HW-Jakarta Metropolis Area-city innovation

CITY INNOVATION INITIATIVES CITY INNOVATION INITIATIVES IN JAKARTA METROPOLITAN

AREAS

Indonesian team

Presentation outline

� Introduction� Background and methods

2

� Background and methods

� Jakarta Metropolitan Areas: an over view

� Case studies� Maisonette Housing� “Waste Bank”

� Green Village

� Information Sharing� Information Sharing

� Innovativeness of the projects

� Innovation system

� Conclusion

H Winarso, Tb F Sofhani, D Hidayat, D Pantjadharma, N.Prilandita CIS-ASIA,Bangkok,16-18/08/2010

Introduction

� Background

� Part of CIS-ASIA focusing on Housing, Governance and

3

� Part of CIS-ASIA focusing on Housing, Governance and Environment

� Specific Goals

� Defines and formulates city innovation system indicators in Indonesia

� Analyze successful city innovation initiatives in JMA � Analyze successful city innovation initiatives in JMA based on the defined criteria and indicators


Introduction

� Methods� Delphi/FGD

4

� Delphi/FGD� 2 times in Bandung and Jakarta

� Criteria and indicators

� Identifies possible innovative projects

� Field study� Observation

� InterviewInterview

� Documentary research

� The topic is used for student’s research� 5 Bachelors thesis

� 1 Master Thesis


5

JMA: an overview

� Urban sprawl

� Megalopolitan� Megalopolitan

� 21 million population

� 617,000 hectares


JMA: an overview

� Jakarta Metropolitan Areas

� Fast growing city

6

� Fast growing city

� Inner city population is decreasing

� Development in Peri-urban

� Problems and Challenges

� Housing for low income people- Slum and Squatters

� Environment problems- waste management

� Governance: Information for urban development


7

CIS-ASIA,Bangkok,16-18/08/2010

H Winarso, Tb F Sofhani, D Hidayat, D Pantjadharma, N.Prilandita

Case Studies: Topic

� Housing

� Maisonnette for slum upgrading in Prumpung

8

� Maisonnette for slum upgrading in Prumpung

� Environment

� “Waste Bank” in Pasar Minggu, South Jakarta

� Green Village in Kampung Banjarsari, Cilandak, South Jakarta

Governance� Governance

� Information sharing by the Spatial Office of Jakarta


Case studies: Location9


Case Study1: Housing

� Feature

� Problems/Context: (2006)

10

� Problems/Context: (2006)

� Slum in Prumpung in 2005 - 2007

� Flooded area

� Threat for relocation

� Response

� Maisonnete housing for low densification� Maisonnete housing for low densification

� Semi Participatory approach

� Started in 3 Neighborhood 8 maisonette for 8 households people



� Idea

� By university lecturer and architecture students

11

� By university lecturer and architecture students

� Start with collaboration with Housing Office which provide fund

� Innovativeness

� Fail to have significant impact

Project was discontinue due to disagreement with the � Project was discontinue due to disagreement with the government

� No new institutional arrangement



� Comment

� The idea was good since high rise apartment is actually

12

� The idea was good since high rise apartment is actually too expensive for low income

� The implementation was not smooth

� Very limited time

� Limited participation from stakeholders

� Change in the government policy� Change in the government policy

� Very limited impact

� No systemic approach


Case Study1: Housing13

H Winarso, Tb F Sofhani, D Hidayat, D Pantjadharma, N.PrilanditaCIS-ASIA,Bangkok,16-18/08/2010

Case Studies 2: “Waste Bank”

� Feature� Problems/Context: (2006)

14

� Problems/Context: (2006)� Part of CSR project by Unilever in 2006� Regulation on CSR� Appalling waste management at Local level and city level� Concept of 3R (reuse, reduce, recycle) was newly introduced � Informal waste collection structured at city wide

� Response� Changing the view to waste; from something useless to something � Changing the view to waste; from something useless to something that can generate addition income

� Cutting the long chain of informal waste collection� Started in one neighborhood of an 15 ha area with 3292 inhabitants


Case Studies 2: “Waste Bank”

� Idea� CSR Unilever held a training to facilitators at local level

15

� CSR Unilever held a training to facilitators at local level

� Mrs Etty as one of the trained facilitator motivates the community

� Innovativeness� Changing the paradigm

� Not new- almost similar approach in Brazil� Not new- almost similar approach in Brazil

� New in Indonesia

� Wide impact not only in the neigborhood- best practice in Indonesia- replicated in other cities


Case Study 2: “Waste Bank”

� Comment

� The idea is very good, developed by CSR and

16

� The idea is very good, developed by CSR and implemented through Mrs Etty as facilitators

� The creativity and the innovativeness lay on the ability to change the accepted notion of uselessness of garbage/solid waste to one that see non organic waste can generate income can generate income

� The impact on cognitive, physic and cognitive space is significant

� Gradually develop network to other institutions


Case Study 2: “Waste Bank”17


Case Study 3: “Green Village”

� Feature� Problems/Context: (1986)

18

� Problems/Context: (1986)� Appalling waste management at Local level and city level

� Started in 1986

� The law on Environmental Impact has just enacted

� Growing awareness of Environment quality in Indonesia

� Response� Two housewives (Mrs Bambang and Mrs Nina) initiated tree � Two housewives (Mrs Bambang and Mrs Nina) initiated tree planting movement

� Composting for fertilizer

� Started in a kampung of around 2000 inhabitants



� Idea� By two housewives who care about their living

19

� By two housewives who care about their living environment

� Innovativeness� The ability to planting trees in small/limited areas of their Kampung.

� Consistency since 1986. won several awards including one from UNESCOone from UNESCO

� Simple Composting method, wide spread used

� Replicated by neighboring Kampungs



� Comments

� Consistency is apparent in this project, it has been

20

� Consistency is apparent in this project, it has been done for 24 years

� Initiated by groups

� Gradually developed network to NGO and government


Case Study 3: “Green Village”21


Case Study 4: Information Sharing

� Feature� Problems/context (2007)

22

� Problems/context (2007)� The need accessible and reliable information

� Dispersed information- disintegrated

� Growing awareness on the IT

� Google earth available in the web

� Response� Develop web site, providing information to the communityDevelop web site, providing information to the community

� Develop information on the Spatial Planning, maps of approved plan,

� Coordinates several sources of information

� http://tatakota-jakartaku.net/



� Idea

� Government of Jakarta

23

� Government of Jakarta

� Lead by Spatial Planning Office

� Innovativeness

� Easy access to Information on the needed information of spatial planning



� Comments

� The development of this IT is not new

24

� The development of this IT is not new

� Involves many institutions

� Sources of information; different institutions

� IT development- University

� Develops network

� Wide spread impact� Wide spread impact

� Not only Jakarta- the world can access

� The government starting transparency and become more responsible


Case Study 4: Information Sharing25


Innovativeness of the Projects

� Positive impact

� Except for the housing project, projects studied shows

26

� Except for the housing project, projects studied shows positive impact

� The bank and the green village can be and have been replicated to other areas

� Improving the awareness of better living environment

� The Information sharing project has been able to make � The Information sharing project has been able to make people have an easy access to city master plan



� Novelty

� The waste bank is significantly change the people’s

27

� The waste bank is significantly change the people’s opinion about their waste.

� All Projects have never been implemented in Indonesia

� All projects, although are not new in the world, but new in Indonesian context

� Problem solving� Problem solving

� All projects are aimed at solving local problems



� Competitiveness

� All projects are competitive

28

� All projects are competitive

� Reliability

� The waste bank and the green have been replicated to other areas

� The information sharing , technically, easy to be replicated but it need a strong will and good replicated but it need a strong will and good coordination between several agencies in the city administration



� Learning process

� The Bank and green village have made learning

29

� The Bank and green village have made learning process possible,

� People, not only in the area, learning the lesson. This projects have been spread out through report in the news paper and special report in the national television

� A double loops learning process is � A double loops learning process is


Innovation system

� The projects were started by individual or groups

Limited institutions are connected

30

� Limited institutions are connected

� No research and development

� The innovation initiatives are still partial not systemic


Conclusion

� There are city innovations initiatives

Initiated by individual or groups and aimed at

31

� Initiated by individual or groups and aimed at solving local problems

� But still partial, segregated and un coordinated

� Involvement of research and development institutions (Universities and others) are very limited

� No systematic support from the government

� No city innovation system yet


Criteria and Indicator for City Innovation (1)Criteria and sub-

criteriaDefinition Indicator

IMPACT CRITERIA (9)

Positive impact The CI practice can enhance theliveability, prosperity, and equity for thepeople living in that area.

• Number of poor or low-income people is reduced (liveability)

• Level of income is increased (prosperity)

32

people living in that area. • Level of income is increased (prosperity)• The ratio or gap between poor and rich

people is lowered (equity)

Significance The CI can solve fundamental urban problem and proven to be implemented and usable.

• There is proof that the CI practice can solve or attain the urban problem

• The duration of practice/project has been implemented.

Global impact The CI practice can generate positive impact in bigger scale such as regional,

Replicability in other area.impact in bigger scale such as regional, national, or international scale.

Novelty The CI practice shows something new to the user both in the process and result.

The city innovation practice has never been implemented in the particular area.

Scope The CI practice covered a large size of area

Size of the area that benefited from the practice/project.


Criteria and Indicator for City Innovation (2)

Criteria and sub-

criteriaDefinition Indicator

PROCESS CRITERIA (8)

33

PROCESS CRITERIA (8)

Learning process The process in CI is followed by diffusion stage. A well-diffused CI shows a learning process both single-loop and double-loop learning.

• Single-loop learning: a learning process where the community obtains new technical knowledge

• Double-loop learning: a deeper learning process shown by awareness emerged within the community.

Interaction between actors

Interaction in form of communication and participation between stakeholders and actors involved is identified in the CI process.

• Number and characteristic of actors involved

• The contribution given to the project by community.

Government support The CI practice is in line with the The area used for the CI practice or project Government support The CI practice is in line with the government policy.

The area used for the CI practice or project corresponds with the City Master Plan.

Congruency with the city goals and objectives

The CI practice is in line with the city vision and mission.

The goals and objectives of the CI practice/project is in line with the city vision and mission.

Source: Result analyzed from FGD, 2010H Winarso, Tb F Sofhani, D Hidayat, D Pantjadharma, N.Prilandita CIS-ASIA,Bangkok,16-18/08/2010


Criteria and sub-criteria Definition Indicator

OPERATIONAL CRITERIA (7)

34

Easy to operate/operable The CI practice is easy to operate and replicable

• Does the technology used in the practice can be done by the community?

• Does the practice can be transferred or adopted to other location/area?

Commercially viable The CI practice is self-funded by its operational and can generate more benefit than it costs.

Financial report shows that the practice is self-funded and the benefit is greater than the cost.

Source: Result analyzed from FGD, 2010



Criteria and sub-criteria Definition Indicator

VALUE CRITERIA (6)

35

Social justice The CI practice benefits the whole community.

• The characteristic of people get benefit from the practice.

• The social gap within the community is lowered.

Sustainable environment, safety andsecurity

The CI practice does not give negative impact to the environment, health, nor safety.

• Feasibility analysis of the practice

• Number of complaints from local people regarding the practice.

Cultural adjustment The CI practice does not violate the norms and culture of local people.

Number of complaints from local people regarding the practice.norms and culture of local people. people regarding the practice.

Source: Result analyzed from FGD, 2010


Documents

HW-Jakarta Metropolis Area-city innovation