Why Not Integrating Jakarta Metropolitan Area Zoning

Regulation?
Bayu Wirawan
Abstract
Urban sprawl in Jakarta Metropolitan Area (JMA) happens due to the rapid urbanisation which resulted
inefficient and unsustainable growth in JMA. This condition exacerbates by absence of integrated
spatial plan and fragmented local government priorities. This paper examines the extent to which
synchronization of zoning regulation in JMA can be used as means to managing JMA urban growth
and thus reducing the negative effect on urban sprawl. As part of spatial plan integration in managing
urban sprawl, local government in JMA needs to provide supporting arrangements of spatial plans
which are public transportation and housing provision.
Keywords : policy integration, zoning regulation, Jakarta Metropolitan Area

Jakarta Metropolitan Area Urban Growth

The world enters the urban eras in the 21st
century. By 2008, half of the world population
lives in the urban areas and projected become
two third in the year of 2050 (UN DESA, 2008;
2015). There will be more than two thousand
cities in the world by 2030 which mostly located
in Asia and Africa Region, and the world will need
1.3 million km2 of new spaces for accommodate
those urban areas growth (Angel, et al, 2010; UN
DESA 2015). The rapid urbanization also resulted
in dramatically increased of metropolitan cities,
whereas metropolitan cities multiply ten times
during the years 1950-2014 from three to thirty
five metropolitan cities that located mostly in Asia
Region, this numbers show rapid urbanization
phenomenon in Asia Region (ADB, 2006; Teriman,
et al, 2009). Rapid growth of metropolitan cities
also happened in Indonesia. There were five
metropolitan cities in 2005 and by 2014 the
numbers increase into fourteen metropolitan
cities (Winarso, 2006; Demographia, 2016).

As the largest metropolitan area in Indonesia,

Jakarta experiencing very high growth in most all
aspect such as urban areas development,
population, and economic (Rustiadi and Panuju,

1999; Firman, 2012; Firman 2014a). Jakarta

Metropolitan Area (JMA) comprises of several and
various level of local government units, which
consists of three provinces including Special
Capital Region of Jakarta (DKI Jakarta), Jawa
Barat, and Banten; five municipalities (kota)
including Tangerang, Tangerang Selatan, Depok,
Bogor, and Bekasi; and three regencies
(kabupaten) including Tangerang, Bogor, and
Bekasi. Rapid urbanization in JMA, marked by
dramatically population growth during the year
1990-2010 resulting in the changed of built up
areas from merely 11.2% in 1992 to 35.6% in
2009 (Arifien, 2012) which mostly caused by poor
implementation of spatial plan and high pressure
from the housing market sector (Sudianto, 2008;
Firman, 2012; Rukmana, 2015). This rapid
urbanization in JMA created urban sprawl
especially in JMA inner suburbs area (see figure
1 for JMA urban classification).

which need to be done in dealing with managing

JMA urban growth.

Figure 1. Jakarta Metropolitan Area

Urban sprawl in JMA happened due to the several

intertwined cause such as major toll road
development combined with private motorization,
inefficient spatial plan and development control
implementation, complex and fragmented
institutional structure, and power dispersal
among central and local government for some
JMA spatial plans (Silver, 2008; Hudalah, 2010;
Soegijoko, 2011; Hidayat et al, 2013; Rahmawati,
2014; Rukmana, 2015).
In managing this
situation, JMA needs to synchronize its spatial
plan and especially its development control which
is zoning regulation.
Introduced formally as
development control tools in Indonesia by Law
No. 26/2007 about Spatial Planning, zoning
regulation regarded as the key tools for urban
development
control.
Nevertheless
synchronization of zoning regulation between
municipalities in Indonesia still has not found its
format (Pratama et al, 2012; Wirawan, 2015; Zhu
and Simarmata, 2015), then exacerbated by local
governments lack of readiness in implementation
their zoning regulation (Fanani, 2014; Rukmana,
2015).
There is a silver lining between urban sprawl,
development control, and policy integration in
dealing with urban growth. And these three
aspect become relevant for the contextual
situation in JMA. Combining these three aspects
considered as an alternative approach in dealing
with Jakarta Metropolitan Area growth. This
combination enable policy maker to create
comprehensive concept which connect the
empirical situation and the future transformation

Figure 2. Jakarta Metropolitan Area Urban Sprawl

Underdal (1980) stated that policy qualified as

integrated if follows three criteria, namely
comprehensiveness, consistency and aggregation.
Policy integration also defined as managing the
overlapping proposition that beyond available
policy bounds, which could connected to
integration on horizontal, vertical, or both
manners (Stead and Meijers, 2004). Later on,
Giesen (2011) also stated that policy integration
is an amalgamation of particular policy goals
which immaterial to policy domain for existing
sectoral policies. Policy integration is different
from policy cooperation (an effort of different
parties to achieve common goals) and policy
coordination (focusing on the outcomes which
could result in differing than preferred previous
one).
Policy integration is beyond both
coordination and cooperation although it still on
the same dimension (Stead and Meijers, 2004).
Policy integration for urban development and
management can be served through various tools,
and spatial planning is one of the prominent tool.
There are two roles of spatial planning for policy
integration which are (1) as integrating tools
between sectors, and (2) channel of
communication between sectors (Stead and
Meijers, 2009).

Bayu Wirawan

Figure 3. Correlation between integrated policy

making, coordination and cooperation (Stead and
Meijers, 2004)
This paper examines the extent to which
synchronization of zoning regulation can be used
as means to managing JMA urban growth. The
synchronization process itself part of the policy
integration which trying to involve various actors
from different backgrounds to answer the
fragmented spatial planning in JMA.

Research Methodology
A qualitative methodology is applied in this paper
on the spatial plan policy integration of the JMA.
This paper also attempts to evaluate the spatial
planning process in metropolitan areas as their
policy in managing urban growth, using JMA as
the case study. To obtain relevant data for
analysis, data collection for this paper carried out
through desk study and interviews.
Most of desk study data obtained from official
website policy documents and previous research.
Data from official website mostly from
government agency which responsible to provide
official information such as BPS (central bureau
of statistics), national agency related to spatial
planning such as BKPRN (national spatial
planning coordination board) and Ministry of
Agrarian and Spatial Plan website, and local
government official website. The collected policy
document mostly consist of regulation and spatial
plan document related to metropolitan and/or
JMA development.
Collection of previous
research focused on the spatial plan aspect of
JMA which mostly release after the release of
Indonesia spatial planning law, which is 2007.
Interviews is held by using semi structure
interview approach of several JMAs spatial
planning actors representing central government

actors from Ministry of Agrarian and Spatial Plan;

local government actors from DKI Jakarta
Province, Depok Municipality and Tangerang
Selatan Municipality; and expert from Indonesia
Association of Planner (IAP). The key informants
were picked based on the snowball method,
meaning that the next interviewees were selected
based on recommendation from other previous
interviewees. Key questions on this interview is
about the actor perception on policy integration
of spatial plan in JMA, especially at the zoning
regulation level.

Integrating JMA Zoning Regulation

Bengston, et al (2004) elucidate that in order to
make public policy as the main tool in managing
urban growth it needs to get national level
guidance and voluntary participation from all
related actors.
JMA has the national level
guidance in place, however the voluntary
participation especially from local government
still become the major challenge that needs to be
overcome. Horizontal coordination is important
for JMA. Part of the coordination is in creating
JMA urban
growth extension that
is
acknowledged by all local governments.
It is also important for the integrated spatial plans
accessible to all actors in order to guarantee their
inclusivity. JMA needs to utilize the internet as
powerful tools to disseminate their spatial plans.
Not only put the legalized spatial plan, JMA also
need to put the draft of amended plan in order to
reassure that all stakeholder able to gain access
to the latest update/version of spatial plan
documents. Willingness to open all access to the
spatial plan is not only a crucial element if
inclusive development, but it is also a vital
auxiliary to achieve good metropolitan
governance.
Dealing with spatial planning integration and
administrative government fragmentation, there
are at three important nuances, first JMA need to
establish a single vision to contain urban built-up
development. Second, the use of standardized
procedure as guidance is beneficial to incorporate
the single vision into diverse zoning regulation
created by various local governments. Third,

inclusiveness and voluntary engagement of all

different stakeholders are essential to manage
the integration of spatial plan through a
coordinating institution, not just merely a
cooperating institution.
Achieving those three important nuances, JMA
also faces several supporting and inhibitor factors.
Wirawan (2016) found that Indonesias spatial
planning procedure standardization and actors
willingness to cooperate were the supporting
factors, while budget allocation and divergent
priorities were the inhibitors factors.
The established procedure of Municipal/Regency
BKPRD (local spatial planning coordination board)
discussion and then followed by BKPRD
Provinces discussion have ensured spatial plans
are always in accordance with adjacent local
government needs. For JMA, due to its national
strategic function there are also BKPRN
discussion for their spatial plans. This
standardized procedure for creating a common
vision is a helpful means to synchronize diverse
zoning regulation. However, there are still some
shortfall on this system. First, the available
standardized procedures mainly focus on the
formulation process of spatial plan, but lacking on
the implementation stages. Second, this
synchronization procedure is relies heavily on
government representatives and it lack inclusivity
especially stakeholders from civic societies.
The second supporting factor is willingness to
cooperate between JMA actors by joining JMA
BKSP (Development Cooperation Agency)
discussion forum, where they able to share their
needs and agendas for JMA development. BKSP
performed well for its coordination role, however
BKSP is still poor at the monitoring and evaluation
role (Firman, 2012; Sihite, 2013). Moreover
BKSP also does not have authority to
implementing JMA development program (Firman,
2012). Although willingness to cooperate is high
among local government, however the
fragmented mindsets are still overshadowing the
local
governments
(Interviewee:
IAP
representatives, 2016). BKSP need to reform
itself from merely a cooperation agency towards
a coordinating agency. This reform is a good leap
for BKSP to become an integrated policy making
institutions (see figure 2). This transformation is

highly plausible especially due to the willingness

to cooperate attitude among stakeholders in JMA
There is different opinion regarding budget
allocation as inhibitor of policy integration. For
local government with strong local revenues
sources such as Jakarta City and Tangerang
Selatan City, their concern is mainly related to
how the higher level spatial plan is able to
resonate with their needs to improve compact
development. In this instance, the availability of
integrated JMA spatial plan become necessary.
The situation is different for local government
that relied heavily on central government funds.
They felt envy to other local governments
capability to allocate more budget to supporting
spatial planning process. While there is a budget
from national government in giving technical
assistance for local government, this program are
prioritized for regions in Indonesias more remote
areas therefore local government in JMA did not
received it.
One of the problem with decentralization is the
presence of divergent priorities. All local
governments believe that by using JMA spatial
plan as their guidance for their spatial plans is
sufficient to bridge their diverse land use
development.
However due to the unclear
definition related to the arrangements of urban
growth containment, many local governments
believed that at micro level they are allowed to
adjust their zoning regulation with the current
dynamics of urban expansion. Thus, micro level
planning becomes the supporters of urban sprawl.
Central government has proposed to use local
BKPRD and province BKPRD discussion to
overcome these diverse priorities. However, due
to the lack of authority of the BKRPD members,
most of the discussion are restricted to only local
spatial problems. Furthermore, as BKPRD is just
a cooperation institution with very limited
authorities, no clear solutions or binding decisions
for the cross border problems have been
produced so far. JMA needs a strong integrated
institution which has responsibilities to manage
the implementations and evaluation of spatial
plans. By having this institution in place it is
expected that the implementation on micro level
spatial plan (aka zoning regulation) between

Bayu Wirawan

different local governments can be synchronized

and well monitored

Conclusion
Rapid urbanization in JMA is marked by high
population growth and massive expansion of
built-up areas, leading to a sprawled condition in
JMA urban landscape.
Inability of local
governments to quickly promulgated zoning
regulation as development control tools
combined
with
fragmented
institutional
landscape among local governments exacerbate
the situation. JMA case presented in this paper
provides an example of how poor metropolitan
governance in spatial planning might contribute
to severe urban sprawl.
There is a mismatch between macro and micro
level of JMA spatial plan. Integration of spatial
plan as an effort to deal with this mismatch also
is confronted with several supporting and
hindering factors.
The hierarchical spatial
planning system equipped with standardized
procedure still unable to overcome JMA urban
sprawl. At macro level, JMA spatial plan as the
strategic guidance has its own fragility in spatial
pattern designation and development controls
arrangement. Meanwhile at micro level, local
governments diverse priorities become the main
reason and justification to their tardiness in
making and implementing their zoning regulation.
Culture of willingness to cooperate in most JMA
stakeholders also hindered by differences in
budgeting power, which confirms the fragmented
local governments in JMA.
There are several important aspects that JMA
needs to learn. First, local governments in JMA
need to recognize the importance of establishing
single consent on JMA urban growth strategy.
Second, local governments in JMA need to
synchronize their zoning regulation so they could
steer clear of fragmented development
arrangements. Third, local governments in JMA
need to enhance its coordination agency to
become a strong and inclusive coordinating
agency that has authority to monitor and
evaluate the implementation of spatial plan both
at metropolitan and local government levels.

Taken together, all these three aspects, we

believed, are able to contribute to the integration
of spatial planning policy in JMA. Focusing on the
synchronization on zoning regulation among local
government will enhance JMA capacity to
manage their urban sprawl. Thus, JMA will able
to guide its urban development in order to
achieve better and sustainable future.

References
ADB, (2006). Urbanisation and Sustainability in
Asia.
Angel, S., Parent, J., Civco, D., Blei, A., and
Potere, D. (2010). A Planet for Cities: Urban

Land Cover Estimates and Projections for all

Countries, 2000-2050. Massachusetts: Lincoln
Institute of Land Policy.
Arifien, Y. (2012). Patterns of Spatial

Transformation in the Jabodetabek Region

Spatial. PhD Dissertation. Bogor Agricultural
University.
Demographia, (2016). Demographia World

Urban Areas (Built-Up Urban Areas or World

Agglomerations). 12th Annual Edition.
Fanani, F. (2014). Kesiapan Pemerintah Daerah
Kabupaten Sleman dalam Penerapan
Peraturan Zonasi sebagai Instrumen
Pengendalian Pemanfaatan Ruang di Kawasan
Perkotaan Yogyakarta. Master Thesis.
University of Gadjah Mada
Firman, T. (2012): Change and Continuity in the

Development of Jakarta Metropolitan Area

(Jabodetabek); Towards Post-suburbanisation.
Population Association of America 2012 Annual
Meeting Program, 3 May, San Fransisco.
Firman, T. (2014a): The Dynamics of
Jabodetabek Development: The Challenge of
Urban Governance. Hill, H. (ed) in Regional
Dynamics in a Decentralized Indonesia, 368385. Canberra: Australian National University.
Giesen, L. (2011). Vertical Policy Integration.
Schifman, H.S. (ed) in Green Issues and
Debates - An A to Z guide, 486-489. SAGE.
Hidayat, J. T., Sitorus, S.R.P., Rustiadi, E., and
Machfud. (2014). Urban Sprawl Effects on
Settlement Areas in Urban Fringe of Jakarta
Metropolitan Area. Journal of Environment and
Earth Science, 3(12), 172-179.

Hudalah, D. (2010). Peri-urbanisation and the

Regional Economic Performance of Jakarta
Metropolitan Area. In Eastern Regional

Organisation for Planning and Human

Settlements (EAROPH) Congress, 1-5
November, Adelaide.
Pratama, M.A., Wirawan, B., Maria, D., Bidari,
G.S.A., and Santoso, S.I. (2012). Menata

Ruang Melalui RDTR: Semua Bisa Paham,

Semua Bisa Turut Serta. Jakarta: Andi
Publisher.
Rahmawati, Y.D. (2014). Understanding Self-

Organisation, Urban Transformation, and the

Spatial Planning System in Greater Jakarta
Area, Indonesia. Master Thesis, University of
Groningen.
Rukmana, D. (2015). The Change and
Transformation of Indonesian Spatial Planning
after Suharto's New Order Regime: the case of
the Jakarta Metropolitan Area. International
Planning Studies, 20(4), 350-370.
Rustiadi, E., and Panuju, D.R. (1999).
Suburbanisasi Kota Jakarta. 7th Persada
National Seminar, 6 December. Bogor: Bogor
Agricultural University.
Sihite, G.J.R. (2013). Efektivitas Pelaksanaan

Fungsi Sekretariat Badan Kerjasama

Pembangunan Jabodetabekjur. Undergraduate
Thesis. University of Gadjah Mada.
Silver, C. (2008). Planning the Megacity: Jakarta
in the Twentieth Century. London: Routledge.
Soegijoko, B.T.S. (2011). Keterkaitan Antar Kota
dalam Suatu Sistem Perkotaan. Soegijoko,
B.T.S, and Mulyana, W. (eds) on Bunga

Rampai Pembangunan Kota Indonesia dalam

Abad 21, Konsep dan Pendekatan
Pembangunan Perkotaan di Indonesia, 2, 133146. Jakarta: URDI.
Stead, D., and Meijers, E. (2004). Policy
Integration: What does it mean and how can it
be achieved? A Multi-disciplinary Review.
Delft: Delft University of Technologies
Stead, D., and Meijers, E. (2009). Spatial
Planning and Policy Integration: Concepts,
Facilitators and Inhibitors. Planning Theory
and Practice, 10(3), 317-322.
Sudianto, A. (2008). The role of Market Forces

and Spatial Planning on Land Development:

Case Study Jakarta, Indonesia and Hong Kong.
Master Thesis. University of Groningen.

Teriman, S., Yigitcanlar, T. and Mayere, S.

(2009). Urban Growth Management for
Sustainable Urbanisation: Examples from AsiaPacific City Regions. Proceedings of the
International Postgraduate Conference, 5-6
June. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Polytechnic
University.
Underdal, A. (1980). Integrated Marine Policy
What? Why? How?. Marine Policy, 4(3), 159

169.
UN-DESA, (2008). World Urbanisation Prospects:
the 2007 Revision. New York: United Nations.
UN-DESA, (2015). World Urbanisation Prospects:
the 2014 Revision. New York: United Nations.
Winarso, H. (2006). Metropolitan di Indonesia:

Kenyataan dan Tantangan dalam Penataan

Ruang. Jakarta: Direktorat Jenderal Penataan
Ruang Departemen Pekerjaan Umum.
Wirawan, B. (2015). Meretas Kebermanfaatan
Rencana Tata Ruang pada Penataan Ruang
Kota di Indonesia. Soegijoko, B.T.S, and
Mulyana, W. (eds) on Bunga Rampai

Pembangunan Kota Indonesia, Dari

Perencanaan ke Pelaksanaan Pembangunan
Perkotaan di Indonesia, 4. Jakarta: URDI.
Wirawan, B. (2016). Urban Growth Management
trough Zoning Regulation Synchronization in
Jakarta Metropolitan Area. Master Thesis,
University of Groningen.