Applying Integrated Ecological Planning and ALIT for Developing Countries

8/14/2019 Applying Integrated Ecological Planning and ALIT for Developing Countries

1/58

Green Impact IndonesiaInt egrated U rban, Drainage and EnvironmentalPlanning and DesignCP: Gunawan Tanuwidjaja MSc, Env, Mgt, (NUS) B.Arch

(ITB)Email: [email protected], Web:http://greenimpactindo.word press.com/about/

Applying Integrated Ecological Planning andAdaptive Landscape Evaluation Tool for DevelopingCountries in the Framework of Sustainable Spatial

Planning and Development, Study Case BintanIsland, I ndonesia

Written by:1 Tanuwidjaja, Gun awan. & 2 Malon e-Lee, Lai Choo.

1MSc. Env ironmental Management (NUS), S.T. (ITB)

Urban Planner & Researcher, Green Impact Indonesia,Integrated Urban, Drainage and Environmental - Planning and Design StudioMobile: +62 812 212 20842Email: gunt [email protected]

2Ph.D. (Tokyo), Masters Urban Planning (Sydney ), B.Sc Real Estate (NUS)

Direct or of Centre f or Sustainable Asian Citi es

School of Design and Env ironment, National University of SingaporeEmail: sdemalon@nus. edu.sg

Presented in:

Abstr act. Developing countr ies, l ike Indonesia, f ace great developmentpress ure due to econ omic development f or great number of populations.Various env ironmental problems later emerge due to unplanned,uncontrolled and unsustainable land use development as well as severeenv ironmental destructions. The need f or integrated ec ological planningactually emerges from this concern.

The integrated ecological planning could be def ined as Planning processthat consider the ecological conditi on, env ironmental carrying capacity ,

and other social economy that af f ect the location. Later on, integration of


2/58

2 Tanuwidjaja, Gunawan. & Malone-Lee, Lai Choo

infrastructure planning such as water management, mass transportation,

waste management, energy conservation, etc. Involvement ofstakeholders would be integrated in the process application.

The real ecological planning application f ace constraints such as the lackof political wil l, lack of expertise, tools, research, and funding ingovernment as well as consultants. But sti ll t he int egrated ecologicalplanning should be applied to achieve the more sustai nable developmentas well as to conserve of strategic or important ecological areas.

One of the important steps of ecological planning is the landsc apeevaluati on methodology . The ev aluati on method research was started in2005, f or National University of Singapore, MSc EnvironmentalMana gement program. Later through real application, we redef ine themethod with real application in other plann ing projects in other countri es.

Our research involves identify ing the key elements of all ev aluationmethods, which were lat er distilled and ref ined to build on Adaptive

Landscape Evaluation Tool or ALi T. The strengths of system lie mainlyin establishing evaluati on met hods, adaptiv e list of data, and scoringthresholds that embraces sustainable land development principles. Themethod was validated in Bintan Buyu, Bintan Island, Indonesia andproven to be applicable f or local gover nment. Whil e th e cr iteria and otherscoring system would need to be adjusted to each dif f erent cases.

The proposed system is comprehensive yet manageable and practicable.It encompass es f our important elements as part of the development andevaluati on process, namely, initi al secondary data collection, rapid surveyto verify critical data, multi-disciplinary analysis with Geographic

Information System (GIS), and lastly , stakeholders inputs. The authorsbel ieve that ALi T can be a very useful tool for reducing environmentaldestruction whi le acc ommodating economic development in developing

countries.

We understands that there are constrains in method application due tolack of politic al will as well as limited funding to gather all environmental,socia l and economical aspects. Because of that, the v ision for developingSust ainab le Spati al Planning must be made f irst bet ween stak eholders ofthe region comprising Public, People and Private (Government, thePeople and the Priv ate sect or). And Integrat ed Spati al Planning with

Focus on Ecological Approach would be t he near-f uture t rend for theWorld.

Keywords: Inte grated Ecological Planning, Landscape Evaluation, LandEvaluation, Sust ainable Planning, Susta inable Land Development.


3/58

Applying Integrated Ecological Planning and Adaptive 3Landscape Evaluation Tool for Developing Countries in the Frameworkof Sustainable Spatial Planning and Development, Study Case Bintan

Island, Indonesia

1 Introduction

In the present year, t he world faces extreme environmental problems

that threaten i ts li veli hood. The problems are resou rce depletion, globalclim ate change, extinction of plants and anim als, lo ss of wildli fe habitats,increasing pol lution, and poverty (M iller, 2003). We beli eve that these

environmental issues were cau sed by 2 main factors, which wereexponential population growth and the rise of anthropocent ri sm andliberalism.

First, the worlds population has increased exponentially from 2.521billion in 1950 to 6.782 billion in 2009. With the current populationgrowth, it was predicted to reach 9 bi llion by 2040 and to put morepressure to the Earth. Further, the worlds populati on was notdist ributed equally according to avail ability of resources. Thi s al sostressed to certain areas on Earth. 1

Secondly, we al so believe that anthropocentrism and liberal ism justifyhuman conduct to the unsustainable development. The

anthropocentrism sugg ested that human beings a re the cent ral of theuniverse and the nature is creat ed only to serve human interest. Thiswas parallel to Liberalism which upheld the autonomy of the individualand political liberties. Unfortunately, these principal s were u sed to justifythe extreme exploitation of the earth . 2

The current economic system was al so foun d unsustainable because of

speculative and inefficient production; over-utilisation of non-rene wableresources and excessi ve pollution. Therefore, severe resourcedepletion, biodiversity loss and increasing pollution happened. Similarly

to that, environmental ists bel ieved that if the impact of great population,unsustainable consumption pattern and technologi cal advancement inthe world were combined, enormous environmental impact would occur.And finall y, it would increase Earths environmental vulnerabi lity index

(Miller, 2003, Kaly et all, 2004; Kaly et all , 2005).

1 ht tp://www.census.gov/ ipc/www/popclockworld. htm l, estimated by United States

Census Bureau on 5th September 2009;http://au.encarta.msn.com/encyc lopedia_1461501471/Population_Explosion.html;http://en.wik ipedia.org/wiki/File: Population-milest ones.jpg2ht tp://dictionary.ref erence.com/;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/;http://www.merriam-webster.com/


4/58


Figure 1 Population Density Map of the World. (Source:http://sedac .ciesin.org /wdc/map_gallery.js p; Center for Intern ational Earth Scienc eInfor mati on Network (CIESIN) Columbia Uni versity, and Centro Int ernaci onal deAgriculture Tropical ( CIAT), Grid ded Population of Th e World (GPW) Version) .

Figure 2 The Combined Environmental Impact of Populati on,Consumption Pattern and Tec hnological Advancement to the World.(Sources: Mi ller, 2003)


5/58


Island, Indonesia

Figure 3 Env ironmental Vulnerability Index Map of the World. (Source:http://sedac .ciesin.org /wdc/map_gallery.js p; Kal yet all, 2004).

Land, as one earths resources, also fac es development pressure. Due

to its limi ted supply and speculation activities, many important natu ralareas were sacrifi ced for land development. Eventual ly, this increa sedrates of deforestation and deserti ficati on worldwide (Mi llennium

Ecosystem Assessment, 2005 )


6/58


Figure 4 The Worlds Def orestation in 2000. (Source: M illennium EcosystemAssessment, 2005; http://images.wri.org) .

Figure 5 The Worlds Anthropogenic Biomes (Land Development) in2000. (Source: http://sedac.ciesin.org/wdc/map_gallery.jsp; Ellis, E.C. and N.Ramankut ty, 2008).


7/58


Island, Indonesia

Understanding the complexity of the developing count rie s context, wedecided to evaluate the environmental i ssues in the count ries fu rther in

this paper. Beside those factors mentioned abo ve, poverty al so createdgreat land and natural a rea conversion in the developing countrie s.

Unfo rtunately, these developing countries are mostly located in thebiodiversity hotspot and affected by greater biodiversity lo ss.(Mulongoy K.J. & Chape S., 2004; UNEP-WCM C, 2002 - World Atlas of

Biodiversity; UNDP 2004 - Human Development Report 2004)

Figure 6 Distribution of GDP per capita in 1995. (Source: Sachs & Malaney,2002).


8/58


Figure 7 Relationship betwee n Biodiversity Hotspot Locati on andDev eloping Countries. Legend: Developing Countries HDI = 0.27 0.75.(Sources: http://maps.grida.no; Mulongoy K.J. & Ch ape S., 2004; UNEP- WCM C, 2002 -World Atlas of Bi odi versit y; UNDP 2004 - Human De velopment Report 2004)

One of real example of extensi ve deforestation and biodiversity loss isIndonesia. Extensive defo restation has happened since 1950s. In 1998,it was repo rted that forty percent of the forests, which was reported in1950, had been cleared. From 162 mi llion ha forest, only 98 mi llion ha

forest was left (FAO - Global Forest Resources Assessme nt, 2005).

Further, other reports sho wed that 1,708,750 to 1,871,500 ha of forestswere deforested annually. Whil e 147 species of mammals (including

orangutan, tiger, rhinoceros, and elephant ), 114 birds, 28 reptile s, 91fishe s and 28 invertebrate s had become extinct in the process. (WRI et

all. (2002) - State of the Forest Indonesia; WRI e t all. (2000) - Trial byFire; FAO - Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005)

The extensive defore station also reduced of biodiversit y richness in

Indonesia. There are 3 main centres of specie s richness in Indonesia,which are Irian Jaya (with high species richness and endemi sm),Kal imantan (with high species richness but moderate endemism), and

Sulawesi (with moderate species richness and high endemism). SoIndonesias biodiversity was affected tremendously by unsustainableland development (WRI et all ., 2002 - State of the Forest Indonesia; WRI

et all., 2000 - Trial by Fire).


9/58


Island, Indonesia

Figure 8 Natural Forest Cov er Change in Indonesia, 1985 1997.(Sources: WRI et all., 2002 - State of the Fores t Indonesia)

Figure 9 Forest Cov er and 1997-1998 Forest Fires in Western Indonesia.(Sources: WRI et all., 2000 - Trial by Fire, Forest)


10/58


Tabel 1 Forest Area and Def orestation, 1985 1997 (Government ofIndon esia and World Bank Est imates). (Sources: WRI et all., 2002 - State of theForest Indonesi a)

Figure 10 Biotic Ric hness: Percent of Worlds Species Found inIndonesia. (Sources: WRI et all., 2002 - State of the Forest Indonesia)

It can be concluded, that major problem s such as resource depletion,great population, high population density and poverty are very oftenfaced by developing count ries. Becau se of that sustainable developmentapproach become s very crucial. And it has to be implemented startingwith the adoption of sustainable spatial planning practice.

On the contrary, the implementation of sustainable spatial planning

faced a lot of obstacles in developing countrie s. Lack of pol itical wills,


11/58


Island, Indonesia

limited government budget, lim ited timeframe for p roject execution,corruption and poverty were the major hindrances. On the other hand,

sustainable spatial planning and development control i s the only solutionfor sustainable developm ent. One successful practice i s Singapore.

(Wong T-C. et all, 2008).

The Singapore planning was done with meticulous effort of the

Government and achieving Singapores model of sustainabi lity (Wong T-C. et al l, 2008). Enhancing the city condition, the government furtherprepared several sustainable st rategie s such as Singapores Green

Plan, and Singapores Sustainable Development Blueprint. 3

Figure 11 The Singapore Sustainable City Model. (Source: Wong T-C. et all,2008, redrawn b y Ta nuwidjaja G.).

Hi storically, the sustainable spatial planning was invented in by IanMcHarg. He invented Ecological Planning, which defined as,Comprehensi ve land use planning which con sider the social, legal,

3ht tp://app.mewr.gov.s g/web/C ontents/Contents.aspx?ContId=1342http://app.mewr.gov.sg/data/ImgCont/1292/sustainbleblueprint_forweb.pdf


12/58


economy, the need, aspiration and perception of the future use r,

(McHarg, 1992; McHarg, 1998).

Based on the previous works, we developed the Integ rate d SpatialPlanning with Focus on Ecological Approach, whic h could be defined as

Planning process which consider the ecological condi tion (biodiversity),envi ronmental capacity, and social -economic context that influence thesite. Fu rther, in the planning process, integrati on of infrastructure

planning such as water resource management, etc must be evaluatedand implemented. Lastly, but not least the stakeholders participationmust be facil itated in all decision making process. And this concept

could be described in the following figure.

Figure 12 The Integrated Spatial Planning with Ecological Approach.

And there a re the critical point s in the app roach, which a re:

Conducting m ultidisciplinary landscape e valuation to determine theconservation area and mitigate major environmental impact to the site.Con serving of critical ecological area that are important for ecology andother en vironmental se rvices


13/58


Island, Indonesia

Evaluating of local natural resources, such as wate r resource s,infrast ructu re provi sion s etc.

Lastly but not least, determining the carrying capacity of potential areafor development.

Therefo re, a simple landscape evaluation tool i s needed to support the

concept above which suitable for developing count ries. The tool must besimple enough for the users without compromising its validi ty. Further, itshould prescribe the sustainable recomm endation and cater stake-

holders participation.

1.1 Des cription

This research was conducted to develop integrated landscapeevaluati on method for planners and governm ent autho rities ofdeveloping countries. Meanwhile, to validate the tools applicability, theauthors cho se the case in Bintan Island, Indonesia. It was underta ken tounderstand its limitations and further refinement. And it was cond uctedfollowing these ste ps:

To develop integrated method of landscape evaluation, the authors t riedto identify the key elements of several pa st evaluation methods. And weevaluated their st rength, weaknesses and po ssible a rea for developmentwith the current technology.

These previous researches in landscape evaluation or site evaluationare:

1. Approaches fo r General A reas : McHarg (1992); Anderson (2000);

Aylward (2000)2. Approaches fo r Rural and Natural Areas: Coventry-Solihul l-Warwick

(1971); A.O.N.B.(Penning Roswell, 1975); Blacksell and Gild

(1975); Ratcliffe (1977 ); Li, Wang, Liang & Zhou (2006)3. Approaches fo r Urban Areas: Weiss, Donnell y and Kai ser (1966);

White (1985); Freeman (1999); Briffet (2001); Balmori & Benoit

(2003)

Di sti lli ng the relevant methods and crite ria, the authors prescribed thelandscape evaluation tools nam ed ALiT, the acronym for Adaptive

Landscape Evaluation Tool. Alit in Sundanese language (nati ve

language of West Java, Indonesia) means small or simple. This was


14/58


parallel to our intention to deliver a sim ple evaluation m ethod for

developing countries.

We further re fined and validated the methods during application. Andlater we also integrated inputs from stakeholders in Bintan and

experiences with Singapores Urban Planning Consultant in variousdeveloping countries. 4

1.1.1 Landscape Evaluation Method

Broadly, there are eight stage s of ALiT (Adaptive Landscape Evaluati on

Tool), which a re:

1. Defining the Purpose, Scope & Context of the Evaluation

2. Criteria Selection3. Secondary Data Collection4. GIS Database Processing

5. Rapid Survey of Critical Areas (Reconnai ssance Surveyespecial ly for Biological Aspect)

6. Expert Consultation (Semi-Delphi Consultation)7. GIS Analysi s (including Ecological Factors, Other Natu ral

Factors and Socio - Economic Facto rs)8. Stakeholde rs Evaluation (Stakeholders Participation)

4 ht tp://www.jurong.c om/; Gunawan has practiced as Urban Planner with JurongConsultant Pte Ltd , Planning Divisionf or 2 years


15/58


Island, Indonesia

Figure 13 ALiTs (Adaptiv e Landscape Evaluation Tool) Meth odology.

STAKEHOLDERSEVALUATIO(FO CUS GROUPDISCUSSION)

SECONDARYDATA

COLLECTIONEXP ERT

CON SULTATION(SEMI-DELPHI)

-RECO MMENDATION O F LAND-CONSERVATION P LAN-DEVELOPMENT PLAN

DEFININGP URPOSE. SCOPE,CONTEXT

RAP ID SURVEYGIS DA TABASE

OTHER NATURALFACTORS ANALYSIS

(GIS, QUANTITATIV )

CRITERIASELECTION

CON SERVATIONAREA EXPENSIVEAREA FOR

DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMEN TWITH SPECIALTREATMENT MOST SUITABLEFO RDEVELOPMENT

ECOLOGICALFACTORS ANALYSIS

(GIS, QUANTITATIV )SOCIAL& ECONO MICFACTORS ANALYSIS

(GIS)


16/58


And we would describe the m ethodology of ALiT in detail below.

1.1.1.1 Defining the Purpose, Scope & Context of the

EvaluationDete rm ining the purpo se and the scope of evaluation is a crucial step forALiT application. Because it would help determining the suitable method,

resource all ocation as well as evaluation tim e frame.

We suggest compulsory purpo se, which are:

- evaluating and protecting area fo r conservation- predicting and reducing environmental impacts from adjacent and

future development

Two additional alternative purposes are suggested, such as:

- determ ining the suitabil ity of certain development to certain location- selecting the most suitable location for certain development (site

selection)

Originally, we adopted the possible land use of ALiT from Anderson(2000), McHarg (1992) and Singapores Environmental Pollution ControlAct (Code of Practices on Pol lution Control, 2000). But consequently, we

simplifi ed them into categorie s of residential , industrial and commercial& institutional facil ities for simpler appli cation. While other spatial useswere sti ll under thorough and further research.

1.1.1.2 Criteria Selection & Secondary Data Collection

Originally, sixteen general criteria were selected to represent theenvironmental functions and socio-economic considerations. Thesecriteria were adapted from previous work of McHarg (1992,1998), White

(1985), Ratcli ffe (1977), Anderson (2000), Balmori and Benoit (2003).

These criteria were later divided into three grou ps representing

ecological facto rs, othe r natu ral facto rs and socio-economic factors. Thestrategy was conducted to reduce the possible bias of the evaluati onresul t. This strategy was adopted by Freem an (1999) but with simpler

criteria.

Group 1 Data Set wa s p repa red to measure the ecological value andconserve natural area s. The ecological value is mainly represented by

ecosystem type which is not sim ilar in every location. Other factors if


17/58


Island, Indonesia

avai lable such as patch size, rarity of plant and animal species,ecological connectivity and water bodies buffer would reinforce the

accurate re sul ts.

Group 2A Data Set was prepared to mea sure the suitability fordevelopment relating to construction and catacly sm costs. Those criteriaare the existing land use, topograph y (especially slope), geology, soil

type s, hydrolog y, climate, and resou rces. They are also considered asimportant crite ria because of consid eration of hazardous potential suchas flooding, hurricane, typhoon, landslide, erosion, etc.

Later on, Group 2B was added to the criteria. This group include criteriarelated to physi cal facto rs, such as accessibil ity and existinginfrast ructu re, which requi re major investments if needed. The authors

realise that additional parameter can be i ncluded, for example access to

rail, ports airports and logistic warehouses for industrial area suitabilityfor other appli cation, such as new industrial area.

Fol lowing on, Group 3 Data Set was p repa red to measure social andeconomic aspects. The y are political-legal factors, economic factors, andsocial factors. Some of the factors can record social -economic conditionsuch as high crime rate, or are endemic for certain diseases, etc. thatneeded by the poli cy makers.

Finally, the human sensory aspect, comprising vi sual qual ity and otherpol lution were included in Group 3. These criteria are useful in findinglocations for tourism areas, hotel s, resorts or high-end residential

developments that require better visual quality.

Ideally, we bel ieve that al l data described above should be collected. Butlearning that only limited data are often available in developing countriescontext, we sugge sted the evaluators coll ecting critical data, such as:ecological, topographical, geology, soil types, hydrology and otherpotential natural catastrophe s. These data must be avai lable whether assecondary data o r the rapid primary assessment result. Additional ly,further detailed studies are sti ll needed to produce more accurateanalysi s.


18/58


1.1.1.3 GIS Database Processing

After data collection, the data have to be processed directly. We suggestthe evaluators to reconsider the p rocessing method based on thepurpose; availability of skil l sets, tool s or software and time.

We believe that GIS (Geographic Information System) software shouldbe u sed to produce more accurate data. On the other hand consideringthe limitation in developing countries, we provided two major methodsfor ALiT such as: GIS database and manual database.

Under the GIS flow, there are several alternative steps identified:

a. Selecting and using GIS Soft ware (such as Arc View GIS 3.1) fordatabase management and analysi s

b. Purchasing a baseline vector map from remote sensing serviceproviders

c. If the vector map unavailable, other topog raphical map could bedigitised with GIS software (Autocad, Mapinfo etc)

d. Digi tising other factors into GIS data set (grid or shapefi les)e. Continuing to analysi s phase

Under the manual flow, we find that McHargs t ransparent layer mapcould be used to produce conservation and development suitability

maps (McHarg, 1998). We also note improvement of this method withassi stan ce of the latest computer g raphic software application (such asPhotoshop and Power point).

1.1.1.4 Rapid Survey

Con side ring budget and time constraints, the rapid survey is suggestedto be focused in the critical areas. These areas could be areas with highbiodiversity & high scenic values; and areas to be developed in the near

future. And these locations are better to be identified first from aerialimage or secondary data (GIS or land use map).

Further, other important possible access or mode of transport al soshould be surveyed. These area s a re ports, major roads (according tothe road s classifications), railways, light rai ls, airpo rts, as wel l as majorcommercial institutional facil ities.


19/58


Island, Indonesia

Other potential hazards al so mu st be identifi ed, such as: wetlands, floodprone areas, slopes with potential landslide, pol luting industries,

hazardous material sto rage, etc. This information is important especial lyfor residential and commercial insti tutional facil ities.

Having tried several survey methods in ALiT application, we recom mendcombination of McHarg t ransparent m aps (McHarg, 1992), photographs,

video documentation, GPS set, a nd survey tables. These methods arefound to be effective, well-documented and shorter in time wise.

1.1.1.5 Expert Consultation (Semi Delphi)

Interpretation of the secondary data should be conducted involving a

team of experts. A team, comprising of a Planner, Land scape Ecologist,Con servationist, Hydrologist, Civil Engineer, Geologi st, and Socio-Econom ic Scientist, should be recruited.

Later on, all data need to be interpreted and translated into rankingcriteria following the sustainable principals by the team. The principals

were al ready p rescribed in the previous work of McHarg (1992), White(1985), Ratcli ffe (1977 ), Anderson (2000), Balmori and Benoit (2003).And sample of ranking criteria is presented in the fol lowing table.

Tabel 2 Sample of Ranking Crite ria for ALiT

No Criteria Highest ConservationValue

Most Suitable forDevelopment

Group 1

A Vegetation

A1 Ecosys tem Type Highest C onserv ationValue

Lowest Conserv ationValue

A2 Pat ch Size More than 10 ha Less than 0.4 ha

A3 Rarity of Plant Species Threatened andEndangered Species

No Species Found

A4 Ecological Connectiv ity Good Fragmented

A5Riparian & Beaches

BufferLess than 15 m More than 165 m

B Animal

B1 Rarity of Animal SpeciesThreatened and

Endangered SpeciesNo Species Found


20/58


This approach was originally prescribed by McHarg (1998). Late r, we

adopted different approach of scoring method similar to Freeman (1999).Lastly, we redefine the scoring interpretation vali dity with more

assi stan ce of Semi-Delphi discussion.

Adopting Environmental Im pact Assessment, we differentiate theimportant criteria with major environmental impact from other normalcriteria (Morri s and Therivel, 1995). Thi s concept i s t ranslated into two

type s of scoring scale s. The first scale (0 to 30) i s dedica ted for criteriawith major im pact (major-weighting). The second scale (0 to 3) isprescribed for the ones with m inor impact (minor-weighting).

Figure 14 Conservation and Dev elopment Suitability Scale in ALiT.

We also produce new approach in scoring technique, which described 0

or zero representing the high conservation areas or totally unsuitablearea fo r development. On the cont rary we prescribed 30 or 3representing the m ost suitable area for development.

Tabel 3 Criter ia Int erpretation f or ALi T

No

Criteria InterpretationMajor

WeightingMinor

WeightingConservationDevelopment

Suitability

1 High ConservationValue

Not Suitable forDev elopment

0 9 0

2 Medium Cons ervat ionValue

Expensiv e forDev elopment

10 -19 1


21/58


Island, Indonesia

3 Low ConservationValue, Partial Human

Intervention

Suitable f orDev elopment withSpecial Treatment

20 29 2

4 No Conservation Value,Massiv e Human

Intervention

Most SuitableforDev elopment

30 3


22/58


Tabel 4 Sample ALiT Scoring f or Bintan Ecological Data

(Legend: Italic text showed Indonesian translat ion)

No Category (Kategori) Criteria Score(Nilai Kriteria)

A Vegetation (Flora)

A1 Ecosystem Type (Tipe Ekosistem)

Which specific to Bintan (Spesifik untuk Bintan)

Bare Earth (Tanah Terbuka) 30

Mining (Pertambangan) 30

Human Settlement (Permukiman) 25

Agriculture (Pertanian) 20

Scrub (Padang) 20

Marsh (Rawa) 15

Plantation (Kebun) 15

Abandoned Plantation (Kebun yang Ditinggalkan) 12

Secondary Forest (Hutan Sekunder) 10

Mangrov e 5

Coral Reef (Terumbu Karang) 0

Fresh Water Swamp Forest (Hutan Rawa Air Tawar) 0

Primary Forest (Hutan Primer) 0

A2 Patch Size (Luas Ekosistem)

0-0.4 ha 2

0.4 -1 ha 1

1 -10 h 0

> 10 ha 0


23/58


Island, Indonesia

Tabel 5 Sample ALiT Scoring f or Bintan Ecological Data continued

Legend: Italic text showed Indonesian translation

No Category (Kategori) Criteria Score

(Nilai Kriteria)

A3 Rari ty of Plant Species (Kelangkaan Flora

No Data (Tidak ada Data) 2

Common Species (Spesies Biasa) 2

Endemic Species to Large Area (Spes ies Endemik padaDaerah yang Luas)

2

Endemic Species to Small Area (Spesies Endemik padaDaerah yang Sempit)

1

Threatened and Endangered Species (Spesies Langkadan Terancam Langka)

0

A4 Ecological Connectivi ty (Konektivitas EkologiGood (Baik) 0

Fragmented(Tidak baik) 2

A5 Riparian & Beaches Buffer (Buffer untuk Sungai,Danau, Rawa dan Pantai)

0 - 15 m 0

15 - 50 m 0

50 - 165 m 1

> 165 m 2

B Animal (Fauna

B1 Rari ty of Animal Species (Kelangkaan Fauna)

No Data (Tidak ada Data) 2

Common Species (Spesies Biasa) 2Endemic Species to Large Area (Spes ies Endemik padaDaerah yang Luas)

2


1

Threatened and Endangered Species (Spesies Langkadan Terancam Langka)

0

We decide to bring Bintans case to explain the rationale of selecting 0score for the high conservation areas. Further, to mea sure a totalconservation score or development suitabil ity for one a rea, all the critical

criteria or factors of the location should be calculated following these

calculations.


24/58


Tabel 6 Score Calcu lati on f or ALiT

Conserv ation suitability score(Group 1 score)

= f actor A score * factor B sc ore, etc

Development suit ability score

(Group 2 or 3 sc ore)

= f actor C score * factor D score * factor Escore, etc

So for example, if the area is a primary fore st in Bintan; with patch sizeof 0.4 ha; possesses certain endemic species of plants to smal l; notconnected with ecological corridor (f ragmented); located at 165 mdistance from the beach; and possesses one endemic species of

animals to large area. The indi vidual factor score would follow this table.

Tabel 7 Sample of Score Calculation for ALiT f or Ecological Scor e

No Category (Kategori)Criteria Score

(Nilai Kriteria)

A Vegetation (Flora)

A1 Ecosystem Type (Tipe Ekosistem)

Primary Forest (Hutan Primer) 0

A2 Patch Size (Luas Ekosistem)

0-0.4 ha 2

A3 Rarity of Plant Species (Kelangkaan Flora)


1

A4 Ecolog ical Connectivity (Konektiv itas Ekologi)

Fragmented (Tidak baik) 2

A5 Riparian & Beaches Buffer (Buff er untuk Sungai, D anau,Rawa dan Pantai)

50 - 165 m 1

B Animal (Fauna)

B1 Rarity of Animal Species (Kelangkaan Fauna)

Endemic Species to Large Area (Spesies Endemik padaDaerah yang Luas)

2


25/58


Island, Indonesia

The con servation score of the area would be able to calculated as follow

Conservationscore (Group

1 score )

= A1score

* A2score

* A3score

* A4score

* A5score

* B1score

= 0 *2 *1 *2 *1 *2

= 0

So, i t can be concluded that the primary forest patch i s not suitable forany development. Further, simi lar principal al so would be able to beappl ied in development suitabil ity. Flood prone a reas, high potentialareas for landslide and earthquake are not suitable for developmentaccording to ALiT.

1.1.1.6 GIS Analysis

GIS analysi s i s sta rted with conversion of attributes above into scores bydatabase soft ware o r GIS scripting. Later on all GIS data should becompiled and calculated in three groups. Sim ilar classification of datasets, we al so p roposed categori sing scoring into 3, which are Group 1score for the ecological value; group 2 score for suitability in othernatural aspect and group 3 score for suitabi lity in socioeconom icaspect.

The conservation threshold needs to be redefi ned again in the expertpanel. The threshold is not fi xed, but from convention s of the experts,producing balance conservation and development recomm endation.

For example, the threshold in Bintan was adju sted to 47%. It wasselected in the view of conserving important area and recomm ending

less ecological important area for development, such as scrubland,agriculture, mining, barren earth. For compari son, Freeman (1999)recomm ended score 14 of total 3 0 for conservation threshold in Leedscase or 46%. After setting the threshold, we could find areas with low

ecological score which could be suitable for development.

Potential suitable areas for developm ent need to be e valuated for otherfactor suitability. And thresholds would need to be set fo r each score(score 2 and score 3). Finally the analysi s would produce 3recomm endation of area, such as: very suitable area for development,


26/58


suitable area with certain treatment, area that expensive to develop and

area not suitable for the developm ent.

Tabel 8 Sample of Threshold of Conservation and DevelopmentSuit ability

No Criteria Interpretation Criteri a Score

Group 1 Score (Conservation) for Bintan Case

1 Proposed f or conservation 0 - 47%

2 Recommended for development, need further Group 2 and 3assessment

47.1 - 100%

Group 2 and Group 3 Scores (Development Suitability)

1 Not Suitable for Development 0 33.3%

2 Expensiv e for Development 33.3 66.6%

3 Suitable f or Development with Special Treatm ent 66.6 99.9%

4 Most Suitable f or Development 100%

Further, sustainable planning and design concept mu st be prepared forarea that are expensive for development and suitable but need certaintreatment. For example, barren land in Bintan could be de veloped, butwith the caref ul soi l erosion prevention. Another example, properstructu ral system with adaptation to the earthquake is needed fordevelopment in the earthquake p rone areas.

1.1.1.7 Stakeholder EvaluationStakeholde r evaluation of the interim landscape evaluation results isneeded. It was proposed to e nsure the acceptance of the local

communities, governm ent as well a s p rivate sectors and reduce thesocial impacts from the plan.

Participatory approach was originall y developed in UK and USA. Thisprocess was later introduced to the developing countries by the non-government organi sati on, such as ADB, GTZ, USAID and JICA, to post-disaste r areas such as Aceh (Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam Province,


27/58


Island, Indonesia

Indonesia). Although still facing difficulty, these processes weregenerally accepted in Indonesia and quite successful. 5

The difficul ties of implementing participatory planning are the limitation

of project time (especiall y government-funded and inte rnati onal-funded)and possible confli ct of interests. Furthe r, we al so found th at the futurespatial development information could create land speculation in the

countrie s with l iberal land market, such as India, Indone sia, Vietnam,etc.

But we sti ll believe that the stakeholders participation sti ll would bringpositive im pacts to the communi ties and sustainable spatial planning.Finally, we would like emphasise that afte r ALiT im plementation, anIntegrated Spatial Plan should be prepared by professional consultants.

Further to validate ALiT applicabili ty, we will describe its application in

Bintan Island, Indonesia.

1.1.2 Application of ALiT (Adaptive Landscape EvaluationTool) in Bintan Buyu

ALiT was appl ied to review the ecological condition as well a s thefeasibil ity of Bintan Buyu Development, Bintan Island, Indonesia. Thearea was o riginally designated by Bintan Regency Government as the

new District Cent re (nam ed as Bandar Se ri Bintan) in 2004. Facingresi stance from Cent ral Governm ent because of conservation status ofthe area, the Local Government conducted feasibil ity re-evaluation with

our team a ssi stance.

Although the development was rejected by the Cent ral Government, we

are glad to participate because our abil ity to mitigate the impacts and toproduce sustainable spatial development scena rio. And we focused ourevaluation in measuring the conservation value and residential suitabil ityof the location which described accordingly.

First, a general survey and interviews for collecting secondary data wereconducted. The process involved Bintan Planning Agency (BAPPEDA);

5ht tp://www.relief web. int/ library/documents/2005/brr-idn-22sep.pdf

http://www.adb.org/Documents/Reports/39127-INO/FactSheets/village-plans.pdfhttp://www.s cribd.com/doc/13103851/Participatory-Planning-in-Aceh-URDIGTZ-Seminar-

2526-Ju ly -2008http://indonesia.usaid.gov/ en/Art icle.361.aspxhttp://www.j ica.go.jp/indonesia/english/activit ies/pdf/JICAinAceh.pdf


28/58


Stati stics Agency (BPS); Forest ry Age ncy (Dinas Kehutanan; Public

Works Agency (Dinas PU); and Investm ent Coordination and RegionalPromotion Board (BKPMD) of Bintan.

The most -updated critical GIS data sets were coll ected from the Publ ic

Works Department (1993). Other maps were al so collected fromIndonesian National Geological Research Cent re and National WaterResources Cen tre in Bandung, West Java, Indonesi a. And this al lowed

the appl ication of GIS soft ware (Arc View GIS 3.1). The data later werescanned, geo-referenced and converted to shape-fil es (SHP).

A comprehensi ve site survey was conducted with team of four persons,compri sing 1 Urban Planner, 2 Biologists and 1 Civil Engineer(Government Officer), in June 200 6. It was executed using ALiTsrecomm ended tools. And we found it very effective and accurate

because of adequate experti se and tools.

In the survey, some points for biological assessment were selected

representing each ecotype. Many important ecotypes had beenconverted to agricultu re land or human settlement based on 1993s eco-type s. Thi s finding actual ly highlighted the importance of latest remote

sensing im age data in evaluation process. Unfo rtunately, becau se offunding limitation, the data was not collected.

GIS database analysi s was later conducted focusing only on Ecologicalscore and Residential Developm ent Suitabili ty for other natural factorscore. The analysi s was conducted involving of multidiscipli nary teamconsisting of Principal Urban Planner and Researcher, Land scape

Ecologi st, Conservationist , Hydrologist cum Drainage Engineer, and

Civil Engineer cum Geologist. During the analysi s process, we were al soassi sted by 2 Senior GIS expe rts for GIS database processing and

analysi s f rom National University of Singapore.

All data later were collected and processed following the criteria priorityand signifi cance in the evaluation process.

Tabel 9 Data Proc essed in Bintan Buyu Evaluation.

(Legend : Y = Yes, N = No)

No Criteria Av aila-bility

Consi-

dered inthe

Gene-ralAnalysis

Calcu-lated in

ALi T

Scoring

Reason


29/58


Island, Indonesia


Consi-

dered in

the

Gene-ralAnalysis

Calcu-

lated inALi T

Scoring

Reason

Group 1

A Vegetation

A1 Ecosystem T ype Y Y Y

A2 Patch Size N

A3 Rar ity of Pl ant Species N

A4 Ecological Connectivity Y Y Y

A5 Riparian & Beach es Buffer Y Y Y

B Animal

B1 Rar ity of Animal Species Y Y Y Partial data available


30/58




No CriteriaAv aila-

bility

Consi-dered in

the

Gene-ralAnalysis

Calcu-lated in

ALi TScoring

Reason

Group 2A

C Existing Land Use

C1 Compatibil it y with ExistingLand Use

N

C2 Existi ng Facility Adequacy Y Y Y

D Topography

D1 Elevation Y Y Y

D2 Slope Y Y Y

E Geology

E1 Foundati on Strength Y Y Y

E2 Earthquake and Volcanic Z one Y Y N Because simi lar fac toraffec ting the site

E3 Anticline, Synclin e, and Fault Y Y N

F Soils

F1 Foundati on Strength Y Y Y

F2 Erosion by Soil Type Y Y Y

G Inland Hydrology

G1 Recharge Areas Y Y Y

G2 Aquifer Producti vity Y Y Y

G3 Surface Waters and FloodZone

Y Y Y

G4 Catchments Areas Y Y YH Marine Hydrology

H1 Marine Features N

I Climate

I1 Hurricane, T yphoon Y Y N Because almost simi larfactor affecting the site

I2 Annual Rainfall Y Y N

I3 Rainy Days in 1 year,

Dampness, Aver ageTemperature, Monthl yTemperature, Wind Pattern ,Sun Angle and Traject ory

Y Y N

J Resources

J1 Mining Resources Y N Because not evaluat edfor Mining


31/58


Island, Indonesia


32/58




No CriteriaAv aila-

bility

Consi-dered in

the

Gene-ralAnalysis

Calcu-lated in

ALi TScoring

Reason

Group 2B

N Location

N1 Distance from the Main Road Y Y Y

N2 Average Distance from Other

City within Area

Y Y N Because simi lar fac tor

affec ting the site

N3 Average Distance fromRegional and International

Centre

Y Y N

O Ci rcul ation

O1 Inland Transport Y Y Y

O2 Water Transport Y Y Y

P Utilities

P1 Availability of Utili ties Facilit y Y Y Y


33/58


Island, Indonesia

Tabel 12 Data Process ed in Bintan Buyu Evaluati on.



Consi-

dered inthe

Gene-ralAnalysis

Calcu-

lated inALi T

Scoring

Reason

Group 3

K Po litics and LegalFactors

K1 Municipal G overn mentEconomic an d Hu manResources Capacity

Y Y N Because simi lar fac toraffec ting the site

K2 Future Government Plan Y N Because the MasterPlan was cancelled

L Economic Factors

L1 Land Market Pric ing NL2 Land O wnership N

L3 Regional Gross D omesticProduc t Trend

Y Y N Because simi lar fac toraffec ting the site

M Social Factors

M1 Hig her Education Level Y Y N Because data onl yavailabl e in general andsimilar factor affecting

the sit e

M2 Middle Education Level Y Y N

M3 Cr iminalities Level N

M4 Population Densit y Y Y N Because data onl yavailabl e in general andsimilar factor affecting

the sit eM5 Number of Patients and

Deaths byDiarrhoea

Y Y N

M6 Number of Patients andDeaths byDe ngue/Malaria

Y Y N

Q Hu man Sensor y

Q1 Visual Q ualit y N

Q2 Other Pollutio n N

Because we found that only l imited numbers of data were available forBintan Buyu, we decided to focus the evaluation to available data and

completing som e critical data with primary survey.


34/58


From the appl ication, we also found that some data were only available

in regional scale, not in the local scale. Therefore, we decided includingthe data in general evaluation, but not including them in the total scoring

calculation. This was implemented for simpler ALiT application. Further,only the most si gnificant data were di scussed in this paper.

The ecological condition of the Bintan Buyu was o riginally adopted from1993s Natural Resources Inventory (by Bintan Planning Agency, cited in

BKPMD 2005) and validated by primary rapid biological assessment.

Bintan Buyu was historically occupied by the agricul ture comm unities in1950s. In 1991 by Presidential Decree No. 32 (Keputu san Pre siden No32, 1991), the area wa s designated a s protected catchments area, but itwas implemented without land acqui sition and com munity participation.This later caused the conservation plan fail, leaving agriculture activities

and creating rural - natural area patchwork (cited in Riau Islands

Planning Agency and CV Geometric Tehnik, 2005).

Figure 15 Ecosystem Type of Bintan Buyu. (Sources: Riau Isl ands PlanningAgency, 2004; corrected in the Rapi d Biol ogical Assess ment, 2006)


35/58


Island, Indonesia

Bintan Buyus ecological condition was composed of several eco-types.First, the highest ecological areas found were coral reef, mangrove,

prim ary fo rest , and fresh water swamp forest. We suggested these to beconserved because of im portant function s, such as habitat for plant and

animal, coastl ine protection, waste assimil ator, wate r purification, andnursery ground for marine life and birds (Whitten et al., 2000).

Further, areas with the second highest ecological value were thesecondary fo rests, marshes and abandoned plantations. They heldcertain functions of habitat for biodiversit y but they were still in the

recovery process after human inte rvention s. For example, the teamfound Banded Leaf Monkeys in the abandoned plantations which couldbe considered a good habitat.

The thi rd ecotype s, with the second lowest ecological values, were

agricultural land and scrubland in the area. The se areas could beconsidered a s a man-made environment and possessed low

biodiversity, which were the dragonflies and birds. Therefo re, theseareas were possible for development. On the contrary som e patches ofscrub should be preserved fo r local species habitat.

Finally, the team found some very low ecological value areas, whichwere could be developed, if the development was perm itted. They werethe mining or ex-mining areas and barren earth.

Meanwhile, two important endemic species were also found in the area.The Banded Kingfisher (Lacedo pulchella) and Banded Langur

(Presbytis siamensis rhionis) are two examples of the endemic spe cies.


36/58


Figure 16 Elevation of Bintan Buyu. (Source : Bin tan Regency Public Wor ksDepartment, 1993)

Figure 17 Slope of Bintan Buyu. (Source: Bintan Regenc y Public Wor ksDepartment, 1993)


37/58


Island, Indonesia

Topographical ly, Bintan Buyu area was located on the altitude of 0 to255 m from sea level. Bintan Mountain (Gunung Bintan) the highest

point of the area and with 15-45 percent slope. It held importantfunctions of water catchments and wildl ife habi tat. Therefore, thi s area

was not suitable for de velopm ent (Bintan Regency Public WorksDepartment, 1993).

Meanwhile, extensive the lowland areas, with 0-1 percent slope, wereidentified in the location. These areas were often vege tated bymangrove, fresh water swamp forest and marshes.And they were not

definitely suitable for developm ent becau se of poo r soil st rength,extreme land subsi dence, and very high cost of inf rastructures especial lyfor landfil l and flood protection.

Figure 18 Geological Lay ers of Bint an Buyu. (Source: Kusna ma et .al., 1994)


38/58


Figure 19 Soil Types of Bintan Buyu. (Source: Akus et.al., 1994)

The Geological layer found in Bintan Buyu area was Andesite, GoungonFormation, and Alluvium (Kusnama, et al., 1994). Areas with Andesitelayer were not suitable for development due to the rock layer hardnessand expensive excavation cost. Meanwhile, areas with the Al luviumlayer were not suitable for development due to poor strength andpossible soil erosion. So, only areas with Goungon Formation werefound feasible for development.

Bintan Buyu, were cat egorised as the Zone VI earthquake hazard. Or itwas considered safe f rom earthquakes or t sunamis. And no anticline,syncline, strike slip fault, or normal fault were found affecting the area(Kusnama, et al., 1994).

And it means that the area possessed higher

development suitabil ity, but the score was excluded from calculationbecause simil ar attribute in the area.

Bintan Buyus soil was composed of 2 types, which were Alluvium and

coastal deposit, (consisting of gravel, sand, clay and mud deposit); andAcid intrusive rocks - granite (Akus et al., 1994). The Alluvium soil was


39/58


Island, Indonesia

found to be more vulnerable for e rosion and weake st for foundationstrength.

Figure 20 Catchments Area of Bintan Buyu. (Source: Akus et.al., 1994).

There were three main rivers in the a rea, of Bintan River, Kangboi River,and Anculai River. 3 major catchments and 1 minor catchments were

also identifi ed. In 1991, these catchm ents were designa ted as protectedcatchments area, but apparently thi s st rategy was not effectivelyimplemented (Riau Islands Planning Agency and CV Geometric Tehnik,2005). And the plan was not compatible anymore because of the present

of polluting activities, such as mining in Lomesa, Bintan Buyu. Thepol luting developments were also not compatible with residentialdevelopment.

Bintans economy depends heavily on industry, mining, trade andtouri sm sectors with total Regional Dome stic Product 1,053.84 Bil li on

Rupiah (BKPMD, 2005). So the development of new district centreshould be adapted to the real economic condi tion and environmentalcapacity.


40/58



41/58


Island, Indonesia

Tabel 13 Table 10. Bintans Regional Domestic Product in 2003 2004.(Source: BPS, 2004)

No Sectors

2003 2004 AnnualIncrease

BillionRupiah

% toRegionalDomestic

Product

BillionRupiah

% toRegionalDomestic

Product

%

1 Agriculture 54.11 5.65 61.68 5.85 13.14

2 Mining 259.28 27.08 290.48 27.56 11.51

3 Indus try 383.17 40.02 412.81 39.17 6.94

4 Energy 1.78 0.19 2.08 0.20 17.48

5 Construction 43.71 4.57 49.83 4.73 13.78

6Trade andTourism

122.96 12.84 135.20 12.83 9.23

7 TransportationandCommunication

48.03 5.02 54.24 5.15 12.47

8 F inanc e 19.63 2.05 21.51 2.04 8.81

9 Serv ices 24.72 2.58 26.01 2.47 4.53

Total 957.39 1,053.84 9.24

Legend:The highest contr ibutor toRegional Domestic Product

The lowest contributor toRegional Domestic Product

We also noted the population of Bintan Buyu increased 0.88% annually.In April 2006, local population was recorded reaching 2,065 persons

(Teluk Bintan Di strict Offi ce, 2006). Most of local population worked inagriculture and fi shers sectors. On the other han d, no detailed localsocial data was available causing evaluation difficulty. It can be

concluded that the Bintan Buyu comm unity depended heavi ly inagriculture and fi sheries. Meanwhile, if the locati on was developed, neweconomic activitie s must be introduced with investments to suppo rt thenew di st rict centre.


42/58


Figure 21 Bintans Road Network. (Source: Bintan R egenc y Public Wor ks Agencyand Riau Islands Pla nni ng Agency, 2004)

Bintan Buyu was located cent rall y in the island but poorly connected (bydual -lane asphalt road ) with other area in 2006. In the futu re, a coastalring road along would be constructed connecting the area.Unfo rtunately, the road was not planned considering the ecologicalcondition and affected the important forests in the area (Riau Islands

Planning Agency, 2004). Further, Bintan Buyu was not served by properpubl ic transportation and infrastructu res. These eventually would requireheavy inve stments if the city was developed.

Other desc ription of the area, such as Inland Hydrology, atmosphericcondition, potential resources, Location, Circulation, Util ities, Politic s andLegal Factors, Economic Factors, Social Facto rs, Human Sensory, etc;were described in our complete resea rch report (Tanuwidjaja G., 2006).

1.1.3 Discussion

The research concluded that Bintan Buyu was a fragmented natural area

with some important biological areas. The rem aining ecological areas

needed a serious conservation and enhancement strategy. Further, this


43/58


Island, Indonesia

strategy could be combined with sustainable eco-touri sm. This had beenimplemented successfully by Banyan Tree Resorts and Hotels in

northern a rea of Bintan Island.

We al so recomm ended preserving an d improving seve ral areas ofscrubland, forest, riparian area to im prove ecological connectivity of thearea. Seve ral areas in the Northern of Bintan Buyu were recomm ended

for development due to low ecological values.

Figure 22 Bintan Buyus Group 1 Score (Conservation Score).


44/58


Figure 23 Bintan Buyus Conservation Area.

The evaluation of other natural factors was furthe r recommended forpossible areas of development in the North. However, critical threat s,such a s landsli de potential , flooding potential and land subsidence, m ust

receive proper attention. Finally, the spatial plan must be preparedcarefull y with integration with other infrastructures.


45/58


Island, Indonesia

Figure 24 Bintan Buyus Group 2 (Other Natural Fact ors) Score forResidential.


46/58


Figure 25 Bintan Buyus Group 2 Suitable Area f or Residential.

To be able to achieve a sustainable township in Bintan Buyu, it isimportant to set the population according sustainable principal. Therewere two possible recommendations identified.

The first method was suggested by McHargs with limiting developmentto less ecological important areas (McHarg 1998). The scrub, agriculture

and some of plantation areas, approximately 10.5 sq km in the northernof Bintan Buyu, were suggested for development. Later with multiplyingthe area with sustainable population density, we could produce

population num ber.

McHarg recommended another way to sustainable population setting.He sugge sted limiting the city population foll owing the city ecologicalcarrying capacity. This was prescribed for Wilmington and Dover,

conside ring sewage di sposal capacity, ground water supply andreservoir wate r supply. Respectively, he suggested a population of

33,100 people for the respective city (McHarg 1998).

First, we decided to fol low the second recom mendation using l ocal rain-wate r supply capacity. With calculating the lowest monthly rainfall inBintan, area of Bintan River catchment s, runoff coefficient, we couldproduce m inimum amount of possible available rain-water. Assuming30% of the flow was utilised by the municipal water supply, we couldprescribe sustainable townships population of Banda r Seri Bintan of57,000 persons.

But combining both methods, the authors recommended 57,000

populations (19,000 housing uni ts) to be settled in the less ecologicalimportant areas in the Northern area of Bintan Buyu. Further assuming

only 50% of the areas were designated as residential, the averageresidential density could reach 109 persons/ ha, with a low to mediumrise development.

Later, p roposed development type could be elaborated following mixed-used neighbourhood unit concept with 400 - 600 m radius adapted fromPerrys Neighbourhood (Urban Planning Guide, 1986). Thi s option wasrecomm ended because of limited economic capacity of the developingcountrie s. Further publi c uti lities and integrated waste managementshould be provided for the area.


47/58


Island, Indonesia

Figure 26 Proposed Fiction Scenario of Development of Bandar SeriBintan.

Lastly, sta keholders evaluati on was conducted in 2006. It involved ofBintan Planning Agency and p rivate sector, Banyan Tree ResortsBintan. The positive as well as negative response was received. First,

the positive response came from the private sector who agreed to

support the recommendation and help disseminate thi s concept to thelocal Government.

On the other hand, the Bintan Government disagreed with ourrecomm endation and pursued other development or original al ternative.

But consequently, the Central Government cancelled the de velopment ofBandar Seri Bintan because of the catchments conservation regulation.

1.1.4 Eva luation of ALiT approach.

ALiT implementation in Bintan was considered successful. The

evaluation method was found feasible by Officer of Bintan PlanningAgency, because of simple ALiT application and improving capacity oflocal planning agency.


48/58


On the other hand, several obstacle s were found in implementing the

process, including expensi ve GIS soft ware and remote sensing data. Forexample, Arc View GIS 3.1 soft ware would cost around US$ 7,500,

while SPOT (remote sen sing ) images would cost US$ 3,000. Thesewere the main chal lenges for its appl ication.

The important factor of landscape evaluation is evaluator. The authorssuggest including a team com prising at least of a civil engineer, plannerand ecologi st for comprehensive appl ication. It i s suggested to prescribean ecologically balanced recommendation. The team m ust workintegrall y and each of the experts must possess skill set . The skill setneeded are comprehension the local ecology; knowledge of exi sting landuse and its potential, geological condition, soil types and hydrology

regimes; understanding of social and economic potentials and other

constraints in the location.

The authors believed the importance of screening process for hazardouspotential. The rationale is to reduce the environmental destruction s andcosts f rom natural di saste rs. The cases of the hurricane in New Orleans,

tsunami and earthquake in Aceh signify thi s need.

1.2 Conclusion

Landscape evaluation process is an im portant step to the sustainableland development. The evaluation of the previous methods revealed the

importance of selecting the evaluation criteria, proper weighting, rapidsurvey, multi -disciplinary and stakeholders approach in solving theproblem.

ALiT (Adaptive Landscape Evaluation Tool) has been made specificallyfor such contexts. The tools strengths could be found at five

distingui shing stages. The first i s the criteria (facto rs) selection. This isimportant to achieve effective comprehensi ve evaluation. The second isthe expert consultation for setting scores and weights fo r the facto rs.This step actual ly vali dates the biases from subjective analysi s.

The thi rd is rapid survey to complete the absen t of data, withmul tidiscipli nary team. The fourth is the stakeholders evaluation. The

authors believed that participation of the people, public and privatesectors would guarantee better reali sation of the development. Lastly,


49/58


Island, Indonesia

the method also red uces result bias by using three data set s forevaluati on, which are ecological, natural and socio-economic factors.

1.3 Reference

1.3.1 Books

a. A strategy f or the sub-region, Coventry-Solihull-Warwickshire Sub-Regional Planning Study Group, Suppl. R ep. No. 5 Countryside (1971).

b. Akus U.T., Sunarya Y., Seti adi H., and Sukrisna (1994), Hy dro-geologicalMap and Report, Tanjung Pinang, 1016, 1017, Scale 1: 250.000, GeologicalResearch and Development Centre.

c. Anderson L.T. (2000), Planning the Built Env ironment, Planner Press,Chicago, USA.

d. Ay lward B. (August 2000), Land Use, Hy drological Function and EconomicValu ation, UNESCO Symposium/ Workshop Forest-Water-People in theHumid Tropics, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, edited by Bonell M. and BruijnzelL.A., published by Cambridge University Press.

e. Balmori D. and Benoit G. (eds.) (2003), The LAND Code: Guidelines f orEnv ironmentally Sustainable Land Development, Yale School of Forestry

and Environmental Studies, USA.f . Bintan Rege ncy Public Works Department, 1993, GIS Mapg. BKPMD Kab. Kepulauan Riau (Riau Islands Regency Investment

Coordination and Regional Promoti on Board). (2005), Potential InvestmentResearch Report (Pengkajian Peluang Investasi Potensi/ Unggulan Daerah)

h. Blacksell M. and Gilg A.W. (Nov 1975), Landscape Evaluati on in Practice

the Cas e of South-East Dev on, Transactio ns of Institute of BritishGeographers, number 66.

i. BPS Kab. Kepulauan Riau (Statist ic Bureau Riau Isl and) (2004), RiauIslands Statistics, 2004

j. Brif f et C. (2001), Is Managed Recreati onal Use Compatible with EffectiveHabitat and Wildlif e Occurrence in Urban Open Space Corridor Systems?in Landscape Research 26 (2) pp. 137-163.

k. Code of Practice on Pollution Control (2000 Edition) (wit h amendments in

Feb 2001, Jun 2002 and Feb 2004).l. Conley , D. (2008), You may ask yourself: An introduction to thinking like a

socio logist, W.W . Norton and Company . New York p392m. Economic and Social Commiss ion for Asia & the Pacif ic (2004), "Off icial

Statistics and its Development in Indonesia", Sub Committee on Statistics:First Session 1820 February 2004. p19.

n. Ellis, E.C. and N. Ramankutty (2008), Putting People in the Map:Anthropogenic Biomes of the World.

o. Freeman C. (1999), Development of A Simple Method f or Site Surv ey andAssessment in Urban Areas, Landscape and Urban Planning: 44, pp. 1-11.

p. Internati onal Monetary Fund (2007), Report f or Selected Countri es andSubjects (GDP), World Economic Outlook D atabase, April 2007..


50/58


q. Kaly U.L, Pratt C.R..& Mitchell J. (2004), Manu al: How to Use t he

Environmental Vulnerability Index (EVI). SOPAC Technical Report 383.r. Kaly U.L., Pratt C. & Mitchell, J. (2005), The Env ironmental Vulnerabil ity

Index (EVI) 2004. SOPAC Technical Report 384.

s. Kusnama, K. Sutisna, T.C. Amin, S. Koesoemadinata, Sukardi, B.Hermanto (1994), Systematic Geological Map, Indonesia Sheet TanjungPina ng, 1 016, 10 17, Sc ale 1:250.000, Geological Research and

Development Centr e, Bandu ng Indones ia.t. Li A., Wang A., Liang S. and Zhou W. (2006), Eco-environmental

Vuln erability Evaluation in Mount aino us Region Using Remote Sensing andGIS A Case Study in the Upper Reaches of Minjiang River, China,Ecological Modelling: 192 (1), pp. 175-187.

u. McHarg I. (1992), Design With Nature, John Wileys & Sons, Inc, New York.v. McHarg I. (1998), Steiner Frederick R. (ed) To Heal the Earth, Select ed

Writings of Ian L. McHarg, Island Press, Washington D.C.

w. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005), Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis. W orld Resources Institute, Washington, DC.

x. Miller G.T. (2003), Env ironmental Science, Worki ng With Earth, 10th

edition, Brooks/Cole Thomson Learning USA.y. Morris P. & Therivel R. (1995), Methods of Env ironmental Impact

Assessment, The Natural and Built Env ironment Series 2, Londonz. Mulongoy K.J. & Chape S. (2004), Protected Areas and Biodiversity : An

Overview of Key Issues

CBD Secretariat and UNEP-WCMC, February 2004. Biodiversity Series No21.

aa. Penning Roswell E.C. (1975), Constraints of The Application ofLandscape Evaluations, Transactions of the Institut e of BritishGeographers: 66 (November), pp. 149 - 155.

bb. Ratcliff e D.A. (1977), A Nature Conservation Rev iews, v ols. 1 and 2,

Cambridge Univ ersity Press, Cambrid ge.cc. Riau Islands Planning Agency (20 04), Revis ion of 2006-201 5 General

Regional Plan Riau Islands Regency (Rancangan Umum Tata Ruang

Wilayah Kab. Kepulauan Riau)dd. Riau Islands Planning Agency and CV Geometr ic Tehnik (2005), Research

and Mapping of Water Recharge and Catchments Potentials in Riau IslandRegency (Kajian dan Pemetaan Potensi Daerah Resapan dan TangkapanAir H ujan di Kab. Kepulauan Riau).

ee. Sachs J. & Malaney P. (2002), The economic and social burden of malariain Nature 680-685, p 415,

ff. Saragedin, I. (2002), World Poverty and Hunger: A Challenge f or Sc ience,Science, 296 pp. 54-58

gg. Tanuwidjaja G. (2006), Developing a Landscape Evaluati on Tool inDeveloping Countries, Case St udies Bint an Island, Indo nesia, Dissertation

of Master of Science in Env ironmental Management, National University ofSingapore.

hh. Teluk Bintan District Of f ice (2006), District Statistics D ata 2005


51/58


Island, Indonesia

ii. UNDP (2004), Human Dev elopment Report 2004: Cultu ral liberty in todaysdiverse world

jj. UNEP-WCMC (2002) World Atl as of Biodiversity ,

kk. Urban Planning Guid e (1986) (ASCE Manuals and Reports on EngineeringPractice; no 49), American Society of Civ il Engineers, New Y ork.

ll. Weiss S.F., Donnelly T.G. and Kaiser E.J. (1966), Land Value and LandDevelopment Inf luence Factors: An Analytical Approach for ExplainingPolicy Alternativ es in Land Economics: 42 (2), pp 230-33.

mm. White E.T. (1985), Site Analysis: Diagramming I nformation f or

Architectural Design, Architectura l Media, USA.nn. Whitten T., Dam anik S.J., An war J., and Hisy am N. (2000), Ecology of

Sumatr a, Periplus, Singapore.oo. Wong T-C., Yuen B., and Goldblum C. (Eds.) (2008), Spati al Planning f or a

Sustainable Singapore, Springer in Association wit h the Singapore I nstituteof Planners. Singapore;

pp. World Bank (2006), "Indonesia at a Glance,.Indonesia DevelopmentIndic ators and Data.

qq. World Bank (2006), " Making the New Indonesia Work for the Poor -Overview" (PDF). Press release.

rr. World Commission on Environment and Dev elopment (1987), Our CommonFuture, Report of the World Commission on Env ironment and Development,Published as Annex to General Ass embly document A/ 42/427,Development and International C o-operation: Environment August 2, 1987.

ss. World Resources Institute (2001), World Resources 20002001.Washington DC: p. 246248.

tt. World Resources Instit ute, Forest Frontiers Init iativ e, WWF-Indonesia &Telapak Indonesia Foundation (2000), Trial by Fire, Forest Fires andForestry Policy in Indonesias Era of Crisis and Reform.

uu. World Res ources Instit ute, Forest Watch Indonesia, Global Forest Watch(2002), State of the Forest Indonesia.

vv. World Resources Instit ute, U nited Nations Environment Programme, United

Natio ns Dev elopment Programme, and th e World Bank, (1996), WorldResources: A Guide to the Global Environment: 1996-97, New York:Oxf ord U niversity Press, 1996, p. xi.

ww. Wright R. & Nebel B. (2007) Environmental Sci ence, Toward A Sust ainableFuture: International Editi on, 10th Edition, Pearson Education, Inc,publishing as Benjamin Cummings

1.3.2 Website

a. http:/ /app.mewr.gov .sg/data/ImgCont/1292/sustainbleblueprint_f orweb.pdf

b. http://app.mewr.gov.sg/web/Contents/Contents.as px?ContId=1342c. http:/ /au.encarta.msn.com/ency clopedia_146 1501471/Population _Explosio

n.html;d. http://dictionary. ref erence.com/;

e. http://en.wik ipedia.o rg/ wiki/;


52/58


f . http:/ /en.wik ipedia.o rg/ wiki/File:Population-milest ones.jpg

g. http:/ /indonesia.usaid.gov/en/Article.3 61.aspxh. http://www. adb.o rg/D ocuments/Reports/39127-IN O/F actS heets/v illage-

plans.pdf

i. http:/ /www.c ensus.gov/ipc/www/popclock world. html, estimated by UnitedStates Census Bureau on 5th September 2009;

j. http://www. jica.go.jp/indonesia/english/activ ities/p df /JICAinAceh.pdf

k. http://www. jurong.com/l. http:/ /www. merriam-webster.com/

m. http:/ /www. relief web.int/ library/documents/2005/brr-idn-22sep.pdfn. http:/ /www.sc ribd.com/doc/13103851/Partic ipatory-Planning-in-Aceh-

URDIGTZ-Seminar-2526-July-2008

1.4 Acknowledgments

We express ou r highest appreciation for:

- Team of experts: P rof Han Sun Sheng, Dr. Ho Hua Chew, Dr SimonYanuar Put ra, Mr Benjamin Lee, Mrs Joyce Martha Widjaya, MrAlfrendo Satyanaga and M s Anbarasi Boopal.

- Scientific Officer and Ex-Di recto r of Spatial Planning Directo rate II,Ministry of Publ ic Works, Indonesia: Dr,Ir.I.F.PoernomosidhiPoerwo,M.Sc,M CIT,MIHT

- Bintans Government Agencie s staff s: Ms Yanti, Mr Ahmad and MrBuyung.

- Bintan People: Mr Udin, Mr Bun Seng- Banyan Tree Hotel s and Resort: Mr Michael Kwee, Mr. Mirza Pedju.

- Jurong Consultants Pte Ltd: Mr Yuen Heng Mun, Mr Allister YongWinston, Mr Loh Kwok Pheng, Mrs Noorli za

- Ministry of T rade and I ndustry, Singapore: M s Amanda Ong.

- Research Assi stants: Mr Deny St, Mr Septian Hornas and Mr AgusSudarman.


53/58


Island, Indonesia

1.5 The Writers Description

1.6 I. Personal Information

Full name : Gunawan Tanu widj aja

e-mail : [email protected] om

website : http://greenimpactindo.wordpress.com/

Mobile Phone : +62 812 212 208 42 (Indo nesia)

Place of Bir th : Bandung

Date of Bir th : 08 of August 1978

Sex : Male

Nationality : Indonesia n

MotherLanguage

: Indonesia n

Language Skill : Indonesia n, English

1.7 II. Education Backgrounds

Formal Education

Name ofInstitution

City/Countr yStudyT ime

(Months/Years)

Graduatedfrom (Month

and Year)

Specialization GPA

National

Universit y ofSingapore

Singapore 1 year October 2006

MSc

EnvironmentManagement

3.86

fromscale of

5

BandungInstitute ofTechnology

(Institut

TeknologiBandung)

Bandung /Indonesia

5 years July of 200 1Bachelor ofArchit ecture

2.73

fromscale of

4

1.8 III. Informal Education

StudyT ime (Y ears) Name of Institution Course Name & Specialization

2008 Singapore Ins titute of Planner Spati al Planning for a SustainableSingapore (1-day seminar)

2008 Lee Kuan Yew School Of Public

Policy

"Lessons Not to Learn from

American C ities" by Prof AlanAltshuler (Half-d ay seminar)

2007 National University of Singapore,Facult y of E ngineering , PAC(Professional Activities Cen tre)

Short Course On "A Z Of Oil &Gas To Petrochemicals (3- daysseminar)

2007 Singapore Ins titute of Planner Destinati on Res orts, The Next

Wave


54/58


StudyT ime (Y ears) Name of Institution Course Name & Specialization

(1-day seminar)

2007 Singapore Ins titute of Planner,

Malaysia Institute of Planner andUniversiti Kebangsaan Mal aysia

Seminar of Planning of Iskandar

Development R egion (1-dayseminar)

2001 The Bri tish Instit ute IELTS Prep aration Co urse

2000 Langu age Center ITB English Writing Course

1999 Gradasi Bulletin Student U nion ofArchitecture Gunadharma ( IMA-Gunadharma)

Journalistic Training

1997 Architecture De part ment ITB AutoC ad R 14 Training

1993-1995 Saint Angelas English Co urse English Course level C6 to C11

1990-1992 Saint Angelas English Co urse English Course l evel J2 to J5

1.9 IV. W orking Experience

Name of

Institute/Companies

City/ Countries Position Job Descript ionContract

Periods

Green Impact

Indonesi a IntegratedUrban, Drainage and

EnvironmentalPlanning Consultant

Bandung Manager Team Leader

and Ur banPlanner

March 2003

to now

Agency for Researchand Development,Institute of Water

Resources, Ministryof Public Wor ks,

Republic ofIndonesi a,

Bandung UrbanPlanni ng andManagement

Expert

Assistant October 2008to now

Jurong Cons ultantsPte Ltd., Pl anning

Division

Singapore Planner PhysicalPlanner

November2006 to

October 2008

National Par ksBoard, Republic of

Singapore

Singapore Intern Researcher July 2006 toAug 2006

Agency for Researchand Development,Institute of Water

Resources, Ministryof Public Wor ks,

Republic ofIndonesi a,

Bandung/Indonesi a

JuniorResearcher

GIS ExpertAssistant (ArcView 3.2), in

Polder T eam

Jan 2005 -Aug 2005

Satyamitra J asapuriEngineering

Bandung/Indonesi a

JuniorArchitect,Estimator

House, Factoryand Caf Design

Aug 2003 -Dec 2004

PT. Trinitas Buana

Utama

Bandung/

Indonesi a

Junior

Architect

Apart ment

Design

Aug 2002 -

Aug 2003


55/58


Island, Indonesia

Name ofInstitute/Companies

City/ Countries Position Job Descript ionContractPeriods

PT. Imesco Dito Jakarta/ Indonesia JuniorArchitect Junior Archit ect Jan 2002 Aug 2002

COMBINE Bandung/Indonesi a

JuniorResearcher

UrbanDevelopment

Research,especi allyon

Urban G arbageManagement

Aug 2001 -Jan 2002

CV. Cipta BinaSarana

Bandung/Indonesi a

Work Trainee Junior Architect May - July2001

ASPEK Bandung/Indonesi a

ProgramFacilitator

Communit yRecover yProgram

(CRP-HUI) i n

RW 11,Cibangkong

District

GarbageManagement ,

MechanismMaking andControlling ofCooperati ve

Credit Unit

Jan 2000 -Aug 2001

1.10 V. Research, Planning & Design W orks

Name of Proj ect Position Year

Under Green ImpactIndonesia

Assistance for Directorat e ofSpati al Pla nning, Public

Wor ks Depart ment (2009),Sustainable Urban

Impro vement Program(SUSIP) - Exec uti ve

Presentation

Team Leader and UrbanPlanner

Dec 2009

Drainage Master PlanRevitalisation in

Summ areco n, KelapaGading, J akarta, Indonesia


Apr Dec 2009

Hospital Preliminar y Designand Study in Pangalengan,

West Java, Indonesia(Proposal to KPBS, MilkProducer Cooperative in

Pangalengan)

Team Leader and SeniorArchitect

Apr Aug 2009

Communit y BasedDevelopment R evitali satio n in

PT Newm ont N usaTenggara, Sumba, N usa

Tenggara Barat, Indonesia(Proposal)

Team Leader andEnvironmentalist

Aug 2009


56/58



Traditional Market Mapping,GIS Database and Analysis

in the fra mewor k of

Implementi ng PresidentialDecree No 112/2007 on

Development of TraditionalMarket and Rel ocation of

Modern Mar ket in Indonesia(Proposal to Ministr y of Trade

of Republic of Indonesia)


Aug 2009

Integrated Water ResourcesManagement Plan forBarang kal River, sub

catchment of Brantas RiverBasin, in relati on with Social

Aspect and Instit utionCapacit y Building (Proposal

to JICA)

Team Leader andEnvironmentalist

Aug 2009

9 Pearl Elementary School

in Bandung

Team Leader and Architect 2003

Proposal 99ers Radio Sc hool(Proposal)

Team Leader and Architect 2003

Under Jurong ConsultantsPte Ltd.

Preliminary Study and BriefDevelopment Concept of

QEZ3, PetrochemicalComplex, Q atar

Planner 2007 to 2008

Dera Bassi D etaile d MasterPlan, Greater Mohali Area,

Punjab, India


Libya Africa Ec onomic Ci ty Planner 2007 to 2008

Wonogiri Industrial Park,Indonesi a (Guanxi StateFarm - Bio fuel Plant)


Master Plan An Tay IndustrialServic e Centre

Planner 2007

Master Plan ZhangzhouWaterfront City, China

Assistant Planner 2006-2007

Master Plan AMRLIntern ational T ech City, Tamil

Nadu, India

Assistant Planner 2007

With MSc Env ironmentalManagement Program

Neotiewpia Eco Villag e

Master Plan in Kranji

Planner & Environmentali st 2006


57/58


Island, Indonesia


Singapore

Under SJP Engineering

BTC Caf Junior Architect 2004

Kopomas Factory Junior Architect 2004

Private Houses Bandung Junior Archit ect, DesignDevelopment

2003 2004

Under PT. Trinitas BuanaUtama

Rental H ouses in Bandung Studi o Coordinator 2002 2003

Bukit Resik Exclusi veApar ment

Studi o Coordinator 2002 2003

Site Pl an S. Parman EliteHousing

Studi o Coordinator 2002

Under PT. Imesco Dito

Private Houses i n Jakarta Junior Architect 2002

Freelance Proj ect

Cibangkong Low CostHousing, B andung Indonesia

Final Year Student 2001

Design Development ofKARANG SETRA Hotel, Spa

and Cottages, BandungIndonesi a u