Agroforestry systems, particularly the coffee agroforestry system (CAS), represent a promising approach to achieving sustainable development and promoting a green economy in Indonesia. Our research aims to explore the potential of CAS to provide ecosystem services and socio-economic benefits and address environmental risks in Indonesia. To critically analyze the current state of CAS in Indonesia, its potential for sustainable development, and the challenges that should be addressed to increase its uptake, we conducted a systematic review of published academic literature. Our findings suggest that CAS has the potential to turn a profit in the future thanks to rising global and domestic market demand as well as environmental benefits like reducing carbon emissions and improving resource efficiency. However, several challenges should be addressed to improve coffee quality and sustain green economy activities, including product certification, collaboration with NGOs and business entities, and coordination of government policies at the site level. Overall, this study highlights the importance of CAS as a green economy approach in Indonesia and suggests policy recommendations to support its promotion and adoption. By addressing the challenges and promoting the potential of CAS, sustainable development and green economic growth can be achieved in Indonesia.
Citation: Nur Arifatul Ulya, Alfonsus Hasudungan Harianja, Apri Laila Sayekti, Astrina Yulianti, Deden Djaenudin, Edwin Martin, Hariyadi Hariyadi, Julian Witjaksono, Leo Rio Ependi Malau, Muhammad Rifqi Tirta Mudhofir, Satria Astana. Coffee agroforestry as an alternative to the implementation of green economy practices in Indonesia: A systematic review[J]. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2023, 8(3): 762-788. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2023041
| [1] | Matteo Serra, Fabio Fanari, Francesco Desogus, Paolo Valera . The fluorine in surface waters: origin, weight on human health, and defluoridation techniques. AIMS Geosciences, 2022, 8(4): 686-705. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2022038 |
| [2] | Fernando A.B. Danziger, Graziella M.F. Jannuzzi, Ian S.M. Martins . The relationship between sea-level change, soil formation and stress history of a very soft clay deposit. AIMS Geosciences, 2019, 5(3): 461-479. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2019.3.461 |
| [3] | Inthuorn Sasanakul, Sarah Gassman, Pitak Ruttithivaphanich, Siwadol Dejphumee . Characterization of shear wave velocity profiles for South Carolina Coastal Plain. AIMS Geosciences, 2019, 5(2): 303-324. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2019.2.303 |
| [4] | Mahabir Barak, Manjeet Kumari, Manjeet Kumar . Effect of Hydrological Properties on the Energy Shares of Reflected Waves at the Surface of a Partially Saturated Porous Solid. AIMS Geosciences, 2017, 3(1): 67-90. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2017.1.67 |
| [5] | Hui-yue Wang, Sha-sha Yu, De-long Huang, Chang-lu Xu, Hang Cen, Qiang Liu, Zhong-ling Zong, Zi-Yuan Huang . Seismic response of utility tunnel systems embedded in a horizontal heterogeneous domain subjected to oblique incident SV-wave. AIMS Geosciences, 2025, 11(1): 47-67. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2025004 |
| [6] | Stefano De Falco, Giulia Fiorentino . The GERD dam in the water dispute between Ethiopia, Sudan and Egypt. A scenario analysis in an ecosystem approach between physical and geopolitical geography. AIMS Geosciences, 2022, 8(2): 233-253. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2022014 |
| [7] | Rajinder S. Jutla . The Evolution of the Golden Temple of Amritsar into a Major Sikh Pilgrimage Center. AIMS Geosciences, 2016, 2(3): 259-272. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2016.3.259 |
| [8] | Shishay Kidanu, Aleksandra Varnavina, Neil Anderson, Evgeniy Torgashov . Pseudo-3D electrical resistivity tomography imaging of subsurface structure of a sinkhole—A case study in Greene County, Missouri. AIMS Geosciences, 2020, 6(1): 54-70. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2020005 |
| [9] | Vadim Khomich, Svyatoslav Shcheka, Natalia Boriskina . Geodynamic factors in the formation of large gold-bearing provinces with Carlin-type deposits on continental margins in the North Pacific. AIMS Geosciences, 2023, 9(4): 672-696. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2023036 |
| [10] | Abay Yimere, Engdawork Assefa . Beyond the implications of Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam filling policies. AIMS Geosciences, 2021, 7(3): 313-330. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2021019 |
Agroforestry systems, particularly the coffee agroforestry system (CAS), represent a promising approach to achieving sustainable development and promoting a green economy in Indonesia. Our research aims to explore the potential of CAS to provide ecosystem services and socio-economic benefits and address environmental risks in Indonesia. To critically analyze the current state of CAS in Indonesia, its potential for sustainable development, and the challenges that should be addressed to increase its uptake, we conducted a systematic review of published academic literature. Our findings suggest that CAS has the potential to turn a profit in the future thanks to rising global and domestic market demand as well as environmental benefits like reducing carbon emissions and improving resource efficiency. However, several challenges should be addressed to improve coffee quality and sustain green economy activities, including product certification, collaboration with NGOs and business entities, and coordination of government policies at the site level. Overall, this study highlights the importance of CAS as a green economy approach in Indonesia and suggests policy recommendations to support its promotion and adoption. By addressing the challenges and promoting the potential of CAS, sustainable development and green economic growth can be achieved in Indonesia.
The location of interest is the southeast shoulder of the Rio Grande Rift on the boundary between southeast New Mexico and west Texas in the southwest of USA (Figure 1). This shoulder constitutes the west margin of the Great Plains; it is at the southwestern part of the North American Craton [1,2].
Figure 1. The stations deployed by USArray in the region; the blue dots represent the stations of the TA array and the red dots represent the stations of the XR array.The basement of the North American Craton is the Proterozoic Laurentia plate. Southwestern Laurentia constitutes the Mojave, Yavapai, Mazatzal and Grenville Precambrian provinces, ordered by age and located from northwest to southeast [3]. The basement of this region is the source of extensive geological, geophysical and geochemical research, but it remains poorly understood [3,4,5,6,7,8,9]. The fact that it is mostly covered with younger formations and located in the boundary between two countries (Mexico and USA) have contributed to the problem.
Mineral resources found in this region include rare earth elements, beryllium and molybdenum related to Tertiary igneous activity. Ignimbrites related to the large silicic event that constitutes the Sierra Madre Occidental are present in calderas at west Texas; some examples are Quitman, Eagle and Chinati [10,11,12,13,14]. Laccoliths are located at places such as Cornudas and Sierra Blanca, TX; stratovolcanoes such as Sierra Blanca, NM and the batholith at Capitan in New Mexico, also contain anomalously high concentrations of incompatible elements [12,15,16,17]. The magmas that created these igneous features rich in rare earth elements, beryllium and molybdenum have similar tholeiitic and alkalic composition to those of oceanic-island basalts indicating the possibility of having originated as asthenosphere derived melts in the lithospheric mantle during extension [18].
The seismic data used in this study is the Broad-band High-gain Z-component (BHZ) of the seismograms registered by two seismic projects: The transportable array (TA) [19] and the Flex array (XR) [6,20,21]. Both projects were deployed by EarthScope USArray, supported by National Science Foundation (NSF) and are available for download at the official website of the Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology, IRIS [22]. We use the WILBER3 tool to download the data [23]. The distribution of the seismic stations is listed in Appendices 1 and Appendices 2, and shown in Figure 1. Three events were specially selected to make the analysis: The first was a magnitude 6.4 earthquake off the coast of Jalisco Mexico (17.52° N, 105.46° W) on September 24,2008; 02: 33: 05 UTC. The second was a magnitude 6.5 earthquake off the coast of Northern California (40.67° N, 124.47° W) on January 10,2010; 00: 27: 41 UTC. The third was a magnitude 8.1 earthquake in the Samoa Islands Region (15.5119° S, 171.9369° W) on September 29,2009; 17: 48: 11 UTC. The time window was considered to select the events; the TA array stations were deployed in the area of interest approximately from February 2008 to February 2010; and the Flex array from August 2008 to December 2011. The events were selected based on large event magnitude and teleseismic distances to produce the best amplitude and signal to noise ratio to model the crustal structure [24]. Large Rayleigh wave amplitudes, relatively low attenuations and long propagation paths have contributed significantly to our understanding of the seismotectonics in the region [25]. The frequent occurrence of earthquakes and growing number of seismic stations near the southeast flank of the Rio Grande Rift made possible the study of the area's Rayleigh wave group velocities. This procedure was selected because it allows the collection with relative ease of a dense distribution of paths using stations within or near the area of research [25,26]. The results shed new light on the seismotectonics of the region.
The geodetic model and isostatic residual gravity anomaly data were downloaded from USGS Mineral Resources On-Line Spatial Data's website [27]. In Figure 6, the contour of the zero isostatic anomaly is shown for reference [28,29]. Shore lines and borderlines are provided by Generic Mapping Tools, GMT [30,31]. The Elevation Model (ETOPO 1) was downloaded from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Centers for Environmental Information, NOAA's NCEI [32].
The following procedure is based on cross correlation of filtered surface waves in to specific band-widths to approximate the inter-station empirical Green's functions using inter-station surface wave dispersion curves. This work was performed using transient seismic signals of the three specific events mentioned in the data section [24,33,34,35,36].
The selected data was processed using the Seismic Analysis Code (SAC) developed by B. Savage and A. Snoke and provided also by IRIS [37,38]. The distance, longitude and latitude of the event and the seismic stations are read from the header of the seismograms. The travel time of the group is calculated using cross correlation. No removal of instrument contribution was necessary because the data was obtained with identical instruments (Streckeisen STS-2 G3 coupled with Quanterra 330 Linear Phase), so they have the same response and same sensitivity; they are also calibrated under the same criteria because they were all deployed by USArray under the same project, EarthScope [21].
The distance between two stations is measured by the subtraction of the great circle path lengths connecting the event with the two stations. In this procedure we also use ray tracing, illustrated in Figures 2a, 2b and 2c, to choose the specific pair of stations; it elucidates the relative position and the order of the stations. The first station should be near, or directly on the seismic path between the event and the second station.
Figure 2a. Ray tracing of the events in Jalisco. Blue dots represent stations of TA array and red dots represent stations of XR array. The background colors represent elevation in meters over sea level.
Figure 2b. Ray tracing of the event in California. Blue dots represent stations of TA array and red dots represent stations of XR array. The background colors represent elevation in meters over sea level.
Figure 2c. Ray tracing of the event in Samoa. Blue dots represent stations of TA array and red dots represent stations of XR array. The background colors represent elevation in meters over sea level.Now that the two stations are identified to be along similar paths and the distance between the two stations is calculated, the seismic travel time between the first and the second station is then calculated using cross correlation. To achieve the cross correlation, the seismograms are loaded into SAC and filtered in the desired frequency band with a specific ban-width. Once the filtering is done, the output signal is corrected and cross-correlated to measure the difference in arrival times; Figure 3 and Figure 4 describe the process graphically [33,34,36].
Figure 3. This procedure was coded in SAC to obtain the correlation times.
Figure 4. Seismograms of an event off the coast of Jalisco. 4a: Are the rough seismograms; 4b: are the seismograms after filtered; 4c: the cross correlation; 4d: the square of the cross correlation. The x axis is in seconds and the y axis is relative amplitude.The filter is a band-pass Butterworth order six [39,40]. It is applied twice with the desired corners from where we define the group. After the correlation the signal is squared to facilitate the identification of the largest peak (maximum). Note that in Figure 4d the maximum amplitude is seen approximately at 19 seconds. The average velocity is then calculated as the ratio between the difference in distance and the correlation time.
We follow the same process for different groups spanning the frequencies available from the seismograms; in this part of the process the physical characteristics of the instrument establish the limitations (Nyquist is 20 Hz). The seismic average velocities of the group are plotted versus period to generate the dispersion curves (Figure 5a).
Figure 5a. Dispersion curves for the event in Jalisco. Horizontal axis represents speed in km/s, the vertical axes, on the left, represents the period in seconds and on the right, represents the approximate depths according to ak135. The line runs from station TA-223A to station TA-W23A approximately from 32° to 35° latitude along –106.25° longitude. Please see Figure 1 to identify the stations involved in the pairs along the line 3.The seismograms were filtered at different band-widths with initial period of 10 seconds. The frequency bandwidths span at increments corresponding to multiples of 5/10, 6/10, 7/10 and 8/10 [33,36]. Figure 5a shows dispersion curves for the stations listed with frequency limits and bandwidths calculated for the event in Jalisco. These dispersion curves and the blockmean tool of the GMT software provided the data to make the profile shown in Figure 5b. The approximate depths labeled in the plot of the dispersion curves in Figure 5a and the profile in Figure 5b on their right axes were taken from the inversion of the model ak135 [41,42]. The red dots in the profile of Figure 5b represent the depth of the Moho according to the receiver functions of the EarthScope Automated Receiver Survey, EARS [43].
Figure 5b. The seismic velocity profile created with the dispersion curves in Figure 5a. Horizontal axis is latitude; vertical axes on the left is period in seconds; on the right is approximate depths; colors are the seismic velocities. The red dots are the approximated depth to the Moho from receiver functions.The data obtained from the calculation of the dispersion curves were stored as matrices containing latitude, longitude, velocity and initial frequency (of the frequency band). These matrices were later used to generate the surface plots shown in Figures 7, 8 and 9. All these Figures were made with the matrices corresponding to band widths of fifth of a decade intervals or periods from 10 s to 20 s for the first band, 20 s to 40 s for the second band, 40 s to 80 s for the third band, 80 s to 160 s for the fourth band. The approximate depths of these frequency bands were approximated from inversion of the model ak135 and joint inversions made for LA RISTRA [8,41,42].
Figure 6. The isostatic residual gravity anomaly of the region. The contour lines denote the zero value of the isostatic anomaly. Some geological structures in the region are identified as: The Diablo Plateau (D), Fort Davis (d), Ouachita (O), Franklyn-Organ Mountains (F), Capitan (C), North Central Basin Platform (B), South Central Basin Platform (b), San Andres Mountains (A), Potrillos Mountains (P), Hueco Bolson (H), Delaware Basin (DB), Tularosa basin (T), Marfa basin (M), Hovey Channel (h), Mesilla basin (m), Sheffield Channel (S) and Salt basin (s). It also shows some of the tertiary REE deposits developed in the region; the dotted lines shows the boundary between Mazatzal and Grenville Precambrian provinces in brown, the alignment visible in the seismic profile for the Jalisco event in purple, the Delaware Basin in black and the Diablo Plateau west boundary in red.
Figure 7. Images represent seismic group velocities calculated using cross correlation for the event in Jalisco. The group periods span: In 7a from 10 to 20 seconds; in 7b from 20 to 40 seconds; in 7c from 40 to 80 seconds and in 7d from 80 to 160 seconds. The x axis represents longitude, the y axis latitude and the color range is seismic velocities in km/s.
Figure 8. Images represent seismic group velocities calculated using cross correlation for the event in California. The group periods span: In 8a from 10 to 20 seconds; in 8b from 20 to 40 seconds; in 8c from 40 to 80 seconds and in 8d from 80 to 160 seconds. The x axis represents longitude, the y axis latitude and the color range is seismic velocities in km/s.
Figure 9. Images represent seismic group velocities calculated using cross correlation for the event in Samoa. The group periods span: In 9a from 10 to 20 seconds; in 9b from 20 to 40 seconds; in 9c from 40 to 80 seconds and in 9d from 80 to 160 seconds. The x axis represents longitude, the y axis latitude and the color range is seismic velocities in km/s.● Between 10 km and 20 km approximated depth for the periods between 10 s and 20 s.
● Between 20 km and 50 km approximated depth for the periods between 20 s and 40 s.
● Between 50 km and 150 km approximated depth for the periods between 40 s and 80 s.
● Between 150 km and 350 km approximated depth for the periods between 80 s and 160 s.
Figure 6 was created to identify the geological structures that constitute this part of the North American Craton. The geological features are labeled on the top of isostatic anomaly map. The labels are:
● Stable structures identified in the region are: The Diablo Plateau (D), Fort Davis Caldera (d), Ouachita (O), Franklin-Organ Mountains (F), Capitan (C), North Central Basin Platform (B), South Central Basin Platform (b), San Andres Mountains (A) and Potrillos Mountains (P) [44].
● Some more flexible corridors surrounding these stable structures are the Hueco Bolson (H), Delaware Basin (DB), Tularosa Basin (T), Marfa Basin (M), Hovey Channel (h), Mesilla Basin (m), Sheffield Channel (S) and Salt Basin (s) [44].
●The lines shown represent the boundary between Mazatzal and Grenville Precambrian Provinces [3], the Delaware Basin, the west boundary of the Diablo Plateau and the diagonal line running from southeast to northwest passing through the center of the Delaware Basin characterizes the Jalisco event analysis. These lines are also shown in the results (Figures 7 to Figures 9) to correlate with the structures.
The results of the seismic velocity model in Figures 7 to 9 were plotted using linear Delaunay triangulation in octave [45,46], an open source alternative software of Matlab [47,48]. Figures 10 and 11 were performed for the estimation of the accuracy [49,50]. The resolution of the figures corresponds to a gridding size of 40 × 40 elements, each 1/100 of a degree in area. For the creation of the surface plot of the seismic velocities, first the Voronoi diagram was created, shown in Figure 10; then the area of interest was gridded into meshes of 5 × 5, 10 × 10, 20 × 20, 30 × 30, 40 × 40, 50 × 50 and 60 × 60 area bins and plotted using the Delaunay triangulation. Figure 11 shows the 5 × 5, 10 × 10, 40 × 40 and 60 × 60 meshes that can be compared to the Voronoi figure. The table in Figure 10 shows the number n of the n × n binning and the size of the area a of each bin. This table was created to determine the most appropriate size of the interpolation mesh; the values of the number n versus the size of the pixel as is shown in the plot next to the table.
Figure 10. Voronoi diagram showing the partitioned plane for the set of positions corresponding to Rayleigh wave velocities calculated for periods ranging from 10 s to 20 s for the event in Jalisco; the table shows the number of side bins n to be calculated per side in a square array of n × n bins of area a that are shown in the plot. The size of the pixel represents a surface in units of degrees square.
Figure 11. Plot of the 2D + 1 surface plot of the seismic velocities interpolated using Delaunay triangulation with area binned by 5 × 5, 10 × 10, 40 × 40 and 60 × 60 bins.The results shown in Figures 7, 8 and 9 were chosen because their wider bandwidths enhance the effects of notches and extinction that are consequences of the multipath trajectories that characterize surface wave propagation; this effect is more frequent when using narrower frequency bandwidths [24]. As an example, in Figure 5a, there is a gap for the dispersion curve of line 3 pair 1 (l3p1); no acceptable data was available in the range between 10.00 s to 14.29 s. The gap was compensated by the blockmean interpolation algorithm of GMT that was used to generate the vertical profile in Figure 7b and by reducing the resolution between stations 223A and 123A. The choice of narrower frequency bands increases the vertical resolution but we should expect more gaps in the seismic velocity matrices due to destructive interference of the multipath effect of seismic surface wave propagation [24]. To generate the plots in Figures 7 to 9 the grid size was chosen from the analysis made in Figures 10 and 11. Figure 11 shows the unrealistic approach of using a 5 × 5 or a 10 × 10 grid in the plots and show that grids greater than 40 × 40 does not provide further information to resolve the geological structures.
From the dispersion curves, Tables 1, 2, 3 and surface plots in Figures 7 to 9, the following structures were resolved: The Delaware Basin shows extreme anisotropy with complicated sub-structures that are resolved differently when the seismic velocities are calculated from sources at different distances and azimuths; its seismic velocities, ranges from 2.2 km/s up to 4.7 km/s. The seismic radiation from the event in California was the slowest, followed by that from the event in Jalisco, with the radiation from the event in Samoa being the fastest. For specific values of specific seismic velocities as function of depth and azimuth please refer to Tables 1, 2, 3. The Diablo Plateau showed seismic velocities, ranging from 3.2 km/s up to 4.3 km/s; but, for the Diablo Plateau, the seismic velocities calculated for the event in California are greater than those calculated for the event in Jalisco in opposition to the scenario in the Delaware Basin and the velocities for the event in Samoa were faster in both scenarios; the event in Jalisco resolves the seismic velocities in high correlation with the isostatic gravity anomaly, the event in Samoa somewhat and the event in California not well. The Tularosa Basin and Sheffield Channel show smaller variations in comparison with the Delaware Basin or the Diablo Plateau but still denote the anisotropy of the region; see Figures 7 to 9 and Tables 1 to 3. The area shows completely different images for every structure depending on the azimuth of the propagation of seismic waves leading to the conclusion of high Rayleigh wave anisotropy.
| Approximated Rayleigh seismic wave velocities for some of the Geological Features in the area of Interest Calculated with the event in Jalisco. The seismic velocities are in kilometers per second | ||||||
| Geol. Feat. | Ref. Stat. | Azimuth | 15±5 km Depth | 35±10 km Depth | 100±50 km Depth | 250±100 km Depth |
| Tularosa Basin | Z23A | -2.4 | 2.4 | 3.3 to 3.5 | 3.8 | 3.9 to 4.3 |
| Diablo Plateau | 224A | -0.2 | 3.2 to 3.4 | 3.5 to 3.6 | 3.8 to 3.9 | 3.9 |
| Delaware Basin | SC61 | 6 | 3.2 to 3.5 | 3.5 to 3.7 | 3.9 to 4.1 | 3.9 to 4.2 |
| Fort Davis | SC61 | 6 | 3.3 | 3.6 | 3.9 | 4 |
| Sheffield Channel | SC73 | 9 | 3.3 | 3.4 | 3.7 | 3.8 |
DownLoad: CSV| Approximated Rayleigh seismic wave velocities for some of the Geological Features in the area of Interest Calculated with the event in California. The seismic velocities are in kilometers per second | ||||||
| Geol. Feat. | Ref. Stat. | Azimuth | 15±5 km Depth | 35±10 km Depth | 100±50 km Depth | 250±100 km Depth |
| Tularosa Basin | Z23A | 111 | 2.7 to 2.9 | 1.3 to 1.7 | 3.7 to 3.8 | 4 |
| Diablo Plateau | 224A | 113 | 3.2 to 3.6 | 3.7 to 3.5 | 3.8 | 3.9 to 4.1 |
| Delaware Basin | SC61 | 110 | 2.2 to 3.5 | 3.5 to 3.7 | 3.9 to 4 | 4 to 4.3 |
| Fort Davis | 326A | 113 | 3.2 to 3.4 | 3.6 | 3.8 to 3.9 | 4.1 |
| Sheffield Channel | SC73 | 112 | 2.5 to 2.8 | 2.6 | 3.6 | 3.1 |
DownLoad: CSV| Approximated Rayleigh seismic wave velocities for some of the Geological Features in the area of Interest Calculated with the event in Samoa. The seismic velocities are in kilometers per second | ||||||
| Geol. Feat. | Ref. Stat. | Azimuth | 15±5 km Depth | 35±10 km Depth | 100±50 km Depth | 250±100 km Depth |
| Sierra Blanca NM | SC19 | 51 | 1.1 | 1.5 | 1.8 | 1.8 |
| Tularosa Basin | Z23A | 51 | 3 | 4.2 | 4.8 | 5 to 5.3 |
| Diablo Plateau | 224A | 52 | 4 to 4.3 | 4.1 to 4.6 | 4.8 to 5.5 | 4.9 to 5.4 |
| Delaware Basin | SC61 | 53 | 3.7 to 4.7 | 4.1 to 5.1 | 4.6 to 6 | 4.5 to 4.7 |
| Fort Davis | 426A | 54 | 4.1 to 4.2 | 4.2 to 4.4 | 5.1 | 5.1 to 5.9 |
| Sheffield Channel | SC73 | 54 | 3.9 | 2.8 | 4.9 | 4.9 |
DownLoad: CSVThe use of Rayleigh wave cross correlation analysis is a good tool to identify geological structures of regional size in the crust and upper mantle if the vertical broad band (BHZ) seismic data is available. For this work, data was provided by TA and Flex arrays [19,20].
If you are planning to use Rayleigh wave cross correlation it is not recommended to combine the data from different events for the following reasons:
● The results of the seismic velocity calculations for different events have different averages and standard deviations. The contrast of the plot is affected by the standard deviation.
● Anisotropy causes huge differences in seismic velocities for surface waves travelling along different azimuths in a specific region. The seismic velocity of a region is a function of the angle of incidence of the seismic radiation.
● The uniqueness of the alignment in the strike and slip of the event (focal mechanism) produces specific distribution of stresses; it is elucidated by the moment tensor [51]. The geology reacts differently to different events.
For these reasons the plot performed for different events leads to completely different images. From observation of the results, the structures are best resolved by radiation patterns that are perpendicular to their boundaries.
● Surface waves have some disadvantages.
● Extinction when passing through any geological structure with content of liquid or melts. This effect is caused because shear waves do not propagate in liquids; then, melting, partial melting or content of fluid in the geological formation along the path can cause anomalous correlation or extinction. In this area we have this effect when seismic waves pass through the Mogollon-Datil volcanic field; due to this problem the area near the upper Rio Grande Rift is not possible to model for events like California or Jalisco.
● Another important problem arising from surface wave propagation is called multi-pathing; this problem can be understood better if we recall the Huygens-Fresnel's wave propagation principle instead of the ray tracing model [24,51]. Correlation between two stations that, according to ray tracing, follow similar paths due to the presence of nearby boundaries striking along the propagation with large differences in seismic velocities, leads to negative time correlations. In other words, if signals arriving in the first station came from nearby geological structures with faster seismic speed than that of the second station, then the time correlation leads to negative values. This can be seen as the gap in the dispersion curves shown for the Jalisco event in Figure 5a.
● In another scenario the difference in phase between the two paths superposes destructively causing extinction of the amplitude in the correlation. The reduction or lack of amplitudes in the signal is seen in the dispersion as a discontinuity commonly called notch; the presence of notches causes loss of resolution in the plot [24].
For the area of this investigation, the plot has lower resolution on the rift than on the plains (in the shoulder of the rift also called flank). For this reason, we decided to use the widest bandwidths to perform the plot shown in Figures 9 to 11.
The data used in this study were provided by Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology Data Management Center (IRIS DMC), United States Geological Survey (USGS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Centers for Environmental Information (NOAA's NCEI) and General Mopping Tools (GMT).
All authors declare no conflicts of interest in this paper.
| NETWORK | STATION | LAT | LON | NETWORK | STATION | LAT | LON |
| TA | 121A | 32.5324 | –107.7851 | TA | TASL | 34.9454 | –106.4565 |
| TA | 122A | 32.6995 | –107.0005 | TA | TASM | 34.9455 | –106.46 |
| TA | 123A | 32.6349 | –106.2622 | TA | TASN | 34.9455 | –106.46 |
| TA | 124A | 32.7001 | –105.4544 | TA | TASO | 34.9455 | –106.46 |
| TA | 125A | 32.6588 | –104.6573 | TA | TASP | 34.9455 | –106.46 |
| TA | 126A | 32.6462 | –104.0204 | TA | TVZX | 34.0733 | –106.9196 |
| TA | 127A | 32.6764 | –103.3575 | TA | X21A | 34.4457 | –107.7857 |
| TA | 128A | 32.6213 | –102.485 | TA | X22A | 34.5058 | –107.0102 |
| TA | 221A | 32.0094 | –107.7782 | TA | X23A | 34.581 | –106.1881 |
| TA | 222A | 32.1046 | –107.1013 | TA | X24A | 34.5646 | –105.4349 |
| TA | 223A | 32.0062 | –106.4276 | TA | X25A | 34.5271 | –104.6621 |
| TA | 224A | 32.076 | –105.5226 | TA | X26A | 34.5508 | –103.8103 |
| TA | 225A | 32.1101 | –104.8229 | TA | X27A | 34.6469 | –103.0974 |
| TA | 226A | 32.0618 | –104.1014 | TA | X28A | 34.5185 | –102.1973 |
| TA | 226B | 32.0778 | –104.1654 | TA | Y21A | 34.0087 | –107.674 |
| TA | 227A | 32.012 | –103.2924 | TA | Y22A | 33.937 | –106.9652 |
| TA | 228A | 32.118 | –102.5918 | TA | Y22C | 34.0741 | –106.9211 |
| TA | 324A | 31.4425 | –105.4828 | TA | Y22D | 34.0739 | –106.921 |
| TA | 325A | 31.3711 | –104.9712 | TA | Y22E | 34.0742 | –106.9208 |
| TA | 326A | 31.3165 | –103.9786 | TA | Y22F | 34.0741 | –106.9209 |
| TA | 327A | 31.3691 | –103.4923 | TA | Y23A | 33.9315 | –106.0549 |
| TA | 328A | 31.3818 | –102.8097 | TA | Y24A | 33.9257 | –105.4361 |
| TA | 425A | 30.7862 | –104.9857 | TA | Y25A | 33.9229 | –104.6928 |
| TA | 426A | 30.6689 | –104.0293 | TA | Y26A | 33.9232 | –103.8246 |
| TA | 427A | 30.8498 | –103.4018 | TA | Y27A | 33.8839 | –103.1633 |
| TA | 428A | 30.7263 | –102.6847 | TA | Y28A | 33.9086 | –102.2479 |
| TA | 526A | 30.0609 | –104.0898 | TA | Z21A | 33.3086 | –107.6712 |
| TA | 527A | 30.1456 | –103.6119 | TA | Z22A | 33.2555 | –106.9639 |
| TA | 528A | 30.1615 | –102.788 | TA | Z23A | 33.2621 | –106.2319 |
| TA | 529A | 30.1246 | –102.2204 | TA | Z24A | 33.3298 | –105.3649 |
| TA | 626A | 29.554 | –104.1335 | TA | Z25A | 33.2797 | –104.7171 |
| TA | 627A | 29.4528 | –103.3887 | TA | Z26A | 33.2716 | –103.9798 |
| TA | 628A | 29.4862 | –102.8885 | TA | Z27A | 33.315 | –103.2145 |
| TA | MSTX | 33.9696 | –102.7724 | TA | Z28A | 33.2884 | –102.3866 |
DownLoad: CSV| NETWORK | STATION | LAT | LON | NETWORK | STATION | LAT | LON |
| XR | SC04 | 34.5228 | –105.8119 | XR | SC40 | 32.9317 | –103.54 |
| XR | SC05 | 34.5715 | –105.0554 | XR | SC41 | 32.9833 | –103.2056 |
| XR | SC06 | 34.5145 | –104.2664 | XR | SC42 | 32.8728 | –102.8612 |
| XR | SC07 | 34.1838 | –105.6877 | XR | SC43 | 32.9426 | –102.5369 |
| XR | SC08 | 34.1567 | –105.4697 | XR | SC44 | 32.7572 | –105.947 |
| XR | SC09 | 34.1517 | –105.0013 | XR | SC45 | 32.6337 | –105.1552 |
| XR | SC10 | 34.1937 | –104.6666 | XR | SC46 | 32.654 | –104.3614 |
| XR | SC11 | 34.2323 | –104.2959 | XR | SC47 | 32.629 | –103.6257 |
| XR | SC12 | 34.2148 | –103.9116 | XR | SC48 | 32.6899 | –102.905 |
| XR | SC13 | 34.2135 | –103.5269 | XR | SC49 | 32.443 | –106.064 |
| XR | SC14 | 33.9682 | –105.7695 | XR | SC50 | 32.3895 | –105.6153 |
| XR | SC15 | 33.8308 | –105.0255 | XR | SC51 | 32.3673 | –105.1718 |
| XR | SC16 | 33.8903 | –104.3043 | XR | SC52 | 32.488 | –104.8272 |
| XR | SC17 | 33.893 | –103.5446 | XR | SC53 | 32.3766 | –104.3192 |
| XR | SC18 | 33.8774 | –102.8409 | XR | SC54 | 32.2837 | –104.0398 |
| XR | SC19 | 33.5188 | –105.9744 | XR | SC55 | 32.1712 | –103.6733 |
| XR | SC20 | 33.6042 | –105.5935 | XR | SC56 | 32.3554 | –103.3986 |
| XR | SC21 | 33.5975 | –105.1655 | XR | SC57 | 32.3691 | –102.8513 |
| XR | SC22 | 33.5682 | –104.7542 | XR | SC58 | 32.2888 | –102.5482 |
| XR | SC23 | 33.5995 | –104.3282 | XR | SC59 | 31.9694 | –105.1481 |
| XR | SC25 | 33.5806 | –103.5482 | XR | SC60 | 32.0937 | –104.4877 |
| XR | SC26 | 33.5044 | –103.1184 | XR | SC61 | 31.9895 | –103.6911 |
| XR | SC27 | 33.5385 | –102.8207 | XR | SC62 | 32.0119 | –102.9373 |
| XR | SC28 | 33.5662 | –102.4915 | XR | SC63 | 31.8029 | –104.8464 |
| XR | SC29 | 33.3102 | –105.6705 | XR | SC64 | 31.6996 | –104.4258 |
| XR | SC30 | 33.2738 | –105.17 | XR | SC65 | 31.727 | –104.0178 |
| XR | SC31 | 33.259 | –104.3415 | XR | SC66 | 31.6679 | –103.7363 |
| XR | SC32 | 33.1939 | –103.5979 | XR | SC67 | 31.7051 | –103.3951 |
| XR | SC33 | 33.2334 | –102.8343 | XR | SC68 | 31.8027 | –102.77 |
| XR | SC34 | 32.9513 | –105.8163 | XR | SC69 | 31.6905 | –102.588 |
| XR | SC35 | 32.9369 | –105.5153 | XR | SC70 | 31.3663 | –103.7374 |
| XR | SC36 | 33.0053 | –105.18 | XR | SC71 | 31.6463 | –103.0655 |
| XR | SC37 | 32.937 | –104.6192 | XR | SC72 | 31.1096 | –103.6346 |
| XR | SC38 | 32.9288 | –104.3402 | XR | SC73 | 30.9611 | –102.9875 |
| XR | SC39 | 33.0286 | –103.8453 | XR | SC74 | 31.0024 | –102.6771 |
| XR | SC75 | 31.8742 | –105.952 |
DownLoad: CSV| [1] |
Barbier EB (2012) The green economy post Rio+20. Science 338: 887–888. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1227360 doi: 10.1126/science.1227360
|
| [2] |
Loiseau E, Saikku L, Antikainen R, et al. (2016) Green economy and related concepts: An overview. J Cleaner Prod 139: 361–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.024 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.024
|
| [3] | United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2011) Towards a Green Economy Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication. |
| [4] |
Pearce D (1992) Green economics. Environ Values 1: 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/096327199200100114 doi: 10.1177/096327199200100114
|
| [5] | Ocampo JA (2012) The transition to a green economy: Benefits, challenges and risks from a sustainable development perspective. |
| [6] |
Amato DD, Korhonen J (2021) Integrating the green economy, circular economy and bioeconomy in a strategic sustainability framework. Ecol Econ 188: 107143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107143 doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107143
|
| [7] |
Merino-Saum A, Baldi MG, Gunderson I, et al. (2018) Articulating natural resources and sustainable development goals through green economy indicators: A systematic analysis. Resour, Conserv Recycl 139: 90–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.07.007 doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.07.007
|
| [8] | Gibbs D (2019) Green Economy. In: Kobayashi A (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of Human Geography (Second Edition), Elsevier, 267–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102295-5.10792-9 |
| [9] |
Ollikainen M (2014) Forestry in bioeconomy—smart green growth for the humankind. Scand J For Res 29: 360–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2014.926392 doi: 10.1080/02827581.2014.926392
|
| [10] |
Dandabathula G, Chintala SR, Ghosh S, et al. (2021) Exploring the nexus between Indian forestry and the Sustainable Development Goals. Reg Sustainability 2: 308–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsus.2022.01.002 doi: 10.1016/j.regsus.2022.01.002
|
| [11] |
Endale BJ, Zerihun K, Ermias M (2020) Analysis of socio-economic contribution of agroforestry systems to smallholder farmers around Jimma town, Southwestern Ethiopia. Int J Biodiversity Conserv 12: 48–58. https://doi.org/10.5897/IJBC2018.1237 doi: 10.5897/IJBC2018.1237
|
| [12] |
Jaza Folefack AJ, Darr D (2021) Promoting cocoa agroforestry under conditions of separated ownership of land and trees: Strengthening customary tenure institutions in Cameroon. Land Use Policy 108: 105524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105524 doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105524
|
| [13] |
Phondani PC, Maikhuri RK, Rawat LS, et al. (2020) Assessing farmers' perception on criteria and indicators for sustainable management of indigenous agroforestry systems in Uttarakhand, India. Environ Sustainability Indic 5: 100018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2019.100018 doi: 10.1016/j.indic.2019.100018
|
| [14] |
Hernandez-Aguilera JN, Conrad JM, Gómez MI, et al. (2019) The Economics and ecology of shade-grown coffee: A model to incentivize shade and bird conservation. Ecol Econ 159: 110–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.01.015 doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.01.015
|
| [15] |
De Leijster V, Santos MJ, Wassen MW, et al. (2021) Ecosystem services trajectories in coffee agroforestry in Colombia over 40 years. Ecosyst Serv 48: 101246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101246 doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101246
|
| [16] |
Costanza R, D'Arge R, Groot Rd, et al. (1997) The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387: 253–260. https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0 doi: 10.1038/387253a0
|
| [17] |
Ulya NA, Nurlia A, Kunarso A, et al. (2019) Valuation of goods and services derived from plantation forest in peat swamp forest area: The case of South Sumatra Province. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci 308: 012047. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/308/1/012047 doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/308/1/012047
|
| [18] |
Rakatama A, Pandit R (2020) Reviewing social forestry schemes in Indonesia: Opportunities and challenges. For Policy Econ 111: 102052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.102052 doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2019.102052
|
| [19] | Buttoud G (2013) Advancing agroforestry on the policy agenda—A guide for decision-makers. |
| [20] | Butarbutar T (2011) Agroforestri untuk adaptasi dan mitigasi perubahan iklim. Jurnal Analisis Kebijakan Kehutanan 9: 1–10. |
| [21] | Newaj R, Chaturvedi OP, Handa AK (2016) Recent development in agroforestry research and its role in climate change adaptation and mitigation. Indian J Agrofor 18: 1–9. |
| [22] |
Stavi I, Lal R (2013) Agroforestry and biochar to offset climate change: a review. Agron Sustainable Develop 33: 81–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-012-0081-1 doi: 10.1007/s13593-012-0081-1
|
| [23] |
Hidayat A, Dharmawan AH, Pramudita D (2017) Kelayakan usaha budidaya kopi cibulao dalam program pengelolaan hutan bersama masyarakat. Risalah Kebijakan Pertanian dan Lingkungan 4: 85–95. https://doi.org/10.29244/jkebijakan.v4i2.22028 doi: 10.29244/jkebijakan.v4i2.22028
|
| [24] |
Sunderlin WD, Angelsen A, Belcher B, et al. (2005) Livelihoods, forests, and conservation in developing countries : An overview. World Develop 33: 1383–1402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.10.004 doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.10.004
|
| [25] | International Coffee Organization (ICO) (2022) Historical data on the global coffee trade. |
| [26] | Badan Pusat Statistik (BPS) (2022) Statistik kopi Indonesia 2021. Jakarta: Badan Pusat Statistik. |
| [27] |
Martin E, Herdiana N, Nurlia A, et al. (2020) Kebun-Ghepang: Ecological and institutional reference for social forestry at highlands of Sumatra. IOP Conf Ser: Earth and Environ Sci 533: 012023. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/533/1/012023 doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/533/1/012023
|
| [28] |
Iskandar BS, Iskandar J, Partasasmita R, et al. (2018) Planting coffee and take care of forest: A case study on coffee cultivation in the forest carried out among people of Palintang, highland of Bandung, west Java, Indonesia. Biodiversitas 19: 2183–2195. https://doi.org/10.13057/biodiv/d190626 doi: 10.13057/biodiv/d190626
|
| [29] | Prasmatiwi Erry FISA (2010) Analisis keberlanjutan usahatani kopi di kawasan hutan kabupaten Lampung Barat dengan pendekatan nilai ekonomi lingkungan. Pelita Perkebunan 26: 57–69. |
| [30] |
Octavia D, Suharti S, Murniati M, et al. (2022) Mainstreaming smart agroforestry for social forestry implementation to support Sustainable Development Goals in Indonesia: A Review. Sustainability (Switzerland) 14: 9313. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159313 doi: 10.3390/su14159313
|
| [31] | Sanudin S, Widiyanto A, Palmolina M, et al. (2021) Kelembagaan petani kopi di desa Sukamanah, Sindangkasih, kabupaten Ciamis. J Agrofor Indones 4: 81–90. |
| [32] |
Nelson RH (2013) Multiple-use forest management versus ecosystem forest management: A religious question? For Policy Econ 35: 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2013.06.003 doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2013.06.003
|
| [33] |
Mahmud MS, Zahid A, Das AK, et al. (2021) A systematic literature review on deep learning applications for precision cattle farming. Comput Electron Agric 187: 106313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2021.106313 doi: 10.1016/j.compag.2021.106313
|
| [34] |
Siddaway AP, Wood AM, Hedges LV (2018) How to do a systematic review: A best practice guide for conducting and reporting narrative reviews, meta-analyses, and meta-syntheses. Ann Rev Psychol 70: 747–770. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102803 doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102803
|
| [35] | Kitchenham B, Charters S (2017) Guidelines for Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering. Keele University and Durham University Joint Report, 1–44. |
| [36] |
Georgeson L, Maslin M, Poessinouw M (2017) The global green economy: A review of concepts, definitions, measurement methodologies and their interactions. Geo Environ 4: e00036. https://doi.org/10.1002/geo2.36 doi: 10.1002/geo2.36
|
| [37] |
Bina O (2013) The green economy and sustainable development: An uneasy balance? Environ Plann C: Gov Policy 31: 1023–1047. https://doi.org/10.1068/c1310j doi: 10.1068/c1310j
|
| [38] | United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2014) Trade and green economy: A Handbook. |
| [39] |
Kaztelan A (2017) Green growth, green economy and sustainable development: Terminological and relational discourse. Prague Econ Pap 26: 487–499. https://doi.org/10.18267/j.pep.626 doi: 10.18267/j.pep.626
|
| [40] |
Adamowicz M (2022) Green deal, green growth and green economy as a means of support for attaining the Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability (Switzerland) 14: 5901. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14105901 doi: 10.3390/su14105901
|
| [41] | Platform for Accelerating the Circular Economy (2021) Capital Equipment. Platform for Accelerating the Circular Economy (PACE). |
| [42] | United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2022) For people and planet The United Nations Environment Programme strategy for tackling climate change, biodiversity and nature loss, and pollution and waste from 2022—2025. |
| [43] |
Nair PKR (2005) Agroforestry. Appropriate Technol: 2005: 35–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-12-348530-4/00244-7 doi: 10.1016/B0-12-348530-4/00244-7
|
| [44] |
Torquebiau EF (2000) A renewed perspective on agroforestry concepts. C R de l'Académie des Sci-Ser Ⅲ-Sci de la Vie 323: 1009–1017. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0764-4469(00)01239-7 doi: 10.1016/S0764-4469(00)01239-7
|
| [45] |
Kay S, Graves A, Palma JHN, et al. (2019) Agroforestry is paying off—Economic evaluation of ecosystem services in European landscapes with and without agroforestry systems. Ecosyst Serv 36: 100896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100896 doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100896
|
| [46] |
Ovando P, Campos P, Oviedo JL, et al. (2016) Ecosystem accounting for measuring total income in private and public agroforestry farms. For Policy Econ 71: 43–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.06.031 doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2016.06.031
|
| [47] |
Brand U (2012) Green Economy—the Next Oxymoron? GAIA-Ecol Perspect Sci Soc 21: 28–32. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.21.1.9 doi: 10.14512/gaia.21.1.9
|
| [48] |
Borel-Saladin JM, Turok IN (2013) The green economy: Incremental change or transformation? Environ Policy Governance 23: 209–220. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1614 doi: 10.1002/eet.1614
|
| [49] |
Dianjaya AR, Epira P (2020) Indonesia green economy implementation readiness of greenhouse gas emissions reduction. J Contemp Governance Public Policy 1: 27–40. https://doi.org/10.46507/jcgpp.v1i1.5 doi: 10.46507/jcgpp.v1i1.5
|
| [50] |
Akter R, Kamrul M, Kabir KH, et al. (2022) Agroforestry systems and their impact on livelihood improvement of tribal farmers in a tropical moist deciduous forest in Bangladesh. Trees, For People 9: 100315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2022.100315 doi: 10.1016/j.tfp.2022.100315
|
| [51] |
Aryal K, Maraseni T, Apan A (2023) Transforming agroforestry in contested landscapes : A win-win solution to trade-offs in ecosystem services in Nepal. Sci Total Environ 857: 159301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.159301 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.159301
|
| [52] |
Wilson MH, Lovell ST (2016) Agroforestry—The next step in sustainable and resilient agriculture. Sustainability (Switzerland) 8: 574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.159301 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.159301
|
| [53] |
Paudel S, Baral H, Rojario A, et al. (2022) Agroforestry : Opportunities and challenges in Timor-Leste. Forests 13: 41. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13010041 doi: 10.3390/f13010041
|
| [54] |
Fitch A, Rowe RL, McNamara NP, et al. (2022) The coffee compromise: Is agricultural expansion into tree plantations a sustainable option? Sustainability (Switzerland) 14: 3019. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14053019 doi: 10.3390/su14053019
|
| [55] |
Liu W, Yao S, Wang J, et al. (2019) Trends and features of agroforestry research based on bibliometric analysis. Sustainability (Switzerland) 11: 3473. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11123473 doi: 10.3390/su11123473
|
| [56] |
Susanti A, Marhaento H, Permadi DB, et al. (2020) Smallholder farmers' perception on oil palm agroforestry. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci 449: 012056. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/449/1/012056 doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/449/1/012056
|
| [57] |
Vazquez-Delfin P, Casas A, Vallejo M (2022) Adaptation and biocultural conservation of traditional agroforestry systems in the Tehuac an Valley: Access to resources and livelihoods strategies. Heliyon 8: e09805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09805 doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09805
|
| [58] |
Zada M, Zada S, Ali M, et al. (2022) Contribution of small-scale agroforestry to local economic development and livelihood resilience: Evidence from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province (KPK), Pakistan. Land 11: 71. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11010071 doi: 10.3390/land11010071
|
| [59] |
Parodi A, Villamonte-Cuneo G, Loboguerrero AM, et al. (2022) Embedding circularity into the transition towards sustainable agroforestry systems in Peru. Sci Total Environ 838: 156376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.156376 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.156376
|
| [60] |
Insusanty E, Ikhwan M, Ervayenri E, et al. (2020) Mitigation climate change: Strengthening agroforestry at the District XⅢ Koto Kampar, Riau. Indonesia. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci 469: 012015. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/469/1/012015 doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/469/1/012015
|
| [61] |
Suyanto S, Pandu Permana R, Khususiyah N, et al. (2005) Land tenure, agroforestry adoption, and reduction of fire hazard in a forest zone: A case study from Lampung, Sumatra, Indonesia. Agrofor Syst 65: 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-004-1413-1 doi: 10.1007/s10457-004-1413-1
|
| [62] |
Apriandana F, Safe'i R, Febryano IG, et al. (2021) Pengelolaan hutan desa di KPH wilayah VⅢ Semendo dari perspektif kinerja kelembagaan. J Penelitian Sosial dan Ekon Kehutanan 18: 185–204. https://doi.org/10.20886/jpsek.2021.18.3.185-204 doi: 10.20886/jpsek.2021.18.3.185-204
|
| [63] |
Verbist B, Putra AED, Budidarsono S (2005) Factors driving land use change: Effects on watershed functions in a coffee agroforestry system in Lampung, Sumatra. Agric Syst 85: 254–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2005.06.010 doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2005.06.010
|
| [64] |
Supriadi H, Pranowo D (2015) Some statistical aspects of partitioning genotype-environmental components of variability. Perspektif 14: 135–150. https://doi.org/10.21082/p.v14n2.2015.135-150 doi: 10.21082/p.v14n2.2015.135-150
|
| [65] | United Nations Office for REDD Coordination in Indonesia (UNORCID) (2015) Forest Ecosystem Valuation Study: Indonesia. |
| [66] |
Amaruzaman S, Leimona B, van Noordwijk M, et al. (2017) Discourses on the performance gap of agriculture in a green economy: A Q-methodology study in Indonesia. Int J Biodiversity Sci, Ecosyst Serv Manag 13: 233–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2017.1331264 doi: 10.1080/21513732.2017.1331264
|
| [67] |
Swainson L, Mahanty S (2018) Green economy meets political economy: Lessons from the "Aceh Green" initiative, Indonesia. Global Environ Change 53: 286–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.10.009 doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.10.009
|
| [68] |
Anderson ZR, Kusters K, McCarthy J, et al. (2016) Green growth rhetoric versus reality: Insights from Indonesia. Global Environ Change 38: 30–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.02.008 doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.02.008
|
| [69] |
Endriana L, Hartono D, Irawan T (2016) Green economy priority sectors in Indonesia: A SAM approach. Environ Econ Policy Stud 18: 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10018-015-0114-5 doi: 10.1007/s10018-015-0114-5
|
| [70] |
David W, Ardiansyah A (2016) Organic agriculture in Indonesia: Challenges and opportunities. Org Agric 7: 329–338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13165-016-0160-8 doi: 10.1007/s13165-016-0160-8
|
| [71] |
Machmuddin N, Kusnadi N, Syaukat Y (2017) Analisis efisiensi ekonomi usahatani padi organik dan konvensional di kabupaten Tasikmalaya. Forum Agribisnis 6: 145–160. https://doi.org/10.29244/fagb.6.2.145-160 doi: 10.29244/fagb.6.2.145-160
|
| [72] |
Mayrowani H (2012) Pengembangan pertanian organik di Indonesia. Forum Penelitian Agro Ekonomi 30: 91–108. https://doi.org/10.21082/fae.v30n2.2012.91-108 doi: 10.21082/fae.v30n2.2012.91-108
|
| [73] |
Ginting YA, Malau LRE (2021) Analisis pendapatan dan faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi penerapan System Rice of Intensification (SRI) di desa Trasan, kecamatan Bandongan, kabupaten Magelang. J Manajemen Agribisnis (Journal of Agribusiness Management) 9: 303–314. https://doi.org/10.24843/JMA.2021.v09.i01.p07 doi: 10.24843/JMA.2021.v09.i01.p07
|
| [74] |
Gultom L, Winandi R, Jahroh S (2014) Analisis efisiensi teknis usahatani padi semi organik di kecamatan Cigombong, Bogor. Inf Pertanian 23: 7–18. https://doi.org/10.21082/ip.v23n1.2014.p7-18 doi: 10.21082/ip.v23n1.2014.p7-18
|
| [75] |
Murniati K, Mulyo JH, Irham I, et al. (2017) Efisiensi teknis usaha tani padi organik lahan sawah tadah hujan di kabupaten Tanggamus provinsi Lampung. J Penelitian Pertanian Ter 14: 31–38. https://doi.org/10.25181/jppt.v14i1.139 doi: 10.25181/jppt.v14i1.139
|
| [76] |
Permatasari P, Anantanyu S, Dewi WS (2018) Pengaruh tingkat adopsi budidaya padi organik terhadap keberlanjutan budidaya padi organik di kabupaten Boyolali. Carakatani: J Sustainable Agric 33: 153–168. https://doi.org/10.20961/carakatani.v33i2.22296 doi: 10.20961/carakatani.v33i2.22296
|
| [77] |
Arsanti IW, Böhme MH (2018) Organic vegetable production in java—Challenge for the chili growers. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci 215: 012035. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/215/1/012035 doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/215/1/012035
|
| [78] |
Leksono AS, Mustafa I, Gama ZP, et al. (2021) Organic farming system of cocoa plantations in South Malang, Indonesia. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci 743: 012030. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/743/1/012030 doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/743/1/012030
|
| [79] |
Utami TW, Irham I, Abdurofi I (2022) The sustainability level of semi organic shallot farming based on farmers perception: A case study in Bantul district, Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta, Indonesia. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci 1005: 012029. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1005/1/012029 doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/1005/1/012029
|
| [80] |
Saroja RA-Z, Karyani T (2021) Komparasi pendapatan petani kopi organik dan Konvensional (Suatu kasus di desa Margamulya, kecamatan Pangalengan, kabupaten Bandung, Jawa Barat). Mimbar Agribisnis: J Pemikiran Masyarakat Ilmiah Berwawasan Agribisnis 7: 25–25. https://doi.org/10.25157/ma.v7i1.3822 doi: 10.25157/ma.v7i1.3822
|
| [81] |
Marindra G, Arifin B, Indriani Y (2018) Analisis keberlanjutan usahatani kopi sertifikasi Common Code For The Coffee Community (4C) di Kabupaten Tanggamus Provinsi Lampung. J Ilmu-Ilmu Agribisnis 6: 367–383. https://doi.org/10.23960/jiia.v6i4.376-383 doi: 10.23960/jiia.v6i4.376-383
|
| [82] |
Santoso AB (2017) Analisis pendapatan terhadap karakteristik usahtani integrasi tanaman perkebunan-sapi: Kasus di Desa Mesa, kabupaten Maluku Tengah. J Ilmu Pertanian Indonesia 22: 108–114. https://doi.org/10.18343/jipi.22.2.108 doi: 10.18343/jipi.22.2.108
|
| [83] |
Bamualim AM, Madarisa F, Pendra Y, et al. (2015) Kajian inovasi integrasi tanaman-ternak melalui pemanfaatan hasil ikutan tanaman sawit untuk meningkatkan produksi sapi lokal Sumatera Barat. J Peternakan Indonesia (Indonesian Journal of Animal Science) 17: 83–93. https://doi.org/10.25077/jpi.17.2.83-93.2015 doi: 10.25077/jpi.17.2.83-93.2015
|
| [84] |
Sari M, Silalahi FRL (2022) Analisis usahatani integrasi sapi-sawit di kabupaten Deli Serdang, provinsi Sumatera Utara, Indonesia. Agro Bali: Agric J 5: 144–155. https://doi.org/10.37637/ab.v5i1.879 doi: 10.37637/ab.v5i1.879
|
| [85] |
Ermiati E, Pribadi ER, Wahyudi A (2015) Pengkajian usahatani integrasi seraiwangi-ternak sapi. Buletin Penelitian Tanaman Rempah dan Obat 26: 133–142. https://doi.org/10.21082/bullittro.v26n2.2015.133-142 doi: 10.21082/bullittro.v26n2.2015.133-142
|
| [86] |
Parulian L, Munthe KPSM, Haloho RD (2019) Pengaruh integrasi tanaman dan ternak sapi terhadap peningkatan pendapatan dan produktivitas petani (Studi kasus: petani kentang di kecamatan Harian, kabupaten Samosir). Agrimor: J Agribisnis Lahan Kering 4: 22–25. https://doi.org/10.32938/ag.v4i2.694 doi: 10.32938/ag.v4i2.694
|
| [87] |
Suwarto S, Aryanto AT, Efendi I (2015) Perancangan model pertanian terpadu tanaman-ternak dan tanaman-ikan di perkampungan teknologi Telo, Riau. J Agron 43: 168–177. https://doi.org/10.24831/jai.v43i2.10424 doi: 10.24831/jai.v43i2.10424
|
| [88] |
Rahmat M, Premono BT, Ulya NA, et al. (2019) Management of swamp buffalo farms in forest areas to preserve forest ecosystem and sustainability of community livelihoods. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci 298: 012038. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/298/1/012038 doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/298/1/012038
|
| [89] | Tata HL (2019) Mixed farming systems on peatlands in Jambi and Central Kalimantan provinces, Indonesia: Should they be describe as paludiculture? Mires Peat 25: 1–17. |
| [90] | Tata HL, Susmianto A (2016) Prospek Ekosistem Gambut Indonesia. Bogor: FORDA Press. |
| [91] |
Yuwati TW, Rachmanadi D, Qirom MA, et al. (2021) The performance of paludiculture commodities at different peat depths in Central Kalimantan. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci 914: 012047. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/914/1/012047 doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/914/1/012047
|
| [92] |
Budiman I, Bastoni B, Sari ENN, et al. (2020) Progress of paludiculture projects in supporting peatland ecosystem restoration in Indonesia. Global Ecol Conserv 23: e01084. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01084 doi: 10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01084
|
| [93] |
Achmad B, Siarudin M, Widiyanto A, et al. (2022) Traditional subsistence farming of smallholder agroforestry systems in Indonesia: A Review. Sustainability (Switzerland) 14: 8631. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148631 doi: 10.3390/su14148631
|
| [94] |
Purnomo D, Budiastuti MTS, Setyaningrum D (2022) The role of soybean agroforestry in mitigating climate change in Indonesia. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci 1016: 012024. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1016/1/012024 doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/1016/1/012024
|
| [95] | Rachman LM, Hidayat Y, Tarigan SD, et al. (2020) The effect of agroforestry system on reducing soil erosion in upstream Ciliwung watershed. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci 556: 012010. |
| [96] |
Rahmani TA, Nurrochmat DR, Hero Y, et al. (2021) Evaluating the feasibility of oil palm agroforestry in harapan rainforest, Jambi, Indonesia. For Soc 5: 458–477. https://doi.org/10.24259/fs.v5i2.10375 doi: 10.24259/fs.v5i2.10375
|
| [97] | Hidayat NK, Offermans A, Glasbergen P (2016) On the profitability of sustainability certification. J Econ Sustainable Develop 7: 45–62. |
| [98] |
Hutabarat S, Slingerland M, Rietberg P, et al. (2018) Costs and benefits of certification of independent oil palm smallholders in Indonesia. Int Food Agribusiness Manag Rev 21: 681–700. https://doi.org/10.22434/IFAMR2016.0162 doi: 10.22434/IFAMR2016.0162
|
| [99] |
Ibnu M (2019) Determinan Partisipasi Petani Kopi dalam Standar dan Sertifikasi Berkelanjutan Common Code for Coffee Community (4C). J Tanaman Industri dan Penyegar 6: 135–144. https://doi.org/10.21082/jtidp.v6n3.2019.p135-144 doi: 10.21082/jtidp.v6n3.2019.p135-144
|
| [100] | Oktami N, Prasmatiwi FE, Rosanti N (2014) Manfaat sertifikasi Rainforest Alliance (RA) dalam mengembangkan usahatani kopi yang berkelanjutan di kecamatan Pulau Panggung, kabupaten Tanggamus. Jurnal Ilmu Ilmu Agribisnis 2: 337–347. |
| [101] |
Sinaga SV, Harianto H, Suharno S (2019) Analisis propensity score matching dampak ekonomi sertifikasi C.A.F.E Practises pada usahatani kopi lintong Sumatera Utara. J AGRISEP: Kajian Masalah Sosial Ekonomi Pertanian dan Agribisnis 18: 139–152. https://doi.org/10.31186/jagrisep.18.1.139-152 doi: 10.31186/jagrisep.18.1.139-152
|
| [102] | Sudirman H, Nurmalina R, Suprehatin S (2021) Dampak standar keberlanjutan terhadap pendapatan usahatani kopi: Kasus program CAFE Practises di Kabupaten Enrekang. J Agro Ekon 39: 131–153. |
| [103] |
Cahyono ED, Fairuzzana S, Willianto D, et al. (2020) Agroforestry innovation through planned farmer behavior: Trimming in pine-coffee systems. Land 9: 363. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9100363 doi: 10.3390/land9100363
|
| [104] |
Fitriani, Arifin B, Zakaria WA, et al. (2018) Coffee agroforestry for sustainability of Upper Sekampung Watershed management. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci 141: 012006. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/141/1/012006 doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/141/1/012006
|
| [105] |
Hayyun DA, Megantara EN, Parikesit P (2018) Kajian layanan ekosistem pada sistem agroforestri berbasis kopi di Desa Cisero, Garut. J Pengelolaan Lingkungan Berkelanjutan (Journal of Environmental Sustainability Management) 2: 200–219. https://doi.org/10.36813/jplb.2.3.200-219 doi: 10.36813/jplb.2.3.200-219
|
| [106] |
Nandini R (2018) Analisis keuntungan usaha Tani agroforestry kemiri, coklat, kopi dan pisang di Hutan Kemasyarakatan Sesaot, Lombok Barat. J Penelitian Kehutanan Faloak 2: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.20886/jpkf.2018.2.1.1-12 doi: 10.20886/jpkf.2018.2.1.1-12
|
| [107] |
Pratiwi AM, Kaskoyo H, Herwanti S (2019) Efisiensi pemasaran agroforestri berbasis kopi berdasarkan keragaan pasar : Studi kasus di Pekon Air Kubang, Tanggamus. J Sylva Lestari 7: 299–308. https://doi.org/10.23960/jsl37299-308 doi: 10.23960/jsl37299-308
|
| [108] | Agustiningsih R, Suhartoyo H, Suharto E (2022) Pengaruh naungan terhadap kualitas bubuk kopi pada lahan agroforestri. J of Global For Environ Sci 2: 56–60. |
| [109] |
Kissinger K, Pitri RMN (2017) Bioekologi agroforestry kopi: Tutupan vegetasi dan pola tumbuhan penyusun agroforestry kopi (coffea sp.) di kecamatan Pengaron, kabupaten Banjar, Kalimantan Selatan. EnviroScienteae 13: 150–156. https://doi.org/10.20527/es.v13i2.3917 doi: 10.20527/es.v13i2.3917
|
| [110] |
Martin E, Suharjito D, Darusman D, et al. (2016) Etika subsistensi petani kopi: Memahami dinamika pengembangan agroforestri di Dataran Tinggi Sumatera Selatan. Sodality: J Sosiologi Pedesaan 4: 155–166. https://doi.org/10.22500/sodality.v4i1.14410 doi: 10.22500/sodality.v4i1.14410
|
| [111] |
Rimbawan R, Hafizianor H, Pujawati ED (2021) Pengelolaan agroforestri pinus-kopi dan kontribusinya bagi masyarakat desa Babadan pada kawasan hutan pinus perutani KPH Malang Jawa Timur. J Sylva Scienteae 4: 591–598. https://doi.org/10.20527/jss.v4i4.3933 doi: 10.20527/jss.v4i4.3933
|
| [112] |
Godoy R, Bennett C (1989) Diversification among coffee smallholders in the highlands of South Sumatra, Indonesia. Hum Ecol 16: 397–420. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00891650 doi: 10.1007/BF00891650
|
| [113] | Kerr J, Pender J, Suyanto (2006) Property rights and environmental services in Lampung Province, Indonesia. Survival of the Commons: Mounting Challenges and New Realities The Eleventh Conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property, 1–30. |
| [114] |
Levang P, Sitorus S, Gaveau D, et al. (2012) Landless farmers, sly opportunists, and manipulated voters: The squatters of the Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park (Indonesia). Conserv Soc 10: 243–255. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4923.101838 doi: 10.4103/0972-4923.101838
|
| [115] |
Putraditama A, Kim Y-s, Baral H (2021) Where to put community-based forestry?: Reconciling conservation and livelihood in Lampung, Indonesia. Trees, For People 4: 100062. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2021.100062 doi: 10.1016/j.tfp.2021.100062
|
| [116] |
Octavia D, Rachmat HH (2020) Promoting agroforestry model in increasing land cover to sustain community livelihood in Paru Village Forest. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci 449: 012011. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/449/1/012011 doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/449/1/012011
|
| [117] |
Wahyu A, Suharjito D, Darusman D, et al. (2020) The development of community-based forest management in Indonesia and its contribution to community welfare and forest condition. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci 528: 012037. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/528/1/012037 doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/528/1/012037
|
| [118] | Capaian Perhutanan Sosial Sampai Dengan 1 Oktober 2022. http://pskl.menlhk.go.id/berita/437-capaian-perhutanan-sosial-sampai-dengan-1-oktober-2022.html?showall = 1 & limitstart = |
| [119] |
Fisher MR, Moeliono M, Mulyana A, et al. (2018) Assessing the new social forestry project in Indonesia: Recognition, livelihood and conservation? Int For Rev 20: 346–361. https://doi.org/10.1505/146554818824063014 doi: 10.1505/146554818824063014
|
| [120] |
Kaskoyo H, Mohammed AJ, Inoue M (2017) Impact of community forest program in protection forest on livelihood outcomes: A case study of Lampung Province, Indonesia. J Sustainable For 36: 250–263. https://doi.org/10.1080/10549811.2017.1296774 doi: 10.1080/10549811.2017.1296774
|
| [121] |
Rowe RL, Prayogo C, Oakley S, et al. (2022) Improved coffee management by farmers in state forest plantations in Indonesia: An experimental platform. Land 11: 671. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11050671 doi: 10.3390/land11050671
|
| [122] | Djajanti D (2006) Managing forest with community (PHBM) in Central Java: Promoting equity in access to NTFPs. In: Mahanty S, Fox J, Nurse M, et al. (Eds.), East-West Center and RECOFTC, 63–82. |
| [123] |
Maryudi A (2012) Restoring state control over forest resources through administrative procedures: Evidence from a community forestry programme in Central Java, Indonesia. Indonesia ASEAS-Austrian J South-East Asian Stud 5: 229–242. https://doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v5n2p43 doi: 10.5539/jsd.v5n2p43
|
| [124] |
Veriasa TO, Rustiadi E, Kinseng RA (2020) The impact of joint community forest management (PHBM) on local community income in upstream of Ciliwung watershed, Bogor Regency-Indonesia. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci 556: 012009. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/556/1/012009 doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/556/1/012009
|
| [125] |
Yokota Y, Harada K, Rohman, et al. (2014) Contributions of company-community forestry partnerships (PHBM) to the livelihoods of participants in Java, Indonesia: A case study in Madiun, East Java. Jpn Agric Res Q: JARQ 48: 363–377. https://doi.org/10.6090/jarq.48.363 doi: 10.6090/jarq.48.363
|
| [126] |
Iskandar BS, Iskandar J, Irawan B, et al. (2019) The development of coffee cultivation in the traditional agroforestry of mixed-garden (Dukuh lembur) to provide social-economic benefit for the outer baduy community, South Banten, Indonesia. Biodiversitas 20: 2958–2969. https://doi.org/10.13057/biodiv/d201026 doi: 10.13057/biodiv/d201026
|
| [127] |
Sodik M, Pudyatmoko S, Yuwono PSH, et al. (2020) Forest conflict mitigation through coffee-based agroforestry provide secure habitat for Javan Slow Lorise in a lowland fragmented forest in Central Java, Indonesia. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci 449: 012050. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/449/1/012050 doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/449/1/012050
|
| [128] |
Zahro M, Subekti S, Widjayanthi L (2017) Perubahan sosial ekonomi petani agroforestri berbasis kopi di kabupaten Jember, Jawa Timur. J Kebijakan dan Manajemen Publik 5: 159–168. https://doi.org/10.21070/jkmp.v5i2.1313 doi: 10.21070/jkmp.v5i2.1313
|
| [129] |
Winarni S, Budi Yuwono S, Herwanti S (2016) Struktur pendapatan, tingkat kesejahteraan dan faktor produksi agroforestri kopi pada Kesatuan Pengelolaan Hutan Lindung Batutegi (Studi di Gabungan Kelompok Tani Karya Tani Mandiri). J Sylva Lestari 4: 1–10. https://doi.org/10.23960/jsl141-10 doi: 10.23960/jsl141-10
|
| [130] |
Fitriani, Arifin B, Zakaria WA, et al. (2018) Kinerja usahatani kopi di hulu DAS Sekampung, Tanggamus, Lampung. J Penelitian Pertanian Terapan 18: 165–174. https://doi.org/10.25181/jppt.v18i3.1503 doi: 10.25181/jppt.v18i3.1503
|
| [131] |
Wulandari C, Kurniasih H (2019) Community preferences for social forestry facilitation programming in lampung, Indonesia. For Soc 3: 114–132. https://doi.org/10.24259/fs.v3i1.6026 doi: 10.24259/fs.v3i1.6026
|
| [132] |
Ahenkan A, Osei J, Owusu EH (2018) Mainstreaming green economy: An assessment of private sector led initiatives in climate change adaptation in Ghana. J Sustainable Develop 11: 77–87. https://doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v11n2p77 doi: 10.5539/jsd.v11n2p77
|
| [133] | Rawanda R, Mutama R, Surya MH, et al. (2021) Pengaruh pengelolaan kopi robusta terhadap kondisi sosial ekonomi masyarakat di HKM Binawana Register 45B Desa Tri Budisukur, Kecamatan Kebun Tebu, Lampung Barat, Lampung. J People, For Environ 1: 1–10. |
| [134] |
Suyanto S, Khususiyah N, Leimona B (2007) Poverty and environmental services case study in way Besai Watershed, Lampung Province, Indonesia. Ecol Soc 12: 13. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02070-120213 doi: 10.5751/ES-02070-120213
|
| [135] |
Ismono H, Arifin B, Tanaka K, et al. (2022) Impacts of coffee agroforestry and sustainability certification on farmers' livelihood in Sumatra-Indonesia. Sustainability Sci Resour 2: 77–95. https://doi.org/10.55168/ssr2809-6029.2022.2005 doi: 10.55168/ssr2809-6029.2022.2005
|
| [136] | Harianja AH (2013) Analisis Ekonomi Pengelolaan Hutan Rakyat di Sub DAS Arun. |
| [137] |
Dassir M, Sadapotto A, Arsyad U, et al. (2019) Adaptive agroforestry model to improve livelihood and to support the management of Minraleng Watershed in Maros Regency. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci 270: 012011. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/270/1/012011 doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/270/1/012011
|
| [138] |
Hakim L (2021) Coffee: Ethnobotany, tourism and biodiversity conservation in East Java. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci 743: 012063. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/743/1/012063 doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/743/1/012063
|
| [139] |
Jafaruddin N, Noor TI, Karyani T (2020) Variables influencing the potency of community based coffee agro-tourism in Mount Galunggung, Tasikmalaya, Indonesia. Pelita Perkebunan 36: 267–276. https://doi.org/10.22302/iccri.jur.pelitaperkebunan.v36i3.454 doi: 10.22302/iccri.jur.pelitaperkebunan.v36i3.454
|
| [140] |
Imron MA, Campera M, Bihad DA, et al. (2022) Bird assemblages in coffee agroforestry systems and other human modified habitats in Indonesia. Biology 11: 310. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology11020310 doi: 10.3390/biology11020310
|
| [141] |
Arifin MZ, Khoir M, Purwanto BE (2020) Community attitudes towards biogas as an alternative energy and environmental quality improvement. J Phys: Conf Ser 1517: 012043. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1517/1/012043 doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1517/1/012043
|
| [142] |
Anhar A, Rasyid UHA, Muslih AM, et al. (2020) Sustainable arabica coffee development strategies in Aceh, Indonesia. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci 667: 012106. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/667/1/012106 doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/667/1/012106
|
| [143] |
Gomes LC, Bianchi FJJA, Cardoso IM, et al. (2020) Agroforestry systems can mitigate the impacts of climate change on coffee production: A spatially explicit assessment in Brazil. Agric, Ecosystems Environ 294: 106858. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2020.106858 doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2020.106858
|
| [144] |
Moreira SLS, Pires CV, Marcatti GE, et al. (2018) Intercropping of coffee with the palm tree, macauba, can mitigate climate change effects. Agric For Meteorol 256-257: 379–390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2018.03.026 doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2018.03.026
|
| [145] |
Rachman I, Umar S, Malik A, et al. (2021) Community readiness on managing agroforestry of candlenut and coffee. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci 807: 032008. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/807/3/032008 doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/807/3/032008
|
| [146] |
Lelamo LL (2021) A review on the indigenous multipurpose agroforestry tree species in Ethiopia: management, their productive and service roles and constraints. Heliyon 7: e07874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07874 doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07874
|
| [147] |
Rosiana N (2020) Dinamika pola pemasaran kopi pada wilayah sentra produksi utama di Indonesia. J Agrosains dan Teknologi 5: 1-10. https://doi.org/10.24853/jat.5.1.1-10 doi: 10.24853/jat.5.1.1-10
|
Figures(5) / Tables(1)
Nur Arifatul Ulya, Alfonsus Hasudungan Harianja, Apri Laila Sayekti, Astrina Yulianti, Deden Djaenudin, Edwin Martin, Hariyadi Hariyadi, Julian Witjaksono, Leo Rio Ependi Malau, Muhammad Rifqi Tirta Mudhofir, Satria Astana. Coffee agroforestry as an alternative to the implementation of green economy practices in Indonesia: A systematic review[J]. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2023, 8(3): 762-788. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2023041
| Approximated Rayleigh seismic wave velocities for some of the Geological Features in the area of Interest Calculated with the event in Jalisco. The seismic velocities are in kilometers per second | ||||||
| Geol. Feat. | Ref. Stat. | Azimuth | 15±5 km Depth | 35±10 km Depth | 100±50 km Depth | 250±100 km Depth |
| Tularosa Basin | Z23A | -2.4 | 2.4 | 3.3 to 3.5 | 3.8 | 3.9 to 4.3 |
| Diablo Plateau | 224A | -0.2 | 3.2 to 3.4 | 3.5 to 3.6 | 3.8 to 3.9 | 3.9 |
| Delaware Basin | SC61 | 6 | 3.2 to 3.5 | 3.5 to 3.7 | 3.9 to 4.1 | 3.9 to 4.2 |
| Fort Davis | SC61 | 6 | 3.3 | 3.6 | 3.9 | 4 |
| Sheffield Channel | SC73 | 9 | 3.3 | 3.4 | 3.7 | 3.8 |
DownLoad: CSV| Approximated Rayleigh seismic wave velocities for some of the Geological Features in the area of Interest Calculated with the event in California. The seismic velocities are in kilometers per second | ||||||
| Geol. Feat. | Ref. Stat. | Azimuth | 15±5 km Depth | 35±10 km Depth | 100±50 km Depth | 250±100 km Depth |
| Tularosa Basin | Z23A | 111 | 2.7 to 2.9 | 1.3 to 1.7 | 3.7 to 3.8 | 4 |
| Diablo Plateau | 224A | 113 | 3.2 to 3.6 | 3.7 to 3.5 | 3.8 | 3.9 to 4.1 |
| Delaware Basin | SC61 | 110 | 2.2 to 3.5 | 3.5 to 3.7 | 3.9 to 4 | 4 to 4.3 |
| Fort Davis | 326A | 113 | 3.2 to 3.4 | 3.6 | 3.8 to 3.9 | 4.1 |
| Sheffield Channel | SC73 | 112 | 2.5 to 2.8 | 2.6 | 3.6 | 3.1 |
DownLoad: CSV| Approximated Rayleigh seismic wave velocities for some of the Geological Features in the area of Interest Calculated with the event in Samoa. The seismic velocities are in kilometers per second | ||||||
| Geol. Feat. | Ref. Stat. | Azimuth | 15±5 km Depth | 35±10 km Depth | 100±50 km Depth | 250±100 km Depth |
| Sierra Blanca NM | SC19 | 51 | 1.1 | 1.5 | 1.8 | 1.8 |
| Tularosa Basin | Z23A | 51 | 3 | 4.2 | 4.8 | 5 to 5.3 |
| Diablo Plateau | 224A | 52 | 4 to 4.3 | 4.1 to 4.6 | 4.8 to 5.5 | 4.9 to 5.4 |
| Delaware Basin | SC61 | 53 | 3.7 to 4.7 | 4.1 to 5.1 | 4.6 to 6 | 4.5 to 4.7 |
| Fort Davis | 426A | 54 | 4.1 to 4.2 | 4.2 to 4.4 | 5.1 | 5.1 to 5.9 |
| Sheffield Channel | SC73 | 54 | 3.9 | 2.8 | 4.9 | 4.9 |
DownLoad: CSV| NETWORK | STATION | LAT | LON | NETWORK | STATION | LAT | LON |
| TA | 121A | 32.5324 | –107.7851 | TA | TASL | 34.9454 | –106.4565 |
| TA | 122A | 32.6995 | –107.0005 | TA | TASM | 34.9455 | –106.46 |
| TA | 123A | 32.6349 | –106.2622 | TA | TASN | 34.9455 | –106.46 |
| TA | 124A | 32.7001 | –105.4544 | TA | TASO | 34.9455 | –106.46 |
| TA | 125A | 32.6588 | –104.6573 | TA | TASP | 34.9455 | –106.46 |
| TA | 126A | 32.6462 | –104.0204 | TA | TVZX | 34.0733 | –106.9196 |
| TA | 127A | 32.6764 | –103.3575 | TA | X21A | 34.4457 | –107.7857 |
| TA | 128A | 32.6213 | –102.485 | TA | X22A | 34.5058 | –107.0102 |
| TA | 221A | 32.0094 | –107.7782 | TA | X23A | 34.581 | –106.1881 |
| TA | 222A | 32.1046 | –107.1013 | TA | X24A | 34.5646 | –105.4349 |
| TA | 223A | 32.0062 | –106.4276 | TA | X25A | 34.5271 | –104.6621 |
| TA | 224A | 32.076 | –105.5226 | TA | X26A | 34.5508 | –103.8103 |
| TA | 225A | 32.1101 | –104.8229 | TA | X27A | 34.6469 | –103.0974 |
| TA | 226A | 32.0618 | –104.1014 | TA | X28A | 34.5185 | –102.1973 |
| TA | 226B | 32.0778 | –104.1654 | TA | Y21A | 34.0087 | –107.674 |
| TA | 227A | 32.012 | –103.2924 | TA | Y22A | 33.937 | –106.9652 |
| TA | 228A | 32.118 | –102.5918 | TA | Y22C | 34.0741 | –106.9211 |
| TA | 324A | 31.4425 | –105.4828 | TA | Y22D | 34.0739 | –106.921 |
| TA | 325A | 31.3711 | –104.9712 | TA | Y22E | 34.0742 | –106.9208 |
| TA | 326A | 31.3165 | –103.9786 | TA | Y22F | 34.0741 | –106.9209 |
| TA | 327A | 31.3691 | –103.4923 | TA | Y23A | 33.9315 | –106.0549 |
| TA | 328A | 31.3818 | –102.8097 | TA | Y24A | 33.9257 | –105.4361 |
| TA | 425A | 30.7862 | –104.9857 | TA | Y25A | 33.9229 | –104.6928 |
| TA | 426A | 30.6689 | –104.0293 | TA | Y26A | 33.9232 | –103.8246 |
| TA | 427A | 30.8498 | –103.4018 | TA | Y27A | 33.8839 | –103.1633 |
| TA | 428A | 30.7263 | –102.6847 | TA | Y28A | 33.9086 | –102.2479 |
| TA | 526A | 30.0609 | –104.0898 | TA | Z21A | 33.3086 | –107.6712 |
| TA | 527A | 30.1456 | –103.6119 | TA | Z22A | 33.2555 | –106.9639 |
| TA | 528A | 30.1615 | –102.788 | TA | Z23A | 33.2621 | –106.2319 |
| TA | 529A | 30.1246 | –102.2204 | TA | Z24A | 33.3298 | –105.3649 |
| TA | 626A | 29.554 | –104.1335 | TA | Z25A | 33.2797 | –104.7171 |
| TA | 627A | 29.4528 | –103.3887 | TA | Z26A | 33.2716 | –103.9798 |
| TA | 628A | 29.4862 | –102.8885 | TA | Z27A | 33.315 | –103.2145 |
| TA | MSTX | 33.9696 | –102.7724 | TA | Z28A | 33.2884 | –102.3866 |
DownLoad: CSV| NETWORK | STATION | LAT | LON | NETWORK | STATION | LAT | LON |
| XR | SC04 | 34.5228 | –105.8119 | XR | SC40 | 32.9317 | –103.54 |
| XR | SC05 | 34.5715 | –105.0554 | XR | SC41 | 32.9833 | –103.2056 |
| XR | SC06 | 34.5145 | –104.2664 | XR | SC42 | 32.8728 | –102.8612 |
| XR | SC07 | 34.1838 | –105.6877 | XR | SC43 | 32.9426 | –102.5369 |
| XR | SC08 | 34.1567 | –105.4697 | XR | SC44 | 32.7572 | –105.947 |
| XR | SC09 | 34.1517 | –105.0013 | XR | SC45 | 32.6337 | –105.1552 |
| XR | SC10 | 34.1937 | –104.6666 | XR | SC46 | 32.654 | –104.3614 |
| XR | SC11 | 34.2323 | –104.2959 | XR | SC47 | 32.629 | –103.6257 |
| XR | SC12 | 34.2148 | –103.9116 | XR | SC48 | 32.6899 | –102.905 |
| XR | SC13 | 34.2135 | –103.5269 | XR | SC49 | 32.443 | –106.064 |
| XR | SC14 | 33.9682 | –105.7695 | XR | SC50 | 32.3895 | –105.6153 |
| XR | SC15 | 33.8308 | –105.0255 | XR | SC51 | 32.3673 | –105.1718 |
| XR | SC16 | 33.8903 | –104.3043 | XR | SC52 | 32.488 | –104.8272 |
| XR | SC17 | 33.893 | –103.5446 | XR | SC53 | 32.3766 | –104.3192 |
| XR | SC18 | 33.8774 | –102.8409 | XR | SC54 | 32.2837 | –104.0398 |
| XR | SC19 | 33.5188 | –105.9744 | XR | SC55 | 32.1712 | –103.6733 |
| XR | SC20 | 33.6042 | –105.5935 | XR | SC56 | 32.3554 | –103.3986 |
| XR | SC21 | 33.5975 | –105.1655 | XR | SC57 | 32.3691 | –102.8513 |
| XR | SC22 | 33.5682 | –104.7542 | XR | SC58 | 32.2888 | –102.5482 |
| XR | SC23 | 33.5995 | –104.3282 | XR | SC59 | 31.9694 | –105.1481 |
| XR | SC25 | 33.5806 | –103.5482 | XR | SC60 | 32.0937 | –104.4877 |
| XR | SC26 | 33.5044 | –103.1184 | XR | SC61 | 31.9895 | –103.6911 |
| XR | SC27 | 33.5385 | –102.8207 | XR | SC62 | 32.0119 | –102.9373 |
| XR | SC28 | 33.5662 | –102.4915 | XR | SC63 | 31.8029 | –104.8464 |
| XR | SC29 | 33.3102 | –105.6705 | XR | SC64 | 31.6996 | –104.4258 |
| XR | SC30 | 33.2738 | –105.17 | XR | SC65 | 31.727 | –104.0178 |
| XR | SC31 | 33.259 | –104.3415 | XR | SC66 | 31.6679 | –103.7363 |
| XR | SC32 | 33.1939 | –103.5979 | XR | SC67 | 31.7051 | –103.3951 |
| XR | SC33 | 33.2334 | –102.8343 | XR | SC68 | 31.8027 | –102.77 |
| XR | SC34 | 32.9513 | –105.8163 | XR | SC69 | 31.6905 | –102.588 |
| XR | SC35 | 32.9369 | –105.5153 | XR | SC70 | 31.3663 | –103.7374 |
| XR | SC36 | 33.0053 | –105.18 | XR | SC71 | 31.6463 | –103.0655 |
| XR | SC37 | 32.937 | –104.6192 | XR | SC72 | 31.1096 | –103.6346 |
| XR | SC38 | 32.9288 | –104.3402 | XR | SC73 | 30.9611 | –102.9875 |
| XR | SC39 | 33.0286 | –103.8453 | XR | SC74 | 31.0024 | –102.6771 |
| XR | SC75 | 31.8742 | –105.952 |
DownLoad: CSV| Approximated Rayleigh seismic wave velocities for some of the Geological Features in the area of Interest Calculated with the event in Jalisco. The seismic velocities are in kilometers per second | ||||||
| Geol. Feat. | Ref. Stat. | Azimuth | 15±5 km Depth | 35±10 km Depth | 100±50 km Depth | 250±100 km Depth |
| Tularosa Basin | Z23A | -2.4 | 2.4 | 3.3 to 3.5 | 3.8 | 3.9 to 4.3 |
| Diablo Plateau | 224A | -0.2 | 3.2 to 3.4 | 3.5 to 3.6 | 3.8 to 3.9 | 3.9 |
| Delaware Basin | SC61 | 6 | 3.2 to 3.5 | 3.5 to 3.7 | 3.9 to 4.1 | 3.9 to 4.2 |
| Fort Davis | SC61 | 6 | 3.3 | 3.6 | 3.9 | 4 |
| Sheffield Channel | SC73 | 9 | 3.3 | 3.4 | 3.7 | 3.8 |
| Approximated Rayleigh seismic wave velocities for some of the Geological Features in the area of Interest Calculated with the event in California. The seismic velocities are in kilometers per second | ||||||
| Geol. Feat. | Ref. Stat. | Azimuth | 15±5 km Depth | 35±10 km Depth | 100±50 km Depth | 250±100 km Depth |
| Tularosa Basin | Z23A | 111 | 2.7 to 2.9 | 1.3 to 1.7 | 3.7 to 3.8 | 4 |
| Diablo Plateau | 224A | 113 | 3.2 to 3.6 | 3.7 to 3.5 | 3.8 | 3.9 to 4.1 |
| Delaware Basin | SC61 | 110 | 2.2 to 3.5 | 3.5 to 3.7 | 3.9 to 4 | 4 to 4.3 |
| Fort Davis | 326A | 113 | 3.2 to 3.4 | 3.6 | 3.8 to 3.9 | 4.1 |
| Sheffield Channel | SC73 | 112 | 2.5 to 2.8 | 2.6 | 3.6 | 3.1 |
| Approximated Rayleigh seismic wave velocities for some of the Geological Features in the area of Interest Calculated with the event in Samoa. The seismic velocities are in kilometers per second | ||||||
| Geol. Feat. | Ref. Stat. | Azimuth | 15±5 km Depth | 35±10 km Depth | 100±50 km Depth | 250±100 km Depth |
| Sierra Blanca NM | SC19 | 51 | 1.1 | 1.5 | 1.8 | 1.8 |
| Tularosa Basin | Z23A | 51 | 3 | 4.2 | 4.8 | 5 to 5.3 |
| Diablo Plateau | 224A | 52 | 4 to 4.3 | 4.1 to 4.6 | 4.8 to 5.5 | 4.9 to 5.4 |
| Delaware Basin | SC61 | 53 | 3.7 to 4.7 | 4.1 to 5.1 | 4.6 to 6 | 4.5 to 4.7 |
| Fort Davis | 426A | 54 | 4.1 to 4.2 | 4.2 to 4.4 | 5.1 | 5.1 to 5.9 |
| Sheffield Channel | SC73 | 54 | 3.9 | 2.8 | 4.9 | 4.9 |
| NETWORK | STATION | LAT | LON | NETWORK | STATION | LAT | LON |
| TA | 121A | 32.5324 | –107.7851 | TA | TASL | 34.9454 | –106.4565 |
| TA | 122A | 32.6995 | –107.0005 | TA | TASM | 34.9455 | –106.46 |
| TA | 123A | 32.6349 | –106.2622 | TA | TASN | 34.9455 | –106.46 |
| TA | 124A | 32.7001 | –105.4544 | TA | TASO | 34.9455 | –106.46 |
| TA | 125A | 32.6588 | –104.6573 | TA | TASP | 34.9455 | –106.46 |
| TA | 126A | 32.6462 | –104.0204 | TA | TVZX | 34.0733 | –106.9196 |
| TA | 127A | 32.6764 | –103.3575 | TA | X21A | 34.4457 | –107.7857 |
| TA | 128A | 32.6213 | –102.485 | TA | X22A | 34.5058 | –107.0102 |
| TA | 221A | 32.0094 | –107.7782 | TA | X23A | 34.581 | –106.1881 |
| TA | 222A | 32.1046 | –107.1013 | TA | X24A | 34.5646 | –105.4349 |
| TA | 223A | 32.0062 | –106.4276 | TA | X25A | 34.5271 | –104.6621 |
| TA | 224A | 32.076 | –105.5226 | TA | X26A | 34.5508 | –103.8103 |
| TA | 225A | 32.1101 | –104.8229 | TA | X27A | 34.6469 | –103.0974 |
| TA | 226A | 32.0618 | –104.1014 | TA | X28A | 34.5185 | –102.1973 |
| TA | 226B | 32.0778 | –104.1654 | TA | Y21A | 34.0087 | –107.674 |
| TA | 227A | 32.012 | –103.2924 | TA | Y22A | 33.937 | –106.9652 |
| TA | 228A | 32.118 | –102.5918 | TA | Y22C | 34.0741 | –106.9211 |
| TA | 324A | 31.4425 | –105.4828 | TA | Y22D | 34.0739 | –106.921 |
| TA | 325A | 31.3711 | –104.9712 | TA | Y22E | 34.0742 | –106.9208 |
| TA | 326A | 31.3165 | –103.9786 | TA | Y22F | 34.0741 | –106.9209 |
| TA | 327A | 31.3691 | –103.4923 | TA | Y23A | 33.9315 | –106.0549 |
| TA | 328A | 31.3818 | –102.8097 | TA | Y24A | 33.9257 | –105.4361 |
| TA | 425A | 30.7862 | –104.9857 | TA | Y25A | 33.9229 | –104.6928 |
| TA | 426A | 30.6689 | –104.0293 | TA | Y26A | 33.9232 | –103.8246 |
| TA | 427A | 30.8498 | –103.4018 | TA | Y27A | 33.8839 | –103.1633 |
| TA | 428A | 30.7263 | –102.6847 | TA | Y28A | 33.9086 | –102.2479 |
| TA | 526A | 30.0609 | –104.0898 | TA | Z21A | 33.3086 | –107.6712 |
| TA | 527A | 30.1456 | –103.6119 | TA | Z22A | 33.2555 | –106.9639 |
| TA | 528A | 30.1615 | –102.788 | TA | Z23A | 33.2621 | –106.2319 |
| TA | 529A | 30.1246 | –102.2204 | TA | Z24A | 33.3298 | –105.3649 |
| TA | 626A | 29.554 | –104.1335 | TA | Z25A | 33.2797 | –104.7171 |
| TA | 627A | 29.4528 | –103.3887 | TA | Z26A | 33.2716 | –103.9798 |
| TA | 628A | 29.4862 | –102.8885 | TA | Z27A | 33.315 | –103.2145 |
| TA | MSTX | 33.9696 | –102.7724 | TA | Z28A | 33.2884 | –102.3866 |
| NETWORK | STATION | LAT | LON | NETWORK | STATION | LAT | LON |
| XR | SC04 | 34.5228 | –105.8119 | XR | SC40 | 32.9317 | –103.54 |
| XR | SC05 | 34.5715 | –105.0554 | XR | SC41 | 32.9833 | –103.2056 |
| XR | SC06 | 34.5145 | –104.2664 | XR | SC42 | 32.8728 | –102.8612 |
| XR | SC07 | 34.1838 | –105.6877 | XR | SC43 | 32.9426 | –102.5369 |
| XR | SC08 | 34.1567 | –105.4697 | XR | SC44 | 32.7572 | –105.947 |
| XR | SC09 | 34.1517 | –105.0013 | XR | SC45 | 32.6337 | –105.1552 |
| XR | SC10 | 34.1937 | –104.6666 | XR | SC46 | 32.654 | –104.3614 |
| XR | SC11 | 34.2323 | –104.2959 | XR | SC47 | 32.629 | –103.6257 |
| XR | SC12 | 34.2148 | –103.9116 | XR | SC48 | 32.6899 | –102.905 |
| XR | SC13 | 34.2135 | –103.5269 | XR | SC49 | 32.443 | –106.064 |
| XR | SC14 | 33.9682 | –105.7695 | XR | SC50 | 32.3895 | –105.6153 |
| XR | SC15 | 33.8308 | –105.0255 | XR | SC51 | 32.3673 | –105.1718 |
| XR | SC16 | 33.8903 | –104.3043 | XR | SC52 | 32.488 | –104.8272 |
| XR | SC17 | 33.893 | –103.5446 | XR | SC53 | 32.3766 | –104.3192 |
| XR | SC18 | 33.8774 | –102.8409 | XR | SC54 | 32.2837 | –104.0398 |
| XR | SC19 | 33.5188 | –105.9744 | XR | SC55 | 32.1712 | –103.6733 |
| XR | SC20 | 33.6042 | –105.5935 | XR | SC56 | 32.3554 | –103.3986 |
| XR | SC21 | 33.5975 | –105.1655 | XR | SC57 | 32.3691 | –102.8513 |
| XR | SC22 | 33.5682 | –104.7542 | XR | SC58 | 32.2888 | –102.5482 |
| XR | SC23 | 33.5995 | –104.3282 | XR | SC59 | 31.9694 | –105.1481 |
| XR | SC25 | 33.5806 | –103.5482 | XR | SC60 | 32.0937 | –104.4877 |
| XR | SC26 | 33.5044 | –103.1184 | XR | SC61 | 31.9895 | –103.6911 |
| XR | SC27 | 33.5385 | –102.8207 | XR | SC62 | 32.0119 | –102.9373 |
| XR | SC28 | 33.5662 | –102.4915 | XR | SC63 | 31.8029 | –104.8464 |
| XR | SC29 | 33.3102 | –105.6705 | XR | SC64 | 31.6996 | –104.4258 |
| XR | SC30 | 33.2738 | –105.17 | XR | SC65 | 31.727 | –104.0178 |
| XR | SC31 | 33.259 | –104.3415 | XR | SC66 | 31.6679 | –103.7363 |
| XR | SC32 | 33.1939 | –103.5979 | XR | SC67 | 31.7051 | –103.3951 |
| XR | SC33 | 33.2334 | –102.8343 | XR | SC68 | 31.8027 | –102.77 |
| XR | SC34 | 32.9513 | –105.8163 | XR | SC69 | 31.6905 | –102.588 |
| XR | SC35 | 32.9369 | –105.5153 | XR | SC70 | 31.3663 | –103.7374 |
| XR | SC36 | 33.0053 | –105.18 | XR | SC71 | 31.6463 | –103.0655 |
| XR | SC37 | 32.937 | –104.6192 | XR | SC72 | 31.1096 | –103.6346 |
| XR | SC38 | 32.9288 | –104.3402 | XR | SC73 | 30.9611 | –102.9875 |
| XR | SC39 | 33.0286 | –103.8453 | XR | SC74 | 31.0024 | –102.6771 |
| XR | SC75 | 31.8742 | –105.952 |
