Floods and Jakartas urban poor

Abstract

This research aims to appoint the indicators of vulnerability in Jakarta Utara, in order to enhance adaptive development. Jakarta is one of the most vulnerable cities in South East Asia, and very prone to floods. The total level of vulnerability is subject to the susceptibility of its weakest areas, and can

be decomposed in exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity. The northern part of Jakarta has often been appointed as the most vulnerable, due to the high amount of informal settlements and due to its location which is both close to the coast as surrounded by a number of high risk rivers. Jakarta Utara is predominantly populated by the urban poor. By identifying the indicators of vulnerability that are relevant for Jakarta Utara, this research proposes numerous recommendations to achieve sustainable adaptation to the flood events. One of these recommendation involve the increase of social coherence which may be induced by a social platform. Ultimately, adaptive development may be achieved once the first steps towards an integrated hazard management has been designed.

1. Introduction

Every year, Jakarta is faced with floods due to its geographical location (Brinkman & Hartman, 2008). Moreover, human induced processes of climate change and land subsidence put the city under increased threat. Especially poor communities that lack means to protect themselves against floods will be the most vulnerable. This research recognizes the opportunities this group can offer in order to decrease the impacts of future floods. In this introduction we explain the most important concepts of our research.

The metropolitan Jakarta is the capital city of Indonesia, located on the northern coast of Java Island in Southeast Asia. The entire urban conglomeration of Jakarta (Jakotabek) counts approximately 23 million inhabitants (World Bank, 2010). However, people living in Jakarta’s metropole face challenges that have physical as well as socio-economic origins. The fact that Jakarta is located within

a deltaic plain together with the yearly heavy rainfall (which often exceeds river capacity), makes it naturally highly prone to flood events (Texier, 2008). Budiyono et al. (2015) even state that Jakarta is one of the sites that experiences the highest impacts from flooding in entire Asia. Illustratively, in 2007, Jakarta was hit by a flood that affected almost 60 percent of the urban area. Between 58 and 74 people died and at least 340.000 people had to leave their homes (Texier, 2008; Shepherd& Boll, 2015). Future floods will be unavoidable in the future due to the geographic location but there are different processes that increase the pressure exerted on the already fragile setting of Jakarta.

According to the analysis of Brinkman and Hartman (2008) the frequency and magnitude of flood events will most likely increase as a result of more extreme weather events and global warming induced sea-level rise. Nonetheless Brinkman & Hartman point to surface subsidence as the main factor for concerns, regarding future flood events. A combination of these physical processes will imply the surface of Jakarta to decline and the water levels to rise creating an alarming outlook for the city. Most impact of the above named processes will be found in the North of Jakarta where the sea is close, the rivers come together and surface subsidence is strongest (Simarmata, Sianturi, Yudono, 2013). This study therefore restricts itself to this region defined as most vulnerable, Jakarta Utara.

Another characteristic for Utara is the large share of squatter settlements (urban slums) in the area. These informal settlements are inhabited by the urban poor that lack the financial assets to compete in the housing market and therefore settle in informal areas. McCarthy (2003)points out that the number of urban poor is d epended on one’s definition of poverty. In this project there will be referred to the urban poor as Jakarta Utara residents who live in urban slums, representing one of the poorest segments of society. As the group being most vulnerable the urban poor need to receive attention with the increasing likelihood of flood events. Defining vulnerability is the first step in addressing the problem. When talking about vulnerability in the case of Jakarta the following definition will be used based on the definition given by the IPCC (2007): “The degree to which the urban poor are susceptible to, and unable to cope with, the impacts of floods”.

The aim of our paper is to gain insight in the vulnerability of Jakarta’s urban poor but also in the adaptive opportunities of these people. By analyzing literature on previous flood events our aim is to find indicators for vulnerability of Jakarta Utara’s urban poor in order to find out where improvements can be made. The research question that will be answered i n the project is the following: ‘What are adequate indicators to identify vulnerability of the urban poor in Jakarta Utara, and how can these contribute to adaptive development? ’ To answer this question we will first create insight in the investigated area of Utara. Secondly, we will present our research design which explains how we have gathered information and have dealt with it. From literature we will deduce the important factors to take into consideration regarding vulnerability of the urban poor. Thirdly, we will present our findings. With these findings we will make a suggestion to tackle issues that increase the vulnerability of the poor and propose an approach to improve future flood management. This suggestion will be logically deduced from the indicators we discovered to be relevant. Finally, a discussion will deal with the shortcomings and suggestion for further research. There is a need to combine different disciplines to understand the ambiguity of the problems Jakarta is facing. The involved disciplines The aim of our paper is to gain insight in the vulnerability of Jakarta’s urban poor but also in the adaptive opportunities of these people. By analyzing literature on previous flood events our aim is to find indicators for vulnerability of Jakarta Utara’s urban poor in order to find out where improvements can be made. The research question that will be answered i n the project is the following: ‘What are adequate indicators to identify vulnerability of the urban poor in Jakarta Utara, and how can these contribute to adaptive development? ’ To answer this question we will first create insight in the investigated area of Utara. Secondly, we will present our research design which explains how we have gathered information and have dealt with it. From literature we will deduce the important factors to take into consideration regarding vulnerability of the urban poor. Thirdly, we will present our findings. With these findings we will make a suggestion to tackle issues that increase the vulnerability of the poor and propose an approach to improve future flood management. This suggestion will be logically deduced from the indicators we discovered to be relevant. Finally, a discussion will deal with the shortcomings and suggestion for further research. There is a need to combine different disciplines to understand the ambiguity of the problems Jakarta is facing. The involved disciplines

2. Case Area: Jakarta Utara

The capital city of Indonesia encompasses an area of approximately 654 square kilometers and is situated in the northern part of the Java Island.

Jakarta has a total of six districts, figure 1, one of which is an island, Kepulauan Seribu that lies off the coast of Jakarta and is not included in the figure, derived from Marfai et al. (2015). The district in the northern part of the city is called Jakarta Utara (Marfai, Sekaranom & Ward, 2015).

Jakarta is considered to be one of the megacities of Southeast Asia, and even of the world, that is most vulnerable to consequences of climate change (Yusuf & Francisco, 2009). Due to Jakarta’s geographical location future floods can have two origins: river floods and flooding generated in the coastal area. The latter caused generally by high tides (Marfai,Sekaranom & Ward, 2015). Currently, frequent water loggings are almost solely the result of river floods. Nine rivers in the dense river network in Jakarta Utara alone have been characterized as major Figure 1, Jakarta and its districts (Marfai et al., contributions to the river floods (Marchiavelli, 2015) 2008). Nonetheless, in the future Jakarta is likely to become more prone to both the river floods as to those originated from sea (Budiyono et al., 2015; Marfai, Sekaranom & Ward, 2015).

In this research no distinction between these two types of flooding is being made since this would irrelevant and beyond our scope. The focus of this research includes the effect of a flood in general, in terms of vulnerability of the urban poor. However, this distinction must be recognized when structural protection measures are examined.

2.1 Utara and the urban poor

Padawangi (2012) states that impacts of climate change and land-subsidence are spatially unequal; some areas are more prone than others and the north coast of Jakarta is one of the more vulnerable to floods. According to Abidin (2013) land subsidence in the North is also most severe. This is also explicitly clarified by Marfai et al. (2015) and Marchiavelli (2008). Next to this, Padawangi (2012) indicates that even in the same region that is confronted with similar risks, the impact distribution of flood events can be unequal for different social groups. This is also the case for Jakarta Utara that is characterized by a relative high number in squatter settlements. Squatter settlements are often built on the coast and along waterways, areas no one prefers to live. As Schellekens (2015) point out that universal definitions of the urban poor lack but that there is a consensus of the fact that they inhabit

urban slums, locally referred to as ‘kampungs’. The map below, figure 1, gives an indication of the location of slum areas in Jakarta’s metropolitan area.

Figure 2 Slum Areas and Slum Area with Flood Map overlay (World Bank 2010).

Urban slums are indicated and graded (from non- slum to heavy slum) on both of the maps. ‘The grade of slum is based upon a ranking system by the Bureau of Statistics measuring the number of houses unfit for habitation, the quality of water and sewer services, population density, the use of streams as toilets and water sources, and how marginal of a location it is found i n’ (World Bank, 2010).

With respect to flood events the urban poor are physically vulnerable to injury and property loss, and economically vulnerable since their livelihoods are mostly dependent on these same areas (World Bank, 2011). Because of the lack of registration of the urban poor, giving exact numbers on the share of the urban poor in the total population is difficult; however population in slums areas ranges from 6% to 25% (Schellekens, 2015). The urban poor in Jakarta therefore make up a significant group of the population and are also ‘productive and integral members of the city’s economy’ (World Bank, 2011).

2.2 Development for the urban poor

Having recognized that the contribution of the urban poor is relevant makes them actors in the question of development. Although being the most vulnerable group in society the urban poor seem to

be highly resourceful and adaptive with many action taking place at the individual or community level. Although the houses and livelihoods of the urban poor may be fragile, strong social networks and cultural identification of place run deep and are important elements of adaptive opportunities (World Bank, 2011). The definition of vulnerability might seem deterministic in the fact that there are no ways for the urban poor to improve their situation but by assessing the different components of vulnerability it will be clarified that there are opportunities within the concept. Therefore, taking into account those opportunities for the urban poor to improve their situation is a crucial component in the future development for Jakarta, since it hasn’t received proper attention.

When studying the urban poor there are multiple challenges. One of the challenges is the lack of quantitative and qualitative data on these groups. According to the World Bank (2010) data gaps include: maps of poverty in the city, socio ‐economic and housing data of the poorest, well- established qualitative definitions of slums and urban settlements, up ‐to‐date census data (including the very poor) and immigration and emigration rates. Lack of data is a result of the informal character of the urban poor, their housing and occupations. Because there is often no registration on these areas it is difficult to make estimations or statements about size and development. Incorporating the urban poor can how ever be very beneficial for Jakarta’s overall development since they are highly adaptive (World Bank, 2011). The World Bank (2011) states that

‘any sustainable solution to flooding in Jakarta will need to address these issues with the active cooperation of local communitie s’. Therefore there is a need to merge policies regarding adaptation opportunities with development policies. By investigating adaptation opportunities our research also seeks to contribute to an improved understanding of the complexity of development policies and the role of urban poor can play in it. Before we will look at adaptation vulnerability needs to be discussed since this concept determines on what areas adaptations are required.

3. Research Design

To answer our research question: ‘What are adequate indicators to identify vulnerability of the urban poor in Jakarta Utara and how can these contribute to adaptive development?’ we have developed a research design adequate to our study case. Since our research involves a case study, we first needed a comprehensive understanding of the case area: Jakarta Utara. This chapter includes an operationalization of the concepts of vulnerability and also adaptive development will be presented. Lastly, our approach to the case study will be presented.

3.1 Defining vulnerability

Measuring vulnerability is generally difficult and depends on what definition of the concept is used. As mentioned earlier this report will use the definition of IPCC (2001). The IPCC (2001) has noted vulnerability can be seen as a function of exposure, sensitivity and the adaptive capacity (abbreviated AC). What are considered relevant indicators for vulnerability also depends on the level to which the concepts are defined. In this research the study of Jakarta is limited to community level; the research focuses on the exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity of Utara’s urban poor as a whole. There

will be factors mentioned that say something about vulnerability on individual or household level but those will not be discussed in depth; they will not be part of the recommendations. Figure 3 shows a model by Smith (2001) which is a conceptualization of the different attributes that make up vulnerability.

Figure 3 Smith, T. F., (2001). A framework for understand vulnerability. Climate Change Responses across Regional Australia: Social Learning and Adaptation. Victoria: VURRN Press .

The figure shows that the IPCC (2001; 2007) has grouped the influencing factors; exposure and sensitivity are considered the potential impact factors, AC interplays with those to result in an overall vulnerability. This grouping can be explained by the fact that exposure and sensitivity are regarded weaknesses in both the physical (exposure) and socio-economic (sensitivity) aspects of Jakarta Utara and might negatively influence vulnerability.

As AC appoints the opportunities of the community to adapt in order to be better prepared for future hazards it can decrease the extent to which Jakarta Utara and its community might be affected and is therefore considered a positive influence. To clarify, exposure will be addressed by discussing the environment and the climatic characteristics of Jakarta Utara that make it naturally vulnerable. Moreover it addresses the potential impact of a flood on the physical status. Sensitivity is dependent As AC appoints the opportunities of the community to adapt in order to be better prepared for future hazards it can decrease the extent to which Jakarta Utara and its community might be affected and is therefore considered a positive influence. To clarify, exposure will be addressed by discussing the environment and the climatic characteristics of Jakarta Utara that make it naturally vulnerable. Moreover it addresses the potential impact of a flood on the physical status. Sensitivity is dependent

research the focus will also be on adaptive measures that can promote stability among the urban poor in Utara. Because it is difficult to change the exposure, and less likely to radically correct the sensitivity, as it is mostly influenced by previous events, strengthening the community’s adaptive capacity is crucial to decreas e Jakarta Utara’s vulnerability. Adaptive capacity is strongly connected with socio-economic developments and constraints which come forward in the sensitivity. In the case of Jakarta socio-economic problems are maybe as important to vulnerability as the physical risk. The relevance to group sensitivity and adaptive capacity can therefore be explained as the need to integrate socio-economic developments with adaptation measures. This new insight will be used as a framework for our recommendations for Jakart a Utara’s urban poor.

3.2 Approach

In order to find indicators that can measure the concepts of vulnerability, a literature study for the case of Jakarta has been carried out. Scientific papers were used to get an idea of the current understanding of the three concepts and what are considered relevant indicators. Since the study deals with the case of Jakarta (Utara) the focus has been on previous flood events in Jakarta, especially the 2002 and 2007 floods. Additional literature on the physical and social environment of Jakarta was used to analyze the business-as-usual scenario.

The obtained knowledge has been used to address the stages within a disaster situation, which has been crucial in order to give recommendations to improve the adaptive capacity. Literature from different disciplines was studied to create a broad understanding. Moreover, the three concepts compass many different disciplines, in order to apprehend the vulnerability level and the way in which it can be decreased an interdisciplinary approach was crucial. Furthermore, additional information derived from other case studies to complement the documentation concerning Jakarta Utara is used; this information is only used, when the other case was considered similar in a particular way and could generate new insights in the situation for Jakarta, for instance a case study about Bangladesh, which is broadly known for among others its land subsidence and high flood risk, which

is very comparable to Jakarta Utara’s case.

Most of the data that has been collected from the papers is qualitative. As Walliman (2011, p. 72)states, qualitative data is rather described in words than in numbers, because it is difficult to accurately measure and count. This is definitely applicable to the concepts of exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity. Walliman (2011, p. 73)underlines that one should use the appropriate methods for analysis, because the data is often a combination of both qualitative and quantitative. Nonetheless, in the current case, the use of mainly qualitative data makes it possible to use data that has been collected from other cases because qualitative studies rather than quantitative studies can say something about the perceived experience of a flood (Walliman, 2011). Basing research on quantitative data only, would restrict the understanding of the way urban poor are vulnerable as well as adaptive. This is mainly the result of focusing on the damage that has been caused by the event, rather than appointing adaptive behavior which has led to decrease the actual impact of the flood in comparison with the potential impact.

Moreover, the majority of literature on flood events, regarding both Jakarta as the rest of the world, are keen on highlighting the downfalls, rather than discussing proper reactions that can be expanded or build upon. By focusing on the quantitative data only, this would result in a situation that lacks the share of adaptive capacity, because this is not easily recognized in numbers or percentages only. In addition, quantitative data is often lacking or inadequate and will therefore not provide a representative image of the urban poor society. Moreover, Jakarta Utara is predominantly covered by informal settlements (World Bank, 2011) and the number of inhabitants in these areas differ a lot (Schellekens, 2015). Besides, there are various definitions for the urban poor resulting in uncertainty about the total number of poor inhabitants of both Jakarta as its northern part (Utara) (Schellekens, 2015). The use of qualitative data would not be sufficient, as the magnitude of the impact of land Moreover, the majority of literature on flood events, regarding both Jakarta as the rest of the world, are keen on highlighting the downfalls, rather than discussing proper reactions that can be expanded or build upon. By focusing on the quantitative data only, this would result in a situation that lacks the share of adaptive capacity, because this is not easily recognized in numbers or percentages only. In addition, quantitative data is often lacking or inadequate and will therefore not provide a representative image of the urban poor society. Moreover, Jakarta Utara is predominantly covered by informal settlements (World Bank, 2011) and the number of inhabitants in these areas differ a lot (Schellekens, 2015). Besides, there are various definitions for the urban poor resulting in uncertainty about the total number of poor inhabitants of both Jakarta as its northern part (Utara) (Schellekens, 2015). The use of qualitative data would not be sufficient, as the magnitude of the impact of land

In order to overcome the complications that have been proposed by the uncertainty of data, a qualitative measurement of the sensitivity and the adaptive capacity has been conducted by a literature study. The literature has been used to extract the indicators of exposure, sensitivity & adaptive capacity. The results have been documented in a table, which has been included in the results. From the collected data from literature, recommendations will be developed, this can be considered the main aim of our project.

3.3 Interdisciplinarity

As can be concluded from the previous paragraphs our case study uses concepts that touch study areas from several disciplines. A complete understanding of vulnerability cannot be provided within the scope of a single discipline. An interdisciplinary approach is therefore required. The discipline of earth sciences will be used to focus mainly on the exposure of Jakarta Utara. This domain will determine the processes at play for the natural vulnerability but can also give insights in recommendations for land use practices. The discipline of human geography will give attention to the socio-economic characteristics of the urban poor in Jakarta and their integration in society. This will

be a necessary attribute to determine sensitivity and deduct opportunities for the adaptive capacity of the community. The domain of business studies focuses on the importance to focus on the urban poor since they make up a large part of the Jakarta’s economy. Lastly, the study field of artificial

intelligence is included to discover opportunities for improving early warning system and other forms of communication during disaster events. To fully understand the vulnerability for the case of Jakarta Utara a combination of the insight from the different disciplines is necessary. Common ground is needed to develop our recommendations. The integration of the disciplines will happen within the analysis and results of our research. These will be based on the following approach.

3.4 Scenario analysis

The analysis and results of our research will take the shape of a disaster analysis where vulnerability will be assessed in every stage of the crisis. Each stage in the process of a crisis will be observed with these qualitative measurements of exposure, sensitivity and AC. The stages that will be distinguished are: 1. ‘business as usual’; 2. pre-crisis; 3. crisis; 4. post-crisis and recovery and 5. ‘new stable state’.

These phases are based on previous assessments, whereby this has been stated in the under mentioned method of scenario analysis.

Kaewkitipong & Chen et al. (2012) distinguished three phases, where they also state the stages of pre-crisis (2), crisis (3) and post-crisis. They used these stages in their research on social media based communication during the 2011 flooding in Thailand.

Vorst (2010) described John Leach’s Dynamic Disaster model, in this model there are multiple phases possible, where Vorst (2010) uses either three or five phases. The theory of John

Leach’s is a theory with its origin in the disaster psychology and acknowledged by Vorst (2010) for its useful implementation of the impact of human actions in crisis in disaster. This theory is also used as starting point by Barton (1969). Barton (1970) & Bardo (1978) differentiate different phases in order to a disaster.

The following will shortly discuss the outlines of the phases that will be used in this research.

1. Business as Usual

The phase before a threat of a flood has presented itself. During this period of time there is assumed that the community’s contingency is calm and would, to some extent, be durable if

there are no crises that come to pass. Barton (1969) stated that formal organizations should employ in the preparation of potential disasters (Barton, 1969; Bardo, 1978). An outline of Jakarta Utara’s exposure is mostly used to address this phase and to denote the

possible vulnerabilities that can arise from the situation before a flood emerges.

2. Pre-crisis

Pre-crisis is comparable with the threat and warning stage described by Leach (1994), and the pre-disaster phase presented by Barton (Vorst, 2010; Barton, 1969). Leach (1994) states that in this stage recognizable signs will forecast a disaster and that evacuation could be a possibility (Vorst, 2010). Moreover, at the time of threat the action response begins (Barton, 1969). The pre-crisis stage is important in understanding the adaptive capacity of multiple mechanisms within the community. Firstly, human reactions to the threat induce certain movements like migration or evacuation, as was the case in/as described by XXX (REF). Secondly one could also see multiple responses in terms of communication between the formal organizations or within the community (Kaewkitipong & Chen et al., 2012). Thirdly, monetary flows can show the response in a more detailed way (REF). Nonetheless, the interaction between the different aspects is expected to be most important in order to understand the vulnerabilities and AC.

3. Crisis

Once the disaster strikes, the crisis phase starts. The community will face the flood as it occurs. Barton (1969) mentions this as the immediate response phase, in which he underlines that the community or organizations should act instantaneously and might be challenged by the unexpected damages. Furthermore, the crisis phase is characterized by the inevitable evacuation that should emerge, but due to the high stress and emotional levels of the community it is difficult to mobilize the community, also caused by the enduring impact of the flood (Vorst, 2010). Kaewkitipong & Chen et al. (2012) have showed in their research that the crisis phase is also marked by self-regarding behavior , to assure an individual’s own safety and to survive the crisis phase. The crisis phase is crucial in addressing the lack in AC and the sensitivity of Jakarta Utara. The way a flood affects the socio-economic processes in Jakarta Utara, will create a clear vision in which way the response of community could decrease the total effect of the flood to the community and this will highlight the most vulnerable and sensitive components in order to disasters.

4. Post-crisis and recovery

After the decrease of initial dangers, a more organized and structured phase will emerge: post- crisis and recovery. The community and the formal organizations will now focus on a more ordered response to the encountered situation (Kaewkitipong & Chen et al., 2012). After the evacuation of the most severely affected areas and providence of the first necessities of life, the focus mostly shifts towards the first recovery of the community and building up to achieve

a new stable state. According to this, factories and shop will have to be restored in order to create possibilities for new employment and increasing possibilities to reach a new stable state.

5. ‘New stable state’

The final phase of our ‘disaster cycle’ is less comparable to disaster management phases, because it focuses on the recovered community. This fifth stage will be used to emphasize the

possible adaptive development that might emerge in a new stage or that could emerge with the help of recommendations. Moreover, the assessment of this new stable state will describe to the influence of a disaster and in which way this has led to adaptation of the situation.

4. Understanding Vulnerability

In this chapter we will make an analysis of the literature we have found on indicators of vulnerability of the urban poor in Utara. We will do this according to the stage analysis approach that has been explained in the research design. The results of the stage analysis will be discussed in the Integrated Results. Logically we will start by studying the business as usual situation of Jakarta which sets the scene for the following stages. We will combine business as usual with the stage of pre-crisis since floods are yearly phenomena. Firstly exposure will be investigated, followed by sensitivity and lastly

AC.

4.1 Exposure

The location of Jakarta is the biggest factor that determines its exposure to floods. As said earlier, Jakarta is located at a river delta of the Ciliwung River (Marfai, Sekaranom & Ward, 2015). This river spreads into a complex network of channels and tributaries, creating more areas that can be of high risk of flooding – and by this means, causing higher degree exposure. Floods occur when these rivers exceeds their maximum discharge capacity (Brinkman & Hartman, 2008). This occasionally happens during the wet-season, also called monsoon. The monsoons are typical for the tropical climate and this results in a dry-season that is during the months May - October and a wet-season in November till April (WMO). During the wet-season, extreme weather event that include high precipitation rates, are common. This means that during this events the catchment of the Ciliwung receives more precipitation which has to drain downstream the river towards the city of Jakarta. This causes discharge peaks of rivers in Jakarta which quite often exceeds the maximum discharge capacity of the river and causes floods (Brinkman & Hartman, 2008).

4.1.1 Climate change

Climate change is a topic that is discussed by authorities and considered to have a role in the increasing severity and the frequency of the occurrence of flooding events in the future. Probably the most prominent sources is the IPCC climate reports. Their last two synthesis reports (AR4, 2007 & AR5, 2014) states many future predictions of which two are particularly interesting future flooding events in Jakarta. One of the predictions is the suggestion that extreme weather events are more likely to occur a frequent base and may even become more extreme. As earlier stated, extreme weather events can causes maximum discharge peaks that exceeds the rivers boundaries. This means that the probability that Jakarta encounter more severe floods and more frequently will increase as climate change continues.

Since 40% of Jakarta lies below sea level, another process will play a part in the future floods. Sea level rise is one of the most known and discussed consequence of climate change. Due to the melting worlds snow and ice masses and thermal expansion of water as consequence of the rising temperature. The AR4 report predicts a possible sea level rise of 200-500mm on global average mean by 2100. In the future, this means that Jakarta becomes more prone to flood events coming from the Java Sea.

4.1.2 Surface subsidence

This risk increase is stimulated by surface subsidence of the land where Jakarta is built on (Brinkman & Hartman, 2008). A few location in Jakarta are having a subsidence rate of 20-25cm/year, however, the most common rates are between 1-14 cm/year (Abidin, 2006). This is mainly caused by reasons that finds their origin in the fact that Jakarta is built on a river delta. The three major factors are (unsustainable) groundwater extraction, human building activities and natural consolidation of the soil (Abidin, 2006). Groundwater extraction is causing a soil to become less saturated with water which leads to a lower hydrostatic pressure and soil inclination. An additional factor to this, is covering the surface with an impermeable layer (e.g. road or building). This prevents water to infiltrate in the soil that results even less water in the soil and immediate runoff when there is precipitation which might contributes to a flooding event (WEF, 1998). The second cause, human building activity, causes an increasing mass on top of the soil which also leads to inclination. Finally, due to fact that deltas are alluvium - by water deposited - soils incline as part as a natural compaction process (consolidation) of the sediment (Brinkman & Hartman, 2008).

Assuming that rate of inclination remains constant at rate of 7,5 cm/yr in the future, the net sea level rise can be 7 meters in 2100 (7,5cm/yr × 85 yr + 50 cm sea level rise = ± 700 cm). As can be seen in the figure 4 (Vogel & Zijlstra, 2015), a net elevation change of 7 meters results in a significant increase of areas that are at high risk of flooding. Especially Jakarta’s coastal area, Jakarta Utara, will

become significantly more exposed to flood events.

At last, a different phenomenon can have a significant influence on the occurrence of floods in Jakarta: a cycle of higher and lower spring tides. Diermanse (2007) analysed height of the Figure 4 Areas with high risk of flooding, current spring tides over a period of 100 years and situation vs situation in 2100 (+7 meters) (Vogel & found a cycle that correlated with a cycle Zijlstra, 2015) that represents the distance from Earth to the moon - which varies from time to time. This causes changes in moon's’ gravitational forces on Earth, that results into a changes in tidal patterns. He concluded that a cycle that repeats every 18.6 year. 2025 is the next year that this cycle will be at its peak, which may increase the risk of flooding.

Altogether, the conclusion can be drawn that Jakarta is highly very exposed to floods by its very nature. Additionally, human influences like urbanisation and unsustainable use of groundwater makes Jakarta contributes to the degree of exposed negatively. In the future, Jakarta is likely to become even more exposed to flooding events. Mainly, due to climate change, surface inclination and the ongoing urbanisation.

4.2 Sensitivity

Sensitivity is the combination of attributes, whether human or natural, that influence a system more or less susceptible to exposure and higher sensitivity will lead to higher potential impacts (Yoo, Kim & Hadi, 2014). The authors divided Jakarta into human and natural systems.

4.2.1 Human systems

For the human systems, in the article is population density considered as one of the most important aspects of sensitivity. According to Yoo, Kim & Hadi (2014) it is natural to assume that higher population density will lead to higher sensitivity to environmental exposure, taken into account that Jakarta is one of the most overcrowded cities in the world.

But not only population density itself is an import factor to predict the degree of damage, but different part of the total population are possibly more sensitive to the same (magnitude of) hazards. The number of slum population (BPS, 2008 in Yoo, Kim & Hadi, 2014) was used as a relative measure of the poor population.

4.2.2 Natural systems

The natural systems were divided by Yoo, Kim & Hadi (2014) into managed and unmanaged natural systems based on a land cover map. The relative dividends of land cover by district are shown in Figure 5. Managed natural systems including farmland, rice paddies and agricultural field are assumed by the authors as more sensitive because vegetation and crop yield would be negatively influenced by environmental degradation. For the unmanaged natural system, swamp and grassland areas are assumed as sensitive land covers, while they have theoretically the capacity to act as a buffer against The natural systems were divided by Yoo, Kim & Hadi (2014) into managed and unmanaged natural systems based on a land cover map. The relative dividends of land cover by district are shown in Figure 5. Managed natural systems including farmland, rice paddies and agricultural field are assumed by the authors as more sensitive because vegetation and crop yield would be negatively influenced by environmental degradation. For the unmanaged natural system, swamp and grassland areas are assumed as sensitive land covers, while they have theoretically the capacity to act as a buffer against

Figure 5 Relative dividends of land cover by district (Yoo, Kim & Hadi, 2014)

4.3 Adaptive Capacity

Adaptive capacity’s (AC) share within the model of Smith (2001), discussed in the previous chapter, is the sort of positive feedback loop, to decrease the potential impact of a hazard. Lemos, Eakin,

Nelson, Engle & John (2013) define adaptive capacity (AC) as ‘designing and implementing policy that both addresses structural deficits and risk management’. Lemos et al. (2013) discuss how a proper adaptation within both the generic as the specific AC may lead to adaptive development. We will therefore provide a short description of those two main factors. The indicators of AC for Jakarta Utara will be based on the definition of Lemos et al. (2007; 2013), this paragraph will explain the relation between the floods in Jakarta Utara and the AC in more detail.

4.3.1 Structural deficits

The generic adaptive capacity of is referred by structural deficits. Lemos et al. (2013) state this generic adaptive capacity as subjects like; universal access to education & health, income and land distribution, the political reform as democratic decision-making and transparency and the institutional and administrative capacity-building as investing in human capital and decreasing the inefficiencies of the political system. This generic adaptive capacity in Jakarta Utara is more about the role of the government of Indonesia and Jakarta, than the role of the community in Jakarta Utara; the macro- environment the inhabitants have to deal with.

4.3.2 Risk management

With risk management Lemos et al. (2013) imply the specific adaptive capacity such as investment in adaptation technology, social innovation and specific interventions to mitigate the exposure of different groups to particular climate threat as relocating vulnerable population according to recurrent and unmanageable floods as applicable for this particular case in Jakarta Utara. This specific interventions in order to risk management as stated by Lemos et al. (2013) could develop the adaptive capacity to a new state.

The interventions need to be carried out into the different levels of government and in the different sectors to make any difference. Those interventions are likely to be controversial and politically issues (Lemos, 2007). The implications of the interaction between the specific and generic capacities and the relative importance of the two compounds together in order to respond and recover from climate change impact have received little empirical and theoretical attention. If the generic capacity of local government and national government in Jakarta & Indonesia interacts with the The interventions need to be carried out into the different levels of government and in the different sectors to make any difference. Those interventions are likely to be controversial and politically issues (Lemos, 2007). The implications of the interaction between the specific and generic capacities and the relative importance of the two compounds together in order to respond and recover from climate change impact have received little empirical and theoretical attention. If the generic capacity of local government and national government in Jakarta & Indonesia interacts with the

An interesting additional insight to this specific and generic capacities (and the development of this capacities) is about the ‘corporate citizenship’ (Prahalad, 2012; Crane & Matten, 2005). In this research, the focus is on the community based and not on the macro-environment including the international businesses.

4.3.3 Sustainable adaptation

The paper of Lemos et al. (2013) includes a lot of historical background and appoints many factors of AC. Before they discuss the multiple indicators, which they also denoted as determinants in their previous paper of 2007 (Lemos et al., 2007) on a similar subject, the definition of AC is briefly set out. They appoint how AC influences not only the capability of the community to respond and protect themselves against the hazardous situations; but they also underline that it is challenging to enhance AC as this might threaten the existing relationships with the authority and the distribution of the resources (Lemos et al., 2013, p. 5). Whit other words, Lemos et al. (2013) state that by improving the AC, there is an increased risk that the power will shift towards the institutions that have the necessary resources, which will decrease the power of the communities. Thus, a “...successful adaptation should result in an equal or improved situation…” (Lemos et al., 2013, p. 4). As just discussed, if the responsibility for adaptive capacity is not equally distributed, the sensitivity of the community might increase because the segregation between the communities is enlarged. Therefore it is important to increase the AC in a sustainable manner, this will also be highlighted in the section on Adaptive Development.

An indicator which can appoint an unequally divided responsibility and involvement regarding the AC is not subject to a specific determinant. Consequently, a disproportional share by one or two of the determinants, compared to the influence of others, in enhancing the AC would be an indicator of unsustainable AC. Bearing in mind that the inhabitants of Jakarta Utara are predominantly urban poor and have limited financial resources (Schellekens, 2015), it can be expected that the majority of the AC precautions are provided by for instance the government. Moreover, this might indicate that the AC is not sustainable and adaptive, but would lead to short term solutions which do not alter the level of vulnerability on the long run. If the AC within a system is managed in a sustainable way this will increase the likelihood of the system to be resilient to face climate stress (Lemos et al., 2013; Yoo et al., 2014).

The conceptual underpinnings of adaptive capacity are mostly based on the outcomes of the characterization of adaptation by IPCC (2011) as “adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects” (Lemos et al., 2013; Parry, Canziani et al.,

2007). In this particular case, the success or failure of adaptation is about the capacity of the system of Jakarta. The table below (table 1) presents a set of determinants for adaptive capacity as put together by Lemos et al. (2013). We will use the same subjects of analysis to apply for the case of Jakarta. This table is set up according to results found in literature by Lemos et al., (2013) & Eakin and Lemos (2006) (based on Smit et al., (2001) and Yohe & Tol (2002)).

Table 1 Determinants of AC Source: Lemos et al., (2013); Eakin and Lemos (2006) (based on Smit et al., (2001) and Yohe & Tol (2002))

Determinant

Encompasses

Human Capital

Knowledge (scientific, “local”, technical, political), education levels, health, individual risk perception, labour

Information

& Communication networks, freedom of expression, technology transfer and

Technology

data exchange, innovation capacity, early warning systems, technological relevance

Material Resources Transport, water infrastructure, buildings, sanitation, energy supply and

& Infrastructure

management, environmental quality

Organization

& State-civil society relations, local coping networks, social mobilization,

Social Capital

density of institutional relationships

Political Capital

Modes of governance, leadership legitimacy, participation, decentralization, decision and management capacity, sovereignty

Wealth & Financial Income and wealth distribution, economic marginalization, accessibility

Capital

and availability of financial instruments (e.g. insurance, credit), fiscal incentives for risk management

Institutions

& Informal and formal rules for resource conservation, risk management,

Entitlements

regional planning, participation, information dissemination, technological innovation property rights, risk sharing mechanisms

5. Results – Indicators of Vulnerability

In this chapter the results of our literature research will be presented. The determinants that were appointed by Lemos et al. (2007; 2013) have been used as a guideline to structure the indicators of exposure, sensitivity and AC. Each of the determinants will be discussed by explaining the findings of our literature research. A table has been assembled to give a clear overview of all the indicators per phase, per determinant.

5.1 Human capital

As acknowledged by Susandi (2011) part of ‘human capital’ is growing after the flood event of 2007, but there are still little availability to workshops and education on disaster management in Jakarta

Utara. The little education that is present is only poorly adapted to society. Due to a lack of knowledge of disaster management for some groups segregation between the inhabitants is created, based on education level and social-economic conditions.

Visitors of the disaster management classes, as stated by Susandi (2011) have recognized the importance of the disaster management, which brings them into a more prepared situation in case of a flood. This underlines the importance of the human capital in the adaptation to floods, but also shows that there is a lack of knowledge to understand the importance of flood protection for the urban poor.