sustainability

Article
Spatial Analysis of Socio-Economic Driving Factors
of Food Expenditure Variation between Provinces
in Indonesia
Andi Syah Putra 1,2 , Guangji Tong 1, * and Didit Okta Pribadi 3
1 Department of Agricultural Economics and Management, Northeast Forestry University, Harbin 150040,
Heilongjiang, China
2 Center for Regional Systems Analysis, Planning and Development (CRESTPENT/P4W), IPB University,
Bogor 16144, Indonesia; [email protected]
3 Research Center for Plant Conservation and Botanic Gardens, Indonesian Institute of Sciences, Bogor 16003,
Indonesia; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +86-13503610923




Received: 13 January 2020; Accepted: 13 February 2020; Published: 21 February 2020


Abstract: Food security has become one of the global challenges; therefore, monitoring food
consumption is required. As food consumption is a resultant of food availability at an affordable price,
food expenditure actually is a key indicator to assess food security policy. Particularly, the link of
food expenditure with socio-economic factors based on the perspective of spatial connectivity should
be understood as nowadays food supply and demand between regions are increasingly connected.
This study aims to define socio-economic driving factors of food expenditure that considering spatial
connectivity between provinces in Indonesia. Data of household food expenditure and socio-economic
factors by province including urbanization level, economic growth, gross domestic regional product
(GDRP) per capita, poverty severity index, and unemployment rate were used. The preliminary test
on the spatial correlation of food expenditure showed a significant result; thus, a spatial regression
approach was employed. The results showed that declining food expenditure did not simply indicate
increasing prosperity. Larger income disparity among the poor has become crucial to detect lower
food expenditure caused by a lack of income. In addition, the increasing unemployment rate was
followed by increasing food expenditure. Despite economic growth, increasing GDRP per capita
and urbanization contributing to declining food expenditure, both poverty and unemployment are
the main issues that threaten household’s ability to afford food. Furthermore, the effect of food
expenditure in the neighboring region is also significant, but it shows a contradictory relationship
as food expenditure in a region is decreasing when food expenditure in its neighbors is increasing,
and vice versa. Therefore, reducing disparities in economic growth, GDRP per capita, urbanization,
poverty, and unemployment rate between provinces is also crucial to support more equal food
expenditure as well as to achieve the second goal of SDG’s (Sustainable Development Goals) in
improving food security.

Keywords: food consumption; food expenditure; food security; socio-economic factors; spatial
autocorrelation; spatial regression

1. Introduction
Food security has been defined as a situation when food is physically and economically available
for all people to meet their dietary needs for a healthy life [1]. Nowadays, food security has become a
global issue as two-thirds of the population will live in cities in the near future [2–6], on the other hand,
farming business has to face declining farmland conversion [7–10], a loss of farmland ownership [11–14],

Sustainability 2020, 12, 1638; doi:10.3390/su12041638 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 1638 2 of 18

a lack in rural development [15,16], and unstable farming productivity due to climate changes [17–20].
Therefore, the compliance of food supply and demand should be carefully monitored to avoid declining
nutrition and the poor health of humankind. Furthermore, food security issues have been emphasized
in the SDG’s (Sustainable Development Goals) target, especially Target 2, in order to end hunger and
improve food nutrition.
One of the key indicators is food consumption that represents food availability and food accessibility
as two key elements of food security besides food utility and food stability. Food utility refers to the
nutrition that should be consumed to support people’s health, while food stability ensures that food
availability will be sustained in the long run [21]. While both food availability and food accessibility
imply that food should be available at an affordable price. Therefore, food expenditure becomes a key
variable to define the capacity of society to consume food as well as to enhance food security.
Studies of food expenditures have been conducted by some scholars, but the majority focuses on
the composition of food consumed and its relationship with income [22,23], economic growth [24,25],
as well as urbanization [5,26–32]. In addition, other studies showed the relationship between food
consumption composition with poverty [33–35] and unemployment [36–40] showing that both issues
limit people’s ability to consume more various and healthier food. It should be of concern that
currently, the connection among regions has been increased extensively; thus, the flow of goods
and people, including food products, has become more intense. As food supply and demand are
increasingly connected, the study of food expenditure should be put into spatial connectivity context.
The socio-economic situation in one region will influence food expenditure in its neighboring regions
and vice versa. Therefore, understanding food expenditure becomes more complicated than before.
Unfortunately, the study of food expenditures that consider the effect of socio-economic factors
as well as spatial connectivity is still rare. Leonard et al. [41] have considered the neighboring effect
in food consumption, but this only focuses on individuals who are neighbors that influencing each
other in consuming food. Other scholars used econometrics analysis on panel data to define the
spatial-temporal effect of different driving factors on food expenditure [42–44]. While studies that
use a spatial econometrics approach in analyzing food expenditure is still lacking. Therefore, the
role of spatial connectivity of different socio-economic situations between regions in influencing food
expenditure is still poorly understood.
The spatial econometrics approach has been widely used for different issues, such as studies in
demand analysis [45], international economics [46], public economics and local public finance [47],
agricultural and environmental economics [48]. This approach becomes popular as the spatial
connectivity between regions has been increased at an unprecedented rate [49,50], especially due to
the rapid development of transportation and communication network. This situation increases the
problem of spatial heterogeneity and spatial correlation in the ordinary regression model; thus, various
models of spatial econometrics have been developed to address these issues. Defining the appropriate
spatial connectivity pattern is a key in spatial econometrics modeling [51,52]. Commonly, Tobler’s law
is used as it states that everything has a greater connection when they are closer to each other [53].
This study intends to close the gap by using Indonesian provinces as a study case. Specifically,
this study aims to define socio-economic driving factors of food expenditure that considering spatial
connectivity between provinces in Indonesia. It has been planned since 2009 that increasing the flow
of goods and services between provinces should be pushed to increase economic growth and equity
simultaneously [54]. This is an important matter for Indonesia as an archipelagic country with a high
disparity in regional development [55].
In this study, we used the ratio of food expenditure on total expenditure as a variable that should be
further explained by the neighboring effects as well as socio-economic factors. This variable has become
a key as Engel’s law explaining that increasing income will be followed by declining the proportion of
food expenditure. Some studies have shown empirical evidence that supports Engel’s law [56–58], but
other studies explained that Engel’s law is not commonly found in every situation [59,60]. Therefore,
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1638 3 of 18

considering the spatial effect on the food expenditure model will broaden our perspective about the
Sustainabilityof
relevance 2020, 12, x FOR
Engel’s law.PEER REVIEW
Thus, 3 of 18
food security policy can be formulated more effectively and efficiently.
This paper is structured as follows: the research framework, data, and methods are presented
This paper is structured as follows: the research framework, data, and methods are presented in
in Section 2. This outlines the methodological instruments that were used, drawn from the spatial
Section 2. This outlines the methodological instruments that were used, drawn from the spatial
econometrics literature. In particular, it presents the Moran’s I and local indicators of spatial association
econometrics literature. In particular, it presents the Moran’s I and local indicators of spatial
that allow us to investigate the presence of spatial dependence patterns. The empirical findings of
association that allow us to investigate the presence of spatial dependence patterns. The empirical
spatial analysis and modeling analysis are summarized and discussed in Section 3. Based on the
findings of spatial analysis and modeling analysis are summarized and discussed in Section 3. Based
analysis results, Section 4 discusses our findings in views of the recent literature, outlines the policy
on the analysis results, Section 4 discusses our findings in views of the recent literature, outlines the
implications of this work, and draws a conclusion.
policy implications of this work, and draws a conclusion.
2. Materials and Methods
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Research Area
2.1. Research Area
Indonesia consists of 34 provinces, which are located in six major islands, namely: Sumatera,
Indonesia
Java-Bali, Nusaconsists of 34
Tenggara, provinces, Sulawesi,
Kalimantan, which areand located in six major(Figure
Papua-Maluku islands,1).namely: Sumatera,
Indonesia, as an
Java-Bali, Nusa
archipelagic Tenggara,
country, Kalimantan,
has thousands Sulawesi,
of islands linkedandbyPapua-Maluku
straits and seas.(Figure 1). Indonesia,
This creates as on
a challenge an
archipelagic country, has thousands of islands linked by straits and seas. This creates
how to manage food demands in various geographical regions of Indonesia. Therefore, considering a challenge on
how to manage
regional food
diversity demands
becomes in variousfactor
an important geographical regions
[55], as stated by of Indonesia.
Grigg Therefore,
[61], food considering
consumption based
regional
on diversity
geographical becomes an
differences important
factors needsfactor [55], as stated by Grigg [61], food consumption based
to be studied.
on geographical differences factors needs to be studied.

Figure 1.
Figure 1. Map
Map of
of study
study area:
area: Indonesia.
Indonesia

2.2. Data
2.2. Data
This
This study
study relies
relies on
on data
data of
of household
household food
food expenditures
expenditures at at province
province level,
level, which
which have
have been
been
annually
annually surveyed by the Indonesia’s National Statistics Office (Badan Pusat Statistik, BPS), called
surveyed by the Indonesia’s National Statistics Office (Badan Pusat Statistik, BPS), called
Susenas
Susenas (the
(theNational
NationalSocial
SocialEconomic
Economic Survey), andand
Survey), the the
datadata
fromfrom
2017 2017
were were
used. used.
The data
Thewasdatabased
was
on
based on the household food expenses in a week. They were used to calculate the amountper
the household food expenses in a week. They were used to calculate the amount of expenditure of
household
expenditureperpermonth whichper
household then werewhich
month divided bywere
then the number
dividedofbyindividuals
the numberwithin a household
of individuals to
within
produce the expenditure
a household to produce theamount per capita
expenditure per month.
amount Afterwards,
per capita per month.we calculatedwe
Afterwards, thecalculated
ratio of food
the
expenditure per capita to total expenditure per capita in order to get the share of food expenditure
ratio of food expenditure per capita to total expenditure per capita in order to get the share of food per
capita, representing
expenditure foodrepresenting
per capita, expenditurefoodvariable in this study.
expenditure variable in this study.
We
We also used several socio-economic indicators consisting
also used several socio-economic indicators consisting ofof urbanization,
urbanization, economic growth,
economic growth,
gross domestic regional product (GDRP) per capita, poverty severity index and
gross domestic regional product (GDRP) per capita, poverty severity index and the unemploymentthe unemployment
rate as explanatory variables that would explain the variation of the share of food consumption
expenditure between provinces. Here, urbanization refers to the percentage of urban population to
the total population. Economic growth is GDRP growth based on constant prices in 2010, while GDRP
per capita is GDRP divided by population. The poverty severity index describes an inequality degree
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1638 4 of 18

rate as explanatory variables that would explain the variation of the share of food consumption
expenditure between provinces. Here, urbanization refers to the percentage of urban population to the
total population. Economic growth is GDRP growth based on constant prices in 2010, while GDRP
per capita is GDRP divided by population. The poverty severity index describes an inequality degree
among the poor where the higher value of the index shows the higher disparity of expenditure among
the poor. The unemployment rate is the percentage of unemployed to the labor force. All these data
were obtained from the BPS.

2.3. Integrated Model Framework

In general, our approach covers exploring the distribution of food expenditure through mapping,
then working on exploratory spatial data analysis and spatial econometrics analysis. Mapping is
conducted to summarize information into spatial patterns that can be seen in a concise and easily
understood manner. This is also useful for describing and mapping spatial variations, including spatial
relationships that might exist [62].
One of the main purposes of spatial analysis is to define the nature of relationships between
variables. Spatial data and spatial econometrics analysis were employed to further examine the
characteristics of food expenditure and its responses to the neighboring effect as well as socio-economic
factors, and we intend to formulate food security strategies from the results. We built a spatial weight
matrix for 34 provinces in Indonesia using the concept of geographic distance because some provinces
are not jointly sharing their borders as they are separated by seas.
Spatial data analysis was done through several steps. First, we used Moran’s index, and Moran’s
scatter plot to analyze the global and local spatial agglomeration characteristics of food expenditure.
Second, we constructed a spatial lag model (SLM) and a spatial error model (SEM) to analyze the
relationship between food expenditure and the socio-economic indicators. This study specifically
answers a research question about how the spatial effect influences the relationship between food
expenditure and socio-economic indicators. We constructed the shapefile of the dependence and
explanatory variables in ArcGIS software and exported it into the GeoDa. All analysis processes in this
study were done in GeoDa 1.14 and GeoDaSpace 1.2 [63].

2.3.1. Spatial Variation Distribution

Spatial variation distribution of food expenditure and socio-economic indicators were classified
based on the standard deviation method. The standard deviation method is used as a measurement
for the detection of outliers. In the standard deviation map, variables were transformed into standard
deviation units (mean 0 and standard deviation 1). The number of classifications depends on the
range of values based on 1 standard deviation intervals. It is also quite common for certain classes or
categories to contain no observations.

2.3.2. Spatial Autocorrelation Analysis

Spatial autocorrelation analysis was built on the background of the first geographic law, reflecting
the degree of data interdependence from two spatial locations [51,52]. Spatial autocorrelation theory has
been a key element in spatial research for over thirty years. Various spatial correlation measurements
have been proposed so we can examine spatial analysis evolution from different perspectives [64–69].
Still, Moran’s I statistic has been commonly used as an indicator of global spatial autocorrelation [70].
It was firstly initiated by Moran [70] and Geary [71], which then popularized by Cliff and Ord [51]. The
Moran scatter plot, first explained in Anselin [52,72], showing a plot with the y-axis of spatially lagged
variable and the x-axis of the original variable. The slope of the line fit to the scatter plot equals to
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1638 5 of 18

Moran’s I. In this study, we employed the Moran scatterplot by Anselin [72]. Moran’s index is defined
by Equation (1) as follows:  
P P
i j Wij (xi − x) x j − x
I= P  , (1)
j xj − x

where: I is the global Moran’s index, ranging between −1 and 1. Higher value of |I| indicate stronger
spatial correlations, whereas a value close to zero indicate less autocorrelation. Additionally, n is the
number of spatial units indexed by i and j; x refers to the variable; x denotes the mean of x; Wij is a
matrix of spatial weights of unit i and j. As indicated by Glazier et al. [73], Moran I values > 0.2 or <
−0.2 imply that there has been a significant spatial autocorrelation.
Global spatial autocorrelation merely describes the spatial characteristics of food expenditure
throughout the nation. We extend this approach to the case of food expenditure variation by integrating
a version of local indicators of spatial association (LISA) introduced by Anselin [74]. LISA was mainly
used to analyze the correlation between a province and its neighbor [72,74] based on the Equation (2)
as follows:
n ( x i − x ) Xn
Ii = P 2
wij (xi − x), (2)
n i=1
i = 1 ( xi − x )
where: Ii represents the local Moran’s index of province i, n is the number of spatial units indexed by i
and j; x refers to the variable; x denotes the mean of x, and Wij is a matrix of spatial weights of unit i and
j. Regarding the value of this index, a cluster map of the province’s food expenditure can be clustered
into (1) high–high clustering (H–H), showing provinces with high food expenditure surrounded by
provinces with high food expenditure; (2) low–high clustering (L–H), showing provinces having low
food expenditure surrounded by provinces with high food expenditure; (3) high–low clustering (H–L),
showing provinces with high food expenditure surrounded by provinces with low food expenditure; (4)
low–low clustering (L–L), showing provinces having low food expenditure surrounded by provinces
having low food expenditure; and (5) not significant.

2.3.3. Spatial Econometrics Analysis

Spatial econometrics focuses on models that allow cross-sectional interactions between spatial
units being studied. As panel data now become more available, the study of spatial econometrics
becomes increasingly important. Since Cliff and Ord [51], economists have investigated cross-sectional
models, especially spatial lag models. Anselin [52] and Griffith [75] discussed a wider range of
methodological issues in spatial econometrics at more advanced levels. In this work, first, we estimated
the standard regression specification by means of ordinary least square (OLS) based on Equation (3).

Y = β0 + β1 X1 + β2 X2 + . . . + ε, (3)

where: Y represents the food consumption expenditure, X represents the socio-economic indicators,
β0 represents a constant term, β1 and β2 represent the regression coefficients, and ε represents the
error term.
Second, we introduced the spatial lag model and the spatial error model. Compared to OLS, the
spatial econometrics model considers spatial dependence in the regression model as OLS can’t be used
to produce consistent estimates [76]. The spatial lag model (SLM) and the spatial error model (SEM)
are part of spatial econometrics model which are commonly used. SLM assumes that there is a spatial
dependence in the dependent variable, whereas SEM assumes that there is a spatial dependence in the
error term. The reduced form of SLM can be seen in Equation (4):

Y = ρWy + Xβ + ε, (4)

y = (In − ρW )−1 Xβ + (In − ρW )−1 ε, (5)

Sustainability 2020, 12, 1638 6 of 18

 
ε ∼ N Onx1 , σ2 In , (6)

where Y is an n × 1 vector of the dependent variable, n is observational units, W is a spatial

contiguity matrix that describes the neighborhood pattern of spatial units in the sample, ρ is the spatial
autoregression coefficient, X is an n × k matrix of explanatory variables, with an associated k x 1
regression coefficient vector β, and ε is a vector of random error. The n x 1 disturbance vector of ε
is independent, normally distributed with a zero mean (0nx1) and having a constant variance (σ2 ).
Furthermore, the specific form of SLM is shown in Equation (7).
X
Yi = α + ρ Wi,j Yi +εi , (7)
P
where: Wi,j is an element of the spatial contiguity matrix. The Wi,j Yi is a spatial variable that we
constructed from the spatial contiguity matrix and the dependent variable, and the system is stationary.
Thus, the model represents the spatial dependence structure of Y. This is a model that considers the
effect of spatial autocorrelation in the dependent variable. Here, ρ is a parameter that relates the
dependent variable of Y to the variable of the spatial weighted of Y.
On the other hand, SEM considers the spatial dependence in the error process and can be
represented in Equation (8):
Y = Xβ + u, (8)

u = λWu + ε, (9)

where: λ is the spatial autocorrelation coefficient.

The specific form of SEM is shown in Equation (10):

Yi = αi + βYi +ui , (10)

Xn
µi = λ wij ui + εi , (11)
j=1

Estimation of SLM and SEM coefficient was done by means of the maximum likelihood (ML),
which was first outlined by Ord [52]. The starting point is the presumption of normality in terms of
error. For models calculated using ML methods, statistics on the likelihood ratio test were used to
resolve some model comparison for getting the best fit model. Testing alternative specifications for
different spatial weight matrix or different sets of explanatory variables was also conducted [76].
The array of spatial autocorrelation test statistics seems puzzling at first, but there is a way to
proceed via the results towards a spatial regression specification. It is summarized in the diagnosis
output of five Lagrange multiplier (LM) test statistics. The first two (LM-lag and robust LM-lag) are
applied to test the fitness of the SLM. The next two (LM-error and robust LM-error) are applied to test
the fitness of the SEM. The last test, LM-SARMA, is applied to measure the fitness of the model that
considers both spatial lag and spatial error simultaneously. Then we decided which one is the most
robust model based on those tests. We can see the whole process in the diagram shown in Figure 2.
 Sustainability 2020, 12, 1638 7 of 18
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 18

Figure2.2.Spatial
Figure Spatialregression
regressiondecision
decisionprocess.
process.Source:
Source:Adopted
Adopted from
fromAnselin
Anselinand ReyRey
and [77].[77].

2.4.Measures
2.4. MeasuresofofFit
FitininSpatial
SpatialModels
Models
Inorder
In ordertotomeasure
measurethe thefitness
fitnessof ofthe
thespatial
spatialmodel,
model,either
eitherSLM
SLMor orSEM,
SEM,therethereare arefour
fourindicators
indicators
that can be considered
that can be considered when the ML approach was used. They are consisting
the ML approach was used. They are consisting of: (1) the pseudoof: (1) the pseudo R2 ,R(2)
2,

thethe
(2) maximized
maximized log-likelihood
log-likelihood (LIK), (3) the
(LIK), (3)Akaike information
the Akaike criterion
information (AIC) and
criterion (AIC)(4) the
andSchwartz
(4) the
criterion (SC). The(SC).
pseudo 2 is the ratio
Schwartz criterion TheRpseudo R2 is ofthethe variance
ratio of theofvariance
the predicted
of the values
predicted to the variance
values to theof
the observed 2
variance of thevalues
observedfor values
the dependent variable. It
for the dependent is different
variable. It is from R in
different the R
from OLS
2 model,
in the OLSwhich
model,is
calculated
which based onbased
is calculated the decomposition
on the decompositionof the total sum
of the of squares
total into stated
sum of squares intoand
statedresidual sums of
and residual
squares [77], but[77],
pseudo 2 still can
sums of squares but R pseudo be used
R2 still to measure
can be the fitness
used to measure theoffitness
the model.
of theThe higher
model. Thethe value
higher
of the pseudo 2
the value of theRpseudo
indicates that the that
R indicates
2 model thehas
modelbetter
hasgoodness of fit. While
better goodness of fit.for LIK,for
While AIC,
LIK,and
AIC,SC,and
the
model
SC, the has
modelbetter
hasgoodness of fit when
better goodness thewhen
of fit value the
of LIK is higher,
value of LIKand the value
is higher, andoftheAICvalue
and SC are lower.
of AIC and
SC are lower.
3. Result
3. Result
3.1. Spatial Variation of Food Consumption Expenditure and Socio-Economic Indicators by Provinces
3.1. Spatial
ThereVariation of Food Consumption
are six variables Expenditure
of food expenditure andand Socio-Economicindicators
socio-economic Indicators as
by mentioned
Provinces in the
method section. As noted, food expenditure here is a ratio of food expenditure per capita to total
There are six variables of food expenditure and socio-economic indicators as mentioned in the
method section. As noted, food expenditure here is a ratio of food expenditure per capita to total
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1638 8 of 18

expenditure per capita showing the percentage value. Spatial variation of food expenditure (Figure 3a)
shows that the highest value (56.58–61.10) found in the North part of Sumatra, Eastern Nusa Tenggara,
and Eastern part of Papua. These regions are mostly dominated by rural areas, except the North
Sumatra Province that showing a different pattern. The rest of Sumatra’s provinces, including some
provinces in Kalimantan, Sulawesi, Maluku, and West Nusa Tenggara have values above average
(orange colors) as they have so many areas which are still rural. Other regions including Java, Bali, East
and North Kalimantan, South and Southeast Sulawesi, as well as West Papua have food expenditure
below the average (blue colors). Most prominent and populous cities are located in these regions.
These phenomena show that rural areas have higher percentage of food expenditure, whereas urban
areas have lower percentage of food expenditure.
Then Figure 3b shows that the highest urbanization (64.74–83.04) occurred in Western Java,
Yogyakarta, Bali, and the East Kalimantan Province. These regions actually are populous areas that
having many cities. Other regions that have an urbanization rate above average (orange colors) consist
of North Sumatra Province, the rest of Java, West Nusa Tenggara Province, and North Kalimantan
Province as well as North Sulawesi Province. These regions also have many urbanized areas. Rest of
regions have urbanization below average (blue colors) and these regions were actually dominated by
rural areas.
Figure 3c shows that economic growth above average (orange colors) mostly found in Java, South
and West Sumatra Province, Central, South and North Kalimantan Province, the whole Sulawesi, and
Maluku. Some of these regions are urbanized areas with high economic activities such as Java, other
regions are rich with natural resources such as marine biota, plantation, and mining, except Bali which
is known as a global tourism destination. Other regions have economic growth below average (blue
colors). Some of them have a lack of development and natural resources such as West and East Nusa
Tenggara. Surprisingly, regions that are known having rich natural resources including coal, gas, and
oil such as East Kalimantan, Riau Provinces, and Papua have low economic growth. Seemingly the
economic growth of these regions that have been relying too much on natural resources has become
stagnant now.
The variation of GDRP per capita between provinces is shown in Figure 3d. There are only seven
provinces that have GDRP per capita above average (orange colors) consisting of Riau, Riau Islands,
Jakarta, East Kalimantan, North Kalimantan, West Papua, and Papua Province. Except for Jakarta,
these regions are rich with natural resources, mainly mining, but having less population. As shown in
Figure 3c, most of these regions have low economic growth, thus people are not interested to come
and involve in economic activities in these regions. Seemingly, the regional leakage phenomenon has
occurred in these regions.
Figure 3e shows the distribution of poverty between provinces. The highest poverty (> 1.76)
found in Papua beyond other provinces. This phenomenon shows that the development of people’s
prosperity in Papua is still lacking than other provinces in Indonesia. Other provinces have poverty
slightly above average (light orange color) and slightly below average (light blue colors); thus, the
difference is not significant.
The distribution of unemployment is shown in Figure 3f. The distribution is quite random. Higher
unemployment (orange colors) found in Western Java, Northern Sumatra, Eastern Kalimantan, Northern
Sulawesi, Southern Maluku, and Western Papua. This shows that unemployment above-average found
in more developed areas such as Western Java, in the area with rich natural resources such as some
parts of Kalimantan and Sumatra also Northern part of Sulawesi, and the area with lack of economic
development such as Southern Maluku and Western Papua.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1638 9 of 18
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 18

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

Figure 3. Standard deviation map of spatial distribution of (a) food expenditure, (b) urbanization level, (c) economic growth, (d) gross domestic regional product
Figure 3. Standard deviation map of spatial distribution of (a) food expenditure, (b) urbanization level, (c) economic growth, (d) gross domestic regional product (GDRP)
(GDRP) per capita, (e) poverty severity index, and (f) unemployment rate.
per capita, (e) poverty severity index, and (f) unemployment rate.
 Sustainability 2020, 12, 1638 10 of 18
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 18

3.2.
3.2.Global
Globaland
andLocal
LocalSpatial
SpatialAutocorrelation
Autocorrelation
Moran’s
Moran’sindex
indexofoffood
foodexpenditure
expenditureisisgreater
greaterthan
than00(Figure
(Figure4),4),indicating
indicatingthat
thatfood
foodexpenditure
expenditure
presents
presents positive spatial autocorrelations. Additionally, as the p-value is less than 0.05with
positive spatial autocorrelations. Additionally, as the p-value is less than 0.05 withaapositive
positive
z-score
z-score [51,78], it can be concluded that the value of this variable is spatial. As shown by the LISALISA
[51,78], it can be concluded that the value of this variable is spatial. As shown by the map
map of expenditure,
of food food expenditure, 10 provinces
10 provinces have statistically
have statistically significant
significant spatial spatialand
clustering, clustering,
24 provincesandhave
24
provinces have insignificant spatial autocorrelation (Figure 5). Specifically, the
insignificant spatial autocorrelation (Figure 5). Specifically, the number of provinces showing H–Hnumber of provinces
showing
and L–LH–H and
cluster areL–L cluster
4 and are 4 and 6,and
6, respectively, respectively,
there are and there are showing
no provinces no provinces
L–Hshowing
and H–L.L–H and
In terms
H–L. In terms of geographical distribution, H–H is found in four provinces consisting
of geographical distribution, H–H is found in four provinces consisting of Aceh and North Sumatera of Aceh and
North Sumatera
in Sumatra in Sumatra
Island and Papua Island
andand
West Papua
Papua and West Papua
Province in PapuaProvince
Island,in while
PapuaL–LIsland, while L–L
is located only
isinlocated only in one Island (Java-Bali) at six provinces (DKI Jakarta, West Java,
one Island (Java-Bali) at six provinces (DKI Jakarta, West Java, Central Java, DI Yogyakarta, East Central Java, DI
Yogyakarta, East Java, and Bali). This result indicated that spatial autocorrelation
Java, and Bali). This result indicated that spatial autocorrelation is exist between food expenditures of is exist between
food expenditures
provinces, of provinces,
therefore, therefore,approach
a spatial regression a spatial regression
is required.approach is required.

Random Permutations
p-Value 0.009; z-Score 2.7946

Figure 4. Global autocorrelation of food expenditure.

Figure 4. Global autocorrelation of food expenditure.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1638 11 of 18
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 18

Figure 5. Local indicators of spatial association (LISA) cluster (a) and significance map (b) of food
Figure 5. Local indicators of spatial association (LISA) cluster (a) and significance map (b) of food
expenditure. Note: high–high: provinces with high food expenditure surrounded by provinces with
expenditure. Note: high–high: provinces with high food expenditure surrounded by provinces with high food
high food expenditure.
expenditure. Low–high:
Low–high: provinces provinces
having having
low food low foodsurrounded
expenditure expenditurebysurrounded by provinces
provinces with high food
with high food
expenditure. expenditure.
High–low: High–low:
provinces provinces
with high food with high food
expenditure expenditure
surrounded by surrounded by provinces
provinces with low food
expenditure.
with low foodLow–low: provinces
expenditure. having
Low–low: low food
provinces expenditure
having surrounded
low food by surrounded
expenditure provinces with low food
by provinces
expenditure.
with low food expenditure.

3.3.
3.3. Evidence from Spatial Econometrics
Econometrics Modeling
Modeling
The
The above
above analysis
analysis ofof global
global and
and local
local spatial
spatial autocorrelation
autocorrelation shows
shows that
that spatial
spatial clustering
clustering exists
exists
at
at the
theprovince-level
province-levelofof food expenditure.
food expenditure. Therefore,
Therefore,further analysis
further is required
analysis in the in
is required form
theofform
a spatial
of a
econometrics model that
spatial econometrics takesthat
model spatial dependence
takes into consideration.
spatial dependence Table 1 shows
into consideration. the results
Table 1 shows of the
the
OLS estimation
results of theestimation
of the OLS food expenditure model,
of the food as the preliminary
expenditure model, step
as theto preliminary
develop spatial stepeconometrics
to develop
model. 2 value of 0.6688. In addition,
spatial This model has R
econometrics model. This model has R2 value the other
of three
0.6688.measurements
In addition,ofthe the goodness
other three of
fit are included, of
measurements thus
thewe can compare
goodness the included,
of fit are fitness of this
thusmodel
we canwith the spatial
compare regression
the fitness models.
of this modelThey
with
consist of the
the spatial log-likelihood
regression models.(−80.354), the Akaike
They consist of the information
log-likelihoodcriterion (172.708),
(−80.354), and the
the Akaike Schwarz
information
criterion
criterion (181.866).
(172.708), and the Schwarz criterion (181.866).
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1638 12 of 18

Table 1. Ordinary least square estimation of food expenditure.

Variables Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic p-Value

Constant 63.6507305 3.1308798 20.3299824 0.000
Economic Growth −0.8429851 0.3422346 −2.4631789 0.020
GDRP per Capita −0.0385459 0.0204640 −1.8835937 0.070
Poverty Severity Index −0.7334743 0.9625873 −0.7619821 0.452
Unemployment Rate 0.6577112 0.2963428 2.2194270 0.035
Urbanization −0.1806617 0.0380845 −4.7437041 0.000
R2 0.6688
Maximized log-likelihood (LIK) −80.354
Akaike information criterion (AIC) 172.708
Schwartz criterion (SC) 181.866

The OLS coefficient shows that economic growth, GDRP per capita, poverty severity index, and
urbanization have negative coefficients, meaning that increasing their value are able to decline food
expenditure. Economic growth shows the highest value of coefficient than others, thus it has the
highest effect on food expenditure. Furthermore, from those four variables, only the poverty severity
index does not have a significant effect (p-value > 0.05). On the other hand, the unemployment
rate has a positive coefficient showing that increasing unemployment will increase food expenditure.
Therefore, the success of development planning in improving economic growth, GDRP per capita, as
well as urbanization are able to decline food expenditure as long as this is accompanied by efforts to
reduce unemployment.
A test for non-normality (Jarque–Bera) score (0.008; p = 0.996) indicates the normal distribution
of an error term and the low p-value of Breusch–Pagan test points (18.819; p = 0.002) shows the
existence of heteroskedasticity. In addition, the matrix correlation coefficient among independent
variables was calculated in order to eliminate multicollinearity. According to Anselin and Rey [77], the
multicollinearity condition number below 30 showing an absence of multicollinearity (Table 2).

Table 2. Regression diagnostics.

DF Value p-Value
Multicollinearity condition number: 16.933
Normality of errors (Jarque–Bera test) 2 0.008 0.996
Heteroskedasticity random (Breusch–Pagan test) coefficients 5 18.819 0.002

Afterward, Table 3 shows that the LM-LAG of the food expenditure model is more significant than
LM-error (see the p-value that should be less than 0.05 for the significance). According to Anselin [77],
this indicates that food expenditure is not distributed randomly, but is spatially correlated. Therefore,
we should develop the spatial lag model (SLM) in modeling food expenditure.

Table 3. Diagnostics for spatial regression modelling.

Test MI/DF Value p-Value

Lagrange multiplier (LM)-lag 1 7.572 0.006
Robust LM-lag 1 9.682 0.002
LM-error (ERR) 1 1.726 0.189
Robust LM-ERR 1 3.836 0.050
LM-Sarma 2 11.408 0.003

Table 4 shows the results of the SLM in modeling food expenditure. For the lag model, a new
variable for the spatial lag coefficient called “W_Food Expenditure” was introduced to the model. Its
coefficient parameter (ρ) reflects the effect of spatial dependence within our sample data, measuring
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1638 13 of 18

the average influence of neighboring observations on a certain observation. It has a negative effect and
it is highly significant, indicating that there is a contrary effect between neighbors. For other variables
actually still show similar signs of coefficients as the OLS, but now the effect of increasing poverty
severity index on declining food expenditure becomes significant and higher than economic growth,
GDRP per capita, and urbanization. Therefore, the poverty issue should be of concern. While the
unemployment rate still has a positive coefficient as the OLS model, the absolute value of its coefficient
is now approaching the absolute value of the coefficient of economic growth. Again, the effect of the
unemployment rate on food expenditure should not be neglected.

Table 4. The results of the spatial lag model of food expenditure.

Variables Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic p-Value

Constant 76.2077449 4.1161841 18.5141730 0.000
Economic Growth −0.9640638 0.2675532 −3.6032599 0.000
GDRP per Capita −0.0399612 0.0159744 −2.5015734 0.012
Poverty Severity Index −3.2315750 0.9829683 −3.2875678 0.001
Unemployment Rate 0.9117649 0.2409207 3.7845024 0.000
Urbanization −0.2066033 0.0303278 −6.8123335 0.000
W_Food Expenditure −0.2079829 0.0567949 −3.6620000 0.000
pseudo-R2 0.7555
LIK −75.306
AIC 164.611
SC 175.296

Regarding the fitness of the model, the value listed in the spatial lag output is not a real R2 , but
so-called a pseudo-R2 . Still, it can be seen that the SLM model has an increase in R2 thus this model is
likely better than OLS. The proper measures of fit are the Log-likelihood, AIC (Akaike info criterion),
and SC. We notice an increase in the Log-likelihood from -80.354 (for OLS) to -75.306. Furthermore,
the AIC and SC are decreasing from 172.708 (OLS) to 164.611, and from 181.866 (OLS) to 175.296,
respectively. All of these values are suggesting an improvement in the model fitness after the spatial
lag approach was used.

4. Discussion and Conclusions

In general, the spatial distribution of food expenditure between provinces shows a closer pattern
with the spatial distribution of urbanization and economic growth. Although not all urbanized areas
exhibit lower food expenditure, there is a pattern where higher urbanization is likely followed by
lower food expenditure. Similarly, higher economic growth found in most urban areas, but still, there
are some rural areas with rich natural resources that are able to decline food expenditure. In this case,
the Engels’ law seems to work properly as more prosperous society spend a lesser income proportion
for food consumption.
The distribution of other variables has more random patterns. Regarding GDRP per capita except
for DKI Jakarta, all provinces with a higher value of GDRP per capita found in provinces that have
rich natural resources but have less population. According to the poverty severity index, Papua has
the highest value beyond other provinces that more or less have similar value. Whereas a higher
unemployment rate can be found in more scattered areas, including provinces which have high
urbanization level or rich natural resources or retarded development.
Since the patterns are not clear enough, then further approach is required, particularly a regression.
As the connectivity between provinces should be considered, the first step that was done is to check
the presence of spatial dependence in the food expenditure variable. The results show that spatial
correlation in food expenditure between provinces significantly exists based on the calculation of
the Moran Index for global and LISA for local spatial autocorrelation. Interestingly for LISA results,
high–high cluster found in rural or regions with a lack of development such as the northern part
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1638 14 of 18

of Sumatra and Papua, where both regions are actually rich with natural resources. In addition,
the low–low cluster is only found in Java as an urbanized island [79] where all economic activities
are concentrated. Again, urbanization and economic growth show important roles in lessening the
proportion of income for food expenditure.
Then, the OLS regression was developed as a step toward building the SLM model. The absolute
values of the SLM coefficient show that the poverty severity index has the highest effect followed
by economic growth, unemployment rate, w food expenditure, urbanization, and GDRP per capita,
respectively. Except unemployment rate variable, all variables have negative coefficients, which
mean their increase will decline the share of food expenditure. Surely, increasing economic growth,
urbanization, and GDRP per capita are expected as they are able to reduce food expenditure as
consequences of increasing income and prosperity. However, for the poverty severity index, the
situation is different. Against Engel’s law, a lower share of food expenditure also occurs when income
disparity among the poor is increasing. Since this variable has the highest coefficient value; thus,
the poverty issue will reduce the benefit of other variables such as economic growth, urbanization,
and GDRP per capita. Food expenditure variable also has a negative coefficient indicating that
there is a contrary effect between province and its neighbor where lowering food expenditure in
a province followed by increasing food expenditure in its neighbor, and vice versa. This implies
that imbalanced development between provinces will push inequality in food expenditure between
provinces. Therefore, the balanced development becomes very important, meaning that disparity
in economic growth, GDRP per capita, urbanization, including poverty and unemployment issues
between provinces should be reduced.
Particularly for the unemployment rate, it should be of concern that increasing the unemployment
rate is followed by increasing food expenditure. Seemingly, unemployed have a lack of income or
budget, so that they must spend most of their money on buying food. Although the coefficient value
of the unemployment rate is below economic growth, it still can considerably reduce the benefit of
increasing economic growth, urbanization, and GDRP per capita.
Based on these findings, poverty and unemployment rate are critical issues that should be addressed
to optimize the capability of economic growth, urbanization, and GDRP per capita in reducing food
expenditure as well as enhancing food security. Previous research shows that urbanization has pushed
economic development [80], and has positive impacts on economic growth [81,82]. On the other
hand, increasing income disparity among the poor result in declining food expenditure, seemingly
caused by an urgent need for fulfilling basic non-food expenditure, thus reducing income for buying
food [83]. Furthermore, increasing food expenditure due to rising unemployment has likely occurred,
as explained by Carroll et al. [37] that at the time of unemployment, food expenditure is highly
dependent on the savings owned. Lack of savings will make unemployed should prioritize food than
other things; thus, most of their income is spent on food expenditure.
In conclusion, increasing economic growth, urbanization, and GDRP per capita are able to
support food security by increasing income. Thus, the household consumption is shifted from food
consumption to non-food consumption, causing lower food expenditure. This phenomenon certainly
supports the Engel’s law. Contrarily, the Engel’s law will be violated due to three other variables
consisting of poverty, unemployment, and regional development disparity. The severity of poverty
will lead to a misleading conclusion as lower food expenditures is also occurred when people’s ability
to purchase is very low. Unemployed people will not get any benefit from economic growth, thus
they become vulnerable to food insecurity as they spend most of their income on food. Furthermore,
regional development disparity will make a decline in food expenditure only occurred in provinces
with higher economic growth, urbanization, and GDRP per capita (economic growth centers).
Those above findings highlight more comprehensive factors that affect the application of Engel’s
law. Depending on the situation in every country or region, the benefit of regional economic
development on supporting food availability and accessibility will depend on their capability to
manage poverty, unemployment, and regional disparity issues. This gives a new understanding
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1638 15 of 18

of Engel’s law that might be applied differently depending on different socio-economic factors that
determine the share of food expenditure, instead of debating the evidence that support or not support
the Engel’s law.
Understanding about food expenditure is very important to a wide range of economy and policy
research, including consumption and demand behavior research, as well as living standards, poverty,
and inequality [84–87]. Furthermore, food security issue has become crucial as recently it has been
included as one of SDG’s target to end hunger and improve food nutrition that should be consumed.
Still, this study has a limitation that should be considered in conducting future studies. The analysis
of the study was based on the provincial-level data. We encourage future researchers to broaden
the scope of this research by using data at the city or district level. An interesting idea for further
research is by conducting a similar spatial analysis on more wide socio-economic factors that affect
food consumption, such as non-food expenditure, dietary habits, and population composition based
on gender and age.

Author Contributions: A.S.P. designed the research, collected, and analyzed the data. A.S.P. and D.O.P. Software.
G.T. supervision. All authors wrote, reviewed and commented on the manuscript. All authors have read and
approved the final manuscript. All authors contributed equally to this work.
Funding: The research was supported by "One Belt and One Road" initiative on the implementation mechanism
of agricultural capacity cooperation between China and countries along the route (18JLD310), the Heilongjiang
Provincial Philosophy and Social Science Office, and a Ph.D. scholarship from the China Scholarship Council
(CSC), the China Government, for the first author.
Acknowledgments: Thank you to editor and all reviewers for their valuable advice on this paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the
study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to
publish the results.

References
1. FAO. Rome Declaration on World Food Security and World Food Summit Plan of Action: World Food Summit 13–17
November 1996, Rome, Italy; FAO: Rome, Italy, 1996; ISBN 9251039399.
2. Abu Hatab, A.; Cavinato, M.E.R.; Lagerkvist, C.J. Urbanization, livestock systems and food security in
developing countries: A systematic review of the literature. Food Secur. 2019, 11, 279–299. [CrossRef]
3. Abu Hatab, A.; Cavinato, M.E.R.; Lindemer, A.; Lagerkvist, C.J. Urban sprawl, food security and agricultural
systems in developing countries: A systematic review of the literature. Cities 2019, 94, 129–142. [CrossRef]
4. Haysom, G.; Tawodzera, G. Measurement drives diagnosis and response: Gaps in transferring food security
assessment to the urban scale. Food Policy 2018, 74, 117–125. [CrossRef]
5. Regmi, A.; Meade, B. Demand side drivers of global food security. Glob. Food Secur. 2013, 2, 166–171.
[CrossRef]
6. Satterthwaite, D.; McGranahan, G.; Tacoli, C. Urbanization and its implications for food and farming. Philos.
Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2010, 365, 2809–2820. [CrossRef]
7. He, C.; Liu, Z.; Xu, M.; Ma, Q.; Dou, Y. Urban expansion brought stress to food security in China: Evidence
from decreased cropland net primary productivity. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 576, 660–670. [CrossRef]
8. Li, H.; Wu, Y.; Huang, X.; Sloan, M.; Skitmore, M. Spatial-temporal evolution and classification of
marginalization of cultivated land in the process of urbanization. Habitat Int. 2017, 61, 1–8. [CrossRef]
9. Wang, J.; Lin, Y.; Glendinning, A.; Xu, Y. Land-use changes and land policies evolution in China’s urbanization
processes. Land Use Policy 2018, 75, 375–387. [CrossRef]
10. Van Vliet, J.; Eitelberg, D.A.; Verburg, P.H. A global analysis of land take in cropland areas and production
displacement from urbanization. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2017, 43, 107–115. [CrossRef]
11. Sklenicka, P.; Janovska, V.; Salek, M.; Vlasak, J.; Molnarova, K. The Farmland Rental Paradox: Extreme land
ownership fragmentation as a new form of land degradation. Land Use Policy 2014, 38, 587–593. [CrossRef]
12. Sklenicka, P. Classification of farmland ownership fragmentation as a cause of land degradation: A review
on typology, consequences, and remedies. Land Use Policy 2016, 57, 694–701. [CrossRef]
13. Liu, Y.; Yamauchi, F. Population density, migration, and the returns to human capital and land: Insights from
Indonesia. Food Policy 2014, 48, 182–193. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1638 16 of 18

14. Masters, W.A.; Djurfeldt, A.A.; De Haan, C.; Hazell, P.; Jayne, T.; Jirström, M.; Reardon, T. Urbanization and
farm size in Asia and Africa: Implications for food security and agricultural research. Glob. Food Secur. 2013,
2, 156–165. [CrossRef]
15. Rudiarto, I.; Hidayani, R.; Fisher, M. The bilocal migrant: Economic drivers of mobility across the rural-urban
interface in Central Java, Indonesia. J. Rural Stud. 2019. [CrossRef]
16. Yin, X.; Chen, J.; Li, J. Rural innovation system: Revitalize the countryside for a sustainable development.
J. Rural Stud. 2019. [CrossRef]
17. Parry, M.L.; Rosenzweig, C.; Iglesias, A.; Livermore, M.; Fischer, G. Effects of climate change on global food
production under SRES emissions and socio-economic scenarios. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2004, 14, 53–67.
[CrossRef]
18. White, J.W.; Hoogenboom, G.; Kimball, B.A.; Wall, G.W. Methodologies for simulating impacts of climate
change on crop production. Field Crop Res. 2011, 124, 357–368. [CrossRef]
19. Hijmans, R.J. The effect of climate change on global potato production. Am. J. Potato Res. 2003, 80, 271–279.
[CrossRef]
20. Ludwig, F.; Asseng, S. Climate change impacts on wheat production in a Mediterranean environment in
Western Australia. Agric. Syst. 2006, 90, 159–179. [CrossRef]
21. FAO. Food security. Policy Brief. 2006, 2, 1–4.
22. Lusk, J.L. Income and (Ir) rational food choice. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2019, 166, 630–645. [CrossRef]
23. Diehl, J.A.; Oviatt, K.; Chandra, A.J.; Kaur, H. Household food consumption patterns and food security among
low-income migrant urban farmers in Delhi, Jakarta, and Quito. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1378. [CrossRef]
24. Gerbens-Leenes, P.W.; Nonhebel, S.; Krol, M.S. Food consumption patterns and economic growth. Increasing
affluence and the use of natural resources. Appetite 2010, 55, 597–608. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25. Marques, A.C.; Fuinhas, J.A.; Pais, D.F. Economic growth, sustainable development and food consumption:
Evidence across different income groups of countries. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 196, 245–258. [CrossRef]
26. Gandhi, V.P.; Zhou, Z. Food demand and the food security challenge with rapid economic growth in the
emerging economies of India and China. Food Res. Int. 2014, 63, 108–124. [CrossRef]
27. Burggraf, C.; Kuhn, L.; Zhao, Q.; Teuber, R.; Glauben, T. Economic growth and nutrition transition: An
empirical analysis comparing demand elasticities for foods in China and Russia. J. Integr. Agric. 2015, 14,
1008–1022. [CrossRef]
28. Pingali, P. Westernization of Asian diets and the transformation of food systems: Implications for research
and policy. Food Policy 2007, 32, 281–298. [CrossRef]
29. Huang, J.; Bouis, H. Structural Changes in the Demand for Food in Asia; Int. Food Policy Res. Inst.: Washington,
DC, USA, 1996.
30. Kearney, J. Food consumption trends and drivers. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2010, 365, 2793–2807.
[CrossRef]
31. Stage, J.; Stage, J.; Mcgranahan, G. Is urbanization contributing to higher food prices? Environ. Urban. 2010,
22, 199–215. [CrossRef]
32. Szabo, S. Urbanisation and Food Insecurity Risks: Assessing the Role of Human Development. Oxf. Dev.
Stud. 2016, 44, 28–48. [CrossRef]
33. Dávila, O.G. Food security and poverty in Mexico: The impact of higher global food prices. Food Secur. 2010,
2, 383–393. [CrossRef]
34. Kam, S.P.; Hossain, M.; Bose, M.L.; Villano, L.S. Spatial patterns of rural poverty and their relationship with
welfare-influencing factors in Bangladesh. Food Policy 2005, 30, 551–567. [CrossRef]
35. Maitra, C.; Rao, D.S.P. Poverty-Food Security Nexus: Evidence from a Survey of Urban Slum Dwellers in
Kolkata. World Dev. 2015, 72, 308–325. [CrossRef]
36. Gibney, M.J.; Lee, P. Patterns of food and nutrient intake in a suburb of Dublin with chronically high
unemployment. J. Hum. Nutr. Diet. 1993, 6, 13–22. [CrossRef]
37. Carroll, C.D.; Dynan, K.E.; Krane, S.D. Unemployment risk and precautionary wealth: Evidence from
households’ balance sheets. Rev. Econ. Stat. 2003, 85, 586–604. [CrossRef]
38. Aguiar, M.; Hurst, E. Consumption versus expenditure. J. Political Econ. 2005, 113, 919–948. [CrossRef]
39. Etana, D.; Tolossa, D. Unemployment and Food Insecurity in Urban Ethiopia. Afr. Dev. Rev. 2017, 29, 56–68.
[CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1638 17 of 18

40. Antelo, M.; Magdalena, P.; Reboredo, J.C. Economic crisis and the unemployment effect on household food
expenditure: The case of Spain. Food Policy 2017, 69, 11–24. [CrossRef]
41. Leonard, T.; McKillop, C.; Carson, J.A.; Shuval, K. Neighborhood effects on food consumption. J. Behav. Exp.
Econ. 2014, 51, 99–113. [CrossRef]
42. Farrow, A.; Larrea, C.; Hyman, G.; Lema, G. Exploring the spatial variation of food poverty in Ecuador. Food
Policy 2005, 30, 510–531. [CrossRef]
43. Morrison, K.T.; Nelson, T.A.; Ostry, A.S. Mapping spatial variation in food consumption. Appl. Geogr. 2011,
31, 1262–1267. [CrossRef]
44. Cerciello, M.; Garofalo, A. Estimating urban food waste at the local level: Are good practices in food
consumption persistent? Econ. Politica 2018, 36, 863–886. [CrossRef]
45. Case, A.C. Spatial patterns in household demand. Econom. J. Econom. Soc. 1991, 59, 953–965. [CrossRef]
46. Aten, B.H. Does space matter? International comparisons of the prices of tradables and nontradables. Int.
Reg. Sci. Rev. 1997, 20, 35–52. [CrossRef]
47. Murdoch, J.C.; Rahmatian, M.; Thayer, M.A. A spatially autoregressive median voter model of recreation
expenditures. Public Financ. Q. 1993, 21, 334–350. [CrossRef]
48. Bell, K.P.; Bockstael, N.E. Applying the generalized-moments estimation approach to spatial problems
involving micro-level data. Rev. Econ. Stat. 2000, 82, 72–82. [CrossRef]
49. Pinkse, J.; Slade, M.E. Contracting in space: An application of spatial statistics to discrete-choice models.
J. Econom. 1998, 85, 125–154. [CrossRef]
50. Kelejian, H.H.; Prucha, I.R. A generalized moments estimator for the autoregressive parameter in a spatial
model. Int. Econ. Rev. 1999, 40, 509–533. [CrossRef]
51. Cliff, A.D.; Ord, J.K. Spatial Autocorrelation; Pion: London, UK, 1973.
52. Anselin, L. Spatial Econometrics: Methods and Models; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Boston, MA, USA, 1988.
53. Tobler, W. On the First Law of Geography: A Reply. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 2004, 94, 304–310. [CrossRef]
54. Bappenas. Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Nasional (RPJMN) 2015–2019; Bappenas: Jakarta, Indonesia,
2015.
55. Pribadi, D.O.; Putra, A.S.; Rustiadi, E. Determining optimal location of new growth centers based on
LGP–IRIO model to reduce regional disparity in Indonesia. Ann. Reg. Sci. 2015, 54, 89–115. [CrossRef]
56. Houthakker, H.S. An international comparison of household expenditure patterns, commemorating the
centenary of Engel’s law. Econom. J. Econom. Soc. 1957, 59, 532–551. [CrossRef]
57. Seale, J.L., Jr.; Regmi, A. Modeling international consumption patterns. Rev. Income Wealth 2006, 52, 603–624.
[CrossRef]
58. John Baffes, B.; Etienne, X.L. Analysing food price trends in the context of Engel’s Law and the Prebisch-Singer
hypothesis. Oxf. Econ. Pap. 2016, 68, 688–713. [CrossRef]
59. Hamilton, B.W. Using Engel’s Law to estimate CPI bias. Am. Econ. Rev. 2001, 91, 619–630. [CrossRef]
60. Kaus, W. Beyond Engel’s law-A cross-country analysis. J. Socio-Econ. 2013, 47, 118–134. [CrossRef]
61. Grigg, D. Food Expenditure and Economic Development. GeoJournal 1994, 33, 377–382.
62. Brunsdon, C.; Fotheringham, A.S.; Charlton, M.E. Geographically weighted regression: A method for
exploring spatial nonstationarity. Geogr. Anal. 1996, 28, 281–298. [CrossRef]
63. GeoDa Center. Available online: https://geodacenter.github.io/ (accessed on 3 June 2019).
64. Getis, A. Spatial weights matrices. Geogr. Anal. 2009, 41, 404–410. [CrossRef]
65. Haining, R.P. Spatial autocorrelation and the quantitative revolution. Geogr. Anal. 2009, 41, 364–374.
[CrossRef]
66. Xu, C.; Pribadi, D.O.; Haase, D.; Pauleit, S. Incorporating spatial autocorrelation and settlement type
segregation to improve the performance of an urban growth model. Environ. Plan. B Urban Anal. City Sci.
2018. [CrossRef]
67. Zhao, X.; Zheng, Y.; Huang, X.; Kwan, M.P.; Zhao, Y. The effect of urbanization and farmland transfer on the
spatial patterns of non-grain farmland in China. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1438. [CrossRef]
68. Zhao, R.; Tian, Y.; Lei, A.; Boadu, F.; Ren, Z. The effect of local government debt on regional economic growth
in China: A nonlinear relationship approach. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3065. [CrossRef]
69. Wang, K.; Zhang, J.; Geng, Y.; Xiao, L.; Xu, Z. Differential Spatial-Temporal Responses of Carbon Dioxide
Emissions to Economic Development: Empirical Evidence Based on Spatial Analysis. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg.
Glob. Chang. 2019, 24, 1–24. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1638 18 of 18

70. Moran, P.A.P. The interpretation of statistical maps. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B (Methodol.) 1948, 10, 243–251.
[CrossRef]
71. Geary, R.C. The contiguity ratio and statistical mapping. Inc. Stat. 1954, 5, 115–146. [CrossRef]
72. Anselin, L. The Moran Scatterplot as an ESDA Tool to Assess Local Instability in Spatial Association; Regional
Research Institute, West Virginia University Morgantown: Morgantown, WV, USA, 1993.
73. Glazier, R.H.; Creatore, M.I.; Gozdyra, P.; Matheson, F.I.; Steele, L.S.; Boyle, E.; Moineddin, R. Geographic
methods for understanding and responding to disparities in mammography use in Toronto, Canada. J. Gen.
Intern. Med. 2004, 19, 952–961. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
74. Anselin, L. Local indicators of spatial association—LISA. Geogr. Anal. 1995, 27, 93–115. [CrossRef]
75. Griffith, D.A. Advanced spatial statistics for analysing and visualizing geo-referenced data. Int. J. Geogr. Inf.
Sci. 1993, 7, 107–123. [CrossRef]
76. LeSage, J.; Pace, R.K. Introduction to Spatial Econometrics; CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group: Boca Raton, FL,
USA, 2009.
77. Anselin, L.; Rey, J.S. Modern Spatial Econometrics in Practice; GeoDa Press LLC: Chicago, IL, USA, 2014.
78. Cliff, A.D.; Ord, J.K. Spatial Processes: Models & Applications; Pion: London, UK, 1981.
79. BPS (Indonesia Statistical Office). Statistical Yearbook of Indonesia 2018; BPS: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2018.
80. Gallup, J.L.; Sachs, J.D.; Mellinger, A.D. Geography and economic development. Int. Reg. Sci. Rev. 1999, 22,
179–232. [CrossRef]
81. Frenken, K.; Van Oort, F.; Verburg, T. Related variety, unrelated variety and regional economic growth. Reg.
Stud. 2007, 41, 685–697. [CrossRef]
82. Turok, I.; McGranahan, G. Urbanization and economic growth: The arguments and evidence for Africa and
Asia. Environ. Urban. 2013, 25, 465–482. [CrossRef]
83. Haughton, J.; Khandker, S.R. Handbook on Poverty+ Inequality; World Bank Publications: Washington, DC,
USA, 2009; ISBN 0821376144.
84. Zezza, A.; Carletto, C.; Fiedler, J.L.; Gennari, P.; Jolliffe, D. Food counts. Measuring food consumption and
expenditures in household consumption and expenditure surveys (HCES). Introduction to the special issue.
Food Policy 2017, 72, 1–6. [CrossRef]
85. Borlizzi, A.; Delgrossi, M.E.; Cafiero, C. National food security assessment through the analysis of food
consumption data from Household Consumption and Expenditure Surveys: The case of Brazil’s Pesquisa de
Orçamento Familiares 2008/09. Food Policy 2017, 72, 20–26. [CrossRef]
86. Brzozowski, M.; Crossley, T.F.; Winter, J.K. A comparison of recall and diary food expenditure data. Food
Policy 2017, 72, 53–61. [CrossRef]
87. Ansah, I.G.K.; Gardebroek, C.; Ihle, R. Resilience and household food security: A review of concepts,
methodological approaches and empirical evidence. Food Secur. 2019, 11, 1187–1203. [CrossRef]

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).