The Implementation of GEMPAR as Farmer’s Character Building in

Pesticide Toxicity Prevention

Eka Lestari Mahyuni

, R. Hamdani Harahap

, Urip Harahap

and Nurmaini

Faculty of Public Health, Universitas Sumatera Utara, Medan, Indonesia

Faculty of Social and Political Science, Universitas Sumatera Utara, Medan, Indonesia

Faculty of Pharmacy, Universitas Sumatera Utara, Medan, Indonesia

Keywords: Character-Building,Farmer, Gempar, Pesticide.

Abstract: Pesticide toxicity was the problem that difficult to solve cause the improper habit of farmers in pesticide

use. This study aimed to analyze the implementation of GEMPAR as character building of farmers in

pesticide toxicity. This is the participatory action research based on qualitative approaches. The study

conducted in Karo’s farmer of Sumber Mufakat village. The sample taken by purposive technique sampling

resulting in 20 farmers that distribute on 9 hamlets. All process gathering with in depth interview and FGD.

Data were analyzed using realist evaluation to create the social change into farmer’s character building. The

results found that GEMPAR has eight step to change the farmer’s character when using the pesticide. The

steps are recognize the hazard of pesticide, using the appropriate PPE, paying attention to the wind

direction, storing pesticides in safe place, safe disposal of pesticide package, personal hygiene, reporting in

immediately and use the natural pesticides. All steps are designed to be comprehensive and meet the level of

health services. Therefore, GEMPAR as sustainable action could be expected as character building of

farmers while using pesticides. The obstacle of GEMPAR lies in the appropriate assistance process which

needs to be considered as support of local government.

1 INTRODUCTION

The pesticide use in Indonesia as an agricultural

country is quite high and widespread. Thousands of

farmers are poisoned by pesticide in daily and every

year estimated in million people suffer of pesticide

toxicity. This phenomena was a serious problem in

agricultural communities in poor and developing

countries (Achmadi, 2005; World Health

Organization, 2017). Pesticide toxicity is a condition

that could be occur due to exposure to chemical

used. Besides it is giving positive impacts such as

increasing agricultural production and decreasing

food borne disease and vector borne disease,

pesticides also have negative impacts, namely

toxicity which could be in systemic or non-systemic

effect, acute, and chronic symptom (Lu, 2006;

Aktar, Sengupta and Chowdhury, 2009; Yuantari,

2011; Mahyuni, 2015).

WHO states acute toxicity of pesticides never

goes away as a record. The prevalence of acute

toxicity due to pesticides in several countries such as

Nicaragua, Indonesia, Vietnam, Brazil, China,

Bangladesh, Cambodja, and India reaches 8.8% to

88%. Even pesticide toxicity giving the harmful

effects such as cancer, disability, infertility and

hepatitis each year (Purwati., 2010; Zhang et al.,

2011; Fikri, Setiani and Nurjazuli, 2012; World

Health Organization, 2017). The toxicity incident

caused by pesticides use occurred in North Sumatra

with 120 victims and in Central Java two people

died due to the pesticide with active ingredients of

diazinon (Sentra Informasi Keracunan Nasional,

2017). Pesticide toxicity is also experienced by Karo

farmers ranging from 55.26% to 91.25% (Dinas

Kesehatan Kabupaten Karo, 2008).

Chronic toxicity is more difficult to detect

because it is not immediately felt and does not cause

specific symptoms and signs. However, chronic

toxicity in a long time caused the health problems.

Some health problems that are often associated with

the pesticides use include eye and skin irritation,

cancer, miscarriage, defects in infants, nerve, liver,

kidney and respiratory disorders, multiple myeloma,

sarcoma, prostate and pancreatic cancer, uterine

cancer, breast cancer, neurobehavioral, as well as

132

Mahyuni, E., Harahap, R., Harahap, U. and Nurmaini, .

The Implementation of GEMPAR as Farmer’s Character Building in Pesticide Toxicity Prevention.

DOI: 10.5220/0010012801320138

In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Social and Political Development (ICOSOP 3 2019) - Social Engineering Governance for the People, Technology and Infrastructure in

Revolution Industry 4.0, pages 132-138

ISBN: 978-989-758-472-5

Hodgkin (Arcury and Quandt, 2003; Alavanja,

Hoppin and Kamel, 2004; Engel et al., 2005;

Deborah, 2006).

Various efforts have been made to reduce the use

of chemicals in agricultural sector. Starting from the

IPM program, the 6T principle, biopesticides, to the

organic farming system. But there are no farmers

who have a concern in reducing the risk of

poisoning. The cause refer to un-comprehensive

programs running which top-down system. Various

methods are carried out such as eco-farming, urban

farming and even the United Nations directing the

family farming program for sustainable farming

systems (Sumarti et al., 2007; Kurniasari, Hartati

and Riwayati, 2009; Moekasan and Prabaningrum,

2011; Tanziha, 2011; Syahyuti, 2016; Setiawan,

Redjeki and Nasution, 2017; Arfan and Araswaty,

2018).

Community development is an effort to help

community groups to have a voice and influence on

life-related issues that can accommodate the

interests of the community (Pitchford and

Henderson, 2008). GEMPAR is a social movement

as an effort to develop the community in preventing

pesticide toxicity. GEMPAR is an acronym for

Gerakan Masyarakat Petani Atasi Racunwhich is a

movement carried out by farmers to overcome all

phenomena of pesticide problems. GEMPAR

consists of eight steps arranged to overcome the risk

of toxicity as primary, secondary, and tertiary

prevention. The GEMPAR movement carried out

easily and simply with the aim of being able to play

a role in character building of farmers who are

health and safety while using pesticides as their

daily needs (Mahyuni, 2019).

This study aimed to analyze the implementation

of GEMPAR as character building of farmers in

pesticide toxicity.

2 MATERIAL AND METHOD

This study is an applied study with Participatory

Action Research (PAR) based on qualitative

approach. Participatory action doing by the farmers

in eight movement of GEMPAR. Participation of

community showed in how to implement of

GEMPAR as action of characteristic building in

pesticide toxicity prevention. All action step taken

on subjects and carried out by involving the active

participation of the community in health and safe of

pesticide usage. GEMPAR as community

development that the farmer will be change and

create the farmer’s character building (Stringer,

1999; Koch and Kralik, 2009; Mardikanto, 2010).

The research was conducted on farmers at

Sumber Mufakat, Kabanjahe as a pilot project of

GEMPAR. This village has 9 hamlets with

horticultural farming communities in Sumber

Mufakat Village, Kabanjahe, Karo. The sample

taken by purposive technique sampling resulting in

20 farmers that distribute on 9 hamlets.that selected

as agent of change for 9 hamlets with criteria

committed, healthy, communicated, and able to

work together. Data collected by using in-depth

interviews and Focus Group Discussion (FGD), self-

report and participatory observation.Data were

analyzed using realist evaluation to create the social

change into farmer’s character building. The

analysis divided into conceptual text, how the

mechanism and the evaluation of

intervention.Ethical clearance has been proposed

and used by researchers by giving freedom to

participants (autonomy), doing good (beneficience),

not harming (non-maleficience or do not harm), and

confidentiality (confidentiality) of the ethical

institutions.

3 RESULT AND DISCUSSION

Karo Regency is an area with a majority ofpeople

engaged in agriculture. Plant species are dominated

by horticultural crops which are prone to disturbance

so it requiredthe intensive attention and frequent of

pesticidesuse. Intercropping planting patterns tend to

make farmers use many types of pesticides in a day.

The pesticides use is also inappropriate and not

according to procedure. Farmers always increase the

dose of pesticides used by themselves. Farmers often

mix 3 or even 5 types of pesticides at once for

spraying. Direct contact often occurs because

personal protectionis not used. As a result, resistance

to pesticides can be assumed to increase in Karo

farmers. Organochlorin type pesticides such as

Gramaxon and Roundoup are still used as the cause

of 21 poisoning cases in January-October 2017

period (Mahyuni, 2015; Mahyuni, Yustina and

Sudaryati, 2017; Rumah Sakit Umum Kabanjahe,

2018).

Pesticide toxicity was the problem that difficult

to solve cause the improper habit of farmers in

pesticide use. Based on the results of previous

studies, several risk factors contribute to triggering

poisoning due to the pesticides use including type of

pesticide use, health status, frequency of spraying,

length of service and wind direction, pesticide

The Implementation of GEMPAR as Farmer’s Character Building in Pesticide Toxicity Prevention

133

dosage, duration of spraying and spraying time, level

of knowledge, farmer's working attitude including

storage method, mixing place, method handling

pesticides after spraying, use of Personal Protective

Equipment, eating and drinking behavior during

breaks and direction of spraying; last history of

spraying, bathing well, smoking while spraying,

history of training or counseling, position of

spraying on wind direction and age, carrying,

storing, transferring concentrate, mixing, spraying

and cleaning the spray equipment used (Budiyono

and Prastowo, 2005; Ruhendi, 2008; Prijanto,

Nurjazuli and Sulistiyani, 2009; Budiawan, 2014;

Rahmawati and Martiana, 2014; Mahyuni, 2015;

Yuantari, Widianarko and Sunoko, 2015; Ipmawati,

Setiani and Danudianti, 2016; Osang, Lampus and

Wuntu, 2016; Suparti, Anies and Setiani, 2016).

These various risk factors contribute to

increasing the health symptoms. The effect of

pesticide residues could disrupt steroid metabolism,

impair thyroid function, affect spermatogenesis; and

disruption of the endocrine hormone system

(Suhartono, 2014). Symptoms of poisoning

experienced include paraesthesia, tremors,

headaches, fatigue, vomiting, pupils or iris slits

narrowed so that vision becomes blurred, watery

eyes, foaming mouth, lots of saliva, dizziness, heavy

sweating, rapid heartbeat, nausea, stomach cramps,

diarrhea, difficulty breathing, paralysis, and

fainting(Yuantari, 2011).

Pesticides toxicity allows the risk of

hypothyroidism (Suhartono, 2014). Pesticide

exposure in pregnant women reduce the quality of

growth and development of children and trigger an

increase in the incidence of stunting (Suhartono and

Dharminto, 2010). Exposure to pesticides can affect

the state of hemoglobin which causes anemia

(Kurniasih, Setiani and Nugraheni (2013) and there

is a significant relationship between the dose of

pesticides with blood sedimentation rate (LED) in

farmers using pesticides (Utami, Dangiran and

Darundiati, 2017). Pesticide poisoning can also

cause skin sensitivity disorders (Dini, Nurjazuli and

Dewanti, 2016).

Based on the concept of poisoning, we need a

mechanism to reduce the risk of pesticide poisoning.

One step is to control the risk of pesticide poisoning

and the achievement of health independence that is

integrated with all parties involved through

empowering the farming community in an effort to

protect and care for farmers while using pesticides.

Community empowerment in the health sector is the

main target of health promotion. Society or

community is one of the global strategies for

promoting health empowerment as a primary target

that has the will and ability to maintain and improve

their health (Kementerian Kesehatan Republik

Indonesia, 2010).

Empowerment as a step to move the masses have

an impact on changes in the behavior and culture of

a person or community. This change is done through

education that can support the development of the

character of healthy farmers in using pesticides.

Education was the determinnat of character

formation, personality and the facilitator is the key

factor of the succesfull implementation of character

building (Fatoni, 2017). Empowerment will create

renewal agents that are able to turn a wrong concept

into a true concept through socialization, training

and assistance. To remind, the lack of funding and

lack of training surfaced as key barrier to

implementing of character building (Witherspoon,

2007). GEMPAR was created to solve the risk factor

of pesticide toxicity related into primary, secondary

and tertier prevention of health.

Gerakan Masyarakat Petani Atasi Racun

abbreviated as GEMPAR is formulated to be

solution of the risk factors problem or determinant

phenomena for pesticide toxicity. GEMPAR also

adapted to the culture of local farmers who have

kinship each other.

Agent of change is an important part of the

community movement. An intervention will be

easier to implement and more effective with the

influence of agent of change, those limiting the

human toxicity and accesibility of the pesticide,

quality, affordability and accesibility a healthcare in

the community (Eddleston et al., 2006).

In this study the agents of change chosen had the

commitment to overcome the poison and distributed

in nine hamlets at Sumber Mufakat village that

collected into 20 people. All agents of change are

educated and conduct GEMPAR actions which

participate in ongoing analysis of each GEMPAR

steps. The education provided also increased the

active participation of the community and

directlyassessed the toxicity prevention program

conducted through GEMPAR. The community

involvement is very effective in supporting wider

promotion of GEMPAR. Educationis often proposed

to promote the safer practice in pesticide use. There

is no policy able to trigger a self sustaining

behavioral change. But the the approaches could be

implement based on constant social control and

participation that would lead farmers to create new

thinking and to be change as their decision (Feola,

Gallati and Binder, 2012).

ICOSOP 3 2019 - International Conference on Social Political Development (ICOSOP) 3

134

The results found that GEMPAR has eight step

to change the farmer’s character when using the

pesticide. The steps are recognize the hazard of

pesticide, using the appropriate PPE, paying

attention to the wind direction, storing pesticides in

safe place, safe disposal of pesticide package,

personal hygiene, reporting in immediately and use

the natural pesticides. All steps are designed to be

comprehensive and meet the level of health services.

Therefore, GEMPAR as sustainable action could be

expected as character building of farmers while

using pesticides.

GEMPAR is carried out in such a way as to

change the awareness of the farmers community that

always use pesticides in appropriate and correct

accompanied in slowly that will switch to using

natural pesticides. The mechanism of community

movements in GEMPAR is carried out by setting the

indicators compiled through FGD with the

community in three cycles of change. It means the

interventions are made easier for farmers to

implement social change so that healthy farmers are

formed (See Table 1). At last, there are eight steps of

GEMPAR could be carried out as follows:

1. Every farmer reads the packaging of pesticides

used to recognize the dangers of pesticides and

knows the early symptoms of poisoning before

spraying,

2. Every farmer uses complete personal protection

in the form of a ninja mask, anti-fog glasses,

gloves, and protective waterproof clothing,

3. Every farmer pays attention to the direction of the

wind during spraying pesticides that facilitated

through the GEMPAR flag placed on the

farmer's field,

4. Every farmer keeps pesticides in a closed

container and placed in a safe place and out of

reach of children,

5. After spraying, the farmer discards the remaining

pesticide residue in a closed container,

6. After spraying, farmers clean themselves by

bathing or washing their hands with the help of

acem acem leaves,

7. If the farmer experiences complaints related to

the pesticides used, he can report the complaint

by fill in the SEDARA (Sehat Dari Racun) Card

to be forwarded to the village office,

8. Every farmer can slowly switch to using natural

pesticides and leave synthetic chemical

pesticides to achieve healthy and natural

agricultural products.

These eight GEMPAR have been carried out

continuously and become accustomed to the

community. It shows the formation of character

through GEMPAR has been well established and

socialized. The manifestation of GEMPAR has been

investigated includes the formation of GEMPAR

Community which has characteristics as a

community that cares about the farmer’s health with

mindset to prevent toxicity due to pesticides use. As

the final destination, Sumber Mufakat farming

community will move to an organic system where

ther is no any chemical using to increased farmer’s

agricultural productivity.

Based on the evaluation results, the form of

acceptance from GEMPAR has expanded by itself

not only in the research locations, but extends to

other villages covering one district. This is

supported by the community gathering habits where

there are meetings from various regions and farmers

share their experiences when they are met. Agents of

change who gather in GEMPAR’s community

always share their experiences and promote the eight

movements to reduce the risk of pesticides toxicity.

The implementation of GEMPAR is able to

improve the behavior of pesticide use that is safe and

in accordance with procedures, so that the incidence

of poisoning due to pesticide use is reduced by

around 70%. Farmers' understanding also increased

to work safer and healthier about 93%. Farmers also

use complete personal protection routinely at 100%,

and farmers begin to think about avoiding use of

chemical pesticides and switch to safer pesticides

that are not even made of chemicals around 60%.

Social engineering through GEMPAR is able to

stimulate farming communities to participate more

and spread GEMPAR actions and become part of a

community that has the aim of reducing the risk of

pesticide poisoning. The challenge of GEMPAR will

increase farmer awareness by itself because farmers

will continually improve every process and change

experienced while involved in GEMPAR action.

Issue of character building might be enhanced by

promoting all aspects and identifying the meaning of

character and virtue. Actually all of the individual

factors were implied to (Gherardi and Nicolini,

2002; Bryan and Babelay, 2009).Study of

personality related to situationist theory of human

behavior in the organizational setting. Its variability

looks that people's behavior is likely to be quite

inconsistent with regard to the patterns of expected

behavior (Alzola, 2008).

The Implementation of GEMPAR as Farmer’s Character Building in Pesticide Toxicity Prevention

135

Table 1: Matrix of GEMPAR cycle in focus group discussion.

GEMPAR Cycle 1 GEMPAR Cycle 2 GEMPAR Cycle 3

Recognize the hazard of pesticide

used

Recognize the hazard of pesticide

used

Recognize the hazard of

pesticide used

Use appropriate personal

protection

Use complete personal protection

Use complete personal

protection

The direction of the wind has no

effect because it cannot be controlled

Note the direction of the wind

when spraying is marked with a yellow

GEMPAR flag in the field

Note the direction of the wind

when spraying is marked with a

green GEMPAR flag in the field

Keep pesticides in a safe place Keep pesticides in a closed place

Keep pesticides in a safe place

that is closed

Plant all remaining pesticides

Discard the remaining pesticides in

their place

Discard the remaining pesticides

in their place

Personal hygiene

Clean yourself after spraying with

acem-acem leaves

Clean yourself after spraying

with acem-acem leaves

Report toxicity complaints

immediately

Report toxicity complaints

immediately

Report toxicity complaints

immediately

Use natural pesticides so that

farmers are healthy

Use natural pesticides to make

farmers healthy (organic systems)

Use natural pesticides to make

farmers healthy (organic systems)

But the weakness of GEMPAR lies in the

individual perception that characterizes the village

community. Perception of rural character shows that

density is less important in an individual's

perception of rural character that are concepts of

community, livelihood and signs of development

and change. It needs to planner to factor in the

perspectives of local players like stakeholders in the

regency. In the other hand have to examine the stress

use, psychological need satisfaction, goal setting and

goal storming provide promising leads to explain

how strength interventions work. Strengths

interventions have been incorporated into broader

programs aimed at enhancing well being and

achievement.(Tilt, Kearney and Bradley, 2007;

Quinlan, Swain and Vella-Brodrick, 2012). It shows

that the obstacle of GEMPAR lies in the appropriate

assistance process which needs to be considered as

support of local government.

4 CONCLUSIONS

The formation of farmers' character in preventing

pesticide toxicity due to inappropriate pesticides use

could be realized in a community development

program that is manifested in the action of

GEMPAR (Gerakan Masyarakat Petani Atasi

Racun). GEMPAR has the characteristics of

preventing toxicity in pesticides use contained in 8

preventive steps are recognize the hazard of

pesticide, using the appropriate PPE, paying

attention to the wind direction, storing pesticides in

safe place, safe disposal of pesticide package,

personal hygiene, reporting in immediately and use

the natural pesticides. These movement as character

building to reach the healthy farmer without

pesticide to reduce the risk of pesticide toxicity.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank you for all participation of agent of change

that very commit with GEMPAR that held in

Sumber Mufakat Village. This program wouldn’t be

sustainable without Mr. Dinis Karo Karo as the

leader of village and thankfully for Mr. Timur

Taraigan, Mr. Japet Tarigan that has collaborated to

effort this prevention program. We hope, by

GEMPAR all of farmers community in Sumber

Mufakat Village could be the icon of Healthy

Village without chemical hazard.

REFERENCES

Achmadi, U.F., 2005.Manajemen penyakit berbasis

wilayah, Rineka Cipta. Jakarta.

Aktar, W., Sengupta, D., Chowdhury, A., 2009. Impact of

pesticides use in agriculture: Their benefits and

hazards, Interdisciplinary Toxicology, 2(1), 1–12. doi:

10.2478/v10102-009-0001-7.

Alavanja, M.C.R., Hoppin, J.A., Kamel, F., 2004. Health

effects of chronic pesticide exposure: Cancer and

neurotoxicity, Annual Review of Public Health, 25(1),

155–197. doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.25. 101802.

123020.

Alzola, M., 2008. Character and environment: the status of

ICOSOP 3 2019 - International Conference on Social Political Development (ICOSOP) 3

136

virtues in organizations, Journal of Business Ethics,

78(3), pp. 342-357. doi: 10.1007/s10551-006-9335-7.

Arcury, T. A., Quandt, S.A., 2003. Pesticides at work and

at home: Exposure of migrant farmworkers’, Lancet,

362(9400), 2021. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)15027-

Arfan, Araswaty, 2018. ‘PKM pemberdayaan petani

bawang merah lokal Palu melalui penerapan model

SLPHT di Desa Wombo Kecamatan Tanantovea Kab.

Donggala Provinsi Sulawesi Tengah, Jurnal

Pengabdian Masyarakat, 1(10), 14–19.

Bryan, C.S., Babelay, A.M., 2009. Building character: A

model for reflective practice, Academic Medicine,

84(9), pp. 1283-1288. doi:

10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181b6a79c.

Budiawan, A.R., 2014. Faktor risiko yang berhubungan

dengan cholinesterase pada petani bawang merah di

Ngurensiti Pati, Unnes Journal of Public Health, 3(1),

1–11. doi: 10.15294/ujph.v3i1.3533.

Budiyono, N., Prastowo, H., 2005. Hubungan faktor

pemaparan insektisida dengan keracunan pestisida

pada petani penyemprot melon di Ngawi, Jurnal

Kesehatan Masyarakat Indonesia, 2(2).

Deborah, R., 2006. Are pests the problem or pesticides,

Biology Journal, 28(1), 6–7.

Dinas Kesehatan Kabupaten Karo, 2008. Data

Pemeriksaan cholinesterase pengguna pestisida

Kabupaten Karo tahun 2008. Subdin P2P & PL Dinas

Kesehatan Kabupaten Karo.

Dini, N.C., Nurjazuli, N., Dewanti, N.A.Y., 2016.

Determinan Gangguan kepekaan kulit pada petani

bawang merah Desa Wanasari Kecamatan Wanasari

Kabupaten Brebes, Jurnal Kesehatan Masyarakat,

4(5), 52–59.

Eddleston, M.,et al., 2006. Identification of strategies to

prevent death after pesticide self-poisoning using a

Haddon matrix, Injury Prevention, 12(5), 333–337.

doi: 10.1136/ip.200 6.012641.

Engel, L.S.,et al., 2005. Pesticide use and breast cancer

risk among farmers' wives in the agricultural health

study, American Journal of Epidemiology, 161(2),

121–135. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwi022.

Fatoni, A., 2017. The strategy of character education in

globalization era, International Journal of Scientific &

Technology Research, 6(4), 112–114.

Feola, G., Gallati, J.A., Binder, C.R., 2012. Exploring

behavioural change through an agent-oriented system

dynamics model: The use of personal protective

equipment among pesticide applicators in Colombia,

System Dynamics Review, 28(1), 69–93. doi:

10.1002/sdr.469.

Fikri, E., Setiani, O., Nurjazuli, 2012. Hubungan paparan

pestisida dengan kandungan arsen (As) dalam urin dan

kejadian anemia (studi pada petani penyemprot

pestisida di Kabupaten Brebes), Kesehatan

Lingkungan Indonesia, 11(1), 29–37.

Gherardi, S., Nicolini, D., 2002. Learning the trade: A

culture of safety in practice, Organization, 9(2), pp.

191-223. doi: 10.1177/1350508402009002264.

Ipmawati, P.A., Setiani, O., Danudianti, Y.H., 2016.

Analisis Faktor–faktor risiko yang mempengaruhi

tingkat keracunan pestisida pada petani di Desa Jati,

Kecamatan Sawangan, Kabupaten Magelang, Jawa

Tengah, Kesehatan Masyarakat, 4(1), 427–435.

Kementerian Kesehatan Republik Indonesia,

2010.Petunjuk teknis penghitungan biaya

pengembangan desa dan kelurahan siaga aktif.

Jakarta: Pusat promosi Kesehatan. Available at:

http://promkes.depkes.go.id/portofolio/petunjuk-

teknis-perhitungan-biaya-pengembangan-desa-siaga/.

Koch, T., Kralik, D., 2009. Participatory action research

in health care. Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Kurniasari, L., Hartati, I., Riwayati, I., 2009.

Pemberdayaan masyarakat petani dengan penerapan

teknologi pembuatan insektisida nabati dari limbah

penyulingan daun nilam, Momentum, 5(2), 41–45.

Kurniasih, S.A., Setiani, O.. Nugraheni, S.A., 2013.

Faktor-faktor yang Terkait paparan pestisida dan

hubungannya dengan kejadian anemia pada petani

hortikultura di Desa Gombong Kecamatan Belik

Kabupaten Pemalang Jawa Tengah (Factors Related to

Pesticides Exposure and Anemia on Horticultural

Farmers In Gombo), Jurnal Kesehatan Lingkungan

Indonesia, 12(2), 132–137.

Lu, F.C., 2006. Toksikologi dasar (Asas, organ sasaran,

dan penilaian resiko), Penerbit Universitas Indonesia.

Jakarta, 2

edition.

Mahyuni, E.L., 2015. Faktor risiko dalam penggunaan

pestisida terhadap keluhan kesehatan pada petani di

Kecamatan Berastagi Kabupaten Karo 2014, Kesmas,

9(1), 79–89.

Mahyuni, E.L.,2019. Pemberdayaan masyarakat petani

hortikultura dalam mencegah risiko keracunan

pestisida di Kecamatan Kabanjahe Kabupaten Karo.

Universitas Sumatera Utara.

Mahyuni, E.L., Yustina, I., Sudaryati, E., 2017. Safety talk

and check to prevent pesticide toxicity among farmer,

International Journal of Public Health Science

(IJPHS), 6(4), 293–298. doi: 10.11591/ijphs.v6i4.

9113.

Mardikanto, T., 2010. Model-Model pemberdayaan

masyarakat acuan bagi akademisi dan praktisi

pemberdayaan masyarakat, Universitas Sebelas Maret

Press. Surakarta.

Moekasan, T.K., Prabaningrum, L., 2011. Penggunaan

pestisida berdasarkan konsepsi pengendalian hama

terpadu (PHT), Yayasan Bina Tani Sejahtera.

Bandung.

Osang, A.R., Lampus, B.S., Wuntu, A.D., 2016.

Hubungan antara masa kerja dan arah angin dengan

kadar kolinesterase darah pada petani padi pengguna

pestisida di Desa Pangian Tengah Kecamatan Passi

Timur Kabupaten Bolaang Mongondow,

PHARMACON, 5(2), 151–157.

The Implementation of GEMPAR as Farmer’s Character Building in Pesticide Toxicity Prevention

137

Pitchford, M., Henderson, P., 2008.Making spaces for

community development, The Policy Press. London.

Prijanto, T.B., Nurjazuli, N., Sulistiyani, S., 2009. Analisis

faktor risiko keracunan pestisida organofosfat pada

keluarga petani hortikultura di Kecamatan Ngablak

Kabupaten Magelang, Jurnal Kesehatan Lingkungan

Indonesia, 8(2), pp. 76–81. doi: 10.14710/jkli.8.2.76-

81.

Purwati., A., 2010.Pestisida ganggu kesehatan petani.

Available at: http://beritabumi.or.id/penelitian-panap-

pestisida-ganggu-kesehatan-petani/ (Accessed: 6

March 2015).

Quinlan, D., Swain, N., Vella-Brodrick, D.A., 2012.

Character strengths interventions: building on what we

know for improved outcomes’, Journal of Happiness

Studies, 13(6), 1145–1163. doi: 10.1007/s10902-011-

9311-5.

Rahmawati, Y.D., Martiana, T., 2014. Pengaruh faktor

karakteristik petani dan metode penyemprotan

terhadap kadar kolinesterase’, The Indonesian Journal

of Occupational Safety, Health and Environment, 1(1),

84–94.

Ruhendi, D., 2008. Faktor Determinan aktivitas

kholinesterase darah petani holtikultura di Kabupaten

Majalengka, Kesmas: National Public Health Journal,

2(5), pp. 215–219. doi: 10.21109/kesmas.v2i5.254.

Rumah Sakit Umum Kabanjahe, 2018.Data Pasien

intoksikasi periode Januari-Oktober 2017: Rekam

medik rumah sakit umum Kabanjahe Kabupaten Karo.

Kabanjahe.

Sentra Informasi Keracunan Nasional, 2017.Berita

keracunan bulan Juli-September 2017. Available at:

http://ik.pom.go.id/v2016/berita-keracunan/berita-

keracunan-bulab-juli-september-2017 (Accessed: 15

April 2018).

Setiawan, D.A., Redjeki, E.S., Nasution, Z., 2017.

Analisis Proses pembelajaran dalam konsep

pemberdayaan kelompok tani, Jurnal Pendidikan, 2(8),

1077–1080.

Stringer, E.T., 1999.Action research, SAGE

Publications.Thousand Oaks, California, 2

edition.

Suhartono, 2014. Dampak Pestisida terhadap kesehatan, in

Prosiding Seminar Nasional Pertanian Organik,

Bogor, 18-19 Juni 2014, 15–23.

Suhartono, Dharminto, 2010. Keracunan pestisida dan

hipotiroidisme pada wanita usia subur di daerah

pertanian, Kesmas: National Public Health Journal,

4(5), 217–222.

Sumarti, T. et al. (2007) ‘Model pemberdayaan petani

dalam mewujudkan desa mandiri dan sejahtera’,

Ringkasan eksekutif hasil-hasil penelitian 2007,

kerjasama kemitraan penelitian pertanian dengan

perguruan tinggi (KKP3T), 223–224. Available at:

http://www.litbang.pertanian.go.id/ks/one/413/file/MO

DEL-PEMBERDAYAAN-PETANI-.pdf.

Suparti, S., Anies, Setiani, O., 2016. Beberapa faktor

risiko yang berpengaruh terhadap kejadian keracunan

pestisida pada petani, Jurnal Pena Medika, 6(2), 125–

138.

Syahyuti, 2016. Relevansi konsep dan gerakan pertanian

keluarga (family farming) serta karakteristiknya di

Indonesia, Forum Penelitian Agro Ekonomi, 34(2), 87–

101. doi: 10.21082/fae.v34n2.2016.87-101.

Tanziha, I., 2011. Model pemberdayaan petani menuju

ketahanan pangan keluarga, Jurnal Gizi dan Pangan,

6(1), 90–99. doi: 10.25182/jgp.2011.6.1.90-99.

Tilt, J.H., Kearney, A.R., Bradley, G., 2007.

Understanding rural character: Cognitive and visual

perceptions, Landscape and Urban Planning, 81(1–2),

14–26. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.09.007.

Utami, D.P., Dangiran, H.L.,Darundiati, Y.H., 2017.

Hubungan paparan pestisida organofosfat dengan laju

endap darah (LED) pada petani di Desa Sumberejo

Kecamatan Ngablak Kabupaten Magelang

(Association Between exposure organophosphate

pesticides with erythrocyte sedimentation rate (esr)

among farmers in DeDesa Sumberejo Kecamatan

Ngablak Kabupaten Magelang, Jurnal Kesehatan

Masyarakat (e-Journal), 5(3), 359–366.

Witherspoon, W.A., 2007.Character education:

Determining barriers to implementation, ProQuest

Dissertations and Thesis.

World Health Organization, 2017.World health statistics

2017: Monitoring health for the SDGs, sustainable

development goals. Geneva.

Yuantari, M.C., 2011. Dampak pestisida organoklorin

terhadap kesehatan manusia dan lingkungan serta

penanggulangannya. In Prosiding Seminar Nasional

Peran Kesehatan Masyarakat dalam Pencapaian

MDG’S di Indonesia, 187–199.

Yuantari, M. G. C., Widianarko, B. and Sunoko, H.R.,

2015. Analisis Risiko pajanan pestisida terhadap

kesehatan petani, Jurnal Kesehatan Masyarakat,

10(2), 239–245. doi: 10.15294/kemas.v10i2.3387.

Zhang, X.,et al.,2011. Work-related pesticide poisoning

among farmers in two villages of Southern China: A

cross-sectional survey, BMC Public Health, 11(1), 1–

8. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-429.

ICOSOP 3 2019 - International Conference on Social Political Development (ICOSOP) 3

138