Indonesian Most Livable City Index

7/30/2019 Indonesian Most Livable City Index

1/53

+

IAP Indonesian Most Livable

City Index

Bernardus DjonoputroSekretaris Jenderal Ikatan Ahli Perencanaan (IAP)

Chairman

EAROPH Club Indonesia


2/53

+ IKATAN AHLI PERENCANAANINDONESIA

IAP merupakan satu-satunya organisasi profesi bidang perencananaanwilayah dan kota di Indonesia, memiliki cabang di 24 provinsi

Dengan Badan Sertifikasi Perencana yang merupakan lembaga independenuntuk sertifikasi profesi

Dengan jumlah planners lebih dari 3000 dan 1,200 orang diantaranyamerupakan planners bersertifikat.

Program Utama:

a. Penguatan kapasitas planner dalam perencanaan &

pembangunan nasional & daerah

b. Indonesia Most Livable City Index

Affiliated organizations:


3/53

+ Key Programs2007-today

Becoming more self sufficient, Positive cash flow,audited financial statements

Most Liveable City Index 2009, 2011

Active member of EAROPH

Young Planners Asia Pacific Gathering in Yogyakarta

Professional internship exchange: Malaysia, Australia

Climate change and disaster preparedness projectSTART, with

Annual Rakernas and outbound trainings

Active participant in international events: Earoph,IFHP, Isocarp, Habitat Forums, Asean, World GlobalWater Forum, Global Citie Summit, etc.

Joint co-operations with embassies and mediaorganization.


4/53

+

Kota = (Peradaban)

For the three-quarters of Europes

population that live in cities and towns, a

good urban environment is a precondition

for a good quality of life. It seems, in part,

that over the last decade, attitudes toliving in cities have been changing. People

are no longer moving away from cities (or

have returned to them), residential

sprawl has slowed and, in a third of cities,

the population is concentrating in city

centres.


5/53

+Tantangan Kota Masa Kini

Elemen-elemen Lingkungan untuk Kehidupan Yang Berkualitas

As the major function of cities is to provide places for people to trade, produce, communicate and live, the urban environment needs to be assessed froma very specific human perspective: to provide an agreeable place to live while minimising or balancing negative side effects. Quality of life in citiesrelies on a range of components such as social equity, income and welfare, housing, a healthy environment, social relations and education. Theenvironmental elements of good quality of life include good air quality, low noise levels, clean and sufficient water, good u rban design with sufficient andhigh-quality public and green spaces, an agreeable local climate or opportunities to adapt, and social equity. However, urban -specific data are patchy inEurope and, due to different timescales and reporting methods, are seldom directly comparable.

Tekanan Urbanisasi

Many of our cities struggle to cope with social, economic and environmental problems resulting from pressures such as overcrowding or decline, socialinequity, pollution and traffic. The environmental impacts of cities also spread well beyond their physical limits as they rely heavily on outside regions tomeet demand for energy and resources and to accommodate waste. A study of Greater London estimates that London has a footprint 300 times itsgeographical area corresponding to nearly twice the size of the entire UK.


6/53

+

Tantangan Kota

Masa Kini

Perubahan Iklim

Climate change has the potential to influence almost all components of the urban environment and to raise new,complex challenges for the quality of urban life, health and urban biodiversity. Some cities will experience droughts andhigher temperatures. Others will experience floods. Climate change will affect many aspects of urban living from airquality to consumption patterns (e.g. energy for air conditioning). Poor urban design can aggravate the impacts ofclimate change. Soil sealing, for example, can increase the urban heat island effect. It may also increase water run-offand lack of drainage during heavy rains leading to floods. However, urban design aimed at tackling climate changecould have numerous co-benefits from improved air quality, supporting biodiversity and quality of life.

Kesempatan di Kota

The proximity of people, businesses and services associated with the very word city means there are

also huge opportunities and benefits associated with urban living especially in terms of sustainability and resource use.Already, population density in cities means shorter journeys to work and services, greater use of walking, cycling orpublic transport, and living in apartments of multi-family houses or blocks requiring less heating and less ground space

per person. As a result, urban dwellers on average consume less energy and land for living per capita than ruralresidents.


7/53

+

Mendisain Kota untuk

Masa Depan

Designing the future

Cities are ecosystems: they are open and dynamicsystems which consume, transform and releasematerials and energy; they develop and adapt;

and they interact with humans and with otherecosystems. They must therefore be managedand protected like any other type of ecosystem.Through rethinking urban design, architecturetransport and planning, we can turn our cities andurban landscapes intourban ecosystemsat theforefront of climate change mitigation (e.g.sustainable transport, clean energy and lowconsumption) and adaptation (e.g. floating

houses, vertical gardens).

Furthermore, better urban planning will improvequality of life across the board by designing quiet,safe, clean and green urban space. It will alsocreate new employment opportunities byenhancing the market for new technologies andgreen architecture. Cities, due to theirconcentration of people and activities, matter forEurope. Also, the problems of cities cannot besolved at the local level alone. Better policyintegration and new governance, involving closerpartnership and co-ordination at local, nationaland European level, are required.

Kota adalah sebuah ekosistemyang harus selalu di kelola dan dilindungi seperti ekosistem-ekosistem lainnya.

Dengan mengembangkan cara lkitamerencana dan mendisain kota,

merancang transportasi denganlebih baik, akan memperbaikikualitas hidup keseluruhan.


8/53

+

Indonesian Cities The

Urbanizing Phenomena

Pada tahun 2008, untuk pertama kalinyadalam sejarah peradaban Indonesia,

penduduk perkotaan melebihi pedesaan.

Hari ini, lebih dari 39 perkotaan Indonesia

berpenduduk diatas 1 juta.

Age 100+

Age 0

Di Indonesia, lebih dari 60% populasi berumur dibawah 39 tahun,

menjadikan negara yang potensial produktif.

51%urban

30%urban

2008 2030

65%urban


9/53


10/53

+

Infrastructure quality in selected Asian countries (GlobalCompetitiveness Report, 2010-2011)

Country Singapore Malaysia Thailand China Indonesia India Philippines

Roads 6.6 5.7 5.1 4.3 3.5 3.3 2.8

Railroad 5.8 4.7 3.0 4.3 3.0 4.6 1.7

Seaport 6.8 5.6 5.0 4.3 3.6 3.9 2.8

Air transport 6.9 5.9 5.9 4.4 4.6 4.6 3.6

Electricity 6.7 5.7 5.7 5.3 3.6 3.1 3.4

Score (out of 7)* 6.6 5.5 4.9 4.1 3.7 3.6 3.2

* 1 = extremely under-developed; 7 = efficient by international standards

Source: World Economic Forum, Standard Chartered Global Research

Poor infrastructure

conditions are the

main factor

preventing

Indonesia s

economy from

growing at its

potential rate of 7 -

8%.

The Global Competitiveness Report ranked Indonesia 90th among 139countries due to poor state of various aspects of its infrastructures.

Poor Infrastructure


11/53

+

Source: Government Medium Term Plan 2010-2014 and Bappenas

The National Development Planning Board

(Bappenas) has stated that around USD143 billion

(or 3% of GDP) will be needed for infrastructure

development in 2010-2014 in order to meet the

countrys economic growth target of 6% - 7% per

annum from 2010 - 2014.

The GapUSD143bn

USD50bn

USD93bn

Infrastructure InvestmentNeeds

State Budget FundingGap


12/53

+

ALPHA ++

ALPHA+

ALPHA

Alpha ++ World Cities : New York dan London.

Alpha + World Cities : Chicago, Dubai,Hongkong, Paris, Shanghai, Singapore,Sydney, Tokyo.

Alpha World Cities :

Amsterdam, Beijing,Brussels, Buenos Aires,Frankfurt, Jakarta, KualaLumpur, Los Angeles,Madrid, Mexico City, Milan,Moscow, Mumbai, San

Fransisco, Sao Paulo,Seoul, Toronto, Washington.

This means Jakarta as a megacity has a strategicpositioning & influences inglobal interaction.

The Globalization and World Cities Study

Group, Geographic Faculty, Loughboroughuniversity, UK, 2010

JAKARTA AS GLOBAL CITIES :GaWC Survey 2010


13/53

+Kota = TidakNyaman

Mayoritas kondisi kota-kota besar di Indonesia dinilai

tidak nyaman oleh warganya.Berdasarkan surveyyang dilakukan di 15 kota besar, diketahui bahwa

nilai rata-rata (mean) indeks kenyamanan kota

adalah 54,26. Indeks dengan persepsi tingkat

kenyamanan tertinggi di Kota Yogyakarta (66,52) dan

Kota Denpasar (63.63). Sedangkan dan persepsi

kenyamanan warga yang paling rendah adalah Kota

Medan (46,67) dan Kota Pontianak (46.92).Kota kota dengan indeks diatas ratarata adalah :

Yogyakarta, Denpasar, Makassar, Menado, Surabaya

dan Semarang. Sedangkan kota kota dengan

indeks dibawah rata-rata adalah Banjarmasin,

Batam, Jayapura, Bandung, Palembang,Palangkaraya, Jakarta, Pontianak dan Medan.

IAP Indonesian Most Livable City Index 2009/2011


14/53

+

Principles of Livable City :

a. The provision of basic needs (decent housing, water supply,electricity)

b. Availability of public facilities and social amenities (public transport,

city parks, religious facilities / public health facilities)c. Availability of public space to interact between communities

d. Security

e. Supports the function of economic, social and cultural of the city

f. Sanitation

LIVABLE CITYLivable Cityis a term that describe a comfortable environment and

atmosphere of the city as a place to live and work, viewed forvarious aspects of both physically (urban facilities, infrastructure,spatial planning, etc.) as well as non-physically (social relations,economic activities, etc.).


15/53

+IAP MOST LIVABLE CITY INDEX

Perception-based survey of the urban population, about thelivability of their city.

The results of this study is a "snapshot

MLCI IAP is the first perception-based survey index of thecitys livability and planned to be carried out annually andhopefully it will be a benchmark for quality of life in citiesthroughout Indonesia

This index also act as a feedback to stakeholders in theplanning process and urban development.

The advantages of this index: Simple, Actual, Snapshot.


16/53

+

IAP-MLCI

Surveyed Criteria

and Livabillity

factors:

Physical aspects, including availability of Greenspace and quality of urban design

Environmental aspects: polutions, wastemanagement, cleanliness of te city

Transportation: how well the city is served bypublic transport, including quality of your roads

Public Health: availability and accessibility tohealth facilities

Public Educations: availability and accessibility ofschools and other educational facilities.

Quality and availability of city infrastructureincluding utilieits, drinking water, power, andtelecommunications.

Economic conditions, availability of work andaccessibility from home to work place

Security and safety

Neighborhood interactions, social and culturalinteractions


17/53

+

52,28

51,90

56,37

65,34

52,52

53,13

43,65

52,04

52,61

56,52

59,90

53,86

Only 54.17% of the population in Indonesian cities surveyed feel comfortable living in theircity. This shows that those cities are still not ideal IAP

Average Livability Index of IndonesianCities in 2009 : 54,17%


18/53

+

46.67

50.71

54,19

66,52

54.67

56.38

46.92

53,16

56,39

53

53

58

58

64

45.74% of the population in Indonesian cities surveyed feel ther cities are less livable.

Average Livability Index of IndonesianCities in 2011: 54.26%


19/53

+

MOST LIVABLE CITY INDEX 2009 & 2011

NO CITY 2009 2011

1 Yogyakarta 65,34 66.52

2 Denpasar 63.63

3 Makasar 56,52 58.46

4 Manado 59,90 56.39

5 Surabaya 53,13 56.38

6 Semarang 52,52 54.63

7 Banjarmasin 52,61 53.16

8 Batam 52.60

9 Jayapura 53,86 52.5610 Bandung 56,37 52.32

11 Palembang 52.15

12 Palangkaraya 52,04 50.86

13 Jakarta 51,90 50.71

14 Pontianak 43,65 46.92

15 Medan 52,28 46.67


20/53

+

Key Findings:Cities are

struggling

But there are 6 cities that are perceived asless livable compared to 2009, namelyManado (1 million), Jayapura (300,000),Bandung (2.5 million),

Palangkaraya(400,000), Jakarta (15 million),and Medan (2.1 million)

The following are key areas that the publicperceived as most important aspects indetermining livability of their city, namely :

economic(27 ,97 %)

spatial plan/urban design (19,66 %),

Availability of education facility (13,29%),

Safety and security (11,08%)

waste management (10,80%)

Livability index of Indonesiancities (mean) is at 54.26, arelatively no change

compared to the 2009 survey(54.17).


21/53

+ Aspect Perception (%)Physical/Urban design 28.63

Environment 34.32Security & Safety 37.09

Economy 41.84

Social & Cultural 48.91

Transportation 49.56

Public utilities 68.18

Public Health 71.03

Education 72.63

Key Findings: physicalstate of Indonesian cities

a concern

A total of 45% percent of respondentsliving in Indonesian cities todayperceived their cities as less livable.

Key areas that has the lowest scoreinclude: physical aspect,environmental aspect and security &safety.


22/53

+

These cities are

mostly old andtraditionally-well-preserved cities,strong indigenousethnic communities,and mostly areknown as

education/universitycities rather thanindustrialized/commercial centers, aremore livable than theaverage Indonesiancities.

Key findings: some cities isjust gets better.

Cities Index Above Average :

Yogyakarta (65.34), Manado

(59.9), Makassar (56.52),Bandung (56.37) is perceived asmost livable cities, more than theaverage Indonesian cities.


23/53


24/53

49%

43%

26%

30%

33%

15% 16%

30%

9%

36%

54%

12%

21%

6%

51%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

PHYSICAL ASPECTS Mean = 28,63


25/53

57%

28%

37%

47%

25%

37%

26%29%

19%

49%

40%

17%

30%

18%

55%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECT Mean = 34,32


26/53

68%

56%58%

65%

49%

57%

47%

58%

35%

48% 48%

35% 35%

40%

45%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

TRANSPORTATION ASPECT Mean = 49,56


27/53

94% 94%

79%

65%

83%

91%

81%

56%

69%72%

39%

71%

65%

58%

50%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

PUBLIC HEALTH FACILITY Mean = 71,03


28/53

98%

86%

77%

70%

92%

64%

83%

59%

83%

74%

40%

72%

64%66%

61%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

EDUCATION FACILITY Mean = 72.63


29/53

83% 83%

71%

60%

73%

80%79%

61%

77%

68% 67% 71%

41%

56%54%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

INFRASTRUCTURE & FACILITY Mean = 68,18


30/53

59%

51%

37%40%

60%

43%

39% 39%

29% 29%35%

26%

36%

31%

75%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

ECONOMY Mean = 41.84


31/53

59% 60%

35% 36%33%

52%56%

26%

36%

18%

42%

19%

34%

9%

40%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

SECURITY & SAFETY Mean = 37,69


32/53

73%75%

66%

54%

41% 40%42%

50%51%

40%

45%

53%

37%

31%

36%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

SOCIAL & CULTURAL ASPECT Mean = 48,91


33/53

+

SNAPSHOT IS GOOD

Walaupun Indonesia memilikifenomena ekonomi yangmengagumkan, kota-kota utama di

Indonesia saat ini kesulitan untukmenjadi kota nyaman yang ideal.Hal ini membutuhkan keberanianbertindak, inovasi dan pemikiranprogresif dari para manajer kota,terutama Walikota, untuk mengambilkebijakan-kebijakan yang tegas dalampembangunan kota.

Pemimpin kota harus memilki visi,kepemimpinan dan dukungan kuat

warga untuk merealisasikanidentitas kota masa depanIndonesia: Kota yang Nyaman.

Simple and ActualSnapshot of theperceptions of urbanpopulations describedin this index shows:


34/53

+

SNAPSHOT ISGOOD

Kenyaman (Livability) kota adalah haksemua warga. Para manajer kota danpemerintah harus segera mengadopsikebijakan dan opendekatan yang benar

dan mumpuni.

Mandat politik di era demokrasi baru inimerupakan kesempatan emas untukmerencana, membangun danmengendalikan/mengawasi

pembangunan. Pada saat bersamaan, para warga kota

harus beradaptasi dengan pola hidupurban (bukan kampung), untukmenjadikan kota lebih nyaman.

Masa depan kota-kota Indonesia akanmenghadapi tantangan lebih besar:perlunya membangun infrastruktur danbertumbuh nya demokrasi di level lokal.

Simple and ActualSnapshot of theperceptions of urbanpopulations describedin this index shows:


35/53

+Tantangan bagi Kota Indonesia

Infrastruktur

KEMACETAN

BANJIR

R T H

PERUBAHAN IKLIM

DAN BENCANA

PERUMAHAN DAN

PERMUKIMAN

SAMPAH, AIR BERSIH,

LIMBAH, DAN ENERGI

Target Jumlah Penduduk


36/53

+

Perencanaan Kota

Berbasis Stakeholder

1. Pengelolaan Pertumbuhan(Growth Management), bukanPembangunan biasa.

2. Basis Perencanaan

Fungsional adalahMegalopolitan

3. Pergeseran Dari DiscretionarySystem Ke Regulatory System

DesignTeknis

Engineering

Dampak

LingkunganPelayananPublik

Dampak

Sosial

Produk

Rencana

RuangPerkotaan

CITIZEN

CHARTER

DesignTeknis

Engineering

Dampak


Dampak

Sosial

Produk

Rencana

RuangPerkotaan

DesignTeknis

Engineering

Dampak


Dampak

Sosial

Produk

Rencana

RuangPerkotaan

CITIZEN

CHARTER

Livability harus merupakan landasanukur sebagai bagian dari CitizenCharter, dengan ber fokus komitmentmanajer kota untuk melayani warganya.


37/53

+2013 MLCI Survey Partnership Opportunity

To further enhanced the impact of this Index, IAP is puttingforward a proposal for partnership in the 2013 survey andbeyond.

Improvement to the Index includes application of morecomprehensive survey methodology in more cities.

The 2013 research will see an increase of sample in eachcities, and add the number of cities to 24.

The analysis will include ordinal utility of main aspects ofthe survey. Further analysis will also connects the priority ofeach aspect with attribute of respondents, ie. Younger/older

age group, gender, income group, etc.

Preliminary discussion to support the survey: Embassy ofDenmark, Embassy of Sweden, Austrade, KementrianLingkungan Hidup.


38/53

Terima Kasih

Urban community perception for all aspects


39/53

Urban community perception for all aspects:

> 5 Juta Jiwa

1 5 Juta Jiwa

100 rb 500 rb jiwa


40/53

52%

46%

69%

45%

73%

55%

89%

54%

94%

93%

97%

98%

80%

81%78%

95%

29%

55%

92%

59%

93%

91%

32%

69%

76%

77%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Kualitas Penataan Kota

Jumlah Ruang Terbuka

Kualitas Kebersihan Lingkungan

Tingkat Pencemaran Lingkungan

Ketersediaan Angkutan Umum

Kualitas Angkutan Umum

Kualitas Kondisi Jalan

Kualitas Fasilitas Pejalan Kaki

Ketersediaan Fasilitas Kesehatan

Kualitas Fasilitas Kesehatan

Ketersediaan Fasilitas Pendidikan

Kualitas Fasilitas Pendidikan

Ketersediaan Energi Listrik

Ketersediaan Air Bersih

Kualitas Air Bersih

Kualitas Jaringan Telekomunikasi

Ketersediaan Lapangan Pekerjaan

Tingkat Biaya Hidup

Tingkat Aksesibilitas Tempat Kerja

Tingkat Kriminalitas

Interaksi Hubungan Antar Penduduk

Informasi Pelayanan Publik

Ketersediaan Fasilitas Kaum Diffable

Perlindungan Bangunan Bersejarah

Ketersediaan Fasilitas Rekreasi

Kualitas Fasilitas Rekreasi

YOGYAKARTA


41/53

46%

40%

44%

13%

48%

52%

60%

64%

92%

96%

84%

88%

100%

67%76%

88%

56%

40%

56%

60%

88%

76%

60%

76%

72%

80%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%















Kualitas Air Bersih



Tingkat Biaya Hidup









DENPASAR


42/53

33%

19%

41%

34%

88%

54%

55%

34%

78%

80%

81%

73%

69%

60%

66%

89%

32%

23%

58%

35%

95%

81%

35%

53%

66%

65%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%















Kualitas Air Bersih



Tingkat Biaya Hidup









MAKASSAR


43/53

32%

27%

53%

41%

82%

69%

61%

48%

69%

60%

73%

67%

41%

48%

64%

87%

23%

34%

64%

36%

100%

77%

27%

27%

39%

55%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%















Kualitas Air Bersih



Tingkat Biaya Hidup









MENADO


44/53

46%

21%

42%

8%

75%

13%

63%

46%

83%

83%

92%

92%

92%

67%42%

92%

42%

58%

79%

33%

75%

91%

13%

22%

13%

30%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%














Ketersediaan Air BersihKualitas Air Bersih



Tingkat Biaya Hidup









SURABAYA


45/53

13%

17%

41%

33%

78%

48%

70%

30%

100%

83%

33%

96%

91%

61%

70%

100%

30%

39%

60%

52%

74%

73%

9%

30%

26%

26%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%















Kualitas Air Bersih



Tingkat Biaya Hidup









SEMARANG


46/53

18%

14%

32%

19%

63%

47%

49%

27%

81%

81%

85%

80%

42%

87%

93%

92%

28%

23%

66%

56%

89%

81%

23%

39%

17%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%















Kualitas Air Bersih



Tingkat Biaya Hidup








BANJARMASIN


47/53

56%

46%

71%

40%

54%

48%

40%

40%

31%

69%

60%

63%

69%

38%

40%

71%

75%

65%

85%

40%

56%

36%

52%

64%

8%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%















Kualitas Air Bersih



Tingkat Biaya Hidup








BATAM


48/53

3%

14%

24%

14%

55%

31%

34%

21%

79%

59%

90%

76%

100%

45%

62%

100%

24%

14%

48%

36%

79%

82%

7%

24%

59%

57%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%






Kualitas Angkutan UmumKualitas Kondisi Jalan








Kualitas Air Bersih



Tingkat Biaya Hidup









BANDUNG


49/53

43%

28%

66%

33%

60%

34%

59%

39%

72%

72%

76%

73%

43%

67%

70%

90%

16%

8%

64%

18%

81%

60%

16%

45%

12%

23%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%















Kualitas Air Bersih



Tingkat Biaya Hidup









PALEMBANG


50/53

60%

47%

47%

34%

53%

49%51%

39%

35%

42%

39%

40%

44%

76%

77%

73%

27%

26%

51%

42%

75%

69%

39%

54%

17%

18%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%














Kualitas Air Bersih



Tingkat Biaya Hidup









PALANGKARAYA


51/53

15%

9%

24%

9%

54%

18%

48%

21%

73%

69%

74%

71%

79%

61%56%

86%

28%

7%

43%

19%

64%

68%

14%

34%

67%

72%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

















Tingkat Biaya Hidup









JAKARTA


52/53

19%

22%

30%

30%

40%

34%

37%

30%

64%

66%

64%

64%

31%

28%27%

78%

22%

15%

70%

34%

83%

64%

9%

29%

9%

30%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

















Tingkat Biaya Hidup









PONTIANAK


53/53

5%

7%

21%

14%

81%

28%35%

16%

67%

49%

72%

60%

28%

53%

47%

95%

17%

14%

61%

9%

72%

53%

2%

9%

21%

26%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%














Kualitas Air Bersih



Tingkat Biaya Hidup









MEDAN

Indonesian Most Livable City Index

Documents