Anda di halaman 1dari 53

+

IAP Indonesian Most Livable City Index


Bernardus Djonoputro Sekretaris Jenderal Ikatan Ahli Perencanaan (IAP) Chairman EAROPH Club Indonesia

+ IKATAN AHLI PERENCANAAN


INDONESIA

IAP merupakan satu-satunya organisasi profesi bidang perencananaan wilayah dan kota di Indonesia, memiliki cabang di 24 provinsi Dengan Badan Sertifikasi Perencana yang merupakan lembaga independen untuk sertifikasi profesi Dengan jumlah planners lebih dari 3000 dan 1,200 orang diantaranya merupakan planners bersertifikat. Program Utama: a. Penguatan kapasitas planner dalam perencanaan & pembangunan nasional & daerah

b. Indonesia Most Livable City Index


Affiliated organizations:

Becoming more self sufficient, Positive cash flow, audited financial statements Most Liveable City Index 2009, 2011 Active member of EAROPH

Young Planners Asia Pacific Gathering in Yogyakarta


Professional internship exchange: Malaysia, Australia Climate change and disaster preparedness project START, with Annual Rakernas and outbound trainings Active participant in international events: Earoph, IFHP, Isocarp, Habitat Forums, Asean, World Global Water Forum, Global Citie Summit, etc. Joint co-operations with embassies and media organization.

Key Programs 2007-today

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

Tantangan Kota Masa Kini+


Elemen-elemen Lingkungan untuk Kehidupan Yang Berkualitas
As the major function of cities is to provide places for people to trade, produce, communicate and live, the urban environment needs to be assessed from a very specific human perspective: to provide an agreeable place to live while minimising or balancing negative side effects. Quality of life in cities relies on a range of components such as social equity, income and welfare, housing, a healthy environment, social relations and education. The environmental elements of good quality of life include good air quality, low noise levels, clean and sufficient water, good urban design with sufficient and high-quality public and green spaces, an agreeable local climate or opportunities to adapt, and social equity. However, urban-specific data are patchy in Europe and, due to different timescales and reporting methods, are seldom directly comparable.

Tekanan Urbanisasi
Many of our cities struggle to cope with social, economic and environmental problems resulting from pressures such as overcrowding or decline, social inequity, pollution and traffic. The environmental impacts of cities also spread well beyond their physical limits as they rely heavily on outside regions to meet demand for energy and resources and to accommodate waste. A study of Greater London estimates that London has a footprint 300 times its geographical area corresponding to nearly twice the size of the entire UK.

Tantangan Kota Masa Kini

+
Perubahan Iklim
Climate change has the potential to influence almost all components of the urban environment and to raise new, complex challenges for the quality of urban life, health and urban biodiversity. Some cities will experience droughts and higher temperatures. Others will experience floods. Climate change will affect many aspects of urban living from air quality to consumption patterns (e.g. energy for air conditioning). Poor urban design can aggravate the impacts of climate change. Soil sealing, for example, can increase the urban heat island effect. It may also increase water run-off and lack of drainage during heavy rains leading to floods. However, urban design aimed at tackling climate change could have numerous co-benefits from improved air quality, supporting biodiversity and quality of life.

Kesempatan di Kota
The proximity of people, businesses and services associated with the very word city means there are also huge opportunities and benefits associated with urban living especially in terms of sustainability and resource use. Already, population density in cities means shorter journeys to work and services, greater use of walking, cycling or public transport, and living in apartments of multi-family houses or blocks requiring less heating and less ground space per person. As a result, urban dwellers on average consume less energy and land for living per capita than rural residents.

+
Mendisain Kota untuk Masa Depan
Kota adalah sebuah ekosistem yang harus selalu di kelola dan di lindungi seperti ekosistemekosistem lainnya. Dengan mengembangkan cara lkita merencana dan mendisain kota, merancang transportasi dengan lebih baik, akan memperbaiki kualitas hidup keseluruhan.

Designing

the future

Cities are ecosystems: they are open and dynamic systems which consume, transform and release materials and energy; they develop and adapt; and they interact with humans and with other ecosystems. They must therefore be managed and protected like any other type of ecosystem. Through rethinking urban design, architecture transport and planning, we can turn our cities and urban landscapes into urban ecosystems at the forefront of climate change mitigation (e.g. sustainable transport, clean energy and low consumption) and adaptation (e.g. floating houses, vertical gardens). Furthermore, better urban planning will improve quality of life across the board by designing quiet, safe, clean and green urban space. It will also create new employment opportunities by enhancing the market for new technologies and green architecture. Cities, due to their concentration of people and activities, matter for Europe. Also, the problems of cities cannot be solved at the local level alone. Better policy integration and new governance, involving closer partnership and co-ordination at local, national and European level, are required.

Indonesian Cities The Urbanizing Phenomena

Pada tahun 2008, untuk pertama kalinya dalam sejarah peradaban Indonesia, penduduk perkotaan melebihi pedesaan. Hari ini, lebih dari 39 perkotaan Indonesia berpenduduk diatas 1 juta.

+
2008 30% urban 51% urban

2030 65% urban

Di Indonesia, lebih dari 60% populasi berumur dibawah 39 tahun, menjadikan negara yang potensial produktif.

Age 100+

Age 0

+ INDONESIA OVERVIEW
Indonesian GDP
1,400 1,200 USD billion 1,000 800 600 400 200 2009 2010F 2011F Total GDP 2012F 2013F 2014F 2015F 2.0% 0.0% 10.0% 8.0%

6.0%
4.0%

GDP is estimated to reach approx US$ 1.3 trillion by 2015; will make Indonesia to become the 16th largest economy in G 20 with GDP per capita of around US$ 5,000.

Real GDP Growth

Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in Indonesia


16,000 12,800 12,000 USD million 11,238 10,000 11,200 14,000 14,400

8,000 4,878

Economic growth will be supported by strong FDI into Indonesia which is estimated to reach approx US$ 15 billion in 2015.

4,000

2009 % 2010F 2011F 2012F 2013F 2014F 2015F

Indonesia is the third fastest growing economy in Asia and the largest economy in Southeast Asia. Indonesias economy grew by 6.1% last year (2010) and is forecast to climb to 6.5 to 6.9% in 2012.
Source: EIU, 24 January 2011

Poor Infrastructure

The Global Competitiveness Report ranked Indonesia 90th among 139 countries due to poor state of various aspects of its infrastructures.
Infrastructure quality in selected Asian countries (Global Competitiveness Report, 2010-2011)

Country Roads Railroad Seaport Air transport Electricity

Singapore Malaysia Thailand China 6.6 5.8 6.8 6.9 6.7 5.7 4.7 5.6 5.9 5.7 5.5 5.1 3.0 5.0 5.9 5.7 4.9 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.4 5.3 4.1

Indonesia 3.5 3.0 3.6 4.6 3.6 3.7

India 3.3 4.6 3.9 4.6 3.1 3.6

Philippines 2.8 1.7 2.8 3.6 3.4 3.2

Poor infrastructure conditions are the main factor preventing Indonesias economy from growing at its potential rate of 7 8%.

Score (out of 7)* 6.6

* 1 = extremely under-developed; 7 = efficient by international standards Source: World Economic Forum, Standard Chartered Global Research

USD143bn

USD93bn

The Gap

USD50bn

Infrastructure Investment Needs

State Budget

Funding Gap

The National Development Planning Board (Bappenas) has stated that around USD143 billion (or 3% of GDP) will be needed for infrastructure development in 2010-2014 in order to meet the countrys economic growth target of 6% - 7% per annum from 2010 - 2014.

Source: Government Medium Term Plan 2010-2014 and Bappenas

JAKARTA AS GLOBAL CITIES : GaWC Survey 2010

ALPHA ++

Alpha ++ World Cities : New York dan London.

ALPHA +

Alpha + World Cities : Chicago, Dubai, Hongkong, Paris, Shanghai, Singapore, Sydney, Tokyo. Alpha World Cities : Amsterdam, Beijing, Brussels, Buenos Aires, Frankfurt, Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur, Los Angeles, Madrid, Mexico City, Milan, Moscow, Mumbai, San Fransisco, Sao Paulo, Seoul, Toronto, Washington.

This means Jakarta as a mega city has a strategic positioning & influences in global interaction.
The Globalization and World Cities Study Group, Geographic Faculty, Loughborough university, UK, 2010

ALPHA

Kota + = Tidak Nyaman


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

LIVABLE CITY

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

f. Sanitation

IAP MOST LIVABLE CITY INDEX

Perception-based survey of the urban population, about the livability of their city. The results of this study is a "snapshot MLCI IAP is the first perception-based survey index of the citys livability and planned to be carried out annually and hopefully it will be a benchmark for quality of life in cities throughout Indonesia

This index also act as a feedback to stakeholders in the planning process and urban development.
The advantages of this index: Simple, Actual, Snapshot.

+
IAP-MLCI Surveyed Criteria and Livabillity factors:

Physical aspects, including availability of Green space and quality of urban design Environmental aspects: polutions, waste management, cleanliness of te city Transportation: how well the city is served by public transport, including quality of your roads

Public Health: availability and accessibility to health facilities


Public Educations: availability and accessibility of schools and other educational facilities.

Quality and availability of city infrastructure including utilieits, drinking water, power, and telecommunications.
Economic conditions, availability of work and accessibility from home to work place

Security and safety


Neighborhood interactions, social and cultural interactions

+ Average Livability Index of Indonesian


Cities in 2009 : 54,17%
Only 54.17% of the population in Indonesian cities surveyed feel comfortable living in their city. This shows that those cities are still not ideal IAP

52,28

59,90 43,65 52,04 52,61 53,86

51,90
52,52

56,52

56,37
53,13 65,34

+ Average Livability Index of Indonesian


Cities in 2011: 54.26%
45.74% of the population in Indonesian cities surveyed feel ther cities are less livable.

46.67

53

46.92
58

56,39

50.71 53,16 53

58
54.67

54,19
56.38

64

66,52

NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

CITY Yogyakarta Denpasar Makasar Manado Surabaya Semarang Banjarmasin Batam Jayapura Bandung Palembang Palangkaraya Jakarta Pontianak Medan

2009 65,34 56,52 59,90 53,13 52,52 52,61 53,86 56,37 52,04 51,90 43,65 52,28

2011 66.52 63.63 58.46 56.39 56.38 54.63 53.16 52.60 52.56 52.32 52.15 50.86 50.71 46.92 46.67

MOST LIVABLE CITY INDEX 2009 & 2011

+
Key Findings: Cities are struggling
Livability index of Indonesian cities (mean) is at 54.26, a relatively no change compared to the 2009 survey (54.17).

But there are 6 cities that are perceived as less livable compared to 2009, namely Manado (1 million), Jayapura (300,000), Bandung (2.5 million), Palangkaraya(400,000), Jakarta (15 million), and Medan (2.1 million) The following are key areas that the public perceived as most important aspects in determining livability of their city, namely : economic(27 ,97 %)

spatial plan/urban design (19,66 %),


Availability of education facility (13,29%), Safety and security (11,08%) waste management (10,80%)

+
Key Findings: physical state of Indonesian cities a concern
A total of 45% percent of respondents living in Indonesian cities today perceived their cities as less livable. Key areas that has the lowest score include: physical aspect, environmental aspect and security & safety.

Aspect Physical/Urban design Environment Security & Safety Economy Social & Cultural Transportation

Perception (%) 28.63 34.32 37.09 41.84 48.91 49.56

Public utilities
Public Health Education

68.18
71.03 72.63

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

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

PHYSICAL ASPECTS
60% 54% 50% 49% 43% 40% 33% 30% 30% 36%

Mean = 28,63

51%

30%

26%
21%

20% 15% 10%

16% 12% 9% 6%

0%

ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECT
70%

Mean = 34,32

60%

57%

55% 47% 37% 28% 25% 37%

50%

49% 40%

40%

30%

29%
26% 19% 17%

30%

20%

18%

10%

0%

TRANSPORTATION ASPECT
80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 68% 58% 49%

Mean = 49,56

65% 56% 57% 47% 35% 58% 48% 48% 40% 35% 35%

45%

PUBLIC HEALTH FACILITY


100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 39% 79% 94% 94% 83% 91% 81% 69% 65% 56% 72% 71% 65%

Mean = 71,03

58% 50%

30%
20% 10% 0%

EDUCATION FACILITY
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 40% 98% 92% 86% 77% 70% 64% 59% 83% 83% 74% 72% 64%

Mean = 72.63

66% 61%

30%
20% 10% 0%

INFRASTRUCTURE & FACILITY


90% 80% 71% 70% 60% 50% 41% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 60% 61% 73% 68% 83% 83% 80% 79%

Mean = 68,18

77%

67%

71%

56%

54%

ECONOMY
80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 37% 40% 59% 51% 60%

Mean = 41.84

75%

43%
39% 39% 35% 29% 29% 26% 36% 31%

SECURITY & SAFETY


70% 60% 50% 42% 40% 30% 35% 36% 33% 26% 18% 19% 36% 34% 59% 60% 56% 52%

Mean = 37,69

40%

20%
10% 0%

9%

SOCIAL & CULTURAL ASPECT


80% 73% 70% 60% 50% 41% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 75% 66%

Mean = 48,91

54% 50%

51% 45%

53%

40%

42%

40%

37% 31%

36%

+
SNAPSHOT IS GOOD

Walaupun Indonesia memiliki fenomena ekonomi yang mengagumkan, kota-kota utama di Indonesia saat ini kesulitan untuk menjadi kota nyaman yang ideal. Hal ini membutuhkan keberanian bertindak, inovasi dan pemikiran progresif dari para manajer kota, terutama Walikota, untuk mengambil kebijakan-kebijakan yang tegas dalam pembangunan kota.
Pemimpin kota harus memilki visi, kepemimpinan dan dukungan kuat warga untuk merealisasikan identitas kota masa depan Indonesia: Kota yang Nyaman.

Simple and Actual Snapshot of the perceptions of urban populations described in this index shows:

+
SNAPSHOT IS GOOD

Kenyaman (Livability) kota adalah hak semua warga. Para manajer kota dan pemerintah harus segera mengadopsi kebijakan dan opendekatan yang benar dan mumpuni. Mandat politik di era demokrasi baru ini merupakan kesempatan emas untuk merencana, membangun dan mengendalikan/mengawasi pembangunan. Pada saat bersamaan, para warga kota harus beradaptasi dengan pola hidup urban (bukan kampung), untuk menjadikan kota lebih nyaman.
Masa depan kota-kota Indonesia akan menghadapi tantangan lebih besar: perlunya membangun infrastruktur dan bertumbuh nya demokrasi di level lokal.

Simple and Actual Snapshot of the perceptions of urban populations described in this index shows:

Tantangan bagi Kota Indonesia

Infrastruktur

SAMPAH, AIR BERSIH, LIMBAH, DAN ENERGI

KEMACETAN

PERUMAHAN DAN PERMUKIMAN

Target Jumlah Penduduk

BANJIR

PERUBAHAN IKLIM DAN BENCANA

RTH

+
Dampak Lingkungan Pelayanan Publik

Perencanaan Kota Berbasis Stakeholder


1.

Produk Rencana Ruang Perkotaan


Design Teknis Engineering

CITIZEN CHARTER

Pengelolaan Pertumbuhan (Growth Management), bukan Pembangunan biasa. Basis Perencanaan Fungsional adalah Megalopolitan Pergeseran Dari Discretionary System Ke Regulatory System

Dampak Sosial

2.

3.

Livability harus merupakan landasan ukur sebagai bagian dari Citizen Charter, dengan ber fokus komitment manajer kota untuk melayani warga nya.

+
2013 MLCI Survey Partnership Opportunity
To further enhanced the impact of this Index, IAP is putting forward a proposal for partnership in the 2013 survey and beyond. Improvement to the Index includes application of more comprehensive survey methodology in more cities.

The 2013 research will see an increase of sample in each cities, and add the number of cities to 24.
The analysis will include ordinal utility of main aspects of the survey. Further analysis will also connects the priority of each aspect with attribute of respondents, ie. Younger/older age group, gender, income group, etc. Preliminary discussion to support the survey: Embassy of Denmark, Embassy of Sweden, Austrade, Kementrian Lingkungan Hidup.

Terima Kasih

Urban community perception for all aspects:


> 5 Juta Jiwa

1 5 Juta Jiwa

100 rb 500 rb jiwa

YOGYAKARTA
Kualitas Fasilitas Rekreasi Ketersediaan Fasilitas Rekreasi Perlindungan Bangunan Bersejarah Ketersediaan Fasilitas Kaum Diffable Informasi Pelayanan Publik Interaksi Hubungan Antar Penduduk Tingkat Kriminalitas Tingkat Aksesibilitas Tempat Kerja Tingkat Biaya Hidup Ketersediaan Lapangan Pekerjaan Kualitas Jaringan Telekomunikasi Kualitas Air Bersih Ketersediaan Air Bersih Ketersediaan Energi Listrik Kualitas Fasilitas Pendidikan Ketersediaan Fasilitas Pendidikan Kualitas Fasilitas Kesehatan Ketersediaan Fasilitas Kesehatan Kualitas Fasilitas Pejalan Kaki 54% 78% 81% 80% 29% 95% 55% 59% 92% 32% 91% 93% 77% 76% 69%

98%
97% 93% 94%

Kualitas Kondisi Jalan


Kualitas Angkutan Umum Ketersediaan Angkutan Umum Tingkat Pencemaran Lingkungan Kualitas Kebersihan Lingkungan Jumlah Ruang Terbuka Kualitas Penataan Kota 0% 20% 40% 46% 52% 60% 80% 45% 69% 55% 73%

89%

100%

DENPASAR
Kualitas Fasilitas Rekreasi Ketersediaan Fasilitas Rekreasi Perlindungan Bangunan Bersejarah Ketersediaan Fasilitas Kaum Diffable Informasi Pelayanan Publik Interaksi Hubungan Antar Penduduk Tingkat Kriminalitas Tingkat Aksesibilitas Tempat Kerja Tingkat Biaya Hidup Ketersediaan Lapangan Pekerjaan Kualitas Jaringan Telekomunikasi Kualitas Air Bersih Ketersediaan Air Bersih Ketersediaan Energi Listrik Kualitas Fasilitas Pendidikan Ketersediaan Fasilitas Pendidikan Kualitas Fasilitas Kesehatan Ketersediaan Fasilitas Kesehatan Kualitas Fasilitas Pejalan Kaki 64% 84% 96% 92% 67% 100% 76% 40% 56% 88% 60% 56% 60% 76% 88% 80% 72% 76%

88%

Kualitas Kondisi Jalan


Kualitas Angkutan Umum Ketersediaan Angkutan Umum Tingkat Pencemaran Lingkungan Kualitas Kebersihan Lingkungan Jumlah Ruang Terbuka Kualitas Penataan Kota 0% 20% 40% 13% 44% 40% 46% 48%

60%
52%

60%

80%

100%

MAKASSAR
Kualitas Fasilitas Rekreasi Ketersediaan Fasilitas Rekreasi Perlindungan Bangunan Bersejarah Ketersediaan Fasilitas Kaum Diffable Informasi Pelayanan Publik Interaksi Hubungan Antar Penduduk Tingkat Kriminalitas Tingkat Aksesibilitas Tempat Kerja Tingkat Biaya Hidup Ketersediaan Lapangan Pekerjaan Kualitas Jaringan Telekomunikasi Kualitas Air Bersih Ketersediaan Air Bersih Ketersediaan Energi Listrik Kualitas Fasilitas Pendidikan Ketersediaan Fasilitas Pendidikan Kualitas Fasilitas Kesehatan Ketersediaan Fasilitas Kesehatan Kualitas Fasilitas Pejalan Kaki 34% 66% 60% 69% 23% 32% 89% 35% 58% 35% 81% 95% 53% 65% 66%

73%
81% 80% 78%

Kualitas Kondisi Jalan


Kualitas Angkutan Umum Ketersediaan Angkutan Umum Tingkat Pencemaran Lingkungan Kualitas Kebersihan Lingkungan Jumlah Ruang Terbuka Kualitas Penataan Kota 0% 20% 19% 33% 40% 34% 41%

55%
54% 88%

60%

80%

100%

MENADO
Kualitas Fasilitas Rekreasi Ketersediaan Fasilitas Rekreasi Perlindungan Bangunan Bersejarah Ketersediaan Fasilitas Kaum Diffable Informasi Pelayanan Publik Interaksi Hubungan Antar Penduduk 27% 27% 77% 100% 39% 55%

Tingkat Kriminalitas
Tingkat Aksesibilitas Tempat Kerja Tingkat Biaya Hidup Ketersediaan Lapangan Pekerjaan Kualitas Jaringan Telekomunikasi Kualitas Air Bersih Ketersediaan Air Bersih 23%

36%
64% 34% 87% 64% 48%

Ketersediaan Energi Listrik


Kualitas Fasilitas Pendidikan Ketersediaan Fasilitas Pendidikan Kualitas Fasilitas Kesehatan Ketersediaan Fasilitas Kesehatan Kualitas Fasilitas Pejalan Kaki Kualitas Kondisi Jalan Kualitas Angkutan Umum Ketersediaan Angkutan Umum Tingkat Pencemaran Lingkungan Kualitas Kebersihan Lingkungan Jumlah Ruang Terbuka Kualitas Penataan Kota 0% 20% 27% 32%

41%
67% 73% 60% 69% 48% 61%

69%
82% 41% 53%

40%

60%

80%

100%

SURABAYA
Kualitas Fasilitas Rekreasi 30%

Ketersediaan Fasilitas Rekreasi


Perlindungan Bangunan Bersejarah Ketersediaan Fasilitas Kaum Diffable Informasi Pelayanan Publik Interaksi Hubungan Antar Penduduk Tingkat Kriminalitas Tingkat Aksesibilitas Tempat Kerja Tingkat Biaya Hidup Ketersediaan Lapangan Pekerjaan Kualitas Jaringan Telekomunikasi Kualitas Air Bersih Ketersediaan Air Bersih Ketersediaan Energi Listrik Kualitas Fasilitas Pendidikan Ketersediaan Fasilitas Pendidikan Kualitas Fasilitas Kesehatan Ketersediaan Fasilitas Kesehatan Kualitas Fasilitas Pejalan Kaki Kualitas Kondisi Jalan Kualitas Angkutan Umum Ketersediaan Angkutan Umum Tingkat Pencemaran Lingkungan Kualitas Kebersihan Lingkungan Jumlah Ruang Terbuka Kualitas Penataan Kota 0%

13%
22% 13% 91% 75%

33%
79% 58% 42% 92% 42% 67% 92% 92% 92% 83% 83% 46% 63% 13% 75% 8% 42% 21% 46% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

SEMARANG
Kualitas Fasilitas Rekreasi Ketersediaan Fasilitas Rekreasi Perlindungan Bangunan Bersejarah Ketersediaan Fasilitas Kaum Diffable Informasi Pelayanan Publik Interaksi Hubungan Antar Penduduk Tingkat Kriminalitas Tingkat Aksesibilitas Tempat Kerja Tingkat Biaya Hidup Ketersediaan Lapangan Pekerjaan Kualitas Jaringan Telekomunikasi Kualitas Air Bersih Ketersediaan Air Bersih Ketersediaan Energi Listrik Kualitas Fasilitas Pendidikan Ketersediaan Fasilitas Pendidikan Kualitas Fasilitas Kesehatan Ketersediaan Fasilitas Kesehatan Kualitas Fasilitas Pejalan Kaki 30% 33% 83% 100% 61% 91% 70% 30% 100% 39% 52% 60% 9% 73% 74% 26% 26% 30%

96%

Kualitas Kondisi Jalan


Kualitas Angkutan Umum Ketersediaan Angkutan Umum Tingkat Pencemaran Lingkungan Kualitas Kebersihan Lingkungan Jumlah Ruang Terbuka Kualitas Penataan Kota 0% 17% 13% 20% 40% 60% 33% 41% 48%

70%
78%

80%

100%

BANJARMASIN
Ketersediaan Fasilitas Rekreasi
Perlindungan Bangunan Bersejarah Ketersediaan Fasilitas Kaum Diffable Informasi Pelayanan Publik Interaksi Hubungan Antar Penduduk Tingkat Kriminalitas Tingkat Aksesibilitas Tempat Kerja Tingkat Biaya Hidup Ketersediaan Lapangan Pekerjaan 23% 28% 92% 93% 87% 42% 80% 85% 81% 56% 66% 23% 81% 89%

17%
39%

Kualitas Jaringan Telekomunikasi


Kualitas Air Bersih Ketersediaan Air Bersih Ketersediaan Energi Listrik Kualitas Fasilitas Pendidikan Ketersediaan Fasilitas Pendidikan Kualitas Fasilitas Kesehatan Ketersediaan Fasilitas Kesehatan Kualitas Fasilitas Pejalan Kaki Kualitas Kondisi Jalan Kualitas Angkutan Umum Ketersediaan Angkutan Umum Tingkat Pencemaran Lingkungan Kualitas Kebersihan Lingkungan Jumlah Ruang Terbuka Kualitas Penataan Kota 0% 14% 18% 20% 40% 60% 80% 19% 32% 27% 49% 47% 63%

81%

100%

BATAM
Ketersediaan Fasilitas Rekreasi
Perlindungan Bangunan Bersejarah Ketersediaan Fasilitas Kaum Diffable Informasi Pelayanan Publik Interaksi Hubungan Antar Penduduk Tingkat Kriminalitas Tingkat Aksesibilitas Tempat Kerja Tingkat Biaya Hidup Ketersediaan Lapangan Pekerjaan 65% 75% 71% 40% 38% 69% 63% 60% 69% 40% 85% 36% 56% 52%

8%
64%

Kualitas Jaringan Telekomunikasi


Kualitas Air Bersih Ketersediaan Air Bersih Ketersediaan Energi Listrik Kualitas Fasilitas Pendidikan Ketersediaan Fasilitas Pendidikan Kualitas Fasilitas Kesehatan Ketersediaan Fasilitas Kesehatan Kualitas Fasilitas Pejalan Kaki Kualitas Kondisi Jalan Kualitas Angkutan Umum Ketersediaan Angkutan Umum Tingkat Pencemaran Lingkungan Kualitas Kebersihan Lingkungan Jumlah Ruang Terbuka Kualitas Penataan Kota 46% 56% 40%

31%
40% 40% 48% 54% 71%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

BANDUNG
Kualitas Fasilitas Rekreasi Ketersediaan Fasilitas Rekreasi Perlindungan Bangunan Bersejarah Ketersediaan Fasilitas Kaum Diffable Informasi Pelayanan Publik Interaksi Hubungan Antar Penduduk Tingkat Kriminalitas Tingkat Aksesibilitas Tempat Kerja Tingkat Biaya Hidup Ketersediaan Lapangan Pekerjaan Kualitas Jaringan Telekomunikasi Kualitas Air Bersih Ketersediaan Air Bersih Ketersediaan Energi Listrik Kualitas Fasilitas Pendidikan Ketersediaan Fasilitas Pendidikan Kualitas Fasilitas Kesehatan Ketersediaan Fasilitas Kesehatan Kualitas Fasilitas Pejalan Kaki 21% 59% 79% 45% 100% 62% 14% 24% 100% 36% 48% 7% 82% 79% 24% 57% 59%

76%
90%

Kualitas Kondisi Jalan


Kualitas Angkutan Umum Ketersediaan Angkutan Umum Tingkat Pencemaran Lingkungan Kualitas Kebersihan Lingkungan Jumlah Ruang Terbuka Kualitas Penataan Kota 0% 3% 20% 14% 14% 24%

34%
31% 55%

40%

60%

80%

100%

PALEMBANG
Kualitas Fasilitas Rekreasi Ketersediaan Fasilitas Rekreasi Perlindungan Bangunan Bersejarah Ketersediaan Fasilitas Kaum Diffable Informasi Pelayanan Publik Interaksi Hubungan Antar Penduduk 16% 60% 81% 12% 45% 23%

Tingkat Kriminalitas
Tingkat Aksesibilitas Tempat Kerja Tingkat Biaya Hidup Ketersediaan Lapangan Pekerjaan Kualitas Jaringan Telekomunikasi Kualitas Air Bersih Ketersediaan Air Bersih 8%

18%
64% 16% 90% 70% 67%

Ketersediaan Energi Listrik


Kualitas Fasilitas Pendidikan Ketersediaan Fasilitas Pendidikan Kualitas Fasilitas Kesehatan Ketersediaan Fasilitas Kesehatan Kualitas Fasilitas Pejalan Kaki Kualitas Kondisi Jalan Kualitas Angkutan Umum Ketersediaan Angkutan Umum Tingkat Pencemaran Lingkungan Kualitas Kebersihan Lingkungan Jumlah Ruang Terbuka Kualitas Penataan Kota 0% 20% 40% 28% 33%

43%
73% 76% 72% 72% 39% 59%

34%
60% 66% 43% 60% 80% 100%

PALANGKARAYA
Kualitas Fasilitas Rekreasi Ketersediaan Fasilitas Rekreasi Perlindungan Bangunan Bersejarah Ketersediaan Fasilitas Kaum Diffable Informasi Pelayanan Publik Interaksi Hubungan Antar Penduduk Tingkat Kriminalitas Tingkat Aksesibilitas Tempat Kerja Tingkat Biaya Hidup Ketersediaan Lapangan Pekerjaan Kualitas Jaringan Telekomunikasi Kualitas Air Bersih Ketersediaan Air Bersih Ketersediaan Energi Listrik Kualitas Fasilitas Pendidikan Ketersediaan Fasilitas Pendidikan Kualitas Fasilitas Kesehatan Ketersediaan Fasilitas Kesehatan Kualitas Fasilitas Pejalan Kaki 44% 26% 27% 73% 77% 76% 42% 51% 39% 69% 75% 18% 17% 54%

40%
39% 42% 35% 39%

Kualitas Kondisi Jalan


Kualitas Angkutan Umum Ketersediaan Angkutan Umum Tingkat Pencemaran Lingkungan Kualitas Kebersihan Lingkungan Jumlah Ruang Terbuka Kualitas Penataan Kota 34%

51%
49% 53% 47% 47% 60% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

JAKARTA
Kualitas Fasilitas Rekreasi 72%

Ketersediaan Fasilitas Rekreasi


Perlindungan Bangunan Bersejarah Ketersediaan Fasilitas Kaum Diffable Informasi Pelayanan Publik Interaksi Hubungan Antar Penduduk Tingkat Kriminalitas Tingkat Aksesibilitas Tempat Kerja Tingkat Biaya Hidup Ketersediaan Lapangan Pekerjaan Kualitas Jaringan Telekomunikasi Kualitas Air Bersih Ketersediaan Air Bersih Ketersediaan Energi Listrik Kualitas Fasilitas Pendidikan Ketersediaan Fasilitas Pendidikan Kualitas Fasilitas Kesehatan Ketersediaan Fasilitas Kesehatan Kualitas Fasilitas Pejalan Kaki Kualitas Kondisi Jalan Kualitas Angkutan Umum Ketersediaan Angkutan Umum Tingkat Pencemaran Lingkungan Kualitas Kebersihan Lingkungan Jumlah Ruang Terbuka Kualitas Penataan Kota 0% 9% 15% 20% 40% 60% 9% 24% 18% 54% 21% 48% 56% 7% 28% 14% 34%

67%

68% 64%

19%
43%

86% 61% 79% 71% 74% 69% 73%

80%

100%

PONTIANAK
Kualitas Fasilitas Rekreasi 30%

Ketersediaan Fasilitas Rekreasi


Perlindungan Bangunan Bersejarah Ketersediaan Fasilitas Kaum Diffable Informasi Pelayanan Publik Interaksi Hubungan Antar Penduduk Tingkat Kriminalitas Tingkat Aksesibilitas Tempat Kerja Tingkat Biaya Hidup Ketersediaan Lapangan Pekerjaan Kualitas Jaringan Telekomunikasi Kualitas Air Bersih Ketersediaan Air Bersih Ketersediaan Energi Listrik Kualitas Fasilitas Pendidikan Ketersediaan Fasilitas Pendidikan Kualitas Fasilitas Kesehatan Ketersediaan Fasilitas Kesehatan Kualitas Fasilitas Pejalan Kaki Kualitas Kondisi Jalan Kualitas Angkutan Umum Ketersediaan Angkutan Umum Tingkat Pencemaran Lingkungan Kualitas Kebersihan Lingkungan Jumlah Ruang Terbuka Kualitas Penataan Kota

9%
29% 9% 64% 83%

34%
70% 15% 22% 78% 27% 28% 31% 64% 64% 66% 64% 30% 37% 34% 40% 30% 30% 22% 19% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

MEDAN
Kualitas Fasilitas Rekreasi Ketersediaan Fasilitas Rekreasi Perlindungan Bangunan Bersejarah Ketersediaan Fasilitas Kaum Diffable Informasi Pelayanan Publik Interaksi Hubungan Antar Penduduk Tingkat Kriminalitas Tingkat Aksesibilitas Tempat Kerja Tingkat Biaya Hidup Ketersediaan Lapangan Pekerjaan Kualitas Jaringan Telekomunikasi Kualitas Air Bersih Ketersediaan Air Bersih Ketersediaan Energi Listrik Kualitas Fasilitas Pendidikan Ketersediaan Fasilitas Pendidikan Kualitas Fasilitas Kesehatan Ketersediaan Fasilitas Kesehatan Kualitas Fasilitas Pejalan Kaki 16% 49% 67% 28% 47% 53% 14% 17% 95% 9% 61% 2% 53% 72% 9% 26% 21%

60%
72%

Kualitas Kondisi Jalan


Kualitas Angkutan Umum Ketersediaan Angkutan Umum Tingkat Pencemaran Lingkungan Kualitas Kebersihan Lingkungan Jumlah Ruang Terbuka Kualitas Penataan Kota 0% 7% 5% 20% 14% 21%

35%
28% 81%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Anda mungkin juga menyukai