R And K Reproductive Strategies

1. Introduction

Transformation is the new star in a serial of hot terms and guiding concepts in the context of disaster risk, global environmental change and development. Its proponents fence that key system changes, i.e., transformations, are needed when systems (e.g., cities, economical sectors, institutions) are to be shifted from currently unsustainable evolution trajectories to more sustainable pathways [ane]. Conceptual ideas of transformation are increasingly practical to disaster run a risk reduction, particularly when existing modes of risk reduction are conceived not to be capable of mitigating future run a risk trends to an acceptable limit, e.g., in the case of time to come climate change hazards [2]. Transformational accommodation which goes beyond incremental adaptation is then argued to be necessary [iii].

All the same, despite the recent surge in conceptual contributions to the argue around transformation, eastward.1000., [ane,four,5,half-dozen,seven], the literature remains withal quite vague with respect to the question of what exactly constitutes transformational adaptation or risk reduction and how it differs from not-transformational types, by and large referred to as incremental or conventional. At the same time—and related to this shortcoming—the empirical understanding of how transformation is debated in existent-world cases and how information technology occurs—or not—is nevertheless sparse [two,viii]. Recent skilful dialogues (e.g., during the IPCC Cities Conference in Edmonton) propose how hard it is to motion from the conceptual and normative contend effectually transformation to the empirical and practical level. What does transformation mean to unlike groups? How does it occur and how tin can it exist recognized? How can transformation be facilitated and governed? How can its success be assessed? Exploring such questions and moving the argue from the abstract and conceptual to the empirical and practical level might best be achieved by examining desperate cases of risk hotspots with extreme pressures for transformation.

Jakarta provides such a case. Information technology is amid the coastal megacities with the highest flood risk globally [9,10]. Already today, it suffers from extreme alluvion events, the most severe of which occur when fluvial, pluvial, and tidal flooding concord. In 2007, at least 56 died in one of the worst floods in the city'south history, in which over 340,000 people had to be evacuated and more than than 74,000 houses were flooded [11]. The economical damage of that inundation lone, which inundated around 60 percent of the metropolis with flooding depths of up to four meters [xi], were estimated at around USD 560 one thousand thousand [12]. Yet, the 2007 flood was past no means a i-off event. Heavy floods also happened, for example, in the years 2013, 2014, and 2015. Information technology is expected that Jakarta's inundation risk volition further intensify in the time to come, given the overlapping furnishings of land subsidence, continued urban sprawl, sea level rising and changes in precipitation driven by climate change [9,12,13].

Given the current magnitude and an expected future increase of Dki jakarta's flood risk, in combination with the express effectiveness of the existing take chances management [14,15], radical changes in the city's risk reduction regime are necessary. This need calls for key transformations not merely in the congenital environment and hydraulic infrastructure but also in institutional patterns of chance governance. A first moving ridge of considerable adaptation measures has therefore been conceived by the government, in collaboration with international partners. Yet, the question is whether they are truly transformative—as will exist discussed in this newspaper. The currently conceived accommodation measures are primarily focused on heavy engineering solutions to regulate Jakarta's flood hydrology, leading to substantial resettlement and other—expected or already manifested—social and ecological side effects. I might thus ask whether, from an institutional perspective, the current measures in fact perpetuate rather than transform the deeper political economy of ecology degradation and social marginalization that drives much of Jakarta's current flood risk.

Against this background, the newspaper therefore aims at making a contribution to bridging the existing gap between conceptual debates and empirical assay of transformational risk reduction and accommodation. It seeks to employ the pressing Jakarta case study to examine whether 1 of the nigh radical flood chance reduction schemes ever conceived can—and should—exist considered transformational, thereby contributing to the emerging discussion on criteria for transformation and its links to long-term sustainability.

In society to do and then, the paper'due south next section provides a brief overview over the materials and methods used in this newspaper. Section 3 and so reviews the existing conceptual soapbox effectually transformation in the context of global change research in social club to identify key gaps and guiding questions for the Jakarta case study. As transformational run a risk reduction would require tackling the drivers of flooding, Section four then examines the causes for and trends in Djakarta'due south inundation risk—past, present, and time to come. Department 5 introduces the chief flood risk adaptation measures currently planned or implemented in Jakarta. Section 6 evaluates the most important measures. Section 7 discusses the results of the evaluation and the question whether the electric current measures are transformational. The last department provides key conclusions and an outlook into future needs for science, policy, and action.

ii. Materials and Methods

Given the heuristic nature of this paper at the interface of a conceptual debate and empirical analysis, the article draws on different types of data and methods. In Section 3, we review influential academic literature that has been shaping the scholarly argue on transformation in the context of climate change accommodation and chance reduction. We do this in order to appraise the key arguments suggested for the employ—and usefulness—of the concept. In Section four, we depict on existing studies and own analysis of statistical too every bit time-serial remote sensing data to review and clarify the main drivers of Djakarta'due south overflowing risk and their trends. Existing studies therein include academic papers also as government reports which speak to the drivers of Jakarta's alluvion risk, identified through a structured search in Scopus, Google Scholar, and Google. Our analysis of statistical data concentrates on official statistics of population, land use, and climate parameters. For the assessment of past trends in Jakarta's land use alter, nosotros further used 6 Landsat scenes and analyzed them through a supervised classification approach. The defined classes in the data were the principal four land cover classes (water, congenital-upward, vegetation, and soil). Each class was represented with a set up of 20 corresponding training regions of interest (ROI) defined visually within the authoritative boundaries of Jakarta. The maximum likelihood algorithm of the semi-automated classification plugin (SCP) for QGIS, a practical and user-friendly open source classification tool, was used to make the supervised classifications [16,17]. As an example, a ground truth layer on the built-up cover of Jakarta for 2014 was prepared and used as a reference to evaluate the built up classification. The functioning was evaluated using a stratified random sampling technique at 300 sites (pixels) and the overall accuracy for the congenital-upwardly grade in the processed scene exceeded 84%. Although the achieved accuracy can nevertheless be improved further by optimizing and increasing the number of the training sets, the authors consider the obtained results satisfactory for the conducted analysis, in line with other literature [18]. In Section 5, we draw on our analysis of central planning documents (due east.g., the latest coastal protection plans) to present the main adaptation measures currently planned or implemented in the city and its greater metropolitan area. In Section 6, nosotros use 2 sets of data to evaluate the main adaptation measures introduced in Section 5. Beginning, we analyze published academic literature, online paper reports, and weblog posts—a much-attended medium in Indonesia for public debate—which focus on the evaluation of the above-identified flood risk reduction measures. Relevant documents were identified through ii strategic keyword searches in the Scopus database for the academic literature and Google for the online newspapers and web log posts, respectively, covering the past v years. Given the specific nature of the topic, a total of six bookish papers accept been identified, based on keyword searches on "Bang-up Garuda", "Jakarta Coastal Defense Strategy", "National Majuscule Integrated Coastal Evolution Masterplan", "Giant Sea Wall", and "Coastal Protection + Jakarta" in the commodity title, abstract and keywords (run into Section 5 for an introduction). The results include [19,twenty,21,22,23,24]. In addition, over fifteen relevant English-linguistic communication paper articles and blog posts have been included in the analysis, identified through a similar keyword search in Google and the LexisNexis academic newspaper database. The findings include, for instance, vi articles in the Djakarta Post and three in The Guardian International. Many of these manufactures were building on each other. In the paper, nosotros therefore but refer to the leading manufactures. Second, we analyze own empirical survey information to appraise the social and economical effects on the affected population in the northern part of Jakarta. The survey data was collected in 2 survey campaigns using structured questionnaires in 2015 and 2017. The campaign in 2015 covered 451 households, out of which 410 accept been re-interviewed in 2017 to assess changes over time. Following the main types of current accommodation measures (see Section 5) the households belonged to three groups: get-go, households being affected by reservoir dredging projects; second, households affected by dyke construction; 3rd, households that have been resettled. Given the insufficiently large sample size and a stratified random sampling along wealth groups within each of the three groups, we assume that our sample is representative for these corresponding groups.

3. Transformation in the Context of Disaster Gamble Reduction and Adaptation

Over the past 10 years, the notion of transformation has gained considerable traction in scientific discipline and policy debates effectually global environmental change [5]. To a big extent, the transformation discourse originates from climate modify mitigation debates. Information technology has been used in that location to refer to the demand for key shifts of the economy, away from its heavy dependence on fossil fuels and other resources such equally state and water [25]. However, more than recently, the demand for fundamental system shifts are also seen in the realm of climate change adaptation and gamble reduction. One of the main arguments of this debate is that current modes of risk management will increasingly reach their limits in view of future hazard trends, which result from the intersecting drivers of climate change and risk-decumbent socio-economic developments (e.one thousand., urbanization in coasts with high exposure to natural hazards) [i,2,3,7,26]. This question—whether existing modes of risk reduction will suffice in the future—is also of fundamental relevance for the case of Jakarta and the analysis of whether and how trends towards transformational changes in take a chance reduction can be observed.

Transformation proponents argue that the recent surge in the use of resilience concepts tin can be counterproductive in guiding adaptation and risk reduction. This is because resilience debates, so the argument goes, tend to emphasize the persistence and strengths of existing systems and their configurations, whilst sustainable take a chance reduction is argued to necessitate deep changes of system configurations [1]. A growing torso of literature therefore raises concerns that many political and practical initiatives for take a chance reduction and resilience building concentrate on tackling superficial risk symptoms (e.grand., by slum upgrading projects) rather than the deeper institutional root causes of vulnerability and run a risk (e.g., the political economies that lead to the product and reproduction of marginalization and vulnerability in the commencement place [27]). Electric current risk reduction and adaptation efforts therefore have been critiqued to exist not sustainable—or even palliative [28]. Post-obit this line of thinking, lasting and sustainable run a risk reduction thus requires the fundamental transformation of the political economy and political ecology backside the very production of run a risk and vulnerability. Transformation is therefore not only about technical problems but much more than about agency and a societal process of visioning the future [29]. This is the mode Department 6 analyzes socio-economic and ecological dimensions when evaluating current risk reduction measures, forth with considerations of distributional justice, public participation, and long-term effectiveness.

Much of the literature differentiates between incremental and transformational accommodation [3,30]. Incremental accommodation is therein used to refer to the extension of deportment and behavior that already be to reduce risk in the sense of "doing slightly more of what is already being done" [three]). Transformational adaptation in contrast has been argued to include those accommodation measures which are either adopted at a big scale or intensity much beyond the previous level, or those that are truly new to a item region or system, or those that transform places and shift locations—or a combination of the above-iii properties [3]. Nevertheless, fifty-fifty with these criteria in heed, the demarcation of transformational adaptation is hard, particularly with respect to the starting time benchmark, i.east., the considerable increment in scale and intensity of existing measures. Existing modes of flood protection infrastructure, for instance, can exist considerably improved with newly available resources, higher aspirations for security standards, and technical advances. Emerging economies such equally Indonesia oftentimes provide such context conditions—as the current policies in Jakarta show (Department 4). Yet, whether the sheer scaling of existing approaches should exist considered as transformational adaptation is questionable, as information technology appears to cement, rather than call into question and transform existing modes of hazard reduction. In that sense, defining transformation but as the effect of large interventions does not account for the more fundamental notion of transformation, i.eastward., the radical shifts in how things are done and how existing risk management modalities are conceived. 1 of the primal—and hitherto unresolved—conceptual questions of transformation is therefore whether it is and should be understood as an outcome of alter, trigger of change, or process of change—or all of it.

Solecki et al, in [2], argue to rather concentrate on shifts in thinking, practices and policies as key criterion for differentiating transformational from other modes of risk reduction and adaptation. Cartoon on the context of costal megacities, the authors of [2], building on [1,6], therefore differentiate between different take a chance direction regimes along a slope from collapse to resistance, resilience, and transformation. A risk management government is therein understood as "an assemblage of policies, strategies, and regulations that collectively define a dominant paradigmatic management approach (which) can exist observed in whatsoever moment within a city" [2]. Risk direction regimes are hence characterized by the deliberate and conscious as well equally non-deliberate ways in which chance is managed. Oftentimes, formerly deliberate policy choices and paradigms become deeply entrenched institutionally or culturally, until they are no longer deliberately reflected but rather enacted "automatically". This framing of risk direction regimes is of great help for the analysis Jakarta'due south run a risk direction with is long history and entrenched paradigms, every bit the analysis in the following sections will prove.

According to [2], the resistance regime is characterized past actors and institutions geared towards keeping the current organisation and its configurations (e.one thousand., urban morphology) stable, despite increasing external stress, e.one thousand., a ascent frequency and intensity of flooding. It implies rising input resources; for instance, protecting the infrastructure and strengthening rigid institutional or bio-physical structures. Resistance often involves conventional engineered solutions with a focus on the built infrastructure, eastward.1000., littoral defense force systems—which is of loftier relevance to the Dki jakarta context.

In dissimilarity, resilience entails some adjustments of the current system to improve its ability to bargain with external stress. However, besides here, the primary system configuration is typically not being questioned. Resilience can rather be understood as an 'aligning at the margins', which ultimately has the aim of stabilizing the cadre fabric of the system in the face of potential external disturbance. This does, however, non diminish the fact that resilience thinking pushes scientists and policy makers to engage with the necessity to make cities improve able to deal with future hazards and crises such as flooding situations, specially in view of their increasing likelihood with climate change and other risk drivers [31].

In dissimilarity to resilience, Solecki et al., in [2], then view transformation as a course of adaptation that fundamentally questions the setup and fit of electric current system configurations. The aim of transformational adaptation is to find culling ways of arrangement configurations that increase the system's long-term sustainability through minimizing risk or rigidity traps, and through establishing co-benefits from new development trajectories. Pelling, in [1], argues that a transformation, i.e., the central reconsideration of man–environment relations, volition become increasingly necessary in view of growing levels of environmental hazards, stress, and perturbation with climatic change. He argues that the current focus on resilience-building is therefore bereft equally information technology does not engage with the necessary nevertheless politically uncomfortable questions of radical changes, e.g., with regards to land use policies, risk insurance configurations or the overall social contract for risk reduction and social protection. Past focusing too strongly on the maintenance of current system configurations, resilience-oriented paradigms are thus argued to run the risk of becoming unattainable in the mid- to long-term future, thus propelling the need for all the more than radical adaptation into the future, yet at the expense of increasingly limiting the space for planned adaptation choices. Collapse then refers to the nearly astringent event if no adaptation – or fifty-fifty maladaptation – is taken, leading to a state of affairs in which the hazard level renders sustaining the arrangement as impossible [2].

Solecki et al., in [2], are particularly interested in the transitions betwixt different risk management regimes, i.e., the factors that enable or hinder actors and institutions in a given context to shift from one to the other regime. This question is of peachy relevance to the case of Jakarta and hence this newspaper. Solecki et al. emphasize that shifts towards transformation or other regimes can happen in single sub-systems (eastward.grand., i sector such as transportation) whilst other sub-organisation remain in other regimes. They tin besides happen at different scales, e.g., where city governments appoint in changing their risk direction government in directions contrasting national policy. The conscientious consideration of such sub-system shifts is also very relevant for understanding the Jakarta example, every bit the following sections volition illustrate.

Transitions between the different regimes might besides exist related to turning points in adaptation pathways [32,33]. Protective infrastructure such as the currently planned dyke and embankment system in Jakarta (run into below) might, for instance, piece of work until a certain threshold to accelerate a rigid resistance level. Yet, afterward the threshold has been reached, the costs of retrofitting might become so high that fundamentally different alternatives might be sought, eastward.g., retreat from formerly protected areas. Hence, a transformation in take chances management would exist the effect in this example.

Still, apart from conceptual considerations, empirical observations on unlike types of adventure management regimes and the transitions between them remain rather thin, peculiarly with respect to questioning how changes to risk management regimes are contingent on changes in overall development policy [7]. The case study of Dki jakarta, one of the most flood decumbent cities globally with extreme accommodation pressure to change current development trajectories and major accommodation works on the manner, is therefore a prime example for such a type of empirical analysis. Every bit the analysis will show, the example study allows in detail to concentrate on the transition between resilience and transformation – which is the transition that has received most attending in the conceptual debate, as the title of Pelling'south book underscores [1].

iv. Jakarta's Flood Gamble: Causes and Trends

Transformational run a risk reduction would involve an engagement with the root causes of flood chance and the consideration of expected hereafter risk trends. Hence, examining both is fundamental for the aim of this newspaper: Jakarta'southward floods tin exist pluvial, fluvial, and tidal and its flood risk results from a number of intersecting drivers. Post-obit the mutual IPCC hazard framing [34], risk is therein considered to effect from the combination of a high take a chance potential, loftier exposure, and high vulnerabilities. The kickoff factor contributing to the city'due south flood hazard is its general topography. Due to the historically good atmospheric condition for trade and agronomics, the metropolis adult in the bay of Jakarta, into which the Ciliwung river and 12 other, smaller rivers flow, crossing today's city. Especially the northern, coastal parts of the city are characterized by a very low-lying topography. Occasional flooding has therefore been an result since the very early times of today's Jakarta, i.east., the harbor city Sunda Kelapa in the hinduistic Sunda kingdom and the later Batavia, the headquarters of the Dutch Due east Bharat Company from 1619 onwards [xiv].

Yet, the flooding problem has been greatly intensifying over the recent decades, mostly due to anthropogenic drivers. Outset, the city has been experiencing a massive growth in population and economic every bit well equally industrial activity since the second half of the 20th century. Beingness the capital of Republic of indonesia and its articulate centre for economic, political, and cultural activities (especially during the centralistic Suharto regime) Djakarta's population has grown to well over ten million today, from effectually three million at the early 1960s [35]. Along with this growth, the city has been experiencing an all-encompassing spatial expansion. Effigy one illustrates this expansion from 1972 to 2014. The analysis shows that urban land use within Dki jakarta'southward authoritative boundary has increased by 276 percent over the last iv decades, consuming 565 km² of the 674 km² available infinite, i.eastward., over 83 percent (Figure two).

Along with this increase, the city quickly sprawled beyond its original authoritative boundaries, thereby causing massive changes to run-off and overflowing hydrology. This sprawl has been forming an increasingly continuous mega-metropolitan area with formerly separated sub-centers in Djakarta'due south next regencies (Kabupaten). The mega-metropolitan region has been coined Jabodetabek, in reference to Dki jakarta's neighbors Bogor, Depok, Tangerang, and Bekasi. At the latest demography in 2010, this region hosted 27 million people. Besides here, a massive state utilize conversion has been taking place: the built-up area in the Jabodetabek region grew from 65 to 2015 km^two between 1972 and 2012, i.due east., by a factor of 31 [36].

Along with these massive country conversions in Jakarta and the entire Jabodetabek region, a high number of rivers, canals, and wetlands have been built-over, in effect massively reducing inundation retention and discharge capacities of the entire region.

The second important gene contributing to Jakarta's flooding problem is the city'southward significant state subsidence. The rates of subsidence vary across time and space, simply some parts of the urban center have been experiencing rates of upwards to 25 cm per year in extreme periods [37]. Long-term measurements reveal that some parts of the city were sinking by a total of upward to 4 grand between 1974 and 2010 [37]. The most affected areas are largely located within the coastal fringe in the n of the city, i.east., the area featuring the lowest topography simply also some of the highest industrial activity.

Subsidence is driven past three primary factors: (1) massive—by and large uncontrolled—groundwater extraction for individual and industrial purposes; (2) the natural sediment compaction which is non compensated for due to the interruption of natural sedimentation replenishment; and (3) the substantial compaction loads from buildings and other infrastructure [13]. The detailed quantification of these factors' contribution is difficult and a field for further investigation. Nonetheless, nigh studies concur that groundwater extraction is by far the most important commuter for the observed subsidence.

A third factor contributing to Jakarta's flood risk is the fact that many of the rivers and drainage canals are poorly maintained and chock-full with waste and sediments [thirteen].

On peak of existing flooding problems, the metropolis might quite probable experience a further increment in alluvion risk in the futurity, every bit the result of (i) continued growth and land conversion; (two) connected land subsidence; (3) an increase in sea level due to climate change; and (four) an increase in the intensity and frequency of storm and heavy precipitation events. Assuming a concern-as-usual progression in sea level rise, subsidence, and population growth, modeling suggests that, in the absence of adaptation, the population exposed to a 100-year return period extreme flooding consequence would rise by 350 percentage by 2070, to so over two.two 1000000 [x].

5. Run a risk Reduction and Adaptation Measures

Given Dki jakarta's high current and future flood take chances, the question of options for risk reduction and adaptation is pressing—in fact, a transformational alter in course appears necessary. Yet, despite the contempo surge in inundation risk, the quest for inundation hazard reduction solutions is not new. Especially under Dutch colonial dominion, the city has seen some quite sophisticated inundation protection measures. Before long subsequently the formal establishment of Batavia equally the headquarters of the Dutch E Republic of india Company in 1619, the Dutch started to implement a structured canal arrangement in the city, similar to the ones in Dutch cities of the time [38]. In addition, a major culvert—the so-chosen Western Canal—was put into service in 1725 to divert parts of the Ciliwung'south discharge around the city. This type of infrastructure-based diversions were farther intensified in the following years, in an endeavour to gain always more control over the city'south hydrology. Integrating these measures into an overarching and comprehensive plan for the entire city, the so-called van-Breens-Plan (named after the project'due south leading engineer) was issued in 1917, in response to a devastating flood outcome. This plan comprised major structural measures, including boosted diversion canals in the city's w (Western Banjir) and eastward (Eastern Banjir). The plan'southward strong focus on engineering solutions provided the major paradigm for other plans to follow over the adjacent decades, notably in 1965, 1973, and 1984 [14,38].

Despite this long tradition in flood protection measures for the city, the extreme effect of 2007 lead to a significant intensification of the debate around flood risk reduction and a substantial reconsideration of the respective toolbox—not only in Dki jakarta but in Indonesia at large [39]. This reconsideration has been triggered past the new flooding context, which manifested itself during the 2007 alluvion. The extreme inundation levels of that year had been caused by the confluence of heavy precipitation and discharge with a particularly strong spring tide. Hence, h2o was pushed into the urban center not just by the rivers from the south, but also from the sea. This rather new situation shifted the emphasis of alluvion protection quite drastically. While the focus had hitherto been on diverting the discharge of the upstream Ciliwung catchment area around the city and into the ocean, the focus now shifted to as well include coastal protection, alongside with attempts to aggrandize the retentivity capacities within the city. Equally a result, the Dki jakarta Coastal Defence Strategy (JCDS) was conceived by a articulation consortium of Indonesian and Dutch partners under the patronage of the then governor Fauzi Bowo. The strategy was completed and formally adopted in 2011.

Since that time, flood risk reduction has been comprising three master groups of measures: First, a potent emphasis has been on the river and canal regulation, the broadening of water ways and the clearance of river banks, which are oft encroached by breezy settlers (Figure 3a). Second, attention has been given to the refurbishment and expansion of flood reservoirs, especially in the city's northern parts (Figure 3b). 3rd, a new littoral flood protection wall has been under structure (Effigy 3c).

As all of these measures need space, a significant amount of resettlement has been necessary over the by years (Figure 3d). The vast majority of affected dwellings vest to low-income households which had been settling informally on the banks of rivers and reservoirs, given their lacking financial and institutional capital to admission land in other parts of the urban center. The regulation of the Ciliwung lone triggered the resettlement of xv,000 people, i.due east., 4000 households, over the final 5 years.

The Djakarta Coastal Defence Strategy has been continuously revised and expanded since 2011, leading to the so-called National Capital Integrated Coastal Development Masterplan (NCICD) in 2014 [40]. At its core, the plan builds on the thought to block the bay of Jakarta off from the sea, by ways of a so-chosen 'giant ocean wall'. The projection is besides known equally the "Cracking Garuda Project" as the project's aeriform view resembles the shape of a Garuda, the national bird of Indonesia (run across Figure 4). The project has been conceived past a consortium of Dutch and Indonesian planning consultancies, sponsored to a large extent by the Dutch regime. Its planned engineering dimensions are quite enormous: The planned bounding main dyke has a full length of 25 km. Behind information technology, the erstwhile bay shall exist converted into a sealed reservoir, the water tabular array of which ought to exist regulated so equally to remain below sea level in the hereafter, thus assuasive for the controlled flood drainage of the city. To achieve this, the largest pumping station installation ever built in i project is planned at a capacity of 730 cubic meters per second in order to pump the water from the reservoir out into the sea [40]. In improver, the plan includes upgrades and expansions to the existing overflowing protection infrastructures in the city, foremost the retention reservoirs, drainage canals, overflowing protection walls along the main waterways and the coastal dam.

In order to finance these measures, the plan envisages to combine alluvion protection with the development of new estates for commercial and residential purposes [22]. Inside the reservoir massive land reclamation projects are planned to provide infinite for a new central business district (CBD) and residential area. Together with upgrading planned for the existing parts of northern Jakarta, the program aims to generate residences for an boosted 650,000 people and concenter businesses with 350,000 new jobs [40]. In addition, a new harbor and airport are planned toward the due east of the embanked area. The total costs of the project are estimated at effectually 40 billion USD [41]. The implementation is planned to span across three phases with the completion of the sea dyke beingness targeted for 2022 [40]. Despite the loftier costs, modeling suggests that the protective function of the project could in fact rubber and build economic values in the city, considerably beyond the original costs [19,twenty].

Similar to the before JCDS, also the NCICD was developed by a consortium of Indonesian and Dutch system, including government planning agencies, research institutes and consultancy firms. The leading executive agency is the Coordinating Ministry building for Economic Affairs of Indonesia, with strong contributions by the Authorities of the Special Capital Region of Dki jakarta, the National Evolution Planning Bureau and the Ministry of Public Works. However, despite the big number of involved agencies, civil society groups and households affected past the plan take raised strong concerns that the drafting of the plan has been lacking participatory elements and opportunities for getting involved in the planning (run into Section 6).

Next to the formal adaptation measures foreseen in the NCICD, flood-affected communities and households in Jakarta heavily engage in small-scale-scale and informal adaptation measures [15,43,44]. These include individual besides as commonage measures, e.g., raising the housing levels or constructing pocket-sized-scale water barriers around settlements. Withal, empirical analysis has shown that these measures are express in effectiveness to combat the larger floods and their tendency towards intensification. The need for more than effective, larger-calibration flood risk reduction measures governed by formal actors has therefore been stressed [43]. Hence, the focus of this newspaper is conspicuously on formal measures—withal not devaluing the important role of breezy small-scale accommodation and the part information technology can, in accumulation, play for regime shifts at the larger policy level.

half-dozen. Evaluating Current Adaptation Measures

Given the profound—maybe transformational—nature of the conceived accommodation measures, questions regarding their evaluation are pressing. The following section therefore addresses the evaluation of the current measures, locking into ecological likewise as socio-economic criteria. On these grounds, many, if non near, of the currently planned or implemented adaptation measures are greatly contested and have caused heated debates in Jakarta and beyond. Conflict has lately erupted in detail over the Keen Garuda project. The interview data as well as the assay of newspaper articles and blog posts show that a major concern, especially of Jakarta's coastal population, is that the beach is expected to atomic number 82 to substantial environmental degradation in the bay of Jakarta, thereby causing bully damage to local fisheries which provides a major income source for coastal fishing communities (eastward.g., [41,45]). Critics back their worries, for instance, by a written report of the Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Ministry, published in 2015 [46]. First, the study cautions that the massive beach through the sea dyke is likely to trap polluted h2o discharged from the city and its hinterland, hence, contributing to the contamination and, ultimately, eutrophication of the new reservoir [45]. 2d, the reservoir is expected to trap sediment, hence, leading to a fast sedimentation of the bounding main bed [45]. Tertiary, the new reclamations require considerable amounts of sand—altogether effectually 300 one thousand thousand cubic meters [40]—which needs to be pumped largely from the local sea bed. All of the above three furnishings are expected to have negative impacts on the local ecology and fish stocks, causing ripple-on problems for local fishing communities whose livelihoods depend on them [45]. In improver, the bounding main dyke is expected to even modify local currents to an extent that volition crusade the erosion of entire islands currently neighboring the planned reservoir [23,45].

All these concerns have been taken up in fierce political debates. Most notably, the hope to cease the projection had been a central element of the election campaign of Anies Baswedan, the new governor of Jakarta since October 2017. Already in 2016, a moratorium had temporarily stopped the project on the footing of environmental concerns and corruption allegations. Withal, the moratorium has recently been repealed by the national government, underscoring that conflicts be not just between different interest groups simply likewise betwixt different levels of regime [45,47]. The future is therefore probable to see conflicts over the consequence continue.

Moreover, both the survey data too as the certificate analysis clearly evidence that criticism is mounting with regards to the perceived social injustice in terms of how the costs and benefits of the project are shared. While the expected benefits of the Great Garuda project, such as the newly adult apartments or the planned business district, will mainly be geared towards middle and upper income groups, the environmental, economic, and social costs are largely borne by lower income groups. Overall, our survey data reveals that over two-thirds of the households which take been direct affected by infrastructure measures (e.g., the coastal protection wall or reservoir widening) or even needed to be resettled reported negative socio-economic effects due to the measures (meet Figure five). The highest economical impacts take been reported by the households who needed to be resettled. Within this group, the loss has been most drastic amongst erstwhile angling households who needed to be resettled inland and now have to rely on sporadic and breezy income generation.

The repeated survey panels (in 2015 and so 2017 in the same households) also showed the many early hopes in the adaptation measures did not hold the examination of reality. That is, while a considerable amount of households expected the adaptation measures to lead to an increment in the cocky-chapters to cope with future flood hazards, this expectation was not confirmed in the 2nd panel. In fact, a decrease in the perceived self-capacity tin can exist observed (come across Effigy half-dozen).

The analysis also reveals that a decline in the self-capacity perception significantly correlates with a perceived reject in social cohesion afterwards the implementation of the adaptation measure, particularly in the case of resettlement where erstwhile social ties accept been disrupted. In this line, Effigy 7 illustrates the pass up in perceived mutual assistance at the neighborhood level across all three major types of measures.

Moreover, the survey results clearly prove that households affected by formal accommodation measures in well-nigh cases felt cut off from information and disempowered or voiceless with respect to the blueprint, planning, and implementation of the adaptation measures. Fifty-fifty more than so, Figure 8 illustrates that almost of the affected households have not even been receiving information on the implementation of the project. These findings are in line with other empirical studies which also found that the opportunities for participation has been weak amongst the population in Northern Dki jakarta affected by formal measures of littoral protection and alluvion take chances reduction [24].

Of great importance for the assessment of transformation, critics as well complain that the Great Garuda project merely addresses inundation symptoms, simply does zero to tackle the major crusade of the urban center's flooding problem: its massive land subsidence [48,49]. The project therefore is challenged in two ways in the eyes of its critics: if the project is implemented without addressing land subsidence, it is doomed to neglect as information technology cannot effectively combat an always increasing flood chance in the long run, whilst producing a host of negative side furnishings. Nonetheless, if the country subsidence were to be tackled effectively, the Nifty Garuda project might bear witness unnecessary and its negative effects could be averted. At the same time, even so, before empirical inquiry suggests that experts from Indonesia also as from abroad doubt that unregulated ground water extraction and, hence, land subsidence could be finer combated any time soon, due in detail to poor regulation and law enforcement [21]. Ironically, these skepticisms are used past the project's proponents equally one of the main arguments of why the projection is necessary, allegedly presenting the best of the remaining options [21].

vii. Word

The empirical observations from Jakarta can make an important contribution to complement and enrich the emerging conceptual contend of transformation, particularly in littoral megacities which are set to experience increasing climate change impacts along with local environmental changes and continued growth. The flooding trouble, particularly in northern Jakarta, has been on the ascension and then severely that the functionality threshold of the metropolis might soon exist surpassed. For instance, industrial firms which are clustered in the near flood-affected areas might presently feel forced to relocate, leading to a potential collapse of the industrial sector in this function of Jakarta, with severe implications for the overall development trajectory [50]. At the same time, the growth and sprawl of the metropolis is set to go on in the future, thus heavily contributing to the further intensification of the urban center'south alluvion trouble, along with climatic change impacts. The case study therefore shows how closely paradigms of risk reduction are related to policy debates effectually overall development trajectories and climate modify adaptation in those cities.

The experiences of contempo flood events, particularly the farthermost inundation of 2007, have led to a step change in the way how flood risk management for the city is conceived. The National Capital Integrated Coastal Development Masterplan (NCICD) and its Great Garuda—or Giant Ocean Wall—project is the largest of its type ever conceived in Indonesia, perhaps globally. It foresees solutions which are highly transformational in terms of the fundamental changes they volition trigger in the city'due south hydrology and morphology.

Nevertheless, these changes are not going along with an equal transformation in the style hazard reduction is conceived and managed. Rather, the opposite is the case: the current measures cement a long-established prototype of taming 'nature', in this case flood hydrology, in Jakarta. In that sense, they rather support a resistance or resilience image, bulking the city up confronting hereafter sea level rising and overflowing risk. Yet, they practise zilch to transform the deeply entrenched development visions and patterns of country conquering, sprawl and resource exploitation. In particular, they do non appoint with one of the main drivers of Jakarta'due south flood risk trouble: the largely unregulated ground water extraction and resulting sinking of the city.

Cynics might therefore contend that, in contrast to statements by many neo-classical development donors and practitioners, the biggest challenge for transformation is non to be found in the realm of financial or applied science limits—the project'southward financial costs, for instance, are unprecedented and all the same the projection is being implemented. The main challenge rather is to exist found in the changes needed in institutional rules and cultural behavior (e.g., radical changes in footing water regulation and a civilisation of strict constabulary enforcement). Linking these findings back to the conceptual fence, the case study of Jakarta clearly suggests that transformational take chances reduction should be primarily demarcated from other forms of chance reduction based on the consideration of whether or not it fundamentally reorients the agreement of a problem and the cerebral and institutional modes thinking about that problem and the corresponding solution space.

In addition, the Djakarta case conspicuously shows that massive engineering-based solutions are also doomed to neglect politically and socially, if the costs and benefits are not shared co-ordinate to the perceived standards of disinterestedness and distributional fairness by all affected social groups. The widespread protests had already once lead to temporary moratorium. The empirical data from our two-time-step household surveys has further shown the importance to consider the long-term livelihood and vulnerability effects for social groups who are affected past secondary effects from adaptation measures. The fact that the dispute over the projection has been a core issue in the latest ballot of Jakarta's governor therefore shows that the topic of flood risk reduction is no longer a side effect just has arrived at the core of political debate about Jakarta'south future.

viii. Conclusions and Outlook

Jakarta provides an farthermost example of how loftier the pressure for transformational changes can become in view of growing risks, driven by the confluence of unsustainable evolution trajectories and climatic change impacts. The city counts itself amidst the coastal megacities with the most severe electric current and futurity flood risk. At the same time, information technology is amongst the global leaders in terms planning for assuming adaptation measures. In this sense, it tin serve as an insightful instance study for informing the larger debate on transformation.

The case of Dki jakarta clearly shows the great social and political challenges that emerge when established development trajectories and their ingrained human being–environs relations are reaching the limits of their sustainability and new trajectories have to be sought. The sheer magnitude of the city's flooding problem calls for transformational solutions, which are capable of fundamentally altering the currently engrained modes of evolution and risk regulation—both of which profoundly contribute to the ongoing intensification of the city'south flood risk. However, the case of Djakarta also underscores how difficult it is to move from the conceptual calls for transformation to applied solutions in the real world. The analysis clearly reveals that the most challenging hurdle is not to exist found in the financial or engineering limits to adaptation. Despite the unprecedented volume of the Neat Garuda project, the implementation is currently not being held back by questions of financing or technical barriers, to which solutions have been institute. Rather, the biggest challenge is to be found in the societal and political negotiation of conflicting visions and paradigms for risk reduction, and especially the burden-sharing of negative side-effects.

Looking alee, the Jakarta instance therefore underscores that questions of governance are the main challenge within the field of take a chance reduction, transformation, and development at large. Fundamental transformations in development patterns and risk reduction regimes volition be needed in cases like the one of Jakarta in order to enable some sort of long-term sustainability. Still, the experiences from Jakarta serve as a clear alarm signal that the question of how such changes can be designed and achieved is none to be tackled by technocrats and engineers lonely. Rather, they need to be moved into the explicit focus of an inclusive societal debate. This becomes all the more important as run a risk reduction will increasingly set the boundaries for urban development and sustainability at big, especially in littoral cities exposed to future climate alter risks. The Nifty Garuda project, for instance, is designed to provide protection until the yr 2080, bold a mid-range country subsidence and body of water level rise over this time-frame [xl]. Considering the possibility of more than rapid trends in both hazards, the threshold could be exceeded already much earlier. Hence, the question whether other even more transformational responses—such as partial retreat—volition be needed, tolerated, or even actively fostered is only postponed, at most. This question volition eventually penetrate the deep tensions between sustaining and letting go of long-established and cherished urban morphologies and their functions and values. The weighing of different contested options therefore deserves to be pro-actively moved into the spotlight of societal and political debate. It is non a topic that can exist solved at the cartoon boards of technical experts alone.

Writer Contributions

M.G. conceived the paper, led the document analysis and conceptual debate, and drafted the manuscript. G.A.Yard.South. conducted the empirical household survey and analyzed the data. 1000.H. conducted the time-series analysis of urban sprawl and produced the respective figures and method descriptions.

Funding

This research was funded past the German Federal Ministry of Didactics and Research inside the TWIN-Bounding main research grant.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to give thanks two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments which helped to improve the newspaper.

Conflicts of Involvement

The authors declare no conflict of involvement.

References and Notes

1. Pelling, M. Adaptation to Climate Change: From Resilience to Transformation; Routledge: Abingdon, Great britain, 2011. [Google Scholar]
2. Solecki, Due west.; Pelling, Chiliad.; Garschagen, M. Transitions between run a risk management regimes in cities. Ecol. Soc. 2017, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
3. Kates, R.Westward.; Travis, W.R.; Wilbanks, T. Transformational accommodation when incremental adaptations to climatic change are insufficient. PNAS 2012, 109, 7156–7161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
4. Pelling, M. Transformation: A renewed window on development responsibility for risk management. J. Extrem. Events 2014, 1, 1402003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
5. O'Brien, M. Global environmental change II: From adaptation to deliberate transformation. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2012, 35, 667–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
6. Pelling, M.; O'Brien, K.; Matyas, D. Adaptation and transformation. Clim. Chang. 2015, 133, 113–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
7. Thomalla, F.; Boyland, M.; Johnson, One thousand.; Ensor, J.; Tuhkanen, H.; Gerger Swartling, Å.; Han, M.; Forrester, J.; Wahl, D. Transforming development and disaster risk. Sustainability 2018, x, 1458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
8. Mapfumo, P.; Onzango, Thousand.; Honkponou, South.Thou.; El Mzouri, E.H.; Githeko, A.; Rabeharisoa, L.; Obando, J.; Omolo, N.; Majule, A.; Denton, F.; et al. Pathways to transformational modify in the face up of climate impacts: An analytical framework. Clim. Dev. 2015, 9, 439–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
9. Hallegatte, S.; Light-green, C.; Nicholls, R.J.; Corfee-Morlot, J. Future flood losses in major coastal cities. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2013, 3, 802–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
10. Hanson, S.; Nicholls, R.; Ranger, N.; Hallegatte, S.; Corfee-Morlot, J.; Herweijer, C.; Chateau, J. A global ranking of port cities with high exposure to climate extremes. Clim. Chang. 2011, 104, 89–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
11. International Federation of the Reddish Cantankerous and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC). Indonesia: Dki jakarta Floods: Appeal No. MDRID003, 26 September 2007. Bachelor online: https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/56F1A0AF0071751DC125736200433E9A-Full_Report.pdf (accessed on xx November 2017).
12. Wijayanti, P.; Zhu, X.; Hellegers, P.; Budiyono, Y.; van Ierland, E.C. Interpretation of river inundation damages in Dki jakarta, Indonesia. Nat. Hazards 2017, 86, 1059–1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
13. Budiyono, Y.; Aerts, J.C.J.H.; Tollenaar, D.; Ward, P.J. River alluvion risk in Jakarta under scenarios of future change. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2016, 16, 757–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
14. Ward, P.J.; Pauw, W.P.; van Buuren, Grand.W.; Marfai, M.A. Governance of flood chance management in a time of climate change: The cases of Djakarta and Rotterdam. Environ. Polit. 2013, 22, 518–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
15. Van Voorst, R. Formal and informal overflowing governance in Jakarta, Indonesia. Habitat Int. 2016, 52, 5–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
16. Congedo, M.; Phlzpo, R.; Barachant, A. A Fixed-point Algorithm fo Estimating Power Means of Positive Definite Matrices. In Proceedings of the 24th European Signal Processing Conference (EUSIPCO 2016), Budapest, Hungary, Baronial 2016. [Google Scholar]
17. Glöckner, A. Multiple mensurate strategy nomenclature. In Foundations for Tracing Intuition: Challenges and Methods; Glöckner, A., Witteman, C., Eds.; Psychology Press: Hove, United kingdom, 2010; pp. 83–105. [Google Scholar]
18. Mas, J.-F.; Lemoine-Rodríguez, R.; González-López, R.; López-Sánchez, J.; Piña-Garduño, A.; Herrera-Flores, E. State use/state cover modify detection combining automatic processing and visual interpretation. Eur. J. Remote Sens. 2017, 50, 626–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Light-green Version]
19. Hidayatno, A.; Dinianyadharani, A.K.; Sutrisno, A. Scenario analysis of the Jakarta Littoral Defence Strategy: Sustainable indicators impact assessment. Int. J. Innov. Sustain. Dev. 2017, 11, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
20. Oh, S.; Kim, K.; Kim, H. Investment decision for coastal urban development projects because the impact of climate change: Instance written report of the Great Garuda Project in Indonesia. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 178, 507–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
21. Colven, East. Understanding the allure of big infrastructure: Jakarta'due south great garuda body of water wall project. Walter Altern. 2017, 10, 250–264. [Google Scholar]
22. Van Dijk, M.P. Financing the National Upper-case letter Integrated Coastal Development (NCICD) project in Jakarta (Indonesia) with the private sector. J. Coast. Zone Manag. 2016, 19, vi. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
23. Sumantyo, J.T.S.; Setiadi, B.; Perissin, D.; Shimada, M.; Mathieu, P.-P.; Urai, M.; Abidin, H.Z. Analysis of coastal sedimentation impact to Jakarta giant sea wall using PSI ALOS PALSAR. IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett. 2016, 13, 1472–1476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
24. Padawangi, R. Climate change and the north coast of Djakarta: Environmental justice and the social structure of space in urban poor communities. In Urban Areas and Global Climate change; Holt, Westward.M., Ed.; Emerald: Bingley, United kingdom, 2012; Book 12, pp. 321–339. [Google Scholar]
25. WBGU (German Advisory Quango on Global Change). World in Transition: A Social Contract for Sustainability; Flagship Report; WBGU: Berlin, Germany, 2011. [Google Scholar]
26. Few, R.; Morchain, D.; Spear, D.; Mensah, A.; Bendapudi, R. Transformation, adaptation and development: Relating concepts to practice. Palgrave Commun. 2017, iii, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
27. DiGregorio, Grand.; van Phong, T.Thou.; Garschagen, M.; Tyler, S. A Political Economic system of Urbanisation and Climate Take a chance in Vietnam. Available online: http://pubs.iied.org/10790IIED/ (accessed on half dozen July 2018).
28. Ribot, J. Vulnerability before accommodation: Toward transformative climate action. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2011, 21, 1160–1162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
29. Gillard, R.; Gouldson, A.; Paavola, J.; van Alstine, J. Transformational responses to climate change: Beyond a systems perspective of social change in mitigation and adaptation. WIREs Clim. Chang. 2016, 7, 251–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
30. IPCC. Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Accommodation; A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
31. Hanson, B.; Roberts, Fifty. Resiliency in the confront of disaster. Science 2005, 309, 1029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
32. Haasnoot, Chiliad.; Kwakkel, J.H.; Walker, W.Eastward.; ter Maat, J. Dynamic adaptive policy pathways: A method for crafting robust decisions for a deeply uncertain world. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2013, 23, 485–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
33. Wise, R.Thousand.; Fazey, I.; Stafford Smith, Grand.; Park, Southward.Due east.; Eakin, H.C.; van Archer Garderen, Eastward.R.M.; Campbell, B. Reconceptualising accommodation to climate alter every bit role of pathways of change and response. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2014, 28, 325–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
34. IPCC. Climate change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects; Contribution of Working Group Two to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
35. Badan Pusat Statistik (BPS)—Statistical Office of Republic of indonesia. Jakarta Province in Figures; BPS: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2015.
36. Rustiadi, E.; Pribadi, D.O.; Privatisari, A.E.; Indraprahastra, G.S.; Imam, 50.S. Jabodetabek megacity: From city development toward urban complex management organisation. In Urban Development Challenges, Risks and Resilience in Asian Mega Cities; Singh, R.B., Ed.; Springer: Tokyo, Nihon, 2015; pp. 421–445. [Google Scholar]
37. Abidin, H.Z.; Andreas, H.; Gumilar, I.; Wibowo, I.R.R. On correlation between urban development, state subsidence and flooding phenomena in Jakarta. Proc. Int. Assoc. Hydrol. Sci. 2015, 370, 15–twenty. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Dark-green Version]
38. Caljouw, Thousand.; Nas, P.; Pratiwo, M. Flooding in Jakarta: Towards a blue metropolis with improved water management. J. Hum. Soc. Sci. Southeast Asia 2005, 161, 454–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
39. Djalante, R.; Garschagen, Yard.; Thomalla, F.; Shaw, R. Disaster Risk Reduction in Indonesia: Progress, Challenges, and Bug; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
40. Coordinating Ministry for Economic Diplomacy (CMEA). National Capital Integrated Littoral Development Chief Plan; CMWA: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2014.
41. Win, T.L. Inundation-Prone Jakarta: Volition "Giant Sea Wall" Program Sink or Swim? Reuters: Bangkok, Thailand, 2017. [Google Scholar]
42. Mezzi, P. The Great Garuda, the Masterplan to Save Jakarta. Arbitare. 2016. Available online: http://world wide web.abitare.information technology/en/habitat-en/urban-pattern-en/2016/01/24/the-bully-garuda-the-masterplan-to-salve-jakarta/ (accessed on twenty November 2017).
43. Marfai, M.A.; Sekaranom, A.B.; Ward, P. Community responses and adaptation strategies toward inundation hazard in Djakarta, Republic of indonesia. Nat. Hazards 2015, 75, 1127–1144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
44. Surtiari, K.A.G.; Djalante, R.; Setiadi, Due north.J.; Garschagen, M. Civilisation and community resilience to flooding: Case written report of the urban coastal customs in Jakarta. In Disaster Risk Reduction in Republic of indonesia: Progress, Challenges, and Issues; Djalante, R., Garschagen, M., Thomalla, F., Shaw, R., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 469–493. [Google Scholar]
45. Elyda, C. Sea Wall an Environmental Disaster: Study. The Dki jakarta Postal service Online. 7 October 2015. Bachelor online: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2015/10/07/sea-wall-ecology-disaster-study.html (accessed on 20 November 2017).
46. Ministry of Maritime Diplomacy and Fisheries (Kementrian kelautan Dan Perikanan, 2015). Prakiraan Dampak Behemothic Body of water Wall Teluk Jakarta (Study of the impact of Behemothic Bounding main Wall in Dki jakarta Bay): Dki jakarta, Indonesia, 2015.
47. Chan, F. Behemothic Reclamation Project in Dki jakarta Hits Wall of Resistance: Incoming City Administration at Loggerheads with Central Authorities over Whether 24 km Sea Wall is Benefaction or Bane. The Straits Time. 12 Oct 2017. Available online: https://world wide web.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/giant-reclamation-projection-in-jakarta-hits-wall-of-resistance (accessed on twenty Nov 2017).
48. Koch, W. Could a Titanic Seawall Save This Quickly Sinking City? Nat. Geogr. 2015. Bachelor online: https://news.nationalgeographic.com/energy/2015/12/151210-could-titanic-seawall-relieve-this-quickly-sinking-city/ (accessed on 20 November 2017).
49. The Dki jakarta Postal service. Editorial: Finish Djakarta'south Sinking. The Dki jakarta Post. 2015. Available online: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2015/10/10/editorial-terminate-jakarta-due south-sinking.html (accessed on twenty November 2017).
50. Neise, T.; Revilla Diez, J.; Garschagen, K. Firms every bit drivers of integrative adaptive regional development in the context of environmental hazards in developing countries and emerging economies—A conceptual framework. Environ. Plan. C Polit. Space 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Effigy i. Maps illustrating the urban expansion, in black, in Jakarta from 1972 until 2014.

Figure 1. Maps illustrating the urban expansion, in black, in Jakarta from 1972 until 2014.

Effigy 2. Graph showing the rapid increment of the country consumption within Jakarta's administrative boundaries from 1972 until 2014.

Effigy 2. Graph showing the rapid increment of the country consumption within Jakarta's administrative boundaries from 1972 until 2014.

Effigy 3. Pictures showing an encroached river bank (a); the widening of reservoir (b); the construction of a new sea wall (c) and resettlement housing (d).

Effigy 3. Pictures showing an encroached river depository financial institution (a); the widening of reservoir (b); the construction of a new sea wall (c) and resettlement housing (d).

Effigy 4. Map of the Great Garuda project [42].

Figure four. Map of the Swell Garuda project [42].

Effigy 5. Percentage of households having experienced task loss and/or income loss and/or livelihood degradation as an issue of the implementation of adaptation measures.

Figure five. Percentage of households having experienced chore loss and/or income loss and/or livelihood deposition as an issue of the implementation of adaptation measures.

Figure half-dozen. Perceived cocky-capacity to cope with future floods before and afterwards the implementation of accommodation measures.

Figure six. Perceived self-capacity to cope with future floods before and after the implementation of accommodation measures.

Figure 7. Perceived quality of mutual assistance within the neighborhood earlier and after the implementation of different adaptation measures.

Figure seven. Perceived quality of mutual assistance within the neighborhood before and subsequently the implementation of different adaptation measures.

Figure 8. Perception of afflicted households having received information on the implementation of the adaptation mensurate.

Figure viii. Perception of affected households having received information on the implementation of the adaptation mensurate.

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This commodity is an open up admission commodity distributed under the terms and weather condition of the Artistic Commons Attribution (CC By) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/past/4.0/).

R And K Reproductive Strategies,

Source: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/8/2934/html

Posted by: hobgoodplas1968.blogspot.com

Share this post