generated radar and kite diagrams illustrating the interplay between the five dimensions (economic, social, ecological, institutional, and low-carbon) and the sustainability status of the nine regencies. In the radar diagram, the sustainability dimensions in each regency are depicted by their distance from the radar core, with deeper positions indicating a poorer sustainability status (Subgraph (a) of Figure 8). Across the economic and social dimensions, regencies are predominantly situated in the less sustainable and moderately sustainable quadrants, with a dominant distribution in the moderately sustainable category. In contrast, all regencies fell within the less sustainable quadrant in the ecological dimension. The institutional and low-carbon dimensions exhibit more varied distributions, with the dominant trend leaning towards a less sustainable status, except for Bengkalis, which falls within sustainable in the institutional dimension. The kite diagram reveals that the scores for the ecological and low-carbon dimensions are closer to the core, indicating a poorer sustainability status compared to other dimensions. Notably, only one regency demonstrated a sustainable condition in the institutional dimension (Subgraph (b) of Figure 8). In the ecological dimension, all regencies exhibit a less sustainable status, despite Riau Province's commitment to implementing green and low-carbon economic development paradigms. Consequently, there is a crucial need for further analysis of ecological and environmental risks, along with their governance strategies, particularly at the local level in peatland areas.

(a)
(b)
Figure 8. (a) Radar diagram of sustainability and (b) Kite diagram of sustainability

The results show that sustainability status in the regional context of peatland areas varies between less sustainable, moderate, and sustainable. The economic and social dimensions show better conditions than the ecological, institutional, and low-carbon dimensions. The use of the low-carbon dimension in sustainability evaluation supports the study conducted by A​d​e​t​a​m​a​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​ ​(​2​0​2​3​), where separating the low-carbon dimension from the ecological dimension provides a specific picture of the leverage factors affecting sustainability in the low-carbon dimension. One paradigm that supports sustainable development is low-carbon development. This study provides an overview of the different focuses of efforts to improve sustainability dimension scores in each regency in peatland areas. However, overall improvements are required in the ecological, institutional, and low-carbon dimensions.

These findings can provide recommendations to decision makers on how to plan sustainable regional development in peatland areas. The priority should be to improve sustainability in the dimensions with lower scores while maintaining the dimensions that are already more sustainable. This study can be replicated in contexts and areas with similar characteristics. One limitation of this study was the incomplete years of analysis due to data limitations. Further verification is needed regarding the estimated emissions from peat fires and peat decomposition to minimize potential bias in the conclusions.

5. Conclusions

The findings from the study utilizing the rapid appraisal method with the Rapfish algorithm underscore the unsustainable condition of development in regency in peatland areas in Riau Province. Sustainability status across dimensions varies from less to moderately sustainable in each regency, with only one regency demonstrating sustainable in the institutional dimension. The economic dimension, characterized by attributes such as GRDP for the agriculture, forestry, and fisheries sectors, unemployment, GRDP rate, and investment, has emerged as particularly sensitive and influential on regency development in peat areas. Similarly, the social (poverty and population growth), ecological (deforestation and waste management), institutional (environmental preservation, community participation, and local wisdom), and low-carbon (peat fire and groundwater level stations) dimensions play significant roles. Omitting these attributes could have adverse effects on sustainability status. Failure to address multidimensional sustainability considerations could hinder anticipated development outcomes. Therefore, governments must implement innovative policies for sustainable development, such as transitioning to green and low-carbon economic models. This is essential for reconciling the trade-off between economic growth and environmental conservation, particularly in high-risk peatland areas.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.P.F. and A.F.; methodology, A.P.F. & A.F.; software, A.P.F. & A.F.; validation, A.F., B.J., and E.R.; data curation, A.P.F. & A.F.; writing—original draft preparation, A.P.F; writing—review and editing, A.P.F., A.F., B.J., and E.R.; supervision, A.F., B.J., and E.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Data Availability

The data used to support the research findings are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
Adetama, D. S., Fauzi, A., Juanda, B., & Hakim, D. B. (2023). Evaluasi pembangunan berkelanjutan dengan rendah karbon pada sektor pertanian padi. Tataloka, 25(1), 50–69. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Balynskaya, N. R. & Vasilyeva, A. G. (2017). Fiscal capacity of the city: The assessment of the influence on the sustainability of urban environment and the quality of living (the case of «second» cities of the Russian Federation). R-Econ., 3(2), 112–119. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Barbier, E. B. & Burgess, J. C. (2024). Economics of peatlands conservation, restoration and sustainable management. SSRN Electron. J., 1–50. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Barchia, M. F., Ishak, A., Utama, S. P., & Novanda, R. R. (2021). Sustainability status of paddy cultivation on marginal peat soils in Indonesia. Bulg. J. Agric. Sci., 27(7), 259–270. [Google Scholar]
Büyüközkan, G. & Karabulut, Y. (2018). Sustainability performance evaluation: Literature review and future directions. J. Environ. Manag., 217, 253–267. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Dommain, R., Dittrich, I., Giesen, W., Joosten, H., Rais, D. S., Silvius, M., & Wibisono, I. T. C. (2016). Ecosystem services, degradation and restoration of peat swamps in the south east asian tropics. In Peatland Restoration and Ecosystem Services: Science, Policy and Practice. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Ekardt, F., Jacobs, B., Stubenrauch, J., & Garske, B. (2020). Peatland governance: The problem of depicting in sustainability governance, regulatory law, and economic instruments. Land, 9(3), 83. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Fauzi, A. (2019). Teknik Analisis Keberlanjutan. Jakarta: PT Gramedia Pustaka Utama. [Google Scholar]
Fauzi, A. (2021). Analisis Risiko dan Keberlanjutan Lingkungan. Tangerang Selatan: Universitas Terbuka. [Google Scholar]
Fauzi, A. & Anna, S. (2002). Evaluasi status keberlanjutan pembangunan perikanan: Aplikasi Pendekatan Rapfish (studi kasus perairan pesisir dki jakarta). J. Pesisir Lautan Indones. J. Coastal Mar. Res., 4(3), 43–55. [Google Scholar]
Fawzi, N. I., Nabillah, R., Suwardi, Mulyanto, B., & Palunggono, H. B. (2024). Progress towards adopting low-carbon agriculture on peatlands for sustainable development in Indonesia. IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci., 1313(1), 012036. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Febria, D., Fithriyana, R., Isnaeni, L. M. A., Librianty, N., & Irfan, A. (2021). Interaction between environment, economy, society and health in the concept of environmental health: Studies on peatland communities. Open Access Maced. J. Med. Sci., 9, 919–923. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Ferré, M., Muller, A., Leifeld, J., Bader, C., Müller, M., Engel, S., & Wichmann, S. (2019). Sustainable management of cultivated peatlands in Switzerland: Insights, challenges, and opportunities. Land Use Policy, 87, 104019. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Gore, C. (2015). The post-2015 moment: Towards sustainable development goals and a new global development paradigm. J. Int. Dev., 27, 717–732. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Gunawan, H. & Afriyanti, D. (2019). Potensi perhutanan sosial dalam meningkatkan partisipasi masyarakat dalam restorasi gambut. J. Ilmu Kehutanan, 13(2), 227. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Harrison, M. E. (2013). Using conceptual models to understand ecosystem function and impacts of human activities in tropical peat-swamp forests. Wetlands, 33(2), 257–267. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Harsono, S. S. (2012). Mitigasi dan adaptasi kondisi lahan gambut di Indonesia dengan sistem pertanian berkelanjutan. Wacana: J. Ilmu Sos. Transformatif, 27(XIV), 11–37. [Google Scholar]
Hein, L., Spadaro, J. V., Ostro, B., Hammer, M., Sumarga, E., Salmayenti, R., Boer, R., Tata, H., Atmoko, D., & Castañeda, J. (2022). The health impacts of Indonesian peatland fires. Environ. Health, 21(1). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Hély, V. & Antoni, J. (2019). Combining indicators for decision making in planning issues: A theoretical approach to perform sustainability assessment. Sustain. Cities Soc, 44, 844–854. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Hermanns, T., Helming, K., König, H. J., Schmidt, K., Li, Q., & Faust, H. (2017). Sustainability impact assessment of peatland-use scenarios: Confronting land use supply with demand. Ecosyst. Serv., 26, 365–376. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Hidalgo Pizango, C. G., Honorio Coronado, E. N., del Águila-Pasquel, J., et al. (2022). Sustainable palm fruit harvesting as a pathway to conserve Amazon peatland forests. Nat. Sustain., 5(6), 479–487. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Humpenöder, F., Karstens, K., Lotze-Campen, H., Leifeld, J., Menichetti, L., Barthelmes, A., & Popp, A. (2020). Peatland protection and restoration are key for climate change mitigation. Environ. Res. Lett., 15(10), 104093. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
IUCN. (2017). Peatland and climate change. https://www.iucn-uk-peatlandprogramme.org/sites/default/files/header-images/171107%20Peatlands%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf [Google Scholar]
Joosten, H. (2015). Peatlands, climate change mitigationand biodiversity conservation. Peatlands, climate change mitigationand biodiversity conservation. Nord. Co-Op., 14. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Kamal, M. A., Utomo, M. R., Hakim, M. L., Qurbani, I. D., & Ikram, A. D. (2023). Peatland management based on local wisdom through rural governance improvement and agroindustry. Int. J. Environ. Sustain. Soc. Sci., 4(3), 774–787. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Kavanagh, P. & Pitcher, T. J. (2004). Implementing microsoft excel software for Rapfish: A technique for the rapid appraisal of fisheries status. Fish. Cent. Res. Rep, 12(2). [Google Scholar]
Khodyko, D. (2020). Sustainable water use: Spatioregional potential and limitations for the economy of Ukraine. Econ. Ann. XXI, 181(1–2), 68–82. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Kiely, L., Spracklen, D. V., Arnold, S. R., Papargyropoulou, E., Conibear, L., Wiedinmyer, C., Knote, C., & Adrianto, H. A. (2021). Assessing costs of Indonesian fires and the benefits of restoring peatland. Nat. Commun., 12(1). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Lees, K. J., Carmenta, R., Condliffe, I., Gray, A., Marquis, L., & Lenton, T. M. (2023). Protecting peatlands requires understanding stakeholder perceptions and relational values: A case study of peatlands in the Yorkshire Dales. Ambio, 52(7), 1282–1296. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Leng, L. Y., Ahmed, O. H., & Jalloh, M. B. (2019). Brief review on climate change and tropical peatlands. Geosci. Front., 10(2), 373–380. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Lestari, N. S., Rochmayanto, Y., Salminah, M., Novita, N., Asyhari, A., Gangga, A., Ritonga, R., Yeo, S., & Albar, I. (2023). Opportunities and risk management of peat restoration in Indonesia: lessons learned from peat restoration actors. Restor. Ecol., 32(1). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Liang, X., Si, D., & Zhang, X. (2017). Regional sustainable development analysis based on information entropy-Sichuan Province as an example. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 14(10), 1219. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Liu, Y., Wang, M., & Feng, C. (2020). Inequalities of China’s regional low-carbon development. J. Environ. Manag., 274, 111042. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Liuta, O., Pihul, N., & Kubakh, T. (2015). Financial capacity of local budget as a basis for sustainable functioning of a territory. Econ. Ann. XXI, 1(1), 78–81. [Google Scholar]
Noor, M. (2016). Lahan Gambut, Pengembangan, Konservasi dan Perubahan Iklim. Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada University Press. [Google Scholar]
Nurhayati, Y., Pudjihardjo, P., Susilo, S., & Ekawaty, M. (2021). The status of tourism village sustainability in Indonesia: Multidimensional scaling Rapfish approach. Int. J. Soc. Sci. Res., 3(1), 20–33. [Google Scholar]
Nursyamsi, D., Noor, M., & Maftu’ah, E. (2015). Peatland management for sustainable agriculture. In Tropical Peatland Ecosystems (pp. 493–511). Springer Tokyo. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Omar, M. S., Ifandi, E., Sukri, R. S., Kalaitzidis, S., Christanis, K., Lai, D. T. C., Bashir, S., & Tsikouras, B. (2022). Peatlands in Southeast Asia: A comprehensive geological review. Earth-Sci. Rev., 232, 104149. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Osawa, T. (2023). Rethinking the local wisdom approach in peatland restoration through the case of Rantau Baru: A critical inquiry to the present-day concept of Kearifan Lokal. Local Gov. Peatland Restor. Riau Indones., 119–145. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Page, S. E., Rieley, J. O., & Banks, C. J. (2011). Global and regional importance of the tropical peatland carbon pool. Glob. Change Biol., 17(2), 798–818. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Paoli, R., Feofilovs, M., Kamenders, A., & Romagnoli, F. (2022). Peat production for horticultural use in the Latvian context: sustainability assessment through LCA modeling. J. Clean. Prod., 378, 134559. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Pitcher, T. J., Lam, M. E., Ainsworth, C., Martindale, A., Nakamura, K., Perry, R. I., & Ward, T. (2013). Improvements to Rapfish: A rapid evaluation technique for fisheries integrating ecological and human dimensionsa. J. Fish Biol., 83(4), 865–889. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Plummer, R. (2005). A review of sustainable development implementation through local action from an ecosystem management perspective. J. Rural Trop. Public Health, 40, 33–40. [Google Scholar]
Pollesch, N. L. & Dale, V. H. (2016). Normalization in sustainability assessment: Methods and implications. Ecol. Econ., 130, 195–208. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Pravitasari, E. A., Rustiadi, E., Mulya, P. S., & Fuadina, N. L. (2018). Developing regional sustainability index as a new approach for evaluating sustainability performance in Indonesia. Environ. Ecol. Res., 6(3), 157–168. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Rahma, H., Fauzi, A., Juanda, B., & Widjojanto, B. (2019). Development of a composite measure of regional sustainable development in Indonesia. Sustainability, 11(20), 5861. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Rahmawati, R., Syekhfani, Nihayati, E., & Prijono, S. (2019). Sustainable peatland management: A case study of peatland development for oil palm plantation in East Kotawaringin Regency, Indonesia. AES Bioflux, 11(1), 1–18. [Google Scholar]
Ratamäki, O., Jokinen, P., Albrecht, E., & Belinskij, A. (2019). Framing the peat: The political ecology of finnish mire policies and law. Mires Peat, 24, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Rendrarpoetri, B. L., Rustiadi, E., Fauzi, A., & Pravitasari, A. E. (2024). Sustainability assessment of the upstream bengawan solo watershed in Wonogiri Regency, Central Java Province, Indonesia. Sustainability, 16(5), 1982. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Rengasamy, N. & Parish, F. (2021). Sustainable peatland management focusing on community-based peatland rehabilitation in Malaysia. Trop. Peatland Eco-Manag., 651–662. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Ríos-Osorio, L. A., Cruz-Barreiro, I. C., & Welsh-Rodríguez, C. M. (2013). The concept of sustainable development from an ecosystem perspective: history, evolution, and epistemology. In WIT Transactions on State of the Art in Science and Engineering (pp. 29–45). WIT Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Ritzema, H., Limin, S., Kusin, K., Jauhiainen, J., & Wösten, H. (2014). Canal blocking strategies for hydrological restoration of degraded tropical peatlands in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Catena, 114, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Rydin, H. & Jeglum, J. K. (2010). The Biology of Peatlands. Oxford Academic. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Saifullah bin Aziz, M., Mondol, M. M. R., Alam, M., Haque, M. M., & Islam, S. R. (2024). Underpinning the criteria for the sustainability assessment of Hakaluki Haor using the RAPFISH tool. Fisheries Research, 278, 107080. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Seifollahi-Aghmiuni, S., Nockrach, M., & Kalantari, Z. (2019). The potential of wetlands in achieving the sustainable development goals of the 2030 Agenda. Water, 11(3), 609. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Shi, Y., Ge, X., Yuan, X., Wang, Q., Kellett, J., Li, F., & Ba, K. (2019). An integrated indicator system and evaluation model for regional sustainable development. Sustainability, 11(7), 2183. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Strezov, V., Evans, A., & Evans, T. J. (2017). Assessment of the economic, social and environmental dimensions of the indicators for sustainable development. Sustain. Dev., 25(3), 242–253. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Surahman, A., Soni, P., & Shivakoti, G. P. (2017). Are peatland farming systems sustainable? Case study on assessing existing farming systems in the peatland of Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. J. Integr. Environ. Sci., 15(1), 1–19. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Surahman, A., Soni, P., & Shivakoti, G. P. (2018). Improving strategies for sustainability of short-term agricultural utilization on degraded peatlands in Central Kalimantan. Environ. Dev. Sustain., 21(3), 1369–1389. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Syafrizal, S. & Resdati, R. (2020). Partisipasi masyarakat dalam restorasi gambutdi desa rimbo panjang. J. Educ. Humaniora Soc. Sci., 3(2), 712–720. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Thornton, S. A. (2017). (Un)tangling the net, tackling the scales and learning to fish: An interdisciplinary study in Indonesian Borneo. Environ. Sci. Biol. Geogr. Educ., 352. [Google Scholar]
Uda, S. K., Hein, L., & Sumarga, E. (2017). Towards sustainable management of Indonesian tropical peatlands. Wetl. Ecol. Manag., 25(6), 683–701. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Wakhid, N. (2018). Dekomposisi Gambut Terkait Perubahan Lahan di Indonesia. 14(2), 122–127. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Warren, M., Hergoualc’h, K., Kauffman, J. B., Murdiyarso, D., & Kolka, R. (2017). An appraisal of Indonesia’s immense peat carbon stock using national peatland maps: Uncertainties and potential losses from conversion. Carbon Balance Manag., 12(2017). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Yasir Haya, L. O. M. & Fujii, M. (2020). Assessment of coral reef ecosystem status in the Pangkajene and Kepulauan Regency, Spermonde Archipelago, Indonesia, using the rapid appraisal for fisheries and the analytic hierarchy process. Marine Policy, 118. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Zhang, X., Schumann, M., Gao, Y., Foggin, J. M., Wang, S., & Joosten, H. (2016). Restoration of high-altitude peatlands on the Ruoergai Plateau (Northeastern Tibetan Plateau, China). In Peatland Restoration and Ecosystem Services (pp. 234–252). Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Zulkarnaini, Meiwanda, G., Lubis, E. E., Nasution, M. S., & Habibie, D. K. (2020). Peatland Management Based on Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). J. Phys.: Conf. Ser., 1655, 012142. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Zulkarnaini, Z., Sujianto, S., & Wawan, W. (2022). Short communication: Sustainability of ecological dimension in peatland management in the Giam Siak Kecil Bukit Batu Landscape, Riau, Indonesia. Biodiversitas J. Biol. Divers., 23(4), 1822–1827. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

Cite this:
APA Style
IEEE Style
BibTex Style
MLA Style
Chicago Style
GB-T-7714-2015
Fahly, A. P., Fauzi, A., Juanda, B., & Rustiadi, E. (2024). Sustainability Evaluation of Regency Development in Peatland Areas of Riau Province, Indonesia. Chall. Sustain., 12(2), 102-121. https://doi.org/10.56578/cis120202
A. P. Fahly, A. Fauzi, B. Juanda, and E. Rustiadi, "Sustainability Evaluation of Regency Development in Peatland Areas of Riau Province, Indonesia," Chall. Sustain., vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 102-121, 2024. https://doi.org/10.56578/cis120202
@research-article{Fahly2024SustainabilityEO,
title={Sustainability Evaluation of Regency Development in Peatland Areas of Riau Province, Indonesia},
author={Ardika Perdana Fahly and Akhmad Fauzi and Bambang Juanda and Ernan Rustiadi},
journal={Challenges in Sustainability},
year={2024},
page={102-121},
doi={https://doi.org/10.56578/cis120202}
}
Ardika Perdana Fahly, et al. "Sustainability Evaluation of Regency Development in Peatland Areas of Riau Province, Indonesia." Challenges in Sustainability, v 12, pp 102-121. doi: https://doi.org/10.56578/cis120202
Ardika Perdana Fahly, Akhmad Fauzi, Bambang Juanda and Ernan Rustiadi. "Sustainability Evaluation of Regency Development in Peatland Areas of Riau Province, Indonesia." Challenges in Sustainability, 12, (2024): 102-121. doi: https://doi.org/10.56578/cis120202
FAHLY A P, FAUZI A, JUANDA B, et al. Sustainability Evaluation of Regency Development in Peatland Areas of Riau Province, Indonesia[J]. Challenges in Sustainability, 2024, 12(2): 102-121. https://doi.org/10.56578/cis120202
cc
©2024 by the author(s). Published by Acadlore Publishing Services Limited, Hong Kong. This article is available for free download and can be reused and cited, provided that the original published version is credited, under the CC BY 4.0 license.