URBAN GREEN OPENSPACE MANAGEMENT WITH GOOD GOVERNANCE BASIC

4 07 2007

Rustam Hakim

Faculty of Built Environment UniversitiTeknologi Malaysia – Malaysia.
Email :
rustam@trisakti.ac.id

Supervisor :

Moch Sarofil Abu Bakar

Associate Professor, Department of Landscape Architecture,

Faculty of Built Environment Universiti TeknologiMalaysia – Malaysia.
Email :
b-sarofil@utm.my

Dr. Foziah bt. Johar

Associate Professor, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Faculty of Built Environment Universiti TeknologiMalaysia – Malaysia.
Email : kjpbw@fab.utm.my

ABSTRACT

At the present time, the application of policy manageent of urban green open space of Jakarta have many weakness that caused by overlapping management.There are three institutions of management of urban green open space, those are Park Service (Dinas Pertamanan), Forest Service (Dinas Kehutanan), and Agricultural Service (Dinas Pertanian), which are all of them are under the scope of local government of DKI Jakarta.

The management consist of several basic activities, including planning and controlling, organizing, human resources, coordination and financing.The prominent indicator associated with the managing urban green open space that related to the aspect of good governance (Responsif, Participatory, Transparant, Accountable, Consensus Oriented, Effective dan Efficient).

The main problems is the lack of managements of urban green open space of DKI Jakarta.This was indicated by variety of critics coming from the members of society in DKI Jakarta about the function of it, where it will result the impact of environment.

In the relation to that problem, there are two questions was raised:

a.What kind of factors that hampered the management of the urban green open space?

b.What caused the management of the urban green open space in DKI Jakarta unsuccessful?

As the follow up of the questions above is giving the alternatives to solve that hampred, then, the question is, how is the alternative to management solve the lack of management of the urban green open space in DKI Jakarta

The objective ofstudy is getting the policy to manage the urban green open space in DKI Jakarta.The reflecting of the objective above was explained in the set of policy such as in the regulation and the institutional.

Key Words: Urban Management Green Open Space, Good Governance

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background
Jakarta, the capital city of the Republic of Indonesia – as stated in the DKI Jakarta’s Governor’s Authorization Letter number 1227 the year 1989 consists a land area of 650 km2 and an ocean area of 6,977.5 km², we can find over 110 islands spreadout in Thousan Island Regency. The northern part of Jakarta consists of ± 35 km coastal span as the estuary of 9 rivers, and 2 canals. Regional province administration of DKI Jakarta is divided into 5 municipalities, they are the following: Jakarta Pusat (Central Jakarta), Jakarta Utara (North Jakarta), Jakarta Selatan (South Jakarta), Jakarta Timur (East Jakarta), and Jakarta Barat (West Jakarta).

Jakarta’s development with all its activities set forth for development has caused a decrease in its environment quality and quantity. Physical development pushes forward toward maximum physical structure phenomena; meanwhile green openspace towards the minimum; with a tendency to change the face of nature. Green openspace in Jakarta can be categorized into 3 parts: parks green openspace, agricultural green openspace and conservation openspace. Each managed by institution in Jakarta’s government namely Parks Service, Agricultural Service and Forestry Service.

Green openspace has a very important role in protecting and enhancing the natural environment, also long term advantages (Scottish Executive Publications, 2006).

The advantages of Green openspace in cities according to Roseland, (1998), in view of economy aspects significantly decreases cost related to use of energy and water.Vegetation can control lamination, shade, wind and glare. Cools buildings in the summer and prevents heat loss in the winter (Roseland, 1998; Miller, 1997; CMHC, 1982). By arranging vegetation in correlation to the buildings located within its vicinity, we can save up to an average of 20 – 25% in energy cost. From an ecological aspect, green openspace provides a natural habitat for animals such as birds, fish, insects, and many more. According to Dorward (1990), green openspace also functions as a green belts (jalur hijau) and as corridors linking the habitats stated above. Prevents soil erosion (CMHC, 1982), absorbs rain water, which in turn increase drainage system (Roseland, 1998).

Trees are able to collect pollution particle; Miller (1997) discussed research result that shows that 20 small trees can reduce pollution produced by a train going at a speed of 60 mile per day. Urban heat island often occurs in the city area, where buildings, aspalt, and hardening absorbs sun radiation and reflects it back to outerspace which in turn causes the temperature to rise (Miller, 1997). Plants can reduce this effect, through the plant itself directly and indirectly through the process of evapotranspirational (Roseland, 1998). Observation shows, vegetation is able to decrease soil surface temperature by 17°C, also decrease the average air condition to 50% (McPherson, 1994). Green openspace also reduces noise pollution by a using a combination of trees, shrubs and bushes and partially cleanse afoliatdust particle (Miller, 1997). Green openspaceserves as an indicator for the city’s entire ecosystem (Roseland, 1998). In this respect, its value is significant in our continuous efforts to protect the environment.

In respects to its social benefits, the most obvious is its use as recreational area, to play, to meditate, and to gather together or as a rest area (Roseland, 1998). In a discussion on psychological effects of green openspace, Miller (1997) discovered advantages related to activities carried out in these areas. For example its use as a place to socialize, enhance the feeling of compassion towards each other and nurture family ties, a place to understand each other, to learn about ourselves, offers the opportunity to express ones value and social values as well, promote spiritual development and freedom. Green openspace introduces a natural environment into a city’s environment resulting in shape contrast, roughness, colors, and building texture, promote healthy thoughts through eye catching colors, sound, smell and movements (Dorward, 1990; Miller, 1997).

According to Danoedjo (1990) green openspace in cities is a wide area system within a city or municipality that can be found as an area, zone or a long stretch of are or (jalur) that can function as a provider for clean air, the city’s air circulator, water reservoir, home to animals and organism, also as a recreational facility, like parks, play area and scenery area. The decrease in green openspace in cities are due to the increasing population density, high/expensive land value in the city favor land utilization for economy interest., and therefore cause shifts in the city’s area function.

The regional province administration Jakarta (1985), stated the policy of the need to provide parks specifically green openspace to create a clean, beautiful, healthy, orderly, and a shaded city environment in its General Plan of Jakarta Area Arrangement (Rencana Umum Tata RuangJakarta) 2005 – 2010, as its consequence Jakarta’s regional province administration establish an institution to manage green openspace called Parks Services of Jakarta (Dinas Pertamanan), whose function is to arrange, build, maintain and protect parks, green belts (jalur hijau) and educate the society in the field of parks and the city’s esthetics so as to attain a well plan city. According to the Directorate Jenderal of Areal Arrangment (Dirjen Penataan Ruang) of the Departement of Public Affair (Depkimpraswil), (2002), to implememt the policy, good governance is needed in Jakarta’s green openspace maintenance. Eventhough good governance had been developed since the early years of 1990’s, but the good urban governance principles implementation in general and its consistency in managing the city’s area haven’t reached the level of expectancy of the community.

Good governance principles that must be developed in policy implementation in general are: Responsive, at ready to respond towards people’s and stakeholders needs, Participatory, parties influenced by a policy should be involved in the process of making the policy, Transparant; information is available for everyone in general on an existance of a program; Equitable; access available for everyone toward an opportunity and assets, Accountable; decision making whether coming from the government, private sectors and/or the community must fulfill its obligation to be accountable to the public and all stakeholders; Consensus Oriented, interest differenciation should be resolve to yield the best result possible for the country in general, Effective and Efficient; optimal resources utilization.

Considering the fact that the recent condition of green openspace management is not so successful, this research is an effort to contribute ideas for better green openspace management in the future to come.

1. 2Defining the Problem

Jakarta’s masterplan 1965 – 1985 targeted 37.2% of Jakarta’s area for green openspace, but in Jakarta’s General Plan of Area Arrangement (RUTR) 1985 – 2005 green openspace area target was reduced to 25.85%. In Jakarta’s Regional Plan of Area Arrangement (RTRW) 200 – 2010 the area target decreased to 13.94%. Now in the year 2004 green openspace is on 9% or 50km2, from this condition we can assume that Jakarta’s green openspace area decrease through the years both in quantity and quality as shown in Fig 1.1; 1.2; 1.3; and 1.4.

1965-rencana-hijau.jpg1985-rencana-hijau-kecil.jpg

Fig 1.2 Green Openspace from 1965-1985Fig 1.3. Green Openspace from 1985-2005

2010-rencana-hijau-kecil.jpg

Fig 1.4. Green Openspace from 2005 – 2010

The problem in Jakarta’s green openspace management is that ‘Jakarta’s green openspace management institutions are not well integrated’. Its management is still done partially or in sectors making it inefficient and ineffective in obtaining the targeted quality and quantity of green openspace, also the lack of participation of all stakeholders including intelectuals.

Facts proved that there have been green openspace function shifts, and so used for something else (Ditjen Bangda Depdagri 1994). Green openspace is still only considered as supplementary object to the city’s facilities, no more than means to enhance environmental esthetics. Competitiveness for area utilization in cities are significantly influenced by market mechanism, resulting in function shift of green openspace into housing area, stores, hotel, gas station, restaurant, etc, lack of control by government authorities in Jakarta’s development, human resource – in relevant government institution – limitation in respect to their abilities and professionalism. From the institutional point of view, the many various function and description of green openspace makes it difficult to uphold proper management scheme by institution such as the Parks Service, Agricultural Service, and Forestry Service. Last but not least, let us not forget the problem concerning the limited land availability in cities for green area, also concerning the funds needed to develop green openspace.

From the description above there is an indication that the cause of unsuccessful green openspace management is due to implementation of Good Governance Concept.


1.3.Research’s Goal/Target and Purpose

Goal/Target:

1.To identify factors causing the unsuccessfulness of Jakarta’s green openspace management in view of the 7 concept of Good Governance Implementation.

2.To analyze the factors causing the problem.

3.O give/suggest a recommendation.

The purpose of this research are:

a.To give/suggest a recommendation to green openspace management institution in order to succeed in attaining Jakarta’s green openspace development both from a quantitative and qualitive point of view.

b.To achieve a research policy on green openspace management institution as a guideline for Jakarta’s government and decision makers.

skema-pikir-final-kecil.jpg

GOOD GOVERNANCE CONCEPT

1.4. Scope of This Research

The scope of this research is directed to investigated Jakarta’s green openspace management in the five municipality as follow: Jakbar, Jaktim, Jaksel, dan Jakpus, also show in Fig 1.6, 1.7, dan 1.8.

The reason behind choosing Jakarta as the object of research are:

1.Jakarta has already had a green open space management system since the Dutch occupation era (Batavia is establish in 1621 by Jan Peter Zoon Coen).

2.Jakarta’s the capital city of the Rep. of Indonesia with an area of 650 km2 and the center of the government.

3.Becomes the barometer to other cities in the Republic of Indonesia.

4.The community has various type of daily activities.

peta-indonesia-big.jpg

Fig 1.7 A Map of Jakarta’s Location Java Island

peta_jakarta.gif

Fig 1.8 Jakarta’s Teritorial Boundries Including It’s 5 Municipality Boundries.

CHAPTER II LITERATURE RESEARCH

2.1 Defining Green Open Space

In context of utilization green open space has a broader definition than just an area with green open space can be clasifield both according to it’s location and function. According to its location green open space can be coastal open space, river hood plain, greenways and open area at the end of airplane runways in airports. According to (Dinas Tata Kota), city’s green open space covers (a) Macro green open space such as agricultural zone, fishery, forest conversation ,city forest, and safety area at the end of airplane’s runways (b) Medium green open space such as city parks, sport facility, public cemetary (Micro green open space covering all open space area in communities, provided for public facility like playground community park and sporting courts/field (Tambunan, 1994).

2.2 The History of Green Open Space in Indonesia and Abroad

Almost in all research concerning city planning (published as general plan of city’s spartial largest and it’s detail) states that the open space area needed in cities range between 30 – 40% including streets, hardened open space, lake, canal, etc. Green open space, though admitted to the best a;ternative in the effort to recover the city’s ecology function doesn’t receive the neccessary consideration from developers …at community level and on going up to city level.

In Surabaya green open space set by the region administration since 1992 was 20 – 30%. But the existing condition shows that green open space is less 10%(incl, house yard/garden). Results of a research by a research team of Surabaya’s institute of Technology on the role of the city’s green belt (Peranan Sabuk Hijau Kota Raya) (1992/1993) states that green open space area incl parks, green belt, cemetary, and sports field are estimated sround + 418,39 Ha, or roughly 1,67 m2/citizen. This number is far below the standard set through Surabaya’s Masterplan 2000 of 10,03 m2/citizen.

In Jogyakarta, the city’s green open space is 51,108 m2 or 5,11 Ha (1.6% of the city’s area) according to data at Parks Service (Dinas Pertamanan dan Kebersihan), consisting of 62 parks, city forest, botanical garden (kebun raya) and green belt, which comes done to an average of 0,1m2 green open space/citizen. Compared to the two cities Bandung citizens have a higher value. Untitle year 1999, every citizens still enjoy over 1,61m2 green open space. This is due to the contribution of existing green open space that covers + 15% of the total distribution of land use.

City development with orientation to the environment awareness in develoed countries has been going on for countries. In Ancient Egypt, green open space was laid out as gardens or plantation closed by high walls and agricultural area as found in the valley of Efrat and Tigris rivers, hanging/dangling parks of Babylonia that’s breath taking, the Temple of Aman Karnak and housing parks.

A new movement that is more aware towards the environment establishes city parks at a large scale and said to be the starting point of city’s open space. Central Park New York by Frederick law Olmested and Calvert Voux started the profession of Landscape Architecture that now develop worldwide.

It’s inevitable now that the need of green open space is not only foresthetics aspect but for the citizens comfort and the city’s ecology, altough day by day its existence is decreasing. Scientist say that green open space can be no less than 30% Shirvani (1985) or 1.200 m2 (tajuk tanaman)/person, grove (1983).

Cities that represent the government’s success in green open space management are Singapore with an area of 625 km2 and population of 3.6 million in the year 2000, density of 5.200 souls/km2 was projected to have 69% of its area for open space, while planned at 24% or 177 km2 for open space, as such its open space standard reach .9 Ha/1000 people. Tokyo reconstructed its green open space like street green belt (jalur hijau jalan), industrial zone, hotel and closing several streets, Even thought Tokyo’s land area is very limited, the government still reinforce that there should be parks to achieve the standard of 0.21 Ha/1000 people. Now Jakarta has a high population density with 9 million soul living there. So this research can be used as a comparison in setting green open space area for highly populated area.

Table 2.1 green Open Space Condition in Major Cities

No.

City

Population (in millions soul)

GOS(m2/soul)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Singapura

Baltimore

Chicago

San Fransisco

Washington DC

Muenchen

Amsterdam

Geneva

Paris

Stocholm

Kobe

Tokyo

2,70

0,93

3,37

0,66

0,76

1,27

0,81

0,17

2,60

1,33

1,40

11,80

7,0

27,0

8,80

32,20

45,70

17,60

29,40

15,10

8,40

80,10

8,10

2,10

Source : Liu Thai Ker (1994)

2. 3. City’s Green Open Space System

As a system green open space is actually part of the city that is not being develop, its function is to support comfort, welfare, improve environment quality and nature conservation, and generally consist of linear movement area or corridor and island area or oasis (Spreigen, 1965), Krier (1925) states that open space consists of “path and room”, one functions as an area for movement while the letter as an area for rest, activities or purpose, Gosling (1989) similarly states that green open space comes in the form of man made and natural as a result from technology such as street corridors and side walks, single and compound buildings, city forest, river bed (aliran sungai), and natural area that has long been there. Basically green open space is an integrated init and can be while as an orientation system.

2. 4. Green open Space Management Sytem

In UU RI No.32 the year 2009 on Environment Management are states that environment management is an integrated effort to converse living function which includes lay out policy, utilization, development, maintenance, recovery, monitoring and environment management covers activities such as: planning and controlling, institution/organization, human resource, coordination and funding.

Parties involved in green open space management are:

a)Politicians, represented by members of the People’s Legislative Council and Sub District Council.

b)Central government, represented by The Departement of Home Affairs, Departement of Tourisme.

c)Local government, represented by Head of Regional Development Planning Agency, Parks Service, Agricultural and Forestry Service authority.

d)Intellectual/University’s proffesional

e)Proffesional community

f)Jakarta’s community

g)Non government Organization

h)Business community/merchant, represented by businessman utilizing green open space merchants selling (tanaman hias)

diagram-hubungan-stakeholders-kecil.jpg

Fig 2.2 Stakeholders Involvement in Green Open Space

2.5Goverment Failure Theory

Theoritical background in policy analysis comes from David and L.Weimer, (1989) that states the factors causing government failures to be the following:

Democracy failure, that states that in a democracy system there’s an opportunity for community participation. Participation can persuade the community to accept social decisions that a certain individual did not choose.

Bureaucracy failure, involves Rent seeking effort to gain profit as a result of government intervention in the market, Precedent, often used by politician to attain public support in his/her favor.

Bureaucrat’s attitude failure,in the form of agency loss because employees don’t work according to employment regulation. Other problems found were collusion, corruption, mark up, and collecting illegal retribution that creates high economy cost.

Decentralization failure, Decentralization problem is related to the aspect of implementation that depreciation caused by many retribution collecting and monitoring also regional personnel incapability.

2.6. The Principle of Good Governance

In the process of implementing good governance there are the following 4 concepts to be considered:

2.6.1. Good Governance Concept

To understand the term governance, we have to differentiate it from the term Government. Government is more closely related to institution that governs and manage the government’s administration, while governance describes a balanced and proportional relationship between the government, political institution, economy institution and social institution in the effort to create agreement concerning government process control among the existing element/institution. The United Nations Development Program (UNDP Governance and Sustainable Human Development, 1997) in John Graham, Bruce Amos, Tim Plumptre, (2003) defines governance as: the exercise of political, economic and administrative authority in the management of a country’s affairs at all levels. It comprises the mechanisms, processes and institutions through which citizens and groups articulate their interests, exercise their legal rights, meet their obligations and mediate their differences. Two aspects of this definition, first, governance is not government only. Governance as a concept recognizes that power exists inside and outside the formal authority and institutions of government. In many formulations, governance includes government, the private sector and civil society. Second, governance emphasizes “process.” It recognizes that decisions are made based on complex relationships between many actors with different priorities.

Good governance is often defined as the realization indicator of reinventing the government by fulfillment of the following principles: first, community participation; second, law reinforcement; third, transparency; fourth, consideration towards stakeholder; fifth, consensus oriented; sixth, equivalence; seventh, effectively and efficiency; eight, accountability; and ninth, strategic vision (Fauziah Rasad, 2006).

There is many more definition to Good Governance given by other parties. For example World Bank (1993), defines Good Governance as solid and responsible development management implementation that is in accordance with democracy and an efficient market, avoid investment fund misallocation and prevent corruption both political and administrative, run a hight budget, also create legal and political framework for business activities growth (Cecilia Kinuthia-Njenga, 2005)

For the purpose of this paper/research we define Good Governance as good government management. Good meaning in accordance to the basic principle of Good Governance.

At present Good Governance emphasized on bureaucracy or executive circle, while fact Good Governance has 3 domain: state, private sector and society. The three domain contribution’s the nation, country and society can cause instability, contradiction, bias and of course also the feeling of synergic collaboration (Paul Streeten, 2002)

The government sector’s role is dominated by policy making, controlling and monitoring. Private sector takes a more active role and becomes the activator in field of economy. Meanwhile the society becomes the object and also as the subject of private and government sector. Push and shove among the government sector, private sector and society can cause tension and conflict if not managed wisely. In turn it will affect GG performance (Herwin Nur, 2004).

2. 6.2Participation Concept

Social participation is a form of social interaction in an activity. Meanwhile the definition of social participation formulated by a group of expert and accepted by United Nation is ”the creation of opportunities to enable all members of a community and the larger society to actively contribute to and influence the development process and to share equitably in the fruits of development” (Midgley, 1986).According to Saleh Aziz (1990), participation is different from mobilization. Participation is ones behavior in an interaction system that promotes democracy since it is also related to feeling ownership and responsibility, while mobilization has implication of an activity done due to an order and not of ones own choice. Participation concept was first developed in the 1980’s in western countries with intention to cut down on development budget and consideration that it’s not possible for a country (even a developed country) to fulfill its society continuous developing demand without its society meaningful involvement (Wirutomo, 1996)

The society should be involved from the very beginning of the process; formulating the target and purpose pf development planning until the monitoring stage, so that the result will be a compiled development framework from the monitoring process, surveys, communication and consultation with the society involve also parties that manage development. (Djoko Sujarto, 1991).

Hollsteiner (1978), states society participation is not just a democracy act but also society involvement in the process of decision making on issues that concerns the need and interest of the society.

Syarfi I.W, (1990) describes that society participation is needed because:

1.All parties concern should be involved in the process of planning and implementation to guarantee a successful program.

2.Society participation can reeducate the project managers and planners, cause through their participation the process will expand horizons and new experiences so that it could minimize fault in planning.

3.Through society participation parts that can be implemented, which parts can’t and which part is top priority in development.

Society participation can be differented into active participation and passive participation. Active participation is the ability to take part as a subject while passive participation takes part as an object. In it’s implementation, active society participation means that all 3 aspects stated above is planned, implemented and managed by the society for the society. Meanwhile, at present most of the society’s participation is passive in which society is asked to follow government instruction, sacrifice private properly for a development program determined by the governmebt. In a city which consist of a complex society, it’s difficult to motivate society participation. So society participation must start from a unit at a lower level.

2.6.3Juridical Concept

Indonesian had stated the society’s right and obligation in environment management in ordinance No 32 the year 1997 on Environmental Management (Liliawati, E, Mudjono, 1998) as follow:

1)Each individual has a right to a healthy environment

2)Has an obligation to maintain the environment, prevent and overcome damage and polution, also

3)Has a right and obligation to participate in environment management

2.6.4Reinventing Government

Osborn, (1996) define reinventing government as a government that’s bold enough to leave old method and program behind, has innovative, imaginative, and creative quality and ready to take risk. Change several city function as means to earn/gain money rather than use up the government’s budget, avoid traditional alternative that will only sustain life. Collaborate with private sector, use in dept business means, privatization establish companies to gain profit, market oriented, focus on performance and giving rewards for services.

Four (4) of the ten (10) basic principles in reinventing government discussed in this paper are:

1) Catalytic government, give guidance rather than instruction,

2) A government motivated by a mission, change from an organization motivated by law and regulation to one that gives opportunity to innovate.

3) Reinventing government, gain profit for public use rather than exhaust government’s budget,

4) A decentralization government, rather than hierarchy moving towards team work and participation

CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1. Reseacrh Location

Research location covers all the regional administration area of Jakarta; they are: Jakbar, Jaktim, Jakut, Jaksel, and Jakpus. Geographically located between 1060 and 1070 03′ Latitude and 5o48’33” and 6o10’30” Longitude, a shown in Fig. 3.1

This choise was made considering that Jakarta’s the central government and has strategic position for Indonesia. Beside the fact hat Jakarta is the indicator barometer of development to other regions of Indonesia.

Furtermore Jakarta’s plan involve creating a city that’s orderly, clean, esthetics, has a shoulded and healthy environment by developing green open space in proportion to its developed area

3.2.Collecting Data

The research was done in a time interval 3 of 18 months (December 2006 – august 2007) shown in scehdule 3.4 covering literature research, data collecting. Data used to clearly analysis the situation can be calssified into primary data and secondary data. This is a qualitative research, observing good governance concepts, stakeholders perception on recent issues and phenomena, that according to Oanim (2000) policy research.

Primary Data, data collecting by survey/in-depth interview of institution personnel by distributing closed questionenare; brainstorming opinion with policy implementor and acceptor; and field survey. The respondents taking part in this research can be divide into 2 (two) type of respondent; respondent that formulate/implementor of policy and respondent that accept the policy.

Secondary data, covers studies on recent research result, collecting regulation related to management, existing policy, documents. Data source from ”stakeholders” in this policy making institution related to Jakarta’s green open space management, they are:

a. Policy formulator and implementors consisting:

a.Politicians, represented by members of the People’s Legislative Council and Sub District Council.

b.Central government, represented by The Departement of Home Affairs, Departement of Tourisme.

c.Local government, represented by Head of Regional Development Planning Agency, Parks Service, Agricultural and Forestry Service authority.

b. Policy Acceptors consisting:

a.Intellectual/University’s proffesional

b.Proffesional community

c.Jakarta’s community

d.Non government Organization

e.Business community/merchant, represented by businessman utilizing green open space merchants selling (tanaman hias)

The data collected to analysis hypothesis 1 comes from a closed questionnaire of 260 policy acceptor respondent from a population of 9.720.40 citizen and randomly distributed with in the 5 municipality (Jakpus, Jakut, Jaksel, Jaktim, Jakbar) shown in schedule 3.1

Schedule 3.1. Respondent Distribution for Policy Acceptor

No

Respondent Type

JAKARTA Area

Respondent Type

Total Amount of Respondent

West

East

Central

South

North

1.

Intellectual/University’s professional

Pakar ilmiah dari:

Univ. Trisakti, Jakarta Barat

Univ. Borobudur, Jakarta Timur

Univ. Indonesia, Jakarta Pusat

Institut Teknologi Indonesia Jakarta Selatan

Univ. Tarumanegara, JkrtUtara

Penerima Kebijakan

60

2.

Professional community

Organisasi Profesi IALI, IAI, AKLANI, Pencinta Tanaman,

Penerima Kebijakan

30

3.

Jakarta’s community

15

15

15

15

15

Penerima Kebijakan

75

4.

Non Government Organization

Masyarakat Transparansi Ind

Yayasan Hijau Indonesia

Penerima Kebijakan

20

5.

Business community/merchant

15

15

15

15

15

Penerima Kebijakan

75

TOTAL

260

To analyze the second hypothesis, a specific interview was organized with 30 policy makers and implementers as respondent among which are: Jakarta’s governor (Vice Executive), Head of Regional Development Primary Agency (Yudikatif). Head of People’s Legislative Council (Regional Level) (Legislative), shown in schedule 3.2

Schedule 3.2 Respondent Distribution for Policy Makers and Implementor

No

Respondent Type

JAKARTA Area

Respondent Type

Total Amount of Respondent

West

East

Central

South

North

6.

Politicians

Pakar mewakili:

Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah (DPRD) (2 resp)

Dewan Perwakilan Daerah (DPD) (2 resp)

Dewan Kotamadya Jakarta Barat (2 resp)

Dewan Kotamadya Jakarta Timur (2 resp)

Dewan Kotamadya Jakarta Pusat (2 resp)

Dewan Kotamadya Jakarta Selatn (2 resp)

Dewan Kotamadya Jakarta Utara (2 resp)

Policy Maker

14

7.

Central Government

Pakar mewakili:

Departemen Dalam Negeri (2 resp)

Departemen Pariwisata (2 resp)

Departemen Pekerjaan Umum (2 resp)

Departemen Pertanian (2 resp)

Departemen Kehutanan (2 resp)

Policy Control/ monitoring

10

8.

Local Government

Pakar mewakili:

Gubernur/ Sekda Pem Kot Jakarta (1 resp)

Bupati Kep. Seribu (1 resp)

Kepala Badan Perencanaan Daerah (Bappeda), (1 resp)

Kepala Dinas Pertamanan, (1 resp)

Kepala Dinas Pertanian dan Kehutanan. (1 resp)

Kepala Suku Dinas Pertamanan (1 resp)

Policy Implementor /controller

6

TOTAL

30

3.3.Data Analysis

Data analysis was by means of descriptive analysis to depict and describe stakeholder’s perception on good governance based management framework. Questionnaire result was analyzed using a SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Science) computer program.

Meanwhile to analyze institutional policy we use the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) developed by Thomas L. Saaty a mathematician from Pittsburg University, USA in 1970’s. Basically AHP was designed to rationally depict people’s perception that is closely related to certain issues through procedures that’s designed to give a certain preference scale among several sets of alternatives. Analysis was designed to model issues that doesn’t have a certain structure, issues that needs judgment, even complex situation, (atau tidak berjangka), where statistical data information are at a minimum or cannot be found at all; only found in qualitative form based on perception, experience or intuition.

AHP is also used on decision on a number of criteria, planning, resources allocation and defining priority on existing strategies in conflict situation (Saaty, 1993)

AHP is the analysis method used in decision making and system approach, where decision makers tries to understand/comprehend a system’s condition and aids in predicting of a decision making. To solve problems by using AHP, several basic principle must be understood, they are:

Comparative Judgment, evaluate the relative importance/significance of two elements at a certain level in it’s relation to those in the level above it. This is the essence of AHP evaluation that will influence element’s priorities. The result is then conveniently presented in Pairwise comparison matrix.

Synthesis of Priority, from every pair wise comparison eigenvector matrix will give local priority this is so because pairwise comparison matrix can be found in every level, so to achieve the global priority, local priorities must be synthesized, synthesizing procedure is different for each hierarchy.

Logical Consistency, consistent has two meaning/aspects. First, similar objects can be grouped according to it’s uniformily and relevance. Second, relation level between objects based on certain criteria.

SENARAI RUJUKAN

Ali, Saleem H. 2003, Environmental Planning and Cooperative Behavior – Catalyzing Sustainable Consensus. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 23: 165 – 176.

Abbot, John. 1996, Sharing The City, Community Participation In Urban Management, Earthscan Publication, London.

Arnstein, Sherry .R. 1969, A Ladder of Citizen Participation. In Classic Readings in Urban Planning: An Introduction, edited by Jay M. Stein. 1995. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc, NewYork-USA

Barry Cushway & Derek Lodge, 1995, Organisational Behavior and Design, PT Gramedia Jakarta

Barrett, G. and P. Bohlen., 1991, Landscape Ecology in Hudson, W. ed. Landscape Linkages and Biodiversity, Washington, DC: Island Press.

Berkowitz, Alan R. Nilon, Charles H. dan Karen S. Hollweg. Eds. 2003. Understanding Urban Ecosystems: A New Frontier for Science and Education. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag New York, Inc.

Butler Jd & James Rf, 1988, Landscape Manajemen,Van Nostrand Reinhold Co, NewYork

Crushway. Barry, Derek Lodge, 1993, Organisational Behavior and Design, Penerbit PT Elek Media Komputindo, Jakarta.

Coralie, Bryant, 1987, Managing Development in the Third World, Westview Press Inc

Dinas PertamananJakarta,1987.Rencana Pembangunan Dinas Pertamanan.

Dinas PertamananJakarta, 1989.Laporan Dinas Pertamanan1988 -1989

Danim, Sudarwan, 1997, Pengantar Penelitian Penelitian Kebijakan, Penerbit Bumi Aksara Jakarta.

David L. Weimer dan Aidan R.Vining, 1989, Policy Analysis, Consept and Practice,

Dunn, William, 1995, Analisa Kebijaksanaan Publik, PT. Hanindita Graha Widya

Dusseldorp, D.B.M.W.Van, 1981. Participation in Planed Development : Influence by Government of Developing Contries of Local Level in Rural Areas.

Hanafie, Jahya. 1996. Partisipasi Masyarakat Dalam Penyediaan Sarana Dan Pelayanan Perkotaan. Analisis sistem. Edisi khusus, tahun II, Januari.

Hester R.T,1975Neighborhood Space.Husting son and Rose.

Howard E, 1985, Garden Cities of Tomorrow. Attic Books.

John Graham, Bruce Amos, Tim Plumptre, 2003, Policy Brief No.15, Principles forGood Governance in the 21st Century, The Institute On Governance (IOG)

Kartasasmita, Ginanjar. 1996, Pembangunan Untuk Rakyat, Memadukan Pertumbuhan Dan Pemerataan. Penerbit PT. Pustaka Cidesindo, Jakarta.

Laurie. M, 1975, An Introduction to Landscape Architecture. American Publisher.

Liliawati, E, Mudjono, 1998, Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia nomor 23tahun 1997 tentang Pengelolaan Lingkungan Hidup,Penerbit Harvarindo.

Marpaung Leden, 1997, Tindak Pidana Lingkungan Hidup dan Masalah Prevensinya, Penerbit Sinar Grafika

Metropolitan Integrated Environment Programme,1982.The Assesment ofJakarta Greening Policy and Projects the Study and Exercise of Greening in Bukit DuriKMP Pilot Area.Jakarta

Miller DC, 1977,Handbook of Research Design and Social Measurement,Long Man NewYork

McHarg, Ian L. 1969, Design With Nature. Philadelphia – USA: Eugene Feldman, The Falcon Press.

McPherson, E, 1994, Cooling Urban Heat Islands with Sustainable Landscapes. in Platt, The Ecological City. The University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst.

Miller, R., 1997, Urban Forestry. Planning and Managing Urban Greenspaces. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

Motloch L John, 1991, Introduction to Landscape Design, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York

Newton N,T, 1971, Design On the Land. (The Development Of Landscape Architecture).

Osborn, D and Ted Gabbler, 1996, Reinventing Goverment,Mewirausahakan Birokrasi,Pustaka Binaman Pressindo

Partowidagdo W, 1997, Analisis Kebijakan, ITB-Bandung

Partowidagdo, Widjajono. 1999, Memahami analisis kebijakan. Kasus reformasi Indonesia. Penerbit Program Penelitian Pembangunan Program Pascasarjana ITB, Bandung.

Pemerintah DaerahJakarta,1985.Rencana Umum Tata Ruang1985 – 2005.

Roseland, M, 1998, Toward Sustainable Communities. Resources for Citizens and their Governments. Gabriola Island: new Society Publishers.

Saaty, Thomas L., 2001, Decision making for Leaders, RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, USA

Turner, Mark and Greg Barret, 1998, Urbanization and Governance: Some Basic Issues, University of Canberra, Canberra.

Simond, JO, 1997, Landscape Architecture: a manual of site planning and design, McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc, NewYork-USA

Soemarwoto, Otto. 1994, Ekologi, Lingkungan hidup dan Pembangunan. Penerbit Djambatan, Jakarta.

Walter, Jk Stephen, 1993, Enterprise Government And The Public, McGrawHill Inc

Weimar, David.L and Aidan R. Vining. 1989, Policy analysis. Concepts and practice.Prentice-Hall International, Inc. New Jersey.

White, Rodney R,1994, Urban Enviromental Management, John Wiley, New York.

PAPER/ MAKALAH

Cecilia Kinuthia-Njenga, 2005, Compiled Good Governance: Common Definitions, Human Settlements Officer, Urban Development Branch, UNCHS (Habitat).

Danoedjo, S, 1990,Menuju Standar RTH Di Kawasan Kota Dalam Rangka Melengkapi Standar Nasional Indonesia. Direktur Jenderal Cipta Karya, Departemen Pekerjaan Umum. Jakarta, Agustus.

Ditjen Bangda Depdagri, 1994, RTH Kota (Instruksi Menteri Dalam Negeri nomor 14 tahun 1988, Seminar Aktualisasidan Pembinaan RTH.

Dirjen Penataan Ruang Depkimpraswil, 2002,Menata Ulang Kebijakan Penataan Ruang Kawasan Perkotaan Dalam Rangka Mewujudkan ‘Good Urban Governance’, Pusat Pengpenelitian Kebijakan Teknologi Pembangunan Wilayah BPPT Jakarta.

Danisworo, M, 1998, Makalah Pengelolaan kualitas lingkungan dan lansekap perkotaandi indonesia dalam menghadapi dinamika abad XXI.

Fauziah Rasad, 2006, makalah Reformasi Birokrasi Dalam Perspektif Pemberantasan Korupsi, Masyarakat Transparansi Indonesia.

Herwin Nur, 2004, Meruwat Good Governance Sebagai Tradisi Kerja Sepi Ing Pamrih Rame Ing Gawe Dalam Format Birokrasi Dinamis, Buletin Pengawasan Pekerjaan Umum RI No. 45 & 46

Paul Streeten (USA), 2002, Good Governance: History and Development of the Concept, International Symposium Development, Governance and the Private Sector 2002 Basel, Switzerland Novartis Foundation for Sustainable Development, 2006

Rudy Tambunan, 1994, Makalah Pola RTH dan Ekosistem Jakarta.

Rahmanta Ginting, 2002, makalah Falsafah Sains Program Pasca Sarjana – S3,Kebijakan Publik Dalam Eksternalitas, Institut Pertanian Bogor, Bogor

Saleh. Aziz, 1990, Pidato Pengukuhan Guru Besar Sosiologi Fakultas SastraUnad, Padang.

Wirawan, Sarlito. Dr, 1990, Masyarakat dan Ppenghijauan Kota,suatu pendekatan psikologis lingkungan, Seminar RTH Jakarta.

UNDANG-UNDANG DAN PERATURAN PEMERINTAH:

Undang-undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 5 Tahun 1974, tentang Pokok-pokok Pemerintahan Daerah.

Undang-undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 11 Tahun 1990, tentang Susunan Pemerintahan Daerah Khusus Ibukota Negara Republik Indonesia Jakarta.

Undang-undang Nomor 11 Tahun 1990, tentang Kedudukan Jakarta Sebagai Ibukota Negara Republik Indonesia.

Undang-undang Nomor 26 Tahun 2007, tentang Penataan Ruang.

Undang-undang Nomor 1 Tahun 2011, tentang Perumahan dan Permukiman.

PERATURAN MENTERI, KEPUTUSAN MENTERI DAN INSTRUKSI MENTERI

Peraturan Menteri Dalam Negeri Nomor 2 Tahun 1987, tentang Pedoman Penyusunan Rencana Kota.

Peraturan Pemerintah Republik Indonesia Nomor 63 Tahun 2002 Tentang Hutan Kota

Peraturan Menteri Dalam Negeri Nomor9 Tahun 1987, tentang Pedoman Penyusunan dan Pengendalian Program Pembangunan Daerah di Daerah.

Keputusan Menteri Pekerjaan Umum Nomor: 378/KPTS/1987, tentang Pengesahan 33 Standar Konstruksi Bangunan Indonesia, khususnya pada lampiran 22 mengenai Petunjuk Perencanaan Kawasan Perumahan Kota.

Keputusan Bersama Menteri Dalam Negeri dan Menteri Pekerjaan Umum Nomor 650-1595 dan dan 503/KPTS/1985, tentang Tugas-tugas dan Tanggung Jawab Perencanaan Kota.

Keputusan Menteri Pekerjaan Umum Nomor 640/KPTS/1986, tentang Perencanaan Tata Ruang Kota.

Instruksi Menteri Dalam Negeri Nomor 14 Tahun 1988, tentang Penataan RTH di Wilayah Perkotaan.

PERATURAN DAERAHJAKARTA

Surat Keputusan Gubernur K Jakarta, Nomor: CD.3/I/I/1970 tanggal 3 Agustus 1970, Pembentukan Dinas PertamananJakarta disamping itu juga merupakan landasan kerja dalam mengelola dan membina penghijauan dan pertamanan kota Jakarta.

Keputusan Gubernur K Jakarta Nomor: BVII-3400/al/1976 tanggal 18 Mei 1976, sebagai penyempurnaan daripada pada SK sebelumnya, guna lebih meningkatkan layanan kepada masyarakat di bidang pembangunan taman-taman, tata hias kota dan penghijauan kota, agar terwujud suatu kota yang indah, teratur dan sehat.

Peraturan Daerah Nomor: 9 tahun 1982, tentang Pembentukan Susunan Organisasi dan Tata Kerja Dinas PertamananJakarta yang disahkan oleh Keputusan Menteri Dalam Negeri Nomor: 061.131-165, tanggal 13 April 1983.

Peraturan Daerah Khusus Ibukota Jakarta nomor 6 tahun 1999 tentang Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah Daerah Khusus Ibukota Jakarta.

Peraturan DaerahJakarta Nomor: 5 tahun 1984, tentang Rencana Umum Tata Ruang JakartaTahun 2005.

Peraturan Daerah Nomor 3 Tahun 1972, yang diperbarui dengan Peraturan Daerah Nomor 11 Tahun 1988, tentang Ketertiban Umum, termasuk di dalamnya Ketertiban Umum di daerah RTH.

Surat keputusan Gubernur K Jakarta nomor 1046 Tahun 1987, tentang Pedoman Penyusunan Program/Proyek Terpadu diJakarta.


Actions

Information

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: