Environment and Urbanization Asia-2010-Soemarno-209-22.pdf

http://eua.sagepub.com/Environment and Urbanization Asia

http://eua.sagepub.com/content/1/2/209The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/097542531000100207

2010 1: 209Environment and Urbanization AsiaIspurwono Soemarno

A 'Simple' Solution Proposal for Riverbank Settlement Problems in Surabaya

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

National Institute of Urban Affairs

can be found at:Environment and Urbanization AsiaAdditional services and information for

http://eua.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://eua.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://eua.sagepub.com/content/1/2/209.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Nov 16, 2010Version of Record >>

by nrao potturi on July 9, 2013eua.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://eua.sagepub.com/

http://eua.sagepub.com/content/1/2/209

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://www.niua.org/

http://eua.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://eua.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://eua.sagepub.com/content/1/2/209.refs.html

http://eua.sagepub.com/content/1/2/209.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml


A ‘Simple’ Solution Proposal for Riverbank Settlement Problems in Surabaya

Ispurwono Soemarno

Abstract

In most large cities of developing countries, rapid urbanization has created many problems concerning the uncontrolled development of informal settlements. Some urban migrants select riverbanks for their settlements because these areas are accessible with very low costs and are strategically located to areas that can support their economic activities. The rapid development of these settlements is supported by the weak control of local authorities.

This kind of development has implications for the safety and security of the environment. The uncontrolled development of riverbank settlements could narrow the river and increase the chance of flooding. Riverbank settlements could reduce the river water velocity, resulting in flood control distur-bance. They could also cause disruption in river maintenance such as difficulty in deepening the river due to limited available space.

In Surabaya, the local government has been making an effort to formulate appropriate policies to deal with riverbank settlements. The local government commissioned a study on riverbank settlements in 2002. The aim of the study was to understand how riverbank settlements developed, the social economic profile of riverbank residents, the residents’ perception on land tenure, relocation, and so on. The research was done through field observations, respondent identification, interviews with the respondents and aerial photograph support. The research findings and recommendations provided the local government with basic inputs for their policies on riverbank settlements. Reaching an understanding with the riverbank residents was crucial for the successful implementation of the policy.

Keywords

rapid urbanization, uncontrolled development, riverbank settlements

Introduction

During the period 1960–90, the urban population in South, South-east and East Asia increased by 560 million people and is predicted to increase by around another 1450 million people during 1990–2020 (ESCAP, 1997).1 So, by the year 2025, most Asians will be urban dwellers. The cities become sources of economic development and national savings, and urban productivity becomes crucial to national devel-opment (Harris, 1992). In developing countries, where cities often double in size and population within

Environment and Urbanization ASIA 1(2) 209–222

© 2010 National Institute of Urban Affairs (NIUA)

SAGE PublicationsLos Angeles, London,

New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC

DOI: 10.1177/097542531000100207http://eua.sagepub.com

Article



210 Ispurwono Soemarno

Environment and Urbanization ASIA, 1, 2 (2010): 209–222

a decade, land becomes the most critical problem and becomes an important factor in urban development (Dunkerley, 1983). The population of Surabaya itself in 1980 was 2,017,527 and in 2000 became 2,599,796 persons (Surabaya, in figures, 2002). It showed an annual population growth of 1.27 per cent during 1980–2000. Total area of Surabaya is about 327 km².

Rapid urbanization has resulted in increase in the demand for urban land, mainly for settlement pur-poses. Very often, it has to be met by converting rural land situated at the periphery of existing built-up areas. This expansion is mostly accompanied by an increase in the economic value of the more central locations. Unfortunately, local governments are usually not prepared with necessary regulations for rapid urban development, including urban spatial development planning. Urban land policies are frequently prepared on a piece-meal basis in reaction to specific demands from interest groups or as a reaction to particular urban land problems (ESCAP 1997; Firman, 1998), like the squatter settlements.

Squatter settlements are settlements where the land is occupied illegally. They are considered as infor-mal settlements as they are built through informal process such as on unclear land status, informal sub-division of land and no building permit. They are mostly located in marginal or environmentally risky land such as along railway tracks, riverbanks, drainage channels or in land whose ownership is unclear. The common process of these settlements usually started with the establishment of temporary dwellings by a few families on vacant land. As time passes with no eviction occurring, some other families join them and build their own dwellings. By the time the government realizes the circumstances, the settlement is already so large that the social cost of the eviction will be much higher than the legal cost.

In 2002, the Laboratory for Housing & Human Settlements of Architecture Department at Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember (ITS), Surabaya, had the intention to study the riverbank settlement in Surabaya. The proposal of this study was in line with the planning of Water Resources Office (Dinas Pengairan) of East Java Province to widen the Surabaya River (Kali Surabaya) in solving flooding prob-lems in Surabaya. Funding for this study was made available through Human Settlements Office (Dinas Permukiman) of East Java Province.

This article describes the above study and is divided into three parts. The first part describes general condition of riverbank settlement along Kali Surabaya where this study was carried out. The second part describes survey preparation and the analysis of surveys conducted at the above location. Finally, this article concludes with the results of the study and implications for future development of riverbank set-tlements at Kali Surabaya.

General Condition of Riverbank Settlement along Kali Surabaya

The growth of urban settlement plays an important role in urban development as it usually covers a large part of urban areas. Most developing countries are characterized by high-income settlements being located in prime locations of the city, complete with all necessary urban services, while the low-income settlements have to fight for their location even before their dwellings can be built. If they can find a place, in most cases these are in un-serviced urban areas.

Kali Surabaya is located in South Surabaya and is stretched out in east-west direction as shown in Figure 1. To the north of this river lies Joyoboyo, a bus terminal, while to the south there is a medium-size



A ‘Simple’ Solution Proposal 211


market and Wonokromo train station. Previously, Joyoboyo was a main terminal of public land trans-portation system in South Surabaya because all vehicles entering Surabaya from the South had to enter this terminal. Since the operation of a regional bus terminal at Bungurasih2 in 1992, Joyoboyo has been changed into a sub-terminal. From the situation described above, one can understand that the area around Joyoboyo is a very busy area. Like in other big cities, this kind of location, where a lot of people gather round at almost every hour, is not only busy in commercial activities but also a place where criminals pursue their activities. For those without enough capital, this area becomes primary choice to live as it is not far away from where they earn their income. Hence, Kali Surabaya has become a kind of low-income urban settlement.

The above situation reflects what has been described by some scholars that generally low-income urban settlements have long been seen to be a source of disease (von Faber, 1937) and dens of crime (Drakakis-Smith, 2000; Harris, 1992; Yudohusodo and Salam, 1991) or breeding places for political in-stability (Doebele, 1983). The corollary is that they should be demolished (Angel and Benyamin, 1976). The urban migrants who lived there were considered as ‘marginal’ populations, outside the normal organization of society and slowing down the development process. Thus, the early official response was to bulldoze them (Doebele, 1983). The solutions to these kinds of poverty problems are mostly based on notions of charity rather than empowerment (Angel and Benyamin, 1976; ESCAP, 1996).

Figure 1. The Location of Kali Surabaya and Joyoboyo at South Surabaya (Not to Scale)

Source: Scanned from ‘Surabaya, Atlas jalan & index’, by Marc Le Moullec, PT Enrique, Jakarta, 1999.





The absence of urban infrastructures and services are the main characteristics of these settlements. Somehow, people can find ways in accessing basic services. The need for water could be fulfilled by water vendors who see the above situation as an opportunity for income. Some dwellers could even have electricity installed in their houses. Meanwhile, the river on their backyard can be used for bathing, washing purposes and/or as pit latrines.

The housing condition along Kali Surabaya is much diversified. Poor housing lies next to nice brick wall buildings. Building material used is also varied from mixed used wood or bamboo to plastered brick and concrete (see Figures 2 and 3). Most of the dwellers earn their income around Joyoboyo and Wonokromo areas. Their occupations are also varied, such as becak drivers, fishing rod sellers, tailor, welding service, building materials seller.

The plot area of each dwelling and land status also varies. All this information was collected during the survey. Survey preparation and steps carried out prior to interview are described in the following section.

Figure 2. Dwelling Condition (on the River Side)

Sources: Field survey by the Laboratory for Housing & Human Settlement, Architecture Department, ITS Surabaya, 2002.





Methodology of Study and Analysis

In general, this study used two sources: first, written and unwritten information from related institutions to the study and second, primary data from the field. Prior to formal visits to the study area, meetings were carried out to discuss further actions. The best ways to communicate the intention of this study to the respondents were also taken into consideration.

Steps carried out for this study were as follows:

1. Study area visit and indication of its boundaries. Daily activities of the residents were also noted and photographed.

2. Preparation of questionnaire including maps of study area and survey permit application from related institutions. Here a list of questions was drawn up covering respondent’s name, occupation, total inhabitants per dwelling, householders’ monthly income and expenses, plot area, land status,

Figure 3. Dwelling Condition (from the Other Side)

Sources: Field survey by the Laboratory for Housing & Human Settlement, Architecture Department, ITS Surabaya, 2002.





and so on. An open answer is provided to the question of ‘respondent’s plan if their settlement is cleared by the government’. The intention to this question is to get as much as possible people’s aspirations to solve the riverbank settlement problem.

3. Study area preconditions through information leaflets to the respondents. These leaflets were dis-tributed together with local governments’ administrative staff.

4. Dwellers’ identification and first introduction towards questionnaire materials. The respondent should be one of the dwelling’s inhabitants. This step was also done together with local government’s staff. Whenever possible, the respondent who provided the answers to the interviewer was photo-graphed in front of their dwelling.

5. Comparing and improving initial data and maps acquired from related institutions and those collected from the field.

6. All information was then presented in an interim report and discussed in a seminar. The participants were related institutions, the province as well as the city council and representatives of the cities where the riverbank settlers mainly came from.

7. Preparing initial basic concept of riverbank resettlement based on this study.8. Socialization to the community regarding the above concept and improvement of the riverbank

physical condition and environment.9. Preparation of final report of this study and proposal of resettlement programs.

From the riverbank settlements of Kali Surabaya studied, three areas were indicated as the locations to be interviewed:

1. Gunungsari area which is positioned between the Western side of terminal Joyoboyo until the terminal itself

2. Jagir Wonokromo area which is situated between Jagir Bridge and Nginden Bridge, on the eastern side of the terminal

3. Nginden-Wonorejo area, which is located from the Nginden Bridge to East Surabaya

The riverbank settler at the Western part of Gunungsari area was refused to be interviewed. In total, only 415 respondents from Gunungsari area, 1090 respondents from Jagir Wonokromo area and 594 respondents from Wonorejo area were interviewed. Since March 2002, however, the government man-aged to clear Nginden-Wonorejo area from illegal settlement. This area was relatively easy to handle because the settlement was not so large and the locations of the dwellings were somewhat scattered. To defend their settlement, the people from Gunungsari and Jagir Wonokromo areas took action as follows:

1. Visited the provincial council and asked their representatives to discuss with the government, so that the government could reconsider their plan to clear the riverbank settlement at Kali Surabaya. The results were as follows:

a. The government program could still be continued without neglecting the settlers.b. The riverbank settlement would not be cleared without land compensation.





c. Land compensation could be in the form of a walk-up apartment.d. Land for commercial activities would be considered later.e. Further discussions would be held with related parties.f. The Kali Surabaya dwellers should submit copies of all their legal documents regarding their

settlement status.

2. Lobbied the government to allocate at least 5-year time for them to be relocated.3. If river maintenance was urgent matter in relation to flooding problem, the government could

deepen the river and cut through the backside of their dwelling, but the people hoped that the front should remain as it was, especially for those who have commercial activities.

4. Relocation options should only be done with land compensation, so that they could continue their commercial activities.

5. If the government would not afford to pay the compensation, or to give free land, the settlers were ready to buy the land through instalment process provided that the government guaranteed that the land could be converted into freehold status completely with legal documents.

Interview Results

From the interviews, tables could be prepared. Regarding people’s aspiration for the solution of their settlement, only those who live in Gunungsari and Jagir Wonokromo areas were tabled because Nginden-Wonorejo area was already cleared. From Table 1 (in Appendix), one can see that the majority of the respondents were not ready to move. Among the dominant answers were the following:

1. 266 respondents (17.67 per cent) gave ‘No plan to go’ answer.2. 206 respondents (13.69 per cent) were not available during the survey.3. 179 respondents (11.89 per cent) gave ‘to look for another shelter in Surabaya’.4. 145 respondents (9.63 per cent) preferred ‘to ask for shelter in Surabaya and ready to pay for it’

(through instalment), but no walk-up apartment.5. 116 respondents (7.71 per cent) preferred ‘to resist eviction, will fight to stay’.

The other answers are not that significant in terms of percentage.The interview results also show that the majority of the inhabitants of Kali Surabaya riverbank actually

know that they had no right to live there. They try, however, to ask the government to provide them with a sort of compensation, whatever it might be (money or land), so that they can continue with their life. Out of 1055 respondents above, only six respondents gave answers ‘to fight first’ answer and 116 respondents gave answer ‘to resist eviction and will fight to stay’.

Tables 2 and 3 (in Appendix) show that the origin and the identity card status of the dwellers were not all from Surabaya. Some of them were from Bangkalan, Jombang, Kediri and Sampang. Besides that, 81 respondents have KIPEM card. This means that they are not the holder of Surabaya identity card. On the other hand, 1398 respondents are Surabaya identity card holders. This fact shows that there is something wrong with the process of identity card granting from the local government itself. Usually, it is not easy for those with unclear settlement status to obtain an identity card.





Furthermore, with the enactment of Law (UU) no. 22/1999 regarding the Local Government, this law supports fair competition among local governments. Hence, local governments should have good cooper-ation in solving the socio-economic problem of their border crossing community who temporarily settle in neighbourhood administrative areas. The findings from this study gave reason to invite the above local governments to attend the seminar of this study and share the solutions together.

Conclusions

The interview result shows that the intention to solve the riverbank settlements problem is not a simple matter. The notion that the government knows best to solve the squatter settlements problem (Angel and Benyamin, 1976) and the initial government’s solution to demolish them (Doebele, 1983) should not be applied here. It is true that the majority of the dwellers are ready to move from the place they live but the government has to be ready with several solutions, in the form of fund, land for relocation or both.

This study also gives good lessons for the government to solve any problem as early as possible, and not let the problem expand until it is difficult to solve. It might not be the best solution for everyone. However, it also shows that discussion and dialogue to find a ‘better solution’ for every party involved can still be a good way in solving the problem.



App

endi

x

Tab

le 1

. Res

pons

e by

Kal

i Sur

abay

a D

wel

lers

to

Cle

aran

ce o

f The

ir S

ettle

men

t

Futu

re P

lann

ing

Jagi

r W

onok

rom

oG

unun

gsar

iT

otal

Tot

al%

Tot

al%

Tot

al%

To

fight

firs

t6

0.40

00

60.

40T

o st

ay w

ith o

ther

s/re

lativ

es4

0.27

70.

4711

0.73

To

retu

rn t

o th

eir

hom

elan

d31

2.06

291.

9360

3.99

To

buy/

to p

ay in

stal

men

t/to

bui

ld a

she

lter

in a

noth

er a

rea

20.

130

02

0.13

To

rent

in a

noth

er p

lace

352.

3323

1.53

583.

85T

o re

nt in

ano

ther

pla

ce w

ithin

Sur

abay

a ar

ea3

0.20

00

30.

20T

o lo

ok fo

r an

othe

r pl

ot o

f lan

d or

she

lter

(unc

lear

whe

ther

to

buy

or r

ent

it)62

4.12

00

624.

12T

o lo

ok fo

r an

othe

r pl

ot o

f lan

d or

she

lter

(rea

dy t

o pa

y fo

r it)

352.

330

035

2.33

To

look

for

a ve

ry s

impl

e ho

use

(RSS

) or

ano

ther

pla

ce24

1.59

20.

1326

1.73

To

look

for

anot

her

plac

e to

ope

n a

smal

l bus

ines

s35

2.33

60.

4041

2.72

To

look

for

anot

her

shel

ter

in S

urab

aya

(unc

lear

whe

ther

to

buy

or r

ent

it)74

4.92

105

6.98

179

11.8

9T

o lo

ok fo

r a

tem

pora

ry s

helte

r16

1.06

00

161.

06T

o lo

ok fo

r a

shel

ter

or a

noth

er b

usin

ess

plac

e in

Sur

abay

a (u

ncle

ar w

heth

er t

o bu

y or

ren

t it)

120.

800

012

0.80

To

stop

the

bus

ines

s/tr

ade

10.

070

01

0.07

To

follo

w t

he p

lan

of t

he m

ajor

ity o

f the

peo

ple

90.

604

1.59

332.

19T

o fo

llow

gov

ernm

ent’s

pol

icy

110.

737

0.47

181.

20T

o re

turn

to

the

prev

ious

pla

ce

70.

470

07

0.47

To

ask

for

shel

ter

in S

by, r

eady

to

rent

or

buy

(thr

ough

inst

alm

ent

proc

ess)

734.

850

073

4.85

To

ask

for

subs

titut

ion

land

in S

urab

aya

151.

001

0.07

161.

06T

o as

k fo

r co

mpe

nsat

ion

30.

2024

1.59

271.

79T

o as

k fo

r ex

act

date

(fo

r m

ovin

g)1

0.07

00

10.

07T

o as

k fo

r la

nd s

ubst

itutio

n13

0.86

120.

8025

1.66

To

ask

for

post

poni

ng t

he e

vict

ion

date

50.

330

05

0.33

To

ask

for

a sh

elte

r in

Sur

abay

a (S

by),

and

read

y to

buy

thr

ough

inst

alm

ent,

no t

o w

alk-

up

apar

tmen

t14

59.

630

014

59.

63

To

mov

e to

the

ir o

wn

hous

e2

0.13

20.

134

0.27

To

acce

pt li

ving

in a

wal

k-up

apa

rtm

ent

50.

3311

0.73

161.

06T

o re

sist

evi

ctio

n, w

ill fi

ght

to s

tay

684.

5248

3.19

116

7.71

To

resi

st w

alk-

up a

part

men

t4

0.27

100.

6614

0.93

No

plan

to

go21

013

.95

563.

7226

617

.67

To

acce

pt fo

r re

loca

tion

optio

n0

021

1.40

211.

40U

ncle

ar. R

espo

nden

ts w

ere

not

avai

labl

e du

ring

the

sur

vey

179

11.8

927

1.79

206

13.6

9T

otal

1090

72.4

341

527

.57

1505

100.

00

Sou

rce:

Sur

vey

resu

lt, Ju

ly 2

002.



Tab

le 2

. The

Pop

ulat

ion

of K

ali S

urab

aya

Dw

elle

rs B

ased

on

Iden

tity

Car

d St

atus

, 200

2

No.

Iden

tity

Car

d

Gun

ungs

ari

Jagi

rW

onor

ejo

Tot

al

Tot

al%

Tot

al%

Tot

al%

Tot

al%

1.A

ceh

00.

001

0.05

00.

001

0.05

2.Ba

ngka

lan

7 (4

)0.

3345

(4)

2.14

30 (

3)1.

4382

(3)

3.91

3.Ba

nyuw

angi

00.

001

0.05

40.

195

0.24

4.Bl

enga

h0

0.00

20.

100

0.00

20.

105.

Blita

r5

0.24

50.

244

0.19

140.

676.

Bogo

r1

0.05

00.

000

0.00

10.

057.

Bojo

nego

ro1

0.05

50.

244

0.19

100.

488.

Cep

u0

0.00

00.

002

0.10

20.

109.

Cir

ebon

00.

002

0.10

00.

002

0.10

10.

Gre

sik

10.

056

0.29

50.

2412

0.57

11.

Jem

ber

40.

1914

(5)

0.67

40.

1922

1.05

12.

Jom

bang

50.

2414

(5)

0.67

80.

3827

1.29

13.

Kal

-Sel

10.

050

0.00

00.

001

0.05

14.

Ked

iri

18 (

2)0.

867

0.33

80.

3833

1.57

15.

Ker

toso

no0

0.00

10.

050

0.00

10.

0516

.K

IPEM

*0

0.00

80 (

2)3.

811

0.05

81 (

4)3.

8617

.La

mon

gan

7 (4

)0.

334

0.19

110.

5222

1.05

18.

Lum

ajan

g1

0.05

30.

149

0.43

130.

6219

.M

adiu

n0

0.00

00.

004

0.19

40.

1920

.M

adur

a2

0.10

70.

337

0.33

160.

7621

.M

agel

ang

00.

001

0.05

00.

001

0.05

22.

Mag

etan

30.

141

0.05

00.

004

0.19

23.

Mal

ang

30.

148

0.38

90.

4320

0.95

24.

Med

an0

0.00

00.

001

0.05

10.

0525

.M

ojok

erto

60.

295

0.24

20.

1013

0.62

26.

Nga

njuk

60.

295

0.24

50.

2416

0.76



27.

Nia

s, N

orth

Sum

atra

00.

001

0.05

00.

001

0.05

28.

Paci

tan

10.

051

0.05

00.

002

0.10

29.

Pada

ng0

0.00

00.

001

0.05

10.

0530

.Pa

mek

asan

00.

000

0.00

50.

245

0.24

31.

Pasu

ruan

10.

053

0.14

30.

147

0.33

32.

Pono

rogo

10.

053

0.14

50.

249

0.43

33.

Prob

olin

ggo

10.

051

0.05

00.

002

0.10

34.

Purw

orej

o0

0.00

10.

050

0.00

10.

0535

.R

emba

ng0

0.00

00.

002

0.10

20.

1036

.Sa

mpa

ng5

0.24

80.

3817

(4)

0.81

30 (

5)1.

4337

.Sa

mpi

t0

0.00

00.

001

0.05

10.

0538

.Se

mar

ang

00.

004

0.19

00.

004

0.19

39.

Sido

arjo

50.

2410

0.48

13 (

5)0.

6228

1.33

40.

Situ

bond

o0

0.00

10.

050

0.00

10.

0541

.So

lo4

0.19

30.

141

0.05

80.

3842

.Su

mba

wa

00.

000

0.00

10.

051

0.05

43.

Sum

enep

00.

001

0.05

00.

001

0.05

44.

Sura

baya

312

(1)

14.8

676

9 (1

)36

.64

317

(1)

15.1

013

98 (

1)66

.60

45.

Tim

or T

imur

00.

000

0.00

10.

051

0.05

46.

Tre

ngga

lek

00.

004

0.19

20.

106

0.29

47.

Tub

an0

0.00

20.

100

0.00

20.

1048

.T

ulun

gagu

ng0

0.00

10.

056

0.29

70.

3349

.Y

ogya

kart

a1

0.05

10.

054

0.19

60.

2950

.U

ncle

ar id

entit

y13

(3)

0.62

59 (

3)2.

8197

(2)

4.62

169

(2)

8.05

Tot

al41

519

.77

1090

51.9

359

428

.30

2099

100.

00

Sou

rce:

Sur

vey

resu

lt, Ju

ly 2

002.

*K

IPEM

: Kar

tu Id

entit

as P

endu

duk

Mus

iman

, Tem

pora

ry ID

car

d fo

r se

ason

al m

igra

nts.





Table 3. City of Origin and Number of Person of Kali Surabaya Settlements’ Dwellers, 2002

No. City of Origin

Gunungsari Jagir Total

Total % Total % Total %

1. Aceh 0 0.00 10 0.66 10 0.662. Bali 1 0.07 1 0.07 2 0.133. Bandung 0 0.00 1 0.07 1 0.074. Bangil 1 0.86 0 0.00 1 0.075. Bangkalan 13 0.07 80 (3) 5.32 93 (3) 6.186. Banjarmasin 1 0.07 3 0.20 4 0.277. Banyuwangi 3 0.20 8 0.53 11 0.738. Bawean 1 0.67 0 0.00 1 0.079. Bekasi 1 0.67 0 0.00 1 0.07

10. Blengah 0 0.00 2 0.13 2 0.1311. Blitar 11 0.73 18 1.20 29 1.9312. Blora 0 0.00 2 0.13 2 0.1313. Bobokan 1 0.07 0 0.00 1 1.0714. Bojonegoro 5 0.33 13 0.86 18 1.2015. Cepu 0 0.00 4 0.27 4 0.2716. Cirebon 2 0.13 3 0.20 5 0.3317. Gresik 6 0.40 14 0.93 20 1.3318. Jakarta 1 0.07 2 0.13 3 0.2019. Jember 7 0.47 27 1.79 34 2.2620. Jepara 0 0.00 6 0.40 6 0.4021. Jombang 21 1.40 59 (4) 3.92 80 (5) 5.3222. Kal-Sel 1 0.07 0 0.00 1 0.0723. Kebumen 0 0.00 1 0.07 1 0.0724. Kediri 41 (2) 2.72 56 3.72 97 (2) 6.4525. Kertosono 2 0.13 3 0.20 5 0.3326. Klaten 0 0.00 2 0.13 2 0.1327. Kutoarjo 0 0.00 1 0.07 1 0.0728. Lamongan 25 (4) 1.66 26 1.73 51 3.3929. Lampung 2 0.13 0 0.00 2 0.1330. Lumajang 4 0.27 13 0.86 17 1.1331. Madiun 11 0.73 23 1.53 34 2.2632. Madura 10 0.66 57 (5) 3.79 67 4.4533. Magelang 0 0.00 2 0.13 2 0.1334. Magetan 4 0.27 7 0.47 11 0.7335. Majalengka 0 0.00 1 0.07 1 0.0736. Malang 15 1.00 42 2.79 57 3.7937. Martapura 1 0.07 0 0.00 1 0.0738. Menado 0 0.00 1 0.07 1 0.0739. Medan 5 0.33 2 0.13 7 0.4740. Mojokerto 11 0.73 24 1.59 35 2.3341. Nganjuk 23 (5) 1.53 38 2.52 61 4.0542. Ngawi 0 0.00 4 0.27 4 0.2743. Nias 0 0.00 2 0.13 2 0.1344. Pacitan 4 0.27 8 0.53 12 0.8045. Padang 1 0.07 1 0.07 2 0.1346. Palangkaraya 0 0.00 1 0.07 1 0.07

(Table 3 continued)





No. City of Origin

Gunungsari Jagir Total

Total % Total % Total %

47. Palembang 0 0.00 1 0.07 1 0.0748. Pamekasan 2 0.13 1 0.07 3 0.2049. Pasuruan 6 0.40 13 0.86 19 1.2650. Pati 0 0.00 1 0.07 1 0.0751. Pemalang 1 0.07 0 0.00 1 0.0752. Ponorogo 2 0.13 23 1.53 25 1.6653. Pontianak 0 0.00 2 0.13 2 0.1354. Probolinggo 1 0.07 2 0.13 3 0.2055. Purwoasri 1 0.07 0 0.00 1 0.0756. Purworejo 0 0.00 1 0.07 1 0.0757. Rembang 0 0.00 1 0.07 1 0.0758. Sampang 28 (3) 1.86 31 2.06 59 3.9259. Semarang 0 0.00 8 0.53 8 0.5360. Sidoarjo 10 0.66 26 1.73 36 2.3961. Situbondo 0 0.00 2 0.13 2 0.1362. Solo 8 0.53 22 1.46 30 1.9963. Sragen 1 0.07 0 0.00 1 0.0764. Sukabumi 0 0.00 2 0.13 2 0.1365. Sumba 0 0.00 1 0.07 1 0.0766. Sumenep 1 0.07 2 0.13 3 0.2067. Surabaya 93 (1) 6.18 249 (1) 16.54 342 (1) 22.7268. Tarutung 0 0.00 1 0.07 1 0.0769. Ternate 1 0.07 0 0.00 1 0.0770. Trenggalek 2 0.13 16 1.06 18 1.2071. Tuban 3 0.20 6 0.40 9 0.6072. Tulungagung 6 0.40 22 1.46 28 1.8673. Ujung Pandang 0 0.00 1 0.07 1 0.0774. Wonogiri 0 0.00 1 0.07 1 0.0775. Wonosobo 0 0.00 1 0.07 1 0.0776. Yogyakarta 3 0.20 5 0.33 8 0.5377. Unclear 11 0.73 81 (2) 5.38 92 (4) 6.11

Total 415 27.57 1090 72.43 1505 100.00

Source: Survey result, July 2002.

(Table 3 continued)

Notes1. This ESCAP report was acquired through Internet: http://www.unescap.org/huset/m_land; however, there was no

clear indication of the year it was released. From its content, it is assumed that it was released in late 1997.2. This intercity and inter-province bus terminal is located near the border of Surabaya and Sidoarjo. Among many

reasons of new terminal development at this site are to reduce the traffic congestion at Joyoboyo area and at the same time to open new (commercial) area at North Sidoarjo.

ReferencesAngel, S. and S. Benyamin. 1976. Seventeen reasons why the squatter problem can’t be solved, Ekistics, 242:

20–26.





Doebele, W.A. 1983. The provision of land for the urban poor: concepts, instruments and prospects, In S. Angel, R.W. Archer, S. Tanphiphat and E.A. Wegelin (eds), Land for housing the poor (pp. 348–74). Singapore: Select Books.

Drakakis-Smith, D. 2000. Third world cities. London: Routledge.Dunkerley, H.B. (ed.). 1983. Urban land policy: Issues and opportunities. New York: Oxford University Press.ESCAP. 1996. Living in Asian cities: The impending crisis-causes, consequences and alternatives for the future.

New York.———. 1997. Urban land policies for the uninitiated. Retrieved 26 June 2000 from http://www.unescap.org/huset/

land_policy/index.htmFirman, T. 1998. Towards an Indonesian urban land development policy. In Dandekar, H. (ed.), City, space and

globalization: An international perspective. (pp. 194–206). Michigan: College of Architecture and Urban Plan-ning, University of Michigan.

Harris, N. (ed.) 1992. Cities in the 1990’s: The challenge for developing countries. London: UCL Press.Pemerintah Daerah Propinsi Jawa Timur, Dinas Permukiman, Sub-Dinas Pengembangan Perkotaan. 2002. Laporan

Akhir, Penyusunan Studi Resettlement Stren Kali Surabaya. Unpublished Final Report. Surabaya.Surabaya dalam angka. 2002. Bappeko Surabaya and BPS Surabaya. Surabaya: CV Nugroho & Co.von Faber, G.H. 1937. Nieuw Soerabaia. Bussum: H. van Ingen, Soerabaja.Winayanti, L. 2002. A view from a bridge: riverbank settlements in Jakarta. In Modernity, tradition, culture, water.

Proceeding of an international symposium 29–31 October 2002, Bangkok: Kasetsart University Press.Yudohusodo, S. and S. Salam (eds). 1991. Rumah untuk Seluruh Rakyat, Jakarta: Inkoppol, Unit Percetakan

Bharakerta.

Ispurwono Soemarno is Lecturer and Researcher at the Laboratory for Housing & Human Settlements, Architecture Department, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember (ITS) Surabaya, Indonesia. E-mail: isp4251 @yahoo.com



Environment and Urbanization Asia-2010-Soemarno-209-22.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Environment and Urbanization Asia-2010-Soemarno-209-22.pdf