Planning Implementation for Mitigating Loss of Green Areas

Planning Implementation for Mitigating Loss of Green Areas in Peripheral Urbanized Areas of Greater Jakarta:

Case Study of Tangerang Selatan

Dyah Fatma*

Atsushi Deguchi*

Abstract Uncontrolled growth in Greater Jakarta has reduced the green area in Jakarta’s neighboring

municipalities. Projected population growth and associated growth in housing will cause further

loss of green areas. Spatial planning laws in these municipalities and the application of a

national target for urban green areas in each city have been implemented in an attempt to

mitigate the loss of green areas. However, further loss of green areas since these laws were

issued shows that there are underlying problems in their enactment. Tangerang Selatan has been

nominated as a new center for residential, service and trading activities, which provides an

opportunity for policy change to mitigate the loss of urban green space in peripheral

municipalities. This paper aims to mitigate further loss of green areas in Tangerang Selatan by

identifying the underlying problems for green area provision in Tangerang Selatan through

analysis of the current regulations and their implementation in different types of development.

Findings indicated that achieving sufficient urban green area is a challenge in Tangerang

Selatan due to insufficient planning and monitoring capabilities. However, it is found that

private sector has the potential for collaboration in green area provision. Keywords: Land use, Uncontrolled growth, Green coverage ratio, Mitigation of green area

loss, Indonesia

1. Introduction 1.1 Background

Greater Jakarta, which is also known as Jabodetabek, has experienced rapid growth since

Indonesia opened up for Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in the 1970s22) 24)

. Economic growth

in Jakarta following FDI triggered a population increase in the city and between 1970 and 1990,

Jakarta converted approximately 60% of its unbuilt area into built area61)

. The implementation

of a policy to extend urban growth to the east and west of Jakarta in 1976 caused the city to

expand into its surrounding municipalities56)

. Jakarta’s urban area expanded outwards to the

Depok and Bogor regions in the south, Bekasi region in the east, and Tangerang region in the

west (Figure 1) forming what is known as Greater Jakarta. Before the expansion, these

municipalities used to be agricultural areas27)

.

As the municipalities at Jakarta’s periphery transformed from rural to suburban and

started to show signs of early post-suburbanization28)

, green coverage in these municipalities

declined. Development in Jakarta’s periphery following FDI was dominated by residential

development. By 1996, development permits for residential areas released by the government

covered 16% of the total Greater Jakarta area59)

.

*Graduate School of Frontier Sciences, The University of Tokyo

Email: [email protected]

(C) 2016 City Planning Institute of Japan http://dx.doi.org/10.14398/urpr.3.85

Urban and Regional Planning Review Vol. 3, 2016 | 85

This study defines green areas according to the definition included in Indonesian Spatial

Planning Law (2007), whereby green areas are defined as a plot intended for vegetation. It

includes, but is not limited to, urban forest, agriculture, and parks. This definition distinguishes

green areas from green coverage, whereby green coverage includes land plots that are

designated for other uses, including built areas that have not yet been developed.

1) Uncontrolled Growth in Greater Jakarta

Uncontrolled growth that happens in Greater Jakarta is often compared with sprawl in the

United States of America (USA), as both show leapfrog development, often along road

infrastructure 23)

. Despite these similarities, sprawl in the USA has grown under similar planning

and building codes, which explains the similarities between sprawl in different places across the

USA23)

. Growth in the periphery of Jakarta has followed two patterns: new areas developed by

private developers that share similarities with their US counterparts; and organic expansion

within and outside the settlement areas that preexisted the urbanization process 45)

.

2) Urbanized Area of Greater Jakarta

At the beginning of Jakarta’s expansion, growth was in the form of urban patches among rural

areas at the urban fringe, a trend known as desakota 43)

. Through the constant pressure of

urbanization, these municipalities gradually lost their rural land. The loss of rural characteristics

is reflected in the Gross Regional Domestic Product (GRDP) of the municipalities directly

adjacent to Jakarta, which shows a low percentage of income from the agricultural sector

Figure-1 Municipalities in Greater Jakarta

Table-1 Urbanized municipalities of Greater Jakarta

Municipality Area (km2)

Population in 2010

Green Coverage GRDP from Agriculture

Jakarta 662.33 8,523,157 *1 10.38% *6 0.08% *11

Bekasi 210.49 2,334,871 *2 3.70% *7 0.16% *12

Depok 200.29 1,736,565 *3 3.82% *8 2.52% *13

Tangerang 164.54 1,798,601 *4

46.00% *9

(including privately

owned green area)

0.16% *14

Tangerang Selatan 147.19 1,290,322 *5 18.00% *10 0.86% *15

*1:3), *2:7), *3:10) *4:14), *5:12), *6:28), *7:57), *8:48), *9:50), *10:2), *11:4), *12:9), *13:11), *14:15),

*15:13)


(Table-1). These municipalities also have changed their status into kota (city, or urban

municipality, as referred to in this paper) from kabupaten (regency, or rural administrative area

or rural municipality as referred to in this paper), following the increase in their population Ease

of access and availability of infrastructure in these urban municipalities has increased the

tendency for further development. Based on the assumption that a change of land cover is

irreversible29)

, provision of green open space is more feasible by reassigning available unbuilt

land.

3) Previous Spatial Planning Policies

A number of spatial planning policies to control urbanization and land use change have

been applied in Greater Jakarta. A study for the masterplan of Jakarta was first done in 1965,

and a masterplan was issued which included the urbanized area of the municipalities

surrounding Jakarta54)

. In 1976, an authority for Greater Jakarta was formed 54) 56

, and a plan to

expand new development of industry and housing towards the west and east was enacted in

198156)

. These policies initiated rapid urbanization in Greater Jakarta and had caused a sharp

decrease of green coverage.

Following the Earth Summit in 1992 and awareness of the impacts of global warming, the

government of Indonesia issued a law on spatial planning which mandated municipality and

provincial governments to provide spatial planning for their respective 26)

. In 2007, the law was

revised to require a national target for green areas of 20% public green areas and 10% privately

owned green areas in urban municipalities. Incentives and disincentives were included as part of

the controlling instrument. However, despite the enactment of the national plan, the percentage

of green coverage in Greater Jakarta urban areas is already below the targeted number (Table-1).

Previous reports show that the main impediment to the national-level policy

implementation lies in the condition of local-level government where executive power lies47)

.

Following decentralization, the municipality-level government gained autonomous power for

spatial planning, which includes green area provision60) 34)

, in its area as long as this did not

contradict national level regulations. Thus this research will focus on municipality-level green

area provision. 1.2 Purpose and Objective

This research aims to mitigate loss of green areas in Tangerang Selatan by identifying

potential improvements to the current implementation of green area provisions at the

municipality-level, by analyzing the local regulation of green area provision and by identifying

how the municipality-level regulation is implemented in different types of development in

Tangerang Selatan. To achieve this, the research will address the following objectives:

1) Document the chronological changes in peripheral cities around Jakarta using Tangerang

Selatan as case study, through historical study of urbanization and changes of land cover in

Tangerang Selatan. There is no official data from Tangerang Selatan regarding available

green area or land use in the municipality. Thus, it is essential to estimate unbuilt for

assessing the feasibility of green area provision in Tangerang Selatan considering change

from unbuilt to built area is irreversible.

2) Identify issues for the implementation of land use regulations in Tangerang Selatan.

3) Propose improvements for the implementation of land use regulations in peripheral cities of

Greater Jakarta to mitigate the loss of green areas.


1.3 Previous Studies 1) Need for Green Areas in Urban Areas

Growth in Greater Jakarta happens in the form of low-density housing, which shows a

tendency for uncontrolled growth. This type of growth has been suggested to negatively affect

environmental qualities owing to a decrease of green areas. Green coverage has been shown to

have benefits for rainwater infiltration and run-off mitigation16)

, better air quality32)

, potential for

carbon sequestration53)

, and ecosystem services33)

. Unbuilt areas also have the potential for

recreational benefits18)

. Considering these values for green areas, it is important to mitigate the

loss of green areas in the urbanized municipalities of Greater Jakarta, while aiming for better

green area planning.

2) Impacts of Uncontrolled Growth in Greater Jakarta

Previous research in Greater Jakarta on land cover change has shown the negative

impacts of growth on the metropolitan area. For example, the urbanization process in Greater

Jakarta has had negative impacts on its regional resilience and sustainability31)

. The growth of

population and built-area in Greater Jakarta has contributed to land subsidence and land

inundation through greater ground water consumption and less recharge area19)

. Issues of the

heat island effect42)

and insufficient public open space have also been felt in the Greater Jakarta

area26)

.

This paper will examine uncontrolled growth in Tangerang Selatan and how it impacts on

green coverage in the municipality (see 3.1 and 3.2).

3) Gaps in Previous Research on Land Use and Green Area Provision

Research on land use planning in Greater Jakarta has often focused on the regional level

and the development on the east side of Greater Jakarta21)

. It has indicated that uncontrolled

growth in Greater Jakarta is due to improper land management during the urbanization process

and has highlighted the absence of coordination between bureaus, lack of incentives, and an

absence of willingness to implement the regulations as the main causes of improper land use in

the metropolitan area21)

. Research on green area provision in Greater Jakarta at the municipality

level has also been carried out in relation to the area needed for water absorption based on the

population in Tangerang48)

and the allocation of the municipality budget in Bekasi55)

. However,

there has been little research into urban planning and design, and research that focuses on the

enactment of local regulations regarding green areas in the urbanized municipalities in Greater

Jakarta is not yet available. 1.4 Methodology To achieve the objectives of this research, the following methodologies were used:

1) To establish chronological changes in Tangerang Selatan

a. Previous research and international, national, and local assessment on the development

of Greater Jakarta in general and Tangerang Selatan in particular, including population

statistics data from Statistics Indonesia, was reviewed (see chapter 3.1)

b. Land cover classification was done using Landsat data from the United States

Geological Survey (USGS) in 1995, 2005, and 2015 (Table-2). Images with a cloud

percentage of less than 20% were chosen to increase accuracy. Remote sensing data

were analyzed using MultiSpec 3.4 by classifying land cover into built area, green

coverage, water body, and clouds through supervised classification. We used false

color composite comprising bands 4, 3 and 2. The composite accentuated green cover

as shades of red, built area as cyan, gray, or light blue, water bodies as dark blue or


black, and cloud as white. Samples were chosen based on the visual representation,

based on the accentuation of each land cover types in areas which land cover and land

use are known based on site observation and reference from Google Earth. Barren land

is automatically classified based on its reflectance. At least 60 samples were selected

for each class until accuracy levels were satisfactory. If accuracy was 50% or less,

then different sets of samples were selected. The final result of land cover

classification was double checked by comparing with images from Google Earth. To

obtain the area of each class, the classification result was processed using Arc GIS

10.1 to tabulate the built and unbuilt area in Tangerang Selatan.

Table-2 Data Used for Land Cover Classification

Year Sensor Date Resolution 1995 TM August 24, 1995 30 m

2005 TM July 2, 2005 30 m

2015 ETM May 19, 2015 30 m

Table-3 Wavelength of Bands Used for Land Cover Classification

Sensor Type Band Wavelength (micrometers)

Landsat TM

Band 2 0.52-0.60

Band 3 0.63-0.69

Band 4 0.76-0.90

Landsat ETM

Band 2 0.52-0.60

Band 3 0.63-0.69

Band 4 0.77-0.90

2) To identify issues for implementation of land use regulations in Tangerang Selatan

(Chapters 4 and 5), the following steps were taken:

a. Literature on the national, provincial, and municipality-level regulations and policies

that applied to Tangerang Selatan was reviewed, including reports from Tangerang

Regency. b. Semi-structured interviews were carried out with the following key informants on the

availability of regulations on spatial planning and the provision of green areas, in both

Greater Jakarta and Tangerang Selatan: i. Badan Lingkungan Hidup Tangerang Selatan (BLHD Tangerang Selatan,

Tangerang Selatan Environmental Agency) Municipality-level government agency responsible for planning,

implementation and control of activities related to environmental issues. ii. Dinas Tata Kota Bangunan dan Permukiman Tangerang Selatan (DTK Bang

Kim, Office of Town Planning Building and Residential of Tangerang Selatan)

Government agency responsible for spatial planning, building control, housing,

and settlement. The Spatial Planning Division and Housing and Settlement

Division were chosen for interview based on their responsibilities related to

green area provision.

iii. Badan Pembangunan Daerah Tangerang Selatan (BAPPEDA, Regional

Development Planning Board of Tangerang Selatan)


Government agency responsible for the socio-economic development of the

municipality as well as participating in spatial planning and coordinating with

higher level of government.

iv. Badan Pelayanan Perizinan Terpadu (BP2T, Integrated Licensing Service

Agency)

The agency responsible in issuing building and development permits, based on

directives given by the Office of Town Planning Building and Residential of

Tangerang Selatan and assessment from the Environmental Agency.

v. New Town Developer (Bumi Serpong Damai/ BSD City)

vi. Expert interview with a green building evaluator and green consultant, a

researcher focusing on Jakarta Metropolitan Area, an architect who is involved

in public area provision in Pondok Pucung, and urban design practitioners. c. For illustration of implementation at the micro-level of Tangerang Selatan, Chapter 5

examines the green area provision that happened in three types of developments in

Tangerang Selatan. The first was a new town development, which is a large-scale

development designed as a new independent town. The second type of development

was a small housing development, a common type of development on the periphery of

Jakarta, often in the form of a gated cluster. The third type of development was a self-

help development which happens outside the previous types of formal and designed

development. To represent green area provision in the small residential development and self-help

development, high-resolution images from Google Earth are georeferenced and traced

using ArcGIS 10.1 to estimate the percentage of green coverage in these sample

residential developments. Private green areas in small residential area are assumed to

comprise of front and back yards of each houses, and instead of public green area, the

term common green area is used for other green areas. This assumption is taken

because despite the ownership of the green area might be transferred to the

government; it is only accessible to the residents of the small residential developments.

Buildings, common green area, private green area and roads are traced separately and

each were compared with the total area of the development to obtain the ratio of each

category. In self-help development, the boundaries of each private land are not well-

defined. Thus, built and unbuilt area ratio from year 2004 and 2014 were used to

show how development reduced the unbuilt area.

2. Profile of Tangerang Selatan The municipality lies 25 km to the south-west of Jakarta’s center. It is 147.19 km

2 with a

total population of 1.4 million people. Compared with other municipalities in Greater Jakarta, it

has the smallest contribution to the region’s GRDP, amounting to less than 1% 30)

. This city was

established in 2008 after its separation from the Tangerang Regency and obtained autonomous

status. The municipality is divided into seven districts (Figure-2). Commuter data indicated that

Tangerang Selatan currently serves Jakarta as bedroom town. The municipality is connected to

Jakarta by the Ulujami-Pondok Aren Toll Road and BSD Toll Road and commuter rail line.


Tangerang Selatan is dominated by residential areas, mostly in the form of landed

housing. There are three development areas built as independent new towns: Bintaro Jaya, Bumi

Serpong Damai (BSD City), and Alam Sutera. These new town developments are mainly to the

north of the toll road (see Figure-2). The southern half of Tangerang Selatan is dominated by a

mixture of smaller residential clusters and kampongs, which grow organically.

3. Chronological Change in Tangerang Selatan

3.1 History of Tangerang Selatan In the Dutch colonial era, the Tangerang area was mainly used for agriculture and

plantations. By end of the 1950s, kampongs already existed near the railway stations in Serpong

and Ciputat and along the road towards Bogor in Pamulang. Although the expansion of Jakarta

has happened since the mid-1960s, rapid urbanization in Tangerang Selatan did not occur until

the mid-1980s following the rapid population increase in Jakarta after FDI. Rapid growth of

Figure-2 Districts of Tangerang Selatan and its main transportation

Figure-3 Population projection in each district of Tangerang Selatan

38)

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

4,000,000

Setu

Pondok Aren

Pamulang

Ciputat Timur

Ciputat

Serpong Utara

Serpong


Tangerang Selatan was driven by policies which promoted new housing development areas in

the urban fringes of Jakarta in 198156)

. Three new town developments, BSD City, Bintaro Jaya,

and Alam Sutera were developed in Tangerang Selatan (Figure-4). Aside from these new towns

built by big developers, smaller residential complexes and clusters also grew within the

municipality especially on the south-west side of the municipality 58)

.

Residential development was followed by a rapid increase in population, especially after

the opening of a toll road that connects South Jakarta and Serpong. By 2007, the population in

the current area of Tangerang Selatan had reached one million (Figure-3). It was decided that

Serpong, Serpong Utara, Ciputat, Ciputat Timur, Pamulang, Pondok Aren, and a part of Cisauk

(renamed as Setu) should be formed into a new municipality to improve public services, and

these districts separated into Tangerang Selatan. The municipality gained its full autonomy in

2008.

Following the masterplan of Greater Jakarta issued in 2008, Tangerang Selatan is

intended to be a new sub-center. It is also mentioned as a Jakarta Metropolitan Priority Area 31)

,

which suggests that the municipality is intended as a residential area for Jakarta and a center for

education. As part of the regional masterplan, a toll road is planned to connect Soekarno-Hatta

International Airport and the Setu District (Figure-2). The Tangerang Selatan population is

predicted to more than double by 2030 (Figure-3) 38)

, indicating that conversion from unbuilt to

built area is likely to continue in the future. This highlights the need for a development plan that

can preserve green areas. 3.2 Growth of Built Area in Tangerang Selatan

The impact of population growth in Tangerang Selatan is reflected by the growth of built

areas. Rapid change of land use/cover in Tangerang Selatan began with the area nearest to

Jakarta and expanded outwards. This can be seen through the change of built area in the

municipality between 1995, 2005, and 2015 (Figure-5). Analysis showed that the built area in

Tangerang Selatan increased from 21.60% in 1995 to 29.60% in 2005, and by May 2015 it had

Figure-4 Chronological timeline for Tangerang Selatan


Figure-5 Growth of built area in urban municipalities of Greater Jakarta

Source of remote sensing data: USGS

reached 62% (Figure-6). The growth pattern in Tangerang Selatan happened gradually from the

border of Jakarta in 1995 but by 2015 built area dominated the greater part of the municipality.

Only part of the Pondok Aren District and Setu District showed lower levels of built area.

Although there was still more than 30% of unbuilt area in Tangerang Selatan based on

the remote sensing analysis, according to the interview with the Tangerang Selatan

Environmental Agency the municipality only owned 9% of the municipality total area as green

area. The rest of the unbuilt area was owned by private land-owners, and is at risk of conversion

to built areas in view of the projected population growth (Figure-3) and the plan to build a toll

road (Figure-2). If the government wishes to protect the remaining privately-owned unbuilt area,


it will have to acquire the land from those private owners as indicated in Law No. 2/2012 on

Land Provision for Public Interest. However, according to the interview with the Regional

Development Planning Board, although the municipality has a target of 30% green area, the

municipality budget is mainly allocated to other infrastructures and services.

3.3 Findings 1) Based on the timeline (3.1) and change of land cover (3.2), growth in Tangerang Selatan

preceded the formation of the autonomous municipality and was done mostly by private

developers. This suggests two points. First, private developers form some of the main

stakeholders in the growth of Tangerang Selatan, and second, municipality regulations were

drafted after the development and land cover change in Tangerang Selatan had happened.

2) Considering the percentage of unbuilt area owned by private land-owners in Tangerang

Selatan (see 3.2), the chance to fulfil the national target of urban green areas is slim. An increase

in the municipality budget for green area provision will play an important part in green area

provision 55)

. Without a sufficient budget for land acquisition, the contribution of privately-

owned land should be considered to add to the total urban green area, as private developers are

willing to contribute to public needs as long as they can sell their property 57)

.

Following these findings, the policies and regulations on green area provision that are

currently applied in Tangerang Selatan are discussed in Chapter 4, followed by discussions on

implementation at the local level in Chapter 5.

4. Policies and Regulation on Green Area Provision Figure-7 shows the structure of regulations relating to green area provision that is applied

in Tangerang Selatan. The hierarchy of the regulation structure can be divided into national and

municipal levels. Before 1999, the Indonesian government was centralized. However, following

governmental reformation it was decentralized. Municipalities gained the autonomy to regulate

the spatial planning of their own areas and are no longer under the control of the provincial

government. Because of this, this paper will only cover the national policies and municipality-

level policies that are applied in Tangerang Selatan.

Figure-6: Percentage of built and unbuilt area in Tangerang Selatan based on remote

sensing data classification analysis compared with its population.

21.60% 29.60%

62.48%

78.40% 70.40%

37.34%

684.454

950.529

1671.338

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1995 2005 2015

Tho

usan

d Pe

ople

Unbuilt

Built

Population


Figure-7 Structure of regulation related to green area provision in Tangerang Selatan and

governmental agencies related to development permits


Law No. 26/2007 is the highest level regulation on spatial planning, followed by

Government Regulation No. 26/2008, Presidential Decree No. 54/2008, and the Ministerial

Decree. In the municipality regulations, shown in the lower part of Figure-7, all three

regulations are at the same level of the hierarchy.

4.1 Spatial Planning Policies and Regulation at a National Level Although the law on spatial planning was first enacted in 1992, Indonesia did not have a

national target for urban green areas until 2007. Law No. 26/2007 on Spatial Planning states the

target of urban green area is 30% of a city’s total area. It is further defined as 20% public green

areas provided by the government and 10% provided by green areas within private properties

such as back yards or home gardens. The target is a reference for other regulations on green area

provision in urban areas. It is mentioned in article 30 of Law no. 26/2007 that further

regulations are stated in relevant ministerial decree (Figure-7a).

The Ministry of Public Works released a guideline for green area provision in urban areas

in Ministerial Decree of Ministry of Public Works No. 5/2008. This guideline mentions that

spatial planning at the municipality level should indicate the minimum green area required for

the city as well as its type and location, implementation stages, function, and typology and

vegetation. This decree also mentions that the green area percentage in a land parcel should be

regulated by building codes.

The National Spatial Plan was issued in 2008 as a derivative of the spatial planning law

(Figure-7b). Governmental Regulation No.26/2008 on the National Spatial Plan emphasized the

need for spatial planning to reduce the negative impacts of growth on water and land resources.

The regulation also contains the national spatial structure plan as well as the national spatial

pattern. It is also indicated in the regulation that Greater Jakarta is considered one of the

national strategic areas. The urban spatial planning directs that Greater Jakarta is intended as a

medium- to high-density residential area and vertical development is recommended.

Following the appointment of Greater Jakarta as national strategic area, a spatial plan for

Extended Greater Jakarta, which also includes Puncak and Cianjur in addition to the

municipalities of Greater Jakarta, was enacted in Presidential Regulation No.54/2008 (Figure-

7c). Despite the fact that the municipalities in Indonesia have authority over their spatial

planning, the municipalities in Extended Greater Jakarta cannot deviate from this regulation. It

is stated that the use of space is controlled by the municipality so long as it agrees with the set of

regulations above it in the hierarchy. Under this regulation, Tangerang Selatan is dominated by

high-density residential areas in the districts of Serpong, Setu, Ciputat, Ciputat Timur,

Pamulang, and a part of Serpong Utara; while the districts of Pondok Aren and a part of

Serpong Utara will be low-density housing, agriculture, and water absorption areas (see Figure-

2 for district locations).

In addition to the spatial plan, Law No.26/2007 on Spatial Planning and Governmental

Regulation No. 26/2008 include incentives, disincentives, and sanctions as part of their

instruments to control land use. This inclusion is in addition to the 1992 spatial planning law.

However, the Presidential Decree No.54/2008, which includes the Greater Jakarta spatial plan,

only mentions sanctions towards development that does not follow the zoning regulations

through rehabilitation and revitalization of the land.

Under these regulations, incentives are granted when a project is built in compliance with

the regulations. The discussion on incentives is debated at the national level, in regard to the

implementation cost and whether it benefits the government. The most common incentive is by


tax holiday or discount, which could disadvantage the local government 20)

. However, interviews

with the private sector revealed that developers and investors look for incentives for green

development, including for green area provision. Similar ideas were raised by the green building

enumerator who mentioned an increase in interest in obtaining environmentally friendly

certification, such as given by the Green Building Council, including for development projects

in Tangerang Selatan. This shows that there is a tendency for developers to provide

environment-friendly projects.

Aside from the above-mentioned regulations, Indonesia also issued national standards on

housing planning in urban areas (Figure-7d). This standard shows the minimum area needed for

green areas or public places within the different scales of localities in residential areas. However,

this document does not hold legal power, and is used only as a reference for planners and

designers.

4.2 Regulations on Land Use in Tangerang Selatan As mandated by the law on spatial planning that each municipality is responsible for

spatial planning in its area, Tangerang Selatan released its spatial plan as Local Government

Regulation No. 15/2011 (Figure-7e), which applies until 2031. Despite being a derivative of the

Extended Greater Jakarta spatial plan (Figure-7c), zoning in Tangerang Selatan differs in the

area intended for high-density development. An interview with the Regional Development

Planning Board of Tangerang Selatan revealed that the municipality zone was adjusted to the

existing development in the municipality, because the areas in Pondok Aren, Ciputat, Ciputat

Timur, and Pamulang mentioned for low- to medium-density in the regional masterplan are

already high-density.

The municipality states that the target of public and private green space in the city is in

accordance with the law on spatial planning and intends to recover the green area in river and

lake setbacks. In order to control development, Tangerang Selatan passed a spatial plan that

consists of a land use plan, infrastructure plan, and green area plan as part of Local Government

Regulation No. 15/2011. The land use plan in Tangerang Selatan is dominated by residential

area, roughly divided into high-density residential areas in Pondok Aren, Ciputat, Ciputat Timur,

and Pamulang, and medium-density residential area in Serpong Utara, Serpong, and Setu (see

Figure-2). The municipality’s zoning plan also shows plans for commercial districts in Pondok

Aren, Ciputat, and in Serpong (see Figure-2 and Figure-5).

The definition of green areas in this municipality-level regulation follows the national

spatial planning law. It is mentioned that green areas within public buildings are considered as

public green areas, as are green areas on the right of way, under high tension cables, and public

parks. The green area plan, however, does not mention the intended timeline.

The regulation also includes incentives, disincentives, and sanctions in a similar manner

to the national spatial plan. During the interview with the Tangerang Selatan licensing agency, it

was mentioned that the incentives and disincentives are not yet practiced in Tangerang Selatan

beside acknowledging private land-owners for contributions to the municipality. Other forms of

incentives are still not applied because there are no regulations for incentives and disincentives

in the municipality.

The municipality spatial plan also includes building codes that apply in Tangerang

Selatan as indicated in the Ministerial Decree of Ministry of Public Works No. 5/2008 (see 4.2).

However, building codes in Tangerang Selatan are not applied to designated land parcels, but as


directed by the Office of Town Planning, Building, and Settlement. Building codes and their

implementation in Tangerang Selatan are explained in 4.3.

The municipality regulation mentions that the government has to issue detailed spatial

planning (Figure-7f) for each district of the municipality within 36 months of the introduction of

the municipality spatial planning laws in 2011. However, as of February 2015, the detailed

spatial planning was not yet published. During interviews with the Spatial Planning Division of

the Office of Town Planning, Building, and Residential of Tangerang Selatan, it was mentioned

that the lack of detailed existing building data from the geospatial agency and the lack of human

resources within the town planning agency itself were impeding factors. This aligns with

findings from Douglass during his observation in the 1980s21)

, showing that the problem persists.

In 2012, the municipality government issued Local Government Regulation of Tangerang

Selatan No. 13/2012 on Environmental Management (Figure-7g) in Tangerang Selatan. The

regulation stresses addressing pollution, by limiting logging and tree cutting and states that each

development project must provide 2% of its total area for rain water infiltration, as well as

penalties for violation of the regulation.

The municipality also issued Local Government Regulation of Tangerang Selatan No.

3/2014 on Implementation of the Housing and Settlement Area (Figure-7h). The regulation

suggests that green areas could be put on land left over from development as opposed to other

facilities which should be designed as central activities. However, because this regulation was

only issued in 2014, the impact of implementation of the regulation has not yet been seen.

4.3 Regulations on Privately-Owned Land At the micro-level, required green coverage for a land parcel in Indonesia is controlled by

the building codes as defined by the building coverage area and green area coefficient,

identifying areas not allowed to be built per total land parcel area. Building regulation in

Tangerang Selatan is decided by the Office of Town Planning, Building, and Settlement based

on the municipality land use zone in the Spatial Plan of Tangerang Selatan and the land area of

the parcel (Figure-7i), depending on the location of the land parcel in the municipality zoning

and its land surface area. The building codes cannot effectively provide good spatial quality

outside new residential developments due to irregular land parcel sizes and shapes52)

.

Control of green areas for privately-owned land parcels is provided through the building

permit process. Assessment of development projects in Tangerang Selatan is done only at the

planning stage as part of the development permission process by the Licensing Service Agency

(Figure-7j). Plans for green areas within the land parcel are included in the list of design and

plan documents required to obtain a building permit. During the building permit process, the

Regional Environmental Agency is in charge of providing an impact assessment on the

proposed project from the design and plan document as a reference for the Integrated Licensing

Agency for decision making on building permits (Figure-7k).

During the interview with the Integrated Licensing Service Agency, it was found that

post-building assessment is not yet intended for green area provision, and it is focused on

buildings with commercial and business use. Lack of human resources was mentioned as the

impeding factor for this type of assessment. The post-building assessment check list is not

available in Tangerang Selatan, although according to the interview with the green building

enumerator, the availability of the assessment checklist is essential. Despite a lack of human

resources in the government agencies, it was revealed that the citizens of Tangerang Selatan are


active in reporting complaints regarding development. These reports, however, are only limited

to violations that can easily assessed visually.

4.4 Findings Explanations provided in 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 show that Tangerang Selatan has passed

regulations for green area provision. However, there are three points that seem to be lacking

within the regulations on green area provision in Tangerang Selatan.

1) Issues of incentives

There are still difficulties in applying incentives and disincentives in Tangerang Selatan. First,

this issue is still in discussion at the national level and second, the municipality does not have

guidelines and more detailed regulations to apply incentives and disincentives for green area

provision. However, based on interviews with both the developer and green building enumerator,

interest among developers on sustainability issues could be increased by giving incentives for

additional contributions, such as increasing green areas on private-owned land.

2) Lack of detailed spatial planning and building regulation

To provide green areas within the privately-owned area, the building code is important.

Building codes in Tangerang Selatan depends on the zone and land area of parcel of a

development project. They also depend on the recommendations given during the issue of

building permits. Lack of available data and human resources were mentioned as underlying

causes. This finding supports previous findings that the impediments for national policy often

lie in local government 47)

. However, building codes such as applied in Tangerang Selatan might

not be effective in settlements with irregular land parcels 52)

.

3) Lack of post-building assessment for green area provision on private land

Lack of human resources and no check-list for post-building assessment were mentioned as

factors that impede post-building assessment in Tangerang Selatan. However, the mention of

citizen reports for building projects that do not follow regulation shows the potential to increase

people’s awareness of building regulations as part of public participation.

5. Implementation of Green Area Provision in Tangerang Selatan As mentioned previously (see 3.2), the green areas in Tangerang Selatan still fall short of the

targeted total green area by 11%. Because the government will need to pay for the land

necessary for infrastructure and facilities currently owned privately (see 3.3.2), infrastructure

and facilities planning depends greatly on the available land assets that the government can

afford. Lack of monetary resources is one of the impediments to purchasing land assets for

Figure-9: Example of public green areas in BSD City (left) and Bintaro Jaya (right)


green areas.

Land development in Indonesia requires developers to provide public green areas, which

should be given to the municipality government. However, the percentage of required green

area differs depending on the type of development. This chapter aims to illustrate different

requirements applied in three types of developments in Tangerang Selatan.

5.1 Green Area Provision in New Town Development As indicated in 3.1, development in Tangerang Selatan cannot be separated from the new

town development. To obtain permission to develop this area, developers are required to return

a part of their land area to the municipality government in the form of infrastructure, social

facilities, and green open spaces. According to interviews with both BSD City and the Office of

Town Planning Building and Residential of Tangerang Selatan, the requirement for green open

space is 20% of the total area, in the form of urban parks and other green areas, which should be

returned after at least one year of maintenance by the developer, following the completion of

construction. The process of giving back the required area can be negotiated between the

developer and the government in the development stage for the residential area.

In Tangerang Selatan, green open spaces such as urban parks and green corridors along

the main streets in new town development are managed by the developer even after being

returned to the government. This collaboration is possible because the developers of new town

areas do not renounce the management of their development area. BSD City indicated its

intention to manage the green areas within their development area because of market preference

for residential areas with lush green areas, which is beneficial for the government. Based on

field observations, Bintaro Jaya also provides and manages its public green space. Despite the

developers’ willingness to provide green areas, there are still impeding factors. Within the

partnership between the municipality government and the developer, rights and responsibilities

on the green areas are decided through negotiation. This kind of partnership is yet to have

regulations to control such partnerships.

Green areas within residential clusters can be managed by the residents of the cluster or

by the developer. In clusters where infrastructure and services have been given to the public, a

maintenance fee is divided between residents or building owners and that amount should be paid

to the managing organization, such as the sub-contractors for maintenance in Graha Raya,

which is part of Bintaro Jaya 37)

.

5.2 Small Residential Development Although small residential developments are also required to provide green areas and

give these back to the government in a similar way to new town developments, the same policy

cannot be applied. According to the Division of Spatial Planning from Office of Town Planning,

Building, and Residential, because the area of such developments is relatively small, requiring a

high percentage for green areas is not considered feasible economically, especially if the area is

redistributed into medium and small houses, because an increase in green space reduces the

saleable area of the development, and increases the price charged to consumers. Instead, each

development project is assigned different requirements in the recommendation process by the

Office of Town Planning, Building, and Residential before proceeding with the building permit.

Management of the open space in such developments, therefore, differs from one

development to another. According to the Housing and Settlement Division of the Office of

Town Planning, Building and Settlement, developers of small housing areas often renounce the


management of the development area to the residents of the area. There are more than 200 small

developers in Tangerang Selatan, and many of them are not members of Real Estate Indonesia.

Thus, it is difficult for the government to track the developers if they find that the green areas in

the development are less than the agreed area mentioned in the building permit.

As an illustration, two small residential developments, both middle-upper class residential

clusters, built after 2007 and already completed, were chosen (Figure-10). Limitations to image

quality reduced the accuracy of estimation but, as seen in the estimated land cover, common

green areas in both of the developments are less than 20%. However, it can also be seen that the

privately-owned green areas have a bigger proportion in the share of land cover.

5.3 Green Areas outside Housing Development Built area also increases in the settlements which were established before Indonesia’s

independence. Although there are still unbuilt areas scattered in these settlements, there is no

measure to preserve public green space. Based on observation, building regulation in this area is

not able to keep the available unbuilt area as green space, because in these organically growing

settlements; land is divided and sold by individual owners without planning. It is also noted that

when land is divided by the owner into different certifications, there is no requirement for

access or assessment on the percentage of green areas in the overall land area to decide on the

building coverage of the new land parcel.

Figure-10: Land cover in small residential development


As an illustration, a settlement area in Pondok Pucung, Pondok Aren District was chosen.

A comparison between built area in 2004 and 2014 shows the increase of built area from

19.87% to 36.46% (Figure-11). The settlement area used to belong to one family. The land was

divided among the descendants of the first owner, and some of the parcels were sold to buyers

outside the family. The remaining unbuilt areas are owned by the landlords of the settlements,

and there has been a tendency to develop these over time, as the practice of constructing rental

housing and selling land parcels continues. It is also noted that building permits in this area are

loose and it is difficult to define the borders of each land parcel to be able to decide the left-over

building rights in the area.

5.4 Findings 1) Comparing findings in the three types of developments, public green area provision is

stressed in new town development areas compared with the other two types of developments.

This can be seen from the percentage of public green areas a new town development should

provide (see 5.1). New town developers also show interest in collaboration to manage green

open space because availability of green areas is considered to be one of the selling points of

Figure-11: Comparison of figure and percentage of built-unbuilt area in Pondok Pucung,

Pondok Aren District in 2004 and 2014

Figure-12: (from left) (a) Condition in densified area of settlement, (b) Access towards

unbuilt area in the inner part of settlement, (c) Condition of unbuilt area in the settlement

(Refer to Figure-11 for location)


new town development. This finding is in line with other research that mentions that the

availability of green areas increases the value of property62)

.

2) An interview with a developer (5.1) indicates that developers want clearer regulation on

public-private partnership in green area provision and management. Although the lack of

regulation that covers partnership in the green areas in Tangerang Selatan provides the

possibility of flexibility through negotiation, its ambiguity can disadvantage one side. Similar

research in Jakarta also indicates the need for clearer regulation on private participation in

public green area provision 49)

.

3) Challenges in public green area provision happen especially in the areas outside the new

town developments. Although small residential areas still provide green areas, the surface area

does not reflect the required target of the national policy (see 5.2). In addition, access is also

limited to residents of the residential development although after the land asset is returned to the

government, its status becomes public land. Unlike new town developments and small

residential developments, organically growing settlements do not specifically have green open

space plans.

4) Building codes are not effective for green area provision in the kampong areas because of the

irregular patterns of land parcels in the kampongs (Figure-11) which result in difficulty in

redistributing the building code when a land parcel is divided. This emphasizes the finding in

4.4, which indicates the difficulty of applying spatial codes within the duality of the Tangerang

Selatan spatial pattern.

6. Recommendations With the main goal to mitigate loss of urban green areas, based on the findings mentioned in 3.3,

4.4, and 5.4, several recommendations are proposed for green area provision in areas in

Tangerang Selatan, both for public and privately-owned land parcels.

6.1 Increasing contribution of privately-owned green areas Findings in Chapter 3 emphasized the challenge for the Tangerang Selatan government to

provide green areas because of the decrease in unbuilt area in the municipality and the low

budget for green area provision. However, findings in Chapter 5 show that private developers in

Tangerang Selatan have an interest in green area provision. This shows a likelihood of

increasing private contributions to provide green areas. Increasing private sector contributions in

green area provision have been applied in Jakarta in the form of Corporate Social Responsibility 49)

. Private sector participants, including developers and investors, could contribute in providing

land and managing green areas. The private sector could profit from the increase in environment

quality and asset value 62)

and obtain a positive company image 49)

.

6.2 Recommendation for regulation 1) Incentives to increase private participation in green area provision

Following the recommendation in 6.1, guidelines on incentives and disincentives are

needed to increase the private sector’s willingness to provide green areas (see 4.4.1). One point

that needs revision is that according to the current regulations, incentives are awarded for

compliance with regulation. If the initial intention of an incentive is to stimulate a greater

contribution than the standard regulation, then incentives should be awarded for contributions

that exceed regulatory requirements 1)

. Following this, it is necessary to find a form of incentive

that can attract private land owners to contribute more land to green area provision, but at the

same time not put too much burden on the government 20)

.


2) Providing clearer regulation

Tangerang Selatan has a set of regulations that consist land use zoning, building codes,

and requirements for residential developments. However, as shown in 4.4, the necessary

detailed spatial plan has not yet been issued and the current procedure to decide building codes

on a parcel of land demands a high input from the Office of Town Planning, Building, and

Settlement because the codes have to be decided for each building project proposal submitted by

land owners. Clearer building regulations and easier access to the regulations could lessen the

burden on government agencies. This action would also support the development of a post-

building checklist (see 4.4.3), which might help control of implementation of the regulations.

3) Data provision for land use control

Although Tangerang Selatan has clearly defined green area targets based on the national

policy, it is not easy to formulate the necessary regulations. As indicated in 4.4.2 and 5.3, the

Tangerang Selatan municipality government does not have data to draft necessary regulations.

This should be obtained by collaboration among different government agencies, both within the

municipality as well as at higher levels of government.

6.3 Recommendation on implementation of green area provisions 1) Providing further guidelines or regulations on public-private collaboration

Following findings mentioned in 5.4.1 and 5.4.2, as well as the recommendation that

private owners make a greater contribution to green area provision (6.1), and in addition to

findings that point out green area provision and management for developers has to be negotiated

(5.4.1), further regulations or guidelines regarding the process or scheme of collaboration

between government and private sector are needed. Although very strict regulations with

sanctions could make developers lose motivation, the same also applies when too many

negotiations need to be made 17)

.

2) Public education on the importance of green areas

Not only the private sector (5.3), but also residents of the kampongs should be

encouraged to have a higher appreciation for a greener environment (5.1). Residents of

Tangerang Selatan showed interest in monitoring development (4.3). This indicates that public

education on the importance of green areas might benefit green area provision, including

compliance with building codes, monitoring non-compliance of land use regulation and

motivation of citizens to make use of unbuilt areas to provide green areas to the municipality.

This point should be combined with recommendations on incentives (6.2.1) and guidelines or

regulations on public-private collaboration (6.3.1).

7. Conclusion Despite the Indonesian national policy to increase urban green areas, implementation of green

area provision at the municipality level still faces impediments. Rapid and uncontrolled growth

such as has occurred in the Tangerang Selatan has caused significant loss of green coverage in

the municipalities. This research has provided an empirical discussion on the enactment of

regulations on green area provision at the municipality level using Tangerang Selatan as a case

study. However, Tangerang Selatan might not be able to fulfill the national target of urban green

areas. Municipalities on the periphery of Jakarta are not ready to implement the national policy

because of insufficient funds, planning and monitoring capabilities. Further, findings in this

research signify the need for public and private sectors to collaborate.


This research shows that developers at different scales in Tangerang Selatan contribute to

green area provision, by compliance with regulations set by the government. Despite this, many

steps still need to be taken to ensure the fulfillment of green areas for sustainability in

Tangerang Selatan. This research was focused on the surface area for green area provision.

However, to ensure a sustainable city, the quality of green areas, as well as access to green areas,

should also be considered.

References

1) Andreoni, J.; Harbaugh, W.; Vesterlund, L. The carrot or the stick: rewards, punishments,

and cooperation. The American Economic Review. 2003, vol. 93, p.893-902.

2) Apriyanto, H.; Eriyanto; Rustiadi, E.; Mawardi, I. Status Berkelanjutan Kota Tangerang

Selatan-Banten dengan Menggunakan Key Performance Indicators (Sustainable Status of

South Tangerang City-Banten Using Key Performance Indicators). Jurnal Manusia dan

Lingkungan. 2015, vol. 22, no. 2, p. 260-270. (in Indonesian)

3) Badan Pusat Statistik Jakarta. Jakarta Dalam Angka 2012 (Jakarta in Figures 2012), 2012

(in Indonesian)

4) Badan Pusat Statistik Jakarta. Jakarta Dalam Angka 2013 (Jakarta in Figures 2013), 2014.

(in Indonesian)

5) Badan Pusat Statistik Kabupaten Tangerang. Kabupaten Tangerang Dalam Angka 1995

(Tangerang Regency in Figures 1995). 1995 (in Indonesian)

6) Badan Pusat Statistik Kabupaten Tangerang. Kabupaten Tangerang Dalam Angka 2005

(Tangerang Regency in Figures 2005). 2005. (in Indonesian)

7) Badan Pusat Statistik Kota Bekasi. Kota Bekasi Dalam Angka 2010 (Bekasi City in Figures

2010). 2010. (in Indonesian)

8) Badan Pusat Statistik Kota Bekasi. Kota Bekasi Dalam Angka 2015 (Bekasi City in Figures


9) Badan Pusat Statistik Kota Depok. Kota Depok Dalam Angka 2010 (Depok City in Figures

2010). 2010 (in Indonesian)

10) Badan Pusat Statistik Kota Depok. Kota Depok Dalam Angka 2012 (Depok in Figures


11) Badan Pusat Statistik Kota Tangerang Selatan. Tangerang Selatan Dalam Angka 2010

(South Tangerang in Figures 2010). 2010. (in Indonesian)

12) Badan Pusat Statistik Kota Tangerang Selatan. Tangerang Selatan Dalam Angka 2012

(South Tangerang in Figures 2012). 2012. (in Indonesian)

13) Badan Pusat Statistik Kota Tangerang. Kota Tangerang Dalam Angka 2010 (Tangerang

City in Figures). 2010. (in Indonesian)

14) Badan Pusat Statistik Kota Tangerang. Kota Tangerang Dalam Angka 2014 (Tangerang

City in Figures 2014). 2014. (in Indonesian)

15) BAPPEDA Kabupaten Tangerang. Kajian Akademis Revisi RTRW Kabupaten Tangerang

(Academic Study of Revision of Kabupaten Tangerang Spatial Plan). 2015. BAPPEDA

Kabupaten Tangerang. 52 p. (in Indonesian)

16) Bolund, P. and Hunhammar, S. Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecological Economics.

1999, vol. 29, p. 293-301.

17) Brukas, V . and Sallnäs, O. Forest management plan as a policy instrument: Carrot, stick or

sermon? Land Use Policy. 2012, vol. 29, no. 3, p. 605-613.


18) Chiesura, A. The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and Urban

Planning. 2004, vol. 68, no. 1, p. 129-138.

19) Delinom, R. M.; Assegaf, A.; Abidin, H. Z.; Taniguchi, M.; Suherman, D.; Lubis, R. F.;

Yulianto, E. The contribution of human activities to subsurface environment degradation in

Greater Jakarta Area, Indonesia. The Science of the Total Environment. 2009, vol. 407, no.

9, p.3129–3141.

20) Direktorat Tata Ruang dan Pertanahan BAPPENAS. Kajian Kebijakan Insentif dan

Disinsentif Tata Ruang dalam Pembangunan Nasional - Laporan Akhir. 2011 (Policy

Studies in Incentive and Disincentive for Spatial Development – Final Report 2011). 179 p.

(in Indonesian)

21) Douglass, Mike. The Environmental Sustainability of Development: Coordination,

Incentives and Political Will in Land Use Planning for the Jakarta Metropolis. Third World

Planning Review. 1989, vol. 11, no. 2, p. 211-238.

22) Firman, T. From “Global City” to “City of Crisis”: Jakarta Metropolitan Region Under

Economic Turmoil. Habitat International. 1999, vol. 23, no. 4, p. 447-466.

23) Gillham, O. “What is Sprawl” from The Limitless City: A Primer on the Urban Sprawl

Debate (2002). The Urban Design Reader second edition. Larice, M. and Macdonald E. eds.

Routledge, 2013, p. 378-398.

24) Goldblum, C. Growth, crisis and spatial change: a study of haphazard urbanization in

Jakarta, Indonesia. Land Use Policy. 2000, vol. 17, no. 1, p. 29-37.

25) Governmental Regulation no. 26/2008 on National Spatial Plan (in Indonesian)

26) Handayani, S. Implikasi UU No. 26 Tahun 2007 tentang Penataan Ruang terhadap

Penyediaan Ruang Terbuka Hijau dan Ruang terbuka Non Hijau di Provinsi DKI Jakarta

(Implication of Law no 26/2007 on Spatial Planning on Green Area Provision in DKI

Jakarta Province). Online Bulletin Tata Ruang. http://penataanruang.pu.go.id/bulletin/

index.asp? (accessed: August 7, 2015) (in Indonesian)

27) Heuken, A. Atlas Sejarah Jakarta (Historical Atlas of Jakarta). CLC, 2014, 144 p. (in

Indonesian)

28) Hudalah, D. and Firman, T. Beyond property: Industrial estates and post-suburban

transformation in Jakarta Metropolitan Region. Cities. 2009, vol. 29, p. 40-48.

29) Irwin, E. G. and Bockstael, N. E. Land use externalities, open space preservation, and

urban sprawl. Regional Science and Urban Economics. 2004, vol. 34, p. 705-725.

30) Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA). JABODETABEK Urban Transportation

Policy Integration Project in the Republic of Indonesia - Final Report. 2012a. Japan

International Cooperation Agency (JICA)

31) Japan International Cooperation Agency. Jabodetabek MPA Strategic Plan: Master Plan for

Establishing Metropolitan Priority Area for Investment and Industry in Jabodetabek Area

in the Republic of Indonesia – Final Report. 2012b. Japan International Cooperation

Agency (JICA)

32) Jim, C. and Chen, W. Assessing the ecosystem service of air pollutant removal by urban

trees in Guangzhou (China). Journal of Environmental Management. 2008, vol. 88, p. 665-

676.

33) Kabisch, N. Ecosystem service implementation and governance challenges in urban green

space planning – The case of Berlin, Germany. Land Use Policy. 2015, vol. 42, p. 557-567.


34) Kirmanto, D.; Ernawi, I. S.; Djakapermana, R. D. Indonesia Green City Development

Program: an Urban Reform. 48th ISOCARP Congress 2012, p. 1-13.

35) Law no. 2/2012 on Land Provision for Public Interest (in Indonesian)

36) Law no. 26/2007 on Spatial Plan (in Indonesian)

37) Lestari, F. Pengelolaan Pemeliharaan Lanskap Kawasan Perumahan Graha raya Kecamatan

Serpong dan Pondok Aren (Management of Landscape Maintenance in Graha Raya,

Serpong District and Pondok Aren District). Undergraduate theses. Institut Pertanian Bogor.

2007, 78 p. (in Indonesian)

38) Local Government Regulation of Tangerang Selatan no. 11/2011 on Mid-term

Development Plan of Tangerang Selatan 2011-2016 (in Indonesian)

39) Local Government Regulation of Tangerang Selatan No. 13/2012 on Environmental

Management (in Indonesian)

40) Local Government Regulation of Tangerang Selatan no. 15/2011 on Spatial Plan of

Tangerang Selatan 2011-2031 (in Indonesian)

41) Local Government Regulation of Tangerang Selatan No. 3/2014 on Implementation of the

Housing and Settlement Area (in Indonesian)

42) Maru, R. and Ahmad, S. Nocturnal Air Temperature Traverses across the City of Jakarta,

Indonesia. Global Journal on Advances in Pure & Applied Sciences. 2014, vol. 02, p. 19-23.

43) McGee, Terry G. The Emergence of Desakota Regions in Asia: Expanding a Hypothesis.

The Extended Metropolis: Settlement Transition Is Asia. Ginsburg, N; Koppel, B; McGee,

T.G. eds. University of Hawaii Press, 1991, p. 3-25.

44) Ministry of Public Works Ministerial Decree no. 20/PRT/M/2011 on Guideline to Draft the

Detailed Spatial Planning and Zoning in Urban/Rural Municipalities. (in Indonesian)

45) Monkkonen, P. Urban land-use regulations and housing markets in developing countries:

Evidence from Indonesia on the importance of enforcement. Land Use Policy. 2013, vol.

34, p. 255-264.

46) Nofalina, Tety. Analisis Ruang Terbuka Hijau Kota Depok Dengan Pendekatan Model

Konservasi Air Melalui Sistem Informasi Geografis (Analysis of Depok Green Open Space

through Water Conservation Modelling Approach). Undergraduate Theses. Bogor

Agricultural University, 2010, 68 p. (in Indonesian)

47) OECD. Structural policy challenges for Southeast Asian, in Southeast Asian Economic

Outlook 2013: With Perspectives on China and India. OECD Publishing, 2013. 122 p.

48) Pancawati, J. Ketersediaan Lahan Serapan Air Di Kota Tangerang (The Adequacy of

Water Recharge Area in Tangerang Municipality). Jurnal Ilmu Pertanian dan Perikanan.

2013, vol. 2, no. 1, p. 11-18. (in Indonesian)

49) Prayitna, A. M. and Sutriadi, R. Kajian Kerjasama Pemerintah dan Swasta dalam

Penyediaan RTH di Jakarta (Assessment on Public Private Partnership on Green Area

Provision in Jakarta). Jurnal Perencanaan Wilayah dan Kota 2 SAPPK. 2014, vol. 3, no. 3,

p. 409-420. (in Indonesian)

50) Presidential Decree no. 54/2008 on Regional Spatial Plan of Jakarta, Bogor, Depok,

Tangerang, Bekasi, and Cianjur. (in Indonesian)

51) PT Jaya Real Property Tbk. Annual Report 2012. PT Jaya Real Property Tbk., 2012. 128 p.

52) Scheer, B. C. “A Crisis in the Urban Landscape,” “The Origins and Theory of Type,” and

“Legitimacy and Control” from The Evolution of Urban Form: Typology for Planners and


Architects (2010). Larice, M. and Macdonald, E. eds. The Urban Design Reader Second

Edition. Routledge, 2013, p. 307-327.

53) Strohbach, M. W.; Arnold, E.; Haase, D. The carbon footprint of urban green space—A

life cycle approach. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2012, vol. 104, no. 2, p. 220-229.

54) Suselo, H. “Jabotabek dan turunannya Sepanjang Sejarah”. Beberapa Ungkapan Sejarah

Penataan Ruang di Indonesia 1948-2000 (“Jabotabek and its Derivatives”. Several

Historical Expressions of Spatial Planning in Indonesia). Direktorat Jenderal Penataan

Ruang Sejarah Penataan Ruang, 2003. http://penataanruang.pu.go.id/taru/sejarah/

sejarah.htm. (accessed: August 5, 2015) (in Indonesian)

55) Suwarli; Sitorus, S.; Widiatmika; Putri, E. I. K.; and Nurani, T. W. Dinamika Perubahan

Penggunaan Lahan dan Strategi Ruang Hijau (RTH) Terbuka Berdasarkan Alokasi

Anggaran Lingkungan Daerah (Studi Kasus Kota Bekasi) (Land Use Dynamics and Green

Area Provision Strategies Based on Budget Allocation: Case Study of Bekasi City). Forum

Pascasarjana. 2012, vol. 35, no. 1, p. 73-52. (in Indonesian)

56) United Nations – Department of International Economic and Social Affairs (UN-DESA).

Population Growth and Policies in Megacities: Jakarta. United Nations, 1989. 54p.

57) Van Melik, R.; Van Aalst, I.; Van Weesep, J. The private sector and public space in Dutch

city centers. Cities. 2009, vol. 26, no. 4, p. 202-209.

58) Winarso, H. and Firman, T. Residential land development in Jabodetabek, Indonesia:

Trigerring economic crisis?. Habitat International. 2002, vol. 26, no. 4, p. 487-506.

59) Winarso, H. Private residential developers and spatial structure of Jabotabek. Chapman, P;

Dutt, A. K.; Bradnock, R. W. eds. Urban Growth and Development in Asia. Aldershot:

Ashgate, 1999. p. 202-245.

60) Winarso, H.; Hudalah, D.; Firman, T. Peri-urban transformation in the Jakarta

metropolitan area. Habitat International. 2015, vol. 49, p. 221-229.

61) World Bank. JAKARTA Urban Challenges in a Changing Climate: Mayors’ Task Force

On Climate Change, Disaster Risk & The Urban Poor. World Bank, 2012. 29 p.

62) Zhang, B.; Xie, G.; Xia, B.; Zhang, C. The effects of public green spaces on residential

property value in Beijing. Journal of Resource and Ecology. 2012, vol. 2, no. 3, p. 243-252.


http://penataanruang.pu.go.id/taru/sejarah/sejarah.htm

http://penataanruang.pu.go.id/taru/sejarah/sejarah.htm

Documents

Planning Implementation for Mitigating Loss of Green Areas