1. Introduction
Indonesia has a total peatland area of approximately 13.4 million hectares (equivalent to 80% of the total peatland in Southeast Asia). Tropical peatlands play a role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and help control increasing global temperatures. Peatland restoration and protection in Indonesia has a significant impact on mitigating climate change [
1]. Indonesia has the largest peatland area among tropical countries, spread mainly in Kalimantan, Sumatra, and Papua. The most extensive peatland in Indonesia is in Sumatra. On the Sumatran islands, peatlands are generally found along the east coast in the areas of Riau, South Sumatra, Jambi, North Sumatra, and Lampung [
2]. South Sumatra has the second-largest peatland ecosystem area, after Riau Province. Particularly, the Ogan Komering Ilir (OKI) Regency in South Sumatra has the largest peatland, covering 769 thousand hectares. Unfortunately, the South Sumatran peatland ecosystem currently requires comprehensive restoration efforts. Based on these conditions, the South Sumatran Province was included as a priority province for peatland restoration [
3].
Peatlands in Sumatra are under intense pressure from both legal and illegal parties. Land fires, illegal logging and conversion to plantation crops are one of them. On the other hand, peatlands are ecologically valuable and very sensitive to disturbance and therefore peatland use policies must be changed to ensure optimization of peatlands [
1,
4] Tens of millions of rural households in Indonesia, especially in South Sumatra, derive their income from managing and harvesting peatland [
1,
2]. Thus, peatlands contribute significantly to human welfare. However, the magnitude of the contribution of peatlands to people’s welfare is often not well understood or appreciated, which can consequently lead to overexploitation. Efforts employed to exploit peatlands to meet human needs often neglect sustainability. Several studies have identified issues related to peatland mismanagement, including land use, law enforcement, community capacity, economic rent-seeking, exploitation of forest products (wood and non-wood), and climate change [
1,
4,
5,
6].
Peatland exploitation has led to many conflicts in Indonesia that have resulted in various negative technical, ecological, economic, social, and cultural impacts, such as (1) peatland fires due to misuse, carelessness, and neglect, and even intentional fires; (2) dry peatlands due to canal digging and planting nonpeatland-friendly plants; (3) damage to peatlands; (4) decreased productivity leading to negative economic impacts; (5) loss of livelihoods; and (6) decreased income [
2,
4,
5,
7]. Loss of livelihood and decreased income because of mismanagement of peatlands are crucial issues [
6,
8,
9]. Various strategies have been proposed to address these issues [
1,
8,
10,
11].
However, while studies have been conducted on the livelihoods and income generation of farmers in peatlands, the problems of loss of livelihood options and decreased incomes have not yet been addressed. This is because of several reasons, such as ambiguity of policies, limited understanding of the impacts on ecosystems and the economy, unclear causes of the loss of livelihoods and decreased income, and uncertainty surrounding the economic and institutional responses of communities on peatlands. Additionally, various policy proposals are occasionally not based on a cost-benefit analysis of the specific actions to be taken to solve problems and their causes [
6,
12,
13].
Moreover, the various proposed strategies will not be successful without the participation of all the involved stakeholders, such as the government, companies, nongovernmental organizations, universities, conservation groups, local communities, and research institutions. These stakeholders collaborate to develop plans that consider the needs and varied values of the community, and also particularly for preserving crucial wildlife habitats and species [
14,
15]. The Indonesia Peatland and Mangrove Restoration Agency (BRGM), with its 3R program (rewetting, revegetation, and revitalization of livelihood), provides great hope for the success of peat restoration in Indonesia. Managing the conservation and sustainable utilization of peat ecosystems in an equitable way, alongside the rehabilitation and mitigation of harmed peatlands, the BRGM launched the 2020–2049 National Peat Ecosystem Protection and Management Plan. The BRGM provides new directions for area restoration and the restoration of peatland hydrological functions affected by forest and land fires, in a specific, systematic, directed, integrated, and comprehensive manner, including improving the livelihoods of people in and/or around peatlands. During the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of Parties (COP) 22 held in Marrakech, Morocco, from 8 to 16 November 2016, BRGM affirmed that the revitalization of livelihoods in peatland areas and their surroundings could be achieved through the development of paludiculture farming systems, agroforestry, fisheries, and ecotourism. These sectors indeed represent key avenues for the sustainable development of livelihoods in areas where peatlands have been restored. Additionally, the harvesting of nontimber forest products (NTFPs) from regenerated or restored peat swamp forests could be further integrated into these efforts. On World Peatlands Day, that is 2 June 2022, Indonesia also signed the Venice Agreement, a commitment to act locally to conserve peatlands across the world [
14,
15,
16,
17,
18].
Examining peatlands is also crucial to tackle social and economic concerns, including how local communities access and utilize natural resources for their livelihoods. Previous research assessed peatland management effects for both the greenhouse gas balance and the livelihoods of local communities. The majority of research found that the peatland management strategies can offer various environmental, technological, social, and economic benefits [
7,
16,
17,
19,
20,
21]. Some barriers that were also faced in implementing peatland management include a lack of expertise, technical skills, awareness among stakeholders, financial assets, institutional barriers, lack of training, and benefit cost information [
6,
11,
16,
17,
19,
20].
Peatlands have historically provided livelihoods for local communities through agricultural cultivation and fisheries and are carried out based on local culture. The transition of existing ways of life is still challenging because communities tend to resist change and favor maintaining the current status, which may include engaging in activities such as illegal logging, and relying on fire for cultivation, hunting, and fishing. The indigenous communities are engaged in extractive means of livelihood focused on economic gains, driven by the necessity to sustain themselves financially, exacerbated by the absence of viable, sustainable alternatives. Convincing these communities to shift towards new livelihoods remains challenging due to the scarcity of options that can rival their current economic activities. Securing additional funding is imperative to bolster the restoration program and introduce more promising sustainable livelihood alternatives within peatland areas [
21,
22,
23].
Improving the lives of people in peatland areas by improving their livelihoods must be preceded by an understanding of the various alternative livelihoods that already exist in the community. Information on these alternatives is important not only for developing new business opportunities but also for understanding both the needs of people who conduct business in and/or around a peatland area and the impact of changes in the ecosystem. Some studies [
11,
16,
24] have indicated that to restore peatlands, the livelihoods of communities should be improved; nonetheless, gaps exist in understanding the relationship between restoring peatlands and ensuring sufficient income for a community’s needs. The constrained availability of potential commodities and markets stemming from livelihood alternatives poses obstacles to enhancing livelihoods through the restoration program [
15,
22,
23]. While the concept and application of livelihood alternatives have been introduced through various initiatives, expanding their scale and commercial viability requires further dedication and resources. Additional research is crucial to support the restoration program and to provide sustainable livelihood options in peatland areas. Thus, to address these issues, further research is needed to provide an overview and validate the various alternative contributions that peatlands make to community livelihoods and the various dimensions of human well-being in restored peatlands.
1.1. Research Objectives
Accordingly, this study aimed to provide a better understanding of the dimensions of community life in peatlands to allow for effective and efficient community revitalization policies. The specific objectives of the study were to (1) analyze various alternative livelihoods that already exist in a peatland community and (2) analyze scenarios for creating livelihoods and increasing people’s income through changes in peatland ecosystem management and peatland restoration programs.
1.2. Research Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1 (H1). Various alternative livelihoods that already exist in a peatland community, such as buffalo farming, Gulo Puan, salted fish, smoked fish, and Purun woven crafts, are feasible financially.
Hypothesis 2 (H2). Scenarios for creating livelihoods and increasing people’s income through changes in peatland ecosystem management and peatland restoration programs are developing, such as Sonor rice without burning, agrosilvofishery, and paludiculture are feasible financially.
1.3. Significance of the Study
This study is of great importance to local communities, policymakers, regional planners, and stakeholders involved in peatland restoration efforts. It emphasizes the necessity of integrating diversification into peatland restoration initiatives, echoing the sentiments of livelihood diversification in the field. Additionally, it adds value to the existing literature by offering a nuanced understanding of peatland livelihoods, including their endeavors, achievements, and limitations, which can inform effective policymaking. By shedding light on the economic rationale behind alternative livelihoods in peatlands and presenting compelling evidence regarding their economic benefits and cost-effectiveness, the research provides valuable insights for policymakers and planners. Importantly, this research contributes forward-looking perspectives by identifying best practices, identifying gaps, and highlighting barriers in current livelihood alternatives, offering invaluable guidance for strategies aimed at revitalizing livelihoods.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Research Framework
One of the mandates of the Indonesia Peatland and Mangrove Restoration Organization (BRGM), built up by the Indonesian Government in 2016, was to renew the livelihoods of individuals living in communities that are subordinate to peatlands. This remains generally unmet owing to the complexity of the issue, the lack of knowledge about the rewetting preparation, and contradictions among partners with differing needs and objectives [
25,
26]. The primary focus of peatland restoration activities is the peatland community. At the field level, the indigenous people play a crucial role in ensuring the continuity and success of restoration efforts even after the peatland program is completed. To strike a balance between peatland restoration and existing livelihoods, new livelihood opportunities are necessary to enhance community income. In summary, peatland restoration aims to involve local communities, especially indigenous people, and create sustainable livelihoods while restoring degraded peatland ecosystems. The success of restoration efforts hinges on empowering these communities and addressing their economic needs [
1,
15,
27,
28].
To address the restoration impacts, it is acknowledged that livelihoods must shift towards more sustainable alternatives. Various options, such as paludiculture, agroforestry, and aquaculture, have been suggested, yet they still lack appeal compared to the prevailing dryland choices. Despite restoration efforts, there has not been a notable shift away from these lucrative but environmentally harmful options [
8,
25].
Peatlands play a crucial role in supporting the daily needs of people in many villages, including those in Indonesia, where they provide natural resources for fisheries, agriculture, plantations, and forestry. However, utilizing peatlands comes with several challenges, such as fire risk, soil acidity, inundation, low fertility, and limited suitable species choices. To address these challenges and promote sustainable livelihoods, researchers have been exploring innovative approaches. Sustainable livelihoods in peatland require a delicate balance between environmental conservation and community well-being. By developing innovative technologies and promoting responsible practices, we can simultaneously restore peatlands and improve the quality of life for those who depend on them [
1,
16,
29].
Figure 1 presents the framework for guiding the progress of this study and achieving the target output. To achieve sustainable livelihoods, the creation of new livelihoods—as a form of business diversification—is considered a positive strategy that can increase resilience, support asset development, and reduce poverty, while maintaining local natural resources [
30,
31,
32]. New livelihoods can increase the income and profits of peatland households with minimal capital. With only limited income possible from small plots, farmers and their families need to fulfill their household needs from other income sources; hence, there is an opportunity to create alternative livelihoods [
1,
33].
Livelihood activities can be divided into two major parts: (1) those that are already being conducted and (2) opportunities for creating new livelihood activities. Economic activities conducted by a household can lead to the achievement of peatland-restoration-friendly livelihoods in every region (according to spatial) and in a short, medium, and long time (according to time), as summarized in
Figure 1.
2.2. Study Sites
This study used a survey method conducted in South Sumatra Province’s OKI District, one of the four priority peat-restoration districts in the province. OKI covers five peatland hydrological areas (KHG), covering an area of 1,108,483.41 ha. The locations and areas of the five KHGs are shown in
Figure 2, and their names and study areas are listed in
Table 1. We selected three KHGs for sampling: (1) Sungai Sugihan–Sungai Lumpur, (2) Sungai Sibumbung–Sungai Batok, and (3) Sungai Saleh–Sungai Sugihan, based on variations in natural resources (including peatlands) and diversity of community livelihoods.
2.3. Sampling Method
Sampling was conducted using cluster sampling with three sampling stages, as follows:
In each KHG, subdistrict and village clusters were determined based on the main livelihoods of the population, such as food crop farming (rice and horticulture), plantation crops (rubber and oil palm), forest production, livestock farming (swamp buffalo, cows/goats, and chickens/ducks), fishery (cultivation and capture), home industry/small processing industry, and services.
From each subdistrict and village cluster, two sample villages representing the characteristics of the cluster were selected. We selected six villages from three KHGs.
KHG Sungai Sibumbung–Sungai Batok in Pampangan Subdistrict: Ulak Kemang and Pulau Layang villages.
KHG Sungai Saleh–Sungai Sugihan in Pangkalan Lampam Subdistrict: Perigi and Bukit Batu villages.
KHG Sungai Sugihan–Sungai Lumpur in Air Sugihan Subdistrict: Kerta Mukti and Bandar Jaya villages.
Stratified random sampling was conducted in each village based on the land scale (paddy farming, agrosilvofishery, and paludiculture), number of livestock, number of business units (fisheries), amount of production (timber and nontimber forest products), and asset tenure (processing industry). The number of sampled households was adjusted for each population. For households whose main livelihood was outside the village area (for example, wood and nontimber forest products), sampling was conducted in their domicile area, not at their work location. In this study, the spatial mobility of the population was considered in relation to the impact of livelihoods on the peat ecosystem. From each village, we selected 50 sample households, and the total number of respondents was 300.
2.4. Data Collection
Data were collected in the following three ways:
We selected six villages from the three KHGs using field observations to collect data directly, wherein the researcher directly observed the sample characteristics being studied from a research object using instruments that have been designed for the particular task. We observed the respondents’ activities related to their livelihoods.
- (a)
KHG Sungai Sibumbung–Sungai Batok in Pampangan Subdistrict: Ulak Kemang Village was the smoked and salted fish sample location, and Pulau Layang villages were the buffalo sample locations.
- (b)
KHG Sungai Saleh–Sungai Sugihan in Pangkalan Lampam Subdistrict: Perigi as the paludiculture and agrosilvofishery sample locations, and Bukit Batu villages as the Purun Woven sample locations.
- (c)
KHG Sungai Sugihan–Sungai Lumpur in Air Sugihan Subdistrict: Kerta Mukti and Bandar Jaya villages as Sonor rice with and without burning sample locations.
Interviews (structured, in-depth) were conducted to obtain an in-depth understanding of the variations in livelihoods in each sample location. To simplify the interviews, we provided a list of structured and comprehensive questions in the form of a questionnaire on livelihoods.
A focus group discussion was conducted with 8–12 participants, led by a moderator in every village. The initial discussion began with questions from the moderator about economically valuable activities conducted on peatlands, which were then responded to and discussed by the participants. In this case, the moderator played an important role in producing useful discussions within a certain amount of time. Discussions were also held in a relaxed manner, so that participants could express their opinions and ideas without pressure.
2.5. Data Analysis
Benefit-cost analysis was used to assess household income data for various livelihood activities. The types of costs to be considered were as follows [
31,
34,
35]:
Investment costs (IC): These are generally large and long-lasting (e.g., machinery, buildings, land, cages, ponds, preparing land, blocking canals, and canal channels).
Operational costs (OC): These costs are of raw materials, seeds, fertilizers, fuels, pesticides, and labor. The operational costs are divided into fixed and variable costs.
Total cost (TC): This is the sum of IC and OC.
A benefit is the amount received from the sale of goods and services and is calculated by multiplying the quantity of goods sold by the unit price. The net benefit is the difference between revenue and total costs. The net benefit is a cash flow element that can be used as a model to analyze aspects of financial feasibility.
where
IC: Investment cost
OC: Operational cost
P: Price
Q: Quantity
Various investment criteria were developed to find a comprehensive measure as a basis for livelihood benefit and net-benefit:
NPV is the difference between the total present value of benefits and the total present value of costs, or the total present value of additional net benefits during the business period. A business can be declared feasible if its benefits are far greater than its costs. The criteria for measuring investment feasibility according to the NPV are divided into three categories: (1) when the NPV is greater than zero, the business is declared financially feasible and can therefore be implemented, (2) when the NPV value is equal to zero, the business is still neutral where the investment project is only sufficient to cover the costs without providing additional profits. In this situation, further evaluation needs to be carried out with investors to assess whether continuing the investment plan is still feasible or not, and (3) when the NPV is less than zero, the business is not worth running because the profits are lower than the costs. NPV can be calculated using the following formula:
where
NPV: Net present value
(B)t: Benefit/Cash inflows in year t
(C)t: Cost/Cash outflows in year t
t: Project economics year
i: Rate of return
- 2.
Internal rate of return (IRR)
The feasibility of a business can also be assessed based on how much the business returns on the investment by measuring the IRR, which is the discount rate that produces an NPV of zero. A business is considered feasible if its IRR value is greater than the opportunity cost of capital.
IRR can be calculated based on the interpolation between a lower discount rate (resulting in a positive NPV) and a higher discount rate (resulting in a negative NPV) according to the following formula:
where
IRR: Internal rate of return
NPV1: Net present value is positive
NPV2: Net present value is negative
i1: Discount rate that results in NPV+
i2: Discount rate that results in NPV−
- 3.
Gross benefit-cost ratio
The gross benefit-cost ratio (gross B/C) is the ratio between profits from a business and the costs incurred. A business can be considered profitable if it has a gross B/C value of more than 1, implying that every unit of cost produces a profit of more than one unit. If the gross B/C result is equal to 1, then the business has no profit or loss; however, if the gross B/C result is less than 1, the business is not profitable or not worth running.
where
Gross B/C: Gross benefit cost ratio
(PV)B: Current benefit value
(PV)C: Present value of costs
Cost-benefit analysis requires determining the discount rate and the economic life scale of the business being developed. (1) The discount rate is used to assess the feasibility of an investment. Using an appropriate discount rate, an investor or company can calculate the present value of the expected cash flows from an investment in the future. This helps in deciding whether an investment is suitable. The discount rate used in this research was 6%, which follows the credit interest rate for small and medium-sized businesses in Indonesia. (2) The economic life scale of a business is determined based on (1) the plant age that cultivated it or (2) the age of the investment item.
Considering that there are many types of livelihood activities with different economic scales, to compare each livelihood activity, we used the B-C criteria. The B-C criteria are not sensitive to project scale, but the IRR and NPV are sensitive to project scale [
31,
35]. The gross B-C criterion is an efficiency index that is calculated as the NPV. The difference is that NPV is the deviation between B and C, and gross B-C is the ratio of B and C. Thus, if a project has costs and benefits that are twice as large as those of another project, then the NPV will be twice as large, but the gross B-C will not change. In other words, the gross B-C value is not sensitive to project scale, while the NPV is sensitive to project scale. Based on this explanation, we used gross B-C to compare each activity [
34,
35].
4. Discussion
Loss of livelihoods and decreased income because of degraded peatlands are crucial issues that must be resolved to ensure sustainable use and reduce the risk of further degradation [
6,
8]. Although many studies have been conducted on the livelihoods and income generation of farmers in peatlands, little progress has been made in addressing the problems of loss of livelihoods and decreased incomes [
6,
8,
9,
10,
13]. Based on the results of an analysis of a sequence of community livelihoods in peatlands, existing sources of livelihood (forestry, agriculture, fisheries, livestock, and others) should be continuously examined, and new sources of livelihood that can be developed in peatlands should also be determined.
Several studies in the peatland areas of South Sumatra have shown a large dependence of rural households on work in the agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and livestock sectors. The income contribution of the agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and livestock sectors is approximately 40–65% of the total income of rural households in the peatlands of South Sumatra [
5,
7,
40,
43,
59]. In OKI, the contribution to income from the agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and livestock sectors ranges from 40.18% to 56.92% which is similar to [
75]. We cannot advocate for peatland restoration when it is still people’s main source of income. It will be important to think about how to provide a stable income for people who depend on peatlands for their livelihoods while preventing further degradation in peatlands. Based on [
60] research, there is potential for swamp land development to support the food estates program. Thus, peatlands provide opportunities to improve the livelihoods of people around them.
It is important to note also that threats to the livelihoods of local people accelerate the degradation of peatlands that use traditional Sonor cultivation [
62,
63]. The most effective way to halt this traditional way is to provide income alternatives to shifting cultivation. Therefore, firstly, we could consider the various income sources as Sonor cultivation alternatives. Secondly, even if the expected short-term income is not very high, the environmental benefits in the long term make it worthwhile to consider income alternatives such as agroforestry that can be implemented gradually.
4.1. Alternatives to Increase People’s Income
Buffalo farming, fisheries (salted and smoked fish), and Purun products have shown great potential as income alternatives for farmers. They have B-C ratio not only greater than 1, but also higher than Sonor rice, making them suitable for alternative income. Purun can also be considered as an alternative source of income.
The large population of swamp buffaloes could be considered to be superior commodities from peatlands in OKI. Swamp buffalo is a profitable business, but it has often experienced problems. Maintenance and management methods by communities are still traditional and suboptimal. This can be reflected in the low growth and milk production (body weight gain of less than 0.3 kg/day with milk production of less than 3 L/day), as well as the long calving intervals [
42,
44].
Catching and raising fish are also important aspects of livelihood in OKI, South Sumatra. Abundant swamp fish that are not consumed in the form of fresh fish are processed into salted and smoked fish. Smoking and salting are the oldest fish processing methods that use simple techniques without specialized packaging [
48]. Processed fish products are in high demand in the global market [
47,
49,
50,
51]. However, to increase the competitiveness of locally processed smoked and dried salted fish, a fish processing industry based on automation is necessary that can control quality and processing [
48,
76].
Purun is produced by several artisanal families scattered across various areas of OKI [
60,
61]. To increase the added value of Purun, a “green” product label is considerable. Consumers are willing to pay 30% more to address environmental issues [
54,
56], so the development of environmentally friendly products can translate into income for residents.
While we have found these alternative sources of income to be economically feasible and reflect the characteristics of the OKI region, the production process is traditional and requires the development of technologies to increase productivity and create added value, as well as the establishment of efficient management systems and markets.
4.2. Alternative Income for Sustainable Use of Peatlands
This study aims to provide models for the sustainable use of peatlands. Firstly, the results of the B/C analysis of rice cultivation with burning and without burning were compared. Second, agrosilvofishery and paludiculture models were analyzed, which can be used for peatland conservation and sustainable use.
In the case of rice farming using Sonor burning, labor can be saved, and peatlands can be cleared cost-effectively, but the cost of applying agricultural technology without burning is approximately twice as high. Although produced with technology 1.8 times more, the higher cost resulted in a lower B/C. More cost-effective technologies need to be developed.
There is also a need for seed improvement to increase productivity. Farmers need to maximize land productivity using superior rice seeds that are suitable for cultivation in Lebak swamplands. It is necessary to utilize the findings that the rice seed types Inpari-42, Inpari-43, Inpari IR Nutri Zinc, Inpari-8, Inpari-9, Inpari-10, and IR 42 are good for cultivation in Lebak land [
60,
61] and to develop varieties that are resilient to changes in peatland water levels and resilient to climate change.
This study focused also on B/C analysis of agrosilvofishery and paludiculture as alternative economic models with a focus on sustainability. This research proves that the paludiculture model is financially proven to obtain the highest B/C value compared to other livelihood opportunities. These economic models guarantee the availability of community income from peatlands throughout the year [
62]. Being able to design a model to generate a steady income all year round is a huge advantage for low-income peatland-dependent farmers. Although the value of B/C analysis is not as high as that of swamp buffalo farming, these models are significant in terms of peatland conservation and restoration. Apart from being financially profitable, agrosilvofishery and paludiculture have a positive environmental impact, namely, by reducing emissions from degraded peatland and the risk of peatland fires related to previous research [
65,
73,
74,
75,
76].
4.3. Implications and Limitations
The outcome of this study suggests alternatives to increase people’s income through buffalo farming, Gulo Puan, processed fish, woven Purun products, Sonor rice farming without burning, and other potential income for sustainable use of peatland such as agrosilvofishery and paludiculture. By continuing to explore ways to use peatlands sustainably, peatland management can optimize productivity, minimize negative environmental impacts, and contribute to sustainable agriculture in Indonesia [
7,
21]. People who use peatlands for their livelihoods should be made aware of the various sources of income and supported to recognize and experience that sustainable practices can lead to more sustainable incomes [
16,
28].
This research proves that the development of mixed farming (such as paludiculture and agrosilvofishery) can potentially enrich the peatland restoration efforts and help the peatland communities transition to fully restored peatland, compared to other livelihood opportunities The production of diversified commodities from mixed farming systems is a characteristic of traditional farming that has been practiced for generations and has been proven through this research to provide the potential for significant economic returns to the population. In the context of food and livelihood security, smallholder farmers can implement mixed farming systems in peatland to minimize risk, provide various sources of income and ensure food security throughout the year. Adaptive agroforestry and adaptive paludiculture may help to reconcile improving livelihoods with peatland restoration.
Some of the livelihood projects linked with peatland restoration have challenges to achieve their intended goal of facilitating the shift towards more sustainable land-based livelihoods. One of the reasons for this lack of adoption is that many respondents are not accustomed to livelihoods based on peatlands, as they have traditionally relied on fishing and limited shifting agriculture on nonpeatland soils. Moreover, the new technologies introduced through these initiatives usually originate from external sources, resulting in the community being more passive recipients rather than active drivers of change. Additionally, the requirement for community members to work in groups contradicts their preferred individualistic approach, although local farmer institutions and groups can assist individuals in overcoming this obstacle through training, provision of information, offering incentives, and providing credit services.
Local residents cite several factors that restrict them from cultivating crops, fishery livestock, etc., including limited market access, price instability, transportation challenges, and the requirement for substantial investment. Hence, enhancing transportation networks, communication systems, and financial services for alternative agricultural products could facilitate a shift [
8,
25]. Conversely, it has been verified that converting degraded peatland areas into ‘more sustainable’ agricultural zones can enhance food self-sufficiency, thereby bolstering food security for local populations [
36].
Additionally, there are methods to enhance the commercial value of horticultural produce; for instance, processing techniques such as fish drying, standardization of products, and effective packaging can augment product worth and broaden marketing prospects. Alternative land uses that are ‘peatland-friendly’ include agroforestry and sustainable forestry. Furthermore, peatland restoration efforts can generate employment, promote the recovery of fisheries and nontimber forest products, and offer opportunities for ecotourism. However, the appropriateness of each alternative livelihood approach is likely to vary depending on the physical and socioeconomic conditions unique to each community. Therefore, a participatory approach involving the engagement of local communities and other stakeholders is imperative. This approach should consider the needs and aspirations of local inhabitants, the characteristics of the ecosystem, as well as the availability of resources and markets [
16,
36].
Promoting collaborative efforts and creating additional opportunities for community involvement in sustainable peatland management are essential strategies to ensure the success of livelihood programs. Among stakeholders, the local community residing near degraded peatlands plays a key role in the extensive process of peatland restoration. Providing incentives for the development of promising livelihoods and products within peatlands can motivate communities to actively engage in restoration efforts. Furthermore, establishing multistakeholder partnerships in peatland restoration initiatives holds promise for enhancing public awareness and encouraging collective action towards exploring sustainable livelihood options in peatlands.
This study has a limitation in that environmental benefits were not included in the B/C analysis of alternative income sources. Therefore, future studies should extend the range of environmental benefits, calculating them quantitatively.
5. Conclusions
The dominant livelihood of communities in the OKI peatlands is farming. Several alternative livelihoods that are financially profitable include salted and smoked fish processing, Purun processing, rice farming, buffalo farming, paludiculture, and agrosilvofishery. All of these livelihoods are still pursued in a conventional pattern, indicating that there are opportunities for development through technological improvements, product diversification, packaging, and marketing efficiency, which can add value to the results of previous studies.
The B/C achievement of agrosilvofishery and paludiculture was greater than that of the other alternatives. Agrosilvofishery and paludiculture provide alternative economic models that can be developed for peatlands, providing short-, medium-, and long-term incomes for communities. Although the B-C value produced is not as high as that of buffalo farming, this economic model guarantees the availability of community income on peatlands throughout the year. Apart from being profitable from an economic perspective, agrosilvofishery and paludiculture have a positive environmental impact, by reducing emissions from peatland decomposition and the risk of peatland fires.
The optimization of livelihoods must be conducted through guidance and technical assistance, both formal and informal, to increase the productivity of livelihoods that have been conducted for generations. Formal institutions are further required to support alternative livelihoods through partnerships with governments, companies, and research institutions. Further, market development must be conducted to ensure market certainty for the products produced by such partnerships to increase household income and welfare.
The results of this study can contribute to policymaking that fully considers the role of peat resources in rural livelihoods, and the various dynamics that drive changes in livelihoods and income generation.