FAKTOR-FAKTOR YANG MEMENGARUHI PETANI MENGIKUTI ASURANSI USAHATANI PADI (AUTP) DI KECAMATAN KALIORI, REMBANG
Abstract
Pelaksanaan Asuransi Usahatani Padi (AUTP) merupakan program yang relatif baru di Indonesia yaitu sekitar tahun 2015. Berbagai upaya telah dilakukan untuk meningkatkan partisipasi petani dalam program asuransi pertanian ini, akan tetapi sampai saat ini keikutsertaan petani dalam AUTP masih rendah. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mendeskripsikan pelaksanaan AUTP dan menganalisis faktor-faktor yang memengaruhi petani mengikuti AUTP di Kecamatan Kaliori, Rembang. Penelitian ini menggunakan data primer dari 70 petani (35 peserta mengikuti AUTP dan 35 tidak mengikuti AUTP) di tiga desa di Kecamatan Kaliori, Rembang. Analisis data menggunakan regresi logistik. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa faktor internal maupun eksternal yang berpengaruh terhadap keikutsertaan petani dalam program AUTP adalah umur, jumlah tanggungan keluarga, pengalaman usahatani, pengalaman gagal panen, informasi AUTP dan kehadiran petani dalam sosialisasi AUTP.
Metrics
Downloads
References
[Kementan] Kementerian Pertanian. 2014. Analisis Data Hulu Sektor Pertanian. Jakarta.
Adawaiyah, C. R. 2017. Peran Komunikasi Kelompok Tani dalam Adopsi Inovasi : Kasus Upsus Pajale di Kabupaten Malang. IPB University.
Adrianto, J. 2016. Analisis Adopsi SRI (System of Rice Intensification) dan Dampaknya terhadap Efisiensi usahatani Padi di Kabupaten Solok Selatan. IPB University.
Aghutstina, F. 2015. Pengaruh persepsi sebagai petani dan adopsi teknologi pertanian terhadap minat transfer pertanian keluarga pada generasi selanjutnya. IPB University.
[BBPPSLP] Balai Besar Penelitian dan Pengembangan Sumberdaya Lahan Pertanian. (2008). Dampak Perubahan Iklim Terhadap Sektor Pertanian, Serta Strategi Antisipasi Dan Teknologi Adaptasi. Pengembangan Inovasi Pertanian, 1(2), 138–140. Retrieved from http://pustaka.litbang.pertanian.go.id/publikasi/ip012086.pdf
Hariato, A. 2014. Tingkat Persepsi dan Adopsi Petani Padi terhadap Penerapan System of Rice Intensification (SRI) di Desa Simarasok, Sumatera Barat (IPB Unversity). Retrieved from http://repository.ipb.ac.id/bitstream/handle/123456789/74150/H14aha.pdf
Hosmer, D.W., Lemeshow, S. 2000. Applied Logistic Regression (pp. 161–164). pp. 161–164. https://doi.org/10.1038/461726a
Ismilaili, I., Purnaningsih, N., Asngari, P.S. (2015). Tingkat Adopsi Inovasi Pengelolaan Tanaman Terpadu (PTT) Padi Sawah di Kecamatan Leuwiliang, Kabupaten Bogor. Jurnal Penyuluhan, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.25015/penyuluhan.v11i1.9931
Kawanishi, M., Guritno, C.S., Farid, F.Y. 2016. Assessment of Farmer Demand for Crop Insurance: A Case Study in Indonesia. Japanese Journal of Risk Analysis, 26(1), 31–39. https://doi.org/10.11447/sraj.26.31
Kementan. 2013. Pedoman Pelaksanaan Asuransi Usahatani Padi. Jakarta.
Pasaribu, M.S., Agung I.S., Agustin N.K., Lokollo E.M., Tarigan H. 2010. Usulan Penelitian: Pengembangan Asuransi Usahatani Padi untuk Menanggulangi Risiko Kerugian 75% Akibat Banjir, Kekeringan, dan Hama Penyakit. Bogor.
Pertanian, L. 2012. Pengembangan Asuransi Usaha Tani. Warta Penelitian Dan Pengembangan Pertanian, 34(2), 6–8.
Siswadi, B., Farida, S. 2016. Respon Petani terhadap Program Pemerintah Mengenai Asuransi Usahatani Padi (AUTP). Prosiding Seminar Nasional Pembangunan Pertanian 2016, 53(9), 169–177. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Wahyudi, I. 2015. Skim Uji coba Asuransi Usahatani Padi dan Faktor-Faktor yang Berhubungan dengan Partisipasi Petani dalam Program AUTP [Skripsi]. Bogor: IPB University.
Copyright (c) 2022 RISALAH KEBIJAKAN PERTANIAN DAN LINGKUNGAN: Rumusan Kajian Strategis Bidang Pertanian dan Lingkungan
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
PUBLICATION ETHICS
Jurnal Risalah Kebijakan Pembangunan Pertanian dan Lingkungan (JRKPL) is a peer-reviewed journal publishing original research to develop a coherent and respected network of landscape architecture knowledge. JRKPL committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics that clarifies ethical behavior of all parties involved in publishing a scientific article in JRKPL.
As publisher of JRKPL, PSP3-LPPM IPB and PERHEPI takes its duties of guardianship all stages of publishing process and we recognize our ethical and other responsibilities.
Duties of Authors
An author should not publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal is unacceptable and constitutes unethical publishing behavior. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper.
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the manuscript and should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism are include passing off another paper as the author own paper, copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another paper (without attribution) and claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Plagiarism detected works will be banned for further publication procedure.
The authors acknowledge that they have disclosed all and any actual or potential conflicts of interest with their work or partial benefits associated with it. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest stage possible.
Duties of the Editorial Board
Review Process
JRKPL is committed to objective and fair double-blind peer-review to prevent any actual or potential conflict of interests between the editorial and review personnel and the reviewed material. JRKPL chooses reviewers based on their expertise (whose most closely matches the topic of the paper). At least 2 reviewers are invited to evaluate a manuscript. In cases of controversy or disagreement regarding the merits of the work, an additional review will be solicited. The JRKPL editor mediates all interaction between authors and reviewers, and the review results owned by JRKPL.
Publication Decisions
The editor of a peer-reviewed JRKPL is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The final decision on article acceptance based on reviewer's opinions, suggestions, and comments. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
Fair Play
JRKPL evaluates manuscripts only based on the intellectual content. No race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophies of the authors are considered in the evaluation process.
Confidentiality
JRKPL assure the confidentially of the manuscripts, actors, and other related information on the publishing process. Only corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher are allows for the information.
Disclosure
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
Duties of reviewers
(1) Objectivity: Reviewer should provide written and unbiased feedback to the authors, personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewer comments should be clearly with supporting arguments indicating whether the writing is concise and relevant
(2) Expertise: Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
(3) Acknowledgement of sources: Reviewer suggest relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors to improve the quality of the manuscript,
(4) Confidentiality: Reviewer should maintain the confidentiality of the review process. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
(5) Disclosure and conflict of interest: Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer own research without the express written consent of the author. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
