Upload
narayanarao
View
17
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
This document is about environment and urbanization in Asia.
Citation preview
http://eua.sagepub.com/Environment and Urbanization Asia
http://eua.sagepub.com/content/1/2/209The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/097542531000100207
2010 1: 209Environment and Urbanization AsiaIspurwono Soemarno
A 'Simple' Solution Proposal for Riverbank Settlement Problems in Surabaya
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
National Institute of Urban Affairs
can be found at:Environment and Urbanization AsiaAdditional services and information for
http://eua.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://eua.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://eua.sagepub.com/content/1/2/209.refs.htmlCitations:
What is This?
- Nov 16, 2010Version of Record >>
by nrao potturi on July 9, 2013eua.sagepub.comDownloaded from
A ‘Simple’ Solution Proposal for Riverbank Settlement Problems in Surabaya
Ispurwono Soemarno
Abstract
In most large cities of developing countries, rapid urbanization has created many problems concerning the uncontrolled development of informal settlements. Some urban migrants select riverbanks for their settlements because these areas are accessible with very low costs and are strategically located to areas that can support their economic activities. The rapid development of these settlements is supported by the weak control of local authorities.
This kind of development has implications for the safety and security of the environment. The uncontrolled development of riverbank settlements could narrow the river and increase the chance of flooding. Riverbank settlements could reduce the river water velocity, resulting in flood control distur-bance. They could also cause disruption in river maintenance such as difficulty in deepening the river due to limited available space.
In Surabaya, the local government has been making an effort to formulate appropriate policies to deal with riverbank settlements. The local government commissioned a study on riverbank settlements in 2002. The aim of the study was to understand how riverbank settlements developed, the social economic profile of riverbank residents, the residents’ perception on land tenure, relocation, and so on. The research was done through field observations, respondent identification, interviews with the respondents and aerial photograph support. The research findings and recommendations provided the local government with basic inputs for their policies on riverbank settlements. Reaching an understanding with the riverbank residents was crucial for the successful implementation of the policy.
Keywords
rapid urbanization, uncontrolled development, riverbank settlements
Introduction
During the period 1960–90, the urban population in South, South-east and East Asia increased by 560 million people and is predicted to increase by around another 1450 million people during 1990–2020 (ESCAP, 1997).1 So, by the year 2025, most Asians will be urban dwellers. The cities become sources of economic development and national savings, and urban productivity becomes crucial to national devel-opment (Harris, 1992). In developing countries, where cities often double in size and population within
Environment and Urbanization ASIA 1(2) 209–222
© 2010 National Institute of Urban Affairs (NIUA)
SAGE PublicationsLos Angeles, London,
New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC
DOI: 10.1177/097542531000100207http://eua.sagepub.com
Article
by nrao potturi on July 9, 2013eua.sagepub.comDownloaded from
210 Ispurwono Soemarno
Environment and Urbanization ASIA, 1, 2 (2010): 209–222
a decade, land becomes the most critical problem and becomes an important factor in urban development (Dunkerley, 1983). The population of Surabaya itself in 1980 was 2,017,527 and in 2000 became 2,599,796 persons (Surabaya, in figures, 2002). It showed an annual population growth of 1.27 per cent during 1980–2000. Total area of Surabaya is about 327 km².
Rapid urbanization has resulted in increase in the demand for urban land, mainly for settlement pur-poses. Very often, it has to be met by converting rural land situated at the periphery of existing built-up areas. This expansion is mostly accompanied by an increase in the economic value of the more central locations. Unfortunately, local governments are usually not prepared with necessary regulations for rapid urban development, including urban spatial development planning. Urban land policies are frequently prepared on a piece-meal basis in reaction to specific demands from interest groups or as a reaction to particular urban land problems (ESCAP 1997; Firman, 1998), like the squatter settlements.
Squatter settlements are settlements where the land is occupied illegally. They are considered as infor-mal settlements as they are built through informal process such as on unclear land status, informal sub-division of land and no building permit. They are mostly located in marginal or environmentally risky land such as along railway tracks, riverbanks, drainage channels or in land whose ownership is unclear. The common process of these settlements usually started with the establishment of temporary dwellings by a few families on vacant land. As time passes with no eviction occurring, some other families join them and build their own dwellings. By the time the government realizes the circumstances, the settlement is already so large that the social cost of the eviction will be much higher than the legal cost.
In 2002, the Laboratory for Housing & Human Settlements of Architecture Department at Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember (ITS), Surabaya, had the intention to study the riverbank settlement in Surabaya. The proposal of this study was in line with the planning of Water Resources Office (Dinas Pengairan) of East Java Province to widen the Surabaya River (Kali Surabaya) in solving flooding prob-lems in Surabaya. Funding for this study was made available through Human Settlements Office (Dinas Permukiman) of East Java Province.
This article describes the above study and is divided into three parts. The first part describes general condition of riverbank settlement along Kali Surabaya where this study was carried out. The second part describes survey preparation and the analysis of surveys conducted at the above location. Finally, this article concludes with the results of the study and implications for future development of riverbank set-tlements at Kali Surabaya.
General Condition of Riverbank Settlement along Kali Surabaya
The growth of urban settlement plays an important role in urban development as it usually covers a large part of urban areas. Most developing countries are characterized by high-income settlements being located in prime locations of the city, complete with all necessary urban services, while the low-income settlements have to fight for their location even before their dwellings can be built. If they can find a place, in most cases these are in un-serviced urban areas.
Kali Surabaya is located in South Surabaya and is stretched out in east-west direction as shown in Figure 1. To the north of this river lies Joyoboyo, a bus terminal, while to the south there is a medium-size
by nrao potturi on July 9, 2013eua.sagepub.comDownloaded from
A ‘Simple’ Solution Proposal 211
Environment and Urbanization ASIA, 1, 2 (2010): 209–222
market and Wonokromo train station. Previously, Joyoboyo was a main terminal of public land trans-portation system in South Surabaya because all vehicles entering Surabaya from the South had to enter this terminal. Since the operation of a regional bus terminal at Bungurasih2 in 1992, Joyoboyo has been changed into a sub-terminal. From the situation described above, one can understand that the area around Joyoboyo is a very busy area. Like in other big cities, this kind of location, where a lot of people gather round at almost every hour, is not only busy in commercial activities but also a place where criminals pursue their activities. For those without enough capital, this area becomes primary choice to live as it is not far away from where they earn their income. Hence, Kali Surabaya has become a kind of low-income urban settlement.
The above situation reflects what has been described by some scholars that generally low-income urban settlements have long been seen to be a source of disease (von Faber, 1937) and dens of crime (Drakakis-Smith, 2000; Harris, 1992; Yudohusodo and Salam, 1991) or breeding places for political in-stability (Doebele, 1983). The corollary is that they should be demolished (Angel and Benyamin, 1976). The urban migrants who lived there were considered as ‘marginal’ populations, outside the normal organization of society and slowing down the development process. Thus, the early official response was to bulldoze them (Doebele, 1983). The solutions to these kinds of poverty problems are mostly based on notions of charity rather than empowerment (Angel and Benyamin, 1976; ESCAP, 1996).
Figure 1. The Location of Kali Surabaya and Joyoboyo at South Surabaya (Not to Scale)
Source: Scanned from ‘Surabaya, Atlas jalan & index’, by Marc Le Moullec, PT Enrique, Jakarta, 1999.
by nrao potturi on July 9, 2013eua.sagepub.comDownloaded from
212 Ispurwono Soemarno
Environment and Urbanization ASIA, 1, 2 (2010): 209–222
The absence of urban infrastructures and services are the main characteristics of these settlements. Somehow, people can find ways in accessing basic services. The need for water could be fulfilled by water vendors who see the above situation as an opportunity for income. Some dwellers could even have electricity installed in their houses. Meanwhile, the river on their backyard can be used for bathing, washing purposes and/or as pit latrines.
The housing condition along Kali Surabaya is much diversified. Poor housing lies next to nice brick wall buildings. Building material used is also varied from mixed used wood or bamboo to plastered brick and concrete (see Figures 2 and 3). Most of the dwellers earn their income around Joyoboyo and Wonokromo areas. Their occupations are also varied, such as becak drivers, fishing rod sellers, tailor, welding service, building materials seller.
The plot area of each dwelling and land status also varies. All this information was collected during the survey. Survey preparation and steps carried out prior to interview are described in the following section.
Figure 2. Dwelling Condition (on the River Side)
Sources: Field survey by the Laboratory for Housing & Human Settlement, Architecture Department, ITS Surabaya, 2002.
by nrao potturi on July 9, 2013eua.sagepub.comDownloaded from
A ‘Simple’ Solution Proposal 213
Environment and Urbanization ASIA, 1, 2 (2010): 209–222
Methodology of Study and Analysis
In general, this study used two sources: first, written and unwritten information from related institutions to the study and second, primary data from the field. Prior to formal visits to the study area, meetings were carried out to discuss further actions. The best ways to communicate the intention of this study to the respondents were also taken into consideration.
Steps carried out for this study were as follows:
1. Study area visit and indication of its boundaries. Daily activities of the residents were also noted and photographed.
2. Preparation of questionnaire including maps of study area and survey permit application from related institutions. Here a list of questions was drawn up covering respondent’s name, occupation, total inhabitants per dwelling, householders’ monthly income and expenses, plot area, land status,
Figure 3. Dwelling Condition (from the Other Side)
Sources: Field survey by the Laboratory for Housing & Human Settlement, Architecture Department, ITS Surabaya, 2002.
by nrao potturi on July 9, 2013eua.sagepub.comDownloaded from
214 Ispurwono Soemarno
Environment and Urbanization ASIA, 1, 2 (2010): 209–222
and so on. An open answer is provided to the question of ‘respondent’s plan if their settlement is cleared by the government’. The intention to this question is to get as much as possible people’s aspirations to solve the riverbank settlement problem.
3. Study area preconditions through information leaflets to the respondents. These leaflets were dis-tributed together with local governments’ administrative staff.
4. Dwellers’ identification and first introduction towards questionnaire materials. The respondent should be one of the dwelling’s inhabitants. This step was also done together with local government’s staff. Whenever possible, the respondent who provided the answers to the interviewer was photo-graphed in front of their dwelling.
5. Comparing and improving initial data and maps acquired from related institutions and those collected from the field.
6. All information was then presented in an interim report and discussed in a seminar. The participants were related institutions, the province as well as the city council and representatives of the cities where the riverbank settlers mainly came from.
7. Preparing initial basic concept of riverbank resettlement based on this study.8. Socialization to the community regarding the above concept and improvement of the riverbank
physical condition and environment.9. Preparation of final report of this study and proposal of resettlement programs.
From the riverbank settlements of Kali Surabaya studied, three areas were indicated as the locations to be interviewed:
1. Gunungsari area which is positioned between the Western side of terminal Joyoboyo until the terminal itself
2. Jagir Wonokromo area which is situated between Jagir Bridge and Nginden Bridge, on the eastern side of the terminal
3. Nginden-Wonorejo area, which is located from the Nginden Bridge to East Surabaya
The riverbank settler at the Western part of Gunungsari area was refused to be interviewed. In total, only 415 respondents from Gunungsari area, 1090 respondents from Jagir Wonokromo area and 594 respondents from Wonorejo area were interviewed. Since March 2002, however, the government man-aged to clear Nginden-Wonorejo area from illegal settlement. This area was relatively easy to handle because the settlement was not so large and the locations of the dwellings were somewhat scattered. To defend their settlement, the people from Gunungsari and Jagir Wonokromo areas took action as follows:
1. Visited the provincial council and asked their representatives to discuss with the government, so that the government could reconsider their plan to clear the riverbank settlement at Kali Surabaya. The results were as follows:
a. The government program could still be continued without neglecting the settlers.b. The riverbank settlement would not be cleared without land compensation.
by nrao potturi on July 9, 2013eua.sagepub.comDownloaded from
A ‘Simple’ Solution Proposal 215
Environment and Urbanization ASIA, 1, 2 (2010): 209–222
c. Land compensation could be in the form of a walk-up apartment.d. Land for commercial activities would be considered later.e. Further discussions would be held with related parties.f. The Kali Surabaya dwellers should submit copies of all their legal documents regarding their
settlement status.
2. Lobbied the government to allocate at least 5-year time for them to be relocated.3. If river maintenance was urgent matter in relation to flooding problem, the government could
deepen the river and cut through the backside of their dwelling, but the people hoped that the front should remain as it was, especially for those who have commercial activities.
4. Relocation options should only be done with land compensation, so that they could continue their commercial activities.
5. If the government would not afford to pay the compensation, or to give free land, the settlers were ready to buy the land through instalment process provided that the government guaranteed that the land could be converted into freehold status completely with legal documents.
Interview Results
From the interviews, tables could be prepared. Regarding people’s aspiration for the solution of their settlement, only those who live in Gunungsari and Jagir Wonokromo areas were tabled because Nginden-Wonorejo area was already cleared. From Table 1 (in Appendix), one can see that the majority of the respondents were not ready to move. Among the dominant answers were the following:
1. 266 respondents (17.67 per cent) gave ‘No plan to go’ answer.2. 206 respondents (13.69 per cent) were not available during the survey.3. 179 respondents (11.89 per cent) gave ‘to look for another shelter in Surabaya’.4. 145 respondents (9.63 per cent) preferred ‘to ask for shelter in Surabaya and ready to pay for it’
(through instalment), but no walk-up apartment.5. 116 respondents (7.71 per cent) preferred ‘to resist eviction, will fight to stay’.
The other answers are not that significant in terms of percentage.The interview results also show that the majority of the inhabitants of Kali Surabaya riverbank actually
know that they had no right to live there. They try, however, to ask the government to provide them with a sort of compensation, whatever it might be (money or land), so that they can continue with their life. Out of 1055 respondents above, only six respondents gave answers ‘to fight first’ answer and 116 respondents gave answer ‘to resist eviction and will fight to stay’.
Tables 2 and 3 (in Appendix) show that the origin and the identity card status of the dwellers were not all from Surabaya. Some of them were from Bangkalan, Jombang, Kediri and Sampang. Besides that, 81 respondents have KIPEM card. This means that they are not the holder of Surabaya identity card. On the other hand, 1398 respondents are Surabaya identity card holders. This fact shows that there is something wrong with the process of identity card granting from the local government itself. Usually, it is not easy for those with unclear settlement status to obtain an identity card.
by nrao potturi on July 9, 2013eua.sagepub.comDownloaded from
216 Ispurwono Soemarno
Environment and Urbanization ASIA, 1, 2 (2010): 209–222
Furthermore, with the enactment of Law (UU) no. 22/1999 regarding the Local Government, this law supports fair competition among local governments. Hence, local governments should have good cooper-ation in solving the socio-economic problem of their border crossing community who temporarily settle in neighbourhood administrative areas. The findings from this study gave reason to invite the above local governments to attend the seminar of this study and share the solutions together.
Conclusions
The interview result shows that the intention to solve the riverbank settlements problem is not a simple matter. The notion that the government knows best to solve the squatter settlements problem (Angel and Benyamin, 1976) and the initial government’s solution to demolish them (Doebele, 1983) should not be applied here. It is true that the majority of the dwellers are ready to move from the place they live but the government has to be ready with several solutions, in the form of fund, land for relocation or both.
This study also gives good lessons for the government to solve any problem as early as possible, and not let the problem expand until it is difficult to solve. It might not be the best solution for everyone. However, it also shows that discussion and dialogue to find a ‘better solution’ for every party involved can still be a good way in solving the problem.
by nrao potturi on July 9, 2013eua.sagepub.comDownloaded from
App
endi
x
Tab
le 1
. Res
pons
e by
Kal
i Sur
abay
a D
wel
lers
to
Cle
aran
ce o
f The
ir S
ettle
men
t
Futu
re P
lann
ing
Jagi
r W
onok
rom
oG
unun
gsar
iT
otal
Tot
al%
Tot
al%
Tot
al%
To
fight
firs
t6
0.40
00
60.
40T
o st
ay w
ith o
ther
s/re
lativ
es4
0.27
70.
4711
0.73
To
retu
rn t
o th
eir
hom
elan
d31
2.06
291.
9360
3.99
To
buy/
to p
ay in
stal
men
t/to
bui
ld a
she
lter
in a
noth
er a
rea
20.
130
02
0.13
To
rent
in a
noth
er p
lace
352.
3323
1.53
583.
85T
o re
nt in
ano
ther
pla
ce w
ithin
Sur
abay
a ar
ea3
0.20
00
30.
20T
o lo
ok fo
r an
othe
r pl
ot o
f lan
d or
she
lter
(unc
lear
whe
ther
to
buy
or r
ent
it)62
4.12
00
624.
12T
o lo
ok fo
r an
othe
r pl
ot o
f lan
d or
she
lter
(rea
dy t
o pa
y fo
r it)
352.
330
035
2.33
To
look
for
a ve
ry s
impl
e ho
use
(RSS
) or
ano
ther
pla
ce24
1.59
20.
1326
1.73
To
look
for
anot
her
plac
e to
ope
n a
smal
l bus
ines
s35
2.33
60.
4041
2.72
To
look
for
anot
her
shel
ter
in S
urab
aya
(unc
lear
whe
ther
to
buy
or r
ent
it)74
4.92
105
6.98
179
11.8
9T
o lo
ok fo
r a
tem
pora
ry s
helte
r16
1.06
00
161.
06T
o lo
ok fo
r a
shel
ter
or a
noth
er b
usin
ess
plac
e in
Sur
abay
a (u
ncle
ar w
heth
er t
o bu
y or
ren
t it)
120.
800
012
0.80
To
stop
the
bus
ines
s/tr
ade
10.
070
01
0.07
To
follo
w t
he p
lan
of t
he m
ajor
ity o
f the
peo
ple
90.
604
1.59
332.
19T
o fo
llow
gov
ernm
ent’s
pol
icy
110.
737
0.47
181.
20T
o re
turn
to
the
prev
ious
pla
ce
70.
470
07
0.47
To
ask
for
shel
ter
in S
by, r
eady
to
rent
or
buy
(thr
ough
inst
alm
ent
proc
ess)
734.
850
073
4.85
To
ask
for
subs
titut
ion
land
in S
urab
aya
151.
001
0.07
161.
06T
o as
k fo
r co
mpe
nsat
ion
30.
2024
1.59
271.
79T
o as
k fo
r ex
act
date
(fo
r m
ovin
g)1
0.07
00
10.
07T
o as
k fo
r la
nd s
ubst
itutio
n13
0.86
120.
8025
1.66
To
ask
for
post
poni
ng t
he e
vict
ion
date
50.
330
05
0.33
To
ask
for
a sh
elte
r in
Sur
abay
a (S
by),
and
read
y to
buy
thr
ough
inst
alm
ent,
no t
o w
alk-
up
apar
tmen
t14
59.
630
014
59.
63
To
mov
e to
the
ir o
wn
hous
e2
0.13
20.
134
0.27
To
acce
pt li
ving
in a
wal
k-up
apa
rtm
ent
50.
3311
0.73
161.
06T
o re
sist
evi
ctio
n, w
ill fi
ght
to s
tay
684.
5248
3.19
116
7.71
To
resi
st w
alk-
up a
part
men
t4
0.27
100.
6614
0.93
No
plan
to
go21
013
.95
563.
7226
617
.67
To
acce
pt fo
r re
loca
tion
optio
n0
021
1.40
211.
40U
ncle
ar. R
espo
nden
ts w
ere
not
avai
labl
e du
ring
the
sur
vey
179
11.8
927
1.79
206
13.6
9T
otal
1090
72.4
341
527
.57
1505
100.
00
Sou
rce:
Sur
vey
resu
lt, Ju
ly 2
002.
by nrao potturi on July 9, 2013eua.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Tab
le 2
. The
Pop
ulat
ion
of K
ali S
urab
aya
Dw
elle
rs B
ased
on
Iden
tity
Car
d St
atus
, 200
2
No.
Iden
tity
Car
d
Gun
ungs
ari
Jagi
rW
onor
ejo
Tot
al
Tot
al%
Tot
al%
Tot
al%
Tot
al%
1.A
ceh
00.
001
0.05
00.
001
0.05
2.Ba
ngka
lan
7 (4
)0.
3345
(4)
2.14
30 (
3)1.
4382
(3)
3.91
3.Ba
nyuw
angi
00.
001
0.05
40.
195
0.24
4.Bl
enga
h0
0.00
20.
100
0.00
20.
105.
Blita
r5
0.24
50.
244
0.19
140.
676.
Bogo
r1
0.05
00.
000
0.00
10.
057.
Bojo
nego
ro1
0.05
50.
244
0.19
100.
488.
Cep
u0
0.00
00.
002
0.10
20.
109.
Cir
ebon
00.
002
0.10
00.
002
0.10
10.
Gre
sik
10.
056
0.29
50.
2412
0.57
11.
Jem
ber
40.
1914
(5)
0.67
40.
1922
1.05
12.
Jom
bang
50.
2414
(5)
0.67
80.
3827
1.29
13.
Kal
-Sel
10.
050
0.00
00.
001
0.05
14.
Ked
iri
18 (
2)0.
867
0.33
80.
3833
1.57
15.
Ker
toso
no0
0.00
10.
050
0.00
10.
0516
.K
IPEM
*0
0.00
80 (
2)3.
811
0.05
81 (
4)3.
8617
.La
mon
gan
7 (4
)0.
334
0.19
110.
5222
1.05
18.
Lum
ajan
g1
0.05
30.
149
0.43
130.
6219
.M
adiu
n0
0.00
00.
004
0.19
40.
1920
.M
adur
a2
0.10
70.
337
0.33
160.
7621
.M
agel
ang
00.
001
0.05
00.
001
0.05
22.
Mag
etan
30.
141
0.05
00.
004
0.19
23.
Mal
ang
30.
148
0.38
90.
4320
0.95
24.
Med
an0
0.00
00.
001
0.05
10.
0525
.M
ojok
erto
60.
295
0.24
20.
1013
0.62
26.
Nga
njuk
60.
295
0.24
50.
2416
0.76
by nrao potturi on July 9, 2013eua.sagepub.comDownloaded from
27.
Nia
s, N
orth
Sum
atra
00.
001
0.05
00.
001
0.05
28.
Paci
tan
10.
051
0.05
00.
002
0.10
29.
Pada
ng0
0.00
00.
001
0.05
10.
0530
.Pa
mek
asan
00.
000
0.00
50.
245
0.24
31.
Pasu
ruan
10.
053
0.14
30.
147
0.33
32.
Pono
rogo
10.
053
0.14
50.
249
0.43
33.
Prob
olin
ggo
10.
051
0.05
00.
002
0.10
34.
Purw
orej
o0
0.00
10.
050
0.00
10.
0535
.R
emba
ng0
0.00
00.
002
0.10
20.
1036
.Sa
mpa
ng5
0.24
80.
3817
(4)
0.81
30 (
5)1.
4337
.Sa
mpi
t0
0.00
00.
001
0.05
10.
0538
.Se
mar
ang
00.
004
0.19
00.
004
0.19
39.
Sido
arjo
50.
2410
0.48
13 (
5)0.
6228
1.33
40.
Situ
bond
o0
0.00
10.
050
0.00
10.
0541
.So
lo4
0.19
30.
141
0.05
80.
3842
.Su
mba
wa
00.
000
0.00
10.
051
0.05
43.
Sum
enep
00.
001
0.05
00.
001
0.05
44.
Sura
baya
312
(1)
14.8
676
9 (1
)36
.64
317
(1)
15.1
013
98 (
1)66
.60
45.
Tim
or T
imur
00.
000
0.00
10.
051
0.05
46.
Tre
ngga
lek
00.
004
0.19
20.
106
0.29
47.
Tub
an0
0.00
20.
100
0.00
20.
1048
.T
ulun
gagu
ng0
0.00
10.
056
0.29
70.
3349
.Y
ogya
kart
a1
0.05
10.
054
0.19
60.
2950
.U
ncle
ar id
entit
y13
(3)
0.62
59 (
3)2.
8197
(2)
4.62
169
(2)
8.05
Tot
al41
519
.77
1090
51.9
359
428
.30
2099
100.
00
Sou
rce:
Sur
vey
resu
lt, Ju
ly 2
002.
*K
IPEM
: Kar
tu Id
entit
as P
endu
duk
Mus
iman
, Tem
pora
ry ID
car
d fo
r se
ason
al m
igra
nts.
by nrao potturi on July 9, 2013eua.sagepub.comDownloaded from
220 Ispurwono Soemarno
Environment and Urbanization ASIA, 1, 2 (2010): 209–222
Table 3. City of Origin and Number of Person of Kali Surabaya Settlements’ Dwellers, 2002
No. City of Origin
Gunungsari Jagir Total
Total % Total % Total %
1. Aceh 0 0.00 10 0.66 10 0.662. Bali 1 0.07 1 0.07 2 0.133. Bandung 0 0.00 1 0.07 1 0.074. Bangil 1 0.86 0 0.00 1 0.075. Bangkalan 13 0.07 80 (3) 5.32 93 (3) 6.186. Banjarmasin 1 0.07 3 0.20 4 0.277. Banyuwangi 3 0.20 8 0.53 11 0.738. Bawean 1 0.67 0 0.00 1 0.079. Bekasi 1 0.67 0 0.00 1 0.07
10. Blengah 0 0.00 2 0.13 2 0.1311. Blitar 11 0.73 18 1.20 29 1.9312. Blora 0 0.00 2 0.13 2 0.1313. Bobokan 1 0.07 0 0.00 1 1.0714. Bojonegoro 5 0.33 13 0.86 18 1.2015. Cepu 0 0.00 4 0.27 4 0.2716. Cirebon 2 0.13 3 0.20 5 0.3317. Gresik 6 0.40 14 0.93 20 1.3318. Jakarta 1 0.07 2 0.13 3 0.2019. Jember 7 0.47 27 1.79 34 2.2620. Jepara 0 0.00 6 0.40 6 0.4021. Jombang 21 1.40 59 (4) 3.92 80 (5) 5.3222. Kal-Sel 1 0.07 0 0.00 1 0.0723. Kebumen 0 0.00 1 0.07 1 0.0724. Kediri 41 (2) 2.72 56 3.72 97 (2) 6.4525. Kertosono 2 0.13 3 0.20 5 0.3326. Klaten 0 0.00 2 0.13 2 0.1327. Kutoarjo 0 0.00 1 0.07 1 0.0728. Lamongan 25 (4) 1.66 26 1.73 51 3.3929. Lampung 2 0.13 0 0.00 2 0.1330. Lumajang 4 0.27 13 0.86 17 1.1331. Madiun 11 0.73 23 1.53 34 2.2632. Madura 10 0.66 57 (5) 3.79 67 4.4533. Magelang 0 0.00 2 0.13 2 0.1334. Magetan 4 0.27 7 0.47 11 0.7335. Majalengka 0 0.00 1 0.07 1 0.0736. Malang 15 1.00 42 2.79 57 3.7937. Martapura 1 0.07 0 0.00 1 0.0738. Menado 0 0.00 1 0.07 1 0.0739. Medan 5 0.33 2 0.13 7 0.4740. Mojokerto 11 0.73 24 1.59 35 2.3341. Nganjuk 23 (5) 1.53 38 2.52 61 4.0542. Ngawi 0 0.00 4 0.27 4 0.2743. Nias 0 0.00 2 0.13 2 0.1344. Pacitan 4 0.27 8 0.53 12 0.8045. Padang 1 0.07 1 0.07 2 0.1346. Palangkaraya 0 0.00 1 0.07 1 0.07
(Table 3 continued)
by nrao potturi on July 9, 2013eua.sagepub.comDownloaded from
A ‘Simple’ Solution Proposal 221
Environment and Urbanization ASIA, 1, 2 (2010): 209–222
No. City of Origin
Gunungsari Jagir Total
Total % Total % Total %
47. Palembang 0 0.00 1 0.07 1 0.0748. Pamekasan 2 0.13 1 0.07 3 0.2049. Pasuruan 6 0.40 13 0.86 19 1.2650. Pati 0 0.00 1 0.07 1 0.0751. Pemalang 1 0.07 0 0.00 1 0.0752. Ponorogo 2 0.13 23 1.53 25 1.6653. Pontianak 0 0.00 2 0.13 2 0.1354. Probolinggo 1 0.07 2 0.13 3 0.2055. Purwoasri 1 0.07 0 0.00 1 0.0756. Purworejo 0 0.00 1 0.07 1 0.0757. Rembang 0 0.00 1 0.07 1 0.0758. Sampang 28 (3) 1.86 31 2.06 59 3.9259. Semarang 0 0.00 8 0.53 8 0.5360. Sidoarjo 10 0.66 26 1.73 36 2.3961. Situbondo 0 0.00 2 0.13 2 0.1362. Solo 8 0.53 22 1.46 30 1.9963. Sragen 1 0.07 0 0.00 1 0.0764. Sukabumi 0 0.00 2 0.13 2 0.1365. Sumba 0 0.00 1 0.07 1 0.0766. Sumenep 1 0.07 2 0.13 3 0.2067. Surabaya 93 (1) 6.18 249 (1) 16.54 342 (1) 22.7268. Tarutung 0 0.00 1 0.07 1 0.0769. Ternate 1 0.07 0 0.00 1 0.0770. Trenggalek 2 0.13 16 1.06 18 1.2071. Tuban 3 0.20 6 0.40 9 0.6072. Tulungagung 6 0.40 22 1.46 28 1.8673. Ujung Pandang 0 0.00 1 0.07 1 0.0774. Wonogiri 0 0.00 1 0.07 1 0.0775. Wonosobo 0 0.00 1 0.07 1 0.0776. Yogyakarta 3 0.20 5 0.33 8 0.5377. Unclear 11 0.73 81 (2) 5.38 92 (4) 6.11
Total 415 27.57 1090 72.43 1505 100.00
Source: Survey result, July 2002.
(Table 3 continued)
Notes1. This ESCAP report was acquired through Internet: http://www.unescap.org/huset/m_land; however, there was no
clear indication of the year it was released. From its content, it is assumed that it was released in late 1997.2. This intercity and inter-province bus terminal is located near the border of Surabaya and Sidoarjo. Among many
reasons of new terminal development at this site are to reduce the traffic congestion at Joyoboyo area and at the same time to open new (commercial) area at North Sidoarjo.
ReferencesAngel, S. and S. Benyamin. 1976. Seventeen reasons why the squatter problem can’t be solved, Ekistics, 242:
20–26.
by nrao potturi on July 9, 2013eua.sagepub.comDownloaded from
222 Ispurwono Soemarno
Environment and Urbanization ASIA, 1, 2 (2010): 209–222
Doebele, W.A. 1983. The provision of land for the urban poor: concepts, instruments and prospects, In S. Angel, R.W. Archer, S. Tanphiphat and E.A. Wegelin (eds), Land for housing the poor (pp. 348–74). Singapore: Select Books.
Drakakis-Smith, D. 2000. Third world cities. London: Routledge.Dunkerley, H.B. (ed.). 1983. Urban land policy: Issues and opportunities. New York: Oxford University Press.ESCAP. 1996. Living in Asian cities: The impending crisis-causes, consequences and alternatives for the future.
New York.———. 1997. Urban land policies for the uninitiated. Retrieved 26 June 2000 from http://www.unescap.org/huset/
land_policy/index.htmFirman, T. 1998. Towards an Indonesian urban land development policy. In Dandekar, H. (ed.), City, space and
globalization: An international perspective. (pp. 194–206). Michigan: College of Architecture and Urban Plan-ning, University of Michigan.
Harris, N. (ed.) 1992. Cities in the 1990’s: The challenge for developing countries. London: UCL Press.Pemerintah Daerah Propinsi Jawa Timur, Dinas Permukiman, Sub-Dinas Pengembangan Perkotaan. 2002. Laporan
Akhir, Penyusunan Studi Resettlement Stren Kali Surabaya. Unpublished Final Report. Surabaya.Surabaya dalam angka. 2002. Bappeko Surabaya and BPS Surabaya. Surabaya: CV Nugroho & Co.von Faber, G.H. 1937. Nieuw Soerabaia. Bussum: H. van Ingen, Soerabaja.Winayanti, L. 2002. A view from a bridge: riverbank settlements in Jakarta. In Modernity, tradition, culture, water.
Proceeding of an international symposium 29–31 October 2002, Bangkok: Kasetsart University Press.Yudohusodo, S. and S. Salam (eds). 1991. Rumah untuk Seluruh Rakyat, Jakarta: Inkoppol, Unit Percetakan
Bharakerta.
Ispurwono Soemarno is Lecturer and Researcher at the Laboratory for Housing & Human Settlements, Architecture Department, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember (ITS) Surabaya, Indonesia. E-mail: isp4251 @yahoo.com
by nrao potturi on July 9, 2013eua.sagepub.comDownloaded from