VOL. 8, NO.

12, DECEMBER 2013 ISSN 1990-6145

ARPN Journal of Agricultural and Biological Science
©2006-2013 Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN). All rights reserved.

www.arpnjournals.com

THE COMBINATION OF LAND RESOURCE EVALUATION APPROACH

AND GIS APPLICATION TO DETERMINE PRIME COMMODITIES FOR
AGRICULTURAL LAND USE PLANNING AT DEVELOPED AREA
(A CASE STUDY OF CENTRAL KALIMANTAN
PROVINCE, INDONESIA)
Andy Bhermana1, Bambang Hendro Sunarminto1, Sri Nuryani Hidayah Utami1 and Totok Gunawan2
1
Faculty of Agriculture, Gadjah Mada University, Indonesia
2
Faculty of Geography, Gadjah Mada University, Indonesia
E-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT
Land use planning based on land resource evaluation and spatial orientation of planning as part of GIS may
ensures appropriate land allocation in order to achieve sustainable agriculture. The combination of some land resource
evaluation can provide final results on rational land allocation and land utilization based on land capability and suitability.
Land capability evaluation (LCE) and land suitability evaluation (LSE) approach rooted from USDA and FAO was used in
this study to allocated arable land as agricultural developed areas and determine prime commodities spatially. The principle
of limiting condition was used for LCE to define land class and determine land availability for agriculture. While, for LSE,
procedure of matching between land quality/characteristics and crop requirement will be scored according to limitation
method and class criteria of land suitability in order to define the most suitable crop considered as prime commodity. The
objective of this study was to determine prime commodities at developed areas on the basis of information of land
resources at regional scale of 250, 000. With GIS application, the result of evaluation were then integrated into spatial
information as basic consideration for agricultural land use planning and further spatial analysis for agricultural land
allocation as well. This study was conducted in Central Kalimantan province with total areas of 15, 451, 287 hectares in
order to support policy of Indonesian Government for agricultural development especially for spatial agricultural land use
planning. The results of this studies showed that based on LCE approach, almost 61.94% of total areas (9, 571, 231
hectares) is arable land indicating that lands geographicaly have an opportunity to be developed. While based on LSE
approach and GIS application, there are 3 (three) prime commodities including their geographical distribution pattern that
suitable to be developed in Central Kalimantan involving wetland rubber (7, 355, 390 hectares), rice (2, 141, 539 hectares),
and oil palm (1, 722, 806 hectares). Appropriate programs in the scoupe of land use planning can then be formulated to
support agricultural development at certain areas.

Keywords: land use planning, land resource, land evaluation, GIS, Central Kalimantan province.

INTRODUCTION increasing the income of the people. By the end of 2012,

Not all the lands can be used optimally for the current land use showed that the lands that have been
agricultural development. Sustainable agriculture can be utilized for agricultural purposes such as food crop,
attained only when proper land utilization is practiced. horticulture, and estate is only 2.848.905 hectares or
When the land is utilized improperly, productivity rapidly 18,44% of total area of Central Kalimantan. The other is
decreases and the ecosystems become jeopardized. In an mainly covered by forest with total areas 12, 602, 382
agricultural land region, determination of the most suitable hectares (81, 56%). At regional province level, by
commodity can then be considered as an effort to achieve implementing the policy of agricultural extensification,
sustainable agriculture based on its land resources. In the Central Kalimantan still has great opportunity to be
scoupe of sustainable agriculture, proper land use ensure developed.
people obtaining benefit from nature during lifetime and The need for land resources evaluation as part of
also ensure the resources can be used for future generation land use planning become apparent when the region has an
(Amien, 1998). In addition, the future productivity and opportunity to be developed and decisions on land use
profitability of farming would depend increasingly on have always been part of the evolution of human society.
measures taken from now on to conserve resources and By assessing land resources for alternative uses relative to
protect the environment (Schaller, 1993). the land - related requirements or goals of society, it
The policy of Indonesian Government for should be possible to identify certain areas which are
agricultural development has been implemented through strategically important for particular activities (Flaherty
intensification and diversification of agriculture as well as and Smit, 1982). In order to achieve sustainable
extensification of lands. In Central Kalimantan province, agriculture through proper land use, determination of
known as one of three largest provinces in Indonesia, prime agricultural commodity on the basis of land
agriculture plays a very important role especially in suitability can then be considered as initial step toward at
economic development and has also become a key area in developed areas. Spatial concepts for land use planning

771
 VOL. 8, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2013 ISSN 1990-6145
ARPN Journal of Agricultural and Biological Science
©2006-2013 Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN). All rights reserved.

www.arpnjournals.com

involving land allocation for agriculture can then be GIS application, the result of evaluation were then
planned and performed accuratelly. It can then support integrated into spatial information as basic consideration
regional development policy and common agricultural for agricultural land use planning and further spatial
policy (Alexiadis et al., 2013). analysis for agricultural land allocation as well. The
Planning is underpinned by the assumption that location selected for this case of study is Central
adequate information exists for those exercising public Kalimantan province, Indonesia with total areas of 15,
authority to make decisions regarding the best use of land 451, 287 hectares (Figure-1).
in the future (Flaherty and Smit, 1982) and it is concerned
with the rational allocation of resources and with the MATERIALS AND METHODS
resolution of conflicts between competing land uses Land resources evaluation as main component for
(Selman, 1982). Moreover, it must be based on an land use planning process was conducted on the basis of
understanding of both the natural environment and kinds information at reconnaissance level with scale of 250, 000.
of land use envisaged (FAO, 1976). The function of land This level refers to guidelines provided by Indonesian
use planning for agricultural purposes is therefore to guide Government Regulation No. 100/2000 about mapping
decisions on land use in such way that the resources of scales for spatial land use planning. The relevant
environment are put to the most beneficial use, while at information considered as basic data involves land (soil)
the same time conserving those resources for the future. resources and climatic data. Specifically, these includes
The evaluation of land resources can be land system maps, soil maps, agroclimatic map, peatland
considered as a basic tool for land use planning (Arshad, distribution map, countour map and other relevant data
1999 and Abdullah, 1993) and the assessment of land such as land quality/characteristic data and crop
potentialities for agriculture purposes should be primarily requirements for some selected crops.
based, not only on the appreciation of the important part Land resources evaluation approach as main
which soil plays in plant growth (anchorage, storage of methods used in this study consist primarily of land
water and nutrients) but on a much wider basis, the capability evaluation (LCE) and land suitability evaluation
ecological approach (Kowal, 1978). In addition, land (LSE). The LCE approach was used in order to determine
management system and quality of land resource need to arable land considered as developed areas and non-arable
be evaluated in the term of productivity and sustainability land based on land capability classification. The methods
as well (Latham, 1994). It can therefore be summarized of LCE approach refer to land capability classification
that land evaluation is a vital link in the chain leading to proposed by USDA in which class I to IV, lands can still
sustainable management of land resources (FAO, 2007). be utilized for agricultural purposes, while for class V to
Initially, the basic concepts of land evaluation VIII, the lands are unsuited to cultivation (Panhalkar,
refer to “Land Evaluation Framework” proposed by FAO 2011; USDA, 1973). Soil information provided by land
1976. However, the guidelines of the Framework were mapping units involving slope classes, erossion, drainage,
then further developed in diverse publications for specific soil effective depth, texture, rock outcrop, and flooding
kinds of land uses such as irrigated agriculture, forestry, were then evaluated referring to criteria for land capability
rain fed farming and applied in many countries without classification. The principle of limiting condition,
calling for significant changes in the overall methodology proposed by Dent and Young (1981), was used for LCE to
(FAO, 2005). In Indonesia, the procedure of land define land class.
evaluation was also adopted from “Land Evaluation The methods of land suitability evaluation (LSE)
Framework” through matching process between land used procedure of matching between land
characteristics/land qualities and crop requirements quality/characteristics and crop requirement. The
(Indonesian Soil Research Institute, 2005). Mostly, minimum rule was used to determine limiting factors as
qualitative evaluation was carried out by means of simple land suitability class based on land use requirements and
limitation and comparing land and climate characteristics crop requirements (ISRI, 2005 and Sys et al., 1993). The
with crop requirements (Behzad et al., 2009). criteria of land suitability for each crop refer to Tables 1-5
For specific kind of commodity, any crop can be in order to define class S1 (highly suitable), S2
evaluated based on its land resources suitability. However, (moderately suitable), S3 (marginally suitable) and N (not
for group of crop or several commodities, it is then need to suitable). The resulting land suitability classes were then
be further evaluate specific commodity that is most scored according to limitation method and class criteria of
suitable comparing to the others crops. In this study, any land suitability proposed by Sys et al. (1991) in order to
related land evaluation methods was than considered in define the most suitability crop among slected crop within
order to determine sequence of suitability for each each land mapping unit. The use of limitation method
commodity. The most suitable commodity can then be refers to Table-6 to determine land suitability class based
considered as prime commodity at developed area based on number of limitation and total scores as well. While for
on land resources availability. land class criteria, it used Table-7 to determine land
The main objective of this study was to determine suitability class including its score. Land classes of each
prime commodities at developed areas on the basis of land mapping unit as a result of macthing process,
information of land resources at scale of 250, 000 using limitation methods, and land class criteria were then
several land resources evaluation methods involving 1) scored. The lowest total score for each crop within certain
land capability and 2) land suitability classification. With land mapping unit was then considered as the most

772
 VOL. 8, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2013 ISSN 1990-6145
ARPN Journal of Agricultural and Biological Science
©2006-2013 Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN). All rights reserved.

www.arpnjournals.com

suitable crop or prime commodity comparing to the others. digitized map are component of GIS which facilitate
In this study, 5 (five) crops involving rice, maize, soybean, future utilization, updating, improvement, storing, and
rubber, and oil palm have been selected because of highly displaying (Son and Rajendra, 2008; Andy et al., 2002;
economical value of agricultural commodities in Central Eswaran, et al., 1992 and Tomlinson, 1968). A PC based
Kalimantan province. The LSE approach was conducted GIS called Mapinfo Professional 9.0 and Globar Mapper
by evaluating land mapping units suitable for cultivation 8.0 were employed for mapping process and spatial
or developed area for agriculture as a result of LCE. analysis as well. While for GPS (Global Positioning
Geographic Information System (GIS) System), a device based GIS, it was used for field
application was used to process spatial data involving verification and ground checking based on resulting maps
digitally mapping process and spatial analysis. The result for correction and improvements. The general procedure
of LCE and LSE were then integrated into GIS of study is described at Figure-2.
environment. The data input and results in the form of

Figure-1. Map of study area.

Figure-2. Flowchart of general procedure in this study.

773
 VOL. 8, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2013 ISSN 1990-6145
ARPN Journal of Agricultural and Biological Science
©2006-2013 Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN). All rights reserved.

www.arpnjournals.com

Table-1. The criteria of land suitability for wetland rice.

Land suitability class
Land characteristics S1 S2 S3 N
(highly suitable) (moderately suitable) (marginally suitable) (not suitable)
Average temperature (oC) 24-29 29-32 32-35 >35
Rainfall (mm/year) > 1500 1200-1500 800-<1200 -
Length of dry season (month) <3 3-8 9-10 -
Moderately well
Drainage Poor Imperfectly drained Well drained
drained
Texture Fine Medium Moderate coarse Coarse
Soil effective depth (cm) >50 40-50 25-40 <25
Peat depth (cm) <60 60-140 140-200 >400
Peat ripeness Saprists Saprists/Hemists Hemists/ Fibrists Fibrists
CEC (cmol/kg) >16 <16 - -
Base saturation (%) >50 35-50 <35 -
Soil acidity (H2O) 5,5-8,2 4,5-5,5 <4,5 -
C-organic (%) >1,5 0,8-1,5 <0,8 -
Slope class (%) <3 3-5 5-8 >8
Erossion hazard Very low Low Medium High
Floofing hazard Slight Moderate Severe Very severe
Rock outcrop (%) <5 5-15 15-40 >40

Table-2. The criteria of land suitability for maize.

Land suitability class
Land characteristics S1 S2 S3 N
(highly suitable) (moderately suitable) (marginally suitable) (not suitable)
Average temperature (oC) 20-26 26-30 30-32 >32
Rainfall (mm/year) 500-1200 1200-1600 >1600 -
Length of dry season (month) 1-6 7-8 8-9 -
Moderately well
Drainage Well drained Imperfectly drained Poor
drained
Texture Fine - Moderate coarse Coarse
Soil effective depth (cm) >60 40-60 25-40 <25
Peat depth (cm) <60 60-140 140-200 >200
Peat ripeness Saprists Saprists/Hemists Hemists/ Fibrists Fibrists
CEC (cmol/kg) >16 <16 - -
Base saturation (%) >50 35-50 <35 -
Soil acidity (H2O) 5,8-7,8 5,5-5,8 <5,5 -
C-organic (%) >0, 4 <0, 4 - -
Slope class (%) <8 8-16 16-30 >30
Erossion hazard Very low Low Medium High
Floofing hazard Slight Moderate Severe Very severe
Rock outcrop (%) <5 5-15 15-40 >40

774
 VOL. 8, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2013 ISSN 1990-6145
ARPN Journal of Agricultural and Biological Science
©2006-2013 Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN). All rights reserved.

www.arpnjournals.com

Table-3. The criteria of land suitability for soybean.

Land suitability class
Land characteristics S1 S2 S3 N
(highly suitable) (moderately suitable) (marginally suitable) (not suitable)
Average temperature (oC) 23-25 25-28 28-32 <18; >32
Rainfall (mm/year) 350-1100 1100-1600 1600-1900 >1900
Length of dry season (month) 3-7 8-9 9-10 >10
Moderately well
Drainage Well drained Imperfectly drained Poor
drained
Texture Fine Medium Moderate coarse Coarse
Soil effective depth (cm) >75 50-75 20-50 <20
Peat depth (cm) <60 60-140 140-200 >200
Peat ripeness Saprists Saprists, Hemists Hemists, Fibrists Fibrists
CEC (cmol/kg) >16 <16 - -
Base saturation (%) >35 20-35 <20 -
Soil acidity (H2O) 5,5-7,5 7,5-7,8 >7,8 -
C-organic (%) >1,2 0,8-1,2 <0,8 -
Slope class (%) <8 8-16 16-30 >30
Erossion hazard Very low Low-medium Medium High
Floofing hazard Slight - Moderate Severe
Rock outcrop (%) <5 5-15 15-40 >40

Table-4. The criteria of land suitability for oil palm.

Land suitability class
Land characteristics S1 S2 S3 N
(highly suitable) (moderately suitable) (marginally suitable) (not suitable)
Average temperature (oC) 25-28 28-32 32-35 <20; >35
Rainfall (mm/year) 1700-2500 2500-3500 3500-4000 <1250; >4000
Length of dry season (month) <2 2-3 3-4 >4
Moderately well
Drainage Well drained Imperfectly drained Poor
drained
Texture Fine - Moderate coarse Coarse
Soil effective depth (cm) >100 75-100 50-75 <50
Peat depth (cm) <60 60-140 140-200 >200
Peat ripeness Saprists Saprists, Hemists Hemists Fibrists
CEC (cmol/kg) >16 <16 - -
Base saturation (%) >20 <20 - -
Soil acidity (H2O) 5,0-6,5 4,2-5,0; 6,5-7,0 <4,2; >7,0 -
C-organic (%) >0,8 <0,8 - -
Slope class (%) <8 8-16 16-30 >30
Erosion hazard Very low Low-medium High Very high
Floofing hazard Slight Moderate Severe Very severe
Rock outcrop (%) <5 5-15 15-40 >40

775
 VOL. 8, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2013 ISSN 1990-6145
ARPN Journal of Agricultural and Biological Science
©2006-2013 Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN). All rights reserved.

www.arpnjournals.com

Table-5. The criteria of land suitability for rubber.

Land suitability class
Land characteristics S1 S2 S3 N
(highly suitable) (moderately suitable) (marginally suitable) (not suitable)
Average temperature (oC) 26-30 30-34 22-24 >34
Rainfall (mm/year) 2500-3000 3000-3500 3500-4000 >4000
Length of dry season (month) 1-2 2-3 3-4 >4
Moderately well
Drainage Well drained Imperfectly drained Poor
drained
Texture Fine Medium Moderate coarse Coarse
Soil effective depth (cm) >100 75-100 50-75 <50
Peat depth (cm) <60 60-140 140-200 >200
Peat ripeness Saprists Saprists/Hemists Hemists/Fibrists Fibrists
CEC (cmol/kg) - - - -
Base saturation (%) <35 35-50 >50 -
Soil acidity (H2O) 5,0-6,0 4,5-5,0 <4,5 -
C-organic (%) >0,8 <0,8 - -
Slope class (%) <8 8-16 16-30 >30
Erossion hazard Very low Low Medium High
Floofing hazard Slight Moderate Severe Very severe
Rock outcrop (%) <5 5-15 15-40 >40

Table-6. Relationship between level of limitation and land suitability class.

Limitation level Score number Land Suitability class
No limitation 0 S1 (highly suitable)
Slight 1 S2 (moderately suitable)
Moderate 2 S3 (marginally suitable)
Severe/very severe 3 N (not suitable)

Table-7. Relationship between criteria and land suitability class.

Criteria Land suitability class
LMU with no limitation or < 4 S2 classes S1 (highly suitable)
LMU with > 4 S2 classes or/and or < 3 S3 classes S2 (moderately suitable)
LMU with > 3 S3 classes or/and or < 3 N1 classes S3 (marginally suitable)
LMU with > 3 N classes or/and or < 2 N classes N (not suitable)
Note: LMU = land mapping unit

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS acidic, infertile and poorly buffered soils (Adiningsih et
al., 1988). While in the southern part dominated with
Land resource and climate information lowland areas also known as wet land, they consist of
The region of Central Kalimantan province swamp and peat land. In general, with appropriate land
consists primarily of upland and lowland areas. Upland management, the agricultural land region is potential for
areas are located in central to northern part with elevation crop cultivation ranges from low to high for wetland rice
range 100 to 500 meters above sea level, while lowland and moderate for dry land food crops and perennial crops
areas are found in the Southern part at elevation below 100 (Sawiyo et al., 2000).
meters. Most of the upland areas are highly weathered,

776
 VOL. 8, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2013 ISSN 1990-6145
ARPN Journal of Agricultural and Biological Science
©2006-2013 Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN). All rights reserved.

www.arpnjournals.com

The major landform groups of Kotawaringin The basic map for LCE, LSE, and land use planning
Barat Regency are alluvial, terraces, peat, marine, karstic, In this study, basic information was used based
intrusion, uplifted, and folded. Alluvial group as typical on reconnaisance survey with scale of 250, 000. At this
landform of Central Kalimantan consist of several sub- scale, both approach and method can be utilized as a basis
groups such as streambelts, waterlogged plain, for further land evaluation and land use planning in large
backswamp, and valleys occur on central to southern parts teritories including at regional province level (Bocco et
at main river stream belts. For terrace, peat and marine al., 2001, Djomantara and Naniek, 2000; Gerald et al.,
group, in the south, it is also found subgroup point bar and 1977). Basic information involving soil maps, land system
tidal flat. While for group of karstic, intrusion, uplifted, maps, agroclimatic map, peatland distribution map, and
and folded, they occur in the central to the nothern part. countour maps was processed with aid of GIS application
The predominant parent materials that develop this through overlay technique to develop new map with new
landform are old and recent alluvium, peat, sandstone, delineated homogeneous polygons known as thematic map
schist, phyllite, quartzite, granite, and limestone (Centre of land mapping units (LMU). For mapping process, this
for Soil and Agroclimare Research, Bogor, 2000). technique play a central role in many GIS applications
The topography of Central Kalimantan province because of its simplicity for the implementation in vector
is hillocky plain and mountainous in the northern part with and raster GIS (O’Sullivan and Unwin, 2003). The
an elevation between 150-500 meters above sea level. identification and delineation of land units was then
While, in the Southern part, it is flat consisting of swamp verified through field verification.
and coastal beach, affected by tidal, with the elevation Cartographically, based on the result of mapping
between 0 - 50 meters. In the central part, the topography process, there are 24 LMU’s, (LMU 1 to LMU 24). As
is flat to hilly (undulating) with elevation from 50 to 150 part of GIS, the map of LMU provide sistem database in
meters. the form of spatial and tabular data. Additional land
The major soil types found in Central Kalimantan characteristic data was then integrated into database
that have been classified according to Soil Survey Staff system stored in Mapinfo software for updating, analysis,
(2010) include Entisols, Inceptisols, Spodosols, Mollisols, and displaying during land evaluation process.
Alfisols, Ultisols, dan Histosols. Geographically, orders of
Mollisols, Alfisols and Ultisols are mainly found in the Land capability evaluation (LCE)
central to nothern part. While for Entisols, Inceptisols, In the term of sustainability, the use of land is
Spodosols, and Histosols, they are found in central to primarily determined by land capability through land
southern part, recognized as wetlands. allocation for arable land and non arable land so that LCE
The climate of Kalimantan Island where Central approach is suitable for farmland (Panhalkar, 2011;
Kalimantan lies on is determined by its geographical Davidson, 1992; Dent and Young 1981). On the basis of
position on the equator. Geographically, it is considered as biophysical land resources and land capability
wet equatorial climates that occur mainly within 5o north classification method proposed by USDA, the region of
and south of the equator. It is dominated during most of Central Kalimantan province was primarily classified into
the year by deep, moist, equatorial air masses and frequent 5 land capability classses i.e., class II, class III, Class IV,
heavy convectional rainfall (Webster and Wilson, 1980). class VI, and class VII. This classification can help
The same with other principle islands in Indonesia, it has ascertaining agricultural production potential of land on a
two monsoons. The wet monsoon usually starts from sustain basis (Pandey et al., 2006). Therefore, it lead to
October to March, while dry monsoon occurs on April to determining land allocation for non-arable land and arable
September (Oka, 1982). By the end of 2012, based on the land as developed areas for agricultural development and
last ten years record, annual precipitation of this region is basic consideration for land use planning as well.
2449 mm to 3229 mm. Period of consecutive wet months Based on thematic map of LMU, 21 land units
ranged between 10-12 months while dry months occur were classified into arable land while the remaining 3 land
between 0-2 months. The high precipitation is influenced units falls into non-arable land. For class I, the excellent
by temperature resulting in high evaporation intensity, class for arable use was not found because of no land
causing water-saturated air conditions and potentially parameter suitable with land criteria. This condition was
active rain cloud. For soil temperature and moisture also found for class V and class VIII. Some criteria, not
regime, they have fairly homogeneous conditions for each suitable with general condition of land resources in
climatic regime. Since the elevation of the whole areas of Central Kaimantan involve land slope more than 65%,
Central Kalimantan is less than 70 meters above sea level, present of rock outcrop, and flooding hazard. While for
the temperature regim is isohyperthermic, while moisture five major land classes as a result of LCE the main
regime is udic in which the number of consecutive dry limiting factors involve slope, drainage, peat depth, and
months is less than 3 months per year. texture. For each land class, it can be described in Table-8.

777
 VOL. 8, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2013 ISSN 1990-6145
ARPN Journal of Agricultural and Biological Science
©2006-2013 Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN). All rights reserved.

www.arpnjournals.com

Table-8. Land capability classification in central Kalimantan province.

Land
% of total area of
capability Limiting factors Area (Hectares)
Central Kalimantan province
class
II Slope (>3-8%) 2, 639, 935 17,09
III Slope (>3-8%); drainage (poor) 3, 899541 25,24
IV Slope (>15-30%) 3, 031, 755 19,62
Slope (>30-45%); peat depth
VI 4, 874, 043 31,54
(>1,5meters); texture class (coarse)
VII Slope (>3-8%) 1,006,013 6,51
Total areas 15, 451, 287 100,00

Further evaluation was then conducted in order to agriculture can be evenly found at almost all location in
define land allocation for arable land and non-arable land. Central Kalimantan. In the central to nothern part, the
Based on relative degree of limitation, the classes fall into lands are suitable for cultivation with minor limitations in
two groups. Classes’ I-IV can be used for cultivation, slope, while in the south; minor limitations involve slope
whilst classes V-VIII are not suitable (Pandey et al., 2006; and drainage. However, appropriate land management
Dent and Young, 1981). In this case study of Central should be taken into account in order to utilize the land on
Kalimantan province, the region with land classes II, III, a sustain basis.
and IV was defined as arable land considered as developed The LCE approach in this study can then provide
area available for agriculture, while for region with land spatial information that can be used as basic consideration
classes VI and VII falls into non-arable land and not for land use planing. The spatial orientation of planning as
recommended for agriculture because of very severe part GIS may ensures optimum land use and optimum
permanent limitations (Figure-3). distribution of investment as well as avoids (land use)
Geographically, majority of the area is arable conflicts (Wehrmann, 2011; Coleman and Galbraith,
lands considered as agricultural developed areas with total 2000). In addition, the LCE approach can also be
area of 9, 571, 231 hectares or 61.94% of entire Central implemented in soil conservation and crop management
kalimantan province. The remaining non-arable land practices (Martin and Saha, 2009).
covers 5, 880, 056 Ha (38.06%). Developed areas for

778
 VOL. 8, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2013 ISSN 1990-6145
ARPN Journal of Agricultural and Biological Science
©2006-2013 Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN). All rights reserved.

www.arpnjournals.com

Figure-3. The map of land availability for agricultural development

Land suitability evaluation (LSE) agricultural developed areas based on the result of LCE.
Based on map of LMU and land availability for The combination of LSE and LCE approach for assessing
agricultural developed areas, land parameters for arabel land resource is expected to ensure the resources can be
land were then further evaluated through LSE approach in used for future generation because the land is utilized on
order to define land suitability for selected crops. Initially, sustainable development that is appropriate to the
the matching procedure was carried out to define land environment.
suitability class for each crop. The principle of limiting On the basis of LCE and LSE approach, three
condition as minimum rule was used in this procedure major prime commodities with highly prospect involving
taking the lowest individual rating as limiting to the wetland rice, rubber and oil palm can then be developed in
overall suitability (ISRI, 2005; Sys et al., 1993; Dent and Central Kalimantan province. However, there some
Young, 1981). The result of suitability evaluation was then limiting factors as a result of evaluation that indicate the
compared and evaluated using limitation methods, and need of land (soil) management such as oxygen available,
land class criteria to be scored. nutrient retention, water availability, and slope. The land
Twenty one major LMU’s as arable lands were evaluation process was conducted not only for actual
evaluated and delineated in order to determine the most condition but for potential also. It allows that certain land
suitable crops as prime commodities including their units have opportunity to be improved to higher suitability
geographical distribution pattern as part of GIS (Table-9 class level through some management inputs.
and Figure-4). The LSE approach was addressed to

779
 VOL. 8, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2013 ISSN 1990-6145
ARPN Journal of Agricultural and Biological Science
©2006-2013 Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN). All rights reserved.

www.arpnjournals.com

Table-9. The result of land evaluation for each land mapping unit (LMU) at agricultural developed areas.
Result of land evaluation
Land mapping
Commodity Matching procedure Limitation Class Total Score
units (LMU)
Actual Potential method criteria score rangking
Wetland rice S3 oa;nr (1) S2 oa;nr (1) 5 (1) S2 (2) (5) 1
Maize N oa (2) S3 wa;oa (3) 9 (4) S2 (2) (11) 5
LMU 1 Soybean N oa (2) S3 wa;oa (3) 8 (3) S2 (2) (10) 4
Oil palm N oa (2) S3 oa (2) 7 (2) S3 (3) (9) 3
Rubber N oa (2) S3 oa (2) 5 (1) S1 (1) (6) 2
Wetland rice S3 nr (1) S2 nr (1) 4 (1) S1 (1) (4) 1
Maize S3 wa;oa;nr (2) S3 wa (2) 8 (4) S3 (3) (11) 5
LMU 2 Soybean S3 wa;oa;nr (2) S3 wa (2) 7 (3) S2 (2) (9) 4
Oil palm S3 oa (1) S2 wa; oa (3) 5 (2) S1 (1) (7) 3
Rubber S3 oa (1) S2 oa (1) 4 (1) S1 (1) (4) 2
Wetland rice S3 nr (1) S2 nr (1) 4 (1) S2 (1) (4) 1
Maize S3 wa;oa;nr (2) S3 wa (2) 8 (5) S3 (2) (11) 5
LMU 3 Soybean S3 wa;oa;nr (2) S3 wa (2) 7 (4) S2 (1) (9) 4
Oil palm S3 oa (1) S2 wa; oa (3) 6 (3) S2 (1) (8) 3
Rubber S3 oa (1) S2 oa (1) 5 (2) S2 (1) (5) 2
Wetland rice S3 nr (1) S2 nr (1) 5 (2) S2 (1) (5) 1
Maize S3 wa;oa;nr (2) S2 wa (1) 8 (4) S3 (2) (9) 5
LMU 4 Soybean S3 wa;oa;nr (2) S2 wa (1) 7 (3) S2 (1) (7) 3
Oil palm N oa (3) S3 oa (3) 5 (2) S2 (1) (9) 4
Rubber S3 oa (1) S2 oa;nr (2) 4 (1) S2 (1) (5) 1
Wetland rice S3 nr (1) S2 nr (1) 5 (1) S2 (2) (5) 1
Maize S3 wa;oa;nr (2) S2 wa (1) 8 (4) S3 (3) (10) 5
LMU 5 Soybean S3 wa;oa;nr (2) S2 wa (1) 7 (3) S2 (2) (8) 4
Oil palm S3 oa (1) S2 wa;oa (2) 6 (2) S1 (1) (6) 2
Rubber S3 oa (1) S2 wa;oa;nr (3) 5 (1) S2 (2) (7) 3
Wetland rice S3 nr (3) S2 nr;s (2) 5 (3) S1 (1) (9) 3
Maize S3 wa;nr (4) S3 wa (3) 6 (4) S2 (2) (13) 5
LMU 6 Soybean S3 wa;nr (4) S3 wa (3) 5 (3) S2 (2) (12) 4
Oil palm S2 wa;rn (2) S2 wa;oa (2) 3 (2) S1 (1) (7) 2
Rubber S2 (nr) (1) S1 (1) 1 (1) S1 (1) (4) 1
Wetland rice N s (3) N s (3) 10 (5) S2 (2) (13) 5
Maize S3 wa;nr;s (2) S3 wa;s (2) 8 (4) S3 (3) (11) 4
LMU 7 Soybean S3 wa;nr;s (2) S3 wa;s (2) 7 (3) S2 (2) (9) 3
Oil palm S3 s (1) S3 s (1) 5 (2) S1 (1) (5) 2
Rubber S3 s (1) S3 s (1) 3 (1) S1 (1) (4) 1
Wetland rice S3 nr (1) S2 nr (1) 5 (1) S1 (1) (4) 1
Maize S3 wa;nr;s (2) S3 wa;s (3) 8 (2) S3 (3) (10) 5
LMU 8 Soybean S3 wa;oa;nr (2) S3 wa;s (3) 8 (2) S2 (2) (9) 4
Oil palm S3 oa (1) S2 wa; oa (3) 6 (3) S1 (1) (8) 3
Rubber S3 oa (1) S3 oa (2) 5 (1) S1(1) (5) 2
Wetland rice S3 nr (1) S2 nr (1) 5 (2) S2 (1) (5) 1
Maize S3 wa;nr;s (2) S3 wa;s (4) 6 (3) S3 (2) (11) 3
LMU 9 Soybean S3 wa;oa;nr (2) S3 wa;s (4) 8 (4) S2 (1) (11) 3
Oil palm S3 oa (1) S2 wa; oa (2) 5 (2) S2 (1) (6) 2
Rubber S3 oa (1) S3 oa (3) 4 (1) S2 (1) (6) 2
Wetland rice S2 oa;nr,s (2) S2 s (2) 3 (2) S1 (1) (7) 3
Maize S3 wa (3) S3 wa (3) 4 (3) S2 (2) (11) 5
LMU 10 Soybean S3 wa (3) S3 wa (3) 3 (2) S2 (2) (10) 4
Oil palm S2 wa (1) S2 wa (2) 1 (1) S1 (1) (5) 2
Rubber S2 nr (1) S1 (1) 1 (1) S1 (1) (4) 1
Wetland rice N s (5) N s (4) 8 (5) S3 (3) (17) 5
Maize S3 wa;nr (4) S3 wa (3) 7 (4) S2 (2) (13) 4
LMU 11 Soybean S3 wa (3) S3 wa (3) 5 (3) S2 (2) (11) 3
Oil palm S2 wa;nr;s (2) S2 wa;s (2) 3 (2) S1 (1) (7) 2
Rubber S2 s (1) S2 s (1) 1 (1) S1 (1) (4) 1

780
 VOL. 8, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2013 ISSN 1990-6145
ARPN Journal of Agricultural and Biological Science
©2006-2013 Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN). All rights reserved.

www.arpnjournals.com

Table-10. The result of land evaluation for each land mapping unit (LMU) at agricultural developed areas (continued).
Result of land evaluation
Land mapping
Commodity Matching procedure Limitation Class Total Score
units (LMU)
Actual Potential method criteria score rangking
Wetland rice N s (4) N s (3) 8 (4) S3 (2) (13) 5
Maize S3 wa;nr;s (3) S3 wa;s (2) 8(4) S3 (2) (11) 4
LMU 12 Soybean S3 wa;s (2) S3 wa;s (2) 6 (3) S2 (1) (8) 3
Oil palm S3 s (1) S3 s (1) 4 (2) S2 (1) (5) 2
Rubber S3 s (1) S3 s (1) 2 (1) S2 (1) (4) 1
Wetland rice N s (4) N s (4) 11 (5) S3 (2) (15) 4
Maize S3 wa;nr;s (3) S3 wa;s (3) 9 (4) S3 (2) (12) 3
LMU 13 Soybean S3 wa;s (2) S3 wa;s (3) 8 (3) S2 (1) (9) 2
Oil palm S3 s (1) S2 wa (1) 6 (2) S2 (1) (5) 1
Rubber S3 s (1) S3 s (2) 3 (1) S2 (1) (5) 1
Wetland rice N s (4) N s (4) 10 (5) S3 (2) (15) 4
Maize S3 wa;nr;s (3) S3 wa;s (3) 9 (4) S3 (2) (12) 3
LMU 14 Soybean S3 wa;s (2) S3 wa;s (3) 7 (3) S2 (1) (9) 2
Oil palm S3 s (1) S2 wa (1) 6 (2) S2 (1) (5) 1
Rubber S3 s (1) S3 s (2) 3 (1) S2 (1) (5) 1
Wetland rice N s (4) N s (4) 10 (5) S3 (2) (15) 5
Maize S3 wa;nr;s (3) S3 wa;s (3) 9 (4) S3 (2) (12) 4
LMU15 Soybean S3 wa;s (2) S3 wa;s (3) 7 (3) S2 (1) (9) 3
Oil palm S3 s (1) S2 wa (1) 6 (2) S2 (1) (5) 1
Rubber S3 s (1) S3 s (2) 3 (1) S2 (1) (5) 1
Wetland rice N s (4) N s (3) 8 (4) S3 (2) (13) 5
Maize S3 wa;nr;s (3) S3 wa;s (2) 8 (4) S3 (2) (11) 4
LMU 16 Soybean S3 wa;s (2) S3 wa;s (2) 7 (3) S2 (1) (8) 3
Oil palm S3 s (1) S3 s (1) 4 (2) S2 (1) (5) 2
Rubber S3 s (1) S3 s (1) 2 (1) S2 (1) (4) 1
Wetland rice S3 nr (3) S2 nr (3) S2 (3) S2 (2) (11) 3
Maize S3 wa;nr (4) S3 wa (4) S2 (3) S2 (2) (13) 4
LMU 17 Soybean S3 wa;nr (4) S3 wa (4) S2 (3) S2 (2) (13) 5
Oil palm S2 wa;nr (2) S2 wa (2) S1 (2) S1 (1) (7) 2
Rubber S2 nr (1) S1 (1) S1 (1) S1 (1) (4) 1
Wetland rice S3 nr (3) S2 nr (2) 6 (3) S2 (2) (10) 3
Maize S3 wa;nr (4) S3 wa (3) 6 (3) S2 (2) (12) 4
LMU 18 Soybean S3 wa;nr (4) S3 wa (3) 6 (3) S2 (2) (12) 5
Oil palm S2 wa;nr (2) S2 wa (2) 3 (2) S1 (1) (7) 2
Rubber S2 nr (1) S1 (1) 1 (1) S1 (2) (4) 1
Wetland rice S3 oa,nr (1) S2 oa,nr (1) 8 (2) S2 (1) (5) 1
Maize N oa (2) S3 wa;oa (1) 11 (5) S3 (2) (10) 4
LMU 19 Soybean N oa (2) S3 wa;oa (1) 10 (4) S3 (2) (9) 3
Oil palm N oa (2) S3 oa (2) 9 (3) S3 (2) (9) 3
Rubber N oa (2) S3 oa (2) 7 (1) S3 (2) (7) 2
Wetland rice S3 nr (1) S2 rc;nr (1) 6 (1) S2 (1) (4) 1
Maize S3 wa;oa;n (2) S3 wa (3) 10 (4) S3 (2) (11) 5
LMU 20 Soybean S3 wa;oa;nr (2) S3 wa (3) 9 (3) S2 (1) (9) 4
Oil palm S3 oa (1) S2 wa;oa;rc (2) 8 (2) S2 (1) (6) 3
Rubber S3 oa (1) S2 wa;oa;rc (2) 6 (1) S2 (1) (5) 2
Wetland rice S3 nr (3) S2 rc;nr (2) 5 (1) S2 (1) (7) 2
Maize S3 wa;nr (4) S3 wa (4) 8 (4) S2 (1) (13) 5
LMU 21 Soybean S3 wa;nr (4) S3 wa (4) 7 (3) S2 (1) (12) 4
Oil palm S2 wa;oa;rc;nr (1) S2 wa;rc (1) 7 (3) S2 (1) (6) 1
Rubber S3 oa (2) S2 wa;oa;rc (3) 6 (2) S2 (1) (8) 3
Note: Number in the brackets is score of resulting evaluation

781
 VOL. 8, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2013 ISSN 1990-6145
ARPN Journal of Agricultural and Biological Science
©2006-2013 Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN). All rights reserved.

www.arpnjournals.com

Figure-4. The map of prime commodities zonation in Central Kalimantan province.

The prime commodity of wetland rice with For spatial orientation of land use planning, the
suitability class S3 (actual) and S2 (potential) can be found development of agriculture for rice as staple food in
at LMU 1, LMU 2, LMU 3, LMU 4, LMU 5, LMU 9, LMU Central Kalimantan can be directed at wetlands in the
19, and LMU 20 respectively. While for rubber, it is found southern part especially at areas located along the main
at LMU 4, LMU 6, LMU 7, LMU 10, LMU11, LMU 12, rivers. It covers 2, 141, 539 hectares or 13.86% of total
LMU 13, LMU 14, LMU 15, LMU 16, LMU 17, and LMU area of Central Kalimantan, with predominant soil types
18. The remaining oil palm can then be found at LMU 13, involving Entisols (great groups: Fluvaquents), Inceptisols
LMU 14, LMU 15, and LMU 21. Based on the result of (great groups: Endoaquepts) and Histosols (great groups:
evaluation, it was also found that there is couple crop with Haplohemists).
same value of score rangking such as wetland rice-rubber Prime commodity of oil palm and rubber,
(LMU 4) and oil palm-rubber (LMU 13, LMU 14, and spatially tend to be developed in the central to the northern
LMU 15). This is indicates that land is suitable for both of part at lands dominated by Ultisols (great groups:
these commodities so that any programs related to land use Hapludults and Paleudults), Inceptisols (great groups:
planning need to be further discussed. Dystrudepts) and Alfisols (great groups: Hapludalfs).
Total area of land potential for rubber is 7, 355, 390

782
 VOL. 8, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2013 ISSN 1990-6145
ARPN Journal of Agricultural and Biological Science
©2006-2013 Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN). All rights reserved.

www.arpnjournals.com

hectares (47.60%) while for oil palm, it constitutes 11.15% agricultural developed areas and non-arable land with
or 1, 722, 806 hectares. Geographically, in the southern total area of 9,571,231 hectares (61.94%) and 5, 880,
part, both of these crops as estate commodities can be 056 hectares (38.06%) respectively. The potency of
developed at undulating plains with slope class 15-25%. land availability for agriculture then indicates that
Environmentally sound land management should then be land geographically has an opportunity to be
considered in land use. In order to keep the land from developed.
erosion, perennial tree crops with cover crops beneath are ƒ Based on LSE approach and GIS application, there are
suitable to be developed because they have the potential to 3 (three) prime commodities including their
reduce erosion (Simpson, 2009). geographical distribution pattern that suitable to be
Although the evaluation was performed at arable developed in Central Kalimantan involving wetland
lands suitable for cultivation, however, there is several not rubber (7, 355, 390 hectares), rice (2, 141, 539
suitable (N) class found. The presence of N class for each hectares), and oil palm (1, 722, 806 hectares)
crop shows that for some limiting factors such as drainage ƒ The other selected crops in this study such as maize
and slope, they are main requirement for specific crop. and soybean can still be developed because of their
However, highly management inputs can then be suitable class. These crops can then are planted
considered in order to cultivate the land with certain crop. together with main commodity through some farming
The other selected crops such as maize and techniques such as intercropping with annual crop
soybean in this study can be considered as commodities (wetland rice) and inter culture with estate crop (oil
support for food crop. They can be developed together palm and rubber).
with main commodity through some farming techniques
such as intercropping with annual crop (wetland rice) and REFERENCES
inter culture with estate crop (oil palm and rubber). For
LMU 1 and LMU 19, both maize and soybean have minor Adiningsih J. S., Sudjadi M. and dan Setyorini D. 1988.
limiting factor such as oxygen available so that they then Overcoming Soil Fertility Constraints in Acid Upland
was classified into class N. However, some improvements Soils for Food Crop Based Farming Systems in Indonesia.
such as drainage can be performed in order to improve Indonesian Agricultural Research and Development
land quality. Journal. 10(2): 49-58.

CONCLUSIONS Alexiadis S., Ladias C. and Hasanagas N. 2013. A

ƒ Determination of prime commodities as the most regional perspective of the Common Agricultural Policy.
suitable crops on the basis of land resources can Land Use Policy. 30: 665-669.
provide an option for land use planning at regional
scale in order to achieve sustainable agricultural Amien L.I. 1998. An Agroecological Approach to
development. In the form of digitized maps, the result Sustainable Agriculture. In: El-Swaify S. A. and Yakowitz
of land use allocation provide spatial information as D. S. (Editors). Multiple Objective Decision making for
part of geographic information system (GIS) for land, Water, and Environmental Management. Proceeding
agricultural developed areas including land suitability of the 1st International Conference on Multiple Objective
for prime commodities suitable to be developed. Decision Support Systems (MODSS) for Land, Water, and
ƒ Land capability evaluation (LCE) and land suitability Environmental Management; Concepts, Approaches, and
evaluation (LSE) approach rooted from USDA and Applications. Lewis Publisher. pp. 465-480.
FAO’s Framework of Land Evaluation can be used to
assess land resource according to its capability and Andy B., Hamdan J., Anyar A. R. and Peli M. 2002.
suitability in order to ensure proper land use with land Determination of Agricultural Land Regions Using
management that is appropriate to the environment. Agroecological Zone (AEZ) Approach and Geographic
LCE and LSE approach was then used to identify land Information System. A case study of Kotawaringin
availability for arable land and non-arable land BaratRegency, Kalimantan, Indonesia. Proceeding of The
followed by determination of prime commodities Malaysian Society of Soil Science Conference 2002.
suitable at agricultural developed areas. Application of Modern Tools in Agriculture: 36-39.
ƒ The application of GIS can be used to provide spatial
information in the form of spatial and integrated Centre for Soil and Agroclimare Research, Bogor. 2000.
database as a result of land resource capability and The Mapping of Agricultural Commodities Based On
suitability evaluation in addition to mapping process Agroecological Zone Scale of 50, 000. Indonesian
and spatial analysis. The spatial orientation of Agricultural Department.
planning as part GIS may ensures land allocation
precisely in order to utilize the lands based on their Coleman A. L and Galbraith J. M. 2000. Using GIS as an
capability and suitability. Additional programs to Agricultural Land-Use Planning Tool. Bulletin 00-2.
support agricultural policy can then be formulated in Department of Crop and Soil Environmental Science
order to utilize agricultural developed areas. College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Virginia Tech.
ƒ In the case of Central Kalimantan province, this
region consists primarily of arable land considered as

783
 VOL. 8, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2013 ISSN 1990-6145
ARPN Journal of Agricultural and Biological Science
©2006-2013 Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN). All rights reserved.

www.arpnjournals.com

Davidson D. A. 1992. The Evaluation of Land Resources. Pandey A. C., Sirothia N. N. and R. S. Singh. 2006. A
Longman Scientific and Technical New York, USA. Proposed Land Use Capability Classification System for
Indian Sub-Continent. Journal of Agricultural
Dent D. and Young A. 1981. Soil Survey and Land Engineering. 43(4): 1- 8.
Evaluation. London, UK.
Panhalkar S. 2011. Land Capability Classification For
Djomantara S and Naniek. R. 2000. The Selection of Land Integrated Watershed Development by Applying Remote
Potencial for Agricultural Development. Bulletin of Sensing and GIS Techniques. ARPN Journal of
Agricultural Engineering. 5(2): 41-42. Agricultural and Biological Science. 6(4): 46-55.

Eswaran H., Kimble J., Cook T. and Beinroth F. H. 1992. Sawiyo Subardja and D. dan Djaenudin D. 2000. The
Soil Diversity in the Tropic: Implications for Agricultural Potency of Swampland in Kapuas Murung and Kapuas
Development. Myths and Science of Soils of the Tropics, Barat For Agricultural Development. Indonesian
SSSA Special Publication. No. 29: 1-16. Agricultural Research and Development Journal. 19(1): 9-
16.
FAO. 2007. Land Evaluation. Towards a revised
framework. Land and water discussion paper. No. 6. Schaller N. 1993. The Concept of Agricultural
Rome, Italy. Sustainability. Agriculture and the Environment. Elsevier.
Amsterdam. pp. 89-97.
FAO. 1976. A Frame Work for Land Evaluation. Soils
Bulletin No. 32. Rome, Italy. p. 72. Selman P. H. 1982. The Use of Ecological Evaluations by
Local Planning Authorities. Journal of Environmental
Flaherty M and Smit B. 1982. An Assessment of Land Management. 15: 1-19.
Classification Techniques in Planning for Agricultural
Land Use. Journal of Environmental Management. (15): Simpson L. A. 2009. A Manual of Soil Conservation and
323-332. Slope Cultivation. Caribbean Agricultural Research and
Development Institute (CARDI).
Gerald G. Garland, J. Pelham Chisholm and Colin R.
Christian. 1977. Reconnaissance Mapping for Land-use Son N. T and Rajendra P. S. 2008. GIS-AssistedLand
planning in the Natal Drakensberg, South Africa. Evaluation For Agricultural Development in Mekong
Environmental Conservation. 4: 103-108. Delta, Southern Vietnam. Journal of Sustainable
Development in Afrika. 10(2): 875-884.
Indonesian Soil Research Institute. 2005. Land Evaluation
for Agricultural Commodities. A Guideline. Indonesia Sys C., Van Ranst E., Debaveye J. and Beernaert F. 1993.
Agency for Agricultural Research and Land Evaluation. Part III. Crop requirements. Agricultural
Development.Ministry of Agriculture. p. 154. Publication No. 7. Brussels - Belgium.

Latham M. 1994. Evaluation of the Soil and Land Tomlinson R.F. 1968. A Geographical Information System
Resource. In: Syers, J. K and Rimmer, D. L. Soil Science for Regional Planning. Papers of a CSIRO Symposium
and Sustainable Land Management in the Tropics. British Organized in Cooperation with UNESCO, 26 - 31 August.
Society of Soil Science. pp.16-26. Macmillan of Australia. pp. 200-210.

Martin D and Saha S. K. 2009. Land Evaluation by USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). 1973.
Integrating Remote Sensing and GIS for Cropping System Soil Coservation Service, Land Capability Classification.
Analysis in A Watershed. Current Science. 96(4): 569- Agriculture Handbook No. 210.
575.
Webster C.C. and Wilson P.N. 1980. Agriculture in the
M. Behzad, M Albaji, P. Papan, S. Boroomand Nasab, A. Tropics. Longman, 2nd Edition.
A. Naseri and A. Bavi. 2009. Qualitative Evaluation of
Land Suitability for Principal Crops in the Gargar Region, Wehrmann B. 2011. Land Use Planning. Concept, Tools
Khuzestan Province, Southwest Iran. Asian Journal of and Applications. (GIZ). Division Agriculture, Fisheries
Plant Sciences. 8: 28-34. and Food. Sector Project Land Policy and Land
Management. Eschborn, Germany.
O’Sullivan D and Unwin D. J. 2003. Geographic
Information Analysis. John Wiley and Sons. Hoboken.
New Jersey, USA.

Oka I. Ny. 1982. Agroklimatology in Indonesia: Current

Uses and Future Needs. Indonesian Agricultural Research
and Development Journal. 4(4): 112-116.

784