Decentering theory to understand differentiated access: everyday waters in Jakarta, Indonesia

Decentering theory to understand differentiated access:

everyday waters in Jakarta, Indonesia

Journal: International Journal of Urban and Regional Research

Manuscript ID: Draft

Manuscript Type: Article

Please choose one or two subject categories that best

describe the article’s concerns:

7 Theoretical debates & reviews (state, neoliberalism, consumption sector, new industrial spaces), 6 Urban planning, transport, security, infrastructure

Keywords: decentered urbanism, infrastructure, urban water supply, Jakarta

Which world region(s) does the article focus on? Select up to

five.:

Global South < World Region, Developing World < World Region, Asia < World Region, Southeast Asia < World Region

Which country/countries does the paper focus on? Select up

to five.: Indonesia < Asia (Southeast) < Countries

Which city/cities does the article focus on? List up to five

cities.: Jakarta

Peer Review Copy

International Journal of Urban and Regional Research

1

(DRAFT 17 March 2015)

Decentering theory to understand differentiated access: everyday waters in Jakarta, Indonesia

Michelle Kooy UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education Westvest 7 2611 AX Delft, the Netherlands

[email protected]

Indrawan Prabaharyaka Collaborative Urban Learning

Jakarta , Indonesia [email protected]

Abstract This article examines access to urban water supply in Jakarta, Indonesia in light of recent scholarly debates over Northern versus Southern perspectives on urbanization. We argue that a decentered theory of urbanization is necessary in order to fully analyze the relations of power that structure access to urban water supply in Jakarta, and suggest this is also true for other cities of the global South. We first review literature of Southern urbanisms to illustrate how a decentered perspective complicates analyses of the politics of access to water informed by northern norms of urban infrastructure ideals, and challenges the application of metaphors like archipelagoes of service provision or splintered networks. Applying this perspective to Jakarta, we reveal different dimensions of socio-spatial differentiation in access to water supply, both beyond and within the centralized networked system. Specifically, we examine politics of access and differentiation within the two most prevalent forms of water supply in Jakarta: groundwater and bottled water. We argue that a decentered conceptual framework is needed to capture the more complex realities of access to waters and infrastructures in cities in the South. Key words: decentered urbanism, infrastructure, urban water supply, Jakarta

1. Introduction The project of decentering urban theory has been well underway for over a decade. Significantly influenced by Jennifer Robinson's original critiques of the global cities (Robinson, 2002, 2006), and Ananya Roy's work on the 'worlding' of cities, production of space, and dynamics of exurbanity (Roy, 2005, 2009), the application of partial, biased, and imperious, assumptions of northern-centric urban theory to the emergent urbanisms of the global South has by now been shown to provide incomplete, irrelevant, or detrimental analyses (Alsayyad and Roy, 2006; Amin, 2006; Bayat, 2000; Roy and Ong, 2011; Wu, 2010). One feature of Southern cities which has often been diagnosed and addressed in reference to Northern experiences is urban water supply. In many analyses Southern cities are still often portrayed as ''lacking" and deficient in the absence of urban infrastructural ideals (Robinson, 2006), as if the Northern experience still sets the desired design, configuration, and technology for how to achieve equity of access, or ecological sustainability. It is this northern standard of universal provision through a large scale centralized networked system which has remained most visible to

Page 1 of 23

Peer Review Copy


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

2

urban scholars—either in its presence or absence—despite the continuing reality that centralized networked infrastructure systems are indeed only very partial, or absent in many urban spaces of the South (WHO/UNICEF, 2014). Reflecting this implicit northern experience, the vast majority of scholarship concerned with the politics of the city and distribution of (water) resources is centered on the northern urban infrastructural ideal. Analysis of the relations of power shaping urban environments to produce uneven outcomes for residents has remained focused on one particular type of urban water infrastructure—the centralized, networked system (Bakker, 2003; Gandy, 2006; Kooy and Bakker, 2008; Loftus, 2006; Smith and Ruiters, 2006; Swyngedouw, 1997; Swyngedouw et al., 2002). Even when northern perspectives on urban infrastructure access are provincialized to explain Southern experiences they have still remained focused within the centralized networked system, excluding a range of decentralized infrastructure providing the majority of water in most Southern cities. We see this, for example, in the analysis of socio-spatial inequalities in access to water, which has been interpreted to be the result of the same social-political processes influencing urban infrastructure networks of Northern cities (Graham and Marvin, 2001). As others have noted, the application of this northern based framework over-estimated the relevance of neoliberalism in shaping conditions of access (Parnell and Robinson, 2012), and was not able to capture the degree to which it produced ambivalent or contradictory results (Boland, 2007; Gopakumar, 2014; Kooy and Bakker, 2008). The analytical centrality given to the northern infrastructural ideal has meant that concern with, and explanations for, differentiated access to urban water have largely been confined to the binary of connection/lack of connection to the centralized infrastructure. Differentiation within and beyond network access has been a peripheral focus; rarely acknowledged, let alone theorized by urban scholars. This subsumes the high degree of heterogeneity within the centralized system, ignores other important dimensions of differentiated access external to the network, and obscures the social relations and socio-political processes which mediate access to the forms of water supply providing the majority of water in most Southern cities. Given the circulation of the majority of urban water in Southern cities is provided through means other than urban infrastructural ideals, scholars across a range of disciplines are beginning to challenge the explanatory power of Northern frameworks and shift the analytical focus on urban waterscapes (Jaglin, 2014; Meehan, 2013, 2014; Ranganathan, 2014a;b; Schwartz et al., 2015). However, this body of work has until recently has remained in the margins of urban theory, not challenging dominant explanatory frameworks, and unable yet to move beyond the particular or ideographic. We aim to build on this body of work and connect it to existing debates on decentering urban theory to emphasize the need for new—decentered—perspectives to inform analyses of urban water supply. We hope to inform the agenda for future research on cities, and their waters, using frameworks which displace the centrality of the network in defining and explaining socio-spatial inequities, or differentiation in access. We develop this argument through a case study of Jakarta, Indonesia. The focus on Jakarta is relevant given the amount of scholarly, practitioner and activist attention on urban water supply, following its highly publicized private sector partnerships with international water companies (Harsono, 2003, 2004). The city and its chronic challenges with water provision have been well documented—its experiment with what was the largest to date privatization, subsequent impacts, and current remunicipalization process—but even research conducted to provincialize and correct northern explanatory frameworks has still hinged analysis of inequities upon the centralized network (cf Kooy and Bakker 2008). This has, as the discussion above indicates, left much of how residents in the city obtain water—and the socio-political processes and relations shaping their options—unexplained. Jakarta is a city where access to clean water is still highly inequitable, but current explanatory frameworks are inadequate in light of ongoing dynamics: coverage of the centralized

Page 2 of 23

Peer Review Copy


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

3

piped network is static, and growth in connections is declining, while water purification technologies like reverse osmosis and desalinization are becoming household items, and bottled water consumption continues to increase across all socio-economic classes. Research in Jakarta was conducted over a period of one year, from 2014-2015. City wide trends in water supply were drawn from secondary sources of government agencies, supplemented by in-depth interviews with formal water providers and regulatory agencies, water entrepreneurs, bottled water business owners and associations. Investigation into the internal differentiation of cost, water quality, and service quality within different forms of provision, and tactics to secure water from various sources relied on interviews with different actors in the water sector, and six months of ethnographic research in lower income sub-districts in Jakarta involving in depth interviews, participant observation, and focus group discussion.1 The paper proceeds as follows: Section 2 reviews the recent debates in decentering urban theory to show how concepts of everyday urbanism and informality usefully complicates current analyses of urban water infrastructure, and provide a new perspective on socio-spatial differentiation of access in cities of the South. In Section 3 we turn to consider the specific case of Jakarta, Indonesia. We illustrate how a decentered analysis of access to water in Jakarta brings into focus new dimensions of differentiation, and reveals other relations of power shaping uneven access to water resources in the city. In Section 4 we summarize the key contributions of these arguments both for understanding access to water in Jakarta, and other cities of the global South and suggest questions and pathways for future scholarship on water and cities in the South.

2. Decentering urban water supply: ordinary and everyday flows The past decade has seen the emergence, and consolidation, of decentered perspectives on urbanization. The re-theorization of cities—what they are, how they work, and what drives their changes—has emerged from various parts of the globe, following the theorization of urbanization processes based on northern experiences, shown to be either insufficient, or detrimental—to explain and address the urban realities of southern cities (Appadurai, 2001; Chatterjee, 2008; Myers, 2006; Parnell and Robinson, 2012). Scholars are now moving beyond criticism to build (what is argued to be) a more relevant set of concepts and explanations for the future urban world, based on the diverse experiences of the global South (Myers, 2014; Oldfield and Parnell, 2014; Pieterse, 2010; Roy, 2009). In this paper, we explore relevant concepts from decentered urban theory to explain access to urban water supply in Jakarta. How does a decentered approach explain the ways in which relations of power structure access to water resources; what patterns of socio-spatial differentiation emerge? To do this, we first review the criticism of previous analytical frameworks to outline the need for a new ''gaze'' and a shift in focus for urban water supply. Second, we outline new perspectives offered within emergent Southern urbanisms, identifying where decentered urban theory offers useful way forward. Ordinary waters and everyday infrastructure Recent critiques of northern centered urban theory highlight the need to rescue the role of non-networked water infrastructure from the margins of urban theory. Mary Lawhon and colleagues at

1 Penjaringan & Pademangan in North Jakarta, Pulogebang and Gedong/Ciracas in East Jakarta, Rawa Buaya in West Jakarta.

Gedong and Ciracas are two Sub-districts that lie on the Southern part of Jakarta where the quantity and quality of groundwater in the areas are considerably better than the Northern part of Jakarta. Penjaringan, Pademangan, Pulogebang and Rawa Buaya lie on the Northern part of Jakarta, close to the coastal area where groundwater quality is overall saline.

Page 3 of 23

Peer Review Copy


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

4

the African Center for Cities (Lawhon et al., 2014) and Abdoumalique Simone (2004, 2011) have revived the original call from Robinson (2002) to examine ''ordinary cities'' in regards to the role of urban infrastructure. Noting the central role given to urban infrastructure networks in explaining processes through which urban environments were shaped, politicized, and contested, Lawhon et al. (2014) highlight how this leaves much of the South unexplained. They argue that such a singular focus on centralized urban infrastructure networks to analyze material flows and processes that shape the city, omits more than it includes, given the relative paucity of formal infrastructure in cities of the South. The myopic focus on centralized networks as an artifact of power relations has meant that even scholars who are provincializing northern theory to explain South have still centered analyses within northern norms. While scholars have given needed attention to disparities in access to clean water in many cities of the South by highlighting post-colonial legacies in planning (Gandy, 2006; McFarlane, 2012), or tracing the neoliberalization of urban water supply in the South (Bakker, 2005, 2007; Loftus, 2009), analysis of the ways in which relations of power shape the urban environment to produce uneven outcomes for residents has remained focused on one particular type of urban water infrastructure - the centralized, networked system. As such, they do not go far enough to fully explore - but only tangentially acknowledge more than one urban infrastructural ideal (Boland, 2007) or overstate the standardization and homogeneity within the formal system (Gopakumar, 2014). Where internal differentiation within the centralized network itself is analyzed (Jaglin, 2008), service differentiation has remained primarily as a topic of discussion amongst utilities and practitioners, but not substantially queried or theorized by urban scholars (Jaglin, 2014). As a result, our understanding of how relations of power structure access has largely looked only at access to the centralized piped network—but not within this network, or outside this network. This has ignored the differentiation of access within the centralized network systems, and has underplayed, or persistently seen as temporary alternatively networked forms of supply—which for many cities have been the dominant forms and sources of provision. Some exceptions to this include work done on the co-production of water services, which acknowledges the internal differentiation within centralized networks, the overlapping and integration of various forms of provision, and the relations of power which mediate different forms of access within piped water supply (Cheng, 2014; Misra, 2014; Ranganathan, 2014a; Schwartz et al., 2015; Kooy, 2014). However, attention to flows outside centralized infrastructure networks (although often providing the raw water which is distributed) is uncommon. Political ecologies of urban groundwater, or wastewaters, are under analyzed, despite the significance of these flows in producing uneven outcomes for residents, and their impact on access to clean water in the city (Birkenholtz, 2015; McDonald et al., 2014). Thus, even as scholars are now beginning to engage with how relations of power structure access to differentiated forms of supply within the network system, analysis still rarely extends to consider the relations of power shaping other flows in the urban environment and how they determine differentiated access to water supply2. Moving forward, to understand how urban environments in the South are shaped, politicized, and contested, our analysis needs to open up the possibility for a broader range of non-networked urban experiences. One way to do this is through the detailed, ethnographic research of everyday practices of people: an everyday urbanism. Lawhon et al. (2014) describe this approach as a more process based understanding of the urban environment, where we start with looking at everyday practices of cities rather than starting with a theory of urbanization, as illustrated by the ethnographic accounts by feminist political ecology and/or postcolonial urban anthropology (Birkenholtz, 2015; Simone, 2004; Truelove, 2011). This strand of the emergent urbanisms described by Pieterse (2012) is relevant for rethinking the dynamics of urban water in Southern cities and builds on the above

2 There is a notable exception in Gandy’s (2008) analysis on water fragmentation in Mumbai.

Page 4 of 23

Peer Review Copy


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

5

critiques in regards to an over emphasis on centralized infrastructure systems. Everyday urbanism can be used to sharpen analyses of power relations: they are still seen as relationally constructed and enacted, but by looking at everyday practices rather than infrastructural artifacts, can better complicate the workings of power through the (post)colonial state, neoliberal actors, and urban ecologies. Put more simply, we can do more to examine how water actually flows into households—via the various networks and infrastructural additions, and what social relations shape these strategies used to secure water. When examining how water actually flows through the landscape and/or through the infrastructure systems, it also becomes possible to see other forms of infrastructure, beyond steel and concrete, to include fields of action and social networks (Roy 2009). Specifically, Simone (2004; 2011) argues for a shift in focus from the technological, to recognizing people as a central means through which materials—including water—flow in many cities. This attention to everyday practices, and people as infrastructure who shape, connect, or fragment water flows and urban spaces, can make more visible the ways in which cities in the majority world have been built during the last decades. While the impact of these relations remain relatively invisible within urban scholarship (Simone, 2014), they are visible within even a cursory glance at urban water in many Southern cities, reflected in the high rates of Unaccounted-For-Water (UFW) and illegal connections brokered through community plumbers, unofficial utility employees, and in the ways access is negotiated by residents (Bjorkman, 2012; Truelove, 2011). Informal practices and fractal splintering Taken together with the call to analyze an everyday urbanism, the study of informal practices mediating access both within and outside networked infrastructure is useful to correct a northern focus. Roy's insights on the ways in which informalisation serves as the mode of urbanization in the global South holds significant implications for understanding urban water governance and its relationship to urban space. As Roy highlights, informality is not an unregulated domain, but is structured through various forms of extra-legal, social and discursive regulation, and it is internally differentiated (2009). Informality lies within the scope of the state, rather than outside it, and is used by the state as a flexible and opaque governance technique to create zones of exception within which illegal activities can be tolerated. Thus, looking at informal practices of the state itself, reveals relations of power according to which some practices are more or less legal than others; some practices are tolerated, and less visible or amenable to sanction or development programming, while other informal practices become targets for sanctioning. Likewise, the informal practices mediating access to different qualities, quantities, cost prices, of water both within and outside of networked infrastructure points to other relations of power shaping flows and material processes in the urban environment. Through this, the politics of access to water supply in cities of the global South becomes more visible across the urban waterscape. The politics of water are evident in the variety of practices used by different urban populations to establish, and keep secure, forms of access; the ways in which these practices are alternately sanctioned or tolerated by various forms of authority. Roy's characterization of informality as internally differentiated also challenges (northern) metaphors of socio-spatial inequality. Specifically, it enables us to reconsider the Southern geographies of urban fragmentation, and relations between urban water, spatial fragmentation, and differentiation. As Roy notes, "the splintering of the urbanism does not take place at the fissure between formality and informality but rather, in fractal fashion, within the informalized production of space" (Roy, 2009: 826; emphasis added), along with, we would argue, the informalized production of urban water. In other words, urban space is not fragmented according to the coverage of the centralized networked water infrastructure (contra Marvin and Graham, 2001; Bakker, 2003). Rather, urban space is fragmented according to the informal practices that secure various levels of access within the networked spaces, and external to it. Within networked urban spaces, different informal practices -

Page 5 of 23

Peer Review Copy


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

6

with different types of sanctions or tolerance - are used to secure better or worse levels of access, providing for high degree of differentiation internal to the network structure. As indicated by the results of the ethnographic fieldwork, outside of the centrally networked space, variations in groundwater quality, exposure to water contamination through flood events and wastewater discharge differentiate urban space, and their respective degrees of water security are a direct product of informal transactions surrounding land development and groundwater abstraction. While this analytic of informality reveals new geographies of fragmentation by decentering the networked infrastructure, it also illuminates the degree of connectivity between urban spaces. This nuances the ''evident'' spatial differentiation presented through maps of centralized infrastructure coverage. The metaphor of archipelagoes, or islands of service coverage, has been widely adopted in describing the state of networked water supply in the global South and—while not an incorrect representation of the low levels of formal access to piped water services in some urban areas—it conveys a degree of fragmentation that is inconsistent with actual reality. In reality, looking at actual flows of water, we see how informal practices internal to the networked system—those both tolerated and sanctioned by the state—have enabled both physical and relational connections to be made across into non-networked urban spaces (Meehan, 2013). In other flows of water—for example groundwater and wastewater—it is the connections across space through underground aquifers and surface water rivers/channels that need to be attended to: spread of contaminated flows, and impact of one set of users shaping access for others. In this review we highlighted two key points as to how decentered perspectives on urbanization aid in understanding realities of water supply in the global South. First, decentered perspectives shift our attention to the flows and processes outside of a centralized infrastructure system, and their significance in shaping uneven access to water supply. This brings into view different forms of differentiation, beyond the binary of residents who are, or who are not, connected to the piped water system. Second, attending to these flows by looking at the every day practices of residents highlights different relations of power, and their effects, as they mediate access to various sources. We turn now to apply these perspectives to the case of Jakarta to identify different forms of differentiation in access to different waters, and the politics of the city that this reveals. Perhaps ironically, we begin by looking at the piped network. However, we do so in order to foreground its limited role in providing the city with water, and hence its limited explanatory power when it comes to the politics of access and politics of the city.

3. Jakarta Jakarta's centralized piped water supply network has a long history, with its colonial origins in the 1870s, but by design or by default has never served the majority of the city's residents, and has never provided the majority of the city's water needs (Kooy, 2008). Service coverage of the network is now at a historical high of 60%, but the piped water supply system still struggles to provide more than 50% of the water needs in the city (Badan Regulator Penyediaan Air Minum, 2014, 2015).3 The growth of the network system has been in decline since 2006, after peaking during the 1990s, and 60% of the new piped water customers from 2008-2012 have been disconnected (Badan Regulator Penyediaan Air Minum, 2013, 2014).4

3 Current estimates of service coverage range from 53 to 59%, depending on how many people are assumed served per

connection, and which population figures are used. Jakarta Dalam Angka records 9.6 million people (2013), Population and Civil Registration Agency records 10.18 million people (2011), the population data used by Palyja and Aetra is 9.3 million (2013). 4 Within 5 years, from 2008 to 2012, there were 155,799 new customers but only 36% that were actually connected since

the rest 64% were disconnected within the same period (Badan Regulator Penyediaan Air Minum, 2013).

Page 6 of 23

Peer Review Copy


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

7

For those residents who are connected to the piped network, quality and quantity of service varies widely.5 Water pressure in the northern areas of the city results in service of less than half the day. Water quality at point of use is also variable, depending on related factors of water pressure, and distance from primary and secondary pipelines. These service limitations for continuity of supply and water quality provide some explanation for why those not connected to the centralized network are not only the poor. Middle class—and lower middle class—consumers represent the largest number of customers of both water service providers. Analysis of the numbers of customers per tariff band reveals that it is the very poor—but also the rich—who are not using the city's piped water supply.6 Notably, despite the "lack" of piped access to a centralized system, the city's water supply has rarely been a point of mass protest able to engage a wide spectrum of urban residents. There is consistent grumbling over poor service quality and persistent suspicion over foreign management, but the issue of urban water supply has not managed to ignite the citizens of Jakarta in the same way as traffic congestion, flooding, solid waste, or drainage, which became political platforms for Jakarta governors (Simone, 2012, 2013). This is because residents in all areas of the city, across all socio-economic classes, have always relied on combinations of water sources to fill daily needs. Groundwater is withdrawn manually or via electric pump from a shallow well or deep aquifer and distributed to individual households, or a small private network system for high end residential or commercial users. Spring water is delivered by water trucks from peri-urban sources and provides bulk water to private residential networks, as well as the commercial and industrial sector. Groundwater, spring water, and piped water sources can be treated via high or low technologies ranging from reverse osmosis to ceramic filters and point of use systems. Bottled water for drinking is produced for both ends of the market and is the most common drinking water source for the majority of residents—rich and poor alike. Despite this historical heterogeneity of water sources, analysis of the politics of the city and water access has centered on the formal operation of the piped water supply through the city's centralized network. Part of this focus is explained by the city's dramatic experiment with private sector participation. In the late 1990s private sector contracts were given for the eastern and western halves of the city, to UK and French companies respectively. These contracts were highly problematic, initiated under Suharto's era of crony capitalism, and both UK and French partners have withdrawn.7 Within this era, the majority of concerns over equity of access have hinged on whether or not the private sector operators (or the public owners before them) have been able to extend network coverage to the low income households (Bakker, 2003; Hadipuro, 2010; Padawangi, 2011; Prabaharyaka, 2014; Shofiani, 2003). Concerns over the politics of access to clean water have thus been focused in the large scale centralized infrastructure systems—with the socio-spatial differentiation described as archipelagoes of service with islands of non-connected low income residents (Bakker 2003), or splintered networks dividing urban spaces and residents along binaries of connected/not connected to piped water services (Graham and Marvin, 2001; Kooy and Bakker, 2008). However, as earlier argued, the examination of centralized networked infrastructure can only ever provide a partial understanding of the city and its politics of access to water. How can we explain politics of access for the other 50% of water in the city, in a way that is other than result of a lack of an infrastructural ideal?

5 Less than half of piped water meets standards set for water pressure, with 47% in western half, and 44% in the eastern

half of the network customers provided with more than 0.75 atm. While 62% of customers in the eastern part of the city get 24 hours service, only 45% do in the western (Badan Regulator Penyediaan Air Minum, 2014; 2015). 6 In the eastern half of the city, the largest number of customers are middle and lower-middle income households (21 + 46%), only 10% of customers in the upper tariff bands (Badan Regulator Penyediaan Air Minum, 2014; 2015). This mirrors the situation in the western half, where the majority of piped water customers are middle and lower-middle income households (12 + 21%) (ibid). 7 See Harsono (2003;2004) for more details.

Page 7 of 23

Peer Review Copy


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

8

We have underscored the limitations of the piped network in providing water to the majority of the city and its residents in order to call attention to the forms of access that are not included within an analysis centered within the centralized network infrastructure. We turn now to look at the politics of access for two water sources which are more widespread than piped water in Jakarta: groundwater, and bottled water (Table 1). We then return to the network to examine the internal differentiation usually subsumed within the binary of connection vs. not connected. INSERT TABLE 1 HERE (Domestic water use in Jakarta) Groundwater Groundwater has been the most consistently preferred source of water for domestic, industrial and commercial use since the colonial era. Indeed, groundwater provided the water source for the very first colonial urban water infrastructure—the system of artesian wells and subsequent growth of spider like distribution networks in 1870s (Kooy, 2008). Today, more than half the city continues to rely on groundwater for the bulk of its water needs, with 63% of residents using groundwater for cleaning, washing, and bathing (Badan Pusat Statistik, 2012). Analyses done by the Jakarta Water Resources Council (Dewan Sumber Daya Air Jakarta) estimated that groundwater supplies more than half the city's water needs, with annual demand of 1 billion m3, 630 billion m3 is from groundwater, and the remaining 370 billion m3 from piped water (Kompas, 2013). The arguments of the colonial engineers as to why this form of supply is preferred were similar to reasons of today: convenience of access, and related to that: per unit volume cost. However, while the water itself is free to access for domestic use (tariffs only for deep well extraction used by commercial and industrial users; see Table 1), there are huge variations in the costs of extraction, treatment, and distribution, dependent upon where one is in the city, and where one lives (residential housing estate, private housing, low income communal housing). Water tables are—by and large—higher and easier to access in the northern half of the city, lower in the south, with similar geographic division for saline and sweet water.8 However, groundwater quality is also affected by less seemingly neutral criteria such as density of population, and wastewater treatment—or its absence. As less than 2% of the city is covered by a centralized sewerage network, and the other 98% using no treatment (direct discharge into drains), soak pits, or septic tanks, wastewater flows follow gravity and contaminate groundwater sources which are drawn from high water tables (Douglass, 2005; PAL Jaya, 2012). The Regional Environmental Management Agency documents that coliform is presents in 90% of the shallow groundwater samples—which indicates wastewater contamination (Badan Pengelolaan Lingkungan Hidup DKI Jakarta, 2013). Contamination affects urban poor settlements more than middle/upper income residential areas (Agtini et al., 2005; Alberini et al., 1996; Sima et al., 2013; Simanjuntak et al., 2004). Better off households have the means to drill into deeper groundwater sources to avoid contamination, but also a lower density of housing, and properly reinforced septic tanks (vs. soak pits, which allow black water to overflow directly into open drains, or soak directly into shallow groundwater) that reduce likelihood for shallow groundwater contamination. Thus, while access to groundwater is in theory universal, with no water charges for domestic extraction, in reality the ability to pay for different types of drilling, the depth of water table that one can afford to drill to, the variations in raw water quality, and the ability to afford different methods of water treatment is socially stratified. For example, low income households living in a stable but

8 Research by Kagabu et al. (2012) suggests that salinization of groundwater sources is the product of over-extraction, as

the falling groundwater table results in a horizontal influx of sea water, with a parallel vertical flux of groundwater from shallower to deeper layer. The horizontal flux is rampant in the Northern part which borders the sea, although it has been reported that the depression area of observed groundwater potentials are moving toward the central part of Jakarta.

Page 8 of 23

Peer Review Copy


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

9

informal settlement on the eastern edge of the city near one of the city's solid waste depots (Pulogebang) use shallow groundwater as one of their water sources for bathing and cleaning, but are only able to afford manual drilling and have improvised their own filtering mechanism to give a basic primary treatment to the water (removing large particles and sediment). Residents report that the water is yellowish, and sometimes causes skin rashes, indications of high iron content, amongst other contaminants from solid waste leachate. This is a common experience across many low income settlements in the city. In contrast, households living on single family plots or in middle class and upper income housing estates can afford to drill deeper into the water table, and their groundwater infrastructure includes electric pumps, elevated roof tanks for gravity flow, and combinations of primary and secondary treatment systems (sand filters, reverse osmosis, ultraviolet irradiation). For example, elite households who live in upper income housing estates in northern areas of Jakarta, where water is not only contaminated with e-coli or leachate but also brackish or saline, can drill 100 meters or more into the aquifer, and afford technologies to provide higher quality membrane based treatment (desalinization or reverse osmosis). This internal differentiation in domestic systems of groundwater extraction, treatment, and distribution is rarely examined, except to note the diversity, but it reflects the uneven environmental burden borne by lower income communities who live on the most marginal land and degraded urban spaces, and who can least afford to use strategies of compensation. Thus, there is also a highly fractured socio-spatial differentiation in access to groundwater. Ability to access this water source is also highly political, mediated by relations of power which structure land use, affordability and location of urban housing, and (lack of) enforcement of environmental regulations (waste disposal, wastewater treatment) which might ameliorate contamination of groundwater sources. INSERT TABLE 2 HERE (Differentiation in domestic groundwater) The biophysical properties of groundwater shaping conditions of access, namely, the degree of salinity —are also political, and the product of formal and informal practices by industrial users and the provincial administration responsible for regulating industrial use. Groundwater quality has become progressively more saline over the last three decades because of over extraction from the deep groundwater aquifers (Kagabu et al., 2012), but this is not a power neutral process. Over extraction has been mediated by political economic strategies of the national government from 1960-1998 supporting private sector growth, and despite regulations in 1998 enacting a volumetric tax on commercial groundwater abstraction, this policy was only enforced from 2009 (TIFA Foundation & Amrta Institute, 2013; Braadbaart, 2007; Colbran, 2009). Since 2009 the use of deep groundwater by industrial and commercial users is reported to be declining, but the unreported consumption amongst industrial/commercial users still very high. Notably, the reported reduction in volume of deep groundwater sources has not been replaced by a concomitant increase in piped water consumption (Head of Investment Division of PAM Jaya, 2014). Some industrial users report one well, but operate two or more, and extract more than is licensed. Research conducted by an environmental watchdog institute reports total registered commercial/industrial groundwater use at 7.86 m3/year, but estimated unregistered groundwater consumption at 100.07 m3/year (TIFA Foundation & Amrta Institute, 2013).9 In 2014, the city's newest governor has stated that the illegal use of groundwater had reached "alarming levels" (Tarrant, 2014). Despite the attention on Jakarta's groundwater by natural scientists (Abidin et al., 2008; Djaja et al., 2004; Murakami et al., 2005), social scientists and urban scholars have yet to pay serious scrutiny to the governance of groundwater and its political ecology. This reflects that more generally, unlike for

9 This is consistent with practices documented throughout the 1980s and 1990s, which reported the number of

unregistered wells and unrecorded volume of abstraction as twice the amount of registered consumption (Braadbaart and Braadbaart, 1997).

Page 9 of 23

Peer Review Copy


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

10

peri-urban and rural contexts, urban groundwater systems have not been prominent in analyses of urban environments and access to water (Birkenholtz, 2015). This is unfortunate, as salinization, over extraction, and both surface water and groundwater contamination are not neutral processes and produce uneven outcomes for lower income residents. Given their significance in shaping the urban environment, these flows need to be recognized, and included within understanding the politics of the city, and the politics of resource distribution. Decentering the analysis of urban water supply can, we argue, help to make these hydrological processes more visible as we recognize their significance in terms of urban water balance. A decentered analysis can also make groundwater more explicitly socionatural, like has been done for piped water, as we pay attention to and analyze the social relations shaping this source. Bottled water Since 2008, the majority of residents in Jakarta rely on bottled water for drinking. This trend reflects the evolution of water security strategies used by households, in which different sources of different qualities and cost prices are combined according to need: water for drinking, cooking, bathing, laundry, cleaning. Increasingly, Jakarta residents—more so than the rest of the country—are opting to purchase bottled water for their drinking supply.10 In 2007, 52% of residents drank bottled water; in 2013 this was 69% (Figure 1). Indonesia is now the second largest market for bottled water in Asia, second only to China (Warburton, 2011). The lack of attention to a significant trend in the city's water supply can be partly attributed to the fact that access to piped water supply does not decrease consumption of bottled water. Subsequently, the increased consumption of bottled water is not visible within analyses which focus on extending access of the centralized piped network systems. Residents who are connected to the city's piped network still rely on bottled water. A random stratified sample survey of 189 households in three low income sub-districts in Northern and Southern part of Jakarta (see Table 3) shows that most households are bottled water customers (77.78%). In the Northern research areas, where groundwater is brackish or saline and piped water therefore the single bulk water source, 43% of households were formally connected to the centralized network, and consumed a form of bottled water for drinking. In the Southern research sites where groundwater is of a higher quality, 46% of residents formally were connected to piped water, and consumed a form of bottled water for drinking. in which the majority them have piped water connection (41.8%). However, like for groundwater, bottled water use is also highly differentiated, with different costs and water qualities. The bottled water network is also highly fragmented, with different raw water sources providing bulk water to different providers, different treatment processes used, and different regulations required for water quality control. We provide a brief description of this differentiation and fragmentation, and identify the practices and relations of power shaping these outcomes. INSERT TABLE 3 HERE (Combinations of water for General Use (Bathing/Laundry) and Drinking/Cooking used by Jakarta Residents There are two very different types of bottled water, which have different markets, business models, and regulations for water quality. First there is the name brand bottled water, sold in 0.6, 1L, or 19L refillable dispensers. Name brand bottled water accounts for 48% of consumption in Jakarta (Badan Penelitian dan Pengembangan Kesehatan, 2014), and involves international and national conglomerates such as Nestle, Pepsi Cola, Coca Cola, Asahi, and Salim group subsidiary of Indofood. The French owned Aqua-Danone has 60% of the entire Indonesian market, and in 2010, had 11 springs, extracting 6 billion liters per year (Warburton, 2011) representing the scale of their

10

Nationally the population reported to use bottled water for drinking water source is 30%, as compared to 68% of Jakarta residents (Ministry of Health, 2013).

Page 10 of 23

Peer Review Copy


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

11

operations. The other 52% of the bottled water consumption in Jakarta is provided by decentralized water treatment vendors known locally as air isi ulang, or refill water vendors (Badan Penelitian dan Pengembangan Kesehatan, 2014). There are 500 registered refill operators in each of the five districts of the Jakarta Metropolitan Area (North, South, Central, East, West), and there are another 300 unregistered operators estimated in each area (Secretary General of APDAMINDO, 2014). In total, there are approximately 3000-4000 refill water operators in Jakarta; this excludes refill operators in surrounding municipalities (Tangerang, Bogor, Depok, Bekasi), which have thousands more (ibid). The per unit cost differences between these two bottled water options are significant as branded bottled water is around three times more expensive than non-branded bottled water (Table 1); together they serve both ends of the market of 10 million residents. The quality of water sold is regulated for both types of bottled water; the Ministry of Health Regulation No. 736/MENKES/PER/VI/2010 for the standard of drinking water quality monitoring applies to both branded and refill water. However, there are key differences in the regulation of these standards. First, as prescribed by the Ministry of Industry Regulation No. 49/M-IND/PER/3/2012, for branded bottled water there is an Indonesian National Standard (SNI) for biochemical composition, but no such national standard applies to refill water quality. Second, the regulation of these standards is different between the forms of bottled water. Branded bottled water producers must test once a week for e-coli bacteria, once every three months for chemical and physical components and a radioactivity analysis once every four years, as stipulated by the Ministry of Industry and Trading Decree No. 705/MPP/KEP/11/2003. Following the regulation by the Ministry of Health as mentioned above, refill bottled water producers must, theoretically, test once a month for e-coli bacteria and twice a year for chemical and physical tests. Regulation of bottled water production is much more easily enforced, given centralized production. 11 In addition, as the differentiation between these bottled waters was intended to strengthen the position of branded bottled water, building on higher quality standards and regulations for drinking water quality (Hadipuro 2010), there are clear incentives to maintain superior quality.12 Bottled water cannot compete with refill water on price, but bases its advantage on guaranteed quality. In contrast, given the decentralized production and sheer number of refill water producers, it is extremely difficult to enforce regulation of the water quality monitoring. Interviews with the Secretary General of APDAMINDO (2014) stress their efforts at self-regulation (providing training, approval of business operators), but also admit it is extremely difficult to control. Therefore, while refill operators argue they have incentives to keep their customers satisfied and provide properly treated water, the oversight is lacking and proper cleaning of filters and media more voluntary.

“Those six filters, they are cheap, only ten thousand (rupiahs) each. We checked them all and replaced the dirty. For example, there are three filters dirty, then we replace those three. I taught my employee, which filter should be replaced where. If we replace all filters it will cost us, so we just switched them around. The same goes with cleaning the container. We keep it free from any moss. We check it regularly. I believe there is only a slight chance because we have water delivery once every three days. It is impossible for moss to grow up.” (A Refill Water Depot Owner, Kampung Gedong, 2014)

The result of these different regulations has produced different levels of security as to the quality of water sold. There are various reports in the press regarding the results of randomized sample monitoring, warning on the quality of refill bottled water (Kurniatri, 2011; Noorastuti, 2009;

11

Monthly for microbiological and physical parameters, every 6 months for chemical parameters. The monitoring is supposed to be done internally and externally via appointed/certified laboratories. (Peraturan Menteri Kesehatan 736 Year 2010) 12

The drafting of the different regulations was lobbied by the Association of Bottled Water Producers (see Hadipuro, 2010).

Page 11 of 23

Peer Review Copy


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

12

hukumonline, 2013). In 2008, the Municipality of West Jakarta conducted a survey of 640 depots and found 60% of the samples suspected to be contaminated by coliform bacteria (Noorastuti, 2009). In 2010, the National Institute of Health Research and Development tested 121 samples of refill water from Greater Jakarta, and found 23% of samples did not meet the regulation for water quality in terms of biophysical and chemical parameters (Kurniatri, 2011). The health risk for low income households relying on these sources is therefore much greater than households who can afford branded bottled water. However, despite these warnings from the Ministry of Health, interviews with low income consumers and refill operators indicate they are looking largely for absence of colour, odour and taste—as well as assurance given from word of mouth—rather than guarantees from Ministry of Health or known technologies. The quality of water sold by refill vendors is often ascribed to the raw water source, rather than the quality of the treatment process; with spring water (air pegunungan) sources preferred by consumers and used as the basis of advertising. Other notable differences between these forms of bottled water relate to the formal and informal practices mediating the supply chain and final sales. The branded bottled water industry appears to be more formally operated, with access/extraction of raw water sources governed by contracts and financial transactions, and sales to consumers based on formal regulations of water quality. Although there are undoubtedly informal relations between multinationals, national conglomerates, and the government facilitating business operations, they are not visible within the business operations. Refill bottled water operations appear much differently, as contracts, agreements, price setting between the owners and operators of various stages of a complex supply chain involve much more than market transactions based on financial calculations. We see this in how one large refill operator relying on raw water supply from Cijeruk spring has negotiated access with the public water company in Bogor, which manages the piped infrastructure delivering water to Cijeruk from Cisalak Spring. Likewise, a smaller refill operator in Gedong, who is not involved in raw water production, has developed patronage relationships with a provider to guarantee the delivery of spring water via tankers. These contracts are based on personal relations, and mediated by local community leaders and middle-men, dictated by the micro-politics of the neighbourhood/kampung. Internal Differentiation: Piped Water Complementing these sources, but not replacing them, is piped water from the city's centralized network. The piped networks of the two private operators in the east and western halves of the city collectively cover more than 50% of the urban area, and report to serve more than half of the population (Badan Regulator Penyediaan Air Minum, 2014). However, this is not the urban infrastructural ideal with standardized services providing 24 hour service of potable water equally across all urban spaces. Rather, we briefly highlight here the highly differentiated access within the piped water network, as various social relationships and material technologies are used to gain, and keep secure, access to piped water supply. Almost every step in the delivery of piped water supply can be negotiated through formal and informal practices of utility employees, local neighbourhood leaders, community plumbers, local government officials, and neighbours (Prabaharyaka 2014). Residents can–and do–utilize existing social relations and political connections to negotiate the initial registration and tariff classification to establishing a connection, location of the connection (secondary vs. tertiary pipeline), water pressure, water meter operations, and the bill payment. Most of these practices have been developed in response to the formal/informal barriers or problems in accessing piped water, but the same strategies are not available to all residents. Informal practices depend on an ability to draw on socio-political capital, and related to that one's financial capital to pay for formal or informal transactions.

Page 12 of 23

Peer Review Copy


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

13

Currently, piped water can be accessed through a direct connection (legally or illegally), through a neighbour's connection (household re-sale), or through small-scale private providers drawing from a public hydrant or public toilet block (distribution via a self made above ground spaghetti network or via water vendor). Formal application and installation of a legal household connection can be a very simple process for those household living within the existing network area, and who possess proper documentation (identity cards, land registration). However, even households who meet these requirements need to mobilize additional infrastructure, and personal relationships, in order to mitigate service interruptions or low pressure. The majority of households with access to piped network water use water storage in underground reservoirs to provide a buffer supply, and pump to a roof tank. The size and configuration of the water storage facilities are a function of socio-economic class and related spatial dimensions. Availability and ownership of space both on the ground and on the roof are not inconsiderable assets in high density housing areas, where multiple households live under one dwelling, and density of population reaches up to 127,000/km2 (RW 12 Penjaringan, 2014). Continuity of supply is therefore highly variegated within the network and stratified according to one's ability to invest in additional infrastructure, and access to sufficient space to locate it on. A second strategy to combat low pressure and intermittent supply from a legal household connection is the use of electric pumps to ''pull'' water from the network pipes. This practice is technically illegal, but is normalized by widespread use and is accepted practice by the water operators. Some households in areas of extremely low pressure which necessitates constant use of the pump will operate two, thus relieving the stress on the motors, and reducing the need to replace a pump as it wear out. However, this entails additional financial costs for the pump itself, as well as for the ongoing use of electricity, and increases the incidences of "running meters", whereby air is pulled in through the pipes, thus recording a higher rate of water consumption, and increasing the household water bill. The ''running meter'' syndrome is subsequently dealt with through a series of additional informal practices, in which households adapt the meter in a variety of ways to reduce the speed of its rotation. A third strategy to combat intermittent supply is to bypass the tertiary network, and receive supply from a main pipeline. This practice can be negotiated both formally and informally. Government offices and individuals with political connections can negotiate this formally with the water operators, as was the case for a North Jakarta sub-district government office. Other residents rely on illegal tapping into pipelines via transactions with staff from the water utilities, or local community plumbers. The scale of informal practices involved in securing access to continual water supply is reflected in the documented cases of water theft via legally registered connections. The water operator in the western half of the city recorded 4,163 cases of water theft over 1.5 years from households who were registered with legal connections (Palyja, 2014; Tempo, 2014). Another set of practices producing highly differentiated access within network water supply are used by households unable to secure a formal/legal connection. According to official estimate, there are around 1 million households, or around 3 million people, who live on illegal lands such as riverbanks and canals, which is equal to about one-third of Jakarta’s population (Badan Pengelolaan Lingkungan Hidup DKI Jakarta, 2013). This number is however discounted since it is based on ownership of Jakarta identity cards therefore unofficial estimate suggest larger number of such residents of around 5 million people—or about half of total Jakarta residents (Riyandi, 2014). Those households, who do not have Jakarta residential identity cards or who are living on unregistered land, are technically not eligible for connection to the water network. Nevertheless, this too can be negotiated according to one's socio-political capital, spatial location, and financial ability. First, households can obtain special documentation from the sub-district government authorities (Kelurahan) to legitimate their land occupancy. This formal transaction is informally negotiated via local neighbourhood leaders, and very much depends on social networks between the individual, local leaders, and sub-district leader. With this document, the private operators have connected households who do not have formal land

Page 13 of 23

Peer Review Copy


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

14

registration documents (Palyja's Water for All Manager, 2015). However, this special dispensation is largely reserved to residents who live along main access roads, thus limiting the length and cost of tertiary pipe required to connect to the system. In turn, many of these legally connected households will sell water on to their neighbours, either via above ground self made piped systems, or via mobile vendors. Prices for direct household connections are negotiated informally, based on personal relationships, and can be between USD 3.79-5.30 per month for flat rate use.13 Ethnographic field research and interviews with the private water operators document suggest that this is a common practice in informal urban settlements, particularly in Northern and Eastern areas of Jakarta where groundwater is brackish or saline leading to higher dependence on piped water for bulk water sources, and high incidences of illegal connections being made (Palyja's Water for All Manager, 2015). The water operators are currently trying to initiate a delegated management model in many of these areas, estimating that in the western half of the city alone there are up to 30 areas, representing between 1,500-3,000 residents, who are not eligible for formal household connections to the piped network and are subsequently currently accessing piped water through their neighbour's connection. In other areas of the city, particularly on the edges of existing network coverage, much of network water supply is controlled by local power brokers (preman) who run highly profitable operations of mobile vendors, and providing public toilet blocks with self-built networks of piped water. Some of these water businesses are legal, albeit still highly exploitative, charging USD 114 to connect other households with a subsequent tariff of USD 0.38 /m3, or selling water to individual households via mobile vendors for between USD 0.19-0.30/19 litres However, many are illegal, with water drawn from illegal connections made to the network. The scale of these practices is revealed in the persistently high rates of unaccounted for water, which remains around 50%. The regulatory authorities claim water theft accounts for 34% of water loss on a daily basis, or up to 50% of total non-revenue water (Aditya, 2015; Kompas, 2014; Nawali, 2015). Recently, over January 2013 - July 2014 the water operator in the western half of the city recorded 1112 such illegal connections (Palyja's Water for All Manager, 2015). The practices described above are not exhaustive, and much more could be discussed in how these practices are enacted, and relationships mobilized. This we leave for a subsequent article. Here we highlighted a range of practices to reflect the ''everyday'' experiences of accessing water in the city, and indicated the scale at which they occur. We also call attention to how these practices are differentiated across urban space and populations; informal practices are only required by some, and informal practices are available to some are not to others. Collectively, these sets of practices work to differentiate water service within the network coverage.

4. Conclusion Previous analyses of the politics of access to water in Jakarta have provided various explanations for the current conditions of the urban waterscape. However, they have all focused on the city's piped water network and as such provide only partial explanations of the politics of water access, remaining blind to the differentiation across the waterscape, and subsequently silent on the relations of power structuring access to all sources of water relied on by households. In this paper we have called attention to how northern norms for urban infrastructural ideals continue to (mis) inform analyses of the politics of the urban environment in cities of the global South. This is problematic in cities where these centralized networked infrastructure systems are

13 On monthly basis, The price paid by the households with a formal connection to city water network on average would be USD 5 for more than 10 times volume, see Table 1.

Page 14 of 23

Peer Review Copy


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

15

only partial at best. We illustrated why this is problematic in particular for understanding the politics of access to urban water supply, as analyses of relations of power shaping resource distribution have focused heavily on the role of the centralized piped water network but ignore the non-networked, or differently networked, water sources, technologies, relations, practices providing the majority of urban residents. We have shown how, subsequently, characterizations of, and explanations for, inequitable access have hinged on the binary of connected vs. not connected to centralized piped water systems, and thus failed to see and take seriously both the differentiated access beyond this network, and differentiated access to various qualities and quantities of water internal to the network supply. Therefore, as we and others have argued, centering analytical frameworks within the piped network infrastructure leaves the relations of power shaping access to non-networked sources unexamined, and has limited attention on the non-networked water flows that are just as, if not more, more significant in terms of producing uneven outcomes between urban residents. We have used the case study of Jakarta, to illustrate the effects of this northern bias and to highlight the need for decentered perspectives on urban waterscapes in the global South. We have shown just how much of the city is left unexplained if analyses of access focus on the centralized piped network, and we identified the relations of power which are not brought into perspective or analyzed as a result of this centered focus. Specifically, we documented the reality of groundwater and bottled water use, which represent more significant water sources both in terms of percentage of the population, but also in terms of uneven outcomes across society. Yet, these sources are overlooked by explanatory frameworks informed by northern urban infrastructural norms - they are simply not visible within an analysis located within centralized networks. Subsequently this leaves unaddressed a huge dimension of the politics of water access in this city: how and why is access differentiated in these flows, with what effect on urban poverty, relations between urban space, and the sustainability of the urban environment? We have not undertaken to answer all of these questions for Jakarta in this paper. What we have done, is to highlight the ways in which non-networked, or differently networked, flows are also significant in terms of producing differentiated access and uneven outcomes for urban residents. We called attention to how fragmentation is much more complex than a splintering between access/non-access across socio-spatial divides. Rather, it includes differentiation in terms of technologies used, social relations employed, and informal practices mediating access to various qualities and different securities of access. This, we argue, must be included in any analysis of access to urban water and politics of resource distribution in Southern cities, but requires new conceptualizations of urbanism and urbanization in the south. In this, we add our voice to others who call for the opening up of new imaginaries for urban water provision, for both North and South, where heterogeneity of water sources is recognized as normal - and perhaps even resilient - rather than deviant. Acknowledgement Research in Jakarta was funded by the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, through the DGIS-UNESCO Institute of Water Education Programmatic Cooperation fund. Comments received from Kathryn Furlong and Rivke Jaffe on previous drafts of the manuscript helped to improve our arguments. All errors of course remain with the authors. References ABIDIN, H. Z., ANDREAS, H., DJAJA, R., DARMAWAN, D. & GAMAL, M. 2008. Land subsidence

characteristics of Jakarta between 1997 and 2005, as estimated using GPS surveys. Gps Solutions, 12, 23-32.

Page 15 of 23

Peer Review Copy


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

16

ADITYA, R. 2015. Berbincang Santai dengan Dirut PAM Jaya, Sriwidayanto Kaderi. Indopos, 12 January 2015.

AGTINI, M. D., SOEHARNO, R., LESMANA, M., PUNJABI, N. H., SIMANJUNTAK, C., WANGSASAPUTRA, F., NURDIN, D., PULUNGSIH, S. P., ROFIQ, A. & SANTOSO, H. 2005. The burden of diarrhoea, shigellosis, and cholera in North Jakarta, Indonesia: findings from 24 months surveillance. BMC infectious diseases, 5, 89.

ALBERINI, A., ESKELAND, G. S., KRUPNICK, A. & MCGRANAHAN, G. 1996. Determinants of diarrheal disease in Jakarta. Water Resources Research, 32, 2259-2269.

ALSAYYAD, N. & ROY, A. 2006. Medieval modernity: on citizenship and urbanism in a global era. Space & Polity, 10, 1-20.

AMIN, A. 2006. The good city. Urban studies, 43, 1009-1023. APPADURAI, A. 2001. Deep democracy: urban governmentality and the horizon of politics.

Environment and Urbanization, 13, 23-43. BADAN PENELITIAN DAN PENGEMBANGAN KESEHATAN 2014. Riset Kesehatan Dasar 2013. Ministry

of Health. BADAN PENGELOLAAN LINGKUNGAN HIDUP DKI JAKARTA 2013. Status Lingkungan Hidup. BADAN PUSAT STATISTIK 2012. Survey Sosio-Ekonomi Nasional. BADAN REGULATOR PENYEDIAAN AIR MINUM 2013. Evaluasi Pelanggan Baru Periode Tahun 2008-

2012 BADAN REGULATOR PENYEDIAAN AIR MINUM 2014. Knowledge Base: Sistem Penyediaan Air Minum

di DKI Jakarta. BADAN REGULATOR PENYEDIAAN AIR MINUM 2015. Evaluasi Kinerja Pelayanan Air Minum Tahun

2014. BAKKER, K. 2003. Archipelagos and Networks: Urbanization and Water Privatization in the South. The

Geographical Journal, 169, 328-341. BAKKER, K. 2005. Neoliberalizing nature? Market environmentalism in water supply in England and

Wales. Annals of the association of American Geographers, 95, 542-565. BAKKER, K. 2007. Trickle Down? Private sector participation and the pro-poor water supply debate in

Jakarta, Indonesia. Geoforum, 38, 855-868. BAYAT, A. 2000. From Dangerous Classes' to Quiet Rebels' Politics of the Urban Subaltern in the

Global South. International sociology, 15, 533-557. BIRKENHOLTZ, T. L. 2015. Recentralizing groundwater governmentality: rendering groundwater and

its users visible and governable. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 2, 21-30. BJORKMAN, L. 2012. Liquid Legalities: the fluid politics of informality in Mumbai's waterscape.

Informal Space in the Urban Waterscape. Delft: UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education. BOLAND, A. 2007. The Trickledown Effect: Ideology and the Development of Premium Water

Networks in China’s Cities. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 31, 21-40. BRAADBAART, O. 2007. Privatizing water: The Jakarta concession and the limits of contrac. In:

BOOMGAARD, P. (ed.) A world of water: Rain, rivers and seas in Southeast Asian histories. Leiden: KITLV Press.

BRAADBAART, O. & BRAADBAART, F. 1997. Policing the urban pumping race: industrial groundwater overexploitation in Indonesia. World Development, 25, 199-210.

CHATTERJEE, P. 2008. Classes, capital and Indian democracy. Economic and Political Weekly, 89-93. CHENG, D. 2014. The persistence of informality: small-scale water providers in Manila's post-

privatisation era. Water Alternatives, 7, 54-71. COLBRAN, N. 2009. Will Jakarta be the next Atlantis? Excessive groundwater use resulting from a

failing piped water network. Law, Environment and Development Journal, 5, 18-37. DJAJA, R., RAIS, J., ABIDIN, H. Z. & WEDYANTO, K. Land subsidence of Jakarta metropolitan area.

Proceedings of the 3rd FIG Regional Conference for Asia and the Pacific, 2004. 3-7. DOUGLASS, M. Globalization, mega-projects and the environment: Urban form and water in Jakarta.

International Dialogic conference on Global Cities: Water, Infrastructure and the

Page 16 of 23

Peer Review Copy


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

17

Environment, the UCLA Globalization Research Center–Africa, Los Angeles, May, www. globalization-africa. org/papers/58. pdf, 2005.

GANDY, M. 2006. Water, sanitation and the modern city: Colonial and post-colonial experiences in Lagos and Mumbai. Human Development Report Office (HDRO), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).

GOPAKUMAR, G. 2014. Experiments and Counter-Experiments in the Urban Laboratory of Water-Supply Partnerships in India. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38, 393-412.

GRAHAM, S. & MARVIN, S. 2001. Splintering urbanism: networked infrastructures, technological mobilities and the urban condition, Psychology Press.

HADIPURO, W. 2010. Indonesia’s water supply regulatory framework: Between commercialisation and public service. Water Alternatives, 3, 475-491.

HARSONO, A. 2003. Water and politics in the fall of Suharto. Center for Public Integrity (http://www. icij. org).

HARSONO, A. 2004. From the Thames to the Ciliwung. Available: http://www.waterjustice.org/uploads/attachments/pdf79.pdf.

HEAD OF INVESTMENT DIVISION OF PAM JAYA. 2014. RE: personal communication. HUKUMONLINE. 2013. Ribuan Depot Air Minum Isi Ulang Belum Berizin. Available:

http://www.hukumonline.com/berita/baca/lt511e2fbaecccb/ribuan-depot-air-minum-isi-ulang-belum-berizin [Accessed 14 February 2014].

JAGLIN, S. 2008. Differentiating networked services in Cape Town: Echoes of splintering urbanism? Geoforum, 39, 1897-1906.

JAGLIN, S. 2014. Rethinking urban heterogeneity. The Routledge Handbook on Cities of the Global South, 434.

KAGABU, M., SHIMADA, J., DELINOM, R., NAKAMURA, T. & TANIGUCHI, M. 2012. Groundwater age rejuvenation caused by excessive urban pumping in Jakarta area, Indonesia. Hydrological Processes, n/a-n/a.

KOMPAS. 2013. Terlalu lama Jakarta menahan dahaga. Kompas, 26 December 2013. KOMPAS. 2014. Jakarta Utara Dominasi Kasus Pencurian Air. Kompas, 23 December 2014. KOOY, M. 2008. Relations of Power, Networks of Water: Governing Urban Waters, Spaces, and

Populations in (Post)Colonial Jakarta. Doctor of Philosophy, University of British Columbia. KOOY, M. 2014. Developing informality: The production of Jakartaʼs urban waterscape Water

Alternatives, 7, 54-71. KOOY, M. & BAKKER, K. 2008. Splintered networks: The colonial and contemporary waters of Jakarta.

Geoforum, 39, 1843-1858. KURNIATRI, A. A. 2011. Quality of refill drinking water in Greater Jakarta in 2010. Health Science

Journal of Indonesia, 2, 77-80. LAWHON, M., ERNSTSON, H. & SILVER, J. 2014. Provincializing urban political ecology: Towards a

situated UPE through African urbanism. Antipode, 46, 497-516. LOFTUS, A. 2006. Reification and the dictatorship of the water meter. Antipode, 38, 1023-1045. LOFTUS, A. 2009. Rethinking political ecologies of water. Third World Quarterly, 30, 953-968. MCDONALD, R. I., WEBER, K., PADOWSKI, J., FLÖRKE, M., SCHNEIDER, C., GREEN, P. A., GLEESON, T.,

ECKMAN, S., LEHNER, B. & BALK, D. 2014. Water on an urban planet: Urbanization and the reach of urban water infrastructure. Global Environmental Change, 27, 96-105.

MCFARLANE, C. 2012. Rethinking informality: Politics, crisis, and the city. Planning Theory & Practice, 13, 89-108.

MEEHAN, K. 2013. Disciplining de facto development: water theft and hydrosocial order in Tijuana. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 31, 319-336.

MEEHAN, K. 2014. Tool-power: Water infrastructure as wellsprings of state power. Geoforum, 57, 215-224.

MISRA, K. 2014. From Formal-Informal to Emergent Formalisation: Fluidities in the Production of Urban Waterscapes. Water Alternatives, 7.

Page 17 of 23

Peer Review Copy


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

18

MURAKAMI, A., ZAIN, A. M., TAKEUCHI, K., TSUNEKAWA, A. & YOKOTA, S. 2005. Trends in urbanization and patterns of land use in the Asian mega cities Jakarta, Bangkok, and Metro Manila. Landscape and Urban Planning, 70, 251-259.

MYERS, G. 2014. From expected to unexpected comparisons: Changing the flows of ideas about cities in a postcolonial urban world. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 35, 104-118.

MYERS, G. A. 2006. The unauthorized city: Late colonial Lusaka and postcolonial geography. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 27, 289-308.

NAWALI, F. 2015. PDAM Jaya Teken MoU dengan Kejaksaan Tinggi Tekan Pencurian Air Bersih. rmol.co, 11 February 2015.

NOORASTUTI, P. T. 2009. Air Minum Isi Ulang Tercemar Bakteri E-coli. VIVA, 6 January 2009. OLDFIELD, S. & PARNELL, S. 2014. From The South. The Routledge Handbook on Cities of the Global

South, 1. PADAWANGI, R. 2011. Building markets through quenching thirst: Clean water supply for the urban

poor in Jakarta and Manila. New Approaches to Building Markets in Asia. Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore. .

PAL JAYA 2012. Concept and Strategy for Wastewater Management of Jakarta. Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Bandung Institute of Technology.

PALYJA'S WATER FOR ALL MANAGER. 2015. RE: personal communication. PALYJA 2014. Stop Pencurian Air. In: JAYA, P. L. (ed.). PARNELL, S. & ROBINSON, J. 2012. (Re) theorizing cities from the global South: Looking beyond

neoliberalism. Urban Geography, 33, 593-617. PIETERSE, E. Cityness and African urban development. Urban Forum, 2010. Springer, 205-219. PIETERSE, E. 2012. High Wire Acts: Knowledge Imperatives of Southern Urbanisms [Online]. Available:

http://jwtc.org.za/salon_volume_5/edgar_pieterse.htm [Accessed 25 June 2013]. PRABAHARYAKA, I. 2014. Institutional Pathologies and Urban Water Access: A Case Study of Jakarta.

Master of Philosophy, Monash South Africa. RANGANATHAN, M. 2014a. 'Mafias' in the Waterscape: Urban Informality and Everyday Public

Authority in Bangalore. Water Alternatives, 7, 89-105. RANGANATHAN, M. 2014b. Paying for pipes, claiming citizenship: political agency and water reforms

at the urban periphery. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38, 590-608. RIYANDI, S. 2014. 5 Juta warga DKI tinggal di tanah ilegal. www.merdeka.com, 3 March 2014. ROBINSON, J. 2002. Global and world cities: a view from off the map. International journal of urban

and regional research, 26, 531-554. ROBINSON, J. 2006. Ordinary cities: between modernity and development, Psychology Press. ROY, A. 2005. Urban informality: toward an epistemology of planning. Journal of the American

Planning Association, 71, 147-158. ROY, A. 2009. Strangely familiar: Planning and the World of Insurgence and Informality. Planning

Theory, 8, 7-11. ROY, A. & ONG, A. 2011. Worlding cities: Asian experiments and the art of being global, John Wiley &

Sons. RW 12 PENJARINGAN 2014. Profil Rukun Warga 12 Kelurahan Penjaringan Kecamatan Penjaringan

Jakarta Utara. Kelurahan Penjaringan. SCHWARTZ, K., TUTUSAUS LUQUE, M., RUSCA, M. & AHLERS, R. 2015. (In) formality: the meshwork of

water service provisioning. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 2, 31-36. SECRETARY GENERAL OF APDAMINDO. 2014. RE: personnal communication. SHOFIANI, N. E. 2003. Reconstruction of Indonesia’s Drinking Water Utilities Assessment and

Stakeholders’ Perspectives of Private Sector Participation in the Capital Province of Jakarta. SIMA, L. C., NG, R. & ELIMELECH, M. 2013. Modeling risk categories to predict the longitudinal

prevalence of childhood diarrhea in Indonesia. The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene, 89, 884-891.

SIMANJUNTAK, C. H., PUNJABI, N. H., WANGSASAPUTRA, F., NURDIN, D., PULUNGSIH, S. P., ROFIQ, A., SANTOSO, H., PUJARWOTO, H., SJAHRURACHMAN, A. & SUDARMONO, P. 2004. Diarrhoea

Page 18 of 23

Peer Review Copy


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

19

episodes and treatment-seeking behaviour in a slum area of North Jakarta, Indonesia. Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition, 119-129.

SIMONE, A. 2004. People as infrastructure: intersecting fragments in Johannesburg. Public culture, 16, 407-429.

SIMONE, A. 2011. The ineligible majority: Urbanizing the postcolony in Africa and Southeast Asia. Geoforum, 42, 266-270.

SIMONE, A. 2012. Water, Politics and Design in Jakarta: A Conversation with Abdoumaliq Simone. Scapegoat.

SIMONE, A. 2013. Cities of uncertainty: Jakarta, the urban majority, and inventive political technologies. Theory, Culture & Society, 0263276413501872.

SIMONE, A. 2014. ‘We are here alone’: the ironic potentials and vulnerabilities of mixed (Up) districts in Central Jakarta. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38, 1509-1524.

SMITH, L. & RUITERS, G. 2006. The public/private conundrum of urban water: a view from South Africa. In The Nature of Cities: Urban Political Ecology and the Politics of Urban Metabolism Eds N Heynan, M Kaika, E Swyngedouw (Routledge London) pp, 191-207.

SWYNGEDOUW, E. 1997. Power, nature, and the city. The conquest of water and the political ecology of urbanization in Guayaquil, Ecuador: 1880-1990. Environment and planning A, 29, 311-332.

SWYNGEDOUW, E., KAIKA, M. & CASTRO, E. 2002. Urban water: a political-ecology perspective. Built Environment (1978-), 124-137.

TARRANT, B. 2014. Special Report: In Jakarta, that sinking feeling is all too real. Reuters. TEMPO. 2014. Jumlah Kasus dan Modus Pencurian Air PAM. Tempo, 2 September 2014. TIFA FOUNDATION & AMRTA INSTITUTE 2013. Pencurian air tanah massal di Jakarta. TRUELOVE, Y. 2011. (Re-) Conceptualizing water inequality in Delhi, India through a feminist political

ecology framework. Geoforum, 42, 143-152. WARBURTON, E. 2011. Bottled Water – Big Business in Indonesia. Available:

http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2011/09/12/bottled-water-big-business-in-indonesia/ [Accessed 25 June 2014].

WHO/UNICEF 2014. Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation 2014 Update. WU, F. 2010. Gated and packaged suburbia: Packaging and branding Chinese suburban residential

development. Cities, 27, 385-396.

Page 19 of 23

Peer Review Copy


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

Table 1. Domestic water use in Jakarta, in comparison with Commercial/Industrial use

Water Source Category % of population Unit cost price (USD)

0-10 m3 11-20 m3 >20 m

3

Piped water

2A1 = very simple

household

54-59%

(washing/bathing)

0.0808 0.0808 0.1212

2A2 = simple household 0.2731 0.3615 0.4231

2A3 = middle household 0.3769 0.4615 0.5731

2A4 = above middle

household 0.5250 0.6269 0.7538

0-250 m3 251-750 m

3 >750 m

3

Groundwater Domestic (non-commercial) 63% (washing/bathing) 0 0 0

(within piped

water network

coverage)

Small commercial 3.904 4.083 4.242

Small industry 5.743 6.013 6.282

Large commercial 6.686 7.045 7.404

Large industry 8.077 8.525 8.974

(outside piped

water network

coverage)

Small commercial 2.558 2.737 2.855

Small industry 4.397 4.667 4.936

Large commercial 5.340 5.699 6.058

Large industry 6.731 7.179 7.628

Bottled water branded bottled water 33% (drinking/cooking) >46.15 per m3

non-branded (refill) water 35% (drinking/cooking) >15.38 per m3

Note: USD 1 = IDR 13,000

Source: Table by authors, information drawn from BPLHD, 2013; JWSRB, 2014; and field interviews.

Page 20 of 23

Peer Review Copy


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

Table 2. Differentiation in domestic groundwater

Drilling

Method Depth

Borehole

Construction Cost

Abstraction Method

and Costs

Treatment

Method and

Costs

Distribution

Less than USD 228;

payment often in

lump-sum

Manual: bucket and

rope

None, or point

of use: boiled,

ceramic filter

starting from

USD 11.4, or

chlorine

Used at

source or

manual with

bucket Manual

Less than 20

meters

Manual: hand-pump

(colloquially known

as 'dragon' pump)

Pump price;

low quality = USD

11.5;

medium quality =

USD 23;

premium quality =

USD 77

Household

piped water

system

Machine

assisted

More than 20

meters

4" pipe = USD 13 /

meter

5" pipe = USD 16 /

meter

6" pipe = USD 23 /

meter

Jet-pump price; low

quality = USD 115;

medium quality =

USD 307; premium

quality = USD 615

None, or point

of use: boiled,

ceramic filter,

or chlorine

Household

piped water

system

Reverse

Osmosis (RO)

starting from

USD 140

Digital RO

starting from

USD 1150

Source: table by authors, with information drawn from multiple sources

Note: Different degrees of salinity - from brackish to sweet, determines depth of well and type of treatment

required. Residents in the northern, saline, part of the city can still access groundwater, but need to rely on

more expensive treatment options - like the desalinization plants, or reserve osmosis systems used in high end

residential complexes along the city's waterfront like Pantai Mutiara and Pantai Indah Kapuk.

Page 21 of 23

Peer Review Copy


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

Table 3. Combination Strategy for General Use (Bathing/Laundry) and Drinking/Cooking of Jakarta Residents

Combination Strategy % of Northern Jakarta HHs % of Southern Jakarta HHs

Piped Water only 10.59% 4.81%

Piped Water + Bottled Water 40.00% 21.15%

Piped Water + Refill Water 2.35% 17.31%

Piped Water + Bottled Water + Refill Water 1.18% 2.88%

Water Resale (Nyelang) only 7.06% 0.00%

Water Resale + Bottled Water 27.06% 0.00%

Water Resale + Refill Water 10.59% 0.00%

Water Resale + Bottled Water + Refill Water 1.18% 0.00%

Groundwater only 0.00% 19.23%

Groundwater + Bottled Water 0.00% 25.96%

Groundwater + Refill Water 0.00% 5.77%

Groundwater + Bottled Water + Refill Water 0.00% 0.96%

Groundwater + Piped Water 0.00% 0.96%

Groundwater + Piped Water + Bottled Water 0.00% 0.96%

TOTAL 100.00% 100.00%

Source: Survey done by authors from 189 households from Penjaringan, Gedong, and Ciracas

Page 22 of 23

Peer Review Copy


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

2007 2010 2013

Figure 1. Households Percentage According To Drinking Water

Preference

(source: Ministry of Health, 2007; 2010; 2013)

Bottled Water

Refill Water

Piped Water

Protected Groundwater

Page 23 of 23

Peer Review Copy


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

Decentering theory to understand differentiated access: everyday waters in Jakarta, Indonesia

Documents

Transcript of Decentering theory to understand differentiated access: everyday waters in Jakarta, Indonesia