Residents' Assessment in Kaligawe Slum Area, Semarang

*Maria Ekacarini Jayanimitta  -  Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Diponegoro University, Indonesia
Fadjar Hari Mardiansjah  -  Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Diponegoro University, Indonesia
Received: 21 Mar 2019; Published: 31 Oct 2019.
Open Access Copyright (c) 2019 The Indonesian Journal of Planning and Development

Citation Format:
Abstract

To reduce slum areas, the government of Semarang City has issued a decree of determination of slum areas in 2014 and initiated some slum upgrading activities from the central and local government. Kaligawe, as one of the areas close to the industrial estate and has many residents, is included in a slum area that must be handled. The slum area in Kaligawe consists of 7.35 hectares from RW 1 – RW 4. In addition to the description of the slum characteristics, residents' assessment is also needed regarding the neighborhood condition. This study aims to analyze residents’ assessment in Kaligawe as one of the slum areas in Semarang. This study applied a questionnaire survey that was distributed to 90 residents of Kelurahan Kaligawe slum area randomly from RW 1 – RW 4 and NUAP Kaligawe 2017 document review as the data collection source. The findings indicated that although Kaligawe has a low socioeconomic level, the residents’ assessment of Kaligawe’s neighborhood is overall good. It is because they are already used to live with recent neighborhood conditions, and also significant improvement resulted due to slum upgrading program in Kaligawe area.

Keywords
housing; residents’ assessment; slum

Article Metrics:

  1. Brueckner, J. K. (2013). Slums in developing countries: New evidence for Indonesia. Journal of Housing Economics, 22(4), 278–290. doi:10.1016/j.jhe.2013.08.001.
  2. Coulson, N. E., & Fisher, L. M. (2009). Housing tenure and labor market impacts: The search goes on. Journal of Urban Economics, 65(3), 252–264. doi:10.1016/j.jue.2008.12.003.
  3. Das, A. (2015). Slum upgrading with community-managed microfinance: Towards progressive planning in Indonesia. Habitat International, 47, 256–266. doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.01.004.
  4. Devas, N. (2016). Indonesia’s kampung improvement program: An evaluative case study, 48(286), 19–36.
  5. Dhakal, S. (2002). Comprehensive kampung improvement program in Surabaya as a model of community participation, 1–7.
  6. Dianingrum, A., Faqih, M., & Septanti, D. (2017). Development of kampung improvement program in Surabaya, Indonesia, 41–47. doi:10.9790/1813-0607014147.
  7. Hudalah, D., Winarso, H., & Woltjer, J. (2010). Planning theory development conflict in Indonesia. doi:10.1177/1473095210368776.
  8. Ibem, E. O., & Aduwo, E. B. (2013). Assessment of residential satisfaction in public housing in Ogun State, Nigeria. Habitat International, 40, 163–175. doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2013.04.001.
  9. Imparato, I., & Ruster, J. (2003). Summary of slum upgrading and participation: Lessons from Latin America. Washington DC.
  10. Ishtiyaq, M., & Kumar, S. (2011). Typology of informal settlements and distribution of slums in the NCT of Delhi. Journal of Contemporary India Studies: Space and Society, Hiroshima University, 1, 37–46.
  11. Kustiwan, I., Ukrin, I., & Aulia, A. (2015). Identification of the creative capacity of Kampong’s community towards custainable kampong (case studies: Cicadas and Pasundan Kampong , Bandung ): A preliminary study. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 184(August 2014), 144–151. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.05.074.
  12. Lee, E., & Park, N.-K. (2010). Housing satisfaction and quality of life among temporary residents in the United States. Housing and Society, 37(1), 43–67. doi:10.1080/08882746.2010.11430580.
  13. Lewis, B. D. (2010). Indonesian Decentralization: Accountability deferred Indonesian decentralization: Accountability deferred, (November 2014), 37–41. doi:10.1080/01900692.2010.514442.
  14. Marsyukrilla, E., & Manaf, A. (2013). Tingkat kepuasan bermukim buruh kawasan industri Lamicitra Kecamatan Semarang Utara, Kota Semarang. Jurnal Pengembangan Kota, 1(2), 86–95. doi:10.14710/jpk.1.2.86-95.
  15. Mukhija, V. (2010). Enabling slum redevelopment in Mumbai: Policy paradox in practice, (August 2014), 37–41. doi:10.1080/02673030120090548.
  16. Poerbo, H. (1978). Partisipasi masyarakat dalam perbaikan permukiman perkotaan: Sebuah pendekatan yang sedang dicobakan di Bandung dan Surabaya. Proyek penelitian dan pengembangan dengan bantuan United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Institut Teknologi Bandung. Bandung.
  17. Tambunan, D. B. (2012). Atribut yang menjadi pertimbangan konsumen dalam membeli produk perumahan penelitian dan analisis conjoint. International Research Journal of Business Studies, 2(2).
  18. Tunas, D., & Peresthu, A. (2010). The self-help housing in Indonesia: The only option for the poor? Habitat International, 34(3), 315–322. doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2009.11.007.
  19. UN-Habitat. (2003). The challenge of slums: Global report on human settlements 2003. London; Sterling, VA.
  20. UN-Habitat. (2008). Quick guides for policy makers 1: Urbanization the role the poor play in Urban Development. Bangkok, Thailand & Nairobi, Kenya.
  21. Wang, Q., & Pan, S. (2012). On influence factors of Wuhan Housing Industry based on the AHP. Systems Engineering Procedia, 3, 158–165. doi:10.1016/j.sepro.2011.11.022.
  22. Winarso, H., Putra, B. D., & Nurmala. (2009). Urban development through local partnership (UDeveLoP): Alternatif konsep penanganan kumuh di pusat kota. Bandung: SAPPK ITB.