Sustainable Livelihood Assets Assessment and Strategic Prioritization of Papuan Nutmeg Farming Households

As stated by Scoones [15], the concept of livelihood refers to how individuals or families secure their basic needs through access to the assets they possess, such as natural, human, social, physical, and financial assets. Recently, in rural studies and poverty reduction research, 5 basic capitals have been developed by incorporating psychological capital [16-18] and cultural assets [19-21]. Psychological capital includes self-efficacy, hope, optimism, willingness to develop, and resilience [22], and cultural assets cover ceremony and custom, local wisdom and practices, craft and tools [23]. Sustainable livelihood is depicted as the state that withstands any disturbance and strains, recovers from them, and retains or improves its assets and capacities, advancing without threatening the base of natural resources [15]. The SLA has been broadly applied in a wide range of studies, including communities in aerial, mountainous, and coastal regions of communities with numerous community sources of economy. It is crucial to ascertain household livelihood circumstances, local access to capital for livelihood, and factors affecting livelihood [24]. Li et al. [25] asserted that rural revitalization as a part of rural development, poses sustainable livelihood as one of the main objectives of rural revitalization. In the context of rural development, to support livelihood, the approach emphasizes the competence and prospective resources among individuals and communities and provides essential considerations on institutions, social interactions, and governmental procedures [26]. For fostering sustainable living and growth, the government and its counterparts are encouraged to integrate and apply the SLA in their development policies [27].

Livelihood has become an essential viewpoint in rural development for decades due to the importance of recognizing what individuals do for a living in various socioeconomic and environmental conditions [28]. Livelihood is also defined as the set of resources, skills, and revenue-producing endeavors that individuals or families preserve and develop and that may be utilized to support themselves and enhance their long-term living conditions [29]. A livelihood consists of activities that provide an instrument of life, assets, social and material resources [15]. The SLA emphasizes the importance of sustainability in utilizing these assets without depleting the natural resource base, while also providing resilience to social and economic pressures [30].

Table 10. SWOT matrix

Table 11. Integrated comparison matrix and weight priorities

Overall, the AHP results demonstrate that strategies focusing on resilience strengthening, capacity building, and institutional improvement are the most critical priorities for sustainable livelihood development. The dominance of Strength–Threat strategies among the top rankings indicates that while farmers possess significant internal strengths, external risks such as climate variability, market volatility, and geographic isolation remain major challenges that must be addressed through adaptive and proactive strategies. The prioritization results suggest that sustainable livelihood development should focus on strengthening adaptive capacity, improving infrastructure and financial inclusion, enhancing institutional support, and promoting sustainable resource management. These strategic priorities are expected to improve livelihood resilience, reduce regional disparities between coastal and mountainous districts, and enhance long-term sustainability of nutmeg farming livelihoods.

4.10 Discussion

Within the Sustainable Livelihood Framework (SLF), the value of livelihood assets reflects the capacity of households to pursue sustainable livelihood strategies and cope with economic and environmental shocks. In the case of nutmeg farming communities in Fakfak, the overall asset values point to a livelihood system that remains vulnerable, with moderate to low endowments across most asset categories. As emphasized by Tsikata and Yaro [52], households with limited asset ownership tend to have lower livelihood resilience and weaker adaptive capacity, regardless of how important those assets may be perceived to be.

Human capital among nutmeg farmers is characterized by low to moderate levels and is primarily constrained by limited formal education, restricted access to training, and minimal exposure to agricultural innovation. Education plays a fundamental role in shaping livelihood opportunities and improving productivity. As noted by Thamaga-Chitja and Morojele [53], lower levels of education are often associated with unstable livelihood options and reduced productivity. This condition is evident among the farmers studied, where only 32% have completed high school and merely 6% have attained tertiary education. Access to agricultural extension services has been shown to significantly improve household income by strengthening farmers’ technical capacity [54]. However, farmer empowerment efforts remain constrained by the limited availability of professional trainers and extension support. Although experiential knowledge contributes substantially to farming practices, the absence of structured capacity-building limits farmers’ ability to enhance productivity and diversify income sources. This finding aligns with Thamaga-Chitja and Morojele [53], who emphasize that low educational attainment is closely linked to fragile livelihood strategies and persistent income instability. Harahap et al. [55] further underscored the importance of education in agricultural development, particularly for smallholder farmers, while Akbar et al. [56] highlighted the role of human capital in strengthening agribusiness institutions through leadership development. Within the SLF, weak human capital diminishes households’ capacity to effectively mobilize and transform other livelihood assets into positive and sustainable livelihood outcomes.

Natural capital constitutes the core asset base for nutmeg farmers, primarily in the form of land access or ownership, as well as ownership of nutmeg and other productive trees. This asset is assessed at moderate to high levels, with land ownership emerging as a key determinant. Most farmers have full access to their farmland; however, land management practices remain limited, and production intensification is generally low. Access to and control over land are also shaped by customary tenure arrangements. Bhandari [57] emphasized that access to land is fundamental for sustaining rural livelihoods; however, land access alone does not guarantee sustainable livelihoods unless it is supported by secure tenure and effective resource management. This perspective is particularly relevant in Fakfak, where land tenure security is closely linked to the stability of farming systems. Similarly, Ekpodessi and Nakamura [58], as well as Nhamo et al. [59], underscore the central role of secure land access in sustaining agricultural production. In this context, natural capital in Fakfak functions more as a subsistence safety net than as a productive asset capable of generating optimal economic returns.

Financial capital remains at relatively low to medium levels, reflected in limited savings, weak access to credit, and high dependence on seasonal nutmeg income. This condition constrains farmers’ capacity to invest in farm inputs, adopt improved technologies, enhance post-harvest handling, and manage economic fluctuations [17]. Aazami and Shanazi [24] demonstrated that low financial capital significantly constrains livelihood intensity and increases household vulnerability to shocks. Similarly, Acclassato et al. [60] highlighted that limited financial assets reduce farmers’ ability to improve productivity and manage risks. Within the SLF, inadequate financial capital restricts farmers’ capacity to transform natural and human capital into sustainable livelihood strategies.

Physical capital across all surveyed districts is categorized at a medium level, encompassing farming tools, infrastructure, and transportation facilities. Despite this moderate asset base, limited ownership of production equipment and inadequate market access constrain operational efficiency and contribute to post-harvest losses. Ownership and utilization of physical assets are also influenced by the adoption of farming practices, as noted by Islam et al. [61]. This suggests that the persistence of traditional farming practices in nutmeg cultivation may partly limit the effective utilization of physical capital. In support of this, Jezeer et al. [62] highlighted that higher levels of physical capital are strongly associated with improved input use and greater productivity. In Fakfak, relatively low levels of physical assets further reinforce the persistence of low-input, low-output farming systems.

Similar to physical capital, social capital among nutmeg farmers is categorized at a medium level across all districts, indicating that social relationships, networks, and institutional participation remain insufficiently developed. This suggests limitations in the strength of trust, farmer cohesion, collaboration, and collective deliberation, all of which are important for supporting productivity [63]. Measures of social capital reflect the extent to which trust and social cooperation contribute to livelihood performance. In this regard, Nguyen and Nguyen [64] highlighted the essential role of social capital in strengthening community resilience.

Psychological and cultural capital, although not core components of the original SLF pentagon, play complementary roles in shaping livelihood sustainability. Psychological assets, while not as directly associated with productivity as tangible resources such as land and financial capital, enhance motivation, coping capacity, and resilience under conditions of uncertainty [65]. Likewise, cultural assets—including traditional practices such as sasi—contribute to regulating resource use, although they are not generally regarded as direct drivers of productivity, as noted by Daskon and McGregor [66]. However, the contribution of these assets to economic outcomes remains largely indirect and often depends on the availability of tangible assets. Without sufficient human, financial, and physical capital, psychological and cultural assets alone are unlikely to generate substantial productivity improvements. Nevertheless, their medium to high levels indicate considerable potential to strengthen resilience against economic shocks and reinforce farmers’ confidence in the sustainability of their livelihoods. Although these assets represent important adaptive resources, targeted interventions are still needed to better leverage their potential contribution to productivity and long-term livelihood sustainability [17, 21].

The LAI among nutmeg farmers in Fakfak indicates a livelihood structure that remains heavily reliant on natural capital, while constrained by relatively weak human, financial, and physical capital. From a SLF perspective, strengthening these asset bases through improvements in education, financial inclusion, infrastructure, and institutional support is essential for enhancing livelihood sustainability. While psychological and cultural assets provide an important foundation for long-term resilience, strengthening tangible asset endowments remains critical for improving productivity and achieving sustainable nutmeg-based livelihoods.

The results of the Mann–Whitney test reveal significant differences in several livelihood assets between nutmeg farmers in coastal and mountainous districts, particularly in natural, human, social, and cultural capital. Farmers in coastal districts generally exhibit higher asset values, which may be attributed to better access to fertile land, water resources, infrastructure, and support services. This finding is consistent with Bhandari [57], who emphasizes that access to productive natural resources is fundamental to sustaining rural livelihoods. Higher human capital values in coastal districts also align with the work of Scoones [28], who highlights the critical role of education, skills, and extension services in enhancing agricultural productivity and livelihood outcomes. Greater access to education and extension services in coastal areas likely contributes to these differences, supporting the view that capacity-building is essential for improving agricultural performance [67]. Similarly, higher social and cultural capital values in coastal districts suggest stronger social networks and locally embedded practices that support farming resilience, consistent with observations by Bennett and Dearden [32]. Overall, these differences indicate clear regional disparities in livelihood assets. Coastal districts, which are relatively closer to the district capital and benefit from more favorable spatial characteristics, provide farmers with better opportunities to accumulate and utilize livelihood assets. This pattern is also consistent with findings by Li et al. [35], who reported disparities in livelihood assets between higher- and lower-elevation areas, where households in highland regions tend to possess lower asset endowments. Similar conditions are evident in the mountainous districts of Fakfak.

However, physical, financial, and psychological capital did not show significant differences between coastal and mountainous districts. This may be explained by the generally low level of physical infrastructure—such as roads and transportation facilities—in both regions, which limits variation in physical asset conditions. Likewise, financial capital remains low across both areas, reflected in limited savings and restricted access to credit, indicating broader challenges of financial inclusion in rural settings. Limited access to conventional credit and financial services constrains farmers’ ability to strengthen their productive capacity and manage risks. In this regard, improving financial inclusion through need-based agricultural credit and greater access to financing for micro-enterprises and smallholder farmers is critical for enhancing financial capacity [26]. This is particularly relevant given that many farmers have been unable to access conventional government credit schemes due to institutional and procedural constraints [68]. Similarly, the absence of significant differences in psychological capital may indicate that resilience and coping capacities are shaped less by geographic location and more by shared livelihood uncertainties experienced across districts. Strengthening psychological resilience, alongside financial inclusion, remains important for enabling farmers to respond to external pressures and sustain productivity [22].

The lack of statistically significant differences in psychological capital suggests that farmers face relatively similar mental and emotional challenges across both coastal and mountainous regions. Zeweld et al. [65] underscored the importance of psychological capital—particularly resilience and motivation—in enabling farmers to manage agricultural stress. These findings indicate that farmers in both settings experience comparable psychological pressures, especially those associated with climate variability, market fluctuations, and resource management constraints. Accordingly, psychological resilience appears to be shaped more by shared livelihood risks than by geographical differences.

The findings suggest that strengthening natural, human, and cultural assets in mountainous areas—where asset values are comparatively lower—could enhance the overall sustainability of farmers’ livelihoods. Policies aimed at expanding access to productive land, agricultural support services, and education in mountainous districts may help reduce disparities between these areas and coastal districts. Meanwhile, the relative uniformity of financial and psychological assets across both regions underscores the need for broader, system-wide interventions to improve access to financial services, such as credit and savings programs, while simultaneously strengthening farmers’ psychological resilience. Such measures would address constraints common to both districts rather than those arising solely from spatial differences. Overall, although coastal districts benefit from relatively greater resource accessibility, targeted resource allocation and support services for farmers in mountainous regions are essential to mitigating regional inequalities and fostering more balanced and sustainable agricultural development in Fakfak.

The SWOT analysis reveals that nutmeg farming livelihoods in Fakfak Regency are shaped by a complex interaction between strong internal resource endowments and persistent structural limitations. Internal strengths such as cultural practices, natural resource availability, and strong community cohesion provide a solid foundation for sustaining nutmeg farming systems, while weaknesses remain evident in financial capacity, infrastructure access, and limited technological adoption [14]. The external environment presents considerable opportunities, particularly through increasing global demand for nutmeg products, supportive government programs, and the potential integration of sustainable agriculture and eco-tourism initiatives. At the same time, the sector continues to face substantial threats, including climate variability, pest and disease risks, geographic isolation, and market price volatility [69-71]. These findings suggest that livelihood sustainability is not solely determined by resource availability but also by the capacity of farmers and institutions to adapt to changing environmental and market conditions.

The combination of IFAS and EFE results indicates that nutmeg farmers operate in a moderately favorable strategic position, where opportunities slightly outweigh threats, yet internal constraints limit the ability to fully capitalize on these opportunities [48]. The dominance of human, natural, and cultural assets in the livelihood structure highlights the importance of strengthening institutional support systems, improving access to financial services, and enhancing technological extension programs [69, 72]. Spatial disparities between coastal and mountainous areas further reinforce the need for context-specific interventions, particularly in improving market access and infrastructure connectivity for remote farming communities. Strengthening cooperative systems, promoting sustainable land management, and improving extension services emerge as key strategic directions to enhance resilience and productivity while maintaining ecological sustainability [73].

The AHP results further refine these findings by identifying priority strategies that should be emphasized in policy and development planning. The dominance of Strength–Threat strategies among the highest-ranked priorities indicates that strengthening adaptive capacity and resilience is the most critical pathway for sustainable livelihood development [13, 74]. High-priority strategies emphasize leveraging internal strengths to mitigate environmental and market risks, followed by strategies that utilize opportunities for market expansion and institutional support while addressing structural weaknesses [14, 70]. This prioritization confirms that risk management and resilience strengthening should be the central focus of livelihood development interventions, supported by institutional coordination, financial inclusion, and capacity building [13]. Overall, the integration of SWOT and AHP provides a comprehensive strategic framework that supports evidence-based decision-making to improve the sustainability and resilience of nutmeg farming livelihoods in Fakfak Regency.