375

Original ArticleInvestigation of the Water Supply System and Water Usage in

Urban Kampung of Bandung City, IndonesiaNyimas Suryani a, Atsushi Ichiki b, Toshiyuki Shimizu b, Sri Maryati c

a Graduate School of Science and Engineering, Ritsumeikan University, Kusatsu, Japanb Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Ritsumeikan University, Kusatsu, Japan

c School of Architecture, Planning and Policy Development, Institute of Technology Bandung, Bandung, Indonesia

ABSTRACTClean water is essential for humans, regardless of their social and economic conditions. Meanwhile, an urban kampung is typically a densely populated area in the city and consists of low-income house-holds that cannot afford the safe water provided by formal water providers. Due to this constraint, the urban kampung of Bandung City, Indonesia has developed alternative sources of water using either deep wells or shallow dug wells. This research focuses on understanding the typology of the water supply system in this area and analysing water usage. Information regarding the current situation was obtained from field surveys, water quality tests, interviews with local stakeholders, and from ques-tionnaires supplied to domestic respondents. The findings show that a total of 52% of the residents use communal wells or individual wells as their main water source, and the majority of the residents claim that they were satisfied with the present water supply system. However, some wells were contaminated by bacteria due to lack of water treatment systems. The data on existing usage patterns is needed as basic information to assist in the design of an improved water supply system.

Keywords: water supply, urban kampung, water quality, communal well, willingness to pay

INTRODUCTION

Rapid urbanization and population growth are the main factors leading to the emergence of informal settlements in Indonesia [1]. A total of 54% of the Indonesian population lives in urban areas [2]. Due to this massive urbanization, the problems of land shortage and increasing land prices present major challenges. Consequently, the urban poor are forced to live in high-density areas with poor environmental conditions for urban housing such as informal settlements. In an Indonesian context, these informal settlements are known as urban kampungs. Generally, kampungs are typical urban settlements in Indonesia having unique characteristics [3]. In many underdeveloped countries, urban kampungs have become a component of urban living for large populations in urban areas [4]. These kampungs provide a solution for the need of lower-income populations for housing space in the

crowded cities [5]. The main challenge for urban kampung residents is to meet their demands for adequate space and ba-sic daily services within the available space and the existing infrastructure. Previous studies have reported that informal settlements are sustainable when they can cope with and re-cover from stresses and shocks [6]. In many urban kampung cases, provision of urban services in informal settlements has been mostly conducted through a self-help mode [7].

Following sustainable development goals (SDGs), the government of Indonesia has established the main target in the water sector, which was adopted in the National Medium-Term Development Plan (RPJMN) such that 100% of all households will have adequate access to safe drinking water. A report by United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2015 stated that at a national scale, the coverage of safe water in Indonesia is 72%. In many cities, most residents have never relied

Corresponding author: Nyimas Suryani, E-mail: nyimas.suryani@gmail.comReceived: June 29, 2018, Accepted: July 14, 2019, Published online: December 10, 2019

Open Access

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 License. http://

creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Journal of Water and Environment Technology, Vol.17, No.6: 375–385, 2019doi: 10.2965/jwet.18-068

Journal of Water and Environment Technology, Vol. 17, No. 6, 2019 376

solely or even mainly on the piped water systems to meet their water needs [8]. Referring to water service provision-ing in West Java Province (one of the leading provinces in Indonesia), in 2015, only 20% of households were served by the public provider, Perusahaan Daerah Air Minum (PDAM) [9]. For the case of urban kampung, these conditions promote community-based initiatives and the emergence of informal infrastructures.

Informal water infrastructures in Indonesia have emerged due to the inability or incapacity of the government to guarantee water service to all communities [9]. The regional water company in Bandung, PDAM Tirtawening, only cov-ered 65% of the Bandung population in 2017 [10]. Moreover, the residents in urban kampungs in Bandung City are mostly low-income [11]. Due to this problem, urban kampung dwell-ers might not be able to afford clean water from a pipeline network provided by a regional water company. Conse-quently, clean water services are provided to some areas in the constructed urban area but lack any internal casing and have little well protection at the surface [12]. This issue raises concerns regarding the water quality of these informal

water infrastructures. Alternative water supply systems are developed by the community, such as shallow dug wells or deep wells, and are used communally or individually. Shal-low well use is ubiquitous in informal communities and is generally poorly aimed to explore the present state of water supply systems in the urban kampung areas. Using a case study in Bandung municipality, Indonesia, we focus on understanding the typology of water supply systems and highlight the barriers for inhabitants to access clean water.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study areaThe study area is in Bandung, the capital city of West Java

Province in Indonesia. The Lebak Siliwangi subdistrict is located in the northern part of Bandung City and is a densely populated area located along the riverbanks of the Cikapund-ung and Cikapayang Rivers (Fig. 1). Administratively, the Lebak Siliwangi subdistrict has six RWs (Rukun Warga, i.e., communities in English) with a total population of 3,226 at the end of 2017 [13]. The residential area is concentrated in

Fig. 1 Map of study area.

Journal of Water and Environment Technology, Vol. 17, No. 6, 2019 377

RW 5, 6, 7 and 8 and these communities are the focus of our study area, having a total population of 2,955 people in an area of 8.7 hectares [13]. According to the data released by the Lebak Siliwangi Subdistrict Office, the gender composition in the Lebak Siliwangi Subdistrict was slightly dominated by males, comprising approximately 1,633, while females represented approximately 1,594 of the population.

Data collectionThe primary data was collected through field observations,

survey questionnaires to domestic respondents, and water quality tests on-site and in the laboratory. The field work was conducted in February 2018 and was conducted with assistance from local stakeholders from the Lebak Siliwangi subdistrict and PDAM Tirtawening authorities. PDAM Tirtawening is a regional water company that has author-ity to distribute clean water in Bandung City. The survey questionnaires were conducted over two periods of time. The population in Lebak Siliwangi is 3,226 people [13]. With an error rate of 10%, it was determined that the sample number should be a minimum of 97 respondents. With random sam-pling methods, the total number of samples for the survey area was determined to be as high as 100 respondents. With the assumption that the population has a normal distribution, the number of required samples in the study area was cal-culated based on the formula described by Slovin [14]. The respondents were questioned in person and the investigators completed the answer sheets based on participant responses.

Survey doneThe first survey was conducted in 2017 as part of data col-

lection of an infrastructure group of Institute of Technology Bandung (ITB) students with 100 respondents. The second survey was conducted in March 2018 and dealt with another

100 respondents. The respondents were given the questions in person. There was a different range of questions between the first and second surveys, however the main questions regarding water were the same (Table 1).

Water consumption data was also obtained through ques-tionnaires. The respondents were asked how much water they used daily. PDAM consumers have water meters to record their monthly consumption, which is also shown in the water bills. Communal well and individual well users calculated the water that was used domestically in their houses, using buckets as measurement devices. The volume then was re-corded and converted to liters (L) in the questionnaire.

As part of the survey, we also studied user preferences for water supply systems. For analysis, we classified the factors or reasons for choosing the water supply system into availability, affordability, water quality, accessibility and others. Using the questionnaire, respondents were asked what the main reason was for choosing their current main water supply systems. Their answers were placed into the categories based on the similarities and the interpretation of their reasons. The respondents were also asked about their satisfaction level. The question in the questionnaire regard-ing user satisfaction was simple. It was a direct question with an option for a “Yes” or “No” answer and reasons for the answer. A “Yes” answer was interpreted as representing satisfaction with the current water quality and quantity. We then calculated the percentage of responses for each type of water supply system.

Willingness to pay (WTP) was obtained by questionnaire. The method used was the contingent valuation method which is commonly used for water source and sanitation research [15]. With the contingent valuation method, the respondents were asked what the maximum amount was that they are willing to pay for services or goods received. Our consid-eration is that all respondents have an understanding of the

Table 1 Questionnaire outline.Survey period March 2017 March 2018Number of samples 100 100 (13*)Content of questions - Household Information (size of household, occupation, in-come and household ownership)

v v

- Water Usage (type of water supply and water consumption) v v - Water expense v v - Willingness to pay v - Satisfaction Level v* 13 respondents overlapped with the 2017 survey.

Journal of Water and Environment Technology, Vol. 17, No. 6, 2019 378

advantages and disadvantages of PDAM. As a starting point, the respondents were given a closed-ended reference ques-tion with a numerical range of tariff categories that they were willing to pay. In detail, respondents were asked by question-naire the amount of money they were willing to pay for 5 categories within this numeric range. According to PDAM Tirtawening, the tariff service for water is 2,000 IDR/m3 with an administration fee of IDR 10,000 and a minimum maintenance fee of IDR 7,000 [10]. Thus, the monthly water fee for each household ranges upward from IDR 50,000, depending on water usage. Using this information, IDR 50,000 was used as the base number and, for each category, the numeric range was defined by adding IDR 50,000 for each class. The results for each category were cross tabulated with the results for factors of using each water supply. For analysis, the average of the median value of the range and each factor were calculated to obtain the value for each type of water supply.

Sample collection and analysisWater samples were collected from 15 water source loca-

tions (Fig. 2). For each water source, a one-bottle (600 mL) water sample was collected. For each type of water supply system, there were 2 samples from PDAM, 10 samples from communal wells, and 3 samples from individual wells (Table 2). The in situ buckets with manual rope systems within each well were used to collect the samples from shallow wells. The deep well water was pumped up and kept in a storage tank at higher positions. The water was then collected from a faucet using gravity. For pipelined networks from PDAM, the water samples were collected through a hose in the household connection. The water samples were collected in the study area then transported directly to the ITB lab. The samples were tested for pH, EC and bacteria within 3 hours of sample collection. pH and EC were measured using the pH and EC meter HI98129 (Hanna, Rhode Island, USA). Next, 1 mL of each sample was prepared in Petrifilm (3M, Minnesota, USA). Select E. coli Count Plates (SEC Plate) was used for E. coli, and E. coli/Coliform Count Plates (EC Plate) was used for coliform bacteria [16]. Dilution was not conducted before the test, therefore, the colony count was only able to extend to approximately 700 colonies. Consider-

Fig. 2 Map of sample distribution.

Journal of Water and Environment Technology, Vol. 17, No. 6, 2019 379

ing the reliability of data, for presentation of the results of bacterial counting, samples that had a count greater than 500 were presented as “500 or more”. The samples were stored in an incubator for 24 hours, and the bacterial count for E. coli and for the coliform group was conducted. Samples for NO2-N; NO3-N; and NH4-N were transported to Japan in a cooler bag within 3 days; with sample measurements con-ducted at Ritsumeikan University, Kusatsu, Japan. Sample for NO2-N was measured by the naphthylethylene-diamine method, NO3-N was measured by the high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) method, and NH4-N was measured by the indophenol blue method. The analytical methods for NO2-N and NH4-N followed Standard Methods for Water Quality Examination [17], and NO3-N analysis was performed in accordance with Feed Analysis Methods [18].

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Current status of water sourcesThe residents of urban kampung depend on two major

water supply systems in the area. The first source is water provided by a regional water company. In Bandung City, the main provider of the pipeline water network is PDAM Tirtawening, under the local government of Bandung City. From the field survey, it was found that the PDAM pipeline network is already available in the area. However, accord-ing to respondents, some households do not use the PDAM pipeline system as their main water source. Based on the survey results, only 48% of respondents were PDAM users, while 32% used communal wells and the remainder used individual wells (Table 3). Communal wells are a public water source that is shared within the community. With regard to water distribution, there were two types of access to the communal wells (Fig. 3). The first was a communal

Table 2 Characteristics of water sample points.Type Number of samples Sample Point Characteristic Water Collection Method

PDAM 2A Tap water from the faucet in the resident’s houseB Tap water from the faucet in the resident’s house

Communal Well 10

C Shallow well bucket and a rope system on siteD Shallow well hand pumpE Shallow well bucket and a rope system on siteF Shallow well bucket and a rope system on siteG Shallow well bucket and a rope system on siteH1 Shallow well bucket and a rope system on siteH2 Deep well pumped up into storage tankH3 Shallow well bucket and a rope system on siteI Shallow well bucket and a rope system on siteJ Deep well pumped up into storage tankK Spring water bucket and a rope system on siteL Shallow well bucket and a rope system on site

Individual Well 3

M Deep well pumped upN Shallow well bucket and a rope systemO Shallow well bucket and a rope system

Table 3 Distribution of water supply system.Main water source PDAM Communal Well Individual WellNumber of samples

(%)90

(48)59

(32)38

(20)Number of samples in each area RW5

RW6 RW7 RW8

18 24 25 23

4 6 24 25

12 5 12 9

Journal of Water and Environment Technology, Vol. 17, No. 6, 2019 380

well with a deep well as the water source. For this type of communal well, storage tanks were placed higher than the well. Using gravity, water was distributed through pipelines to the households. The other type of communal wells was shallow dug wells with no pipeline connections. To obtain water, residents travel directly to the location of communal well and collect water using either a rope system or hand pump. In some locations, the wells were situated side by side with a public toilet or public bath area. Individual wells are typically owned or used by one household. The wells are usually dug with a depth ranging from 6 to 12 meters. Most individual wells are open, with no top protection, and water is collected using a bucket and rope system. Other than main water sources, some households also use a combination of water sources to fulfil their water needs. Figure 4 shows the distribution of the water supply system used by the residents in the Lebak Siliwangi subdistrict. These combinations include communal wells and PDAM, PDAM and individual wells, or a combination of these three resources.

Urban kampungs in Indonesia are characterised as a poor and densely populated area, and the majority of the residents are those with low incomes [7]. A more detailed analysis of the questionnaire results shows that, in this study area, the median income level per household is IDR 2,000,000 per month. Meanwhile, the minimum wage in Bandung City is IDR 3,091,345 and the majority of residential incomes are half of the minimum wage [11]. Figure 5 shows the differ-ences in income for each type of water supply user. It clearly shows that communal well users have lower income com-

pared to individual users and PDAM users. There is a clear difference in the percentage of households with income less than 1 million IDR, in which more than 30% are communal well users. This result shows that users with the lowest in-comes prefer to use communal wells. It can be concluded that economic factors influence user preferences for water supply systems. Other than economic factors, our survey also found that there are various reasons for users’ choice of a water supply system. A summary of users’ answers showing the main factors that influence users’ choice of water supply systems can be seen in Table 4.

As the variations in water consumption, water expense and percentage of water expense in household income were quite large, median values are shown in Table 5. Daily water con-sumption of PDAM users was the highest at 111 L/person/d, while that of communal and individual well users were 50 L/person/d and 75 L/person/d, respectively. With a closer examination at the water usage of respondents, it is found that the average water consumption ± standard deviation were 190 ± 251 L/person/d for PDAM users; 66 ± 46 L/person/d for communal well users; and 175 ± 204 L/person/d for individual well users. Despite the type of the water supply system used, the satisfaction level of users was fairly high. For individual well users, 100% of the respondents stated that they were satisfied with the current level of services of the water supply (Table 5). For communal well users and PDAM consumers, the satisfaction rates were 96% and 93%, respectively. There is a possibility that respondents were using other types of water sources that were not mentioned in the questionnaire.

Fig. 3 Communal Well. a) with pipeline system, and b) with in situ public bath and toilet.

Journal of Water and Environment Technology, Vol. 17, No. 6, 2019 381

From interviews with respondents, we discovered that some were using bottled water for drinking. However, statistical data regarding bottled water usage was not obtained. The

questions in the questionnaire were focused on indoor water use. In fact, the communal well users also utilised the water on-site, e.g., for bathing and washing dishes or clothes.

Fig. 4 Distribution of water supply services in Lebak Siliwangi subdistrict.

Fig. 5 Income level of users of water supply system.

Journal of Water and Environment Technology, Vol. 17, No. 6, 2019 382

Water quality and the user perspectiveTable 6 summarises the results of water quality testing

from 17 samples for 15 water source locations. Based on the water quality tests conducted at several locations in RW 5 − 8 (Figs. 6 and 7), the results of E. coli and NO3-N parameters varied for each type of water supply. From PDAM samples, both showed good quality in pH and EC, and E. coli was not detected in the samples. For communal well samples, the results were different between samples from shallow wells and from deep wells. Although concentrations of nitrite

and ammonium were used for reference purposes because of their instability, these results show the concentration of nitrogen in wells. According to the Indonesian Minister of Health Decree Number 492/2010 on Requirement of Drink-ing Water Quality, NO2-N and NH4-N were still within the required limits.

Regarding water services, users’ understanding of water quality and the importance of improvement were reviewed by their WTP. User understanding of water quality is defined by analysing the relationship between results of water quality

Table 4 Factors affecting the choice of water supply system.Factor (%) Explanation Sample of open-ended answer

Availability (54)Factor related to the existence of the water supply system; for example, the existing installation of PDAM networks in the household.

“We have PDAM network since long time ago, be-fore the installation and distribution of communal water.”

Affordability (13)

Factor related to the expenses consisted of instal-lation cost and monthly fee. Users of PDAM has to pay monthly fare as much as their water con-sumption while communal well users pay fixed monthly fare.

“We use communal well because PDAM network will evoke more spending due to meter utilization”

Water quality (22) User perception of water quality based on color, taste and smell and the water debit “We use PDAM due to its good water quality”

Accessibility (7)

Factor related to location and connection to the water supply systems; for examples the PDAM pipeline networks or the point location and the distance of Communal Well.

“Our house is close to the source of communal wa-ter”

Others (4) Other factors related to environmental issues “Groundwater is deteriorated and polluted”

Table 5 Water usage, water expense, and satisfaction level comparison.Main water source PDAM Communal Well Individual Well

Number of respondents (person) 55 27 18Water usage (L/person/d) 111 50 75

Water expense (IDR/month/household) 75,000 10,000 0Percentage of water expense in household income (%) 2.7 1.6 -Percentage of satisfaction for using water system (%) 96 93 100

Table 6 Result of water quality test.Water source PDAM

(n = 2)Communal Well

(n = 10)Individual Well

(n = 3)pH (−) 7.3 6.4 ⁓ 7.2 6.9 ⁓ 7.1EC (μS/cm) 149 ⁓ 250 265 ⁓ 448 308 ⁓ 608E. coli (CFU/mL) N.D. N.D. ⁓ 189 N.D. ⁓ 500 or moreColiform Group (CFU/mL) N.D. N.D. ⁓ 500 or more N.D. ⁓ 500 or moreNO3-N (mg/L) 0.06 ⁓ 3.64 0.01 ⁓ 6.33 0.01 ⁓ 11.6NO2-N (mg/L) <0.01 <0.01 <0.01NH4-N (mg/L) 0.01 ⁓ 0.13 0.01 ⁓ 0.58 0.01 ⁓ 1.25N.D.: Not detected

Journal of Water and Environment Technology, Vol. 17, No. 6, 2019 383

tests and user satisfaction and willingness to pay. The results showed that, although the water quality was low, the satisfac-tion level was high. It can be interpreted that, from the user perspective, water quality was not a strong consideration. Table 7 shows the estimated amount of money that residents were willing to pay to improve their water supply systems. We calculated WTP for each type of water supply user. The total average of WTP were IDR 59,868 for users of PDAM, IDR 42,500 for communal well and IDR 25,000 for individ-ual well. It shows that compared to water expense of PDAM users shown in Table 5, WTPs in communal and individual users were lower. For the initial cost, the current Tirtawening PDAM tariff for household type IIA.2 (the house is located in a small street/alley with a road width of less than 2 meters) is IDR 1,656,000 [19]. Based on the respondents’ answers, it is found that the majority of the community represents WTP for the direct connection of PDAM water services amounting to only IDR < 500,000. It is clear that the estimated WTP is lower than the initial cost.

Problems and challenges for water supply improve-ment

From the results of the questionnaire, we see that the ma-jority of the respondents had low incomes. A closer exami-nation of their ability to pay and WTP for PDAM indicates that it is a difficult task to shift the informal water supply systems to formal piped lines. Presently and based on the percentage of the users and monthly costs, communal and individual wells provide available options with lower costs. It is understandable that residents with the lowest incomes would choose communal wells with low tariffs per month for water usage. It is relatable from Table 5 that the level of expense for water consumption with PDAM connections is higher than for communal wells. However, Fig. 5 shows that PDAM and individual well users are within the same economic level range, which could mean that individual well users are economically able to convert their water supply sources to PDAM. In contrast, despite the economic ability and poor water quality, our WTP analysis shows that indi-vidual users are reluctant to shift from their current water

Fig.6 Results of E. coli test. N.D.: not detected.

Fig. 7 Results of NO3-N test.

Journal of Water and Environment Technology, Vol. 17, No. 6, 2019 384

source to PDAM.There is an indication that communal well users are sup-

portive of improvements to the water supply system. The amount of money reflected in the WTP in Table 7 was approximately three to seven times higher than the current water expense. Interestingly, from Table 7 we see that the factor with the strongest influence on the WTP of communal well users was the accessibility of the water supply system. This may be related to the fact that, from the field surveys, we observed that the present pipeline network of the commu-nal well has not covered all areas in Lebak Siliwangi and that most communal wells are only accessible manually, having no pipeline systems. From the analysis of the data, the study showed that the communal well users are willing to pay more for accessibility rather than for other factors. It is worth not-ing that, in contrast to the importance, water quality was not the main concern for communal users.

Examining the perspective of the communal well users, in Table 4, and based on the questionnaire results, most consumers stated that they were satisfied with the quantity and the quality of the consumed water. However, current water consumption levels have not met the requirements for daily need, according to water standards in Indonesia. As a technical factor, the lack of quality control for the water quality from communal and individual wells is a weakness of these informal infrastructures [9]. Among some samples, there were water sources from PDAM and the communal wells that exhibited good water quality (Table 6).

From our field survey, other challenges in the urban kampung are that the habitat has limited environmental infrastructures. We observed that the wastewater infra-structure and the drainage in this area are in poor condition.

The detection of E. coli may reflect faecal contamination in the groundwater due to untreated wastewater and polluted stormwater in the drainage. These findings suggest that to improve water services, integrated infrastructures need to be upgraded. For such an integration, it is necessary not only to involve stakeholders but also the community.

CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of this study was to understand the current condition of water supply systems in urban kampung. Our goals were to highlight the problems in water services for urban kampung residents and to identify community percep-tions of the water supply system. The study found the fol-lowing:

1. Three major water supply systems typically used by urban kampung residents in Bandung City, Indonesia were PDAM, communal wells, and individual wells. PDAM, as a pipeline water service, only covers 48% of households.

2. User willingness to pay for formal pipeline water, such as PDAM, was low when current tariffs were considered.

3. There were issues with water quality, specifically in communal and individual wells, that used dug wells as water sources. It was found that E. coli and coliform contaminated the water sources.

4. The survey showed that users choose the water supply system mostly due to system availability and affordabil-ity. The barriers for residents in the urban kampung to access a clean water supply are mainly economic issues.

This information about the current water supply system and water usage is important for planning a strategic im-

Table 7 Cross tabulation on willingness to pay (WTP).

FactorWTP (IDR)

PDAM (n = 38)

Communal Well (n = 20)

Individual Well (n = 15)

Availability (n = 39)

61,458 (n = 24)

25,000 (n = 7)

25,000 (n = 8)

Affordability (n = 12) - 52,778

(n = 9)25,000 (n = 3)

Water quality (n = 14)

65,000 (n= 10)

41,667 (n = 3)

25,000 (n = 1)

Accessibility (n = 5)

41,667 (n = 3)

75,000 (n = 1)

25,000 (n = 1)

Others (n = 3)

25,000 (n = 1) - 25,000

(n = 2)Total Average 59,868 42,500 25,000

Journal of Water and Environment Technology, Vol. 17, No. 6, 2019 385

provement of the water supply system in the urban kampung area. While designing a typical water supply system in the urban kampung, it is important to evaluate data according to the existing conditions and preferences of the residents. Specifically, the stakeholders need to acknowledge the gap between current conditions and regulatory standards as a target to meet for better water services. Therefore, further research is needed to focus on these problems and to even-tually find solutions for alternative water supply systems that are suitable for the complexity of urban kampungs in Indonesia.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank ITB (Institut Teknologi Bandung, Indonesia) Infrastructure Group Students 2017 and 2018, who have contributed to field survey. This study was partly supported by the Programme for the Strategic Research Foundation at Private Universities, MEXT Japan (S1411032) and by the National Planning Agency of Indone-sia (BAPPENAS).

REFERENCES

[1] Alzamil W: The urban features of informal settlements in Jakarta, Indonesia. Data Brief, 15, 993–999, 2017. PMID:29159239 doi:10.1016/j.dib.2017.10.049

[2] Unicef, WHO: Progress on Sanitation and Drinking Water – 2015 Update and MDG assessment, Geneva, Switzerland, 2015. http://files.unicef.org/publications/files/Progress_on_Sanitation_and_Drinking_Wa-ter_2015_Update_.pdf [accessed in March, 2018]

[3] Hutama I: Exploring the Sense of Place of an Urban Kampung. Through The Daily Activities, Configura-tion of Space and Dweller’s Perception: Case Study of Kampung Code, Yogyakarta. Master Thesis, Faculty of Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation, University of Twente, Netherlands, 2016.

[4] Yatmo YA, Atmodiwirjo P: Communal toilet as a collective spatial system in high density urban Kam-pung. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci., 36, 677–687, 2012. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.03.074

[5] Kustiwan I, Ukrin I, Aulia A: Identification of the creative capacity of Kampong’s community towards sustainable Kampong (Case Studies: Cicadas and Pasundan Kampong, Bandung): A preliminary study. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci., 184, 144–151, 2015. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.05.074

[6] Nassar DM, Elsayed HG: From informal settlements to sustainable communities. Alex. Eng. J., 57(4), 2367-2376, 2018. doi:10.1016/j.aej.2017.09.004

[7] Winayanti L, Lang HC: Provision of urban services in an informal settlement: a case study of Kampung Pe-nas Tanggul, Jakarta. Habitat Int., 28(1), 41–65, 2004. doi:10.1016/S0197-3975(02)00072-3

[8] Furlong K, Kooy M: Worlding water supply: Thinking beyond the network in Jakarta. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res., 41(6), 888–903, 2017. doi:10.1111/1468-2427.12582

[9] Maryati S, Humaira ANS, Kipuw DM: From informal to formal. Status and challenges of informal water infrastructures in Indonesia. IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci., Bandung, Indonesia, 158, p. 12005, 2018.

[10] Tirtawening PDAM: Jumlah Pelanggan. https:/pamb-dg.co.id/ [accessed in March, 2018]

[11] Bandung Statistic Centre: Kota Bandung Dalam Angka 2017, BPS Kota Bandung, Bandung, Indonesia, 2017. https://bandungkota.bps.go.id/ [accessed in March, 2018]

[12] Liddle ES, Mager SM, Nel EL: The suitability of shallow hand dug wells for safe water provision in sub-Saharan Africa: Lessons from Ndola, Zambia. Appl. Geogr., 57, 80–90, 2015. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.12.010

[13] Lebak Siliwangi Subdistrict Office: Annual Report, Lebak Siliwangi Subdistrict, Bandung, Indonesia, 2017.

[14] Umar H: Metode Penelitian untuk Skripsi dan Tesis Bisnis (Research Method for Thesis in English). Sixth edition. PT Raja Grafindo Persada, Jakarta, Indonesia, 2004.

[15] Wright SG: Using Contingent valuation to estimate willingness to pay for improved water source in Rural Uganda, Master Thesis, Civil and Environmental En-gineering, Michigan Technological University, Hough-ton, USA, 2012. https://digitalcommons.mtu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1521&context=etds [accessed in March, 2018]

[16] 3M: All 3M Products. https://www.3mcompany.jp/3M/ja_JP/company-jp/all-3m-products [accessed in March, 2018, in Japanese]

[17] Japan Waterworks Association: Standard Methods for Water Quality Examination. Japan Waterworks Asso-ciation, Tokyo, Japan, 2011. [in Japanese]

[18] Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center: Shiryo Bunseki Kijun. http://www.famic.go.jp/ffis/feed/bunseki/bunsekikijun.html [accessed in March, 2018, in Japanese]

[19] Tirtawening PDAM: Biaya Sambungan Baru. https://pambdg.co.id/biaya-sambungan-baru/ [accessed in April, 2018, in Indonesian]