![[ Murdoch University logo and link to homepage ]](/images/header/cs/logo/mu_logo_lhs_45.gif){kind=logo}
| SEARCH| MURDOCH| INDEX| PEOPLE |
|
|
Institute for Sustainability and Technology Policy |
|
|
Urban ecology in IndonesiaThe Kampung Improvement Program (KIP) By Dr Jeff Kenworthy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
In order to provide the necessary context for understanding the unique nature of the Indonesian kampung, the case study commences with a general description of what a kampung is, followed by an "after KIP" description of a kampung environment, as well as something of the wider environment in which the kampung exists. This is followed by a simple description of the achievements of KIP and the walk-up flat programme and the planning and implementation processes employed.
In a developing world characterised by often degraded, wretched urban environments, it is difficult not to be impressed with the achievements of KIP. While not romanticising what has been done, or overlooking what is yet to be achieved, it is useful to understand this relatively successful urban sustainability programme in what it has done for the living conditions of kampung residents and the basis of its success. It is a model of how greening and reduced travel needs can go together.
 |
 |
In summary, a kampung can be described as having the following features (Silas, 1993):
it is not a squatter settlement or a slum; it is a tight agglomeration of continuous and incrementally developed self-help housing, built mostly on traditionally owned land in traditional ways;it is an indigenous concept of housing and community of various sizes, shapes and densities, catering for mostly low and middle-to-low income families at different dwelling price levels;
it generates within itself vast home
industries ranging from manufacturing of leather, cloth and
metal goods to various foods and services;
Physically, kampungs consist of low rise,
extremely compact, small houses, each with a doorway directly onto
the pathway.
 |
 |
This interface between public and private worlds is frequently straddled by the residents sitting in their doorways, talking, working and selling goods and produce. From above, the urban form appears as an almost contiguous, tight matrix of red-tiled roofs and the densities achieved in such environments (in some cases over 1000 people per ha, compared to typical figures of 10 to 15 per ha in US and Australian cities), bear witness to the frugal use of land and the relatively large household sizes.
 |
 |
Looking down on the kampung, the narrow paths are barely visible, identifiable only as corridors of green, fruit-bearing trees which shade these public access ways from the tropical heat. Larger streets are relatively few and car traffic is discouraged. Houses are mixed together with an intense variety of other uses such as schools, mosques, small shops, manufacturing establishments, community centres and so on.
The paths which knit the urban fabric together, as might be imagined from the activities they support, are almost exclusively for non-motorised traffic, mainly pedestrians, bicycles or becaks, the traditional three-wheel bicycle taxis which still ply the streets of Surabaya, but which have been banished in Jakarta by the central government. Small motor cycles owned by residents also use the narrow streets but strict speed limits of 5 km/h apply. Motor cycles are often just pushed through the kampung.
Ringing most kampungs in Surabaya are major traffic arteries along which residents of the kampungs travel to other destinations within the city, mostly on foot or bike or by using the overcrowded mini- and midi-buses. These buses, along with a burgeoning fleet of private cars, trucks and motor bikes, help fill the main roads with noise and black diesel fumes and contribute to an increasingly hostile and dangerous world for pedestrians and bicyclists. Each kampung has a direct entrance onto the main road from one of its small paths and the entrance is punctuated with an entry statement bearing the name of the kampung and signs displaying some basic rules of the community such as speed limits and curfews. Within kampungs there are small 'guardhouses' on some corners which are used through the night to maintain security...a tradition learned from the Japanese during the occupation in the Second World War.
 |
 |
Inside the kampung away from the main road, and in an environment which is essentially pedestrianised, there is little noise, other than human sounds and the songs of the many birds which are kept in bamboo cages hanging outside the entrances to the dwellings or in windows. The air is also a good deal more breatheable than along the main roads, filtered by the vegetation along the paths and reduced in pollutant load by distance separation.
KIP, in its recent manifestations, commenced in 1968 and was born out of a need to do something about the increasingly degraded and unhealthy conditions characteristic of kampungs as they had evolved in larger Indonesian cities.
 |
 |
It has proceeded through various stages since then, influenced by the philosophy of the Indonesian Five Year Development Plans (Repelitas) and the Urban (Infrastructure) Development Programme (IUDP), which were initially very paternalistic in their approach, involving hardly any community participation. It was however rapidly learned that without the involvement of the community, top-down approaches to improving urban livability and sustainability were not only ineffective and inefficient, but were simply financially unsustainable. By 1979 in Repelita III (1979-1984), a decentralized, locally initiated approach was introduced and again in Repelita V (1988-1993) the government's role was directed more towards that of provider and enabler of development and to accommodate and support local community initiative and effort, rather than being the initiator and decision-maker.
KIP is now strongly based on intense community participation, high levels of resourcing by the local community both in terms of money and direct labour, and the forging of an extremely effective partnership between low income communities and the public sector. Generally, for every 1 million Rp provided by the government in direct project costs, such as supplying prefabricated paths and drains, another 0.5 million Rp is contributed by the local community and if the contribution of direct labour inputs and other inputs are included, local contributions are considerably higher. This level of financial and human commitment can only be achieved "if the community understands and accepts the objective of the project and is involved early in the project formulation and takes an active part in decision making and supervision of the project" (Silas, 1993, p16).
In this regard, any programme of improvement under KIP involves ongoing discussions between the city and the community and neighbourhood representatives from the planning to the implementation stage to ensure close agreement on what is to be done, how it is to be done and how the costs will be shared. It must be formally endorsed by both the kampung democratic structure and the city authority in order to commence. ITS has frequently been involved in the facilitation and improvement of this process through evaluation studies and direct liaison. The result of this process is extremely high levels of ownership by the communities over the improvements made, with no deterioration of the results over time, but rather ongoing maintenance and improvement. Great pride is taken in keeping the public areas clean and functioning.
In the physical improvements made under KIP, the centre-piece has been the provision of the footpaths described earlier to improve movement within and around the kampung and to seal what were previously just mud paths. This has been the single biggest investment under KIP. Both roads and footpaths are also provided with deep side-drains to cope with tropical rainfall.
 |
 |
In constructing the new footpaths, almost continuous side-borders of garden beds are also provided, along with space for painted concrete receptacles for both disposable waste (yellow containers) and more recently, recyclable waste (blue containers).
|
|
|
These garden beds are richly planted with fruit-bearing and decorative trees, shrubs and flowers, with women playing a major role in these activities. The greening of the streets happens very rapidly and seems to be a catalyst for the commencement of other initiatives. The local community also provides street lighting and entrance gates to the kampungs. The resulting improvement in the urban environment from these simple changes, supports and encourages an ongoing process of upgrading the construction quality and appearance of houses and other private infrastructure such as toilets, garbage bins, water supply and electricity.
KIP, through its enhancement of community cohesiveness and cooperation, also protects against encroachment on the little remaining open spaces in kampungs for playgrounds, sports and outdoor activities and has been responsible for the addition of meeting places, guard houses and mosques within the communities.
In Surabaya, more than 70% of kampungs have been treated through KIP, particularly inner urban kampungs. KIP's achievements in Surabaya between 1984 and 1990, with some assistance from World Bank long term loans administered through the provincial level, include:
As well as improving the physical environment of the kampungs, KIP has had many desirable social and cultural spin-offs. Rather than improving the physical aspects of life through acquiescence to the western standards and practices, which is the norm in the higher standard, formal housing areas of Indonesian cities, KIP has strengthened and enhanced local architecture, culture and way of life, including preservation of significant landmarks such as old graves or trees, believed to be associated with the first person to have established the kampung. It has also improved community cohesiveness, increased the sense of belonging and self-worth among inhabitants, strengthened religious aspects of the community and uplifted the status of women through the many associated social, educational and health programs.
In some sense, KIP should not only be viewed as a successful programme to empower local people to improve the environment of their communities, but also as a successful strategy to preserve a unique human resource, contributing to the development of communal as well as individual identity in the city.
One aspect of both physical and social environment improvement which has been linked to KIP is the approach to waste collection. About 15,000 workers are required to collect rubbish and to sweep Surabaya's streets. These workers have to get wastes to transfer depots where the city takes over and removes the wastes to land fill sites. The city only pays 10% of their salary, the rest comes directly from residents and they are self-organized at a community level. As well as these workers, there are some 2,500 or more 'waste pickers', part of the informal economy, who despite the negative connotations of their title, remove some 20% of the waste stream and turn it into an effective income of about US$350,000 per month in Surabaya. Their role in urban waste management is as important as landfill or incineration.
In order to remove the stigma attached to this job, to formally incorporate and recognise them as an essential part of urban environmental management, and to provide opportunities to progress out of it into other work, the city first re-named them as MPKs or Partners of the Yellow Force, a reference to the yellow jackets worn by the waste collectors and street sweepers. Next, it formally recognised them in a ceremony giving them identity cards, tools and uniforms and provided training to allow them to move out of this line of work. The MPKs are invited to city celebrations and other formal events to increase their self-esteem and confidence and to publically recognise the difficulties of this formidable type of informal work, which they do without subsidy or assistance.
Over the last 30 years of the Kampung Improvement Programme, UNICEF, UNEP and the World Bank have also been involved in various capacities. These have included improving the health and welfare of mothers and children in the kampungs, studies to determine the most urgent needs, education of residents about the importance of improving their local environment, provision of physical infrastructure such as water taps, rubbish storage and collection facilities, group wells and latrines, health projects, vocational training, management and organization skills to facilitate community participation and financial contributions.
It was based on replacing the seriously sub-standard housing with innovative, 3 to 4 storey walk-up flats, architecturally designed after intense community consultation with the people to be re-housed so as to ensure the best possible changeover to a 'new' lifestyle, and avoiding the problems of first generation flat development in Jakarta.
The walk-up flat areas in Surabaya have enjoyed similar successes to the KIP areas, eg intense community participation and partnership with the public sector, high level of responsibility for maintenance and operation by local people, ongoing improvements such as tree planting, and significant savings in water and electricity use have been recorded. Furthermore, like the kampungs, 70% of dwellings having some form of income generating activities (Silas, 1993).
These programmes have built on a long tradition of self-help in kampung environments, assisting the inhabitants to achieve an even greater degree of self-empowerment, teaching how to embrace appropriate aspects of modern western technology, management and organisation, without being overrun by them and losing valued local traditions and culture.
The success of KIP and the Walk-Up Flats Programmes is attested to by the steady stream of international delegations visiting and inspecting the developments and the fact that the programme is seen as having direct relevance in many other developing countries such as India.
