The 5th International Conference of the International Forum on Urbanism (IFoU) 2011 National University of Singapore, Department of Architecture Global Visions: Risks and Opportunities for the Urban Planet

URB A N H O USIN G SUSTA IN A BI L I T Y: B E T W E E N ID E A A ND R E A L I T Y Agustinus Adib Abadi*

*Department of Architecture, School of Architecture Planning and Policy Development, Institute Technology Bandung, Jln. Ganesha 10, Bandung, Indonesia, Email:[email protected] and [email protected]

A BST R A C T: One of several urban sustainability dimensions relates to urban housing quality. Conceptually, sustainable urban housing conditions could be realized through the provision of decent housing for all, which involves the role of government and policy-making. In dealing with urban housing insufficiency, the Government of Indonesia has introduced a housing ownership program for low to middle income people. However, housing ownership does not automatically present its incentives as the implementation of a sustainability idea requires the consideration of local context.

This paper exposes the condition of low to middle income housing policy implementation in relation to urban housing sustainability. The fact that about 40.2% of low to middle income houses within the municipality of Bekasi, in West Java, Indonesia, are categorised as abandoned ones indicate the importance of local context consideration in dealing with sustainable urban housing objectives.

K E Y W O RDS: housing sustainability, low to middle income, local context, Bekasi Indonesia

1 IN T R O DU C T I O N

Cities in developing countries are facing problem of massive of urban population growth that influences urban transformation and conditions. The functional integration of Jakarta with smaller surrounding cities known as Jabodetabek region for instance has created a new mega city. In responding the trend the President of Indonesia issued Decree No 13 / 1976 with regard to area development on Jakarta, Bogor, Depok, Tangerang and Bekasi, and established the municipality of Bekasi as buffer of Jakarta where function of Bekasi has been set up as area for settlement, trade, and business. By this function, the city becomes strategic urban area destination because of its close by the capital of the state. BPS Regional Economic Survey West Java 2005 also noted that among those small neighbouring cities, Bekasi municipality is the most populated one and has relatively high level of population growth in the last decade. Besides of its positive influences that fast population growth indeed will discourage poorer cities in increasing infrastructure per head and in providing an adequate number of homes. The latter in fact has been put as social indicator of urban sustainability in such cities as Hong Kong, Iskandar, Barcelona, and Pune (Shen, Ochoa, Shah and Zhang (2009). It becomes very critical for urban sustainability because those are needed by urban poor to raise endowment for survival and much more than that for a decent standard life in urban environment (Hall and Pfeiffer, 2000). Therefore it is important to control urban growth and otherwise unmanaged one most likely will threat urban sustainability. The fact that housing covers more than 2/3 of urban area (Devas and Rakodi, 1993) indicates the strategic role of housing on urban sustainability. This sight was supported by Hall and Pfeiffer (2000) that put shelter as one of urban sustainable dimensions because housing conditions is not only concerning physical aspect but also social, economic and cultural dimensions. A house is also basic need that is not only protection from inconvenience natural condition but also a place for socio cultural value development as well as economic generator. Thus decent affordable housing for all becomes such an essential issue to enhance urban sustainability. However, in developing countries such as Indonesia, where the most difficult problems are come together, the basic questions is how to produce enormous amount of houses for urban poor, with at least minimal services in term of public health, but affordable by those on

minimum income. Considering the role of housing on urban sustainability many developing countries try to implement deliberately home ownership program. In developed country such as United Stated this scheme is believed to offer positive influences on enhancing urban sustainability. With such decent housing supply the program has indicated some improvement not only on productivity of families but also on environment quality and social integration (Van Zandt, 2006). It is very reasonable if then the government of Indonesia copied the US experiences by establishing the comparable program especially for low middle income group. The government of Indonesia through its various housing policies and institutions has strongly driven the production of low middle income housing. Thousands very simple (RSS) and simple houses (RS) have been developed by both public and private developers not only at urban peripheral area but also at sub urban one. In the Bekasi municipality housing demand has arrived at about 100.000 units in 2010. This figure seems gain contribution from very high rate of housing demand of Jakarta which reached to 2.565 units per year in average. Due to limited land in Jakarta, it is almost unavoidable for some people look for it in the nearby city of Bekasi. In dealing with high housing demand, from 1996 to 2004 the municipality of Bekasi issued 58 housing developments planning encompass 38,315 housing unit and spread out in many locations. Some 60% of that amount is small type (less than 45 m2 of size) and is purposed for low-middle income people. In fact, there are so many of them have been left in empty by the owners. Field observation in 2005 found that relatively high level (more than 7%) housing vacancy were at about 8 housing estates and included some 1,498 unit (40.2%) of total 3,726 houses (Abadi, 2009). This condition is clearly in contrary to the idea of home ownership program which is promoted to enhance urban housing sustainability. By carefully understanding the idea of sustainable development which stress on meeting future needs.

2 M E T H O DO L O G Y

This paper draws on statistical and other documentary evidence such as Bekasi in Figure, background of the municipality of Bekasi development, list of housing development permit issued by Bekasi Municipality from 1995-2004, as well as government housing policy documents. Theoretical framework is developed from the growing housing research literature on low middle income housing policy, housing ownership and urban sustainability. The paper also draws on a case study of vacancy housing in Bekasi Municipality, using empirical field-based research including key informant interviews with municipal officials, chief of district society, and a 350 questioner survey for the housing owners conducted in April 2006 to March 2007 in eight estates sample in the Bekasi Municipality. The survey utilized a purposive sampling method to select respondent that represented the opinion of low-middle housing owners in the city toward the condition of their housings. Survey questions were based on the advice of key informants, and insights from the literature, and targeted issues and interrelationships among issues of housing and urban sustainability. Bekasi municipality (kota Bekasi) is part of Wet Java Province, a medium sized city situated in the near by of the capital of Jakarta. It is a satellite of Jakarta as they have evolved in along with the dynamic of the capital city. Today it is a fragmented city of suburbs and townships (formal and informal), struggling with this diverse of social, economic and environmental conditions and strongly marked with enduring social and environmental, infrastructure and service inequalities.

3 T H E O R E T I C A L F RA M E W O R K

The idea of sustainable urban housing is developed from well known basic concept of sustainable development. The most familiar quotation is humanity has the ability to make development sustainable ± to ensure that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generation to meet their own needs (World Commission on Environmental and Development, 1987). This is very

abstract thought indeed and therefore need to be down to the more realistic development circumstance that is urban area. To simplify such very complicated urban condition, Hall and Pfeiffer (2000) suggest several essential elements that play influential role on urban sustainability in which housing is one of those besides of economy, society, environment, access, life and democracy. In deeply insight of sustainable concept that has great concerns to future life is also indicated two FULWLFDO SRLQWV SURFHVV DQG KXPDQ QHHGV (DVWDZD\ DQG 6WǛD   PHQWLRQWKDWKRXVLQJ DQG XUEDQ sustainability have to be understood as a process rather than a product so that the concept has a temporal dimension. This concept looks compatible to the condition of urban poorer that has limited budget to buy their houses and used to meet their housing needs gradually. In association to urban housing development the process can be seen in the stage of planning, design, development or construction, utility or occupation and regeneration. In addition the notion of process is thus inherently multi dimensional as it is in parallel to housing characteristics. Basically government has such an essential role in both formulating and implementing housing policy. The policy instrument may include land use, building regulation, basic infrastructure provision, subsidy and special programme. Hall and Pfeiffer (2000) mention that low middle housing policy will not be enough only by financial assistance but it has to focus more on enabling strategy. By this strategy housing supply does not only provide shelter but more than that it has to offer environment that can function as a place for process of meeting the entire housing needs. Indeed meeting human needs is another critical aspect of sustainability. Housing needs in fact is part of series of basic survival requirements as of water and food which is deeper issues of belonging, identity and community. Housing needs actually can be identified from housing ownership motives. By referring WR0DVORZ¶VQHHGKLHUDUFK\+DUULVHWDOV  UHYHDOVUHODWLRQVKLSEHWZHHQWKHRZQHUVKLSPRWLYHV and the physical, social, and economic housing dimensions. The relationship shows at least 15 housing characteristics that can meet dynamic housing needs from basic (physiological) to psychological (self actualization) levels (Table 1).

Table1 Demand for Special Housing Characteristics at Various level of Human Motivation Sources: Harris et.als. (1983)

Motivation Dimensions of Housing Characteristics Level Physical Social Economic Sound structure offering Location convenient to Physiological Low possible cost basic facilities employment and transportation Adequate privacy for Freedom from environmental Ability to exercise control Safety family unit hazards and uncertainties of over home environment rental market Adequate privacy for Acceptance into Belonging each individual Socially compatible neighbours community of other homeowners Attractive home design Pride in owning an asset Esteem and landscaping Prestige address with appreciation potential Facilities for a Proximity to aesthetical, cultural, Expression of Self-actualizati vocational pursuit and recreational interests commitment to specific on set of value

The motives are determined by socio-economic characteristics, family expectation mobility and housing market condition (Rohe et.als, 1996). For low middle income people the level of buying motives is mostly influenced by its housing affordability so that it has to become main concern for government in formulating and implementing housing policy. However Morrow (2001) reminds that affordable housing

policy also has to consider housing decency which is very important basis for improving opportunity of economic and social sustainability for low middle income people (Byrne, 2007; Hall and Pfeiffer, 2000). In this context, housing decency is multi dimensions. It is not only technical concern but also non technical aspects such as security of tenure, expensive spend, and habitability as well as economic supportive location (Hall and Pfeiffer, 2000; Kuswartojo, 2006). Under that criteria housing supply also has to bring decent environment which is related to basic infrastructure such as water and sewerage, technically sound, easy access to public transport (Belsky et.al., 2001). Housing decency in some extend can be estimated from the level of its occupancy (van Zandt et.al, 2006). The vacancy that is indicated by proportion of number vacant houses to all houses in location FDQUHIOHFWRZQHUV¶UDWLRQDOUHVSRQGWRZDUG housing condition (Grimes et.als, 2006). The vacancy thus shows the gap between housing capacity as well as social and spatial housing needs. Base on market potential categorise housing vacancy into vacant houses and abandoned ones (Bassett et.als., 2006). The first category is the houses that have been left in vacant for less than 6 months in a year. Houses in this group are marketable, inhabitable and in good condition. Meanwhile houses in the second category have not been inhabited for more than 6 months. Under this category houses are in bad condition, indecent, and need special treatment and policy to re-take them to housing market. Regulations thus become significant housing policy instruments to achieve decent and affordable housing. In general it is needed to ensure access and affordability of low to middle income people (Dowall, 1992; Erguden, 2001; Priemus, 2006) to minimize housing indecency so that all families can dwell at technically decent and healthy housing (Freeman, 2002). It is also important that regulation makes sure housing ownership (van Schie, 2006). Housing ownership theoretically could be generator in enhancing urban sustainability. Psychologically and socially it offers opportunity and safety upon low middle income group better future life (Turner, 1976 and Bassett et.als., 1980). It also gives economic advantages for the owners (Mulder, 2005 and Cho et.als, 2006) and for local economic stability (Basolo, 2002). Mulder (2005) and Cho et.al. (2006) argues that housing ownership offers broad control to the house. The rights offer not only an opportunity to occupy their home continuously but also freedom from housing market uncertainty (Harrris et.al, 1983). Therefore this housing provision pattern can produce better and stable neighbourhood. Beside creating control system towards social behaviour of residents (Van Zandt, 2006), the neighbourhood will drive community formation and develop environment maintenance mechanism which are essential requirement for sustainable housing (Roseland, 1998). For conceptualising and assessing sustainable urban housing Winston (2009) developed analytical framework that relates housing aspects and its characteristics (Table 2).

Table 2 Analytical framework for conceptualizing and assessing sustainable housing Adopted from: (Winston, 2009)

Dimension Housing aspects Sustainable housing characteristics Sustainable land-use planning; Within mixed use developments; Social Location Close to public transport Higher residential densities; Sustainable construction ; Design for Construction and sustainable use ; Housing quality; Access to green space; Attractive, Physical design clean and safe residential environment; Housing affordability; Tenure mix and social mix; Social resources High standards of energy efficiency in use of dwellings; Waste Use recycling ; Sustainable management and maintenance Economics All of the above and emphasis on renovation rather then demolition Regeneration Partnership with residents

The most significant housing aspects include location, construction and design, use and regeneration

while sustainable housing characteristics looks to correspond with that of Harris at.al (1983). Although it will be very difficult to measure such a sustainable housing development because of it involves to local context but at least there is guideline to understand characteristic of sustainable affordable urban housing.

4 DISC USSI O N

4.1 Understanding low middle income housing need Housing need of low to middle income people is characterized by some socio economic background (Table 3). Some significant attributes are shown to give the portrait of the need.

Table 3 Significant socio economic background of vacant / abandoned housing owner Resource : Abadi (2009)

Attribute Categories % Attribute Categories %

1 child 26.7 Elementary school 26.9 Number of Children children 2 children 58.5 education High school 63.9 3 children 13.0 Academy (Diploma) 7.4 Jakarta 60.2 Owned 11.1 Recent home Recent housing location Depok 11.1 status Rent 55.6 Tangerang 16.7 Parent 19.4 45 ± 56 m2 34.3 Lived in houses 54.6 Recent housing Motive to buy size 60 ± 72 m2 54.6 Credit opportunity 38.0 41-50 69.4 Public services 75 Age of family 51-60 Occupation National company 19.4 20.4 employment Senior High school 58.3 IDR 1 - 2 m 29.6 Education level Monthly income Diploma 28.7 IDR 2 - 3 m 62

The buying motives are mainly driven safety reason in which they do not have their owned houses yet. This condition is represented by their rental housing status at present (55.6%). They also choose relatively spacious houses for accommodating at least 4 family members. Most of low middle income family at present rent the houses closed to work place in Jakarta where most of government offices are situated. That temporary housing needs reflect their productive stage as they for the most part still have 5-15 year of time to work. Although they earns not enough money but their career as civil servant that offer regular salary gives opportunity to get housing mortgage for buying their own houses.

4.2 Low middle income housing condition Low middle income housing locations are scattered mainly in Southern part of Bekasi municipality which is relative new area development (Picture 1). So that it is very common if the low middle income housings have such a difficult access toward public facilities. Although all housing area has been supported by public transport but the condition and the level of services are varied depend on the development of each settlement. In stable settlement such as South Bekasi, Pondok Gede, West Bekasi, East Bekasi, and Northern part of Rawa Lumbu, access to public transport both city transport and taxi are very easy. But for housings out side of those 5 districts, access to public transport is relatively hard. The level difficulty of access to public transport seems to be parallel with the distance to city centre. The more distance of housing from the city center, the more difficult access to public transport. Housings at Bantar Gembang district has very low level of public transports services so that they create mobility problem for the dweller to go to school and work place which is mainly in Jakarta. If people to choose reside in some far area in district of Bantar Gebang, Mustika Jaya, Jati Asih and Jati Sampurna, they used to have private transport either motorcycle or car.

Picture 1 Location Distribution of High Level of Housing Vacancy in the City of Bekasi. Basic map was downloaded from www.kotabekasi.go.id (2005)

Housings in districts nearby the city centre have relatively easy access to public facilities. It is because the public facilities in the city of Bekasi are concentrated at city centre In addition the easer access to public facilities such as school, clinic, public transport and recreation is resulted by the development model that follows street pattern and hierarchy.

4.3 Housing vacancy condition The spatial distribution of high vacancy rate of low middle income housing in the city of Bekasi is shown at Picture 2. In general the housings locate mainly in the Southern area except Bumi Alinda Kencana, situates in Northern part of the city. The high level vacancy housings in fact are spread at 4 districts only: Bantar Gebang, Jati Asih, Mustika Jaya and Bekasi Utara. Of seven housings in the southern part, three housings are in the west side and four ones are in east side. The total number of vacant low middle income houses is 1,488 units (Table 1). That is about 40% of total of low middle income housing in the sample estates and includes 2 housing types (21 m2 and 36 m2). Of total vacant houses, most of them (71.9%) are small type (21 m2). It can be recognized that seven high level vacancy estates (from 20.94% to 68.85%) situate in southern part of the city. This part in fact is

relatively more recent development area and far enough from city central. In addition, two of the highest level vacancy housings (Kompleks Perumahan Departemen Pekerjaan Umum and Perumahan Inti Alasindo Permai) have more than 50% of vacancy level (68.85% and 54.87% respectively). Those two estates locate at the outmost distance from the city centre. While Perumahan Bumi Alinda Kencana which has the lowest vacancy level (9.57%) is situated at northern part and near by to city centre. The northern part of the city actually is relatively more establish and developed settlement compare to those in southern one.

Table 4 Housing Estate in the City of Bekasi with High Level Vacancies Source : Abadi (2009)

Sub-district Housing Number of Housing Estate % District Type (m2) Housing (unit) Jatiluhur total 290 Puri Gading II 23.45 36 Jatiasih vacant 68 Pedurenan total 212 Bumi Alam Hijau 29.72 36 MustikaJaya vacant 63 Kaliabang Tengah total 606 Bumi Alinda Kencana 9.57 36 Bekasi Utara vacant 58 Mustika Jaya total 365 BKKBN Pusat 22.47 21 Mustika Jaya vacant 83 Sumur Batu total 1,358 Perum Dep PU 68.85 21 Bantar Gebang vacant 935 Mustika Sari total 330 Griya Mustika Sari 20.94 36 MustikaJaya vacant 67 Jatisari 21 total 113 Inti Alasindo Permai 54.87 Jatiasih 36 vacant 62 Jatiasih total 452 Peg PT Asabri 35.84 36 Jatiasih vacant 162

There are some influential reasons concerning housing owner decision to let their houses in vacant (Diagram 1a). The main reason of vacancy is housing indecency. This reason relates to infrastructure condition and public facilities. Housing infrastructures such as water and residential street are considered as inadequate. There is no water provision so people that intent to reside in their small houses do have to provide water by themselves by making well. Field observation shows that residential street is very poor and unwell planned sanitation (Picture 2).

Picture 2 The poor and insufficient condition of street and infrastructure Source: Private Document, 2005

People also have to spend extra money for improving residential street and drainage to make up the environment. Housing indecency is also considered related to undersupply public transportation. People who live in Kompleks Perumahan Departemen Pekerjaan Umum and Bumi Alam Hijau for instance need extra cost for transportation because the housings have not been served by public transport regularly. These people have to use ojek (motor cycle taxi) if they want to go more rapidly. This is reasonable reason since for most of the owner who works in Jakarta they need at least one and half hour to reach their working place. Beside that, housing vacancy is influenced by insufficient space. The vacant houses owners also assumed that 21 m2 of house is insufficient for families consist of 4 members. They need extra budget to extend their houses in order to accommodate the whole family members decently. It seems that impossible to make bigger their houses this time as they put their financial plan priority on education.

Houses Residential Main Reason of vacancy

4% 6% 1% 6% 10%

6% 35%

Never Indecent house Reside < 1 year Insufficient space 33% 1-2 years Far from working place 81% 2-4 years Far from school 18% > 4 years Reside official housing

Diagram 1 Reason of Vacancy (a) and Vacancy Duration (b) Source : Abadi (2009)

Housing vacancy at low-mid income housing in the city of Bekasi can be categorised into abandoned ones (Diagram 1 b) as most of them (98%) has been left in vacant for more than 6 months. In this case, 6 % of the sample had ever used for less than 1 year but about 81% of the vacant house category has never been used at all. The latter fact also indicates such a speculation that is making profit from buying the houses. However it seems not compatible with financial condition of low mid income people as housing business is not high liquidity one. This condition tends to become saving strategy for having its own houses in the future.

4.4 The problem of decent affordable housing In general the vacancy can explain UDWLRQDOUHVSRQVHV¶KRXVLQJRZQHUV FRQFHUQLQJ poor housing condition at particular location. It involves such an inadequate capacity of housing situation in fulfilling social and spatial needs of the owners which is relate to insufficient basic infrastructure as well as housing size. Those are needed to support all domestic activities and will cause great problem for low income people who inhabit their houses. In addition, the poor sanitation in most housing has caused flood and unhealthy environment. Low-middle income housing condition is considered very expensive for the people as it needs some extra budget to reside their own houses. The extra living cost also arise due to difficult access and limited public transport. This condition seems to associate with the unfit housing location in land use planning. All above condition is worsened by the small size of the house that needs some expansion in order to have acceptable house space. The need of large amount budget causes some constraints for low middle income people to use their own houses and therefore they let the houses in vacant in prolonged time. Consequently, there will be very high level of vacancy, no strong community creation. Therefore it is very common for housing with high

level of vacancy to have poor environment condition as there is no urban housing environment improvement. Therefore the existence of vacancy can indicate the low use value where situation indirectly indicates will decrease housing capacity to enhance sustainable urban housing. As the main part in urban area, better housing environment is a must so that a city is not only visually interesting but also decent residence for social and productive activities. Housing environment quality that provided by private developers tends to be very bad. However, this condition is occurred due to the weakness of control mechanism.

5 L ESSO NS T O L E A RN

The quality of housing indeed can not be parted from affordable housing policy. The stress on affordability has caused developers to produce indecent houses so that housing ownership program that suppose to provide positive impact for housing quality improvement in fact goes contrarily. Low-middle income housing development is reasonable effort to support the idea of urban housing sustainability however the provision of shelter in fact was not equipped by capacity to enhance sustainability of urban housing. It is mainly because technically, socially and economically the housing could not meet the G\QDPLFRZQHUµVKRXVLQJQHHGVTherefore basic infrastructure should be provided sufficiently to support productive activities. This paper aimed at understanding the problem of implementing sustainable affordable housing. An analytic framework was conceptualized and juxtaposed within a critical analysis of the housing need approaches for addressing sustainability. The proposed responsive approach was conceptualized based on integrating multiple sets of dimension that can be implemented in the planning, design and development process of a sustainable affordable housing program. The outcomes of implementing home ownership program would be: bad example, that need to be considered throughout the planning and design process of an affordable housing program. It is believed that by implementing this program with a continued collaborative trans-disciplinary effort current sustainable practices must be done and a process of real sustainable development at all levels (planning, design, construction, operation, and management) can begin to shape the future of better urban environment.

R E F E R E N C ES

[1] $EDGL$$³3KHQRPHQDof Housing Vacancies at Mid Low Income Housing in the Municipality of Bekasi´'LVsertation, Study Program of Architecture ITB, Bandung, 2009. [2] Basolo, V and Strong, D³Understanding the Neighborhood : From ReVLGHQWV¶Perception and Needs to Action. Housing Policy Debate, Volume 13 Issue 1, Fannie Mae Foundation (2002), pp. 83-103,. [3] Bassett, E.M., Schweitzer J. and Panken, S., ³Understanding Housing Abandonment and Owner Decision-Making in Flint, Michigan: An Exploratory Analysis´. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Working Paper. 2006. [5] Belsky, E.S. dan Lambert,M. ³Where Will They Live: Metropolitan Dimensions of Affordable Housing Problems´. Joint Center for Housing Studies, Harvard University, Discussion Paper. September. 2001. [6] Byrne, J.P and Diamond, M³Affordable Housing, Land Tenure and Urban Policy´. Fordham Urban Law Journal. Vol.34. July. (2007) [7] Cho, Y dan Whitehead, C., ³Affordable Low Cost Home Ownership: A Case Study´, ENHR International Conference, Ljubljana, Slovakia, 2-5 July 2006. [8] Devas N. and Rakodi, C.. Managing Fast Growing Cities: New Approaches to Urban Planning in the developing World. Addison-Wissley Longman Scientific Ltd. London, 1993. [9] Dowall, D.E (1992) Benefits of Minimal land-use Regulation in Developing Countries. Cato Journal, (FaIl 1992).Vol. 12, No. 2 [10] Eastaway, M.P DQG6WǛD, E³Dimensions of housing and urban sustainability´Journal of Housing

and the Built Environment (2004).19: 1±5, [11] Erguden, S³Low-cost Housing. Policies and Constraints in Developing Countries´, International Conference on Spatial Information for Sustainable Development, Nairobi, Kenya, 2-5 October. 2001. [12] Freeman, L. ³Interpreting the Dynamic of Public Housing: Cultural and rational Choice Explanations´, Housing Policy Debate, Volume 9, Issue 2, Fannie Mae Foundation, (1998) p.323-352. [13] Grimes, A., Kerr, S., Aitken, A., and Sourell, R. ³The housing fulcrum: balancing economic and social factors in housing research and policy´. Kõtuitui : New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online. (2006).Vol. 1:65-79. Royal Society of New Zealand. [14] Hall, P. and Pfeiffer8³Urban Future 21. Aglobal Agenda for Twenty ±first Century Cities´. E&FN Spon and Feddral Ministry of Transport, Building and Housing. New York(2000). [15] Harris, I and Young, S.´Buyer Motivation = Human Needs´, Real Estate Today, June. 1983. [16] Kuswartoyo, T. ´Pasokan Perumahan yang Terjangkau dan Hak atas Rumah yang Layak´ $IIRUGDEOH +RXVLQJ6XSSO\DQG WKH 5LJKWV RYHU'HFHQW+RXVLQJ´, Lokakarya Perumahan Yang terjangkau : Suatu kajian Ulang. Departemen Arsitektur ITB, Bandung, 12 Maret. 2005. [17] Morrow, M.J. ³Affordable Housing Policy : Integration of Land Use Tools and the Role of the State Growth Management´. Major Paper for Master of Urban and Regional Planning. Virgina Polytechnic Institute and State University. June, 2001. [18] Mulder, C.H.. ³Home-ownership and family formation´. Paper for Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America. 2005 [19] Priemus, H. ³Eueropean Policy and National Housing System´, ENHR Conference. Housing in Expanding Europe: theory, policy, participation and implementation, Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2-5 July (2006). [20] Rohe, W.M, and Stewart, L.S. ³Homeownership and Neighborhood Stability´. Housing Policy. Volume 7 Issue 1. Fannie Mae Foundation. (1996). Pp.37-81 [21] Roseland, M. ³Toward Sustainable Communities´. New Society PublishersGabriola Island BC, Canada. 1998. [22] Shen, L-Y, Ochoa, J. J, Shah, M.N, and. Zhang, X. ³The application of urban sustainability indicators e A comparison between various practices´. Habitat International 35 (2011) 17-29 2010 [23] Turner, J.F.C. ³Housing by People, Toward autonomy in building environments´. Marion Boyars, London, 1976. [24] van Schie, Els CM. ³Knowledge-based housing policy: The Dutch Example´, ENHR International Conference, Housing in Expanding Europe: theory, policy, participation and implementation, Ljubljana, Slovakia, 2-5 July. 2006. [25] Van Zandt, S. ³The Costs and Benefits of Home-ownership´. Center for Urban and Regional Studies. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2006. [26] Winston, N´Urban Regeneration for Sustainable Development: The Role of Sustainable Housing?´ European Planning Studies (2009) 17: 12, 1781-1796