*4.4. Q3. How Do Returnees Reintegrate and Modify Land Use, Gender Norms, and Culture of the Areas from Which They Originated?*

There is a tendency that migrants who have failed may find other land uses or urban labor elsewhere, rather than returning home. For those who succeed, these land-based migrants may return home if arable land still exists, as in the case of the West Java study. The migrants, returning or not, will continue supporting the home villages by building a mosque or supporting other social infrastructure development, such as building schools or daycare centers.

In the case of South Sulawesi, the migrant farmers continued exploring other regions to gain more land. In current circumstances, there is very little forest area left that is accessible to migrants. Most of the accessible land is already owned by local communities or is in areas in which conflict between companies, governments, and communities has already emerged. Acquiring land requires contracts with (and payments to) the native or migrant communities who have access (de facto and/or de jure). The actions of land brokers and the migration process grew rapidly, spreading to areas where ample land was available with less population density and less strict local institutions. Simbune Village in Kolaka District firmly rejected migrants. The village head stated that a ban on selling land to new settlers was strictly implemented. It was proven to be the case by the lead researcher of this study, who visited the village in 2014. All land was still controlled by residents.

Ruf [44] analyzed the effects of cocoa development on migration. The model of migration for the development of cocoa plantations was mostly adopted by Bugis migrants and several other groups. Various methods were used to facilitate migrants in obtaining land for cocoa plantations, especially for those who had limited capital. The systems included informal "forest rent" payments to forest authorities, share-cropping, and patron–client relationships. This situation strengthened migrant desire to gain more land in other areas, when they felt to have failed in migrating a previous time or when they needed to expand their livelihood.

#### *4.5. Interactions with Development Policies?*

Overall, our analysis suggests that positive aspects in both areas of origin and receiving areas may prevail, with the exchange of knowledge between areas of different land-use intensities spreading agroforestry practices. The latter may well be more effective than the routes through formal knowledge and extension and in some cases is combined with tree germplasm exchange. Feminization of agriculture through preferentially male-based migration is not common in Indonesia but age-based consequences are common, in both urban (or overseas) migration and dispersal to areas of lower population density.

Costs and benefits of social capital in the context of rural–urban migration are organized by gender [45]. Opportunities for urban jobs tend to be gender-specific, with higher perceived success for unmarried women to work in the export factories of West Java so as to remit money to their natal

households and, at the same time, gather experience of modernity, has had consequences for the young men that stayed behind [46].

Spontaneous and organized population movements have long been used as a means of promoting a country's goals of development and national integration. At the local level, on the other hand, these movements have frequently done the opposite, fueling local grievances, sharpening group distinctions, and at times creating "sons-of-the-soil" conflicts [47]. In different policy phases associated with environmental governance in Lampung in Indonesia, migrants were defined initially as pioneer entrepreneurs, bringing progress to Indonesia's hinterland but, subsequently, as forest squatters, threatening the cultural and ecological integrity of the province [41]. Rural migrants attempted to resolve their problematic positioning through multi-local livelihoods, which combine access to non-local income through temporary migration with the maintenance of a foothold that signals belonging and legitimate entitlement to state resources.

Migrants coming from more densely populated areas with more intensive agriculture bring know-how and customs that can be new to the areas where they settle but also differ from government regulations. In an irrigation-based Balinese migrant society in Sulawesi, the traditional ("subak") institutions for water management linked to synchronized cropping cycles clashed with the state-regulated water users' association that separated technical water management from the wider scope of subak. Adjustment of perceived property rights to land, water, and irrigation infrastructure was feasible within a transmigration setting but conflicts persist where farmers of different ethnic and religious backgrounds farm close together [48].

Bilocality—in which an individual will spend part of the year in a rural area and the other in an urban area—is increasingly common in Central Java, addressing lack of income in rural areas. It generates remittances but also contributes in limited ways to the commonly anticipated rural development outcomes [49].

A review of the literature on remittances [50] concluded that land use as a driver of migration, livelihood strategies, and the use of remittances in investment in land use need to be studied more coherently than has commonly been the case. Financial remittances are only part of the way relationships are maintained, as may be clear from our case studies.

#### **5. Conclusions**

Synthesizing across two case studies in Indonesia, we focused on five aspects of (circular) migration.

(1) The conditions within the community of origin that encourage people to migrate are diverse. Most of the decision making to migrate is linked to natural resource and land competition and emergencies, such as natural disasters or increased human conflict. However, decisions are facilitated by networks that take over existing social obligations within the community.

(2) The effect of migration on land use and livelihoods in the areas of origin mean extensification or lowering of the labor/land ratio. Feminization of agriculture, as reported elsewhere, appears to be less common in the study areas. There are differences in decision making between women with migrating and non-migrating spouses but not in managing tree-based systems.

(3) The changes in the receiving community and its environment generally imply intensification. A new way of managing more efficient farming systems was commonly found in both study areas. Absorption of new labor as follow-on migration through expansion of the agricultural area encourages the existence of new jobs as a land broker owing to increases in land renting and buying.

(4) Migrants return with different levels of external success. People coming back with success may help to rebuild the village and its agricultural system and could invest in social capital (mosques, healthcare, schools). Some who have failed may find other land uses or urban labor options elsewhere.

(5) The interaction of migrants with the government and other stakeholders concerning development policies is largely implicit. Government programs on rural and agricultural development often support migrants in the initial phases of migration with the technical know-how of new commodities or farming systems that migrants practice in the origin areas. The development of good

transportation infrastructure allows successful farmers to easily manage agricultural land in both the origin and target areas. Overall, circular migration facilitates the exchange of know-how within the broader Indonesian agroforestry traditions of rural land use on the forest margins, with substantial reliance on economically important tree crops.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, E.M., B.L., M.v.N.; methodology, E.M., B.L.; formal analysis, E.M., B.L.; investigation, E.M.; writing—original draft preparation, E.M., B.L., M.v.N.; writing—review and editing, E.M., B.L., M.v.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research was funded by World Agroforestry (ICRAF) as part of its Indonesia program.

**Acknowledgments:** We acknowledge the willingness of all interviewed respondents in sharing their experience, context, and considerations.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders and authorities involved had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.
