Urban farming for food security in the metropolis: Jakarta

(1)

Urban farming for food

security in the

metropolis: Jakarta

12/23/2016

The influence of urbanization on urban

gardens in Inner Jakarta and the effect on

food security

David Crommentuijn - 10794425 Sien Snijder - 10754741 Jasper van Doeselaar - 10677453 Bart ter Mull - 10530568 Course: Interdisciplinary Project Tutor: Anneke ter Schure Expert supervisor: Andres Verzijl

(2)

ABSTRACT

Jakarta – one of the largest and fastest growing metropolises of the world – can experience

food shortages in parts of the city as a result of a highly inefficient transport network. Hence, this

report has looked at the viability of applying different urban farming methods in Inner Jakarta

to tackle food shortages and ensure food security for its poorer inhabitants. To analyse this

problem, an interdisciplinary approach was taken using perspectives from earth sciences, political

science, and urban planning. We find that organoponics, a Cuban-inspired urban farming

method, is the most effective means of growing food in densely, highly urbanised areas of the

city. In addition, we find that corruption and poor governance will need to be addressed if

integration of urban farming in the city is to be successful at larger scales. We conclude that

urban farming has the potential to offer increased food security to Jakartans but that it cannot

completely substitute external supplies of food.

(3)

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Jakarta is one of the fastest developing metropolises in the world with an estimated population of almost 20 million in its metropolitan area which is expected to increase even further the coming decades (Apip, Sagala & Pingping, 2015). This Indonesian capital features many of the problems typical to a third world metropolis; the city deals with an exorbitant poverty rate and an ever-growing population influx, is strongly polluted due to the lack of sewage systems and emission control, the metropolis has a non-functional transportation system, and both the national and municipal governments show high levels of corruption (Hudalah, Delik & Tommy Firman, 2011). Furthermore, due to the fact that the city was built on a former swamp area and forms the delta of 13 rivers, great parts of the city regularly flood during the monsoon months.

The deficiency of the transportation system in Jakarta causes a daily recurring congestion in large parts of the city. Despite the significant demographic and economic development the city has undergone in the past decades, its transportation system has not grown accordingly. Jakarta’s road system currently covers a mere 10% of the urban surface while a 20-25% transportation share of the total urban surface is the standard for a reasonably functioning urban system (Steinberg, 2007). Additionally, the metropolitan area features only a limited amount of suburban railway-lines as an alternative to road transportation (Purnomohadi, 2000). The persistent congestion issue of Jakarta is not expected to be resolved in the near future as the government continues to fail to implement decent road expansion or alternative ways of transportation than by road (Apip et al., 2015).

It is becoming more difficult to supply the city with sufficient supplies, especially for fresh food in the central parts of the city (Purnomohadi, n.d.). Today, food security in cities is increasingly becoming a problem and induces malnutrition in various forms (FAO, 2008). Particularly the urban poor face a daily struggle to feed their families and this group is growing (FAO, 2008). Urban farming has often been suggested as an effective way to increase food availability in inner Jakarta and to reduce transportation of goods (Apip et al., 2015; Purnomohadi, 2000.; Nugent, 2002). Consequently, informal urban farming activities are becoming more popular amongst Jakarta’s inner city population (Jakarta Post, 2015). However, little research has been aimed at whether urban farming is viable or even responsible to apply in Jakarta.

The urban farming in Jakarta can serve as an instrument to remedy the decrease in food security and thus is a socially relevant issue. Several factors could hinder effective applicability of urban farming in Jakarta. These factors, however, lie within different disciplines. Urban farming itself is an earth scientific concept. Moreover, the heavy pollution of the water bodies and soils in the area could prove to be risky to crop development. From another perspective, urban farming is to be incorporated within in the social context. The existing spatial and policy structures of Jakarta could prevent effective integration of urban farming. This research will be aimed at the viability of urban farming in central Jakarta. The proposed research will be based on earth science, urban planning as well as political science and will primarily study the relation between urban farming integration and its effects for different contexts. The guiding question for this research is: To what extent would it be viable to apply urban farming methods to ensure food security of poor communities in inner Jakarta?

In chapter 2 the theoretical framework will review disciplinary theories concerning the research and will be incorporated with the help of a conclusive diagram. Reflection on the significance of the presented theories to the study will be provided. The methods (chapter 3) will operationalize on the integration of the disciplinary outcomes of the theoretical framework into an interdisciplinary study and will present the outlines of the research. Subsequently, chapter 4 of the research will provide an in depth analysis into the implications of urban farming in inner Jakarta. In the conclusion (chapter 5) a summary of prior conditions to urban farming integration will be presented, followed by a discussion of the results (chapter 6).

(5)

CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The topic of the viability of implementing traditional urban farming in a large industrializing cities such as Jakarta is subject to many complex problems that occur within and among different disciplines. In order to research the viability of urban farming in Jakarta, insight must be gained into the problems and assumptions underlying this topic.

The theoretical framework of this study is visualized containing the various concepts and relations regarding the main topics of industrialization and urban farming in Jakarta (see Figure 1).

Throughout the theoretical framework, the different concepts of Figure 1 and their connections will be

explained. The framework will be divided into the following three subsections: Urbanization and the emerging transport problem; urban farming and food security; water management and the waste water problem.

(6)

2.1.1 Urbanization in the Developing World

Dependency theorists divide the world economy into a core of rich countries and a periphery of poor countries, where resources are argued to flow from the periphery to the core. The poor countries make the rich countries richer but there is no ‘trickle down’ effect as some modernists might argue is the case (Kelly, 2008). It is a counter-argument to theories of modernisation, which are criticised for being universalising, western-centric and – inspired by Marxist theory – stresses the contradictory natures of capitalism and globalisation (Kelly, 2008).

Economic dependency is predominantly an International Relations theory, yet its effects and fundamental principles can also be observed at multiple and, thus, smaller scales. Economic dependency argues that overurbanisation – the root of Jakarta’s problems and why urban farming has become a talking point – is the result of Jakarta’s relations to the world economy (London & Smith, 1988). These ideas are the extensions of dependency theories: the dependent city by Castell (1977) and peripheral urbanization by Kentor (1981) and Walton (1982). Their studies link urban growth with continuing subordination to capitalist world economies, driven by foreign investments.

The focus here is on international forces, on the position and status of the state – or in this case, the city – in the world economy. Yet these developments simultaneously keep pulling people to the city to find employment opportunities that are not available to them. The result is that the city cannot absorb the influx of migrants, leading to city services and city infrastructure operating beyond their capacity and design. The city becomes overcrowded and develops gross inefficiencies. Instead, a small elite retains and owns a disproportionate share of the means of production – land, capital, and labour – and benefits from world trade at the expense of others. These gains are not invested in the economy or in city infrastructure, but remain in the hands of that wealthy and political elite (Castell, 1977).

This relates to Hutabarot’s research about transport and land use in Jakarta (2009). He argues Jakarta is a city that is globally connected but has disconnected itself from the local population. His analysis suggests that transport and land use in Jakarta are there to service the world market, and not the local population. Hence, it is the elite that act in self- rather than common-interest, and as such can influence transport infrastructure and the allocation of resources in the city. The conclusion is that the city becomes splintered – where different sections portray different socio-economic qualities and interests (Coutard, 2008).

An alternative, perhaps additional, view on urbanisation and development, is the political economic theory of urban bias developed by Michael Lipton (1984). He argues that many states devise policies that disproportionately favour an urban area, or urban areas in general. This is because urban based actors and stakeholders – capitalists and industrialists (London and Smith) – place pressure on governing institutions to implement these policies. This initially means that urban inhabitants enjoy higher standards of living, drawing people from non-urban (rural) areas. Eventually, Lipton argues, this leads to economic inefficiencies because the ‘hinterland’ remains underdeveloped and urban areas become overpopulated. Instead, there should be more investment in non-urban areas and in the agricultural sector. This contrasts with dependency and modernization theory – which both argue for progressive industrialisation.

In addition, it contrasts with modernization arguments when Lipton argues that people should stray away from migrating to urban areas and stay put. The risk, otherwise, is that a large section of the population becomes part of the informal sector (Lipton 1977). Jakarta is characterised by this urban informality, that is: many of its residents live in informal settlements and/or work in the urban informal sector. These kind of settlements or economic activities are not legally established or recognised fully by the city government. It also happens to be that the people who live in these informal settlements – known as kampungs in Jakarta – or work in the

(7)

informal sector, are the poorest and most vulnerable in the city. It is estimated that about two-thirds of Jakartans live in Kampungs(Silver, 2008).

In relation to urban farming, Lipton’s focus is on de-urbanisation. One could interpret this two-fold: either urban farming provides opportunities to transform the city and de-industrialise; or it is an inefficient solution to a much larger, complex problem that sees overpopulation as the root cause. As urban bias shows, not only international politics but also politics on the national level has a role to play in shaping the city – even in cities like Jakarta that have global aspirations (Bunnell & Miller, 2011)

2.1.2. The transpor tation system of Jakar ta

The perks of the transportation system in Jakarta can be considered as a result dysfunctional urban planning in Jakarta. Watson (2009) has attempted to define the ways socio-economic and political issues of third world countries express themselves through dysfunctional urban planning. Her critiques on spatial planning in developing countries can be summarized into three main points. First of all, it is concluded that because of the informal nature of most developing economies, spatial planning hardly occurs at all in metropolises of third-world countries and when it occurs the planning is exceptionally intended for higher-income target groups. Lower-income groups are neglected within spatial planning (Watson, 2009). Secondly, Watson (2009) comments on the extremely low degree of citizen participation and involvement within spatial planning. The last critique concerns the lack of coherence within spatial planning in cities. Different spatial projects are hardly ever connected or complementary. Watson (2009) also provides suggestions as to which these planning failures are to be avoided. Most importantly, spatial planning should be formalized through zoning regulations (functional designation) and building regulations. In this, governments should take most initiatives. However, in project developing, market parties together with citizens are to be leading facilitators. Project development should occur participatory and strategic and according to the outlines of a coherent future-oriented structural plan (Watson, 2009).

Several studies have indicated the faults of the transportation system in Jakarta. According to Susilo et al. (2007), the transportation problem of today can be explained through different processes. Firstly, the natural growth and wealth growth can be mostly held responsible for the transportation issues of today. Jakarta has witnessed a population growth of over 20,000% in the period 1950-2010; its metropolitan area in 2007 surpassed the amount of 30 million inhabitants (Susilo et al., 2007). Furthermore, living standards of average Indonesians have significantly improved and modernized. Motorization of the majority of the population in combination with the population growth have challenged the capacities of the transport system in Jakarta. Secondly, inter alia Asri & Hidayat (2005) confirm that the lack of spatial interventions by governmental institutions in Jakarta have contributed to the transportation issue of today. In developing countries with a large proportion of less affluent population like Indonesia, intervention in the spatial sector is crucial in order to counter the market failures of the spatial market (Tordoir, 2006; Watson, 2009). Both local and national governments have failed to provide adequate transportation systems. Road coverage as a percentage of the total surface in Jakarta currently amounts a mere 8%, opposed to a regular urban average of 25% in Western cities (Asri & Hidayat, 2005). The Indonesian government and the Jakarta municipality have repeatedly attempted to reorganize the transportation system but have often failed to do so because of funding problematics and other practicalities (Susilo et al., 2007)

The population development in combination with failed governmental interventions have resulted in a dysfunctional transportation system in Jakarta which strongly decreases the vehicle reachability in the inner city of Jakarta. Although not yet scientifically proven, media and citizens hint that the decreased reachability might be influencing the food security in inner parts of Jakarta, claiming that in the food distribution for the

(8)

poorer communities in inner parts of Jakarta, transportation costs and difficulties outweigh their earnings (Jakarta Post, 2015; Purnomohadi; 2001).

2.2 Urban Farming and Food Security

2.2.1 Urban farming

Urban farming encompasses all agricultural land within the urban area, or all gardens which are integrated into the city (Companion (bron) et al., 1997). It is a ‘popular agriculture’, very heterogeneous in size, crop mixes, and management levels and the urban gardens target to increase the food production and supply to communities and neighbourhoods where food is needed most (Altieri et al., 1999). Urban farming is in this way connected with social issues. However, despite that the awareness about the role of urban agriculture in the context of food security and poverty alleviation of the urban population is increasing, urban and peri-urban agriculture still largely remains an informal sector (FAO, 2008).

In Jakarta urban farming spread quickly as result of an economic crisis in which farmers started to occupy patches of land to grow vegetables (Purnomohadi, 2000). In 2000 it was estimated that in East Jakarta approximately 18% of total food consumption in low-income households was produced within the city (de Zeeuw, Guendel and Waibel, 2000). In Jakarta more than 11.000 ha of land are used for urban farming and these farming plots are mainly in the form of vacant land, along riversides or roadsides, homegardens or other small urban spots (Purnomohadi, 2000). The gardens exist on the original soil, which consists of alluvial material. A variety of crops are grown, depending on the local soil conditions. In Central Jakarta most common crops are chilly pepper, spinach, morning glory, lettuce, caisim, tomatoes, maize , cassava and sweet potatoes (Purnomohadi, 2000). Urban farming systems are often very intensive with the use of chemical fertiliser and pesticides (Purnomohadi, 2000). On top of that, farmers take water from the polluted rivers for irrigation. The contaminated water can have effect on humans health for instance if the crops are short stem like: lettuce or fruits or other crops that are eaten raw. Experiments where lettuce is irrigated with contaminated water demonstrate that a certain type of E.coli is taken up by the root system and migrate throughout the edible parts of the plant (Solomon, 2002). Fortunately, crops with a long stem like, cereals, chilly peppers and crops which you have to cook first before consuming are not affected by E.coli (Cawst, n.d.). Considering food safety it would be healthier to farm cereals like maize or chilly peppers.

2.2.2 Food security

Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life (FAO, 2008). The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations identifies four pillars of food security: availability, access, utilization and stability. In this report the focus will be on food availability which addresses the supply side of food security and is determined by the level of food production, stock levels and net trade (FAO, 2008). Part of food availability are food production and food distribution, which are particularly of importance in this study.

2.3 Water management and waste water problem in Jakar ta

Water management is an issue in the city and particularly the treatment of urban wastewater, of which the production has been increasing along with the demand for domestic water (Apip et al., 2015). How to improve water and sanitation services in the Global South (and hence, Jakarta) is a matter that is extensively debated, particularly whether these services should be provided by public or private actors. Wastewater can be divided into three different types: domestic sewage, industrial sewage and storm sewage (Nathanson, 2016).

(9)

The municipal water authority in Jakarta is the ‘PAM Jaya’ and it presides over the infrastructure of pipes and sewage systems inside the city, as well as the management of the supply of water. However, the majority of the poor in Jakarta make no use of municipal services, both in terms of access to water as well as waste disposal. As Bakker et al. (2008) shows, there’s a strong disparity in the city’s water and sewage infrastructure. Key economic zones and affluent residential zones are more likely to be well connected to the city’s water infrastructure and sewage system. Conversely, poor neighbourhoods - the kampungs - are excluded from access to this kind of network. In addition, where kampungs are connected, pressure in the water pipes is lower. What we are left with is a water management system that is confined to elite residential and industrial areas of the city (ibid.).

The main contributor to the water pollution in Jakarta is domestic sewage (Prihandrijanti and Firdayati, 2011). The bad maintenance and the lack of treatment plants and sewage systems leads to the fact that still 75% of the domestic wastewater has to be treated (Apip et al., 2015). This wastewater is released directly into rivers and in the monsoon months, as result of the overflowing sewages, it occasionally flows as a surface flux on the streets. This is only enhanced by solid waste blocking the flow through sewages (The World Bank Group, 2012). The surface waters are therefore highly polluted (Varis, Biswas, Tortajada & Lundqvist, 2006) and when infiltration occurs this might lead to polluted groundwater as well.

Urbanisation and consequently the hardening of the environment leads to urban runoff. During every rain event surface runoff is generated and in urban environments these fluxes contain elements that reflect human activity (Davis and Birch, 2009). Particularly urban roads show high concentrations of runoff pollutants and fluxes are characterised by high concentrations at the initial stage of rainfall followed by a sharp decrease to a low value (Wei, Semin and Fengbing, 2013). Unlike wastewater such as domestic and industrial sewage, surface runoff is typically a non-point source of pollution and therefore hard to control.

Another negative aspect of urbanisation is that the precipitation cannot directly infiltrate into the soil and therefore declining the recharge rate of the aquifers of Jakarta. The recharge rate is the addition of external water to the saturated water column. One of the causes of groundwater depletion is the change of land cover from natural cover to artificial landscape in the recharge area. A further cause of the depletion of groundwater is that the clean surface water cannot meet the industrial and domestic demand for water and therefore groundwater is used. Since the groundwater exploitation in Jakarta is not regulated many wells are not registered. So the industries are not triggered to recycle the water resulting in an uncontrolled groundwater management where the quality and quantity of the groundwater is declining (Delimon, 2008).

(10)

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

In the theoretical framework, it has become evident that when examining urban farming integration in

Jakarta, numerous theories and concepts from various disciplines are of importance. The topic of this research is to be addressed as a ‘complex system’. In this section, the complexity of the system will be explained and different disciplines are integrated. Afterwards, the term ‘viability’ will be defined in order to present the further outline of the analysis.

Literature research is our fundamental method. This gives insights how the different aspects and concepts such as: urbanisation, waste water pollution, social group from the different disciplines interact with each other. It resulted in our theoretical framework (see figure1) wherein the knowledge can be applied to figure out to what extend it will be viable to apply urban farming to ensure food security of poor communities in Jakarta.

3.1 Creating common ground

In ‘An Introduction to Interdisciplinary Research’, Menken and Keestra (2016) state that interdisciplinary problems are often embedded in so-called ‘complex (adaptive) systems’. These systems are defined by several characteristics: the systems are influenced by a diverse range of actors which are interconnected in a network; the systems are self-organizing and contain feedback loops between actors and the actors are adaptable to changes (Meenken & Keestra, 2016). All of these characteristics apply to the case of urban farming integration in inner Jakarta. Furthermore, the case does also appeal to several characteristics of complex systems as defined by Rammelt et al. (2005). Most importantly, this research corresponds with the characteristics of ‘connectivity and hierarchy’, ‘emergence’ and ‘path dependence’. The system of urban farming integration in Jakarta is therefore to be treated as a complex adaptive system and requires an interdisciplinary approach.

Further on in this research, theories and concepts prevailing urban farming in inner Jakarta have been explored from the disciplines of Earth Sciences, Political Sciences and Urban Planning. To incorporate disciplinary results into this interdisciplinary research, it is required to perform integrative techniques and to define common ground. The simplified system diagram of page (…), is to be recognized as a method in which the different disciplines and their interconnections are pointed out. It can be defined as an organizing integrative technique. In the terms of ‘Transdisciplinarity Reconsidered’ by Newell (2000), the diagram is similar to the technique of interdisciplinary integration of ‘Rearranging sub-systems to bring out interrelationships’ but also to ‘Recognizing joint dependent variables’ (page 45/46).

3.2 Operationalization

The analysis part of this research paper will answer the guiding question: ‘To what extent would it be viable to apply urban farming methods to ensure food security of poor communities in inner Jakarta?’ Until now, the most important concept of the research question, namely ‘viability’, has not yet been defined. In order to provide a concise analysis on the viability of urban farming in inner Jakarta, this section will delimit and concretize the concept of ‘viability’. This paper subdivides the concept of ‘viability’ into three concepts: applicability, effectiveness and practicability.

The first part of the analysis will address the applicability of urban farming in inner Jakarta. It will provide a literature study on different ways in which urban farming could be integrated in Inner Jakarta, both directly and indirectly. The paragraph on effectiveness will explain the direct influences of urban farming on the societal issues of inner Jakarta. The main focus will lie on the influence of urban farming on food security in inner Jakarta but the section also reviews the broader societal effects. The last concept of viability concerns the practicability of urban farming integration in Inner Jakarta. This section puts a critical note on the

(11)

effectiveness of urban farming in Jakarta and will question whether problematic environmental or societal conditions could prevent the integration of urban farming or reduce its effectiveness. The practicability of urban farming in inner Jakarta will be part of the discussion of this research. The research will use literature study of the theoretical framework and additional literature study to acquire information. The research will summarize the findings of the analysis in a Data Management Table in the conclusion section.

3.3 AquaCrop

Aquacrop will be used to predict the growth of maize in 3 scenarios in Jakarta. The first scenario simulates the aquaporins method. This urban farming method is used in Cuba where nutrient rich soil is isolated through a container from the surrounding polluted soil. This method is further explained in section.. The second scenario simulates the suburban method from Cuba. Where the crop grow on existing soil and where the synthetic inputs are minimized. The third scenario in aquacrop simulates the current situation with poor water and soil quality.

The farms differ in soil fertility, irrigation quality and fertilizer use. The soil is for all the simulations equal, silty clay and the climate conditions, precipitation are the same as well. The climate conditions were not available in Aquacrop so they are custom made. The average temperature differs monthly between 24 and 32 Celsius and there is an annual precipitation of 1.793 mm per year (Weather, n.d.). The evapotranspiration data is copied from the Philippines in the model. The station from Philippines lies the most closest to Jakarta than the other station in the Aquacrop model. In section ‘results aquacrop’ there is a table providing the difference in the parameters of the urban farming methods.

The irrigation quality is about the concentration of salt in the water. High concentration of salt can limit crop growth but here we are trying to simulate the reality, unfortunately, aquacrop has no tool for heavy metals or other contaminants in irrigation water so therefore we used high and low salt concentration.

(12)

CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS

The analysis of this research report is divided into two of the concepts of viability: applicability and effectiveness.

4.1 Applicability

Within the applicability section of the analysis, we will discuss in what ways urban farming can be most efficiently integrated into the context of Jakarta. Different urban farming methods and organizational structures will be examined. Moreover, the section will provide suggestions about the spatial applicability of urban farming in inner Jakarta.

4.1.1 Methods of urban farming

Urban gardens in Jakarta are mostly formed on vacant land, alongside rivers or roads or other small urban spots in the original soil, which consists of alluvial material. The risk to exposure to urban runoff depends on the garden’s position in the landscape, concerning elevation and proximity to urban influences. This means urban gardens located in depressions are more vulnerable to exposure of urban runoff than gardens located on a higher elevation. Nonetheless, garden’s located on higher elevations with slopes are more vulnerable to erosion, making it less favourable to perform agriculture on. Furthermore, urban gardens in the pre-existing soil might also be influenced by contaminated groundwater. Thus, urban agriculture with short stems like lettuce and tubers in the original soil in Inner Jakarta are prone to negative influences from contamination from either urban runoff containing wastewater or likely to polluted groundwater. However, long stem crops are not affected by contamination unless, they are affected by toxins like heavy metals.

So the consecutive question is what interventions or adjustments could be undertaken in order to make the urban gardens less exposed to these physical influences of urbanisation. An answer could be found in the different methods of urban farming. The case study of Altieri et al. (1999) in Cuba provides an overview of the different types of urban gardens in Havana (table 1). These types differ in organisation and integration technique. The most common method of urban agriculture in Cuba are the organopónicos, which are characterised by cultivation in containers or raised beds filled with organic matter and soil mix (Altieri et al., 1999). In this way, gardens are isolated from soil that might be contaminated (Viljoen, 2005) and could also provide protection against urban runoff, for infiltration of this is inhibited by the raised beds. Other methods of urban agriculture used in Cuba, but performed in pre-existing soil are the intensive gardens, popular gardens, suburban gardens and enterprise/factory gardens (table 1). In 1996 estimates showed that the organopónicos had an average yield potential of 16 kg of produce per square meter and the intensive gardens of about 12 kg of produce per square meter (Altieri et al, 1999). Of the other gardens no data is given from this year. But these numbers indicate that production in gardens with raised beds have a higher yield potential compared to gardens with pre-existing soil.

(13)

Garden type Description

Organopónicos Located in areas with poor soil unsuited for agriculture. Seeds are planted in nursery then transplanted to garden. Cultivation occurs in containers or raised beds filled with organic matter and soil mix.

Intensive gardens Located in areas with high quality soils, drainage, and adequate water supply. Seeds are planted directly into fertilized soil.

Popular gardens Cultivated by community gardening organizations. Established in reclaimed dumps and vacant lots in urban and suburban areas. Managed by local individuals or groups.

Suburban gardens Located in the periphery of densely populated urban areas. Larger units which have a more highly integrated system of production. Use methods of cultivation that utilize locally produced inputs and minimize synthetic inputs.

Enterprise and factory gardens

Located on or near the property of factories and businesses. Produce used to promote self-sufficiency by feeding factory workers and their families.

Table 1. Overview of different types of urban gardens in Cuba, abstracted from Altieri et al., 1999.

4.1.2 Results Aquacrop

In this section the result are given of the scenario analysis of 2 different urban farming techniques and 1 about the current situation.

For all the 3 simulations the climate, soil classification, precipitation are equal. There are differences between the urban farms which are presented in the table below. The difference are in soil fertility, type of irrigation, Irrigation quality and mulch cover are based on the literature of different farming techniques above. Additional results can be found in Appendix A.

Current Situation

In the current situation there is a clear decline in crop production. The decline is mainly due to the soil fertility stress and partly due to the poor irrigation quality. The potential yield is only 38% of the maximum yield. The soil fertility stress was 61%. Irrigation quality very poor and cover by mulch 25%.

Suburban Area

It is clear that in the suburban scenario that the yield losses are less than the current situation. Due to less input of contaminant and better irrigation. The potential yield is increased up to 59%. The Soil fertility stress was 41%

.

The irrigation quality poor and cover by mulch 50%.

(14)

Organopónicos

The aquaporins method has the highest yield in and is most ideal scenario considering yield/ha. The potential yield is almost 100% and the irrigation quality is good. the soil fertility stress was 0%. The irrigation quality very good and cover by mulch 50%

Figure 2, Results of AuqaCrop

4.1.3 Public governance and urban informality in Jakarta

We have identified two paths through which urban farming can develop in Jakarta. The first path is a formal, codified response to urban farming, meaning: through intervention by the city government by pursuing an active policy to incentivise urban farming in the city. Alternatively, urban farming can develop informally by the inhabitants of Jakarta themselves. The first option requires competent governance. However, Jakarta (as well as Indonesia in general) is ridden by corruption and characterised by a traditionally top-down hierarchy that is focused on the needs of elites and where political disenfranchisement of the poor is a common grievance (Bakker et al, 2008). However, decentralisation under foreign and internal pressures in the past years, might provide more opportunities and make governance more equitable (Bunnel & Miller, 2016). The informal sector on the other hand, provides other opportunities; foremost, action undertaken by those who are most affected when food shortages arise in Jakarta. This kind of activity however, comes with high coordination costs and certainly makes farmers vulnerable to unclear property rights (Berner & Phillips, 2005). Regarding feasibility of informal development of urban farming, studies have shown that the poor are not passive in their development and livelihoods. These studies have looked at community action and community based alternatives for economic development. Eldridge (1984) and Berner & Phillips (2005) look at these community-level actions and whether these are feasible forms of political movements that, for example in the context of urban farming, might lead to social change. The state and NGO’s can be seen as key actors, but as is the case with Soto (cited in Berner & Phillips, 2005) – he sees institutions as the proliferator of poverty. Instead, people should take more personal action to empower themselves. Urban farming in that sense, might become a feasible activity. However, Born and Purcell (2006) warn against falling for the ‘local trap’, where

(15)

local initiatives and produce are considered more desirable when in fact, they might not be better alternatives from a long-term economic, political or social perspective.

Urban informality is at its core, a development that is a response to the incapacity of the state as well as the city and its formal sectors to provide the necessary services and goods to its citizens and residents (De Soto, 1989; Zhu, 2010). There are multiple reasons for this: government can either be handicapped in terms of their budget but can also be hamstrung by widespread corruption. Urban informality can be seen as bottom-up initiatives by low-income groups that try to fill the void left by the absence of the (city) government. This kind of organisation will work better in rural, rather than the diverse and individualistic nature of urban areas which leads to higher coordination costs (Zhu, 2010).

The question is to what extent urban farming can develop in the context of urban informality. Part of informal land development and settlement is the absence of urban institutions in Jakarta. When formal institutions are absent or fail, the ‘market’ or community will seek its own solutions. There is already the case of ‘informal institutions’ developing in Jakarta, notably to battle and manage the risks of flooding in the city (Zhu & Simarmata, 2015). In addition, urban farming is already practised to an extent in the city (Purnomohadi, 2000).

As time passes by, however, the risks for investments by market actors might become too risky, requiring the role of a collective actor: the state (Gerschenkron, 1962). It means, that for Jakarta to develop a proper infrastructure (a public good) and manage its growth, it is paramount it develops functioning institutions - that it currently does not have (Bunnel & Miller, 2016) - otherwise it will not be able to solve its infrastructural problems adequately. In addition, the collective action problem relates to the feasibility of urban farming: if there is no central coordination or platform for distributing urban agricultural goods, or the guarantee urban farmers can work safely on vacant lots, then it will be challenging to integrate traditional urban farming into the city infrastructure and system.

4.1.4 Urban farming in densely populated environments

When opted for urban farming in central parts of Jakarta, one has to take into account the spatial complexity in inner Jakarta. The central parts of Jakarta feature an average population density of 14,464 inhabitants per square kilometre (Asri & Hidayat, 2005). Residential areas of poor communities contain few high-rise buildings and are therefore very compactly organized and leave very few redundant open space. In addition, much of the spatial structure in inner Jakarta is informally organized; land ownership structure is very fragmented and complex. Also informal settlements are widely tolerated (Asri & Hidayat, 2005). When integrating urban farming in Jakarta it is crucial to act upon the complex spatial structures in the inner city. With regards to different urban farming methods; one has to take into account that very few soil will be available on the ground level. It might therefore be more effective to develop urban farming methods which do not rely on ground-level soil. With regards to the organizational structure of urban farming integration in Jakarta, it might be useful to prevent top-down planning, as the integration will then have to be discussed and negotiated with the numerous landowners and other stakeholders. Moreover, it is evident that inhabitants of Jakarta, rightfully, show few confidence in public governance due to high corruption levels (Ernst, 2005). Instead, in order to prevent top-down planning, the alternative lies in decentralized organization in cooperation instead of negotiation with different stakeholders. Although inventiveness in spatial and regulatory urban farming integration requires more time-intensive spatial planning, research of Indraprahasta (2011) shows that this organizational structure has proven to be effective for poor communities in Bogor (suburb of Jakarta).

(16)

This part of the analysis will examine the effects of urban farming integration on food security in Inner Jakarta, on the food production and availability as well as on the social groups.

4.2.1 Potential effects of urban farming on food security in inner Jakarta

The effect of urban farming on food availability is visible from the literature on urban farming in Cuba. From 1989 to the late 90s a lot has changed considering the amount of urban gardens and the diet composition of people in Cuba. Before 1989, the imports of Cuba represented more than half of the available energy and proteins, which led to a large dependency on foreign trade (Porrata, Rodríguez-Ojea and Jiménez, 2000). The Cuban agriculture was highly dependent on chemical inputs from the Soviet Union (Altieri et al., 1999) and all trade relationships were with countries from the Soviet Bloc (Murphy, 1999). According to survey data obtained between 1980 and 1989 the contribution of proteins to the total energy consumption was 11-15%; carbohydrates accounted for 40-58%; and fats for 27-48%, indicating the energy and protein uptake was within normal limits (Porrata et al., 2000). After the collapse of the Soviet Bloc an economic crisis resulted and led to the blooming of urban gardens all over Cuba, but particularly in Havana (Altieri et al., 1999). In this period, short after 1989, the Cuban diet was very insufficient, lacking consumption of whole grains, fruit and vegetables (Porrata et al., 2000). The per capita availability of energy declined from 2899 kcal in 1988 to the lowest level of 1940 kcal in 1993 (Rodríguez-Ojea et al., 2002). The government stimulated the urban garden movement by establishing the Urban Agriculture Department in 1994 in order to provide support services and secure land use rights (Altieri et al., 1999). During 1996, the urban gardens in Havana provided the city with 8500 tons of agricultural produce, providing essential vitamins, mineral and carbohydrates (Altieri et al., 1999). After recovery of the economic crisis in 1996, the energy availability had increased to 2335 kcal, which was 15,8% higher compared to 1993 (Rodríguez-Ojea et al., 2002). The literature on Cuba shows not only a relation between the amount of urban gardens and food production, but also the relation of urban farming with people’s diets.

4.2.2 Potential effects of urban farming on social groups in Inner Jakarta.

Socio-economic and political, ethnic or demographic structures are not likely to radically change due to urban farming integration. However, urban farming integration will influence the social structure as explained by Wilson’s spatial mismatch theory in Burgers & Musterd (2002). When Wilson’s theory is applied to the issue the following conclusions can be drawn; due to several reasons (of which the details are unimportant to the theory) inhabitants of Jakarta experience a mismatch with their environment, because they require goods or services which cannot be provided due to the nature of their location. Urban farming would appeal to and mitigate this socio-spatial mismatch and thereby improve the social structure of the city. However, certain studies claim that the high spatial segregation, which is one of the most characteristic concepts of the social structure of Jakarta (substantiated by theories by, for example, Sassen (1988)) will not significantly improve. It is to be examined whether the local production of goods and increased informal sale of urban farming products can be of influence to retail infrastructure. If informal sale of urban farming products appears to adopt a substantial part of the market of local retail, socio-economic segregation could even deteriorate due to the abatement of retail unities, which is also explained by Sassen (1988). On the other hand Indraprahasta (2011) has suggested that spatial integration could be decreased through urban farming integration when economically less affluent benefit from revenues of their goods on a large scale.

Additionally, urban farming is an activity that by definition has to be undertaken by a local community (Berner & Phillips, 2005). This means that along with urban farming, there will be an increase in civic engagement; in other words, increased interaction and cooperation between locals. This leads to an increase in social cohesion and trust. A stronger community is also better at organising itself, reducing coordination

(17)

costs. The community groups could undertake political action and improve communication with the municipal government or increase pressure for certain policy initiatives. This could contribute to a more effective government that is better at fulfilling its democratic responsibilities and recognizes the needs of the poor in Jakarta. However, as we can see regarding flood-risk management in Jakarta, the municipal government remains largely inefficient. The key is to make the municipal government recognise that kampungs and its inhabitants as legitimately part of the city and that they must be incorporated more effectively into plans to develop and modernise the city (ibid.).

The environmental priority is usually the first dimension to succumb to other priorities. Nevertheless, environmental constraints are of significance to other dimensions and often induce or reinforce constraints of other contexts. It is therefore crucial to explore environmental effectiveness of urban farming. Campbell (2013) argues that neglecting waste infrastructure can deteriorate social and economic conditions. In the case of integration of urban farming in Jakarta, there are two environmental concepts of importance to the matter. Firstly, integration of urban farming in central parts of Jakarta directly increases the level of greenery within the urban area. Indraprahasta (2013) hints that this can prove to be influential for several aspects. Not only would it appeal to the aesthetics of the urban landscape, it can also have a positive influence on the ecological structure of the city. Moreover, minding Jakarta’s seasonal water fluctuation problems, large scale integration of urban farming could reduce or delay drainage, which might diminish water accumulation. Secondly, urban farming reduces transportation and thus transportation emissions significantly (Indraprahasta, 2013). Urban farming indirectly refers to increasing the compactness of functions in the city structure. Several scientists, including Chen et al (2013) and Watson (2009) suggest increasing compactness of functions in a city as an effective way to reduce environmental footprints. Furthermore, compactness of city structures also appeals to the economic structure of the city, which tends to flourish under agglomeration effects (Tordoir, 2015).

4.2.3 Potential effects of urban farming on the spatial dimension and the transportation

system in Jakarta

Within spatial economics, the most important theory concerns the spatial sorting along the lines of land rent. Tordoir (2015) explains that naturally, functions sort themselves out along the lines of a ‘pareto-optimum’; the sum of the benefits of a function on a specific location set against the charges of a function on a specific location. It is because of this assessment that specific functions occur on specific locations and more importantly specifically not on other locations. The pareto-optimum theory triggers agglomeration and clustering of functions. Most ideally, spatial sorting occurs through the powers of the ‘invisible hand’ introduced by Adam Smith’s book ‘Wealth of Nations’. Tordoir (2015), however, also argues that the benefits and charges of a location are determined by the characteristics of the location and the adjacent locations and that therefore every location is unique. Locations are thus non-homogeneous products and cannot be fairly distributed through market mechanisms according to ‘How markets fail’ by John Cassidy (2010). Another argument supporting why the spatial economy contains constitutional market failures is the inability to price specific matters of public space. Space consumption of people and personal emission, for example, are priceless and often lead to ‘tragedy of the commons’ without intervention (Cassidy, 2010).

Applying farming methods within the central parts of Jakarta would not obey the fundamentals of neither the liberal pareto-optimum theory, nor the location theory as described by Tordoir (2015). Specifically, because the urban farming methods which are mostly suggested for the city of Jakarta concern non-concentrated farming methods which consume relatively large amounts of space. It is questionable whether applying urban farming in central parts of Jakarta, in which land plots are densely populated and costly, would prove to be lucrative. However, the immense market failures of other economic systems within the city, for example of the

(18)

transportation system, might legitimize urban farming. In the long run, it might be more expensive to import goods from the countryside to the city, due to long transportation duration, than it would cost when goods are produced on the costly land plots. Furthermore, when urban farming is practiced on an extreme small scale, thus on the remaining garden plots of land owners, little direct public means will have to be spent (Indraprahasta, 2013)

The effect of urban farming integration on the dysfunctional transportation system in Jakarta will most likely be insignificant. Most importantly, because most of the traffic movements do not depend primarily on food transportation. Susilo et al. (2007) have indicated that the majority of traffic movements in inner Jakarta is commuter traffic and that goods transportation suffers under the abundance of commuter flows. Moreover, urban farming in inner Jakarta will most likely not provide complete food security in Jakarta but rather will focus on the production of specific crops in small amounts. This implies that most of the food transportation will still be operated when urban farming is integrated in Jakarta and that the effects on traffic reduction will be minimum. One has to bear in mind, however, that the original grounds for implementing urban farming in Jakarta were never aimed at reducing traffic congestion. Traffic congestion could be interpreted as a discomfort as to why urban farming could provide a solution for the actual purposes: to improve food security for poor communities in inner Jakarta.

(19)

CHAPTER 5. PRACTICABILITY (DISCUSSION)

In this section we provide a discussion about urban farming in Jakarta with an earth scientific and social-science perspective. Our analysis shows that urbanisation has an adverse effect on urban gardens through the production of wastewater. Instead it is suggested that, where possible, alternative methods are used that limit contact with contaminated soil and water or otherwise use crops with long stems. From the perspective of political science and urban planning, we underline governance failure and corruption as major inhibitors of successful integration of urban farming in the city, as well as the sustainability of any project the city might aspire to. At the end of this section, we provide ideas for further research.

In our model tests, the urban agriculture in Inner Jakarta is performed on pre-existing soil and is exposed to the wastewater by urban runoff and possibly polluted groundwater. Thereby making the urban gardens prone to soil pollution. However, some literature argues that the nutritional value of wastewater has the potential to function as irrigation water and therefore contribute to crop production. Eventually some form of treatment is necessary, because using untreated wastewater for irrigation purposes is likely to bring along serious health risks. Moreover, heavy metals are present in the water system of Jakarta and when these end up in urban gardens this leads to negative influences on the crop production. Considering food safety on the polluted land plots and irrigation, it would be better to farm crops with a long stem and cook them before consuming. Appropriate crops are cereals like maize or chilli peppers. This will prevent people from getting affected by E.coli. So with the organoponics method, all kinds of crops can be grown in the isolated clean soil. In the pre-existing soil it is safer to farm long stem crops.

Various methods of urban farming exist and these can be differentiated in soil fertility and irrigation quality. A scenario study shows the effect of these differences on crop production and supports the connection between the state of irrigation water and soil quality on agricultural produce. It stresses the importance that measures have to be taken against urban runoff in order to prevent soil pollution and secure food production in Inner Jakarta.

An effective adjustment to the urban gardens in Jakarta would be to cultivate in raised beds instead of directly in the pre-existing soil. This would inhibit fluxes of urban runoff to enter the urban gardens and prevent contamination from polluted groundwater. Furthermore, when the conditions of the pre-existing soil are very poor, it would be possible to use organic matter and a soil mix as filling for the raised beds. Unfortunately, this is expensive and probably not accomplishable for poor communities only to undertake. An alternative that is less expensive would be to collect soil from elsewhere, where soil quality is better, and use this to cultivate on in the raised beds.

The Aquacrop study gives only an indication of the potential yield of the different urban gardens. To give a more accurate indication of the potential yield fieldwork is necessary, because the level of pollution, type of soil and the water quality can differ per location. The fieldwork data will reveal which method is most applicable. However, it is clear that the organoponics method has the most favourable characteristics and therefore has the highest yield.

We now have identified some urban farming methods that might be viable in Jakarta. Attaining an adequate and stable food supply is a cornerstone of any development goal and policy. The question is whether there are societal and political conditions that make it challenging to provide a solution for this problem in Jakarta. We find that corruption, financial means and governance failure are major inhibiting and debilitating factors at multiple levels of society (Bakker et al. 2008). In the first instance, the inability of the municipal government to perform competently means that projects rarely come off the ground and its governing capabilities are hamstrung by an ineffective bureaucracy and susceptibility to corruption (Bunnell & Miller, 2016). Any aspect

(20)

of Jakarta that does function properly and can be seen improving, is almost exclusively the case in more affluent areas and areas of vital economic importance. This is a shortcoming of the government to have a participatory approach, to ascertain what the needs of its (particularly poor) inhabitants are. In addition, corruption and crime at the community level are also impeding factors. As a result, some of the kampungs are off-limits because they are “ungovernable and unserviceable” (Bakker et al., 2008). Additionally, this is an inability of the government – perhaps partly due to its budget – to impose its authority and control in all areas of the city. This might provide a pessimistic view of the practicability of urban farming in Jakarta, but a realistic view of the current situation in the city, mean that any kind of project or development should be considered a challenge. The underlying problem is how Jakarta is governed, and this probably must be addressed before any kind of policy can be considered feasible. Government reform is required (ibid.). In regards to urban farming, it should be able to develop informally up to some level in the city. Adoption of viable farming methods would, in all likelihood, require some sort of education and could be provided by (experienced) locals or NGO’s if governmental institutions cannot provide this service (Bunnell & Miller, 2016). For further research, it would be interesting to research if it is possible to provide a complete diet for the poor local communities with urban farms. A cost-benefit analyses will show which method is most applicable and most profitable, in the analyses could be looked into sanitizing the soil instead of using the organoponics. In order to improve the water quality and soil quality it would be very interesting to study the whole catchment area of Jakarta so the point sources of pollution can be tackled. On the long run, policies and restrictions considering (ground)water use and waste dumping, should be made for the industrial sector and for the habitants in the catchment area to improve environmental conditions. In addition, there is also the component of food prices of products from urban farming – if they are to be sold to the public – that needs to be considered for the feasibility of urban farming in Jakarta. Hence we suggest a cost-effectiveness analysis to be undertaken in further research. This can indicate whether Jakarta’s infrastructure is so economically inefficient, that the price of producing food inside the city is a rational and economic undertaking compared to supplying and sourcing it from outside the city.

(21)

CONCLUSION

In this report, we have sought to consider the viability of different methods of urban farming to contribute

to increased food security in Jakarta. We conclude that if employed and integrated properly, urban

farming can have a positive effect on the food supply in Jakarta but cannot substitute the main food

supply.

We find that an organoponic method – where produce is grown in raised beds – provides the best results

in terms of yield and health of the products. Alternatively, if crops are grown on land plots it is important

to use crops with long stems to reduce the effects of contaminated water and soil. We also find

organoponics to be a viable method in the dense metropolitan area of Inner Jakarta, where open space

is scarce. Integrating the farms in the city will still require creative and inventive solutions in space

allocation. These kind of practices can develop informally in the city, but to have a meaningful and

effective impact, it is important that there is institutional support and intervention by public authorities.

Otherwise the coordination costs become too high as the scale of farming increases. However, it is

questionable to what extent this is possible within the current political climate of Jakarta.

Finally, we suggest fieldwork and quantitative – particularly economic – analyses to provide a more

concrete and quantifiable answer on the viability of urban farming in Jakarta.

Applicability

Effectiveness

Practicability

Earth sciences

-Wastewater hinders

applicability

-Raised beds

-Food availability

and access increases

-Financial means

-Completeness of

diets

Political science

-Self-organizing or

coordinated

-Civic engagement

-Corruption

-Financial means

Urban planning

-Within the context

of spatial planning,

urban farming in

jakarta requires

inventive integration

methods due to high

population densities

and fragmented

land ownership.

-Urban farming will

have little effect on

the dysfunctional

transportation

system.

(22)

REFERENCES

Altieri, M. A., Companioni, N., Cañizares, K., Rosset, P., Bourque, M., Nicholls, C. I. (1999). The greening of the "barrios": Urban agriculture for food security in cuba. Agriculture and Human Values, 16, 131-140.

Apip, S., S.A.H., Pingping, L. (2015). Overview of jakarta water-related environmental challenges No. 4)United Nations University - Advanced Study of Sustainability.

Asri, D.U., Hidayat, B. (2005). Current transportation issues in Jakarta and its impacts on environment. Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, 5(1), 1792-1798.

Bakker, K., Kooy, M., Shofiani, N. E., & Martijn, E. J. (2008). Governance failure: Rethinking the institutional dimensions of urban water supply to poor households. World Development, 36(10), 1891-1915.

Berner, E., & Phillips, B. (2005). Left to their own devices ? Community self-help between alternative development and neo-liberalism. Community Development Journal, 40(1), 17–29.

Born, B., & Purcell, M. (2006). Scale and Food Systems in Planning Research. Journal of Planning Education and Research 26:195-207, (26c), 195–207.

Bunnell, T., Miller, M. A., (2016). Jakarta in Post-Suharto Indonesia : Decentralisation , Neo-liberalism and Global City Aspiration. Space and Polity, 15(1), 35–48.

Burgers, J., S. Musterd (2002). Understanding urban inequality: a model based on existing theory

and empirical illustration, International Journal for Urban and Regional Research 26 (2), p. 403-413 Campbell, S. (2003). Green cities, growing cities, just cities? Urban planning and the contradictions of sustainable development. Readings in Planning Theory, 435-58.

Castells, M. 1977. The Urban Question: A Marxist Approach. Cambridge: MIT Press

Cawst, (n.d.). What happens when you water plants with contaminated water? retrieved on 22-12-2016 from:http://biosandfilters.info/faq/what-happens-when-you-water-plants-contaminated-water%C2%A0

Coutard, O. (2008). Placing splintering urbanism: Introduction. Geoforum, 39(6), 1815-1820.

Davis, B. S., Birch, G. F. (2009). Catchment-wide assessment of the cost-effectiveness of stormwater remediation measures in urban areas. Environmental Science & Policy, 12(1), 84-91.

Davis, J. C., & Henderson, J. V. (2003). Evidence on the political economy of the urbanization process. Journal of Urban Economics, 53, 98–125.

de Soto, H. (1989) The Other Path, Taurus, London. 

Eldridge, P. (1984). The Political Role of Community Action Groups in India and Indonesia: In Search of a General Theory Eldridge, Philip Alternatives; Winter 1984; 10, 3; ProQuest pg. 401. ProQuest, 10(3), 401– 434.

(23)

Ernst, J. (2005). Initiating Bus Rapid Transit in Jakarta, Indonesia. Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1903(1), 20-26.

FAO. (2008). An introduction to the basic concepts of food security. EC - FAO Food Security Programme. Gerschenkron, A. (1962). Economic backwardness in historical perspective: a book of essays (No. HC335 G386). Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Hoornweg, D., Munro-Faure, P. (2008). Urban Agriculture For Sustainable Poverty Alleviation and Food Security. Position paper. Africa: FAO.

Hudalah, D., Firman, T., Woltjer, J. (2011). Cultural Cooperation, Institution Building and Metropolitan Governance in Decentralizing Indonesia. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38(6), 2217-2234

Indraprahasta, GS, Agustina I. (2011). Eradicating poverty through engaging people in urban

agriculture avtivities. Geospatial and human dimensions on sustainable resource management. International Seminar Proceeding. Bogor: Crestprent Press

Innes, J.E., Booher, E. (2004). Reframing public participation: strategies for the 21st century. Planning Theory & Practice, 5(4), 419-436.

Kelly, R. E. (2008). No ‘return to the state’: dependency and developmentalism against neo-liberalism. Development in Practice, 18(3), 319-332.

Kentor, J. (1981). Structural determinants of peripheral urbanization: The effects of international dependence. American Sociological Review, 201-211.

Lipton, Michael. "Why poor people stay poor: urban bias in world development." (1977)

Lipton, Michael. "Urban bias revisited." The Journal of Development Studies 20, no. 3 (1984): 139-166. London, B., & Smith, D. A. (1988). Urban Bias , Dependence , and Economic Stagnation in Noncore Nations. American Sociological Review, 53(3), 454–463.

Meadows, D.H., Wright, D. (2008). Thinking in Systems: A primer. White River Junction, Vt: Chelsea Green Pub. Menken, S., Keestra, M. (2016). An Introduction to Interdisciplinary Research. Amsterdam University Press: Amsterdam.

Nathanson, J. A. (2016). Wastewater treatment. Retrieved on 12-11-2016 from:

https://www.britannica.com/technology/wastewater-treatment#ref593222

Newell, W.H. (2000). Transdisciplinarity Reconsidered. Transdisciplinarity: Re-creating Integrated Knowledge. Chapter: 1.3, pp.42-48, EOLSS Publishers Co. Ltd.

Parkinson, J., Tayler, K. (2003). Decentralized wastewater management in peri-urban areas in low-income countries. Wastewater Management, 15(1), 75-90.

Prihandrijanti, M., Firdayati, M. (2011). Current situation and considerations of domestic wastewater treatment systems for big cities in indonesia (case study: Surabaya and bandung). Journal of Water Sustainability, 1(2), 97-104.

(24)

Purnomohadi, N. (2000). Jakarta: Urban agriculture as an alternative strategy to face the economic crisis. Retrieved on 14-09-2016 from: http://www.ruaf.org/sites/default/files/Jakarta_1.PDF

Smit, J., Nasr, J. (1992). Urban agriculture for sustainable cities: Using wastes and idle land and water bodies as resources. Urban Agriculture, 4(2), 141-152.

Soloman, E., Yaron, S., Matthews, K. (2002). Transmission of escherichia coli O157:H7 from Contaminated Manure and Irrigation Water to Lettuce Plant Tissue and its Subsequent Internalization. Appl. environ. Microbiology. vol. 68. no.1

Steinberg, F. (2007). Jakarta: Environmental problems and sustainability. Habitat International, 31(3-4), 354-365.

Susilo, Y.O., Joewono, T.B., Santosa, W., Parikesit, D. (2007). A Reflection of Motorization and Public Transport in Jakarta Metropolitan Area. IATSS Research, 31(1), 59-68.

The World Bank Group (2012). Sewerage and Sanitation: Jakarta and Manila. Independent Evaluation Group. Retrieved on 2-11-2016 from:

http://lnweb90.worldbank.org/oed/oeddoclib.nsf/DocUNIDViewForJavaSearch/4BE7A12A7DD3B01A8525 67F5005D897C

Tordoir, P.P. (2015). Ruimtelijke structuur voor concurrentiekracht en welvaart. Amsterdam:Ruimtelijk Economisch Atelier Tordoir.

Varis, O., Biswas, A. K., Tortajada, C., & Lundqvist, J. (2006). Megacities and water management. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 22(2), 377-394.

Viljoen, A. (2005). Continuous productive urban landscapes: Designing urban agriculture for sustainable cities. Burlington, MA: Arctural Press.

Walton, J. (1982). The international economy and peripheral urbanization. Urban policy under capitalism, 119-135.

Watson, V. (2009). The planned city sweeps the poor away: Urban planning and 21st century urbanisation. Progress in planning, 72(3), 151-193.

Wei, Z., Simin, L., & Fengbing, T. (2013). Characterization of urban runoff pollution between dissolved and particulate phases. The Scientific World Journal, 2013, 1-6.

Zhu, J. (2010). Symmetric development of informal settlements and gated communities: capacity of the state-the case of Jakarta, Indonesia.

Zhu, J., & Simarmata, H. A. (2015). Formal land rights versus informal land rights: Governance for sustainable

(25)

APPENDIX A

Aquaporin’s

(26)

Suburban Area

(27)

Urban farming for food security in the metropolis: Jakarta