Model of Community Forest Land Management Production and Financial Simulation of Super Teak, Solomon Teak and Sungkai Trees in Samboja Kutai Kartanegara East Kalimantan, Indonesia
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of the research were to determine the volume increments, to find out the optimum ages and maximum increment, to know which plant effort was more profitable than each types exploitations, to analyze the financial feasibility and to know the farmers' financial needs and the level of interest by sensitivity analysis. This research was conducted in community forest of Sungai Merdeka Village Km. 38 Samboja District, Kutai Kartanegara Sub District of East Kalimantan Province. The research data was taken based on a purpose sampling system in the research plots of each Model I to V covering an area of 0.25 ha. Model I consisted by super teak 15 years 10x2 m spacing combined with king grass with an interest rate of 5% resulted in an estimated 6.5-year Pay Back Period (PP); Net Present Value (NPV) Rp. 186,346,058, -; Net Benefit/Cost (B/C) Ratio 3.99; Internal Rate of Return (IRR) 28%; Equivalent Annual Annuity (EAA) Rp. 12,122,078 and effort scale of 3 ha. Model II consisted by super teak 15 years 10x10 m spacing with an interest rate of 5% produce an estimated 18.5-year PP; Rp. (15,890,541,-) NPV; Net (B/C) Ratio to 0.72; (IRR) to 3%; (EAA) to Rp. (1,033,703,-) and (41) ha effort scale. Model III consisted by Solomon Teak 13 years 10x10 m spacing with an interest rate of 5% produce an estimated 10.4 year (PP); (NPV) to Rp. 97,546,242, -; Net (B/C) Ratio to 2.38; (IRR) to 10%; (EAA) to Rp. 6,345,523,- and 7 ha effort scale. Model IV consisted by sungkai 13 years 2x4 m spacing combined with papaya by an interest rate of 5% produce an estimated 13.1 years (PP) value; (NPV) to Rp. 41,099,472, -; Net (B/C) Ratio to 1.83; (IRR) to 22.5%; (EAA) to Rp. 2,673,580, - and 16 ha effort scale. Model V consisted by Sungkai 13 years with an interest rate of 5% produced an estimated 18.1 year (PP); (NPV) to Rp. -13.141,863, -; Net (B/C) Ratio 0.73; (IRR) to 3.2%; (EAA) to Rp. -854,897, - and (49) ha effort scale. Its concluded that by 5% discount factor, Model I, Model III and Model IV were feasible because they have an IRR value higher than Minimum Acceptable Rate (MAR) 5% and Net B/C Ratio higher than 1. Model II and Model V were not feasible because they have an IRR value lower than MAR 5% and Net B/C Ratio lower than 1. The optimum production of all models was reached at the ages of 25 years. The highest MAI was achieved in Model IV of 7.34 m3 ha-1 year-1 and the total volume was 183.56 m3 ha-1 year-1, while the lowest MAI was achieved in Model II of 6.25 m3 ha-1 year-1 and the total volume was 33.10 m3 ha-1 year-1. Based on the analysis of effort scale resulted that Model I could be the best choice and most feasible than other because it had the lowest effort scale value, while Model V was the least feasible option to be cultivated because it has the highest scale of effort. Model I, Model III and IV shown the NPV positive value to Rp. 186,346,058, -; Rp.97,546,242, - and Rp.41,099,472, -, while Model II and Model IV shown the negative value of Rp.(15,590,541,-) and Rp.(13,141,863,-).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it