Pendahuluan
The challenges for societies and cities to cope with changes and at the
same time preparing for the impact of urbanization, climate change,
commercialization and digitalization are immense. Democratization, regional
geopolitics and the presence of raising new major economies, are shaping how
cities are governed, planned and managed.
Readjustment of policies to cope with changes are often a dominant
feature in cities around the world. Following rapid urbanization, contemporary
urban issues and its constant growth in scale, are now shaping a new paradigm
of planning process for the future. The constant pressure to avoid expulsions
of essential activities and to side for the city poor is becoming dominant, as
tens of millions of the planet�s citizens are becoming a new generation of
urban residents.
Urbanization refers to the proportion of the total
national population living in areas classified as urban, urban growth strictly
refers to the absolute number of people living in those areas (Tacoli et al., 2015). The United
Nations has also recently projected that nearly all global population growth
from 2017 to 2030 will be by cities, with about 1.1 billion new urbanites over
the next 10 years (Cohen, 2015).
Figure 1
Indonesian Urban Population Projection
Source: Jones, G, 2014
Indonesia�s urbanization is among the most rapid in
the Asia pacific region. Indonesia has the third-largest urban land in East
Asia, after China and Japan. Between 2000 and 2010, the amount of urban land in
Indonesia increased from about 8,900 square kilometers
to 10,000, or 1.1% each year. It is the largest increase in absolute amount of
urban land after China (Hernandez, 2017).
Urbanization in Indonesia will proceed at the fastest
pace over the next quarter of a century. While half the population was already
living in urban areas in 2010, this is expected to reach two thirds by 2035.
There will remain enormous interprovincial differences, however. By 2035, 90
per cent of those living in Java, west of the West Java-Central Java border,
will be urban dwellers. This massive urban population of 76 million will be
concentrated mainly in the twin mega urban regions of Jakarta and Bandung; in
contrast, less than 40 per cent of the populations of East Nusa Tenggara (NTT),
Sulawesi Barat and Maluku Utara will be living in urban areas. (see Figure 1)
Greater Jakarta megapolitan as Indonesia�s most
primate urban conurbation is the second largest urban agglomeration in the
world with over 30 million population will be the driver of urbanization in
Indonesia. It hosts a range of alarming phenomena such as inundation, sea water
rise, waste generation, as well as massive land grabbing and inequality. It
adds to the list of cities in Southeast Asia that act as dynamos fueling its economy and generating most of its production,
consumption, and trade. Today there are more than 230 cities across the region,
each with more than 200,000 people�and they contain a multitude of languages,
ethnicities, religions, and cultures. They collectively contain one-third of
the region�s population and drive more than two-thirds of its economic growth (Illanes et al., 2018). As a country with a
geographical feature consist of 17,000 islands around the equator, Indonesia
economic transformation involved the Jakarta megapolitan as its major driver of
urbanization. At the same time, the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in Indonesia
was worth 1119.19 billion US dollars in 2019, and the economy is gearing up to
become the future powerhouse and growth center of the
region. With the growing numbers of new middle class and overall urban
population in the next two decades, the momentum is right for city governments
and planners in Indonesia to shape the future (Hernandez, 2017).
Governments around the world including Indonesia,
together with stakeholders has ratified and adopted the Habitat 3 in Quito,
which stressed the importance of countries to benefit from a New Urban Agenda
and productive urbanization to achieve specifically Goal no 11 Sustainable
Development Goals. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) identifies specific
targets for each goal, along with indicators that are being used to measure
progress toward each target. The year by which the target is meant to be
achieved is usually between 2020 and 2030. Some of the targets, no end date is
given (Assembly, 2017).
The New Urban Agenda argued that urbanization
stimulate solutions and policies, through developing regions, reduce gaps and
poverty. The target is represented in reduced in slum area, provision of
drinking water to city residents and improved Human Development Index.
The programs and policies to achieve SDG targets by
local governments in Indonesia are varied. Livability
is measured differently and understood differently by cities. Failing to
control, managed and direct urbanization will directly affect livability in Indonesian cities.
Decrease in livability of
Indonesian cities will have a direct consequence to the economy. Livability in urban areas are manifested in progresses in
achieving those SDG targets with a clear orientation towards spatial plans, a
more cybernetics approach and improved service levels.
Indonesian policies on urban planning need to adopt
the targets, but it is faced with complexities in coordination between relevant
government agencies and ministries. Indonesia is yet to have a specific
regulation on urbanization of our cities, regulations on spatial planning,
development, sectoral plans such as forestry, coastal and underground, still
resides in various different ministries and agencies.
Early hypothesis show that livability index is yet to be adopted and integrated into
standards, norms and procedures in planning processes in Indonesia. Imbedding livability as a measure in standards, norms and procedure
is expected to systematically eliminate vested interests, political clout and
subjectivity, which in turn will make livability
itself as tool to measure well-being of a city.
Metode Penelitian
The Classic Maya collapse is one
of the greatest unsolved mysteries in archaeology about the making of ancient
cities. Over 80 different theories or variations of theories attempting to
explain the Classic Maya collapse have been identified. From climate change to
deforestation to lack of action by Maya kings, there is no universally accepted
collapse theory, although drought has gained momentum in the first quarter of
the 21st century as the leading explanation, as more scientific studies are
conducted (Acemoglu &
Robinson, 2012).
Hasil dan Pembahasan
1. Livability in The Context of Urbanization
Urban
dwellings had been erected, diminish, changed and rebuild throughout history.
The Classic Period of Mesoamerican chronology is one important example of how
urban areas evolved, decline and collapse. This period is generally defined as
the period from 250 to 900 CE, the last century of which is referred to as the
Terminal Classic (Andrews
IV, 1973).
The
Classic Maya collapse is one of the greatest unsolved mysteries in archaeology
about the making of ancient cities. Over 80 different theories or variations of
theories attempting to explain the Classic Maya collapse have been identified. From
climate change to deforestation to lack of action by Maya kings, there is no
universally accepted collapse theory, although drought has gained momentum in
the first quarter of the 21st century as the leading explanation, as more
scientific studies are conducted (Acemoglu
& Robinson, 2012).
Although
the spatial patterns of societal collapse are complex, population centers
continued in many coastal regions and in the northern Yucat�n Peninsula, including
as Chichen Itza, Uxmal, and Coba,
whereas most states in the central regions collapsed and landscapes were
depopulated. The reasons for this spatial heterogeneity in societal disintegration
are largely unknown.
Urbanization
as a spatial phenomenon refers to the proportion of the total national
population living in areas classified as urban, urban growth strictly refers to
the absolute number of people living in those areas (Tacoli
et al., 2015).�
Notably, the United Nations has also recently projected that nearly all
global population growth from 2017 to 2030 will be by cities, with about 1.1
billion new urbanites over the next 10 years (Cohen,
2015).
The
development effects of urbanization and the magnitude of agglomeration
economies are very variable. There is no simple linear relationship between
urbanization and economic growth, or between city size and productivity. While
urbanization often has the potential to promote economic growth, the extent to
which this potential is realized is likely to depend on how conducive the
institutional setting is and how appropriate the investments in public
infrastructure are. Removing barriers to rural�urban mobility may enable
economic growth, but the economic benefits will be much larger with supportive
policies, markets and infrastructure investments (Feler
& Henderson, 2011).
Many
cities worldwide currently suffered from chronic issues and challenges. The
immediate challenges include shifting of local population, the rapid growth of
technology, up and down turns of economic situation, and citizens
dissatisfaction. It led to the rise of innovative interventions with the
objectives to improve the condition of cities.
Over
years, livability has emerged as an important concept in the field of planning.
Increasingly, policy and community planning initiatives at all levels of
governance use the term livability often in describing a wide array of contexts
such as transportation, community development, resilience, urban design and
more.
As
cities, urbanization and globalization is becoming a known structure, it is
fair to state that it corresponds to the quality of living of its inhabitants.
In the case of Indonesia, at least more than 40% of residents of Indonesian
cities feels that their cities are less livable. Top five reasons of low
livability include lack of pedestrian facilities, risk of flood, traffic,
pollution and lack of public participation in planning (Kristarani,
2017).
The
concept of making cities livable is still lacks a unified definition. It can be
inferred from various studies that the concept ranges at different scales
(individual, neighborhood, city and country) in multiple disciplines such as
ecology, geography, sociology and urban planning.
Though
the term is often used in plans, the concept of livability has several
definitions. Implicit definitions emerge from the term�s usage. Usages of the
definition varies, understanding the ways in which livability is used by
planners and communities. As it is used today, livability first made an
appearance in the 1950s. The concept of livability took hold as a powerful
linguistic tool in Vancouver with The Electors Action Movement (TEAM) (Kaal,
2011).
Livability
to planners and urban designers are particularly mainly related to streetscapes
and transportation. (Appleyard
et al., 1981). In the United States, the concept
of livability gained significant traction in 2009 as a set of guiding
principles from the new Partnership for Sustainable Communities (PSC), a
collaboration between the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) (Gough,
2015).
A
livable city is defined as having a comfortable environment and atmosphere as a
place to live and work based on various physical and non-physical aspects such
as urban facilities, infrastructure, spatial planning, social relations or
economic activities.
The
livability index measures residents' level of satisfaction with the quality of
living in those cities. It could serve as an indicator of a city's success in creating
livable community. The livable community can be defined as one that has
affordable and appropriate housing, supportive community features and services,
and adequate mobility options, which together facilitate personal independence
and the engagement of residents in civic and social life.
(Hahlweg,
1997) defines a livable city is
"The livable city is a city for all people" or a city that can
accommodate all urban community activities and is safe for all people
(regardless of social status). Then according to (Timmer,
Vanessa dan Seymoar, 2006) the definition of a livable city
refers to an urban system that makes physical, social, mental and personal
contributions to its residents.
Despite
the wide-ranging and relatively subjective interpretations of the latter
constructs, numerous indices and measurement tools were developed over the last
three decades to rank cities according to the amenities and opportunities
afforded to their residents and visitors. Safety and security, crime, climate,
transportation, infrastructure, healthcare, public policies and services,
business environment, cost of living, recreational amenities, education,
housing, gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, sanitation, culture, air
quality, and natural capital have been incorporated into quantitative models to
compare and rank these cities (Kashef,
2016).
Figure
2. Urban Livability Conceptual Diagra
Source: Kashef,
M, 2016
According
to the Indonesian Association of Urban and Regional Planners (IAP), the basic
principles of livability are: 1) Availability of basic needs of urban
communities (adequate housing, clean water, electricity network, sanitation,
adequate food, etc.). 2) The availability of various public and social
facilities (public transportation, city parks, worship facilities, health
facilities). 3) The availability of public spaces and places to socialize and
interact between communities. 4) Security and safety. 5) Environmental quality
6) Support for economic, social and cultural functions. 7) Aspects of community
participation in development
In
the Indonesian context, livability as measures and indicator of planning
outcomes, are not commonly found in statutory plan documents such as Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah (Masterplan) or transportation
plans. Livability is frequently used only as a categorization of physical and
socio-economic targets.
Livability
level are perceived differently by different stakeholders, including that of
the residents. The availability of basic infrastructure and public service are
most often main element. Each city government will always strive to achieve the
service level to its population with the objective to create a more vibrant and
inclusive living spaces.
Hence,
livability is an elaboration of quality of life and it create the reality of
urbanity. Livability in time will contribute to economic development, better
environment, healthier society, eradication of poverty, as well as preparedness
for disaster. Urbanity as a result, is the reason people move and transfer from
rural to urban, in search of new social status and better recognition of rights
and welfare.
There
are few initiatives and indexes to measure livability including OECD Better
Life Index, Mercer Quality of Living Survey, Monocle Magazine's Most Livable
City Index, The EIU Global Livability Survey, and Forbes Livable City Index.
Most of this survey were founded with a single objective to rank cities in
order to measure competitiveness of cities. There has not been any specific
livability survey done in order to develop indicators of sustainable development
of each of the city. Moreover, none of the surveys represent the perception of
the population of the measured city.
This
paper will study the Indonesian Most Liveable City
Index established and run by the Indonesian Association Urban and Regional Planners
(IAP) in 2009, 2011, 2014 and 2017. The paper is targeted to identify the
foundation of liveability measure in order to improve
service levels in the planning practice in Indonesia.
2.
Adopting Livability in The Indonesian Planning Due Process
In
the Indonesian context, the Ministry of Home Affairs Decree no 2/1987 define
small city is with a population of 20.000 to 50.000. Mid-sized city 50.000 to
100.000, big city between 100.000 and 1.000.000. For the purpose of this study,
we will look at metropolitan, defined as 1.000.000 to 5.000.000 and a
megapolitan, with population of over 5.000.000.
The
Indonesian spatial planning process is mainly governed under the Law no 26/2007
on Spatial Planning. Planning process for masterplans, detailed plans and
zoning regulations are further enacted in more detail for implementation under
the Minister of Land and Planning decrees no 16/2018 on Guidelines for Detailed
Plan and Zoning.
The
research shows that top seven cities still dealt with classic problems
surrounding their transportation systems, infrastructure quality and high cost
of living. This survey is conducted to measure the resident�s quality of
living, not to compare one city to another, 2009 and 2011, 37% and 35%
respectively Indonesian citizens felt their cities were not livable.
Jakarta
as the biggest city in Indonesia as the capital of Southeast Asia's largest
economy is only categorized as mid tier city in
Livability Index, according to 2014 IAP Most Livable City Index. The Index,
which involved 1,000 respondents in 17 cities across the country, was compiled
by the Indonesian Association of Planners (IAP).
Figure 3. IAP Most Livable
City Index 2017
The survey found that several major cities are not
categorized as top tier cities. The capital city DKI Jakarta, only remains at
the bottom of the average tier cities category. The survey also found that
higher GDP of an area is not directly guarantee as higher level of livability
of that area. For example, DKI Jakarta and Surabaya, which have the largest GDP
per capita, are only in the average tier cities group. Solo, as sitting at the
top of the index, has a GDP per capita of only 800 thousand rupiah per year. In
addition, no cities with a population of more than 2 million are in the top
tier cities category. Metropolitan cities such as Jakarta, Medan, Surabaya,
Bandung and Makassar are yet to be in the top tier category.
Figure 4.
IAP Most Livable City Index
The current Indonesian planning process in managing
urbanization is as follow in Diagram 5:
Figure 5. Planning Process in
Managing Urbanization
Livability of a city is subjective to each residents
and stakeholders, City governments that strive to meet residents and stakeholders�
expectations are mostly done in improving productive urbanizations, create
vibrant neighborhood and improved inclusiveness.
There is a gap identified as livability is missing
from the standard and norms of planning process as governed by the Minsiterial decrees. Hence, statutory plans are not
explicitly have livability as minimum service level of
the city.
Since its inception in 2009, the survey has been
extended to 26 cities in Indonesia, and the indexing of cities are based on at
least 28 criterias (Kristarani, 2017) Through this survey we are able to
categorized Indonesian cities in 3 main categories top tier cities, average
tier cities, and bottom tier cities.
There need to be further investigation to develop
the index in order to achieve the outcomes to be adopted as defining indicators
in the Statutory Plan norms and standards. Hence further study needs to be done
to elaborate and improved the index formulation, criterion of perception and
perceived values, as well as a finer methodology to adopt the index into the
Norms, Procedure and Minimum Service Level formulas.
To answer the early hypothesis, qualitative and
theoretical references suggests that there is a compelling need to establish a
new livability measures to be adopted into the standards, norms and procedure,
in order to better reflect the perception of the population. To do so, the 7
categories and 28 criteria in MLCI must support foundation of sustainable city
development.
As a measurement of sustainability, urban carrying
capacity is an important guideline for any city governments in promoting
sustainable urban development, which is the path to achieving the SDG Goals.
Furthermore, the concept of enhancing democracy and community empowerment in
planning is important to ensure inclusive practices. Through this practice,
preservation of local endowment is, which is particularly important in urban
regeneration, retrofits and revitalization planning.Livability of cities will also require an
imbedded principle in plan making, design policy and guideline formulation and
development control in planning systems at various stages of development.
Hence, a strong and sound policies is needed to ensure urban development is
focused toward achieving community vision, achieve integration of planning and
zoning, and ensure substantive urban planning principles and due process. This
can be achieved by way of improving the standards, norms and procedure in the
process.
A proven methods of urban planning interventions
need to be applied in order to lead towards sustainable development. A smart
and prompt interventions are based on sharing as common objectives the
improvement towards its sustainable development. Some of the solutions applied
are the smart city solution and applications, more stringent building restrictions,
traffic arrangements, pedestrianizations, public utility network improvement,
architectural interventions
Figure
6.� Indonesia Livability Measures
Figure 6 shows a diagram of the Livability
Measurement concept. This concept can be adopted and integrated into standards,
norms and procedures in planning processes in Indonesia. Imbedding livability
as a measure in standards, norms and procedure is expected to systematically
eliminate vested interests, political clout and subjectivity
Kesimpulan
Rapid
urbanization has impacted the livability dimension of the urban development in
Indonesian cities. In order to transform urban context into more safe,
healthier and livable environment, the concept of livability came up as a
solution. Indonesian government�s policies towards managing urbanization are
still very much on ad-hoc basis, mostly segregated by sectoral silos, and lack
of adoption of urbanization key features such as livability. At the same time,
some 70 million inhabitants are transforming to become urban dwellers within
the next 30 years. The existing regulations on planning are not necessarily
based on a larger theme of urbanization, and this has reflected in a basic,
infrastructure biased standards, norms and procedure.
A
multi-dimensional and multi sectoral approach is required in setting up a livability measures to be adopted into standards, norms and
procedure of planning due process. The perception-based Indonesian Most Livable City Index is an important aspect to develop
measurements that will act as stick-yards in measuring city well
being. This can be proposed as the Indonesian Livability
Measures, which is base on 4 key pillars: 1) Sustainable development
based on carrying capacity 2) Preservation of local endowments 3) Strong and
sound policies, and 4) Proven methods of planning interventions.
As
this paper serves as preliminary research, a further sturdy is required to
elaborate and develop the concept and tested in the next Most Livable City Index perception surveys un Indonesian cities.
Bibliografi
Acemoglu,
D., & Robinson, J. A. (2012). Why nations fail: The origins of power,
prosperity, and poverty. Currency.
Andrews
IV, E. W. (1973). The development of Maya civilization after the abandonment of
the southern cities. The Classic Maya Collapse, University of New Mexico
Press, Albuquerque, 243�265.
Appleyard,
D., Gerson, M. S., & Lintell, M. (1981). Livable streets, protected
neighborhoods. University of California Press.
Assembly,
U. N. G. (2017). Work of the Statistical Commission pertaining to the 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development. Resolution Adopted by the General
Assembly On, 6.
Cohen,
B. (2015). Urbanization, City growth, and the New United Nations development
agenda. Cornerstone, 3(2), 4�7.
Feler,
L., & Henderson, J. V. (2011). Exclusionary policies in urban development:
Under-servicing migrant households in Brazilian cities. Journal of Urban
Economics, 69(3), 253�272.
Gough,
M. Z. (2015). Reconciling livability and sustainability: Conceptual and
practical implications for planning. Journal of Planning Education and
Research, 35(2), 145�160.
Hahlweg,
D. (1997). The city as a family. Making Cities Livable, International Making
Cities Livable Conferences, Gondolier Press, California, USA.
Hernandez,
D. (2017). Are �new� donors challenging world bank conditionality? World
Development, 96, 529�549.
Illanes,
P., Lund, S., Mourshed, M., Rutherford, S., & Tyreman, M. (2018).
Retraining and reskilling workers in the age of automation. McKinsey Global
Institute.
Kaal,
H. (2011). A conceptual history of livability: Dutch scientists, politicians,
policy makers and citizens and the quest for a livable city. City, 15(5),
532�547.
Kashef,
M. (2016). Urban livability across disciplinary and professional boundaries. Frontiers
of Architectural Research, 5(2), 239�253.
Kristarani,
H. (2017). Perumusan Indikator Livable City Kota Sedang di Kota Magelang. ReTII.
Tacoli,
C., McGranahan, G., & Satterthwaite, D. (2015). Urbanisation, rural-urban
migration and urban poverty. JSTOR.
Timmer,
Vanessa dan Seymoar, N. (2006). Vancouver Working Group Discussion Paper for
the World Urban Forum 2006: The Livable City. International Centre for
Sustainable Cities, 107(2), 666�677.