Input–output modeling reveals agricultural transition priorities across sixteen farming sectors in Indonesia, highlighting that supply-chain footprints exceed direct emissions by over twofold.
This study develops an integrated environmental assessment and accounting framework to support policy decisions on a low-carbon and labour-sensitive agricultural transition in Indonesia. Rather than treating decarbonisation as an emissions-only ranking exercise, the framework combines sustainability appraisal, sectoral environmental accounting, and robustness diagnostics. Using the 2022 industry-by-industry multiregional input–output (MRIO) table from EXIOBASE 3.10.1, the study evaluates sixteen Indonesian primary agricultural, livestock, fisheries, and aquaculture sectors through five analytical layers: sector validation and caution flags; direct Socio-Environmental Structure-Scale-Risk (SE-SSR) indicators; environmentally extended multiregional input–output (EE-MRIO) footprint simulation; probabilistic and deterministic robustness tests; and rule-based transition classification. The results identify cultivation of vegetables, fruit, and nuts; cultivation of oil seeds; fishing and aquaculture; and cultivation of paddy rice as core robust priorities, although they represent different transition pathways. Poultry farming emerges as a footprint-mediated employment opportunity rather than a core robust priority, while caution-flagged sectors require additional validation before policy use. The mean supply-chain footprint for the selected greenhouse gases, expressed in carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), is 2.195 times the corresponding direct greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions, demonstrating that upstream supply-chain pressures materially affect sector priorities. The findings show that transition priorities cannot be defined by emissions performance alone, but require joint assessment of labour relevance, supply-chain effects, robustness, and data quality. The framework provides a policy-oriented typology for transition screening and socially inclusive agricultural management.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sari et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: