The document discusses the Indonesian Most Livable City Index conducted by the Indonesian Planners Association (IAP). The index surveys residents across 15 major Indonesian cities to assess perceptions of livability based on factors such as physical environment, transportation, health, education, infrastructure, economic conditions, and neighborhood interactions. The 2009 survey found the average livability index score for Indonesian cities was 54.17%, indicating that less than half of residents felt their cities were comfortable places to live. Yogyakarta had the highest score at 65.34 while Pontianak had the lowest at 43.65. A 2011 survey found similar average results, with Yogyakarta and Denpasar perceived as the most livable

1. +
IAP Indonesian Most Livable
City Index
Bernardus Djonoputro
Sekretaris Jenderal – Ikatan Ahli Perencanaan (IAP)
Chairman – EAROPH Club Indonesia

2. + IKATAN AHLI PERENCANAAN
INDONESIA
• IAP merupakan satu-satunya organisasi profesi bidang perencananaan
wilayah dan kota di Indonesia, memiliki cabang di 24 provinsi
• Dengan Badan Sertifikasi Perencana yang merupakan lembaga independen
untuk sertifikasi profesi
• Dengan jumlah planners lebih dari 3000 dan 1,200 orang diantaranya
merupakan planners bersertifikat.
• Program Utama:
a. Penguatan kapasitas planner dalam perencanaan & pembangunan nasional
& daerah
b. Indonesia Most Livable City Index
Affiliated organizations:

3.  Becoming more self sufficient, Positive cash flow,
audited financial statements
 Most Liveable City Index 2009, 2011
 Active member of EAROPH
 Young Planners Asia Pacific Gathering in Yogyakarta
 Professional internship exchange: Malaysia, Australia
 Climate change and disaster preparedness project
START, with
 Annual Rakernas and outbound trainings
+  Active participant in international events: Earoph, Key Programs
IFHP, Isocarp, Habitat Forums, Asean, World Global
Water Forum, Global Citie Summit, etc. 2007-today
 Joint co-operations with embassies and media
organization.

4. Kota = (Peradaban)
+
For the three-quarters of Europe’s
population that live in cities and towns, a
good urban environment is a precondition
for a good quality of life. It seems, in part,
that over the last decade, attitudes to
living in cities have been changing. People
are no longer moving away from cities (or
have returned to them), residential
sprawl has slowed and, in a third of cities,
the population is concentrating in city
centres.

5. Tantangan Kota Masa Kini+
Elemen-elemen Lingkungan untuk Kehidupan Yang
Berkualitas
As the major function of cities is to provide places for people to trade, produce, communicate and live, the urban environment needs to be assessed from
a very specific human perspective: to provide an agreeable place to live while minimising or balancing negative side effects. Quality of life in cities
relies on a range of components such as social equity, income and welfare, housing, a healthy environment, social relations and education. The
environmental elements of good quality of life include good air quality, low noise levels, clean and sufficient water, good urban design with sufficient and
high-quality public and green spaces, an agreeable local climate or opportunities to adapt, and social equity. However, urban-specific data are patchy in
Europe and, due to different timescales and reporting methods, are seldom directly comparable.
Tekanan Urbanisasi
Many of our cities struggle to cope with social, economic and environmental problems resulting from pressures such as overcrowding or decline,
social inequity, pollution and traffic. The environmental impacts of cities also spread well beyond their physical limits as they rely heavily on outside
regions to meet demand for energy and resources and to accommodate waste. A study of Greater London estimates that London has a footprint 300
times its geographical area — corresponding to nearly twice the size of the entire UK.

6. Tantangan Kota
Masa Kini
+
Perubahan Iklim
Climate change has the potential to influence almost all components of the urban environment and to raise new,
complex challenges for the quality of urban life, health and urban biodiversity. Some cities will experience
droughts and higher temperatures. Others will experience floods. Climate change will affect many aspects of
urban living from air quality to consumption patterns (e.g. energy for air conditioning). Poor urban design can
aggravate the impacts of climate change. Soil sealing, for example, can increase the ‘urban heat island effect’. It
may also increase water run-off and lack of drainage during heavy rains leading to floods. However, urban design
aimed at tackling climate change could have numerous co-benefits from improved air quality, supporting
biodiversity and quality of life.
Kesempatan di Kota
The proximity of people, businesses and services associated with the very word ‘city’ means there are
also huge opportunities and benefits associated with urban living especially in terms of sustainability and
resource use. Already, population density in cities means shorter journeys to work and services, greater use of
walking, cycling or public transport, and living in apartments of multi-family houses or blocks requiring less
heating and less ground space per person. As a result, urban dwellers on average consume less energy and land
for living per capita than rural residents.

7. +  Designing the future
Cities are ecosystems: they are open and dynamic
systems which consume, transform and release
materials and energy; they develop and adapt;
and they interact with humans and with other
ecosystems. They must therefore be managed
and protected like any other type of ecosystem.
Through rethinking urban design, architecture
Mendisain Kota untuk transport and planning, we can turn our cities
and urban landscapes into ‘urban ecosystems’ at
the forefront of climate change mitigation (e.g.
Masa Depan sustainable transport, clean energy and low
consumption) and adaptation (e.g. floating
Kota adalah sebuah ekosistem houses, vertical gardens).
yang harus selalu di kelola dan di
Furthermore, better urban planning will improve
lindungi seperti ekosistem- quality of life across the board by designing
ekosistem lainnya. quiet, safe, clean and green urban space. It will
also create new employment opportunities by
Dengan mengembangkan cara enhancing the market for new technologies and
lkita merencana dan mendisain green architecture. Cities, due to their
kota, merancang transportasi concentration of people and activities, matter for
dengan lebih baik, akan Europe. Also, the problems of cities cannot be
solved at the local level alone. Better policy
memperbaiki kualitas hidup integration and new governance, involving closer
keseluruhan. partnership and co-ordination at local, national
and European level, are required.

8. Indonesian Cities – The
Urbanizing Phenomena
• Pada tahun 2008, untuk pertama kalinya
dalam sejarah peradaban Indonesia,
penduduk perkotaan melebihi pedesaan.
• Hari ini, lebih dari 39 perkotaan Indonesia
berpenduduk diatas 1 juta.
+
2008 2030
30% 51% 65%
urban urban urban
Di Indonesia, lebih dari 60% populasi berumur dibawah 39 tahun,
menjadikan negara yang potensial produktif.
Age 100+
Age 0

9. + INDONESIA OVERVIEW
GDP is estimated to reach approx
US$ 1.3 trillion by 2015; will make
Indonesia to become the 16th largest
economy in G – 20 with GDP per
capita of around US$ 5,000.
Economic growth will be supported
by strong FDI into Indonesia which is
estimated to reach approx US$ 15
billion in 2015.
% • Indonesia is the third fastest growing economy in Asia and the largest economy in Southeast Asia.
• Indonesia’s economy grew by 6.1% last year (2010) and is forecast to climb to 6.5 to 6.9% in 2012.
Source: EIU, 24 January 2011

10. +
Poor Infrastructure
The Global Competitiveness Report ranked Indonesia 90th among 139
countries due to poor state of various aspects of its infrastructures.
Infrastructure quality in selected Asian countries (Global
Competitiveness Report, 2010-2011)
Philippine Poor infrastructure
Poor infrastructure
Country Singapore Malaysia Thailand China Indonesia India s conditions are the
conditions are the
Roads 6.6 5.7 5.1 4.3 3.5 3.3 2.8 main factor
main factor
preventing
preventing
Railroad 5.8 4.7 3.0 4.3 3.0 4.6 1.7
Indonesia’s
Indonesia’s
Seaport 6.8 5.6 5.0 4.3 3.6 3.9 2.8 economy from
economy from
Air transport 6.9 5.9 5.9 4.4 4.6 4.6 3.6 growing at its
growing at its
potential rate of 77--
potential rate of
Electricity 6.7 5.7 5.7 5.3 3.6 3.1 3.4
Score (out of 7)* 8%.
8%.
6.6 5.5 4.9 4.1 3.7 3.6 3.2
* 1 = extremely under-developed; 7 = efficient by international standards
Source: World Economic Forum, Standard Chartered Global Research

11. USD143bn USD93bn
The Gap
USD50bn
Infrastructure State Budget Funding
Investment Needs Gap
• The National Development Planning Board
(“Bappenas”) has stated that around USD143 billion
+ (or 3% of GDP) will be needed for infrastructure
development in 2010-2014 in order to meet the
country’s economic growth target of 6% - 7% per
annum from 2010 - 2014.
Source: Government Medium Term Plan 2010-2014 and Bappenas

12. + JAKARTA AS GLOBAL CITIES :
GaWC Survey 2010
ALPHA ++
Alpha ++ World Cities : New York dan London.
Alpha + World Cities : Chicago, Dubai,
ALPHA Hongkong, Paris, Shanghai, Singapore,
+ Sydney, Tokyo.
Alpha World Cities :
This means Jakarta as a mega Amsterdam, Beijing,
city has a strategic Brussels, Buenos Aires,
ALPHA
positioning & influences in Frankfurt, Jakarta, Kuala
global interaction. Lumpur, Los Angeles,
Madrid, Mexico City, Milan,
The Globalization and World Cities Study Moscow, Mumbai, San
Group, Geographic Faculty, Loughborough Fransisco, Sao Paulo,
university, UK, 2010 Seoul, Toronto,

13. +ota = Tidak
K
Nyaman
Mayoritas kondisi kota-kota besar di Indonesia
dinilai tidak nyaman oleh warganya.Berdasarkan
survey yang dilakukan di 15 kota besar, diketahui
bahwa nilai rata-rata (mean) indeks kenyamanan
kota adalah 54,26. Indeks dengan persepsi tingkat
kenyamanan tertinggi di Kota Yogyakarta (66,52) dan
Kota Denpasar (63.63). Sedangkan dan persepsi
kenyamanan warga yang paling rendah adalah Kota
Medan (46,67) dan Kota Pontianak (46.92).
Kota – kota dengan indeks diatas rata–rata adalah :
Yogyakarta, Denpasar, Makassar, Menado, Surabaya
dan Semarang. Sedangkan kota – kota dengan
indeks dibawah rata-rata adalah Banjarmasin,
Batam, Jayapura, Bandung, Palembang,
Palangkaraya, Jakarta, Pontianak dan Medan.
IAP Indonesian Most Livable City Index 2009/2011

14. +
LIVABLE CITY
Livable City is a term that describe a comfortable environment and
atmosphere of the city as a place to live and work, viewed for
various aspects of both physically (urban facilities, infrastructure,
spatial planning, etc.) as well as non-physically (social relations,
economic activities, etc.).
Principles of Livable City :
a. The provision of basic needs (decent housing, water supply,
electricity)
b. Availability of public facilities and social amenities (public transport,
city parks, religious facilities / public health facilities)
c. Availability of public space to interact between communities
d. Security
e. Supports the function of economic, social and cultural of the city
f. Sanitation

15. +
IAP MOST LIVABLE CITY INDEX
Perception-based survey of the urban population, about the
livability of their city.
The results of this study is a "snapshot“
MLCI IAP is the first perception-based survey index of the
city’s livability and planned to be carried out annually and
hopefully it will be a benchmark for quality of life in cities
throughout Indonesia
This index also act as a feedback to stakeholders in the
planning process and urban development.
The advantages of this index: Simple, Actual, Snapshot.

16. + Physical aspects, including availability of Green

space and quality of urban design
 Environmental aspects: polutions, waste
management, cleanliness of te city
 Transportation: how well the city is served by
IAP-MLCI public transport, including quality of your roads
Surveyed Criteria  Public Health: availability and accessibility to
health facilities
and Livabillity  Public Educations: availability and accessibility
factors: of schools and other educational facilities.
 Quality and availability of city infrastructure
including utilieits, drinking water, power, and
telecommunications.
 Economic conditions, availability of work and
accessibility from home to work place
 Security and safety
 Neighborhood interactions, social and cultural
interactions

17. + Average Livability Index of Indonesian
Cities in 2009 : 54,17%
“Only 54.17% of the population in Indonesian cities surveyed feel comfortable living in their
city. This shows that those cities are still not ideal” – IAP –
52,28
59,90
43,65
52,04
52,61
53,86
56,52
51,90
52,52
56,37
53,13
65,34

18. + Average Livability Index of Indonesian
Cities in 2011: 54.26%
“45.74% of the population in Indonesian cities surveyed feel ther cities are less livable.
46.67
53
46.92
56,39
58
50.71
53,16
53
58
54.67
54,19 64
56.38
66,52

19. NO CITY 2009 2011
1 Yogyakarta 65,34 66.52
2 Denpasar 63.63
3 Makasar 56,52 58.46
4 Manado 59,90 56.39
5 Surabaya 53,13 56.38
6 Semarang 52,52 54.63
7 Banjarmasin 52,61 53.16
8 Batam 52.60
9 Jayapura 53,86 52.56
10 Bandung 56,37 52.32
11 Palembang 52.15
12 Palangkaraya 52,04 50.86
13 Jakarta 51,90 50.71
14 Pontianak 43,65 46.92
+ 15 Medan 52,28 46.67
MOST LIVABLE CITY INDEX 2009 & 2011

20. +  But there are 6 cities that are perceived as
less livable compared to 2009, namely
Manado (1 million), Jayapura (300,000),
Bandung (2.5 million),
Palangkaraya(400,000), Jakarta (15 million),
and Medan (2.1 million)
Key Findings:
 The following are key areas that the public
Cities are perceived as most important aspects in
struggling determining livability of their city, namely :
 economic(27 ,97 %)
Livability index of
Indonesian cities (mean) is at
 spatial plan/urban design (19,66 %),
54.26, a relatively no change  Availability of education facility (13,29%),
compared to the 2009 survey
(54.17).  Safety and security (11,08%)
 waste management (10,80%)

21. + Aspect
Physical/Urban
Perception (%)
design 28.63
Environment 34.32
Security & Safety 37.09
Economy 41.84
Key Findings: physical
state of Indonesian cities Social & Cultural 48.91
a concern Transportation 49.56
Public utilities 68.18
A total of 45% percent of Public Health 71.03
respondents living in Indonesian Education 72.63
cities today perceived their cities as
less livable. Key areas that has the
lowest score include: physical
aspect, environmental aspect and
security & safety.

22. +
Key findings: some cities is
just gets better.
Cities Index Above Average :
These cities are
Yogyakarta (65.34), Manado mostly old and
(59.9), Makassar (56.52), traditionally-well-
Bandung (56.37) is perceived as preserved cities,
most livable cities, more than the strong indigenous
ethnic communities,
average Indonesian cities. and mostly are
known as
education/university
cities rather than
industrialized/comme
rcial centers, are
more livable than the
average Indonesian
cities.

23. +
And some others
keep struggling
Pontianak (43,65) and  Pontianak consistenly low in the index (also
Medan (46,67) is lowest in 2009 survey), mainly are driven by
perceived as least its natural setting as a peaty soil (gambut)
livable. area, that limits the city planning and
infrastructure development.
 On the other hand, metropolizing Medan,
the 4th largest city in Indonesia with 2.1
miliion population, is struggling from the
rapid growth, urbanizations, and limited
infrastructure. The security/safety factors is
the lowest among all cities, which means
public’s perception on security in Medan is
very poor.

24. Mean = 28,63

25. Mean = 34,32

26. Mean = 49,56

27. Mean = 71,03

28. Mean = 72.63

29. Mean = 68,18

30. Mean = 41.84

31. Mean = 37,69

32. Mean = 48,91

33. + Walaupun Indonesia memiliki
fenomena ekonomi yang
mengagumkan, kota-kota utama di
SNAPSHOT IS Indonesia saat ini kesulitan untuk
menjadi kota nyaman yang ideal.
GOOD Hal ini membutuhkan keberanian
bertindak, inovasi dan pemikiran
progresif dari para manajer kota,
terutama Walikota, untuk mengambil
kebijakan-kebijakan yang tegas
dalam pembangunan kota.
Simple and Actual
“Snapshot” of the Pemimpin kota harus memilki visi,
kepemimpinan dan dukungan kuat
perceptions of urban
warga untuk merealisasikan
populations described identitas kota masa depan
in this index shows: Indonesia: Kota yang Nyaman.

34. +  Kenyaman (Livability) kota adalah hak
semua warga. Para manajer kota dan
pemerintah harus segera mengadopsi
SNAPSHOT IS kebijakan dan opendekatan yang benar
dan mumpuni.
GOOD  Mandat politik di era demokrasi baru ini
merupakan kesempatan emas untuk
merencana, membangun dan
mengendalikan/mengawasi
pembangunan.
 Pada saat bersamaan, para warga kota
Simple and Actual harus beradaptasi dengan pola hidup
urban (bukan kampung), untuk
“Snapshot” of the menjadikan kota lebih nyaman.
perceptions of urban  Masa depan kota-kota Indonesia akan
populations described menghadapi tantangan lebih besar:
in this index shows: perlunya membangun infrastruktur dan
bertumbuh nya demokrasi di level lokal.

35. +
Tantangan bagi Kota Indonesia
Infrastruktur SAMPAH, AIR BERSIH,
LIMBAH, DAN ENERGI KEMACETAN
PERUMAHAN DAN
PERMUKIMAN
Target Jumlah Penduduk
BANJIR
PERUBAHAN IKLIM
DAN BENCANA
RTH

36. +
Dampak
Lingkungan
Pelayanan
Publik
Perencanaan Kota Produk CITIZEN
CHARTER
Rencana
Berbasis Stakeholder Ruang
Perkotaan
1. Pengelolaan Pertumbuhan Design
Dampak
(Growth Management), bukan Teknis
Sosial
‘Pembangunan’ biasa. Engineering
2. Basis Perencanaan Fungsional
adalah Megalopolitan
3. Pergeseran Dari Livability harus merupakan landasan
Discretionary System Ke ukur sebagai bagian dari Citizen
Regulatory System
Charter, dengan ber fokus
komitment manajer kota untuk
melayani warga nya.

37. +
2013 MLCI Survey – Partnership Opportunity
To further enhanced the impact of this Index, IAP is putting
forward a proposal for partnership in the 2013 survey and
beyond.
Improvement to the Index includes application of more
comprehensive survey methodology in more cities.
The 2013 research will see an increase of sample in each
cities, and add the number of cities to 24.
The analysis will include ordinal utility of main aspects of the
survey. Further analysis will also connects the priority of
each aspect with attribute of respondents, ie. Younger/older
age group, gender, income group, etc.
Preliminary discussion to support the survey: Embassy of
Denmark, Embassy of Sweden, Austrade, Kementrian
Lingkungan Hidup.

38. Terima Kasih

39. Urban community perception for all aspects:
> 5 Juta Jiwa
1 – 5 Juta Jiwa
100 rb – 500 rb jiwa