Analysing Land Tenure Security of Urban Kampung in Jakarta
Andri Supriatna
Master of Science in Land Administration Bachelor in Geomatic Engineering
A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at
The University of Queensland in 2017
School of Earth and Environmental Sciences
Abstract
The growth of the world's urban population requires the attention of urban planners and policy- makers, particularly as it is mainly happening in the global south and is associated with the continued growth of slums. Many countries struggle to improve living conditions in slums.
The most common approach to improving slums worldwide has changed from non-recognition to recognition, including formalization. Numerous attempts to formalise slums have included land titling since it is assumed that titling may give adequate tenure security, and thereby protect the urban poor against forced eviction and the resultant economic effects (de Soto, 2000). Yet, this claim has been consistently criticised. Moreover, attempts to assess the actual impacts of tenure security have been limited, as the relationship between tenure security and its claimed impacts are complex. This is likely because tenure security is a matter of both perception and law (Payne et. al, 2009).
Given such considerations, this thesis attempts to understand what tenure security entails (especially concerning de facto or de jure tenure forms) and to assess the impacts of tenure security in a specific local context and local legal framework. This thesis aims to answer this main question: What is the relationship between the ‘causes’ of tenure security, the extent of tenure security itself, and the ‘effects’ of tenure security? This is seen from the perspective of the communities and local authorities. It contributes to the theoretical debate on the extent to which tenure security can be realised, the forms of land tenure that provide the greatest security, the impacts of increased tenure security (or its lack), and the (possible) reciprocal effects of tenure security. To understand tenure security, the thesis employs the continuum of land rights as a base of tenure spectrum found on the ground. It also gives policy recommendations about land tenure regularization in urban slums in a context of pro-poor land management and inclusive planning.
The thesis focused on the city of Jakarta, Indonesia, and examined two moderate-slum kampung in the inner city as case studies. It quantitatively and qualitatively investigated perceived tenure security by conducting surveys of the communities in addition to in-depth interviews with local authorities and key informants. The quantitative analysis employed Structural Equation Model-Partial Least Squares (SEM-PLS), logistic regression, and cross-tabulation.
The principal findings were that the two case study communities did not feel secure against forced eviction, especially those without a land title, and despite possessing full ownership, landowners with title did not necessarily feel totally secure from forced eviction. Yet, possession of land-related
i documents turns out to be the most prominent factor in generating a sense of being protected against forced eviction, particularly the possession of land titles and notary deeds as perceived by both communities and local authorities. The survey found that there is a range of tenure forms. The most prominent one is garapan (occupancy) rights, particularly, the statement letter of building ownership on State land and purchase (known as AJB/Oper Alih Kelurahan) which mostly predominates on occupied State land. This documentation creates a feeling of security against forced eviction, as it is acknowledged by the sub-district office. The burgeoning number of forced evictions seems to be the result of a different perspective by the local government on this current occupancy rights.
When it comes to the extent of perceived tenure security, the communities viewed it as the sense of being safer from forced eviction and having the possibility to inherit land and houses. These major concerns imply that they intend to sustain their family livelihoods in the current neighbourhoods. The well-publicised example of the forced eviction in Kampung Pulo, a non-case study kampung, seems to have influenced in the surveyed kampung; despite living there for decades, some of them were evicted in 2015.
Where there was perceived tenure security, the communities mostly invested in housing, gained access to basic infrastructure and services and gained access to credit. Yet, this is likely influenced by the intervention of concurrent local government actions with their respective programs such as housing improvement (Kampung Deret), footpath pavement improvement (MHT), and micro credit loans (PPMK). This perception leads to the fact that they feel more recognised, instead of specifically being safe from forced eviction. However, self-finance housing investment in fact reciprocally generated perceived tenure security as being safer from forced eviction.
Given the fact that land title is the greatest contributor to secure tenure as perceived by the communities and local government, an approach of land tenure regularization should consider an individual titiling as the long-term objective. Rather, improving tenure security through rights-based (indirect) formalization by providing legal assurance of the predominant occupancy right (garapan) should be implemented on an incremental basis, along with a guarantee (declaration) by local government not to undertake forced eviction. This is done on the basis of the local continuum of land rights through the provision of deeds by sub-district offices or notary, in form of (enhanced) statement letter of building ownership on State land whilst giving time for the residents to improve their livelihood. In the context of the long-term titling, the residents are ultimately to be granted provisional individual titles which confine them from selling-out the new title land to ensure their existence on the current location.
i ii
Declaration by Author
This thesis is composed of my original work, and contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference has been made in the text. I have clearly stated the contribution by others to jointly-authored works that I have included in my thesis.
I have clearly stated the contribution of others to my thesis as a whole, including statistical assistance, survey design, data analysis, significant technical procedures, professional editorial advice, financial support and any other original research work used or reported in my thesis. The content of my thesis is the result of work I have carried out since the commencement of my higher degree by research candidature and does not include a substantial part of work that has been submitted to qualify for the award of any other degree or diploma in any university or other tertiary institution. I have clearly stated which parts of my thesis, if any, have been submitted to qualify for another award.
I acknowledge that an electronic copy of my thesis must be lodged with the University Library and, subject to the policy and procedures of The University of Queensland, the thesis be made available for research and study in accordance with the Copyright Act 1968 unless a period of embargo has been approved by the Dean of the Graduate School.
I acknowledge that copyright of all material contained in my thesis resides with the copyright holder(s) of that material. Where appropriate I have obtained copyright permission from the copyright holder to reproduce material in this thesis and have sought permission from co-authors for any jointly authored works included in the thesis.
iiii
Publications during candidature
No publications
Publications included in this thesis
No publications included
Contributions by others to the thesis
Dr. Sonia Roitman and Associate Professor John Minnery supervised my research work; Associate Professor Patrick Moss and Associate Professor Greg Brown made critical comments on the proposal and the analysis section.
Statement of parts of the thesis submitted to qualify for the award of another degree
None.
Research Involving Human or Animal Subjects
This research involves human subjects and has obtained ethics approval letter (GPEM number 20150007) signed by Dr. Bradd Witt. A copy of the letter is attached in Appendix H.
iv Acknowledgements
First of all, I am very grateful to Allah for the good health and well-being to complete this thesis. I would like to highly thank Dr. Sonia Roitman and Associate Professor John Minnery for their continuous constructive supports and efforts in guiding me through all these years. I also thank to Dr. John Abbott who proofread the draft thesis on grammar, punctuation, English expression, and some content suggestions. My sincere gratitude is also given to all professional staff in the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences (SEES) for their support during my study. My special thanks to the institution where I work, namely the Indonesian Ministry of Land and Spatial Planning, for giving me an opportunity and full support to study for a PhD in Australia. I wish you all the best in the future. May Allah give his more blessings. Last but not least, I thank to my family for their unconditional love supporting my study. Especially my mom and my wife, Fanidya, who would be there giving full support to my study completion.
v Financial support
This research was supported by SPIRIT Scholarship (Scholarship Program for the Reforming Institution) organised by BAPPENAS and also by School of Earth and Environmental Sciences (SEES) for the fieldwork.
vi i
Keywords
Land tenure, tenure security, urban kampung, Jakarta, de jure, de facto
Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classifications (ANZSRC)
ANZSRC code: 120507, Urban Analysis and Development, 60%
ANZSRC code: 160514, Urban Policy, 40%
Fields of Research (FoR) Classification
FoR code: 1205, Urban and Regional Planning, 60%
FoR code: 1605, Policy and Administration, 40%
vii
Table of Contents
Abstract ...... i Declaration by Author...... iii Acknowledgements...... v Keywords...... vii Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………………………..…..viii List of Figures...... xi List of Tables ...... xiii List of abbreviations and non-English terms…………………………….…………………………....xv CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION………………...... 1 1.1 Problem statement ...... 3 1.2 Research questions ...... 4 1.3 Significance of the research ...... 5 1.4 Thesis structure ...... 5 CHAPTER 2: PLANNING AND INFORMALITY-INFORMAL SETTLEMENT ...... 7 2.1 Perspective of planning on informality ...... 7 2.2 Understanding informal settlements and slums ...... 10 2.3 Informal settlement in Indonesia: kampung ...... 14 2.4 Summary ...... 17 CHAPTER 3: LAND TENURE SECURITY IN INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS ...... 19 3.1 Understanding land tenure ...... 19 3.2 Land tenure security issues ...... 22 3.3 Historical background of land tenure arrangement in Indonesia ...... 25 3.4 Land Tenure security issue: the case of urban kampung, in Jakarta ...... 29 3.5 Summary ...... 32 CHAPTER 4: FORMS OF LAND TENURE AND TENURE SECURITY: THE DEBATE ...... 34 4.1 The theoretical debate: de facto and de jure land tenure ...... 34 4.2 Impacts of de facto (rights) and de jure (title) tenure ...... 36 4.3 Approaches to land tenure regularization ...... 43 4.4 Summary ...... 47 CHAPTER 5: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...... 49 5.1 Selection of case study areas ...... 49 5.2 Data collection methods ...... 51 5.3 Questionnaire and Interview Guide ...... 54 5.4 Mixed analysis methods: quantitative and qualitative ...... 56 5.5 Scoping limitations ...... 60 5.6 Summary ...... 61 ii vxviiiiii
CHAPTER 6: CASE STUDY AREAS…………… ...... 63 6.1 Case study A: Menteng Dalam ...... 63 6.1.1 Overview of Menteng Dalam ...... 64 6.1.2 Profile of moderate slum RW 13 ...... 66 6.2 Case study B: Tanah Tinggi ...... 69 6.2.1 Overview of Tanah Tinggi ...... 69 6.2.2 Profile of moderate slum RW 04 ...... 71 6.3 Summary ...... 74 CHAPTER 7: INVESTIGATING THE CAUSES OF THE COMMUNITIES’ PERCEIVED TENURE SECURITY………………… .... …………………………………………..75 7.1 Land-related documents ...... 76 7.1.1 Perceived tenure security by possession of land-related documents……………..….. 76 7.1.2 A local continuum of land rights…………………………………………………...... 86 7.2 Duration of occupation ...... 90 7.3 Social cohesion ...... 92 7.4 Summary ...... 95 CHAPTER 8: EXAMINING THE EXTENT OF THE COMMUNITIES’ PERCEIVED TENURE SECURITY……………………………………………………………...... 97 8.1 Protection against forced eviction ...... 98 8.2 Possibility to sell land ...... 106 8.3 Ability to inherit land ...... 108 8.4 Summary ...... 109 CHAPTER 9: ESTIMATING THE EFFECTS OF THE COMMUNITIES’ PERCEIVED TENURE SECURITY……………………………………………………………..... 113 9.1 Housing investment ...... 114 9.2 Provision of basic infrastructure and services ...... 122 9.3 Access to credit ...... 128 9.4 Social disruption ...... 132 9.5 Cost-associated burden ...... 135 9.6 Summary ...... 138 CHAPTER 10: MODELLING THE COMMUNITIES’ PERCEIVED TENURE SECURITY ...... 143 10.1 The overall relationship between the causes and the extent of tenure security ...... 143 10.1.1 Case study A: Menteng Dalam ...... 144 10.1.2 Case study B: Tanah Tinggi ...... 148 10.1.3 Combined case study areas: Menteng Dalam and Tanah Tinggi ...... 150 10.2 The relationship between the causes and the extent of tenure security: by groups ...... 153 10.2.1 Case study A: Menteng Dalam ...... 154 10.2.2 Case study B: Tanah Tinggi ...... 160
iii xviiixi
10.3 Summary ...... 165 CHAPTER 11: CONCLUSIONS, POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH ...... 171 11.1 Conclusions ...... 171 11.1.1 What is the current condition of land tenure security in urban kampung in Jakarta?...... 172 11.1.2 How do both urban kampung dwellers and public authorities perceive land tenure security?……………………….. …………………………………… .. 173 11.1.3 What are (a) the ‘causes’ and (b) ‘effects’ of tenure security in urban kampung in Jakarta?………………………………………………… ...... …176 11.1.4 To what extent, do the ‘effects’ of tenure security act reciprocally to further improve tenure security? ...... 184 11.2 Policy Recommendations ...... 185 11.3 Further Research...... 191 REFERENCES……………………………………… ...... 192 APPENDICES……………………………………...... 204 APPENDIX A: Survey Questionnaire…………… ...... 204 APPENDIX B: Interview Guides…………… ...... 212 APPENDIX C: SEM-PLS report of Menteng Dalam ...... 219 APPENDIX D: SEM-PLS report of Tanah Tinggi ...... 221 APPENDIX E: SEM-PLS report of Menteng Dalam and Tanah Tinggi (Combined) ...... 224 APPENDIX F: Logistic Regression Output of Predicted Effects of Tenure Security ...... 227 APPENDIX G: Structures of nodes (interview data analysis)………...... 229 APPENDIX H: Ethics approval letter………...... 230
ivx xviii
List of Figures
Figure 2-1: A model of Indonesian city structure…………………………………………………….. 17 Figure 3-1: A Continuum of Land Rights………………………………………………………...... 20 Figure 3-2: Land tenure arrangement during and post Dutch colonial period…………………...... 27 Figure 4-1: Conceptual framework ……………………………………………...... 43 Figure 4-2: Tenure regularization approaches…………………………………………………...... 44 Figure 5-1: Workflow of research methodologies……………………………………………… ...... 52 Figure 5-2: Surveyed proportion of land tenure categories……………………………………… ...... 54 Figure 5-3: SEM General Path Model………………………………………………………….……. 58 Figure 5-4: Assessment Steps of SEM-PLS results……………………………………………… ...... 59 Figure 6-1: Location of case study areas in Jakarta jurisdiction map……………………………… ... 63 Figure 6-2: Map of Menteng Dalam Sub-district……………………………………………………. 64 Figure 6-3: Zoning plan of Menteng Dalam Sub-district and sub-zone of RW 13……………...... 65 Figure 6-4: The strategic location of RW 13……………………………………………………… ..... 66 Figure 6-5: Slum Neighbourhood Map in Tebet District………………………………...... 66 Figure 6-6: Neighbourhood RW 13 (Menteng Dalam)………………………………………...... 67 Figure 6-7: Land status map and land value zoning of RW 13……..….………………………...... 68 Figure 6-8: Map of Tanah Tinggi Sub-district…………………………………………………...... 69 Figure 6-9: Zoning plan of Tanah Tinggi Sub-district and sub-zone of RW 04…...…...... 70 Figure 6-10: The overcrowded neighbourhood of RW 04…………………………………………… 71 Figure 6-11: Slum Neighbourhood Map in Johar Baru Distric………………………………… ...... 72 Figure 6-12: Neighbourhood RW 04 (Tanah Tinggi)…..……………………………..………… ...... 72 Figure 6-13: Land status map and land value zoning of RW 04………………………………… …...74 Figure 7-1: Composition of surveyed land tenure categories in Menteng Dalam…………………… 77 Figure 7-2: Composition of surveyed land tenure categories in Tanah Tinggi………………………. 78 Figure 7-3: Composition of landowners with land title documents in Menteng Dalam………… ...... 79 Figure 7-4: Composition of landowners with land title documents in Tanah Tinggi…………… ...... 79 Figure 7-5: Composition of landowners with non-title documents in Menteng Dalam………… ...... 81 Figure 7-6: Composition of landowners with non-title documents in Tanah Tinggi…………… ...... 81 Figure 7-7: Composition of non-landowners documents in Menteng Dalam……………………… ...... 83
Figure 7-8: Composition of non-landowners documents in Tanah Tinggi…………………………...... 83 Figure 7-9: A local continuum of land rights (documents) in two case study areas (Communities’ perspectives)………………………….…………………………...... 89
v xviixii
Figure 7-10: A local continuum of land rights (documents) in two case study areas (Land law experts’ perspectives)………………………………………………………… 89 Figure 7-11: Priority scale of causes of tenure security in Menteng Dalam………………………… . 95 Figure 7-12: Priority scale of causes of tenure security in Tanah Tinggi……………………...... 96 Figure 8-1: Priority scale of the extent of perceived tenure security in Menteng Dalam…...... 110 Figure 8-2: Priority scale of the extent of perceived tenure security in Tanah Tinggi……………… 111 Figure 9-1: Priority scale of the effects of tenure security in Menteng Dalam………………...... 138 Figure 9-2: Priority scale of the effects of tenure security in Tanah Tinggi………………… ...... 139 Figure 10-1: The output of the general path model analysis (first bootstrapping)
using SEM-PLS in Menteng Dalam………………………………………………… .... 145 Figure 10-2: The corrected general path model (second bootstrapping) using SEM-PLS in Menteng Dalam …………………………………………………………… ...... 146 Figure 10-3: The output of the general path model analysis (first bootstrapping)
using SEM-PLS in Tanah Tinggi ………….…………………………..…………...... 148 Figure 10-4: The corrected general path model (second bootstrapping) using SEM-PLS in Tanah Tinggi………………………………………………………………..…… ...... 149 Figure 10-5: The path model analysis using SEM-PLS in both casestudy areas……………… ...... 150 Figure 10-6: The corrected general path model (third bootstrapping) using SEM-PLS MGA in Menteng Dalam…………………………………………………………...... 154 Figure 10-7: The path model of group 1 using SEM-PLS MGA in Menteng Dalam…………… .... 155 Figure 10-8: The path model of group 2 using SEM-PLS MGA in Menteng Dalam…………… .... 156 Figure 10-9: The path model of group 3 using SEM-PLS MGA in Menteng Dalam…………… .... 159 Figure 10-10: The corrected general path model (third bootstrapping) using SEM-PLS MGA in Tanah Tinggi…………………………………………………………………… ...... 160 Figure 10-11: The path model of group 1 using SEM-PLS MGA in Tanah Tinggi…………...... 161 Figure 10-12: The path model of group 2 using SEM-PLS MGA in Tanah Tinggi………………. .. 163 Figure 10-13: The path model of group 3 using SEM-PLS MGA in Tanah Tinggi………………. .. 164
vi xviixiii
List of Tables
Table 7-1: Perceived tenure security by land-related documents against land tenure
categories (groups) in Menteng Dalam and Tanah Tinggi ………………………...... 84 Table 7-2: Perceived tenure security by duration of occupation against land tenure
categories (groups) in Menteng Dalam and Tanah Tinggi ………………………………. . 91 Table 7-3: Perceived tenure security by social cohesion against land tenure categories
(groups) in Menteng Dalam and Tanah Tinggi……………………………..……………. . 94 Table 8-1: Reasons for legitimacy of dwellings…………………………………………….100 Table 8-2: Reasons for the (possible) future forced eviction………………………………. 102 Table 8-3: The sense of protection against forced eviction by land tenure categories
in Menteng Dalam and Tanah Tinggi ……………………………………………...... 103 Table 8-4: The sense of possibility to sell land by land tenure categories in Menteng Dalam
and Tanah Tinggi.…………….……………………………………………………… ...... 107 Table 8-5: The sense of ability to inherit land by land tenure categories in Menteng Dalam
and Tanah Tinggi …………………………………………………………………...... 108 Table 9-1: The possibilty of housing investment by the extent of perceived tenure security
in Menteng Dalam and Tanah Tinggi …………………………………………………. .. 115 Table 9-2: The possibility of housing investment by the extent of perceived tenure security
in Menteng Dalam (logistic regression)…… ……………………………………… ...... 118 Table 9-3: The possibility of housing investment by the extent of perceived tenure security
in Tanah Tinggi (logistic regression)………………………………………………...... 119 Table 9-4: The reciprocal relationship between housing investment and protection against
forced eviction in Menteng Dalam ………………………………………………… ...... 121 Table 9-5: The reciprocal relationship between housing investment and protection against
forced eviction in Tanah Tinggi …………………………………………………… ...... 121 Table 9-6: The possibility of provision of basic infrastructure and services by the extent
of perceived tenure security in Menteng Dalam and Tanah Tinggi ……………...... 123 Table 9-7: The possibility of provision of basic infrastructure and services by the extent
of perceived tenure security in Menteng Dalam (logistic regression)……………… ...... 125 Table 9-8: The possibility of provision of basic infrastru ctures and services by the extent of perceived tenure security in Tanah Tinggi (logistic regression)………………… ...... 126 vii xviixiiii
Table 9-9: The reciprocal relationship between provision of basic infrastructure and
Services, and protection against forced eviction in Menteng Dalam ………...... 127 Table 9-10: The reciprocal relationship between provision of basic infrastructure and
services against forced eviction in Tanah Tinggi …………………………..……… ...... 128 Table 9-11: The possibility of access to credit extent of perceived tenure security in
Menteng Dalam and Tanah Tinggi………………………..………………………...... 129 Table 9-12: The possibility of access to credit by the extent of perceived tenure security
in Menteng Dalam (logistic regression)……………………………………………… .... 131 Table 9-13: The possibility of access to credit by the extent of perceived tenure security
in Tanah Tinggi (logistic regression output)…………………………………...... 132 Table 9-14: The possibility of social disruption extent of perceived tenure security in
Menteng Dalam and Tanah Tinggi ………………………………………………… ...... 133 Table 9-15: The possibility of social disruption by the extent of perceived tenure security
in Menteng Dalam (logistic regression)………………………………………...... 134 Table 9-16: The possibility of social disruption by the extent of perceived tenure security
in Tanah Tinggi (logistic regression output)…………………………………...... 134 Table 9-17: The possibility of cost-associated burden by the extent of perceived tenure
security in Menteng Dalam and Tanah Tinggi ………………………………………. .... 136 Table 9-18: The possibility of cost-associated burden by the extent of perceived tenure
security in Menteng Dalam (logistic regression)……………………………………...... 137 Table 9-19: The possibility of cost-associated burden by the extent of perceived tenure security in Tanah Tinggi (logistic regression output)………………………..……… ..... 138 Table 10-1: A combined perceived tenure security against causes of tenure security in
Menteng Dalam and Tanah Tinggi ………………………………………..……… ...... 151 Table 10-2: A combined perceived tenure security against the extent of tenure security in
Menteng Dalam and Tanah Tinggi …………………………………………………...... 152 Table 10-3: Comparison of perceived tenure security by land tenure categories in
both locations (SEM-PLS and SEM-PLS MGA)…………………… ………… ...... 166 Table 10-4: Comparison of ‘causes’ of tenure security and degrees of perceived tenure security
in both locations (combined analysis: SEM-PLS and cross tabulation)…………...... 168
xivviii xviii
List of abbreviations and non-English terms
Adat Land tribal rights BAL Basic Agrarian Law BAPPENAS Ministry of National Development Planning BKM Association for community empowerment BPHTB Tax of land and building rights BPN Ministry of Agrarian and Spatial Planning/National Land Agency BPS Statistics Bureau (Badan Pusat Statistik) Domein land State land Eigendom Rights of ownership for Dutch people under Dutch Law Eigendom particuliere Rights of ownership for European people under Dutch civil code FIG Fédération Internationale des Géomètres (Federation of International Surveyors) Garapan Derives from Javanese language translated as ‘use’ or ‘exploit’ or ‘occupation’ Girik Land tax receipt (tax letter rights) during the Dutch colonization issued by village/sub-district office Hak milik adat Traditional (tribal) ownership right Hak tanah usaha Commercial-use right Hak tanah kongsi Native right of commercial-use HGB Right of building (hak guna bangunan) HGU Right of cultivation (hak guna usaha) HM Right of ownership (hak milik) HP Right of use (hak pakai) HPL Right of management (hak pengelolaan) IMB Building permit Kampung Traditional Indonesian communities (neighbourhood) forming a part of a village (rural area) or city (urban area). In this thesis, it is used in both singular and plural meaning. KJK Cooperative finance service MHT Muhammad Husni Thamrin program of local government for foothpath pavement NJOP Sale value of properties based on property tax
ix xviixvi
PBB Land and house (property) tax PPMK Sub-district program of community empowerment PRONA National land registration program funded by the Central Government RDTR Detailed zoning plan RT (Rukun Tetangga) Household association RW (Rukun Warga) Neighborhood association RW Kumuh Slum neighborhood Toko Home-based business selling daily needs (larger than warung) UNCHS United Nations Centre for Human Settlements UN-HABITAT United Nations Human Settlement Programme Verponding Residential tax Warung Home-based business selling daily needs Waqf Religious Islamic use of land
x xviixvii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Increasing urban growth and population in the global south are central challenges for planning (Watson, 2009). This growth of urban population has led to informal urban development (UN- HABITAT, 2009b); often associated with slums (UN-HABITAT, 2003). Informality associated with poor quality settlement is considered as a mode of urbanization (Roy, 2005). Yet, the planning systems of the global south have been inadequate and (probably) inappropriate in addressing this issue (Watson, 2009). Rethinking of planning and urban management is required to deal with slums and their growth. In response to this, a vision of ‘cities for all’ arises to produce just, safe, healthy, accessible, affordable, resilient and sustainable cities and human settlements (UN-HABITAT, 2016c, p.3). The vision is then linked to the principle of ‘leave no one behind’ to provide safe and equal access for all to physical and social infrastructure and basic services and, more importantly, adequate and affordable housing (UN-HABITAT, 2016c, p.5). To realise the notions, ‘right to the city’ is then manifested in the form of provision of secure tenure as one aspect of a ’right to the city’ (UN-HABITAT, 2004; UN-HABITAT, 2016c).
A call for a pro-poor and inclusive approach in planning is proposed to fundamentally address this issue (Tibaijuka, 2006). Aligned with this approach, UN-HABITAT (2007a) proposes a concept of pro-poor land management. It proposes that a pro-poor land policy should treat all residents including the poor equally in respect to access to land and services, thus making them visible as legal citizens (UN-HABITAT, 2004). These concepts converge on the notion of the ‘right to the city’ of urban poor, in which provision of secure tenure is considered to be an important step in legitimising the urban poor as legal residents (UN-HABITAT, 2004).
Many countries around the world have seen the growth of slums, as some forms of informal settlements are called. UN-HABITAT (2004) noted that up to 30 per cent of the world’s population and half of the urban population in the global south live in slums. Some 31 per cent of the slum populations in the global south are in South-eastern Asia (UN-HABITAT, 2012) but most global south countries face this issue. Slums have become a major issue to tackle. Global responses have evolved over time from non-recognition, and even repression, to tolerance (Durand-Lasserve, 2006a). This was indicated in the UN-Habitat Agenda (UN-HABITAT, 2003), with its Target 11 of Goal 7 of the Millennium Development Goals: “By 2020, to have achieved a significant improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers”. Several countries, for instance, China, India, and Indonesia, have committed to reduce the number of slum dwellers in their cities (UN, 2013). Despite great progress in improving slums (a decrease from 39 per cent to 30 per cent
1 of urban dwellers of slums in the global south between 2000 and 2014), the numbers continue to grow (UN, 2015). This may be added up by the growth of urban population in the region which is expected to grow double by 2030 (UN-HABITAT, 2016a). The 2014 UN MDG Report suggests that more efforts to improve the lives of the urban poor and to reverse the trend of increasing number of slum dwellers are needed (UN-ESCAP and UN-HABITAT, 2015). The urban agenda has been renewed with the Sustainable Development Goal 11 (SDG 11): “Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable” (UN-HABITAT, 2015a, p.14). Target 11.1 for this goal states: “By 2030, ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing and basic services and upgrade slums” (UN-HABITAT, 2015a, p.21). This links to the New Urban Agenda in that in-situ or incremental slum upgrading is proposed to tackle tenure security issues in relation to decent housing provision and livelihood of the urban poor (UN-HABITAT, 2015b).
Global response, or attention, has focused on how to alleviate, and even prevent the increase of the number of slums in the future. Numerous attempts have been undertaken by domestic and international agencies to improve the living conditions of slum dwellers. Yet, conventional attempts comprising in-situ upgrading, relocation, and provision of low cost serviced plots for housing remain unsatisfactory (Durand-Lasserve, 2006b). Thus, prior to any approaches to tackle them, it is necessary to identify what seem to be the causes of the persistence and likely growth of slums.
Slums have become one of central issues of the world-wide urban phenomenon. Slums are referred to by a diverse range of terms, definitions, and conditions. One of the most generally accepted definitions is given by UN-HABITAT (2003, p. 8), where a slum is ‘a heavily populated urban area characterised by substandard housing and squalor’. UN-HABITAT (2003) further identifies five indicators of slums: insecure land tenure, low structural quality or durability of dwellings, lack of access to safe water and access to sanitation, as well as overcrowding; these deprivations have been currently ratified by UN-HABITAT (2016b) as the key indicators of slums. So what causes slums to develop and grow? Lack of planning or preparation for the urban growth, especially in terms of affordable housing is one influence (UN-HABITAT, 2003). UN-HABITAT (2007b) also identified other causes for the creation of slums: rapid rural-to-urban migration, increasing urban poverty and inequality, and insecure land tenure. Additionally, land and housing mismanagement, by excluding access for the poor, leads to lack of affordable housing, which also contributes to slum formation (Boonyabancha, 2009). It is clear from the international literature that slums are complex urban phenomena and that many factors are seen to create or lead to slums. Insecure tenure is one of these factors. UN-HABITAT (2003) underlined that insecure tenure refers to the illegality of land ownership and/or physical structures, leading to the insecurity or uncertainty of residency status.
2
Although the importance of secure tenure has been acknowledged, there is still considerable debate over the extent to which it can be realised and what tenure forms may generate adequate tenure security. Efforts to assess the impact of secure tenure have been unsuccessful (Durand-Lasserve & Royston, 2002), as the relationship between tenure security and its impacts is complex. Having realised the problem of insecure tenure, global attention has narrowed down to provision of 'secure tenure' (however this is defined), which is widely considered as the foundation of adequate shelter and sustainable livelihoods (Durand-Lasserve & Royston, 2002) and thus as a way of dealing with, or reducing, slums.
This thesis focuses on Jakarta, Indonesia, and employs the Bahasa Indonesia term, kampung, in the urban context, to represent informal settlements, sometimes referred to as slums. The thesis adopts the definition by UN-HABITAT (2003; 2008a) that a slum is a form of informal settlement lacking tenure security, water access, sanitation, durability of dwellings, and mostly overcrowded. The thesis focuses on kampung in urban areas, not the rural kampung with slum characteristics. The urban kampung mostly has insecure tenure, substandard housing, small plots and forms densely populated areas. In urban settings, the Indonesian term kampung specifically refers to an informal settlement, and is applied to a wide range of environments while, in rural settings, it has a more explicit meaning of village (Leaf, 1991).
1.1 Problem statement
Whilst there is general agreement on the magnitude of the problem of slums in the global south and the role of insecure tenure in the formation of slums, there is considerable debate in the literature about what is meant by tenure security and thus of its impacts. The debate highlights two forms of land tenure: de facto (rights-based or land occupancy) and de jure (title-based or land ownership). UN- HABITAT (2008b) asserts that secure tenure (however defined) is essential to realise human rights, but also to reduce poverty through realizing adequate housing and sustainable livelihoods, as it results in protection against eviction (Reerink & van Gelder, 2010). It is suggested that secure tenure encourages people to invest in improved dwellings and the land itself, and enables people to access public services and sources of credit (UN-HABITAT, 2008a). On one side of the debate about land tenure is the claim that recognition by the community and the neighbourhood is more important in ensuring tenure security than recognition by local authorities (Durand- Lasserve & Royston, 2002). On the other side, De Soto (2000) argues that legal or formal tenure gives legal protection especially against forced eviction, and even supports local economic activities.
However, the debate illustrates that despite the recognition and acknowledgement of the importance of tenure security itself, particularly for housing adequacy and support for a sustainable livelihood,
3 there is no agreement on what form of land tenure gives the strongest protection against eviction. In other words, what tenure security entails has been debatable (van Gelder, 2010); either de facto or de jure tenure. The question remains on what form of land tenure provides the greatest security and can best lead to such impacts as housing investment, access to credit and services as claimed by de Soto (2000) or self-employment, social benefits and informal housing improvements as argued by Payne (2002). Moreover, efforts to assess the impact of insecure tenure have not been successful (Durand-Lasserve & Royston, 2002). This is probably because the relationship between tenure insecurity and its impacts is very complex and problematic. Tenure security is not only a matter of legality, but also of perception (Payne et. al, 2009). This will be further discussed in Section 3.2.
1.2 Research questions
Secure tenure is considered fundamental for realizing housing adequacy and sustainable livelihoods but what tenure security entails (especially whether it is in a de facto or de jure tenure form), is still debated. This thesis attempts to explore the factors generating tenure security (the ‘causes’) and the potential impacts resulting from tenure security (the ‘effects’). Both ‘causes’ and ‘effects’ are adopted from the literature debate. The thesis analyses whether such factors apply in the case of urban kampung in Jakarta and identifies other prominent factors of livelihoods in place. Also, in respect to the ‘effects’, the thesis attempts to investigate whether the effects in turn reciprocally affect tenure security; the ‘effects’ (particularly, for example, housing improvement/investment, provision of basic infrastructure and services, access to credit) may turn into the ‘causes’ generating even greater tenure security. This is a relationship that is not discussed in the literature but has been hypothesised as a possibility in this research. The ‘causes’ are further elaborated in Section 3.2, and the ‘effects’ in Section 4.2.
The overall question that this thesis seeks to answer is: “What is the relationship between the ‘causes’ of tenure security, the extent of tenure security itself, and the ‘effects’ of tenure security?” To answer the main question, five sub-questions have been developed. These are:
1. What is the current condition of land tenure security in urban kampung in Jakarta? 2. How do both urban kampung dwellers and public authorities perceive land tenure security? 3. What are: (a) the ‘causes’ and (b) ‘effects’ of tenure security in urban kampung in Jakarta? 4. To what extent, do the ‘effects’ of tenure security act reciprocally to further improve tenure security? 5. What policy recommendations can be made for more secure tenure for urban kampung dwellers?
4
1.3 Significance of the research
In the realization of ‘the right to the city’ of the urban poor, provision of secure tenure is an important step in legitimizing the urban poor as legal residents (UN-HABITAT, 2004, p.3). But as noted there is debate about what ‘secure tenure’ actually entails. As in the debate, land title has been justified to give protection against eviction and thereby leading to housing investment, access to credit and services (de Soto, 2000). However, such assumptions have been critisised and need to be ground-proven. The main counter argument is that tenure security is not only a matter of legal rights but also that of perception (Payne et. al, 2009). The differences between these two conceptions are critical: they have powerful implications for the creation of policies to improve tenure security for those living in slums. Additionally, any attempts to provide secure tenure should be built to suit the typical local context of land tenure forms (Durand-Lasserve, 2006a) for this will have a strong impact on the outcomes, and on what might be desirable (Durand-Lasserve & Selod, 2009).
Given such considerations, knowing the scarcity of studies of tenure insecurity (Nakamura, 2017; Marx et al, 2013; Payne et al, 2009), the thesis attempts to contribute to the theoretical debate on what tenure security entails, especially on the de facto or de jure tenure aspects, by providing empirical quantitative and qualitative evidence of perceived tenure security by the kampung dwellers in Jakarta and the forms of tenure and their implications as understood by local authorities, on the basis of a local context and regulatory framework. The thesis also provides a theoretical contribution on a possibility of a reciprocal relationship between the impacts of tenure security and the extent and form of tenure security itself. It also gives policy recommendations on land tenure regularization; especially on provision of secure tenure as one of the important steps to realise ‘the right to the city’ of the urban poor, as legal residents, in the context of pro-poor planning and land management (UN-HABITAT, 2004, p.3). This also includes bringing forward the significance of tenure status in identifying slums in the local context or definition. The provision of secure tenure will be based on a local continuum of land rights developed in this thesis. The thesis not only gives potential contribution to theory and theoretical debate on tenure security, but also has significant implications for practice including project design. The recommendation, if adopted, can provide a strong input into appropriate project design.
1.4 Thesis structure
This thesis consists of eleven chapters. This first chapter, the Introduction, elaborates the research problem, and research questions as well as the significance of the research.
Chapter Two is based on the literature review and elaborates the current debates about planning and informality, particularly informal settlement. This Chapter describes the perspective of planning and
5 land management on informality, dealing with the specific issue of land tenure security in informal settlements: this includes the definition of informal settlements and slums. The aim is to comprehend the criteria or characteristics used to define informal settlements and slums referring particularly to Jakarta, Indonesia.
Chapter Three explores the central issue of land tenure security. This chapter elaborates the general definition of land tenure in an international context and its driving factors (called here the ‘cause’ criteria) then relates this to urban kampung in Jakarta.
Chapter Four elaborates a fundamental theoretical debate concerning tenure security, derived from the difference between de facto (rights-based) and de jure (title-based) tenure forms, and then explores the arguments proposed on both sides regarding housing development and sustainable livelihoods. This chapter also discusses the land tenure regularization approach based on both land tenure forms.
Chapter Five elaborates the research methodologies used, where both quantitative and qualitative methods were used. This chapter also elaborates the reasons for choosing a case study approach, the criteria for selection of the case study areas and the content of the questionnaires and interview guide in relation to the tenure security issue in this local context.
Chapter Six describes the case study areas, which cover two urban kampung in Jakarta with their characteristics and tenure security issues.
Chapter Seven contains the quantitative and qualitative analysis of the ‘causes’ of tenure security. It also includes a local continuum of land rights derived from the existing land-related documents and tenure forms.
Chapter Eight analyses quantitatively and qualitatively the extent of tenure security perceived by the community and local authorities in relation to the ‘causes’ of tenure security in the two case study areas.
Chapter Nine elaborates the analysis of the ‘effects’ of tenure security generated by the extent of tenure security using a logistic regression method. The analysis concentrates on the two case study areas.
Chapter Ten builds a model of the communities’ perception of their tenure security using Structural Equation Model-Partial Least Squares (SEM-PLS) and also its derivative method, SEM-PLS MGA (Multi Group Analysis) that analyses this perception on the basis of land tenure categories (groups).
Finally, Chapter Eleven comprises conclusions, policy recommendations, and recommendations for future research.
6
CHAPTER 2: PLANNING AND INFORMALITY-INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS
This chapter aims to review international discussions on planning perspectives on informal settlements and land tenure security. It particularly concentrates on the important debate related to a rights-based approach and a title-based approach. The thesis focuses on land tenure insecurity, which is one of the core issues in informal development, and its general exclusion in global planning systems. The chapter consists of four sections. Section 2.1 describes the perspective of planning on informality (informal settlement). Section 2.2 attempts to understand informal settlements and slums, including the diverse settlement types, and their names as well as their characteristics. Section 2.3 concentrates on informal settlements in Indonesia, called kampung, with its typical characteristics notably in Jakarta, providing a justification on the use of term kampung, as a representation of informal urban settlement (slums). The definition and characteristics of informal settlement are important to recognise as they may consequently influence the form and implications for local authorities. Finally, Section 2.4 presents a summary of the planning perspective on informal settlement, particularly related to insecure land tenure.
2.1 Perspective of planning on informality
Global discussion on planning in the global south has focused on the future of cities with the problem of increasing growth of population living in cities. This growth of urban population, especially in the global south, may lead to informal urban development (UN-HABITAT, 2009b); in particular informality in terms of land and property (informal settlement) which will be further discussed in Section 2.2. Many survival efforts by the urban poor intend to cater for their shelter needs. At the same time, the planning systems have not really considered this issue. A paradox of the city context is that the urban population growth centralises in the global south while the practice of city planning is adopted from the global north (Roy, 2005). The inherited planning systems, adopted from global north, of global south countries remains unchanged although the context of its operation has changed significantly (Watson, 2009). Yet, informality, particularly informal settlement, has never been a main issue that the planning systems have addressed well. In effect, a call for a pro-poor and inclusive approach in planning is proposed to fundamentally address this issue (Tibaijuka, 2006). A pro-poor approach should treat all residents, including the poor, equally in respect to access to land and services (UN-HABITAT, 2007a). In addition, urban human settlements require a more inclusive approach to planning and land management (UN-HABITAT, 2004).
7
In a similar vein, urban land policy has a strong association with planning, especially on the allocation, utilisation and control of urban land to achieve the efficiency and the equity of the land market (Archer, 1990). Urban land policy regulates the use of land, land ownership and prices, and land taxation (Mattingly, 1993). However, in the global south, the urban land development policy remains confronted by several issues: the inappropriate use of land resources; inflexible land regulatory and legal frameworks; poorly coordinated land management institutions; inappropriate land pricing and taxation; inadequate land information; the lack of secure tenure; and inadequate infrastructure provision (Farvacque and McAuslan, 1992; McAuslan, 2000; Sivam, 2002). Thus, as Rakodi (1996) argues, the state should intervene in urban land development policy including land tenure (property rights), land-use planning and regulations, land taxation, provision and development of infrastructure, and public sector engagement in land supply and land development. Similarly, intervention in urban land policy is also aimed to cope with the socio-economic consequences of land speculation and inappropriate development, including the decreasing affordability of land for urban low-cost housing (Koppel, 1993). Overall, Doebele (1987) says that the key issue in urban land development policy in the global south is how to provide access to land for low-income groups and to achieve more effective use of urban land.
Rethinking of planning in addressing the issue of urban informality in the global south has emerged as an important issue. Planners perceive informality as ‘unplannable’- a state of exception from the formal order of urbanization (Roy, 2005, p.147). Roy further claimed that the concept of a state of exception implies that informality is the product of the state. Roy (2009) underlined that urban informality is described as areas where the purpose, use and ownership of land are indefinite according to any regulation or law. In this regard, “urban informality is reinforced as a consequence of the way formal State top-down planning system are constructed, developed and applied” (Jones, 2016b, p.32) – an adverse impact of planning’s desire for orderly and well-structured cities.
The planning issue in the global south might be illustrated as ’the governing’ rationality (the state) resisting changing ‘the survival’ rationality (the urban poor) that results in ‘conflict of rationalities’ (Watson, 2009, p.2261). The issue is not simply the reluctance or ignorance of the state to use its power for management of territory and population, but there seems to be continuation and manipulation of planning land rights and institutions (Scott, 1998). This might appear to be a ‘conflict of interest’ underpinning a ‘conflict of rationalities’ as Watson (2009, p.2268) underlined, which hinders the State from changing the situation of informality. The conflict occurs between the state and the market, and the survival efforts of the poor in that the impartial use of urban space for property market and industry give little benefit to the urban poor (Watson, 2009). Similarly, Agamben (1998) views informality as the manifestation of power. He claims that informality is not
8 a condition that presents prior to order, instead it results from the suspension of that order. Informality seems to be produced by the State in which the State omits its existences (Roy, 2005). A different view argued by Jones (2016a), that in some context, socio-cultural aspects on the ground give pressure to the State to condone even accept informality; this may imply that informality can be seen as the product of socio-cultural expression that needs to be recognised.
Yet, the central issue in planning is land use in which the issue of property is embodied (Krueckeberg, 1995). Land is seen as the heart of all planning processes (UN-ESCAP and UN- HABITAT, 2015). The perspective of planning in the global south, in respect to informality, requires taking into account the complexity of property ownership. Thus, planning is not only about ‘Where things belong’, but also ‘To whom things belong’ (Krueckeberg, 1995, p.301). Informality at first glance is seen as a land-use issue that needs to be re-managed or integrated into the formal system (Roy, 2005). Nonetheless, the fundamental issue at stake in informality is what the market system works on and how the market creates unaffordability, referring to wealth distribution and unequal property ownership (Krueckeberg, 1995). This is because low incomes and limited household ability to pay for housing are part of the problem (UN-HABITAT, 2009b).
In response to informality (in human settlement), a vision of ‘cities for all’ then rises, referring to the equal use and enjoyment of cities and human settlements, seeking to promote inclusivity and ensure that all inhabitants, of present and future generations, without discrimination of any kind, are able to inhabit and produce just, safe, healthy, accessible, affordable, resilient and sustainable cities and human settlements to foster prosperity and quality of life for all (UN-HABITAT, 2016c, p.3). The vision is guided by a principle of ‘leave no one behind’, by ending poverty in all its dimensions, including providing safe and equal access for all, and by providing equal access for all to physical and social infrastructure and basic services, as well as adequate and affordable housing (UN-HABITAT, 2016c, p.5). This principle is then enshrined in efforts referred to as the ‘right to the city’. “The notion implies a response to fight against inequality and marginalization on the one hand, and the struggle for improvement of housing conditions, the access to basic services and for the guarantee of a self-determined life, on the other” (Obermayr, 2013, p. v).
Informal land not only has use value, but also exchange value (Ward, 1982). Planning cannot simply re-order land use and exchange value of rights to property, but, in a broader sense, instead of land use and property rights, planning should take ‘right to the city’ into account (Roy, 2005, p. 155). An important note by Harvey (2003) in relation to ‘right of the city’ is that it is not merely a right of access to what already exists, but also a right to change it to what is expected. UN- HABITAT (2004) further contextualises ‘right to the city’, in the concept of pro-poor land management, constituting the status of legal residents, inclusive informal settlement in city 9 planning, and provision of secure tenure. To integrate the poor into the city’s development plan, UN-HABITAT further elaborates what needs to be included: alternative sustainable forms of tenure, aside from titling, that meet the needs of the poor; the adoption of a city-wide participative planning approach, which accommodates the informal land delivery processes; linking innovative service design to the communities’ capacity for sustainability; a decentralised, efficient land administration system; cost recovery methods that factor in capital and maintenance cost, affordability and cost recovery charges (UN- HABITAT, 2004, p.9, 10). In other words, dealing with informality requires recognition of ‘right to the city’ - claims and appropriations that do not fit neatly into the property ownership model (Roy, 2005, p. 148). Thus, there are three important points to be addressed by planners in dealing with informality: how planning organises the ’unplannable’; how planning diminishes the vulnerability of the urban poor; and how planning deals with ‘right to city’ of the urban poor (Roy, 2005).
The call for pro-poor and inclusive planning and the response of pro-poor land management converge on the notion of ‘right to the city’ for the urban poor; in which provision of secure tenure is considered to be an important step of legitimizing the urban poor as legal residents (UN- HABITAT, 2004). Then, UN-HABITAT defines ‘right to the city’, in the context of land management paradigm, as the status of legal residents, inclusive informal settlement in city planning, and provision of secure tenure. This thesis focuses on the realization of one aspect of ‘right to the city’- provision of secure tenure. Yet, prior to that, an understanding of informality, in terms of informal settlement, is necessary to review what measures are used in assigning a settlement as informal. This will be discussed in the next section.
2.2 Understanding informal settlements and slums
The debate on housing policy consistently refers to the question of informality and illegality (Durand-Lasserve, 2006a). Durand-Lasserve asserted that despite the negative meaning of both terms, informal is less negative than illegal, and it even has less repressive connotations. Illegality of settlements mainly refers to lack of conformity to planning and building codes, but more importantly also to land tenure conditions (Durand-Lasserve, 2006a). On the other hand, informality refers to the non-adherence to building standards and codes (Fekade, 2000), low quality/ infrastructure/space and tenure insecurity (Berner, 2001). In respect to land tenure conditions, the land occupational status between informality and illegality may be contradictory. Leaf (1993) and Roy (2005) underlined that the important distinction in this regard is between accessing land through purchasing (informal) and invasion (illegal). Yet, Roy (2005) asserts that both forms embody different examples of legitimacy. This implies that informality contains a lesser degree of
10 uncertainty than illegality, despite non-compliance with building codes, since it is built on a land purchased, not through invasion, albeit through an informal transaction. However, the term of informal could be the euphemism for illegal (Leaf, 1994). Hence, both illegal and informal forms may co-exist and, often, resemble each other in meaning. From the above discussion, one distinction between illegality and informality lies in the way the land is obtained, in which informality takes forms recognizing the former land owners through land transfer.
Activities pertaining to private development can also be broadly divided into the formal and the informal. In general, urban development within the purview of the land administration system that complies with land use and building regulation is labelled as ‘formal’, otherwise it is labelled ‘informal’ (UN-HABITAT, 2009a). Formal development can be described as land subdivision and building development that is carried out on land held as registered land, with the permits required and to the standards specified by the planning and building regulations (Archer, 1994). Conversely, the informal development refers to housing constructed outside the system of legal regulation on building imposed by the State (Roy, 2005; Setiawan, 1998). Hence, informal development can be seen as the reverse of formal development (Raharjo, 2010). However, the main characteristics of informal development can be recognised, but in some ways the boundary between formal and informal remains unclear (Durand-Lasserve, 2006b). Additionally, despite the fact that the informal sector has been proven adaptive and responsive in providing buildable land, the gap between formal and informal remains wide (Fekade, 2000, p.135). Yet, informal settlements are known as a sub set of informality (Roy, 2005; Fekade, 2000).
Instead of the dichotomy of formal and informal, Roy (2005) sees the difference within informality and that informal system as a ‘mode’ in response to formal system. She used the term ‘mode’ as a response or manner to build the house. Along with Roy, Fekade (2000) considered it as a continuation of an intrinsic process of human settlement evolution on the one hand, and a response to the inadequacies of public policy intervention or guidance on the other hand. In addition, informal settlement is considered as informal urbanization, a mode of urbanization (Roy, 2005); rural-urban migration, due to the flows of labour, forms a site of rural/urban interface, commonly an urban village (Bayat & Denis, 2000). Fekade (2000, p.139) further described the common characteristics of informal settlements irrespective to countries, as follows:
• They are built by the inhabitants themselves with hardly any public assistance, often in spite of eviction threats from public authorities.
• They are built, for the larger part, by low-income urban dwellers for which existing formal avenues are hardly realistic options.
11
• They employ local building materials, skills, designs and indigenous technology.
• They do not, especially during the earlier stages of settlement establishment, adhere to formal/legal building codes and standards.
• They exhibit high variations in types and quality of construction; some housing stock is of high quality, erected with concrete blocks, corrugated iron, aluminium, zinc or tin. Others may consist of traditional rural construction materials.
• They are built incrementally, ensuring flexibility on the part of builders/owners.
From the above discussion, it is apparent that informal development, particularly informal settlement, can be characterised by self-planned or self-help low-cost settlement initially developed outside the system of legal regulation of building imposed by the state. As Zhu & Simarmata (2015) imply informal development is mainly characterised by informal rights, where land subdivision takes place without the permission from local authorities. The major indicators of informal settlements thus encompass low quality housing/infrastructure/space, most likely as a result of non- compliance with building codes, and tenure insecurity, despite acquisition being through informal transaction mechanisms.
Moreover, informal settlement may take various forms, in respect to sizes, shapes, and names. UN- HABITAT (2008a, p. 2) defines three terms as follows: 1) ‘slum’-- a neighbourhood of housing that used to be in good condition, then has deteriorated or has been subdivided into overcrowded housing or rented out to low-income groups; 2) ‘squatter area’-- an area of poor quality of housing built on illegally occupied land; and 3) ‘irregular settlement’-- a settlement which has been subdivided into sub-standard plots beyond building regulation, and sold or rented out to other persons. The first form is also called ‘slums of despair’ due to the declining condition, whereas the second refers to ‘slums of hope’, self-built structures despite its illegal occupation (UN-HABITAT, 2003, p. 9). These various terms of settlements emphasise that informal settlement can be associated with slum, squatter, and irregular settlement. The thesis refers to the slum definition on the basis of its characteristics, which will be discussed below.
The question now is whether or not informal settlement may refer to ‘slum’. The terms ‘slums’, ‘squatters settlements’, and ‘informal settlements’ are often used interchangeably to refer to a ‘non‐State’ approach to settlement development, which mostly reflect the contemporary urban phenomenon in the global south (Raharjo, 2010). UN-HABITAT (2003, p. 8) refers to a settlement to as a ‘slum’ if it is a heavily populated urban area characterised by substandard housing and squalor. This definition summarises the crucial characteristics of slums consisting of high density and low standards of housing that refer to spatial and physical aspects, and squalor referring to 12 social aspects. Yet, based on the earlier discussion on the difference between illegality and informality, it can be inferred that squatter belongs to illegality as it occupies land through invasion. Generally speaking, the term ‘slum’ is used to describe a wide range of low-income settlement and/or poor human living conditions. Five indicators of slums are further identified by UN- HABITAT (2003, p. 11), namely: security of tenure, structural quality or durability of dwellings, access to safe water, access to sanitation facilities, and overcrowding. One settlement can be considered as slum, aside from highly dense populated area, when it is deprived of one or more of these indicators. This has been further elaborated by UN-HABITAT (2016b, p.1) in that informal settlement are residential areas that lack tenure security, lack, or are cut off from, basic services and infrastructure and do not comply with planning and building codes. Slums are the most deprived and excluded form of informal settlement which is constantly exposed to eviction (UN-HABITAT, 2016b, p.1).
Given the previous discussion, in sum, informal settlement definition refers to broader characteristics according to both planning and building regulation as well as the land tenure situation i.e. conformity to planning, compliance with building codes, and land occupational status, whereas, slum definition highlights more to physical aspects. Such physical aspects as substandard housing and lack of tenure security derive from the broader lens of planning and building regulations as well as land tenure conditions. Yet, both informal settlement and slum have similar characteristics: substandard housing, poor infrastructure and lack of tenure security. Despite so, informal settlement seems to have less repressive connotations than slum. Informal settlements have a wider meaning than slums as they refer to “unplanned” settlements, not authorised by the State while slums refer to “the most deprived form” (Jones, 2017).
It is worth noting from the above discussions that the major distinction between informal and illegal settlement lies on the land tenure situation due to the way the land is obtained, through land transfer (e.g. purchase) or through invasion, respectively. Informal settlements may refer to slums as they share similar characteristics of lack of tenure security, and substandard housing while squatter settlements refer to illegal settlement. Thus, informality may lead to ‘slum’, while illegality may refer to so-called ‘squatter’, which lies at the extreme end of illegality in a range of legal/formal and illegal/informal that forms a continuum of land rights (Leaf, 1993, p.478). In addition, the term ‘slum’ also refers to a form of vast informal settlements which has been subdivided into overcrowded housing with limited services and infrastructure and a variety of tenure arrangements (UN-HABITAT, 2008a; UN-HABITAT, 2002). Slums are also identified by a number of terms specific to countries: barriadas (Peru), favelas (Brazil), Kachi Abadis (Pakistan), kampung (Indonesia) or kampung kumuh (Obermayr, 2013), shanty towns (English-speaking Africa),
13 bidonville (French-speaking Africa), etc (Fekade, 2000). In a country where low-cost housing is inadequate, this kind of settlement seems to be the only available option for the low-income groups.
Despite the similarities between informal settlement and slums, the thesis mainly concerns land tenure insecurity. There seems to be complexity between informality and illegality and they are not indeed clean binary alternatives. Despite this, the thesis attempts to comprehend how these labels or terms affect tenure security in a broader sense. It is crucial to get a clear overview on illegal, informal and slum settlement that demonstrate diverse levels of settlement conditions and thus may lead to diverse perceptions of tenure security by the community. This in turn might yield different levels of recognition and acknowledgement by public authorities. Roy (2005) asserts that local authorities have the power to determine whether a settlement is informal or not. This ultimately affects the extent of land tenure security in a country, particularly in local areas. The thesis intends to comprehend whether a local urban phenomenon in Jakarta, kampung, captures the characteristics of both informal settlement and slum, particularly regarding land tenure insecurity before going further investigation on the existing tenure security in place, mainly influenced by the perception of the dwellers and the view of public authorities. The discussion continues to elaborate such a local urban phenomenon, called kampung with its typical characteristics in the next section.
2.3 Informal settlement in Indonesia: kampung
In Indonesia, recent urban development has been characterised by rapid land use conversion, especially in urban centres, and it has urbanised rural use of land (e.g. agriculture) to other use of land (e.g. residential) (Firman, 2004). This urbanised land can be represented by the development of informal settlement in urban areas. Informal settlement, some of which may be classified as slums, in Indonesia, can be represented by kampung, with its self-planned and self-constructed settlement, possibly land tenure insecurity and overcrowding, and development outside the building standard and codes. The urban kampung of Indonesia exemplifies such settlement (Raharjo, 2010). However, the term kampung is also used to describe traditional Indonesian communities forming a part of a village or city (Benjamin et. al, 1985). This settlement could be justifiably represented by kampung as it is built in its own survival strategy relying on social and economic condition, with low quality of materials as well as mostly no tenure security (Tunas & Peresthu, 2010). They further discerned that this kampung, mostly found in big cities and their vicinity, is quite different from kampung in rural areas. Nonetheless, the term kampung is widely used to describe both urban and rural villages. This thesis focuses on the urban kampung.
Kampung vary considerably in many ways. Several of its typical characteristics distinguish it from other residential areas are it being unplanned in respect to building codes and being an isolated low- 14 income residential areas that gradually have been developed and serviced (Ford, 1993). Furthermore, as a result of labour migration, kampung have been urbanised, forming an ‘urban village’, and developed into a highly dense populated settlement possessing the main characteristics of informal settlement in the global south, particularly slums (Reerink & van Gelder, 2010). Kampung persistently exists, and, even, transferred through informal private conveyance (i.e. informal land transaction). However, some kampung residents possess a form of legal title over their land but they are often unable to prove it (McCarthy, 2003). Additionally, Lee (1996) believes they are not always ‘downgraded’ as depicted in informal settlement in many other countries, since quite a few middle-income houses are also found in kampung. Moreover, an urban kampung in Indonesia shares characteristics of slums defined by UN-HABITAT (2003) (Section 2.2) due to deprivation of mostly physical conditions (Adianto et al, 2016; Silas, 1992). Highlighting slum indicators by UN-HABITAT (2003), kampung may lack of security of tenure, for it was predominantly generated from administrative dualism referred to as ‘registered’ and ‘unregistered’ lands; particularly the unregistered (Leaf, 1994, p. 15) (and Section 3.4).
The Indonesian Government, under the Act of Housing and Residential Area (Indonesia Government, 2011), defines a slum settlement1 as a substandard settlement that is caused by irregular building plots, high building density, and poor structures and poor basic services. The Act distinguishes a slum house from a slum settlement. Similarly, the Act defines slum housing2 as a house that has downgraded conditions. The Statistics Bureau of Jakarta, (BPS Jakarta, 2013) further identified more detailed physical aspects referring to a slum settlement as: population density, building regularity, structural durability, building ventilation, building density, road pavement, drainage, sanitation, garbage disposal, frequency of garbage disposal, road lights. However, a slum house forms part of a slum settlement with its sub-standard conditions. The main characteristics of both slum houses and settlements refer to physical aspects, different from those indicated by international definitions. The absence of insecure tenure in the criteria of slums defined by BPS Jakarta (2013), in fact, makes way for the thesis to bring forward its importance in referring a settlement to slums.
According to the Indonesian Ministry of National Development Planning and The Central Statistics Bureau (BAPPENAS, 2012; BPS Pusat, 2011), the Special Capital of Jakarta is the second city, after West Papua, with the highest proportion of slum households throughout Indonesia reaching 25 per cent of the total population. BPS Jakarta (2013) further classifies slums residing under
1 “permukiman yang tidak layak huni karena ketidakteraturan bangunan, tingkat kepadatan bangunan yang tinggi, dan kualitas bangunan serta sarana dan prasarana yang tidak memenuhi syarat” (Indonesia Government, 2011) 2 “perumahan yang mengalami penurunan kualitas fungsi sebagai tempat hunian” (Indonesia Government, 2011) 15 neighbourhood association, namely RW Kumuh. This neighbourhood refers to urban kampung. Kampung represents not only informality, irregularity and illegality, but also flexibility and resilience of development in a self-help manner (Tunas & Peresthu, 2010). Steinberg (2007) noted that establishment of kampung takes place partly on public land, partly on privately owned agricultural land which gradually becomes urbanised and it is transferred (informally) to its new residents; land transactions are informally carried out with the recognition of village or sub-district head (Zhu & Simarmata, 2015). Kampung can be considered as a result of urban expansion, densification and agglomeration of villages, eventually forming contiguous towns and cities. A majority of the low-income population in Jakarta resides in kampung. It is estimated that 60% of Jakarta’s urban population resides in these conditions (Ford, 1993; Steinberg, 2007). This figure shows that much unplanned and informal development throughout the city has persisted to meet the urban poor needs of shelter. The discussion continues to elaborate the characteristics of kampung in urban context that have those characteristics most similar to those identified for slums in global definitions.
Kampung has become a part of urban structures with particular characteristics. Ford (1993) defined a kampung as a low-income settlement area with gradual unplanned development in respect to building codes. Setiawan (1998) described that kampung is recognised as residential areas characterised by: high-density, irregularity of plots and pathways; low durability structure; and poor drainage and sanitation system. In addition, kampung can be characterised by such notable features as being densely populated and having poor living conditions, poor infrastructure and services (Tunas & Peresthu, 2010). Moreover, continuous development and population growth in kampung lead to densification; consequently, as densification rapidly increases, a growing congestion increases health risk and environmental deterioration (Archer, 1994). Kampung houses refer to housing constructed outside the system of legal regulation imposed by the State (Setiawan, 1998). In addition, most plots in kampung are characterised by minimum infrastructure and few rights other than title (Dowall & Leaf, 1991). However, kampung constitutes a mixed-use neighbourhood, where residential use, home-based industry, stalls, and other uses reside (Benjamin et. al, 1985). Given such considerations, city planners even see kampung as ‘slums’ as it is not integrated into the city (Leaf, 1994, p. 18).
Archer (1994) further noted that kampung also takes place in areas with little existing road networks and social infrastructure, around the existing kampung villages, and on land near the existing urban settlements and along the public roads. Kampung can also be distinguished by location, and its spatial pattern tends to be more highly populated as it is closer to the centre (Cybriwsky & Ford, 2001). In the past, much of the kampung were high-dense populated area with 600 persons per
16 hectare (Jellinek, 1991). In recent years, the increasing density of kampung has scattered and resulted in urban pockets of poverty across Jakarta (Tunas & Peresthu, 2010). These urban poverty pockets have scattered throughout Jakarta as depicted in Figure 2-1. A typology of kampung was developed by Ford (1993) consisting on three types: inner-city kampung, mid-city, and rural kampung.
Figure 2-1: A model of Indonesian city structure3 (Ford, 1993)
As described earlier, land tenure is not explicitly embodied in the definition of a slum by the Indonesian Government as it is in the international definition by UN-HABITAT. The thesis argues that land tenure insecurity is one of the major factors identifying a slum settlement. Therefore, the thesis attempts to investigate on the ground the potential links between the land tenure issue and the assignment as a slum settlement by the Statistics Bureau of Jakarta (BPS Jakarta). In the case of urban kampung, as an exemplar of slums in Indonesia, this thesis focuses on the slum urban kampung defined by BPS Jakarta (2013). It therefore employed data on RW kumuh4, literally slum neighbourhood with sub-standard physical and environmental conditions, as case studies. Despite the local slum definition, mostly associated with physical aspects, the thesis aims to investigate a range of land tenure forms existing in these ‘slums’.
2.4 Summary
The planning system needs to recognise the urban poor as legal residents (‘right to the city’). In order to do so, provision of secure tenure is considered as an important step. Secure tenure is widely believed crucial to realise adequate housing and sustainable livelihood (Durand-Lasserve & Royston, 2002). The growth of informal settlements and slums has correlation with the lack of adequate housing and land where the private sector investment in housing has not translated into
3 The thesis argues that the classification remains valid despite eviction taking place in part of the area considering the growth of urbanization over the years catering to the needs of shelter of urban poor. 4 RW Kumuh adalah Rukun Warga yang mempunyai kondisi fisik lingkungan yang masih di bawah standar dengan jumlah skor di atas 5,19 (literally, a neighborhood that has substandard physical conditions measured using a certain scoring system, above 5.19). 17 pro-poor, affordable housing (UN-HABITAT, 2016b; McKinsey Global Institute, 2014). Thus it is brought forward as one of the aspects of the ‘right to the city’ in the New Urban Agenda (UN- HABITAT, 2016c, p. 3); so that national and local governments are to put it in the legislations.
In response to the fast growing population in most countries leading to informal settlement, inclusive planning and pro-poor land management need to be redefined. As discussed in Section 2.2, the debate on housing policy consistently refers to the question of informality and illegality (Durand-Lasserve, 2006a). From the discussion, one important note is that the major distinction between informal and illegal settlement lies on the land tenure situation due to the way the land was obtained, through land transfer (for example by purchase or inheritance) or through invasion, respectively.
The discussion expands the distinction between formal and informal development. Many scholars tend to distinguish between informal and formal settlement. Some argue that formal settlement is developed in the compliance with the land use and building regulation (see: UN-HABITAT, 2009a; Archer, 1994). On the other hand, some argue that any development outside such regulations refers to as informal settlement (Raharjo, 2010; Roy, 2005; Setiawan, 1998).
The thesis adopts the definition of slums by UN-HABITAT (2003; 2008a), which incorporates the issues of tenure security, thus distinguishing it from the local statistical definition used in Indonesia, which does not. Subsequently, the thesis uses the term kampung, as the representation of the informal urban neighbourhoods in local areas, in Jakarta. However, the thesis focuses on the slum kampung in urban area with its characteristics being lack of tenure security, substandard housing, and overcrowding. The thesis then relates it with the classification of kampung defined by Ford (1993), which is the inner-city kampung; the slum kampung is adopted from data of slum neighbourhood (RW Kumuh) defined by BPS Jakarta (2013). The thesis then continues to explore land tenure security in the next chapter.
18
CHAPTER 3: LAND TENURE SECURITY IN INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS
To realise ‘the rights to the city’, one of the ways is by making the urban poor visible as legal residents. This chapter consists of five sections: Section 3.1 contains an understanding of land tenure; Section 3.2 explains the land tenure security issues; Section 3.3 describes the historical background of land tenure arrangements in Indonesia; and Section 3.4 describes the land tenure security in the case of kampung in Jakarta. Lastly, Section 3.5 provides a summary of land tenure insecurity in informal settlements, notably in urban kampung in Jakarta.
3.1 Understanding land tenure
What is land tenure? This question initiates the discussion to give a clear view of what is considered as the root of the problem in this thesis. The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) (2002) of the United Nations defines land tenure as the relationship, whether legally or customarily defined, among people in respect to land. The term ‘land’ is used to include not only land, but also other natural resources such as water and trees as well. The concept of tenure often refers to rights to legal access to land (UN-HABITAT, 2004).
Land tenure is an institution created by societies to regulate their behaviour over land (FAO, 2002). This rule defines several behaviours on how land is to be allocated within communities. So, an agreement among people is established in respect to the rules. The rules represent how access to land is granted to use, control, and transfer land, as well as associated responsibilities and restrictions embodied (FAO, 2002). UN-HABITAT (2008b) defines land tenure as the way land is held or owned by individuals and groups. In other words, access to land reflects the nature of land tenure. Land tenure is a notion representing the relation between a person or group, the community and land. Payne (2001b) simply defines land tenure as the relationship among people, as individuals or groups, concerning land.
The relationship contains certain rules agreed among them, either through customary usage or statute, which can also define the rights and responsibilities over land. This also includes how the use of land is recognised and respected within the community. However, several interests on a particular piece of land may exist. The respective parties who have common interests in a piece of land, thus, arrange themselves to use and benefit from the land.
In urban areas, land tenure arrangements are often complex and are not simply a dichotomy of formal and informal or legal and illegal (Payne & Majale, 2004). Most urban people live along a continuum of existing land tenure forms, ranging from informal to formal tenure. Formal and informal rights may co-exist on the same land. For example, a complex situation arises when formal
19 tenure (a statutory right) is granted by ignoring existing customary rights on the same land. This may lead to the clash of de jure rights (existing by formal law) and de facto rights (existing in reality) (FAO, 2002). This complexity of layering rights and potential conflict over the land may compound the existing complexity of informal rights. Thus, it is important to recognise and identify a range of existing tenure categories in a local area or city, so that urban land policy may anticipate, even prevent, any consequences resulting from this complexity (Payne, 2001a).
According to UN-HABITAT (2008b), land tenure can be represented as a range of tenure forms, well-known as a continuum of land rights, constituting the way land is occupied. Such a range of tenure forms is illustrated in Figure 3-1. Under this continuum of rights, possible tenure forms, representing the degree of rights, restrictions, and responsibilities on land, exist ranging from the least secured to the most secured one, at each extreme end. Also, the extreme ends may represent the distinction of tenure between rural and urban area, although it is not necessarily so. The continuum of land rights is a metaphor that represents land tenure situation in the real world containing complex mixtures of both formal and informal tenure including their variations in between (Doebele, 1994; GLTN, 2015). Customary right holders who, for instance, predominantly occupy rural area may migrate to urban area where statutory rights prevail: they may obtain urban land in an informal or even illegal way. The continuum of land rights thus plays its role as recognition of rights which is an important step in providing secure tenure for all (UN-HABITAT, 2004).
Figure 3 -1 A Continuum of Land Rights (UN-Habitat, 2008b)
A continuum of land rights represents a wide range of possible existing tenure forms (Figure 3-1). Whether or not it is fully representative, or whether all forms of land rights on the continuum are present, will depend on the local context. “A continuum of land right is useful to conceive on-the- ground reality and encourages policies to consider unintended, damaging consequences when applying development strategies” (GLTN, 2015, p. 7). Thus, the continuum of land rights can be 20 used as a base to comprehend the way tenure can be improved despite being non-formal (GLTN, 2017). The description of each tenure form under the local continuum of rights is described as follows:
Perceived tenure, also refers to as de facto tenure, is considered as a first step the poor take to access to land (UN-HABITAT, 2004, p.17); this may be as a result of incapability of the public domain in providing affordable and accessible housing for the poor. This tenure form may also include the informal tenure forms; for instance, squatter, rental, tenants and sub-tenant (UN- HABITAT, 2008b). But the tenure is still weak because the evidence is circumstantial and people remain subject to evictions (UN-HABITAT, 2004, p.17). Customary right originated from the land arrangement practices in local tribal areas. Customary rights, in some cases, are often considered as ‘extra-legal’, not violation of the law but with no recognition by the law (FAO, 2002). It is often regarded by public authorities as unofficial since there is no conformity to planning policies and also the property boundaries may be ‘fuzzy’ (UN-HABITAT, 2004). Despite the lack of documentation, customary systems can meet social and economic needs and they can be very secure for the members of the group concerned (UN- HABITAT, 2008b). This system recognises communal land for community purposes. In some countries, however, the practice of individualization of communal land exists when a commercial market occurs to invest and thus land transaction under customary agreement applies (UN-HABITAT, 2004). This tenure mostly exists throughout most parts of Africa, the Pacific, parts of the Middle East, Melanesia and North America (Payne, 1997; Payne, 2001). Occupancy is an individual right to use land, either recognised by the community or by public authority (Durand-Lasserve & Selod, 2009). The holders may not transfer or sell the property. This is one of the approaches used for reducing market pressures (Durand-Lasserve, 2006). Anti-eviction, under the anti-eviction law, as in South Africa, Brazil, Philippines and India, the poor access the public and privately owned land under certain agreements regulated in the law and they are guaranteed a certain degree of protection against eviction from the land (UN- HABITAT, 2004). Adverse possession is considered as a peaceful occupation of land over a certain period of time, and thus it allows the occupants to obtain the property. For example, in Brazil squatters can obtain rights over private land after five years of peaceful occupation (UN-HABITAT, 2004). However, a regulation to regulate this is necessary, especially in the case of land disputes, and the conditions for peaceful adverse possession differ across jurisdictions. Group tenure, also known as cooperative rights allows the poor to have property as a group. It may accelerate the land registration process as it is under the group’s name (UN-HABITAT, 21
2004). Such tenure gives the poor equal access to land, but it may be constrained by the scarcity of land, especially in urban area (UN-HABITAT, 2008b). Leases, are defined as agreements or contracts between individuals or groups, corporations or the State, that give the poor access to land; it is transferrable (UN-HABITAT, 2004). Furthermore, UN-HABITAT (2004) claims it is considered to be cost-effective, flexible, transparent for the poor, as well as for the public authority to manage development. Additionally, leasehold tenure gives a perception of greater security (Archer, 2012). Registered freehold is regarded as the strongest rights in access to land. However, it entails not only full rights, but also restrictions and responsibilities in respect to the use of land (UN- HABITAT, 2004). However, the high cost of land registration may prevent it being affordable for the poor (UN-HABITAT, 2008b). Under this form, a delayed (provisional) freehold exists with certain restrictions: compliance with specific conditions and/or a specified period (UN- HABITAT, 2008b; Durand-Lasserve, A., & Royston, 2002; Dale, P. F., & McLaughlin, J. D, 1988).
The above continuum of rights is only one of such continuums available, and there may be disagreement about the proper position of certain tenure forms on it. One example could be adverse possession. According to the definition, it is a peaceful occupation of a land, either public or privately owned land, over a certain period of time. Such occupation can be considered as ‘invasion or squatting’, thus it may have a higher degree of informality, or even illegality. This continuum of rights cannot prevail in all local areas. Hence, by understanding the local context, the thesis attempts to identify a range of existing tenure forms using this continuum as the basis, and then develop a local continuum of rights for the Indonesian case. The thesis will refer to the Jakarta context in terms of land tenure forms. Having discussed the definition of land tenure, the thesis continues the discussion to conceive the meaning of tenure security and its generating factors, here called the ‘causes’ of tenure security.
3.2 Land tenure security issues
What is land tenure security? Security of tenure is the major concern of this thesis. Security of tenure is intangible. It is indirectly measured through perception: what people perceive it to be (FAO, 2002). According to UN-HABITAT (2008b), land tenure security has various meanings and yet the main points lie in these terms and what they mean for the landholders: 1) A degree of confidence; 2) Certainty; and 3) Protection against forced eviction. These notions are likely to be interpreted as follows. Firstly, a degree of confidence means that the landholders may enjoy and benefit from land through rights, but it essentially lies in the perception of the land holder.
22
Secondly, certainty is considered as the result of recognition of such rights over land by others, including local authorities, in that people are protected in cases of specific challenges, e.g. competing claims or eviction (FAO, 2002). Lastly, as the landholders acquire recognition from the community; they may get be protected against forced eviction since they might have experienced a certain degree of legitimacy from both community and local authorities. These notions seem to reflect ‘cause and effect’ relations. A degree of confidence relates to recognition between individuals and groups, which subsequently generates certainty of land occupation on the part of the occupier. As a consequence, the settlers may have protection against forced eviction. However, the feeling of security is something that is expected, a possibility of not being evicted; thus, it is basically subjective (Angel, 1982). Despite so, the meaning may narrow down to one ultimate main objective, which is protection against forced eviction. Additionally, the various definitions of tenure security may only refer to the risk of eviction (Reerink & van Gelder, 2010).
A broader definition of tenure security, other than protection against eviction, is posed by the Federation of International Surveyors (FIG) and the United Nations Centre for Human Settlement (UNCHS) as: (i) protection against forced eviction; (ii) the possibility of selling and the ability to inherit; (iii) access to credit (so the possibility of mortgage) under certain conditions (UN- HABITAT, 2004, p. 13). Since many interpretations exist in respect to secure tenure form leading to a certain extent of tenure security, it might be the reason why there is still no clear agreement on how the extent of tenure security should be adequately realised for giving such outcomes. The thesis employs the FIG and UNCHS’ definition by breaking the extent of tenure security into three main considerations, namely: protection against forced eviction; possibility to sell; and possibility to inherit. It excludes access to credit because this is included in the ‘effects’ of tenure security from the perspective of both community and local authorities.
Tenure insecurity may differ across countries, even within a country. According to Durand- Lasserve (2006a), responses to tenure insecurity are diverse depending on local contexts, the types and diversity of irregular settlements, government’s political views, and social market pressure. Or, in the other way around, these aspects may also be the source of land tenure security. In particular, governments’ responses might go as far as recognizing the rights of a community to occupy a land, but not that of the individuals (FAO, 2002). Such responses have evolved over time. Slums and the security of tenure issues have undergone a significant transformation in public debate, from non- recognition in the 1960s, to repression in the 1970s and 1980s, and then tolerance in the 1990s (Durand-Lasserve, 2006a). This tolerant response seems to persist until the present, including responses intended to recognise and formalise informal tenure forms.
23
In the global south, it is considered that secure land tenure provides a way to adequate housing and sustainable livelihoods. However, what tenure security entails has long been debated (Reerink & van Gelder, 2010). It is thus necessary to understand the embodied meaning of tenure security before any improvement action. Moreover, the relationship between tenure security and its impacts is considerably more complex and problematic; tenure security is not only a matter of perception, but also a matter of legal (Payne et. al, 2009). As discussed earlier, tenure security is an intangible matter in the lens of perception as implied by Angel (1982). But when it comes to legal perspective as underlined by Payne et. al (2009), it seems tangible. In this thesis, these are seen from the perspective of community (perception) and government (law).
Having discussed the issue of tenure security, the thesis continues to explore the generating factors of tenure security. There are four criteria defined by Durand-Lasserve (2006a) that determine the degree of tenure security: (a) length of occupation; (b) size of settlement; (c) community organization or social cohesion; (d) support from civil society groups, such as non-governmental organization. These can be summarised as the 'causes' of tenure security. Such causes result in the aggregation of tenure security a person enjoys (FAO, 2002). The first criterion, length of occupation, represents the duration of residence the dwellers have lived in the location which might mean that it has a direct proportional relation with the extent of tenure security. Second, settlement size, may give a certain extent of tenure security as it supports a form of community power. It is also likely related to the third criterion-social cohesion: in the case of large settlements, lots of people will cause immense logistical problems for authorities thinking of eviction. Consequently, these people together have a certain amount of political power when they act together. Settlement size may represent the degree of social bonding within community either linear proportional or inverse proportional relationship, where the small size settlement may have a weak social cohesion or vice versa. Lastly, support from civil society groups, is considered as an ‘external’ power that supports the community keeping, or even probably increasing, their tenure security. These criteria appear to be the generator of de facto tenure security. These criteria will be then analysed in this thesis in relation to the situation of urban kampung in Jakarta. In addition, the thesis includes land- related document in the ‘cause’ of tenure security, considering the debate on tenure security pertains to both de facto and de jure land tenure forms. Such documents are considered crucial in generating tenure security in the lens of regulations. The given ‘causes’ of tenure security can be seen in Figure 4-1, in Chapter 4.
Although the importance of tenure security is widely acknowledged and its urgency is recognised, the extent to which it can be realised and the effects of secure tenure have come into the global debate. It is as yet unclear what forms of tenure may improve tenure security in an area. However,
24 the extent of tenure security resulting from any form of tenure is likely to be apparent from the impacts or the outcome on the ground (e.g. housing investment, access to credit etc). The thesis considers protection against forced eviction as the ultimate goal of tenure security, as it may encourage other components of tenure security like being able to sell or inherit land. Hence, the thesis attempts to examine the extent of tenure security in a local area, resulting from the existing land tenure forms, and other generators. The thesis continues to elaborate the land tenure arrangements in the local context of Indonesia in the next section.
3.3 Historical background of land tenure arrangement in Indonesia
Kampung in Indonesia has become a manifestation of colonial occupations due to a dualism in the system of land rights, with its consequent complications and complexity. Winayanti and Lang (2004) describe that, historically, Jakarta’s kampung have evolved under the changing social, political and economic conditions of the city from Dutch colonial times (1602-19425), through Japanese occupation (1942-1945) and into the independence era (after 1945). This is how the kampung existed and developed. In some ways, the historical development of kampung could be seen as the consequence of the interaction between native Indonesians and the external world (Setiawan, 1998).
Dutch colonial period
During the Dutch colonial period, there was a dualism of land rights system prevailing in Indonesia: firstly, Dutch colonial system under the Dutch civil code which applied mainly to urban land and the plantation sector; secondly, native leaders order under customary (adat6) system which regulated the remaining lands (Dirman, 1958). Dutch colonization allowed native populations to regulate their space of land in a self-rule manner as long as no conflict existed with land under Dutch law (Leaf, 1993). However, there was no spatial delineation between those lands under dualism; instead a layering of rights on lands under Dutch civil code existed.
Back to 1870, when the Agrarian Law was stipulated to promote the plantation sector, Leaf (1993) noted that the Dutch granted the rights of eigendom particuliere7, as limited freehold for the duration of 99 years, to Dutch and European foreign non-Indonesian, or few wealthy Indonesian entrepreneurs. At the same time, he further viewed the rights of Indonesian former tenants or
5 Dutch colonialization was started with the establishment of Dutch East Indies Company in 1602 (see https://imperialismindonesia.weebly.com, and also for Japanese occupation) 6 Adat, refers to land tribal rights 7 Eigendom particuliere means rights of ownership for European people under Dutch civil code (Leaf, 1993) 25 workers in plantations were, still under the eigendom8 right of landlord, upgraded into commercial- use rights (hak tanah usaha), and exploitation right (hak tanah kongsi) that were tradable and inheritable, to increase the agricultural productions. The rights held by native populations were set up in a layering arrangement under the right of eigendom particuliere held by either Dutch or foreign and wealthy Indonesian investors. A Dutch East India Company, acting as the government of the colony at the time, had further expanded the urban area, for industry and plantation investment purposes, by acquiring territory through treaty with local rulers (Leaf, 1993). Despite the implementation of such policy, many Dutch privately owned lands had been transferred to native locals (Leaf, 1993).
In exchange for tribute to landlords, Leaf (1993) noted that the Dutch government applied a tax policy to the colonial government; under the law, both eigendom and State land were subject to an annual tax comprising two distinct taxes: verponding (residential tax), and tax of agricultural products. Establishment of the tax simultaneously broke the rule of adat law in which land is communal property; it later became personal property. By the end of the Dutch colonialization, accordingly, those rights of western origin, such as eigendom particuliere, and of native (adat) system on State land, were altered into traditional ownership rights (hak milik adat) with the provision of girik9 as a sort of tax letter document. However, the impact of taxation excluded the native right of commercial-use (hak tanah kongsi), nowadays familiar with the term ‘hak garapan’ in nature considered as ‘quasi-legal’ rights (Leaf, 1993). At present, garapan right may refer to ‘squatter’ considering it was under eigendom of foreign individuals and companies, despite its records.
Independence era
After the end of the Dutch colonial occupation, expropriation law was established in 1958 to include all eigendom particuliere to State land, and second layer of rights by natives into traditional ownership right (hak milik adat), except those of tanah kongsi which was then altered to garapan10 right. However, Jakarta municipal area lacked of inventory of those properties (Leaf, 1993).
In short, the so-called girik land, basically lands under adat law, originated from western Dutch rights: verponding (residential area), and commercial-use right (hak tanah usaha)-second layer right on Dutch eigendom particuliere. A clear description of existing rights during the Dutch colonial
8 Eigendom means rights of ownership for Dutch people under Dutch Law (Leaf, 1993) 9 Girik, refers to land tax receipt (tax letter rights) during the Dutch colonization issued by village/sub-district office (Leaf, 1993) 10 The term Garapan derives from Javanese language translated as ‘use’ or ‘exploit’ (Leaf, 1993). Hoffman and Marbun (1990) argue that, rather than agricultural use, it is more accurately translated as ‘occupation’; thus it refers to ‘quasi-legal’ rights of land, squatter (Leaf, 1993) 26 period and the post Dutch, Indonesian rule, is shown in Figure 3-2, as modified from Leaf (1993). It shows how the transition of land-related policy by the Dutch Government affects the adat law system, and also the land tenure arrangement of Indonesian claims and Dutch law claims, in form of layering rights.
Tanah Tanah Girik Tanah Girik Tanah Girik Garapan Post Dutch (tax letter) (tax letter) (tax letter) (quasi-legal) Colonial Period State land
Hak tanah Hak tanah Adat rights kongsi with usaha with Adat rights with tribute Indonesian tribute with tribute Verponding (explotation claims (use right) During Indonesia right) Dutch Colonial Period (2 layers of right) Limited Western Residential Dutch Foreign freehold by area eigendom eigendom law claims native State land under Eigendom particuliere (under Dutch civil control Dutch law by european and other landlords)
Figure 3-2 Land tenure arrangement during and post Dutch colonial period (modified from Leaf, 1993).
An effort to unify the dual system through law was undertaken. Basic agrarian law (BAL), in 1960, intended to abolish this legal dualism. It established a single system of land rights replacing both former rights. The single system was inherited from the Dutch and the many variants of adat practices found throughout Indonesia (Gautama & Harsono, 1972). Leaf (1994) stated that the single system encompassed specific rights functionally adopted from the Dutch rights system, while the basic rules derived from customary (adat) law. Adat system holds a principle that individual right to use land may revert to community, while in the BAL single system such right is reverted to National Government as State land. The underlying principle of BAL rests on the rights of control by the State (hak menguasai dari negara) (Harsono, 1981). Intending to bridge the dualism during the colonial period, BAL however breaks the nature of adat system in land matter for national unification of the rights system (Leaf, 1993). It thus created five primary rights to replace the dual system for land rights, namely: right of ownership (hak milik); right of building (hak guna bangunan); right of use (hak pakai); right of cultivation (hak guna usaha); and right of management (hak pengelolaan) (Harsono, 1981). In addition, these rights have a social function embodied in that public interest is above individual interest (Fitzpatrick, 1997).
27
By the advent of BAL, government intended to include all old rights in the formal land registration system. Those adat rights and western rights were converted to the specific rights, acknowledged by BAL, through statutory land registration. However, it apparently did not cover all; some still hold the traditional ownership rights, girik, and garapan rights, former hak tanah kongsi under eigendom particuliere of landlords. Furthermore, instead of unifying the dualism of the land right system, it resulted in administrative dualism with two distinct emerging terms: registered (one with specific right of primary rights under BAL), and unregistered (‘ not yet registered’) under both old systems (Leaf, 1994). In regard to the administering institutions, despite the nomenclature, Leaf (1994) pointed out that the unregistered is actually registered in land books of kelurahan (sub- district/village office), a sort of fiscal recognition (tax letter), while the registered is recorded in the land office under the National Land Agency (hereafter NLA). Instead of unifying the dualism, the single system resulted in the administrative dualism in land registration: unregistered and registered land rights.
The unregistered land rights can also be considered as ‘possessory title’ (Archer, 1994), as it is based on their perception under historical development during the colonial period, and is considered as temporary for it is in a transitional period to the legal right acknowledged by BAL. Hence, lands categorised as unregistered title constitute girik and garapan rights; Leaf (1993) pointed out that, the latter, even, has a direct link to State lands. The majority of garapan rights occupy State land at present, notably in Jakarta. Despite the different administering authorities, coordination in land registration process is maintained to administer the backlog of unregistered lands across the country.
These days, the term adat is used to differentiate between the registered and unregistered land: primary rights created by BAL; and girik and garapan right, respectively. The basic meaning has shifted from the original meaning that land belongs to all individuals under control of adat chief. Leaf (1993) underlined that adat rights can be considered as Indonesian rights modified in layering rights by western law under two laws: Dutch law (domein State land) and the Dutch civil code (eigendom land).
However, based on its both historical developments, girik right seemed to have relatively higher degree of security as it is layered on both Dutch State land and eigendom, not on foreign eigendom as garapan right is. The city of Jakarta lacks records of these two unregistered rights within kampung. This condition leads to a high degree of uncertainty existing within kampung. Moreover, the private conveyances, in land transfer between private individuals under certain agreements, have compounded the uncertainty. In addition, kampung mostly exists on customary land where the owners possess the land with property tax receipts, notarised purchase receipts and letters from the 28 district and sub-district head (Archer, 1994). The next section will elaborate specifically the land tenure security issues in urban kampung in Jakarta.
3.4 Land tenure security issue: the case of urban kampung, in Jakarta
As described in the previous section, the Indonesian land tenure system basically reflects the interaction of Dutch colonial and indigenous practices. Post-colonial institutional and organizational structures coexist with customary rules and systems of land ownership (UN- HABITAT, 2009b), thereby affecting the local tenure security. This actually happened in Indonesia where the interaction involved a dual system of land rights: Dutch with western law and Indonesian native with adat law. Notably in Jakarta, the settlement and plantation focus of the Dutch colony had weakened the earlier adat system, unlike in other parts of Indonesia (Leaf, 1993); this includes the influences leading to the existence of kampung. Kampung, used to be villages, but have been urbanised by the Dutch’s influences. Winayanti and Lang (2004) describe that, historically, Jakarta’s kampung have evolved under the changing social, political and economic conditions of the city from Dutch colonial times, through Japanese occupation and into the independence era. Jakarta has also been seen as the manifestation of the local settlement and that of European settlement (Zhu & Simarmata, 2015). Moreover, private developments such as shopping malls and, upper class residential areas have put more pressure on the existing kampung pushing away the existing residents – creating new ‘squatter’ kampung and causing overcrowding, deterioration of the remaining kampung leading to new slum areas (Obermayr, 2013, p. 104).
A majority of low-income population in Jakarta resides in kampung. “Many neighbourhoods in the city are essentially kampung (slum area) where the poor live” (Firman, 1999, p. 453). It is estimated that 60 per cent of Jakarta’s urban population resides in these conditions (Ford, 1993; Steinberg, 2007). The houses are built on unregistered land, with land rights other than land title (Dowall & Leaf, 1991). In addition, the construction is not adhering to the building regulation (Setiawan, 1998). In particular, land tenure security issues within kampung originally derive from what existed in the past as right of girik and garapan. At present, girik right is well-known as ex-’adat’ right since it holds no more customary (adat) principle due to the provision of property tax during the Dutch colonization and the unification of a dual system post Dutch colonization. Garapan right is considered as a ‘quasi-legal’ right, which may refer to ‘squatters’, due to the exclusion of tax (Leaf, 1993). Predominantly girik and garapan rights, under customary law, have influenced land tenure security in kampung.
As previously described, kampung was a subject of the dualism of tenure system: western Dutch and native (adat) system. Lands were layered under these two systems (Leaf, 1993). Despite the 29 past efforts of BAL to eradicate the system dualism, instead it resulted in administrative dualism (Leaf, 1994), a dichotomy of authorities issuing land-related rights: registered land (by the National Land Agency) and unregistered land (by village/sub-district offices).
Jakarta, formerly known as Batavia, was set up as the capital of economic activity by the Dutch colony. Leaf (1993) stated that garapan rights primarily claimed part of areas in Jakarta, in which vacant State land may be included. He further underlined that this form of land rights extensively contributes to kampung land in city. In addition, Hoffman and Marbun (1990) pointed out that the majority of land which comprises kampung neighbourhoods in Jakarta is unregistered, consisting on both girik and garapan rights. Yet, these authors further noted that the delineation of the existence of these two dominant rights presumably occurs depending on its past historical development on specific land, layered rights: State land (under control of Dutch law), eigendom particuliere land (under Dutch civil code). Thus, in accordance to the extent of Dutch influence and interest, garapan rights are dominant in areas with higher Dutch influences (on eigendom land), whereas girik rights are dominant in areas with lower Dutch interest, State land (Leaf, 1993). In 1990, Struyk et. al (1990) found that 24 per cent of kampung dwellers in Jakarta held girik rights and 40 per cent held garapan rights, tax receipts and squatter rights respectively, which gave them fairly secure tenure. However, these tenure forms have transformed into formal tenure forms through government intervention in systematic land registration projects. At present, girik right is well-known as ex- ’adat’ right since it holds no customary (adat) principle due to the provision of property tax during the Dutch colonization and the land right unification post Dutch colonization. Whereas, garapan right is considered as ‘quasi-legal’ right and may refer to ‘squatters’, due to the exclusion from the taxation system (Leaf, 1993). According to Zhu & Simarmata (2015) squatters may occupy both publicly and privately owned land, but in the case of publicly-owned land, they claim their occupation with garapan rights, later converted to girik rights.
From this historical point of view, kampung has developed from the land tenure arrangement by the Dutch colony, in which rights of land were layered on both Sate land and eigendom land. Under the law of expropriation in 1958, all lands under eigendom particuliere as well as other eigendom, dominant in central Jakarta, were repurchased to disfranchise Dutch influences (Leaf, 1993). As mentioned earlier that girik rights are dominant in an area where Dutch interest is low, while garapan rights exists predominantly in an area where Dutch interest is high. In respect to this, Leaf (1993) noticed that west Jakarta was primarily held as girik land whereas garapan land concentrated in central, eastern, and part of south-east Jakarta. In addition, “while some of the inner-city kampung date back to the colonial period and have recognised land titles, a growing number of informally established kampung has appeared towards the south, west and east of the
30
Jakarta city which are its main growth directions” (Steinberg, 2007, p. 356). In the case of Jakarta, the existence of adat rights underlies the tenure security issue since these girik and garapan rights widely comprise kampung neighbourhood. Leaf (1993) found, in Jakarta, that the distribution between girik and garapan land was inverse in context of spatial pattern; garapan lands were concentrated in city centre to its edge, while girik lands scattered along the periphery. Nonetheless, at present, a mix of unregistered rights -- girik and garapan-- and registered right land title, seems to co-exist in kampung. Past dualism in the land system does not only influence the land right structure but also physical structure of inner city kampung. Despite land status as a major factor of dichotomy between formal housing and informal housing kampung, it is not the principal cause of Jakarta dualism (formal and informal housing) (Leaf, 1993). These particular settlement types are related to these different land right categories; in other words, tenure type determines the settlement type.
The influence of Dutch in land tenure arrangement during the colonial period has spread across Indonesian cities. Complexities of land tenure arrangement, especially in other big cities, in addition to Jakarta, also exist. This has led scholars to conduct several studies in respect to kampung informality. Several existing studies analyse this tenure security issue within kampung, but in different jurisdiction: by Winayanti and Lang (2004) in one kampung Jakarta, by Reerink and van Gelder (2010) in several kampung in Bandung, and by Adianto et al (2016) in one kampung in Jakarta. Winayanti and Lang (2004) found that the informal and semi-formal (adat right holders) kampung dwellers perceived their tenure security through government’s legitimacy on public services, the degree of social cohesion, and support from civil society group, instead of possession of land-related documents. Thus they encouraged the dwellers to invest in their housing.
A study by Reerink and van Gelder (2010) was undertaken by quantitative and qualitative methods in several kampung in Bandung. They only focused on the impacts of perceived tenure security on housing investment. The study revealed that land title strengthened the perceived tenure security and encouraged the dwellers to invest in improving their housing conditions. However, they asserted that there is no significant difference between perceived tenure security by formal (land title holder) and semi-formal (adat rights holder) residents, but quite substantial difference between the formal and informal residents (non-title holder). Lastly, Adianto et al (2016) noted that in the absence of land title, relying on subjective tenure security, kampung dwellers invested in housing. They further underlined that other factors such as settlement location and public intervention of housing improvement also contribute to the sense of security from forced eviction. These scholars infer that de facto tenures mostly influence the community’s behaviour on housing.
31
This thesis attempts to obtain data covering all relevant stakeholders involved in land tenure security issue and includes other effects of perceived tenure security, besides the housing investment. Being a part of the debate on the extent of tenure security, the thesis attempts to validate what form of secure tenure, either de facto or de jure, is dominant. It also explores the impacts generated from the extent of tenure security within urban kampung.
3.5 Summary
As explained in this chapter, land tenure mainly refers to the relationships of individuals or groups in respect to land. Such relationships also include the way to obtain land. This range of ways to obtain land also implies a range of land tenure forms within a continuum of land rights. This is further used as an important step of provision of secure tenure discussed earlier in Section 3.1.
Furthermore, as detailed in Section 3.1, in urban areas, land tenure is considered complex and not as simple as a dichotomy of formal and informal or legal and illegal as underlined by Payne and Majale (2004). Most urban people live along a continuum of existing land tenure forms, ranging from informal to formal tenure. This range of land tenure forms is further called by UN-HABITAT (2008b) as a continuum of land rights, constituting the way land is occupied. Under this continuum of rights, possible tenure forms, representing the degree of rights, restrictions, and responsibilities on land exist ranging from the least secured to the most secured one. A continuum of land rights defined by UN-HABITAT (2008b) represents a wide range of possible existing tenure forms and is used in the thesis as a base to identify a local continuum of land rights including all possible options. This continuum represents not only the ways to obtain land but also implies the extent of tenure security (protection against forced eviction, rights to transfer land, and rights to inherit) with other factors.
This thesis adopts factors generating tenure security from the literatures, so-called ‘cause’ criteria, namely: length of occupation; size of settlement; community organization; and support from civil society group. The thesis adds land-related document considering the debate on tenure security pertains to both de facto and de jure land tenure forms and that tenure security is also about law matter as explained in Section 3.2. Tenure insecurity may vary throughout countries, even within a country. Attempts to assess the impact of insecure tenure have been lack of success (Durand- Lasserve & Royston, 2002). This might be caused by the complex and problematic relationship between tenure insecurity and its impacts; Tenure security is not simply what people perceive, but also depends on the prevailing regulations (Payne et. al, 2009). Thus, what can be the starting point in providing secure tenure is through recognition of the existing land tenure forms in a local area. This includes public authorities’ view on the existing tenure security. Such recognition may 32 determine not only the expected outcomes, but also anticipate unexpected outcomes. Therefore, the extent of tenure security resulting from any form of land tenure can be seen from the impacts or the outcomes on the ground (e.g. housing investment, access to credit etc) and is further analysed on the basis of local context and regulatory framework in Chapter 8.
In the case of Indonesia, the country has experienced a dualism of land tenure arrangements: western (Dutch) law and indigenous (Adat) law. The intention of the BAL to unify these law dualisms has resulted in a complexity of administrative arrangements and another dualism in that the registered lands are handled by National Land Agency (BPN) while the unregistered lands are handled by the Sub-district offices. Furthermore, the complexity of Indonesia land tenure arrangement has been exacerbated by the lack of records in the Sub-district offices, especially the unregistered lands within kampung in Jakarta, which may lead to land tenure insecurity. This thesis attempts to understand the complexity of Indonesia land tenure insecurity. The next chapter further explores the tenure security literature and identifies a basic debate about the relationship between the ‘causes’ of tenure security, the extent of tenure security, and the ‘effects’ of tenure security.
33
CHAPTER 4: FORMS OF LAND TENURE AND TENURE SECURITY: THE DEBATE
Having discussed the issue of tenure security in the global context in the previous chapters, this chapter continues to discuss the critical debate relating to land tenure security. The debate centres on the relative importance of two forms of land tenure: de facto (rights-based or land occupancy) and de jure (title-based or land ownership). The term ‘rights’ in association with de facto is used to describe what the community have in a sense of land occupancy status recognised by local authorities as this recognition influences the community’s perceived tenure (security). The thesis extends the discussion beyond that debate about forms of tenure into the ‘causes’, the extent, and the ‘effects’ of land tenure security depicted in Figure 4-1 (a conceptual framework for the thesis). The chapter consists of four sections: Section 4.1 elaborates the core debate in the literature on the two fundamental forms of tenure: de facto and de jure; Section 4.2 elaborates the effects (impacts); Section 4.3 explains the approaches to land tenure regularization on the basis of de facto and de jure tenure forms; and lastly, Section 4.4 provides a summary of this chapter.
4.1 The theoretical debate: de facto and de jure land tenure
In framing the discussion or debate among authors and considering the continuum of land rights, it is reasonable to classify the extent of land tenure forms generating tenure security into two major categories: rights (de facto), and title (de jure). Each term represents an extreme end of the continuum of rights. Some authors supporting the ‘rights (de facto)’ side argue that the real conditions on the ground are more important and relevant in providing adequate protection against eviction (e.g. Payne 2002), while, on the other side, others argue that legal or formal tenure gives the best legal protection especially against forced eviction, and even creates the basis for local economic activities (e.g. de Soto 2000). Payne’s (2002) argument is that it is more realistic to have the on-the-ground needs of the community on specific tenure, perceived as adequate for certain degree of tenure security, on the basis of the local continuum of rights, rather than attempting to effect major change as implied by title. In a similar vein, McAuslan (2000) points out that enhancing land tenure security is more important than formalizing land tenure which might be costly and time-consuming. In addition, any attempt to formalise informal land transaction must be based on the realities on the ground (Kombe & Kreibich, 2000). Those who oppose de Soto’s argument claim that social norms (recognition) within the community is more relevant in generating perceived tenure security.
One author on the side of de jure (title) is de Soto (2000). He has made an important contribution in confronting urban informality through supporting formalization of informal settlement titles For
34 example, he says (de Soto, 2000, pp. 6,7,165, 229): “Most of the poor already possess the assets they need to make a success of capitalism…But they hold these resources in defective forms…these assets cannot readily be turned into capital: ‘dead capital’…They lack the process to represent their property and create capital. They have houses, but not titles…It is the representation of assets in legal property documents that gives them the power to create surplus value…Property titles were only the visible tip of a growing formal property iceberg”. de Soto (2000) thus underlined two major points:1) title may lead to investment in housing and the improvement of economic conditions by people; and 2) tenure security and access to credit can be achieved through provision of individual ownership in legalization of informal settlements, and as such thus help eradicate poverty. On the other side, Payne (2002) noted that residents can share an effective perception of tenure security, have access to informal (and sometimes formal) credit and public services, and invest in housing improvement, even without legal title. In addition, social and cultural needs contribute to maintaining the operation of land tenure on the ground (Payne, 2001b). The debate thus extends into concerns about the impacts of different tenure forms on housing investment, access to services and credit (de Soto, 2000; UN-HABITAT, 2008b), enabled land and housing markets (UN-HABITAT, 2008b), social disruption (Durand-Lasserve, 2006), and cost-associated burdens (Sjaastad and Cousins, 2009; Payne, 2001b; Doebele, 1987). These impacts will be discussed further in Section 4.2. By analysing this theoretical debate on land tenure security in the case of Indonesia, and particularly in Jakarta’s urban kampung, the thesis aims to contribute to this debate.
It is, thus, important to understand the nature of tenure security prevailing in local area, as, despite its lack of clarity, it explains how tenure security is arranged and agreed among the holders and local authorities. Moreover, legal recognition and acknowledgement about diverse tenure forms from local authorities also determines the extent of tenure security. It thus may accommodate the prevailing land market in dense populated areas (UN-HABITAT, 2008b). As Durand-Lasserve (2006a) underlined, an appropriate solution depends on the original tenure situation. A local continuum of rights acts as the basis of any attempt in recognizing, and even in formalization. There, however, seems to be no single form of tenure that can meet the diverse needs of all social groups (UN-HABITAT, 2008b). But it is necessary to assess the range of tenure forms prevailing in a local area to meet major needs of the community, which might be revealed from the impacts or outcomes of tenure security. This will be discussed in the following section.
35
4.2 Impacts of de facto (rights) and de jure (title) tenure
Land tenure security is widely acknowledged to be of importance for economic development. Tenure security in form of title has been especially advocated to realise it. Title, indeed, theoretically may bridge urban poverty and economic development, as it definitely increases tenure security and can be used as collateral for formal credit, and subsequently generates capital for housing investment and other economic activities. However, many criticisms have been put forward about the effectiveness of land title for such objectives.
Given the description of de facto and de jure approach in the previous section, this discussion continues to elaborate the effects (impacts or outcomes) of both land tenure types. Tenure security here is seen from the perspective of community and local authority; its forms may range from the least extreme end (de facto) to the most extreme end (de jure) as depicted in the continuum of land rights (Figure 3.1) (UN-HABITAT, 2008b). The continuum of land right thus is used as the basis for further tenure upgrading in that particular type of land rights may be shifted to another type based on the requirement in land tenure regularization.
To investigate the extent of tenure security in a local area, this thesis attempts to examine the impacts (impacts or outcomes) of existing tenure forms. It is crucial to understand the general impacts of de facto and de jure tenure, and to relate such impacts with the existing tenure forms prevailing in a local area. Yet, the debate or discussion highlights public critics on the potential impacts of title. As considered the strongest land tenure form, titling not only gives protection against involuntary removal, but also can generate an economic multiplier effect including investment in housing, enabled land markets, and access to credit (de Soto, 2000; Reerink & van Gelder, 2010). In contrast, rights-based tenure may have drawbacks in the sense of dispute due to the absence of record. However, Payne (2001b) and Payne et al. (2009) questioned the extent of such potential effects of title provision and the discussion will now go further in detail on specific effects of titling.
The debate continues discussing the effects of land title. The thesis lists down the general impacts (outcomes) from several literature sources (Payne, 2001; Durand-Lasserve, 2002; Payne et. al, 2009) and, at later stage, focusing on several direct impacts. The general impacts are as follows:
1) Encourage investment in housing;
2) Improve access to formal credit;
3) Increase the property tax for local authority;
4) Enable urban development authority’s influence over land and housing market;
36
5) Improve the efficiency and equity of urban land and housing markets;
6) Lead to provision of, access to, urban services and infrastructure; and
7) Increase income (economic improvement).
However, it is debatable that titling may lead to such impacts. Bromley (2008, p. 22) views the benefits of formalization from two economic dimensions: supply and demand side; “government pay more attention to the poor” and “the poor take better care of their assets”, respectively. Conversely, provision of individual title may hinder community cohesion, dissolve social links, and accelerate segregation process through market pressure or eviction (Durand-Lasserve, 2006a). Additionally, such provision may encourage the newly titled beneficiaries to sell the newly titled land for the windfall profit and move out to another squatter settlement, expecting to redo such titling process. This actually, instead of reducing, increases the number of informal settlements (Payne, 2005). It can also be the result of economic hardship to meet primary needs and ultimately dissolves existing social links. The thesis attempts to discuss further each of these claimed effects of titling.
Encourage investment in housing
It is widely considered that land title acts as a pre-requisite of housing investment (de Soto, 2000). Yet, the effectiveness of titling has a tendency to stimulate the household to invest in housing, and as such promote the titling rather than other tenure types (Payne et al., 2009). Tenure status may not be the sole pre-requisite generate tenure security. Van Gelder (2009) noted that perceived tenure security (in relation to the sense of eviction) turns out to be an important driving factor of housing investment. Similarly, the perception of possibility of forced eviction determines more the tenure security (Gilbert, 2002; Payne, 2001b). They pointed out that evidence of such link between tenure security and housing investment is difficult to assess, when provision of infrastructure and basic services accompany tenure regularization. Payne (2001b) argues that certificate of use right, official letter stating no removal of settlement and even provision of services can generate acceptable tenure security, thereby encouraging the poor to invest or improve their housing conditions. Similarly, Nakamura (2016) found that legal assurance of occupancy and use rights influence housing investment in the long run. Furthermore, one very simple reason for not improving housing is that residents are too poor to borrow much from formal financial institutions (Gilbert, 2002). Additionally, when the slum dwellers perceive themselves to have low expectation in life, they may prefer to spend the income for other purposes like foods and clothes; thus they may find it difficult to recover investment in housing improvements (Angel, 1982; Bromley, 2008). Bromley (2008)
37 further suggests that if the ultimate goal is to bring up the poor from poverty, title alone, without other initiatives, may not solve the core problems of poverty: instead it is just empty gift derived from urgent political interest. Thus, new job opportunities accompanying land tenure regularization can be one of the alternative initiatives necessary for their economic betterment.
Improve access to formal credit
Title, indeed, is the secure form of land tenure for getting access loan from formal credit. In this regard, de Soto’s thesis gains numerous critiques since it lacks empirical evidence (Goldfinch, 2015). The issue is whether or not the urban poor are able to pay back the credit, even including the interest rate. On the other hand, the financial institutions consider the ability to repay as primary eligibility of loans (Payne, 2001b). Payne further asserts that the poor perceive a fear of losing their only asset when engaging with formal credit. Payne et al. (2009) further describe that access to (formal) credit is difficult when there is no effective financial system. Thus instead of formal credit, the poor are more attracted to informal micro credit run by informal institutions or family, which is more flexible (Gilbert, 2002). One important note given by Bromley (2008) is that the central point of access to formal credit is a secure income stream that guarantees the household as a potential customer of the bank. He also noted that title in credit system hostages the borrower in focusing on the payment, and it also may restrict the borrower from another source of credit without the notice from the first lender. However, credit can be another burden in the poor’s life. Hence, the economic state of the urban poor, prior to credit, is to be taken into account in integrated approach of urban poverty alleviation. Alternatively, the potential of group saving may foster them in terms of credit. In regard of formal credit, titling can be ‘tricky’ if not assessed and analysed thoroughly, or accompanied by community empowerment. On one side it potentially alleviates poverty, but on the other, it may utterly make them destitute. Should titling be implemented; the form of title could influence eligibility of official standard by banks.
Increase the property tax for local authority
One of the multiplier effects of title for local authority is the increase of property tax. However, as the prior reason regarding the ability of urban poor is explained, it provides incremental cost burdens. In this regard, titling gives two-fold impacts: one side increase local revenue through tax; on the other, giving more cost-burden to the landholders. Sjaastad and Cousins (2009) noted that cost associated with formalization (i.e. taxes and registration fees) are entailed, which is a problem especially when the poor could not afford the payment. Similarly, the formalisation of land tenure could also expose the poor households to formal land taxation (Doebele, 1987). In addition, the high
38 threshold of tax makes them difficult to meet the costs (Payne, 2001b); as a consequence, title may not generate the increase of property tax revenue for municipality. This eventually may lead to cost- associated burden for the poor in the long run.
Enable urban development authority’s influence over land and housing market
Titling enables public sector influence over land and housing markets leading to enabled urban and land market. Tenure security is considered to be one of the prerequisites of the working urban land market (Fekade, 2000). While formalization of land tenure is considerably able to increase the supply of serviced land in urban areas, many cities in the global south yet confront difficulties in doing so, especially with regards to cost recovery (McAuslan, 2000). It seems inevitable that globalization encourages formal market system emphasizing the provision of individual title; as such it forces the informal market system into various informal solutions (UN-HABITAT, 2008b). As Dowall & Clarke (1996) assert that, in the global south, lack of clear evidence of land ownership imposes substantial costs on land market, and thereby requires extra efforts for clarification. Moreover, lack of security of land tenure could be one of the impediments of effective urban land markets (McAuslan, 2000; Brennan, 1993). As McAuslan (1985, p.8) stated that, complex procedure and high-cost in land registration has forced the urban land transaction to proceed in the ‘informal' or ‘illegal' way. In this regard, land title is expected to promote urban land and housing market by integration of informal to formal market in a unified market system, so that the purchase of property can be conducted under the same level. However, instead of enabling public sector influence over land and housing market due to the increase of value, Payne (2001b) described that unauthorised land development (e.g. illegal subdivision) may result in value capture by the landowners or such external actor as developers. In that case, titling induces ‘informalization’ of formal land transactions in order to avoid taxes or temporary restriction on transferring newly titled right (Payne et al., 2009). Furthermore, this ‘informalization’ leads to unplanned urban land development and land subdivision which is reasonably effective to meeting urban poor’s need for buildable land in making their shelters (Fekade, 2000). This shows the two-fold effects of titling on urban land and housing markets. Therefore, not only should provide accountable and accurate information on land ownership, but a good land registration should also support land market and facilitate the process of private conveyance in that it subsequently ensures transparency of land transaction (Williamson, 2000; Farvaque & McAuslan, 1992).
Improve the efficiency and equity of urban land and housing markets
39
In terms of land and housing market efficiency and equity, tenancy or leases, despite its considerable tenure security among other tenure types for the landholders, are affected by the multiplier effect in form of increase rent; they are regarded as the most vulnerable group. This condition, in fact, has two-fold impacts. On one side title benefits the landholders while on the other side marginalizing the vulnerable groups. Payne (2001b) further suggests that it may contribute to a large number of homeless people. In a similar vein, Doebele (1987, p. 124) argues that the formalisation of land tenure most likely end up with ‘upward filtration’ and the buying-up of poor households’ land by middle- and high-income households. This is considered as gentrification, the other side effect of land titling, compounding the likely increasing number of the homeless vulnerable group. Gentrification may occur when a higher income group gives pressure for profits by purchasing the land and house, and, in worst cases, economic hardship of the poor encourages that to happen. In this case, instead of increasing tenure security, title may actually reduce it especially for both the newly titled owners and tenants (Payne et al., 2009). This condition may ultimately dissolve the existing social bond built in the community leading to social disruption. Conversely, de facto or rights-based approach considers this tenure form – lease or sub-lease- as another affordable tenure form for the poor. Such an approach does not distort land market in favour of one tenure form at the expense of all others: it reduces market pressure and eviction since the rights are restricted to be transferred (Durand-Lasserve, 2006a). It thus maintains, and even improves, the land and housing market efficiency and equity.
Lead to provision of access to urban services and infrastructure
Titling and provision of, access to, urban services and infrastructure, in this regard, seems to have a triangular-relationship with housing investment. Titling may induce provision of urban services and infrastructure, and housing investment. On the other way around, such provision may also encourage the dwellers to invest in improving the physical structure of their housing. In other words, housing investment may be realised as a result of titling and/or provision of basic services and infrastructure. As discussed earlier, however, it is difficult to measure the impact of titling when provision of services and infrastructure is already in place. Payne et al. (2009) noted that whether titling encourages the provision of basic services and infrastructure or that such provision is an integral component, is not clear. They also argued that the link between titling and housing improvement is difficult to measure when provision of services and infrastructure accompanies tenure regularization. However, tenure regularization may give pressure for such provision. In addition, titling may attract investment on services and infrastructure, securing investment and
40 ensuring cost recovery. It ultimately may generate tax revenue that can be used for maintenance, or even improvement of basic services and infrastructure (Durand-Lasserve & Selod, 2009).
On the other hand, the individual titling may give more burdens to the poor on the increase of service cost. Unlike the titling, the right-based approach emphasises social economic integration in which an incremental process gives time for them to consolidate for improvement of economic condition, community cohesion, and, if any, conflict resolution within community and other stakeholders (landowners, private sectors, and public sectors) (Durand-Lasserve, 2006a). In addition, more simple land registration can be achieved through incremental tenure upgrading (Kombe & Kreibich, 2000). It thus lessens cost-related burdens to the poor as their economic condition has been improved. Overall, the question that might lead to certainty to this matter is: “Is titling necessary to gain access to services and infrastructure?” The thesis will address this question and the answer based on the existing condition on the ground, from the perspective of the communities and local authorities.
Increase income (economic improvement)
Titling and increase of income (economic improvement) of the poor - does titling increase income? Titling may have indirect link to this, and the income has a direct link to employment or job opportunity and thus it is highly related to access to services (Payne et al., 2009). In regard to this, there are two ways to look at it: as a direct and indirect impact. Firstly, as a direct impact, when title is granted to a couple, the household has more options in labour force participation (Durand- Lasserve & Selod, 2009), and thereby may increase their income or improve their livelihoods as a family. Secondly, as indirect impact, the increase of income may result from the access to formal credit. As they get credit, they may opt to do small business for extra income, aside from the current job.
Conceptual framework
The thesis lists down the impacts to what is considered as the major direct outcomes of titling: housing investment, access to services and access to credit (de Soto, 2000; UN-HABITAT, 2008b), enabled land and housing market (UN-HABITAT, 2008b), social disruption (Durand-Lasserve, 2006a), and cost-associated burden (Sjaastad and Cousins, 2009; Payne, 2001b; Doebele, 1987). These impacts or outcomes also have strong association with the ultimate goal of tenure security— protection against forced eviction. These impacts or outcomes can be summarised as the 'effects' of tenure security. Some authors (e.g. de Soto, 2000) argue that the greater security of tenure, as a
41 result of titling, the greater certainty of future life the dwellers will get. This condition encourages them to invest in their housing, which in turn may lead to improved livelihoods through access to services and credit. Subsequently, land and housing transaction occur under the same level of formality. However, in the absence of land title, land and housing transaction still exist, that is through private conveyance--informal transactions. Moreover, on the other side of de Soto, Durrand-Lasserve (2006a) argues that provision of titling may disrupt social cohesion as the land is recorded as personal entities, instead of group. Then, the newly title holders may sell the properties for a promising profit and move out as argued by Payne (2005).
In addition, there are unresolved questions about the reciprocal relationships between tenure security and other factors of livelihoods of the dwellers. It can also be speculated that there may in fact be a reciprocal relationship between the 'effects' of tenure security and tenure security itself -- in other words, the criteria that are seen as the 'effects' of tenure security may actually, in the long term, actually further increase security of tenure. Then, the thesis assumes these impacts might have reciprocal relation with the community perception on the extent of tenure security, in which such impacts or outcomes might conversely affect the extent of tenure security. In order to identify such relation, a question arises as “Regardless the existing tenure forms, or the presence of title, what would the community do and get when they perceive tenure security –considerably protection against eviction?” In other words, in the absence of title, the thesis attempts to understand what community still probably do and get from it. This kind of question will be covered in the research questionnaire (Appendix A). This might demonstrate two-way (reciprocal) relations between the extent of tenure security and the impacts resulting from it. This thesis thus attempts to investigate whether those impacts resulted from the existing tenure forms in urban kampung, or there might be other impacts that occur. These relations are depicted in the conceptual framework for the research shown in Figure 4-1 below.
42
Public authority recognition and acknowledgement
‘Cause’ ‘Effect’ criteria
criteria . Housing . Land-related investment documents (land and Extent . Provision of occupational of basic services status) tenure and Reciprocal infrastructure . Duration of security relationship occupation . Access to credit
. Size of . Enabled urban settlement land and housing market . Social cohesion . Social disruption . Support from civil society Urban ‘Kampung’ . Cost-associated group community perception burden on existing tenure and improved tenure
Figure 4-1 Conceptual framework for the research (developed by the author)
In sum, recognizing the driving factors (‘causes’ of tenure security) and the impacts (‘effects’ of tenure security) of the extent of existing tenure security is essential to come up with any tenure form relevant to the local context for land tenure regularization. Secure tenure, either in form of de facto or de jure, is about to be recognised and identified as the extent of tenure security perceived by kampung community and the gap with local authorities’ recognition has been revealed. As the impacts on the ground are revealed, tenure security can be realised on the basis of local context through either de facto or de jure-based approach for land tenure regularization discussed in the following section.
4.3 Approaches to land tenure regularization
The debate on the extent of land tenure security implies that the approach to land tenure regularization is conducted on de facto or de jure basis. Land tenure regularization is a legalization of informal or illegal occupation by delivering the legal right to ownership, occupation or use of 43 land (Bazoglu et. al, 2011). They further described that such legalization may take diverse forms since tenure security is a complex issue. In addition to the definition, UN-HABITAT (2004) views tenure regularization as a way to integrate informal system into formal system in terms of land tenure, building standard, land development, and provision of infrastructure and services. Subsequently, the debate has been unravelled and focused on two approaches constituting integration of informal market within formal system through formal regularization or direct formalization, and social-economic integration of informal system or indirect tenure formalization (Durand-Lasserve, 2006a). The first approach emphasises formal tenure regularization with the provision of individual ownership, de jure basis (title-based), whereas the second emphasises social and economic improvement, de facto basis (rights-based), through other provisions: occupancy rights, or collective rights, although at later stage formal tenure may be improved incrementally as underlined by Durand-Lasserve (2006a). For the first approach, Durand-Lasserve and Selod (2009) redefined it into administrative recognition of occupancy rights and delivery of real rights (freehold or long leasehold). Such approaches are shown in Figure 4-2 below.
Figure 4-2 Tenure regularization approaches (modified from Durand-Lasserve and Selod (2009))
The first approach, adopting de Soto’s assumption, asserts that provision of formal or statutory title would release potential of local investment for house improvement, which would then raise property values for all, and in turn increase the property tax for municipal revenue. Additionally, title could allow the poor to access the credit markets, transforming their wealth into capital and, hence, increase their labour productivity and income (van Gelder, 2010). Conversely, insecure
44 tenure discourages improvement in housing. However, on the other hand, the increase value resulted from titling consequently may burden the urban poor, especially in the case of property tax increase. The formal tenure approach, in form of title, seems to hold the market-based principle which is based particularly on economic aspects. Despite its costly and tedious process, it makes way for the market to work on the housing by generating title to capital. In short, the first approach, de jure, can be regarded as the direct tenure formalization with provision of title.
Alternatively, the second approach is an incremental approach, whereby tenure rights are gradually formalised or upgraded over time (UN-HABITAT, 2008). It emphasises tenure security as well as social cohesion, adopting Payne claims, in that tenure security is to be generated from community recognition as a legitimate form of urban housing (Angel, 1982). It basically aims to preserve the cohesion of community as well as to give protection against market pressures (Durand-Lasserve, 2006). It also emphasises social and economic integration which goes along the recognition of ‘legal pluralism’- coexisting land rights system (Durand-Lasserve & Selod, 2009). This approach operates on incremental tenure, engaging community empowerment, while at same time giving the residents room and time to improve their living conditions. Furthermore, Angel (1982) asserts that the urban poor given the freedom and opportunity will gradually mobilise their resources, labour and social to house themselves. Finally, they may incrementally upgrade the tenure security. This approach can also be considered as gradual tenure upgrading; in which secure land tenure may range from a moratorium on relocations and evictions, to temporary occupation licenses, communal or individual leases, community land trusts, communal ownership and individual ownership (Payne, 2005). Additionally, this rights-based approach generally involves administrative protection and provision of basic services and credit facilities (Reerink, 2011).
Given such rights as occupancy and collective rights, the holders may not transfer or sell the property in that it is one of the essential advantage for reducing market pressures (Durand-Lasserve, 2006). In short, this second approach, de facto-based, can be regarded as the indirect tenure formalization with provision of right acknowledged through communities, which, at later stage, formalization of right can be upgraded as the right holders improve their social and economic situation. In addition to that, this may give considerable, short-to-medium-term, tenure security at a large scale, while the authorities increase their capacity and prepare comprehensive and locally sensitive long-term alternatives (UN-HABITAT, 2008). It is thus reasonable to consider the improved land tenure security as the foundation of the gradual improvement of urban poor housing (Angel, 1982).
45
Payne (2005) further suggested that besides the adequate land tenure security, the key objective also includes open access to job market. In addition, to achieve sustainable development of informal settlement, such empowerment as tenure security, informal economic activities and social capital is necessary; in which tenure security is the central issue (Tunas & Peresthu, 2010). The earlier debate of the extent of tenure security narrowed down to two approaches with different emphasis. Either tenure formalization or incremental regularization is appropriate, it depends on the local context: original tenure situation (Durand-Lasserve, 2006a). He further suggested that prior to any approaches; it is important to recognise the objectives and needs of urban stakeholders (informal dweller, government, private sector) regarding land tenure. In practice, tenure regularization is mainly influenced by government orientation: political will and commitment, perception of informal settlement, state of demand (urgency) of tenure regularization, financial and human resources; and other local factors such as pressure from civil society (Durand-Lasserve & Selod, 2009). However, government orientation, generally speaking, determines the success of any attempts to ensure secure tenure, and ultimately to improve informal housing development or redevelopment. It is the key to provide secure tenure for poor people. In addition, political views necessarily underlie any attempt on land and thus requires real conditions on the ground and its possible changes (Angel, 1982). More importantly, there is also a need to take into account the cost that may burden more the urban poor, especially after the approach.
Although there is unlikely a standard for the extent of tenure to be realised, it is worth noting that world-wide tenure regularizations aim to ensure tenure security based on their typical local contexts, from which they determine the highly desirable outcomes (Durand-Lasserve & Selod, 2009). Furthermore, land tenure arrangements reflect social values and norms, and thus any approach or initiative neglecting this local knowledge may have unexpected results (Deininger, 2010). In other words, policy makers should then understand the fundamental issues through the eyes of the settlers including the needs of liveability and sustainability (Jones, 2012). Secure tenure is regarded as the main objective of tenure regularization that in long run it may encourage the poor improve their housing and livelihoods (UN-HABITAT, 2008b). Additionally, UN-HABITAT (2008b) underlined that it can also enable people to access public services and sources of credit. The most effective approach, thus, is the one that may expand the range of land tenure forms in that the short-term tenure security can be increased (Payne & Majale, 2004). An incremental strategy, building on what people have, might be appropriate as it recognises a range of continuum of land rights from which the existing tenure might be necessary to be upgraded (UN-HABITAT, 2004). Thus, such approach may lessen unexpected impacts that might be resulted from tenure upgrading. This also aims to give room for public authorities to improve their capacity and also for the poor to
46 improve their living conditions. This thesis attempts to identify the existing tenure forms in a local continuum of land rights, the case of urban kampung in Jakarta, which further acts as the basis for land tenure upgrading in a land tenure regularization approach.
Pro-poor land management constitutes an approach that makes the poor visible as legal residents, includes the informal settlement in city planning, and provides accessible and affordable secure tenure for the poor (UN-HABITAT, 2004). This might include an effort to recognise, even to accommodate, informal land transactions existing within informal settlements. UN-HABITAT (2004), in context of pro-poor land management, further described various phases incorporated in slum upgrading program: land readjustment, land tenure regularization and provision of services. Succeeding the improvement of redevelopment plan, land readjustment consolidates the lands, and also spares part of land for basic services and infrastructure (Uzun et. al, 2010). In addition, land readjustment allocates lands whereby available innovative tenure options for land administration system within the local continuum of land rights, could eventually be granted in land tenure regularization for formal land recording system (Supriatna & van der Molen, 2014). Should there be a need for land tenure regularization, it thus should not be simply a way to integrate informal system into formal system, but also take into account the needs of the dwellers.
4.4 Summary
In providing secure tenure for the urban poor, there has been a debate on what tenure security entails - what sorts of land tenure forms can give adequate tenure security so that the urban poor feel protected against eviction? The debate highlights two forms of land tenure: de facto (right- based) and de jure tenure (title-based). Some authors (de Soto, 2000) on the side of de jure tenure forms argue that legal or formal tenure gives legal protection especially against forced eviction, even makes way for local economic activities through access to credit and services. In addition, as the urban poor feel more secure tenure with the formal or legal tenure form, in turn they are willing to invest in their housing, and other effect as enabled urban land and housing market. On the other side, some authors (Payne, 2002) argue that the real conditions on ground are practically more important and relevant in providing adequate protection against eviction. In addition, titling may dissolve social cohesion that has been persistently embedded within community.
The debate continues the discussion on the impacts on titling, that is claimed not only gives protection against eviction, but also claimed to generate other multiplier effects (i.e. housing investment, access to services and credit, enabled land market). Yet, such a claim meets its detractors while titling, on the other hand, may lead to social disruption and cost burden as well. These impacts are considered as ‘effect’ of tenure security in the thesis. To expand the debate, the 47 thesis redesigns the debate into ‘cause’ of tenure security, extent of tenure security, and ‘effect’ of tenure security and also suggests that such impacts might have reciprocal relation with the community perception on the extent of tenure security; in which such impacts might conversely affect the extent of tenure security. In this case, the ‘effects’ of tenure security may act as the ‘causes’ of improved tenure security.
The thesis attempts to expand the debate into three major parts: the ‘causes’ of tenure security, the extent of tenure security, and the ‘effects’ of tenure security as set out in the conceptual framework (Figure 4-1); for further details of each part, see Section 3.2, and Section 4.2. Firstly, the ‘causes’ of tenure security derive from literature as: length of occupation, size of settlement, community organization, support from civil society group (Durand-Lasserve, 2006a), with additional cause of land-related document. Secondly, the extent of tenure security is adopted from FIG and UNCHS’ definition, consisting of protection against forced eviction, possibility to sell, and possibility to inherit (UN-HABITAT, 2004, p. 13). Lastly, the ‘effect’ of tenure security are adopted from the literature as: housing investment, access to services and credit (de Soto, 2000; UN-HABITAT, 2008), enabled land and housing market (UN-HABITAT, 2008), social disruption (Durand- Lasserve, 2006), and cost-associated burden (Sjaastad and Cousins, 2009; Payne, 2001b; Doebele, 1987). Both ‘cause’ and ‘effect’ of tenure security are further analysed in Chapter 7 and 9, respectively, in respect to the extent of tenure security, from the perception of kampung dwellers, and the recognition and acknowledgement of public authorities.
48
CHAPTER 5: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
As discussed in Chapter 4, the thesis reconfigures the debate on land tenure and slum upgrading by focusing on the ‘causes’ and ‘effects’ of tenure security, and the extent of tenure security. The ‘causes’ are: (a) length of occupation; (b) size of settlement; (c) community organization or social cohesion; and (d) support from civil society groups, such as non-governmental organizations. These apparently are de facto causes. Land-related document is then included to these causes since the global debate pertains to both de facto and de jure tenure, and tenure security is a matter of law and perception. The extent of tenure security consists of protection against forced eviction, the possibility to sell the land, and the possibility to inherit. For the ‘effects’ of tenure security, the thesis narrows these down to the major direct impacts of tenure security identified in the literature, namely: housing investment, access to infrastructure and services, and access to credit, an enabled land and housing market, reduction in social disruption, and a possible cost-associated burden. In respect to these variables, the main question of the thesis is “What is the relationship between the ‘causes’ of tenure security, the extent of tenure security itself, and the ‘effects’ of tenure security?” To answer the main question, the following sub-questions were developed:
1. What is the current condition of land tenure security in urban kampung in Jakarta? 2. How do urban kampung dwellers and the public authorities perceive land tenure security? 3. What are (a) the ‘causes’; (b) and ‘effects’ of tenure security in urban kampung in Jakarta? 4. To what extent, do the ‘effects’ of tenure security act reciprocally to further improve tenure security? 5. What policy recommendations can be made for more secure tenure for urban kampung dwellers?
To answer the research questions, the thesis employs both quantitative and qualitative methods. This chapter elaborates the research methodologies. The chapter consists of six sections. Section 5.1 describes the rationale in selecting a case study approach and the specific case study areas. Section 5.2 elaborates on the types of data collected and the collection methods encompassing quantitative and qualitative methods. Section 5.3 contains an explanation of the questions included in the questionnaire and interview guide for primary data collection. Section 5.4 describes the mixed analysis methods including quantitative and qualitative analysis. Section 5.5 elaborates the limitations of the research. Lastly, Section 5.6 provides a summary of the research methodology chapter.
5.1 Selection of case study areas
As discussed in Section 3.2, Payne et. al (2009) point out that tenure security is not only a matter of law but also that of perception. Perception is the phenomenon of human behaviour under the law that can be found out on the ground. Following Yin (2014), a case study is thus conducted to reveal
49 such phenomenon and context as well as to address the lack of knowledge of the community’s behaviour on a specific event; in this case, the phenomenon of perceived tenure security. Similarly, Flyvbjerg (2006) points out that a case study intends to develop a real knowledge. Yin (2014) further underlines, case studies can be generalizable to theoretical propositions. Having understood the perceived tenure security, the thesis aims to generalise it to theoretical debates. The thesis has two case study areas in different jurisdiction within Jakarta province.
There are three considerations in selecting the case study areas. The first consideration is the spatial distribution of predominant land rights of girik and garapan (discussed earlier in Section 3.4). Leaf (1993) noted the spatial distribution of ex-’adat’ rights across kampung and that girik rights are predominantly scattered along the periphery toward the west of Jakarta, while garapan rights predominantly exist in the urban centre and its edge toward the south, east, and south east of Jakarta. The second consideration is the type of kampung. Ford (1993) shows that kampung differs in their spatial types: inner-city, mid-city, rural kampung, and squatter kampung. The inner-city kampung was selected due to its characteristics of overcrowding and strategic attraction to employment as discerned by Ford (1993). The third consideration is size of settlement. The size of the settlement, despite this not necessarily always being the case, may also represent social cohesion within the community. The different size of settlement may imply different social cohesion as well as support from civil society group. This thesis intends to investigate whether or not the communities’ perceived tenure security and its impacts are diverse on the basis of the size.
Given such considerations, the thesis employs data about RW kumuh (slum neighbourhood), collected from BPS Jakarta (2013). Kampung constitutes neighbourhoods under the administration unit of ‘RW’. The data of ‘RW kumuh’ consists of three ranks classifying the level of slum into high, moderate, and low categories. The rank is defined on the basis of physical variables including population density, building pattern or regularity, structural durability, building ventilation, building density, road pavement, drainage, sanitation, garbage disposal, frequency of garbage disposal, and road lights. The data also contains information of settlement size. However, insecure tenure is not one of the criteria. The absence of insecure tenure in the local definition of slums, in fact, enables the thesis to contribute to what is not revealed within the definition and thereby bring forward its significance in identifying the slums.
On the basis of RW Kumuh (slum neighbourhood) data, the thesis selected two moderate slum inner-city neighbourhoods with different sizes (one. large and one small settlement) within different sub-districts. In the moderate slum neighbourhood, a wide range of land tenure forms exists. Also, inner-city kampung or neighbourhoods were selected considering the high population density with minimum basic services and their strategic locations for employment. Therefore, this type of 50 kampung is likely to be dominated by garapan rights, also known as ‘quasi-legal’, that might reveal diverse perception of tenure security.
5.2 Data collection methods
This thesis employs a mixed method of data collection, both quantitative and qualitative. The goal to utilise mixed methods is not to replace one method with another, but rather to benefit from the strengths of both approaches (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004). Using both quantitative and qualitative methods increases the internal validity. Quantitative methods aim to test pre-determined hypotheses and generalise the results while qualitative methods aim to provide deep understanding on human issues (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004). As discussed earlier in Section 3.2 and Section 4.2, the thesis argues, based on the literature, that there is likely to be a relationship between the ‘cause’ of tenure security, the extent of tenure security, and ‘effect’ of tenure security, but this needs to be ground-proven. Furthermore, the relationship appears to be complex and problematic, probably, because tenure security covers both perception and regulatory perspectives. To investigate such a relationship, the thesis employs both quantitative and qualitative methods. The workflow of the research methodology is illustrated in Figure 5-1 below.
Firstly, quantitative methods were mainly used to investigate the degree of perceived tenure security by dwellers, in respect to the relationship between the ‘causes’ of tenure security (sub-question 3a), tenure security itself (sub-question 1), and the ‘effects’ of tenure security (sub-question 3b) as well as the (possible) reciprocal relationship between the ‘effects’ and tenure security (sub-question 4). The principal quantitative method used was a household survey of urban kampung dwellers, in order to test pre-determined assumption - the relationship of these criteria as discussed in literature.
The fieldwork took place between July and December 2015. The primary data derived from a survey and in-depth interviews while the secondary data derived from literatures, statistics, and other governmental-related documents. The fieldwork was initiated by secondary data collection from BPS Jakarta (data of RW kumuh 2013) which was used to select the two moderate-slum neighbourhoods (RW kumuh) in different sub-districts or neighbourhoods of different size. These were Menteng Dalam and Tanah Tinggi urban kampung in Jakarta.
51
WORKFLOW OF RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Variables: Research problem: ‘Causes’ of tenure security Extent of tenure security : What is secure land tenure? possibility to be evicted, possibility to sell and inherit de facto or de jure in urban kampung in Jakarta ‘Effects’ of tenure security
Data analysis: Case study: two ‘moderate-slum’ Quantitative analysis (descriptive and inner-city kampung with different inferential): size and location Primary data analysis: statistical (municipality/district/sub-district) analysis tools (cross-tabulation, logistic regression, structural equation Household survey (close-ended modelling using partial least square- questions), Stratified sampling- SEM-PLS) group of landowners with title, landowners with no title, non- Qualitative analysis: landowner (leaseholders) - Primary data analysis of interview data In-depth interviews : purposive & snowball sampling - Secondary data analysis: desk (community heads NGOs, review (on literatures, Government documents, project local authorities, academics) reports (national/international), NGO reports, past researches)
Figure 5-1 Workflow of research methodologies (developed by the author)
Quantitative data was collected through a direct household survey with the head of households (either male or female on the basis of their preferences). The collection of primary data used a stratified sampling method related to land tenure categories, namely landowners with land title, landowners with no land title, and non-landowners (leaseholders). Stratified sampling, also known as representative sampling, aims to study more detail on specific sub-groups or categories with specific characteristics (Urdan, 2005; Marshall, 1996). The thesis aims to investigate the extent of tenure security perceived by households within specific groups of land tenure category: landowners with land title, landowners with no land title, and non-landowners (leaseholders). With the representative sampling, the sample may look similar to the population size on particular important variables, and thereby may increase chances to generalise the results on the basis of population (Urdan, 2005).
52
Moreover, quantitative methods are suitable to answer the ‘What’ question (Marshall, 1996). In the case study areas, the thesis needed to oversample one category (i.e. landowners with no title) to reach at least 30 respondents in each category, the number needed for parametric analysis. The choice of 30 samples as a rule of thumb may yield good approximations for normal distribution assumption (Hogg, Tanis, & Zimmerman, 2014).
Given such considerations, the survey was initiated by collecting population data from the community heads. This was aimed at obtaining an evenly distributed proportion of inhabitants per household association (RT) for the sample framework. Yet, lacks of such data was an impediment. Thus, the survey was undertaken by selecting the participants randomly in such a way so that the samples covered evenly the number of inhabitants for each household association (RT), at least 30 respondents for each category of land tenure. This was conducted in accordance to the willingness of the household to participate.
Secondly, a qualitative approach is used for in-depth interviews with open-ended questions to investigate the way the communities perceive tenure security and the form and implication of public authorities’ recognition of the existing tenure security (sub-question 2). The use of qualitative method is basically to complement the quantitative method in that the reasons of perceived tenure security by kampung dwellers and local authorities are then clarified. A total of 14 interviews were conducted with key stakeholders including two community heads, seven local authorities (regional urban plan agency, regional housing agency, regional statistics bureau, two sub-district offices, two land offices), and two civil society groups (NGOs) as well as three academics/researchers. However, this thesis found that there is no involvement of any NGOs in the case study areas. The thesis then interviewed NGOs serving other areas in Jakarta considering their long experiences empowering the slum communities across Jakarta.
The thesis selected the key informants from each source group using purposive sampling on the basis of local knowledge. In purposive sampling, the researcher actively selects the most productive sample in relation to the research question (Marshall, 1996). Additionally, the thesis employed snowball sampling; where the key informant of each source group was asked to recommend other potential candidates with the same expertise and experience (Marshall, 1996). The in-depth interviews related directly to the issues under investigation and revealed participants’ perspectives and meanings in more detail than the data gathered by quantitative methods (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004). In addition, in-depth interviews allowed developing an understanding of the process of interaction (Marshall, 1996). Given such considerations, in-depth interview seemed to be
53 appropriate to investigate the recognition of local authorities and other stakeholders ‘views on tenure security.
At the end, the thesis obtained 117 and 128 respondents from the two case study survey areas of Menteng Dalam and Tanah Tinggi respectively and 14 interviews. The first case study comprises 85 landowners and 32 non-landowners; 85 landowners cover 32 landowners with land title and 53 landowners without land title. The second case study comprises 92 landowners and 36 non- landowners; 92 landowners comprise 44 landowners with land title and 48 landowners without land title (Figure 5-2). The content of the quantitative and qualitative data collection methods using questionnaire and interview guide will be discussed in the following section.
Surveyed Number of Landowners with title and non-title
100
80
60 53 48 44 40 32 20 0 Title Non-title
Menteng Dalam Tanah Tinggi
Figure 5-2 Surveyed proportion of land tenure categories (derived from surveys)
5.3 Questionnaire and interview guide
The thesis built up two sets of questions: one being the questionnaire for the survey and the other is the interview guide for the in-depth interviews. The questionnaire and the interview guide are developed on the basis of the literatures and the gaps found in the literatures. Both questionnaire and interview guide address the land tenure security issues, in accordance to research questions ranging from ‘causes’, extent of tenure security perceived by community and recognised by local authority, to their ‘effects’ as well as the possible reciprocal influences between the impacts (‘effect’) and the tenure security. The questionnaire is to examine the assumption of the relationship between the ‘causes’, the extent, and the ‘effects’ of tenure security. It was answered by the urban kampung dwellers while the interview guide was used for in-depth interviews with the community 54 heads, local authorities, civil society groups, and academics. Both the questionnaire and the interview guide were pilot-tested in Kampung Pulo in May 2015 and adjusted according to the real condition of tenure security on the ground and the level understanding of the respondents. The redesign also included several standards of survey questions recommended in the national survey template (SUSENAS) by the Central Bureau of Statistics (BPS Pusat, 2011).
First, the survey questionnaire (Appendix A) addressed the extent of perceived tenure security by the dwellers; it then examined the impacts that resulted from the extent of tenure security, whether it adequately gave the expected tenure security for the dwellers, and whether such impacts affected back to tenure security. Room was also allowed for possible answers from the households beyond what have been discussed in the literatures. The questionnaire explicitly addressed possible reciprocal relations between the extent of tenure security and impacts. It was designed in respect to the variables of tenure security e.g. any possibility of forced eviction perceived by the residents, of sale or transfer the assets; also, their perception of the government’s view of the legitimacy of their residence or occupation of land, as well as the reasoning for the possible given answers. However, the ‘cause’ such as settlement size was already accommodated in the selection of case study areas (small and large neighbourhood). Subsequently, the thesis attempted to narrow down to specific details on land-related documents and length of occupation of dwellers, e.g. type of document, considering the administrative dualism of the unregistered and registered land, as a result of unification of land rights systems during the post-colonial period (discussed in Section 3.3).
Overall, the questionnaire was developed and divided into sections corresponding to the ‘cause’ of tenure security, the extent of tenure security, and ‘effect’ criteria. The questionnaire also consisted of questions with measurement scale of nominal, ordinal, interval and ratio. In particular, to measure the degree of the perceived tenure security that resulted from the ‘causes’ as well as the ‘effects’ of tenure security, the thesis employed Likert-scale questions, also classified as an ordinal scale, to measure the perceived tenure security of land tenure categories. Likert-scale is an instrument used to measure behaviours and opinions (Likert, 1932). Similarly, the Likert-scale is used to measure a particular characteristic when combined as a category (Boone, 2012).
The interview guide (Appendix B) sought the perception of local authorities, community heads, civil society groups, and academics regarding land tenure security. The interview guide was made up of around 20 questions depending on the expertise and experience of each source group. It expected to obtain forms and implications of local authorities’ recognition and it also sought for the reasons of perceived tenure security by the dwellers. This aimed to find out the different views between them.
55
The questionnaire was designed with close-ended questions while the interview guide contained open-ended questions. The close-ended questions, for instance, addressed a situation related to the extent of tenure security (e.g. possibility of eviction, legitimacy of residence), whereas the open- ended questions addressed the reason of the given answer by the respondents (e.g. the reason of eviction: land acquisition for public interest development, commercial development, illegal occupation), the reason of legitimated residency (e.g. possession of land-related documents, length of residence, provision of basic services etc.). Similarly, the interview guide addressed more general questions referring to tenure security (e.g. the view of local authorities on tenure security).
5.4 Mixed analysis methods: quantitative and qualitative
The perception of land tenure security is mainly seen from the perspective of the community. The quantitative methods used to assess this were divided into two approaches: descriptive and inferential. The descriptive approach employs cross tabulation to describe the general overview of the community’s perception while the inferential was used to investigate the relationship between the ‘causes’ and the extent of tenure security. The first inferential method is Structural Equation Model Partial Least Squares (SEM-PLS). Along with the cross tabulation, SEM-PLS was aimed to specifically measure the strength of the perception of the ‘causes’ of tenure security and perceived tenure security, as well as, the perception on the extent and ‘effect’ of tenure security; Yet, since data of ‘effects’ was collected in different scale from the data of extent of tenure security, the thesis then employed logistic regression model. Using a logistic regression model, along with cross tabulation, is aimed to investigate the relationship between perceived tenure security and ‘effects’ of tenure security and its (possible) reciprocal relationship: this is particularly the magnitude of the possibility of the ‘effects’ perceived by the community.
The thesis employed SEM-PLS to cope with following conditions. Firstly, SEM-PLS is generally used in a condition where a theory is insufficiently grounded and a set of multiple measures of construct do not fit to a certain specified model (Acedo & Jones, 2007). Secondly, as underlined by Pullman, Granzin, & Olsen (1997); Julien & Ramangalahy (2003); Pavlou & Chai (2002), SEM- PLS can be useful for building up a theory and testing a hypothesised relationship. The latter use is also considered as linkage between constructs by Gefen et. al (2000). In this case, SEM-PLS may allow simultaneous analysis in the process. Lastly, in terms of data limitation including size of data and non-normally distributed data, SEM-PLS can accommodate lack of data, small sample size, and holds a principle of distribution-free assumptions (Green & Ryans, 1990); Lee, 2001; Pavlou & Chai, 2002; Julien & Ramangalahy, 2003; Singh, Fassott, Chao, & Hoffmann, 2006; Acedo & Jones, 2007). SEM-PLS basically is used in the thesis to explore the theory rather than to confirm
56 the theory; SEM-PLS is a suitable tool for exploratory research estimating a general model (Henseler et al, 2014). Thus, SEM-PLS is considered a good alternative tool for exploring theory since it has no goodness-of-fit measure (Hair Jr et. al, 2013). Yet, Henseler et al (2014) introduce standardised Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) as an alternative goodness-of-fit measure to validate the model, to avoid model misspecification. Moreover, SRMR suggested by Hu and Bentler (1999) with the cut-off value less than 0.08 is considered reasonable and thus accepted.
The second method, logistic regression model, was used particularly to investigate the relationship between the extent of perceived tenure security and ‘effect’ criteria. The thesis here attempted to estimate what the communities have likely experienced or undergone once they perceived tenure security. In other words, the expectations, built on the basis of literatures, were estimated from the communities’ perceptions. Such expectations were then expressed as a probability, in this case as “Likely” and “Unlikely”. As Menard (2010) explained, logistic regression is a predicting tool for estimating a dichotomous variable. In the case of the thesis, the probability refers to ‘effects’ criteria as the outcome variables, generated from the perceived tenure security as the predictor variables. Furthermore, in order to explain the relationship between the two variables, the logistic regression model is appropriate to describe and test the hypothesised relationship (Peng, Lee & Ingersoll, 2002). Additionally, the logistic regression model is built on the basis of an assumption or hypothesis (Hosmer & Lemeshow, 2004). Logistic regression was used in the thesis to predict whether the communities likely experience the given ‘effect’ criteria as they perceive land tenure security: in detail to predict whether the extent of tenure security generate ‘effect’ criteria. This is depicted in the conceptual framework shown in Figure 4-1. Having built the conceptual framework, the thesis then conducted quantitative analysis.
The quantitative data analysis was conducted in three stages. First stage is data input into tabular format and coding11. The coding was used to ease data retrieval and further analysis both descriptive and inferential analysis. After finishing the coding, the second stage was building-up the path model. Prior to that, sorting out the coded raw data for descriptive analysis and inferential analysis was conducted. The former utilised cross tabulation and a summary data of priority scale (see: ‘b9’, ‘b17r9’, ‘b16’ in Questionnaire, Appendix A). The latter used the Likert-scale data that represent generating ’cause’ criteria (‘b5r7’12, ‘b6r2’, ‘b7r10’, ‘b7r1’, ‘b7r2’, ‘b7r8’), the extent of tenure security (‘b17r6’, ‘b17r7’, ‘b17r18’), and the ’effect’ criteria (‘b16’). This was carried out
11 Coding refers to as “the assignment of numbers to categories in a manner that facilitates measurement” (Hair et. al, 2013). For instance, ‘b’ refers to block of question, and ‘r’ refers to detail of question. For instance, ‘b5r7’ refers to block question 5 detail 7 (question number 507) in the questionnaire (see: Appendix A) 12 ‘b5r7’, ‘b6r2’, ‘b7r10’, ‘b7r1’, ‘b7r2’, ‘b7r8’ (‘cause’ criteria) refers to coding for land-related document, duration of occupation, social cohesion, closeness, interaction, activity participation, respectively. ‘b17r6’, ‘b17r7’, ‘b17r18’ (tenure security) refers to coding for protection against forced eviction, possibility to sell, possibility to inherit, respectively. 57 using the principle SEM-PLS13. Both analysis were then compared to examine the consistency of the responses from descriptive analysis in correspondence to the result of inferential analysis and further explained by the qualitative data analysis. A path model was initially built on the basis of survey data related to ‘cause’ criteria, the extent of tenure security, and ‘effect’ criteria.
A diagram, often referred to as a general path model, is built as shown in Figure 5-3 below. The thesis adopts this general path model to build the ideas in the conceptual framework (Figure 4-1). The path model for each case study area was developed and is discussed further in Chapter 10.
Figure 5-3 SEM General Path Model (Source: Hair Jr, et. al, 2013)
The path model is a diagram that illustrates the research hypotheses and displays the relationship of the variables (Hair Jr et. al, 2013). Furthermore, Hair Jr et. al (2013) say that a SEM-PLS path model consists of a structural model (also known as an inner model) that depicts relationships between the constructs14, and a measurement model (also known as an outer model) that depicts the relationships between the constructs and the indicators15. In terms of the measurement model, there are two broad types: ‘reflective’ and ‘formative’ measurement models (Hair Jr et. al, 2013). Likewise, Henseler et. al (2009) point out that both types of measurement models specify the causality between indicators and constructs (latent variables). In a reflective measurement model, the causality is from the constructs to its indicators as in Figure 5.3 above (the outer model of
13 SEM refers to a second-generation technique of multivariate analysis that incorporates unobservable variables measured indirectly by indicator variables (Hair et. al, 2013); as well as taking into account the measurement error (Z) in observed variables (Chin, 1998). SEM-PLS, primarily exploratory, is one variant of SEM, a statistical modeling technique, focusing on explaining the variance in the dependent variables when examining the model (Hair et. al, 2013). 14 Constructs refers to as variables that are not directly measured (Hair Jr et. al, 2013) 15 Indicators refers to as variables that are directly measured that contain raw data (Hair Jr et. al, 2013) 58 endogenous latent variables16); the other form is the formative measurement model as in the outer model of exogenous (latent) variables17. The analysis for the thesis develops a path model of each case study area building on the same pattern of constructs (inner model) and indicators (outer model).
The last stage is the assessment or evaluation of the model. As both models for each case study area were developed, an assessment was conducted to examine the degree of significance of the indicators and thereby evaluate them for building the best fitted model in accordance to the characteristics of each case study area. The assessment of the SEM-PLS results (Figure 5-4) is divided into three major steps: 1) the evaluation of the reflective measurement models (outer models); 2) the evaluation of the formative measurement models (outer models); and then 3) the evaluation of the structural model (inner model). There are certain estimates or measures within the reflective measurement model evaluation that are suggested by Hair Jr et. al (2013, p.97) to assess the reliability of the model. These are the following: 1) Internal consistency reliability/composite reliability; 2) Indicator reliability; 3) Convergent validity; and 4) Discriminant validity. After conducting the evaluation of the reflective model, the evaluation then continues to the inner model (structural model), the last step of evaluation. The evaluation of the structural model (inner model), consists of the following steps (Hair Jr et. al, 2013, p.169): 1) Collinearity assessment; 2) Structural model path coefficient estimate; 3) Coefficient of determination (R2 value); 4) Effect size (f2); and 5) Predictive relevance (Q2). The detailed procedures of each step will be discussed further in Chapter 10, the path model analysis of SEM-PLS, for the case studies.
• Assessment on reliability and validity of reflective
1 measurement (Outer model)
• Assessment on reliability and validity of formative 2 measurement (Outer model)
• Assessment on variance explanation of
3 endogenous construct (Inner model)
Figure 5-4 Assessment Steps of SEM-PLS results (Source: modified from Henseler 2009 & Hair Jr et. al 2013)
16 Endogenous latent variables refer to as constructs that are being explained in the model (Hair Jr et. al, 2013) 17 Exogenous latent variables constructs that explain other constructs in the model (Hair Jr et. al, 2013) 59
As is usual when employing SEM-PLS, the researcher carried out a ’bootstrapping’ exercise in order to identify the statistical significance of the variables. Bootstrapping is a resampling technique that increases a large number of raw/original data to estimate its models without relying on the distributional assumptions as well as a means of testing significance of the structural model (Hair Jr et. al, 2013, p. 163). Hair Jr et. al (2013) further describe that bootstrapping allows drawing a large number of subsamples from the original sample with replacement, which mean that the random drawing of an observation yields it is returned to the original sampling population before that of the next observation; an observation for a certain subsample can be selected more than once or may not be selected at all for subsample.
To strengthen the quantitative analysis, the thesis employs qualitative analysis. Qualitative data were categorised by themes (nodes) developed from research questions using NVivo software. This implies building categories from data and using these to find a structure of patterns and ideas that can then be related to the research questions posed in the thesis. A structure of nodes (Appendix G) was built up on the basis of research questions; they comprise parent nodes, child nodes, and sub- child nodes. All relevant given answers from the source groups in the interviews are classified under the same node.
Using qualitative data analysis, the thesis aims to get a deep insight on the extent of tenure security perceived by the community and also the forms and implications of the public authorities’ recognition and acknowledgements of the existing land tenure security. The thesis also seeks to explore further the differences and more significant findings indicated in the preceding sections. Qualitative data encompasses supplementary insights or deep information on perceived tenure security by the urban kampung residents and public authorities, and on the impacts of tenure security.
5.5 Scoping limitations
At first, a high-slum neighbourhood (RW), Kampung Pulo, located in East Jakarta was selected for the fieldwork. During the pilot survey, in the first two months’ approach with the community, it was found that the sampled households were relatively homogenous with the majority of land occupation on state land. Perhaps more importantly, the local government of Jakarta finally evicted the dwellers residing within a certain distance along the river banks during the fieldwork. Consequently, it was decided to shift the case study area to other neighbourhoods in order to have more diverse land holders for the survey and to avoid the potential bias in responses relating to security of tenure in an area close to where households were being evicted.
60
In the two new case study areas, the survey initially ran well. But about half way through, the surveyors faced some obstacles: some dwellers suspected that the surveyors are part of the government or represented a private developer. Several thugs were questioning the presence of the surveyors; and all the households in one household association refused to participate in the survey. This was happening because, at the time of the survey, the rumour and even the incidence of eviction by the local government were happening and this influenced the community’s perception of their tenure security across the whole Jakarta region. In order to maintain the community participation and reduce respondent anxiety, the researcher had the research permit stamped and signed by the relevant neighbourhood association heads (RW).
In respect to secondary data access, the thesis initially expected to obtain information on registered and unregistered land data; the former derived from land office sources and the latter derived from sub-district office. The data would be useful for developing the sampling framework. However, this data was not available and the thesis finally relied on the primary data surveyed in the field.
Another limitation was the eventual uneven distribution of the numbers of respondents representing one tenure category that occurred during the survey. For instance, in one neighbourhood, the number of landowners with land title was less than 30 respondents. Thus, ‘oversampling’ for this category was undertaken to obtain at least 30 responses, considered a representative number for good approximation for normal distribution (Hogg, Tanis, & Zimmerman, 2014). Also, during the survey, a few respondents gave incomplete answers especially on the priority scale questions (e.g. block question 16, see questionnaire in Appendix A). This leads to missing values. Nonetheless, employing the ‘bootstrapping’ tool in the software allowed for the replacement of the missing data.
Lastly, a limitation relates to the ‘effect’ criteria. According to the conceptual framework (Figure 4- 1), an enabled urban land and housing market is one of the impacts. However, the thesis found it difficult to measure this directly since there is no land and housing transaction data in place. Consequently, it was excluded from the quantitative data analysis.
5.6 Summary
The thesis employs both quantitative and qualitative research methods. Quantitative methods are mainly used to investigate the degree of perceived tenure security by dwellers while qualitative method is mainly used to investigate the form and implication of public authorities’ recognition. Quantitative methods encompass the household survey to urban kampung dwellers, whereas qualitative methods encompass open-ended questions in the interview guides with community heads, local authorities, and civil society groups as well as academics/researchers. The qualitative
61 method is complementary to quantitative method to uncover more information on perceived tenure security.
The selection of case study areas was carried out on the basis of three aspects: spatial distribution of predominant land rights (girik and garapan), types of kampung, and size of settlement. The thesis thus selects two ‘moderate-slum’ in the urban centre of Jakarta according to data from the BPS Jakarta (2013) with different size (small and large settlement) in different administrative unit (municipality/district/sub-district). The thesis employs stratified sampling for the household survey that focus on specific groups of tenure category-landowners with land title, landowners with no land title, and non-landowners- in the household survey.
The analysis employed both quantitative and qualitative methods. The quantitative methods consisted of cross tabulation, SEM-PLS, and logistic regression model. Along with cross tabulation, SEM-PLS was used to investigate the relationship between the ‘causes’ and the extent of tenure security. Meanwhile, logistic regression model, along with cross tabulation, was used to investigate the relationship between the extent of perceived tenure security and ‘effect’ criteria. To strengthen the quantitative analysis, the thesis employs qualitative analysis to uncover a deep insight on perceived tenure security by the community and also by the public authorities.
62
CHAPTER 6: CASE STUDY AREAS
As discussed in Section 5.1, two moderate slum neighbourhoods in the inner city were selected on the basis of wide range of tenure forms and likely homogenous socio-economic conditions. These considerations may reveal a wide range of potentially diverse perceptions of tenure security.
This chapter provides background information about the two case study areas. Section 6.1 and Section 6.2 provide the actual overview and Section 6.3 provides the summary of the information. The approximate location of the two case study areas with large and small neighbourhood in red circle (Menteng Dalam and Tanah Tinggi respectively) is shown in Figure 6-1 below.
2
1
Figure 6-1 Location of case study areas in Jakarta jurisdiction map (Source: www.indonesia.wikia.com/wiki/File:Map-Jakarta-overall.png, accessed on October 23, 2017)
6.1 Case study area A: Menteng Dalam
This section consists of two sub-sections. Sub-section 6.1.1 contains an overview of this case study area. Sub-section 6.1.2 contains a profile of its slum and land tenure status and value. Menteng Dalam is located close to one of the biggest shopping centers in South Jakarta, Kota Kasablanka shopping mall and is surrounded by four main roads: jalan casablanca (north part), jalan rasuna said (west part), jalan gatot subroto (south part), and jalan DR. Soepomo (east part). Menteng Dalam is the case study area with the larger size of 210.60 hectares.
63
6.1.1 Overview of Menteng Dalam
This sub-section describes the kampung’s geographic location; existing land use; its designated use of land in the zoning plan; demography; and social, economic and cultural condition.
Geographic location
Menteng Dalam is a sub-district of Tebet District covering the area of 210.60 hectares (Jakarta Government, 1989). Of the total area, 70 % encompasses residential land, 20 % is office building use, 2 % is used for waqf (religious Islamic use of land) and grave yard, and 8 % is for other uses (Menteng Dalam Sub-district, 2014). The sub-district consists of twelve neighborhoods (RW) encompassing 132 household associations (RT). The selected detailed case study area is RW 13 (delineated in red) in Figure 6-2.
The surrounding limits of the sub-district are:
North : Jl. Menteng Pulo / Kelurahan Menteng Atas
East : Jl. Prof. Soepomo SH / Jl. DR Sahardjo
Kelurahan Tebet Barat
South : Jl. Jenderal Gatot Soebroto / Kelurahan Pancoran
West : Kali Cideng / Kelurahan Kuningan Timur
.
Figure 6-2 Map of Menteng Dalam Sub-district (Source: Menteng Dalam Sub-district 2014)
According to Jakarta Government (2014) regarding the detailed zoning plan shown in Figure 6-3, the sub-zones of the sub-district of Menteng Dalam designated in the zoning plan encompass: mostly sub-zone of residential area, marked as ‘R’ in yellow; sub-zone of green areas, marked as ‘H’ in green; sub-zone of office, trading and service areas, marked as ‘K’ in purple; sub-zone of social and public service, marked as ‘S’ in brown; sub-zone of government area, marked as ‘P’ in red; and sub-zone of mixed use, marked as ‘C’ in orange. In further details, the case study area, RW 13, is designated for mostly medium and large houses, marked as ‘R4’ and ‘R5’; for green zone of park, green belt, and recreation, marked as ‘H2’, ‘H4’, and ‘H7’; for education and religious facilities, marked as ‘S1’ and ‘S3’; and for office use, marked as ‘K3’. These sub-zones can be seen in Figure 6-3 below.
64
RW 13
Figure 6-3. Zoning plan of Menteng Dalam Sub-district and sub-zone of RW 1318 (large case study area) (Source: Tebet District Office)
Demography
According to Sub-district Menteng Dalam (2014), the population was 42,235 inhabitants, which consisted of 21,467 males and 20,842 females. With the total area of 210.60 hectares, the population density is 200 inhabitants per hectare. Between 2011 and 2012, the annual population growth reached 0.8 per cent. This figure is higher than the regional growth of population (0.2 per cent). This is likely caused by its strategic location close to the center of economic activity (Figure 6-4 below), so enticing migration and entrepreneurship.
18 Different boundaries are shown for the RW jurisdictions of the two case study areas by the housing and building agency and by the regional regulations. The actual boundaries refer to the map produced by the regional regulations (i.e. map of zoning plan) which is the same as that in the annual report of sub-district offices. 65
Figure 6-4 The strategic location of RW 13
Social and cultural conditions
According to the Annual Report of Menteng Dalam Sub-district 2014, the majority of the residents work as merchants and construction labourers while the remainder work in the service sector. The residents are mostly Muslim, reaching up to 95 per cent of the total population.
6.1.2 Profile of moderate slum RW 13
This sub-section describes the statistical data of the slum neighbourhood, the social and economic condition of the surveyed residents, existing facilities and utilities, and the land status and land value information of the neighborhood (Figure 6-5).
Case study A
Figure 6-5 Slum Neighbourhood Map in Tebet District (Source: Jakarta Housing and Building Agency, 2013) 66
According to data of RW Kumuh 2013 (slum neighborhood), RW 13 falls into the category of low slum (in yellow19), yet, according to the sub-dsitrict head of Menteng Dalam, he claims, in the interview, that it is actually moderate slum. The thesis assumes that, in moderate slums, a wide range of land tenure forms exists with their diverse characteristics and that the social and economic conditions are roughly homogenous; in addition, such diverse land tenure forms may reveal a wide range of potential differences in respect to tenure security.
Figure 6-6 Neighbourhood RW 13 (Menteng Dalam) (Source: Author)
Based on statistic data from Evaluasi RW Kumuh (BPS Jakarta, 2013), the total area of RW 13 is 11.46 hectares, the number of household associations (RT) is 14, the number of households is 1,571 and population is 5,263 inhabitants. Of the total figures above, the defined ‘slum’ covers 6.66 hectares (58 %), slum RT comprises 11 (78.6 %), slum households reaches 1,472 (93.7 %), and the number of slum population reaches 4,834 inhabitants (91.8%).
The survey of residents obtained 117 responses samples in the case study area. Of these, 85 were landowners (73%) and 32 were non-landowners (27%). The landowners comprise 32 title holders (38%) and 53 non-title holders (62%). The results of the questionnaire survey show that residents have lived in the neighborhood for 25 years on average. Most of the households (87%) earn above AUD 100 per month20 while the remaining (13%) earn below the amount. Most of them serve as housewives (32%) or small-scale entrepreneurs (20%). The remainder is private employees (16%) or is retired, teachers, civil servants, housemaids, merchants, mechanics, drivers, or unemployed
19 Figure 6-5 indicates that very low slum in ‘green’; low slum in ‘yellow’; and moderate slum in ‘brown’. 20 The amount is a home income, including the income of other family members. 67
(below 1%). The area of the houses is, on average, around 74 m2 built on an average size of land of 83 m2 in which most of them (68%) have no building permits. In terms of access to utilities, most of the residents (95%) have benefitted from electricity provision; 62% have access to potable water from groundwater while the remaining use bottled water, piped water, and well water; 90% have had access to sanitation using private toilets with septic tanks while the remaining have access to a private toilet with no septic tank or a public toilet with a septic tank.
A B
Figure 6-7. Land status map and land value zoning of RW 13, Menteng Dalam Sub-district (Accessed on April 23, 2016 from www.peta.bpn.go.id)
Figure 6-7 above illustrates land status and value. Box A show that the neighbourhood constitutes four types of land status (ownership): rights of ownership (Hak Milik) in yellow; rights of building (Hak Guna Bangunan) in blue; rights of use (Hak Pakai) in green; and the remainder are unregistered. Box B depicts the land values in the neighbourhood where the land values range between 2 million rupiah and 5 million rupiah (approximately AUD 200 – 500) per meter square. According to BPN (2017), there are 1,587 titles of ownership rights, 1,306 titles of building rights, and 357 titles of use rights throughout Menteng Dalam Sub-district.
68
6.2 Case study area B: Tanah Tinggi
This section consists of two sub-sections. Sub-section 6.2.1 contains an overview of the case study area. Sub-section 6.2.2 contains a profile of moderate slum and the general composition of land tenure status and value. Tanah Tinggi is one of the settlements located close to the center traditional market and train station in Central Jakarta, Pasar Senen. Its strategic location is passed by the main road, jalan letjend suprapto. Tanah Tinggi is the case study area with the small area of 62.29 hectares.
6.2.1 Overview of Tanah Tinggi
This sub-section describes the following: geographic location and its limits; existing land use; its designated use of land in the zoning plan; demography; and socio-economic and cultural condition.
Geographic location
In accordance to Jakarta Government (1989), Tanah Tinggi sub-district is part of Johar Baru District covering an area of 62.29 hectares. The designated uses of land comprise residential area (48.5 ha), public facility (12.29 ha), industrial area, grave yard, and other uses (0.15 ha). The sub- district consists of fourteen neighbourhoods (RW) encompassing 200 household associations (RT). The case study area is RW 04 (delineated in the red box) in Figure 6-8.
The surrounding limits of the sub-district are:
North : Jl. Letjend. Suprapto / Kelurahan Bungur
East : Kali Sentiong/ Kelurahan Johar Baru
South : Kali Sentiong/ Kelurahan Johar Baru
West : Rel Kereta Api/ Kelurahan Kramat
Figure 6-8 Map of Tanah Tinggi Sub-district (Source: Tanah Tinggi Sub-district 2015)
According to Jakarta Government (2014) regarding the detailed zoning plan shown in Figure 6-8, the sub-zones of the sub-district of Tanah Tinggi consist of: mostly sub-zone of residential area,
69 marked as ‘R’ in yellow; sub-zone of green areas, marked as ‘H’ in green; sub-zone of office, trading and service areas, marked as ‘K’ in purple; sub-zone of social and public service, marked as ‘S’ in brown; sub-zone of government area, marked as ‘P’ in red; and sub-zone of mixed use, marked as ‘C’ in orange. In further details, the case study area, RW 04, is allocated in the zoning plan for mostly small houses, marked as ‘R3’. These can be seen in Figure 6-9 below.
RW 04
Figure 6-9 Zoning plan of Tanah Tinggi Sub-district and sub-zone of RW 04 (small case study area)
(Source: Johar Baru District Office)
Demography
As of January 2015 (Sub-district Tanah Tinggi, 2015), the population was 53,117 inhabitants, which consisted of 27,432 males and 25,685 females. With the total area of 62.29 hectares, the population density is 852 inhabitants per hectare. A main power line runs through the neighbourhood (Figure 6-10 below).
70
Figure 6-10 The overcrowded neighbourhood of RW 04
Social and cultural conditions
According to the Annual Report of Tanah Tinggi Sub-district 2015, the community of Tanah Tinggi is mixed compound and composed of a number of ethnic groups. The majority of the residents are unemployed and the remainder served as private employees, small and medium-scale entrepreneurs and informal sector workers. Most of the residents are Muslim (57%) or Christian (23%) with the remainder Buddhist and Hindu.
6.2.2 Profile of moderate slum RW 04
This sub-section describes the statistical data of the slum neighborhood, the social and economic Case study B conditions of the surveyed residents, existing facilities and utilities, and the land status and land value information of the neighborhood. The thesis selects a moderate slum – RW 04 – located in Tanah Tinggi Sub-district, Johar Baru District. According to data of RW Kumuh 2013 (slum neighborhood), RW 04 falls into the category of very low slum. Yet, during the in-depth interview with the sub-district office head, he claims that it is actually moderate slum. Thus, on the basis of the local knowledge, the thesis considers RW 04 as a moderate slum. Its location can be seen in Figure 6-11 Slum Map by Sub-districts below.
71
Case study B
Figure 6-11 Slum Neighbourhood Map in Johar Baru District (Source: Jakarta Housing and Building Agency, 2013)
Like the first case study area, RW 13, Menteng Dalam, the thesis also selected a moderate slum in Tanah Tinggi Sub-district, RW 04, considering diverse land tenure forms that may reveal a wide range of potential differences in respect to tenure security.
Figure 6-12 Neighbourhood RW 04 (Tanah Tinggi) (Source: Author)
72
Based on statistic data in Evaluasi RW Kumuh (BPS Jakarta, 2013), the total area of RW 04 encompasses 2.42 hectares, with 10 household associations (RT), 704 households and 2,582 inhabitants. Of each total figure above, the defined ‘slum’ area covers 2.05 hectares (85%), slum RT comprises 11 (80%), slum households reaches 607 (86%), and the slum population reaches 2,172 inhabitants (84%).
The survey of residents in this thesis obtained 128 responses from the case study area. Of these, 92 were landowners (72%) and 36 were non-landowners (28%). The landowners comprise 44 title holders (48%) and 48 non-title holders (52%). The surveyed residents have lived in the neighborhood for 29 years on average. Most of them (82.5%) earn above AUD 100 per month21 while the remaining (17.5%) earn below the amount. Most of them serve as housewives (33%), small-scale entrepreneurs (18%), labourers (13%), private employees (12%), and the rest (below 1%) serve as unemployed, retirement, merchant, driver, mechanics, and civil servants. The area of the houses is, in average, around 27 m2 built on an average size of land of 28 m2 in which almost half of them (44%) have no building permits. In terms of access to utilities, most of the residents (98%) have benefitted from electricity provision; 78% have access to potable water from piped water while the remainder use groundwater, bottled water, and water street vendors; 52% have had access to sanitation using a public toilet with a septic tank while 39% access a private toilet with septic tank, and the remainder have access to a public toilet with no septic tank or a private toilet with no septic tank.
21 The amount is a home income, including the income of other family members. 73
A B
Figure 6-13. Land status map and land value zoning of RW 04, Tanah Tinggi Sub-district (Accessed on April 23, 2016 from www.peta.bpn.go.id)
The Figure 6-13 above depicts land status and land value zoning. Box A (land status) shows that the neighbourhood is mostly dominated by rights of ownership, marked in yellow. The other part is marked by rights of building (Hak Guna Bangunan) in blue; the few rights of use (Hak Pakai) in green; and the remainder are unregistered. Box B depicts the land value of the neighbourhood where the land values range between 2 million rupiah and 5 million rupiah (approximately AUD 200 – 500) per meter square. According to BPN (2017), there are 2,612 titles of ownership rights, 741 titles of building rights, and 126 titles of use rights throughout Tanah Tinggi Sub-district.
6.3 Summary
Reflecting what has been discussed in Section 3.4, the land tenure forms in the case of urban kampung in Jakarta has been influenced by the pre-dominant rights resulting from the Dutch colonization period, so-called girik and garapan rights. As Hoffman and Marbun (1990) noted the majority of land within kampung neighbourhoods in Jakarta was formerly unregistered, consisting both girik and garapan rights. Moreover, in respect to Dutch influence and interest, garapan rights 74 existed mostly in area with higher Dutch influences mostly in city centre while girik rights existed where there was lower levels of interest by the Dutch in areas along periphery (Leaf, 1993). The two case study areas, residing in city centre close to the central area of economic activity, reveal that these pre-dominant rights still exist at present although some of them have transformed into land title through land registration projects. In particular, the garapan rights, which occupy the State land, have been recognised by local authorities mostly in the form of a statement letter of building ownership and purchase. Some of these are present in the form of a notary letter of land purchase. Few are still manifested in the original form such as a Dutch stamped letter (known as segel).
The two case study areas capture the characteristics of slums defined by UN-Habitat (2003) in that they are mostly overcrowded and residents possess mostly land-related documents other than land title which may lead to tenure insecurity. However, in terms of access to utilities, most of the residents have access to piped water, to a private and public toilet with a septic tank, and to metered electricity (which seems to show better infrastructure conditions than in other slums). In terms of land status, RW 13 in Sub-district of Menteng Dalam is mostly unregistered while RW 04 in Sub- district of Tanah Tinggi. Menteng Dalam seems to have had less intervention by land registration program by the national land agency; this might be caused by the less number of unemployed in the area implied in the Annual Report of sub-district office. On the other side, in terms of land value, both neighbourhoods have approximately a similar land value range, AUD 200 – 500 per meter square. Despite the label of slum neighbourhoods, both locations have relatively a strategic location which increases the land value.
75
CHAPTER 7: INVESTIGATING THE CAUSES OF THE COMMUNITIES’ PERCEIVED TENURE SECURITY
As part of the conceptual framework (Figure 4-1), the ‘causes’ of tenure security are considered as factors generating improved tenure security as discussed in Chapter 3. This chapter further examines and analyses the degree of perceived tenure security of communities in the case study areas linked to these causes of tenure security. As detailed in Section 3.2, there are five criteria that determine the degree of tenure security. Four of these criteria are adopted from Durand-Lasserve (2006a) encompassing: (a) length of occupation; (b) size of settlement; (c) community organization or social cohesion; and (d) support from civil society groups (NGOs). The thesis added land-related documents considering the global debate pertaining to both de facto and de jure land tenure forms and the complexity of land tenure in urban kampung in Jakarta. However, the size of settlement and support from NGOs were eventually excluded from the final detailed analysis in this thesis: the former is analysed through a comparison of a large and a small settlement for each case study while data collected for the analysis showed that there were no NGOs active in the surveyed neighborhoods.
This chapter seeks to answer the research question: “What are the causes of tenure security in urban kampung in Jakarta?” (Sub-question 3a). It employs mixed methods for analysing the causes of tenure security and summarises the priority scale of the causes. The chapter is divided into four sections elaborating each criterion in the two case study areas. Section 7.1 describes land-related documents possessed by the communities and analyses their impacts on tenure security. This includes the perspectives of both the communities themselves and local government on the degree of tenure security. These perceptions are used to depict a local continuum of security-related land rights and an analysis of the potential gaps in this continuum. Section 7.2 elaborates the duration of length of stay in the context of land occupation and analyses its impact on tenure security. Section 7.3 describes the social cohesion built within the communities and analyses how it influences the perceptions of land tenure security. Lastly, Section 7.4 provides a summary of the causes of tenure security.
7.1 Land-related documents
Land-related documents are explored as an additional cause of tenure security in this thesis. As will be shown, in Jakarta land title is only one of many forms of documentation. The theoretical debate highlights the importance of both de facto and de jure land tenure forms. Premised on that, the thesis argues that these types of land tenure are fundamental and thus are taken into account as one
76 of the causes of enhanced tenure security. This section elaborates the perceived tenure security by land tenure categories (landowners with title, landowners with no title, and non-landowners) and this is analysed along with qualitative data. The survey revealed that having land-related documents mostly enhances communities’ perceived tenure security.
This section covers the two case study areas initially describing and analysing perceived tenure security generated by the possession of land-related documents in Menteng Dalam (the large neighbourhood) and Tanah Tinggi (the smaller neighbourhood). Then, a local continuum of land rights, based on perceptions of tenure security, is built from the perspectives of local government and the two communities.
7.1.1 Perceived tenure security by possession of land-related documents
Data about land-related documents collected in the survey focused on land tenure categories (groups) comprising landowners with land title, landowners without land title, and non-landowners. In Menteng Dalam, the first case study area, the survey collected 117 responses consisting of 85 (73%) landowners and 32 (27%) non-landowners; the 85 landowners consisted of 32 (38%) title landowners and 53 (62%) non-title landowners (Figure 7.1 below). In Tanah Tinggi, the second case study area, the survey collected 128 responses consisting of 92 (72%) landowners and 36 (28%) non-landowners; the 92 landowners consisted of 44 (48%) title landowners and 48 (52%) non-title landowners (Figure 7-2 below).
Surveyed Number of Landowners and Non-landowners
100 85
32
0 Owners Non-owners
Menteng Dalam
Figure 7-1 Composition of surveyed land tenure categories in Menteng Dalam
77
Figure 7-2 Composition of surveyed land tenure categories in Tanah Tinggi
The landowners with title in Menteng Dalam, mostly hold three types of documents: rights of ownership (freehold-known as HM), rights of building (known as HGB), and rights of use (known as HP22). The composition of landowners with title documents can be seen in Figure 7-3 below. Of 32 title holders, 29 (91%) surveyed households possess rights of ownership (HM), 2 (6%) surveyed households possess rights of building (HGB), and 1 (3%) surveyed household possess rights of use (HP). Most of them possess the land and house from inheritance (56%) or purchase (41%) but 3% have the land through a grant. Meanwhile, unlike Menteng Dalam, in Tanah Tinggi, the landowners with title mostly hold two types of documents: rights of ownership (freehold), and rights of building. The number of landowners with title documents can be seen in Figure 7-4 below. Of 44 title holders, 40 (91%) surveyed households possess rights of ownership (HM) and 4 (9%) surveyed households possess rights of building (HGB). Most of them acquired the land and house from inheritance (57%) and purchase (39%). According to BPN (2017), the total of title landholders throughout neigbourhoods of Tanah Tinggi is 3,481 where 2,612 (75%) of them hold ownership rights (HM) and 741 (28%) are rights of building (HGB) holders (Sub-section 6.2.2); Those of Menteng Dalam, 1,587 (49%) out of the total of 3,250 hold HM and 1,306 (41%) hold HGB (Sub- section 6.1.2). The number of title holders, especially HM, may indicate local authorities’ recognition of land status to the respective neighbourhoods: Tanah Tinggi Sub-district is more recognised in this case.
22 By Basic Agrarian Law, land title consists of four types of rights: Hak Milik (HM), Hak Guna Bangunan (HGB), Hak Pakai (HP), and Hak Guna Usaha (HGU). Hak Milik (HM): literally, rights of ownership; the ownership in perpetuity; granted only to individuals. Hak Guna Bangunan (HGB): literally, rights of building; granted to individuals and legal entities with the time limit between 20 - 30 years. Hak Pakai (HP): literally, rights of use, granted to individuals and foreigners, with the time limit of 10 years, stated Land Office Heads. They further added that Hak Guna Usaha (HGU): literally, rights of exploitation (plantation), granted to legal entities, with the time limit of 35 years. Aside from HM, the rights are extendable and renewable. 78
Surveyed Types of Landowner with Title Documents Menteng Dalam
50 29 30
10 2 1 -10 Freehold Rights of Building Rights of Use Figure 7-3 Composition of landowners with land title documents in Menteng Dalam
Surveyed Types of Landowner with Title Documents Tanah Tinggi
60 40 40
20 4 0 Freehold Rights of Building
Figure 7-4 Composition of landowners with land title documents in Tanah Tinggi
These types of land title were affected by the National land registration program (PRONA23). “Different types of land title are the manifestation of land offices’ discretion in granting land rights”, said Land Officer 2. Additionally, a regional land officer interviewed underlined that “Granting land rights depends on the base land rights (alas hak) and zoning plan, which also refer to the types of land status whether it is State land or adat land and designated use of land”. He further gave examples: State land occupation is mostly granted rights of building (HGB), adat land is granted rights of ownership (HM), and land on the green area is granted rights of use (HP). As discussed above about the number of land title holders, in the case of the zone of residential use, Tanah Tinggi Sub-district is mostly composed of adat land (girik rights), instead of State land (garapan rights) of which Menteng Dalam Sub-district is mostly composed. The granting of land title types either the rights of building (HGB) or rights of full ownership (HM) essentially depends on the discrepancy of the land office head.
23 PRONA stands for Proyek Agraria Nasional (National Agrarian Project) constituting granting landownership (rights) for marginalised people. It is an annual national-funded project by Ministry of Land and Spatial Planning-ATR/BPN (Land offices, Jakarta).
79
The other type of landowner is the one with no title documents. The landowners without title in Menteng Dalam can hold an ex-tribal tax letter (generally known as girik), notary letter of land purchase, Dutch stamped agreement letter (also known as segel), non-stamped agreement letter, or a statement letter of building ownership and purchase (acknowledged by sub-district office). Meanwhile, those in Tanah Tinggi hold an ex-tribal tax letter, Dutch stamped agreement letter, purchase receipt, property tax (now also known as PBB), or a statement letter of building ownership and purchase.
Of 53 non-title holders surveyed in Menteng Dalam: 13 (25%) households possess an ex-tribal tax letter (girik); 12 (23%) possess a notary letter of land purchase (known as AJB/Oper Alih Notaris); 9 (17%) possess a Dutch stamped letter; 1 (2%) possess a non-stamped agreement letter; 15 (28%) possess a statement letter of building ownership and purchase acknowledged by the sub-district office (known as AJB/Oper Alih Kelurahan) in the form of a statement letter of building ownership on State land; and 3 (5%) possess no land-related documents. In respect to AJB/Oper Alih, it is merely distinguished by the issuing authority, notary and sub-district office. Most surveyed households possess that of the sub-district office; this was confirmed by the Community Head 1 who claimed that it is approximately 70% of AJB/Oper Alih Kelurahan used for the purpose of land purchase and inheritance.
Of 48 non-title holders surveyed in Tanah Tinggi: 11 (23%) households possess an ex-tribal tax letter (girik); 7 (15%) possess a Dutch stamped letter; 1 (2%) possesses a purchase receipt; 22 (46%) possess a property tax receipt; 5 (10%) possess a statement letter of building ownership and purchase acknowledged by the sub-district office; and 2 (4%) possess no land-related documents. Most non-title holders acquire land and housing from inheritance (71%), but 19% gained it through purchase and 10% through occupancy. Yet, all lands and houses, whether titled or not, in Jakarta are subject to land and property tax.
These types of non-title documents (Figures 7-5 and 7-6) are considered as evidences of their land occupation and thereby as a foundation for granting land title as described by the community head and confirmed by land officers in Jakarta when interviewed. In a similar vein, this was also confirmed by Land Law Expert 1 who said, “Any document other than land title is treated as initial evidence which may refer to as ‘base land rights’ for further tenure upgrading”. She further described that “Non-title documents can be considered as de facto tenure forms showing that a person has made use of land continuously and intensively. This kind of land possession or utilization is recognised by customary law which grew from the social values of a community, instead of government stipulation”. However, the Community Head 1 underlined that these non-title documents are not as strong as land title in terms of the absolute level of ownership. This was 80 clarified by Land Law Expert 2, who explained that, in terms of degree of law, “Any occupational documents (garapan) contain 25%, any tribal tax documents (e.g. girik) contain 90%, and land titles contain 100%”24. This implies that, in the lens of law, land occupational documents have the least recognition while land titles have the most recognition and girik stands in between, close to full ownership. In respect to this, the Sub-district Officer 1 stated, “Land tenure security can be seen from land-related documents referring to land possession and ownership either in form of land title or not. The latter is seen as land occupation on State land”.
Figure 7-5 Composition of landowners with non-title documents in Menteng Dalam
Surveyed Types of Landowner with No Title Documents Tanah Tinggi 50 40 30 22 20 11 7 5 10 1 2 0 Ex-tribal tax letter Dutch stamped Purchase Receipt Property Tax Statement letter of No docs agreement letter Building ownership and purchase acknowledged by sub-district head Figure 7-6 Composition of landowners with non-title documents in Tanah Tinggi
In particular, the land occupation (known as garapan) can be divided into two categories: Dutch colonial period occupation; and post-Dutch colonial occupation. The post-Dutch colonial
24 All quotes in the thesis were directly translated from Bahasa Indonesia and the interviewees were de-identified to maintain confidentiality. 81 doceumentation is manifested by the statement letter of building ownership and purchase acknowledged by the sub-district office whereas the remaining (Dutch stamped and non-stamped agreement letter) prevailed during the Dutch colonial period which ended in 1942 (Section 3.3), described by the head of land office 2. Yet, its existence is still recognised even now. Furthermore, these documents may identify ‘adverse possession’ as they peacefully occupy the land for certain period of time, at least 20 years as acknowledged by Basic Agrarian Law (BAL), stated Land Law Expert 1. This is supported by Land Law Expert 2 stating, “By law, land occupation lasting for more than 20 years can be considered as adverse possession”. Land Law Expert 1 noted that in the case of a land dispute, the court would acknowledge garapan holders rather than the land title holders considering the fact that garapan rights holders possess authentic land documents and so a falsification or fraud must have taken place when granting the land title. The court may carry garapan and girik rights in some cases contesting land title. In other words, these non-title documents would be reversely verified by the court against land title in respect to a piece of land and may win the lawsuit: consequently, the land title can be revoked, as explained by Land Officers 1 and 2. Land Law Expert 1 further mentioned that the land status of these occupants can be upgraded to rights of ownership (land title). This is shown by a household head in Menteng Dalam who occupied State land and was a beneficiary of a land registration project saying, “I was granted the rights of use (Hak Pakai) valid for 10 years and then it can be upgraded to freehold (Hak Milik)”. In regard to this, Land Officer 2 mentioned several documents required for granting land ownership that originated from State land: planning advice, land use aspects, a land occupation and no dispute letter, and a recommendation letter of tenure upgrading. The last three documents are issued by local government, in this case represented by the sub-district office, while planning advice is issued by district office as part of the land could be allocated for future development e.g. expansion of a road. He further explained, "Land use aspect is conducted by land office to confirm the conformity of land use on the ground to detailed zoning plan”.
Lastly, non-landowners, literally as the leaseholders, are present in the case study areas. Most of the leaseholders in Menteng Dalam possess verbal agreement tenancy (23 households), 6 of them possess lease receipt, 2 possess unofficial written agreement, and 1 possesses an unregistered lease agreement. The types of the existing documents can be seen in Figure 7-7. Meanwhile, in Tanah Tinggi, most of the leaseholders possess verbal agreement tenancies (28 households), 6 of them possess a lease letter by owner permission, and 2 possess an official lease letter (Figure 7-8).
82
Surveyed Types of Non-landowner Documents Menteng Dalam
50 40 30 23
20 6 10 1 2 0 Unregistered lease Unofficial written Verbal agreement Lease Receipt agreement agreement letter
Figure 7-7 Composition of non-landowners documents in Menteng Dalam
Surveyed Types of Non-landowner Documents Tanah Tinggi 50
40 28 30
20
10 6 2 0 Official Lease letter Verbal agreement Lease letter by owner permission
Figure 7-8 Composition of non-landowners documents in Tanah Tinggi
Having examined the details of land-related documents, the discussion continues to analyse the level of perceived tenure security resulting from the possession of such documents. Overall, 74 (64%) of the surveyed households in Menteng Dalam perceive they are secure while 42 (36%) of them perceive they are less secure. In Tanah Tinggi, 79 (60%) of the surveyed households perceive they are secure while 51 (40%) perceive they are less secure. This is shown in Table 7-1 in further detail.
83
Table 7-1 Perceived tenure security by land-related documents against land tenure categories (groups) in Menteng Dalam and Tanah Tinggi (Source: survey results)
perceived tenure security by land-related document (LD)*
Case study 1 2 3 4 525
(insecure) (less (less (secure) (very insecure) secure) secure)
Menteng Group 1 Landowners with title Count 0 1 2 24 5 Dalam 2 Landowners without Count 4 12 6 27 4 title
3 Non-landowners Count 8 7 2 13 1
Total Count 12 20 10 64 10
Tanah Tinggi Group 1 Landowners with title Count 3 4 4 28 5
2 Landowners without Count 7 9 16 16 0 title
3 Non-landowners Count 1 1 6 28 0
Total Count 11 14 26 72 5
* This table shows the numbers of cases that fall into each cross-identified category. The figures are shown for illustrative purposes only. It was not possible to carry out a full cross-tabulation because too many cells were occupied by less than the minimum number of 5 cases.
The figures above depict that majority of surveyed households perceive their tenure to be secure as they possess land-related documents. As the Community Head 1 explained, “No significant issue of eviction exists because the majority of the residents possess land-related-documents, e.g. land title, girik, deeds of sales by notary and sub-district office etc.” Similarly, the Community Head 2 stated, “What drives the community’s perception on their tenure security is that they mostly (75%) own land-related documents, particularly land title, mostly benefitted from land registration program (PRONA) and also building permit while the remaining mostly possess girik and garapan rights”. This is further strengthened by the statement from the Sub-district Head 1 saying that “Tenure security occurs when the community possess lawful land-related documents e.g. land deeds, land
25 The thesis re-groups the scales into less secure and secure scale in the text; the former scale is aggregated from insecure to less secure while the latter is aggregated from secure and very secure. This scale regrouping also applies for other causes of tenure security: duration of occupation and social cohesion. 84 title”. In line with him, the Head of Sub-district Office 2 said, “Tenure security occurs when the residents provide themselves with any land-related evidences, either land title or not, or property tax, showing their occupation on land”. Additionally, the Sub-head of the Regional Housing Agency stated, “Land title gives the ultimate tenure security on the assurance of land possession status”. Possession of land-related documents appears to be the major factor in driving the community’s perception of their tenure security.
Despite the fact that “Less than 30 per cent of the residents hold land title and the remaining have occupied the land for decades with various land-related documents other than land titles”, as noted by the Community Head 1, “Long occupancy of State land with any land-related document other than land title is legitimated by the sub-district office and strengthened by a sort of recognition letters from sub-district office, i.e. land occupation letter (surat penguasaan fisik) and no dispute letter (surat tidak sengketa)”. These documents act as prerequisites and are issued by the sub- district office for granting full land title by land offices at a later stage (Land Officers 1 and 2, Jakarta). These prerequisites are instances of administrative dualisms resulted from unification of dualist land tenure arrangements in the past. For instance, “Most people here possess an official document of building ownership and purchase acknowledged by the sub-district office instead of a notary”, said the Community Head 1. This implies that despite occupying State land, local government (in this case represented by the sub-district office) recognises and even legitimates the transaction of housing purchase on State land. From the above statements, it is found that land- related documents especially in form of land title, deeds, and building permit give the residents a high perceived sense of tenure security.
Moreover, besides land-related documents, one important note was given by the Sub-district Head 2 saying, “As long as the residential areas conform to zoning plan, they are safe from eviction”. Likewise, the Sub-district Head 1 asserts, “Whether or not the community are safe from forced eviction depends on the designated use of land in zoning plan. But if the eviction is for the sake of public interest (e.g. inspection road along river), the community should follow and they in return will get compensation based on the types of land-related documents”, he explained. This was also confirmed by Housing agency head and Regional Planning Agency Head of Jakarta who viewed that being protected against forced eviction depends on the designated use of land contained in detailed zoning plan, even in urban design guidelines (UDGL).
However, the potential for eviction distresses most kampung dwellers (Firman, 1999). A local scholar (Harjoko, 2004) observed that although forced eviction is accompanied by compensation, many are also forced to leave their homes without compensation. In this regard, the head of sub- district office 1 went on describing, “For those who own no land title, they are given an option to 85 move to rental vertical housing (Rusunawa)”. The land law expert 1 further elaborated, “When the social housing is dedicated for rental purpose (Rusunawa), it is built on the local government’s land and granted the evidence of ownership in form of ‘SKBG’ (a letter of building ownership) issued by the local government. Meanwhile, when it is dedicated for ownership purpose, the social housing is built on the communities’ land and the land is under the rights of use (HP) or building (HGB), and the communities are granted the rights of strata title (locally known as ‘HMSRS’)”. The city planner added to this, “The provision of rental social housing (Rusunawa) is meant for an unclear land status experienced by the illegal land occupants”.
The Jakarta local government is committed to provide decent housing for the marginalised people, especially those living in slum areas, stated the Sub-head of Regional Housing Agency. This is mandated in the Local Government Regulation regarding the detailed zoning plan (RDTR) (Jakarta Government, 2014), Jakarta local government explicitly allocates slums in one of its zoning plans, ‘R8’ zoning namely Rumah Susun Umum (literally General Social Housing), where slum areas implicitly reside, which is designated for multi-story building development, described by the Sub- head of Regional Planning Agency. Additionally, the social housing can be developed in any zoning plan except conservation and green areas. Moreover, Statistics Bureau of Jakarta (BPS Jakarta) and land officer 2 underlined that the status of the land should be ‘clean and clear’ and the use of land is appropriate as allocated in the detailed zoning plan.
The issue of conformity to the zoning plan is in line with what is discussed in Section 2.2, especially on the activities pertaining to formal and informal development, that such development is seen from the purview of land use and building regulation (Durand-Lasserve, 2006a; Roy, 2005; Setiawan, 1998; Archer, 1994). Any development built in compliance with land use and building regulation is labelled as ‘formal’ while that built otherwise is labelled as ‘informal’ as suggested by UN-HABITAT (2009a). It can be said that having complied with the regulations, a house or settlement is considerably protected against forced eviction. Speaking of land tenure security in relation to the zoning plan, Land Law Expert 1 tried to see it from two views: she said, firstly, “In terms of land status, we do not know whose land it is actually; and then secondly, the planning cannot arbitrarily assign an area for a particular use of land, therefore once it is designated for a particular use of land, any development must comply with the stipulated regulations”. She implied that a confirmation of the owner of land in relation to the planning system is necessary. This goes along with what is stated by Krueckeberg (1995, p.301; and discussed in Section 2.1) saying that planning does not pertain to only ‘Where things belong’, but also ‘To whom things belong’ which means the issue of property ownership should be embodied in the land use plan.
86
The thesis seeks to compare the five ‘cause’ of tenure security as perceived by the communities. In Menteng Dalam, land-related documents turn out to be the strongest among other causes of tenure security (Figure 7-11) with 50 (43%) responses, regardless land tenure categories, assigning it as the first priority. In the other case study, the surveyed households of Tanah Tinggi also assigned land- related documents as the first priority with 56 (44%) responses (see: Figure 7-12).
From above discussions, it can be inferred that land-related documents turn out to be the most prominent factor of tenure security perceived by both communities. Even with the possession of non-title documents, the sub-district office legitimates the residential status of the community by issuing a land occupation letter (surat penguasaan fisik) and no dispute letter (surat tidak sengketa). These documents apparently strengthen the community perception on their tenure security. In addition, the local government seems to be more flexible when it comes to building permits as the Community Head 1 said, “For residents who do not have building permits, in terms of provision of utilities and infrastructure, the local government, the sub-district office, issues a letter of ‘PM1’ stating that the land is located on the proper designated use of land in zoning plan”. However, this contradicts what the sub-head of the housing agency stated about the requirements for a building permit namely encompassing: land title; detailed zoning plan; an identity card; site plan; and front view design of the house. This is probably because the kampung houses were built long before the building regulation was applied and thereby discrepancy for them was applied with the issuance of the ‘PM1’ letter confirming the conformity to zoning plan. The Sub-head of the Housing Agency implied that land title becomes the pre-requisite for housing improvement programs. Having investigated perceived tenure security by the communities and local authorities, the thesis continues to elaborate an existing range of local tenure forms and rights.
7.1.2 A local continuum of land rights
This section elaborates a range of land tenure forms which exists on the ground in Jakarta. This is extracted from the degree of tenure security perceived by specific surveyed land tenure categories and from the interviews with the land law experts. The thesis, at the end, aims to understand tenure security by exploring and recognizing a continuum of land rights in the local context as suggested by UN-HABITAT (2004). According to UN-HABITAT (2008b), a continuum of land rights constitutes the way land is occupied (Figure 3-1). Under this continuum of land rights, a wide range of land tenure forms exists on the ground ranging from informal to formal tenure at each end. The range may also represent its degree of rights, restrictions, and responsibilities on a piece of land. Instead of the dichotomy between formal/legal and informal/illegal as is often discussed by scholars (Section 2.2), the thesis underlines an important point made by Payne & Majale (2004) that, in
87 urban areas, land tenure is considered complex and not as simple as a dichotomy between formal and informal or legal and illegal. Most urban people occupy land along a continuum of existing land tenure forms, ranging from fully informal to fully formal tenure. Based on the continuum of land rights defined by UN-HABITAT (2008b), the thesis looks into this continuum from the perspective of communities and local government in Jakarta kampung and develops a local continuum of land rights.
The data from the survey of land-related documents reveal that the local continuum of land rights in the two case study areas encompasses leases, occupancy, adverse possession, [ex] customary/ex- adat, registered land purchase, and registered freehold. However, the lease is out of the local continuum. Land Law Expert 1 explained that the tenants only rent the property and possess no land. Leasehold (formal and informal) is possible for each form of title as title-holders can lease to non-owners, but the fundamental security of occupation depends on the security offered by the underlying form of documentation.
As described earlier (Figure 7-5 and 7-6), there is a range of land-related documents existing across the two case study areas. Such land-related documents include land titles (HM, HGB, and HP), ex- tribal tax letter (girik), notary letter of land purchase, Dutch stamped agreement letter (segel), non- stamped agreement letter, and statement letter of building ownership and purchase (acknowledged by sub-district office), purchase receipt, and property tax (PBB). On the basis of these documents, the thesis builds a spectrum of land tenure forms, so-called a local continuum of land rights. Unlike the continuum of land rights provided by UN-HABITAT (2008b), the thesis builds and elaborates more the local continuum of land rights based on the level of tenure security perceived by communities (see: Figure 7-9) and on the level of law perceived by land law experts (Figure 7-10).
Firstly, the thesis builds a local continuum of land rights (documents) from the perspective of communities, based on the types of landowners’ documents and the level of perceived tenure security. The thesis summarised the level of perceived tenure security by breaking it down into two divisions: less secure and secure. The continuum is summarised and shown in Figure 7.9 below.
88
Figure 7-9 A local continuum of land rights (documents) in two case study areas by the communities (Source: developed by author)
Secondly, the thesis also builds a local continuum of land rights from the perspectives of land law experts illustrated in Figure 7-10 below. Similarly, the surveyed data has shown that the way urban kampung dwellers access a piece of land varies across Jakarta in that there is a wide range of tenure forms, not only land title.
Statement letter Dutch Non-stamped of building Property stamped Ex-tribal tax Property Notary agreement ownership on purchase Land title agreement letter (Girik) tax deeds letter state land receipt letter (PBB)
INFORMAL FORMAL LAND TENURE LAND TENURE
Figure 7-10 A local continuum of land rights (documents) in two case study areas by the land law experts (Source: developed by author)
Figure 7-10 is analysed from a degree of law described by land law experts as opposed to Figure 7- 9 from the communities’ perspective. This local continuum of land rights by the land law expert may also represent the perception of the local government. The thesis argues that local government perceives tenure security similarly to Land Law Experts’ perspective as they see tenue security from the view of regulations. From the given figures, there appears to be differences in the position of the existing land-related documents between the two figures. The most prominent ones are the statement letter of building ownership (locally known as AJB/Oper Alih Kelurahan), property tax and property purchase receipt. First, the statement letter of building ownership on State land lies closer to secure perceived tenure in Figure 7-9 although it is regarded low in the level of law in Figure 7-10. This document exists in both case study areas and greatly contributes to the communities’ perceptions on tenure security. Second, the property tax and purchase receipt lie
89 closer to formal tenure in Figure 7-10 while in Figure 7-9 it lies close to the least secure perceived tenure. The property tax and purchase receipt have relatively higher level of law recognition than the statement letter of building ownership (Figure 7-10). Despite this, the statement letter of building ownership was perceived by the communities as a more secure form of tenure. It can be inferred that legitimation by the sub-district office contributes to the perceived tenure security.
The statement letter of building ownership exemplifies current garapan land occupation. In the sense of land-related documents, the land occupation (known as garapan) can be divided into two: Dutch colonial period occupation (past) and post-Dutch colonial occupation (current), as explained in Chapter 3. The current land occupation exists in the form of a statement letter of building ownership and purchase acknowledged by the sub-district office locally (known as AJB/Oper Alih Kelurahan) while the past land occupation still exists in the form of Dutch stamped and non- stamped agreement letter and their existence is still recognised.
7.2 Duration of occupation
Duration of occupation appears to be one of the generators of de facto perceived tenure security. The survey revealed that the majority of the residents felt secure if they had stayed in the neighbourhood for a long time. This included the landowners without land title. This may imply that length of residence manifests as de facto land tenure. Despite this, they are also aware of the importance of land-related documents.
Overall, the surveyed households in Menteng Dalam have lived in the neighbourhood for 25 years on average. In detail, landowners with title, landowners with no title and non-landowners have lived on average for 27, 28, and 25 years, respectively. In respect to that, there is no big difference in average years of residence among land tenure categories. Meanwhile, in Tanah Tinggi, the surveyed households have lived in the neighbourhood for 29 years on average. In details for land tenure categories, landowners with title, landowners with no title and non-landowners have lived in average for 28, 30, and 26 years, respectively.
The survey reveals that, in Menteng Dalam, by having lived there for decades, overall, 86 (74%) of the surveyed households perceive their tenure is secure while 31 (26%) perceive it is less secure. In Tanah Tinggi, the survey revealed that by having also lived for decades, overall, 87 (68%) of the surveyed households perceive their tenure is secure while 41 (32%) perceive it is less secure (Table 7-2 below for further detail).
90
Table 7-2 Perceived tenure security by duration of occupation against land tenure categories (groups) in Menteng Dalam and Tanah Tinggi (Source: survey results)
Case study perceived tenure security by duration of occupation (DO)*
1 2 3 4 5
(insecure (less (less (secure) (very ) insecure) secure) secure)
Menteng Group 1 Landowners with Count 0 2 2 24 4 Dalam title
2 Landowners without Count 2 4 6 38 3 title
3 Non-landowners Count 6 7 2 15 2
Total Count 8 13 10 77 9
Tanah Tinggi Group 1 Landowners with Count 4 2 5 31 2 title
2 Landowners without Count 6 5 11 26 0 title
3 Non-landowners Count 1 0 7 28 0
Total Count 11 7 23 85 2
* This table shows the numbers of cases that fall into each cross-identified category. The figures are shown for illustrative purposes only. It was not possible to carry out a full cross-tabulation because too many cells were occupied by less than the minimum number of 5 cases.
The thesis also summarises a perceived priority scale of duration of occupation as tenure security factor. The surveyed households of Menteng Dalam assigned duration of occupation as the second highest among the causes of tenure security (Figure 7-11) with 47 (40%) responses. This is further confirmed by 66 households when asked about local government agreement on their residential status. Meanwhile, most of the surveyed households of Tanah Tinggi regard length of stay to be the third strongest factor of tenure security with 51 (40%) responses (Figure 7-12); this was also mostly mentioned by 60 responses in respect to local government agreement on their residential status. There seems to be a difference in the priority scale between the two communities. In this regard, the community head of Menteng Dalam claimed, “Tenure security can be seen from the recognition of
91 local authorities; such recognition maybe caused by the long occupation for decades”. He further explained that the forms of such recognition are manifested by public intervention in the programs such as housing renovation, land registration, provision of infrastructure and services, and micro finance. In the case of Tanah Tinggi, the community head asserted that “Duration of occupation is more about the assurance of their land status”.
In relation to the above discussions, Land Law Expert 1 asserted, “Government should recognise ‘ownership’ of dwellers that have lived there for long even their residences have been hereditary”. She further explained, “By fact (de facto), they have utilised and preserved the land and even paid property tax and these thereby can be considered as the initial evidences of ‘ownership’, refers to as garapan, on a specific piece of land”. She yet elaborated further that particularly de facto ‘ownership’ should provide a kind of supporting document; otherwise it would create controversy over the actual ownerhip of a specific piece of land. A different perspective on length of stay in respect to garapan (land occupation) was posed by Land Law Expert 2 saying, “Length of stay manifests the relationship between a person and land and thereby strengthens it”. This implies that length of stay strengthens the (legal) rights of a person to land, particularly for garapan holders – the landowners without title. In a similar vein, Head of NGO 1 asserted, “Living in the slum kampung for decades, the communities have taken care of their lands well as their only asset to make living, not for speculative purposes or profit gain”. He argued that this is the initial evidence of land possession. In a similar vein, Head of NGO 2 noted that “By fact (de facto), kampung communities have lived there for long and thus this makes them feel secure, even they pay property tax”. He further described, “Without this sense of possession (perception), it would be impossible for them to survive, making their living with their own efforts because this perception is closely related to economic activities”. In other words, in the absence of de jure tenure, the communities are still able to make their living, even without support from local or central government believing they have a form of de facto tenure.
7.3 Social cohesion
Social cohesion, the other generator of de facto tenure security, represents the community’s bonds that have been established, usually over a long period. In this thesis, it is examined from the level of closeness, interaction, and participation in common activity. The thesis argues that these aspects are easily recognised and measured, especially in a densely populated area. Firstly, closeness is included presumably because the community lives side by side with neighbours. Secondly, interaction is measured from the frequency of talks on a daily basis. Lastly, level of participation in an activity is measured from the frequency of attendance and participation in respect to the
92 scheduled common activities. These aspects were measured on the basis of their perceptions in a Likert-scale measurement. The survey revealed that more than half of the communities felt secure by having a strong social bond.
The majority of the surveyed households (82%) in Menteng Dalam claim there were strong and close ties within the community. This is supported by the Community Head 1 saying, “We have a strong social bond established for decades”. Most households (67%) interact (socialise) with each other on a daily basis. More than half of the surveyed households (60%) actively take part in the communal activities such as Moslem Quran reciting and neighbourhood general cleaning. The first activity is conducted regularly twice a week in the local mosque and the second is held every three months organised by the community. The above three aspects generate the relatively strong social bonds within the community, as claimed by 80% of the surveyed households. This, then, was reinforced by the Community Head 1 saying, “The social bond has been built for long through community activities such as religious activity (pengajian), community cleaning activity (kerja bakti)”. Similarly, the majority of surveyed households (83%) in Tanah Tinggi claim there were strong and close ties within the community. This is confirmed by the Community Head 2 saying, “Social cohesion within this neighbourhood established for long time has run well”. Most households (77%) interact (socialise) with each other on a daily basis. Approximately half of the surveyed households (51%) actively take part in the communal activities such as Moslem Quran reading and neighbourhood general cleaning. The first activity is conducted regularly every week and the second is held every month. The above three aspects generate the relatively strong social bonds within the community, as claimed by 75% of the surveyed households. As the Community Head 2 described, “Despite diverse ethnicity, social cohesion has been established from single ethnicity growing to a larger group and blended within the community as a whole”.
The survey in Menteng Dalam reveals that, by having the given social cohesion, overall, 84 (72%) of the surveyed households perceive their tenure is secure while 33 (28%) perceive it is less secure. Meanwhile, in Tanah Tinggi, overall, 85 (68%) of the surveyed households perceive themselves to have secure tenure while 41 (32%) perceive it to be less secure (Table 7-3 below for further detail).
93
Table 7-3 Perceived tenure security by social cohesion against land tenure categories (groups) in Menteng Dalam and Tanah Tinggi (Source: survey results)
Case study perceived tenure security by social cohesion (SC)*
1 2 3 4 5
(insecure (less (less (secure) (very ) insecure) secure) secure)
Menteng Group 1 Landowners with Count 0 3 1 22 6 Dalam title
2 Landowners without Count 2 4 7 32 8 title
3 Non-landowners Count 5 6 5 13 3
Total Count 7 13 13 67 17
Tanah Tinggi Group 1 Landowners with Count 3 6 7 26 2 title
2 Landowners Count 6 4 10 27 0 without title
3 Non-landowners Count 0 1 4 30 0
Total Count 9 11 21 83 2
* This table shows the numbers of cases that fall into each cross-identified category. The figures are shown for illustrative purposes only. It was not possible to carry out a full cross-tabulation because too many cells were occupied by less than the minimum number of 5 cases.
The thesis then summarises a priority scale of social cohesion. The surveyed households in Menteng Dalam assigned social cohesion as the third priority with 33 (28%) responses (Figure 7-11) among the criteria for improving tenure security. Meanwhile, the community of Tanah Tinggi assigned social cohesion as the second priority with 46 (36%) responses. (Figure 7-12). It can be seen that each communitiy generally sees social cohesion in a different way. The community of Tanah Tinggi put the importance of social bonds as higher than that of Menteng Dalam. This may imply that the social cohesion in the small area is stronger than that in the large area and thereby influencing perceived tenure security.
94
7.4 Summary This section provides a summary of the local causes of tenure security. Each criterion is described in order. The chapter seeks to answer the research question: “What are the ‘causes’ of tenure security in urban kampung in Jakarta?”. The thesis summarises the surveyed households’ responses in respect to causes of tenure security shown in Figure 7.11 and 7.12 in Menteng Dalam and Tanah Tinggi, respectively.
The important point made by Payne & Majale (2004) about the complexity of land tenure in urban areas indeed occurs in urban kampung in Jakarta. Most urban kampung occupy land along a local continuum of existing land tenure forms ranging from informal to formal tenure depicted in Figure 7-10.
In Menteng Dalam, land-related document is mostly considered as the most prominent causal factor of tenure security, followed by duration of occupation and social cohesion; these were mentioned by 50, 47, and 33 surveyed households, respectively (Figure 7-11).
Summary Block 9 Menteng Dalam
100 50 47 40 50 25 28 34 33 20 22 12 20 4 0 1 0 0 Land-related Duration of Size of settlement Social cohesion Support from NGO documents occupation
Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3
Figure 7-11 Priority scale of causes of tenure security in Menteng Dalam (Source: survey results)
In Tanah Tinggi, having land-related documents is also considered as the most prominent cause of tenure security, followed by social cohesion and duration of occupation as indicated by 56, 46, and 51 responses, respectively (Figure 7-12). An important point is that there is a range of land-related documents, not just land title. Traditional land possession rights such as girik and garapan rights still exist. Particularly, having the current land occupation (garapan) of the statement letter of building ownership, both communities perceive their tenure to be secure although its degree of significance in law is low. This is because the sub-district offices legitimate any land and building transfer including purchase and inheritance. The different levels of law and perception were captured in the local continuum of land rights (Figure 7-9 and 7-10 respectively). Both communities and local government perceived similarly in respect to land-related documents giving the greatest
95 tenure security, in descending order of importance, comprising land title, notary deeds, and ex-tribal rights (girik). Nonetheless, these documents generate diverse perceived tenure security for the communities.
Figure 7-12 Priority scale of causes of tenure security in Tanah Tinggi (Source: survey results)
It can be concluded that, in two locations, overall more than 60 % of landholders, regardless of types of land-related documents, perceived their tenure to be secure by possessing land-related documents. The summary of land-related documents breaks into as follows. Firstly, the landowners with land title mostly perceived their tenure to be secure (on average 83%). Secondly, less than 50%, on average, of the landowners without land title perceived their tenure to be secure, especially in Tanah Tinggi reaching up to 33%. This may indicate that they were aware of land title as the strongest tenure form despite the recognition of their current tenure forms. Lastly, around 60% of the non-landowners perceived their tenure to be secure.
Given the fact that there are more landowners with title in Tanah Tinggi Sub-district, according to BPN (2017) data (Sub-section 6.2.2), around 75% of the surveyed residents perceive their tenure to be secure. This figure is relatively lower than that of Menteng Dalam reaching up to 90%. The high number of land title holders benefitted from the land registration program (PRONA) does not necessarily increase their perceived tenure security; instead the community feel more recognised by the local government. This contradicts with what Winayanti and Lang (2004) found in other kampung in Jakarta where the dwellers perceived their tenure security through government’s legitimacy on public services.
In terms of duration of occupation, both communities have lived in the neighbourhoods for more than 20 years: 25 and 29 years on average in Menteng Dalam and Tanah Tinggi respectively. This long duration of stay indeed generates their perceived tenure security. This is further confirmed by 68% of the overall surveyed households in Tanah Tinggi who perceived they were secure by having long duration of occupation, lower than that in Menteng Dalam with overall 74% of the surveyed
96 households. Duration of occupation, in respect to land-related documents, is closely associated with garapan rights which mostly involve occupation on State land which implies that duration of occupation is the major indicator of de facto land possession or occupation. It can be inferred that duration of occupation in respect to land-related documents is closely associated with garapan rights which mostly involves occupation on State land. Duration of occupation can also be considered as the major indicator for de facto land possession or occupation.
In terms of social cohesion, both communities feel strong social cohesion within the neighbourhoods. This is claimed by more than 90% of the total surveyed households confirming their closeness with others. Overall, 72% and 67% of the surveyed households, respectively in Menteng Dalam and Tanah Tinggi, perceived their tenure to be secure by having strong social bonds and despite a diversity of ethnicity.
Granting land titles, in fact, takes into account planning aspects and land status. The former includes planning advice and a ground check of land use to determine specific size of land free from future development plan and to make sure of conformity of the existing use of land to zoning plan. The latter (land status) includes State land and adat land which can be granted different types of land title: HGB and HM, respectively. In the context of residential zone, Tanah Tinggi Sub-district is more recognised in terms of land title holders in which the area is mostly predominated by HM holders derived from adat land occupation (girik rights) while Menteng Dalam is by HGB holders derived from State land occupation (garapan rights). This shows that the level of recognition in the first area is higher than the second which implies that Tanah Tinggi Sub-district has benefitted more from the land registration program with provision of titles, particularly rights of ownersip (HM). The types of title depend on the discrepancy of land officers and the conformity to zoning plan in the area. All in all, the zoning plan plays an important role in not only determining types of land title but also in giving assurance on conformity of existing land use to designated use of land and this thereby may generate the perception on being protected against forced eviction. On top of the zoning plan, other factors generating perceived tenure security such as duration of occupation, possession of land-related documents, and social cohesion are fundamental. The strength of these ‘causes’ of tenure security will be further discussed in Chapter 10.
97
CHAPTER 8: EXAMINING THE EXTENT OF THE COMMUNITIES’ PERCEIVED TENURE SECURITY
Chapter 3, specifically Section 3.2, explained issues regarding land tenure insecurity in informal settlements in general. Then Chapter 7 discussed the causes that directly affect tenure security. This current chapter continues the analysis by concentrating on perceptions of the extent of tenure security itself. As detailed in Section 3.2 on land tenure security issues, the meaning and characteristics of ‘tenure security’ used in this thesis have been adopted from the Federation of International Surveyors (FIG) and the United Nations Centre for Human Settlement (UNCHS): protection against forced eviction; the possibility of selling; and the ability to inherit (UN- HABITAT, 2004, p. 13). The degree of security is considerably relevant and measurable from the perspective of communities and local authorities in the context of Indonesia. Apart from the degree of tenure security measured from the communities’ perspectives, the thesis also looked at the sense of (possible) future eviction and at the sense of their residence status with regard to local governments’ recognition. These were provided with the reasons from the survey.
This chapter seeks to answer the following research questions: “What is the current condition of land tenure security in urban kampung in Jakarta?” and “How do both urban kampung dwellers and public authorities perceive land tenure security?” (Sub-questions 1 and 2). This chapter encompasses quantitative and qualitative analysis on the extent of perceived tenure security and provides a summary of a priority scale for each variable taken as leading to greater tenure security. The chapter is divided into four sections elaborating each factor in relation to the two case study areas. Section 8.1 discusses the communities’ sense of being protected against forced eviction, of (possible) future evictions, and of current residence status in respect to local governments’ recognition. Section 8.2 analyses the possibility of landholders to sell land and houses. Section 8.3 examines the ability or possibility of the landholders to inherit land and houses. Each section includes the analysis of the two case study areas and then compares them. Lastly, a summary of the perceived extent of tenure security is provided in Section 8.4 with the priority scale.
8.1 Protection against forced eviction
Several scholars (Reerink & van Gelder, 2010; Angel, 1982) and international organizations (UN- HABITAT, 2008b; FAO, 2002) regard protection against forced eviction as the essence of tenure security. This section analyses the communities’ sense of being protected against forced eviction, of (possible) future eviction, and of their current residence status being recognised by local government. This is done by land tenure categories (landowners with title, landowners with no title,
98 and non-landowners) in percentages and then examined further with qualitative data. The survey revealed that, overall, more than half of both communities perceived they were ‘less secure’ from forced eviction, especially for those without land title.
As described in Chapter 2 on Planning and Informality, planning should consider the notion of ‘the rights to the city’ posed in the literature (Roy, 2005; Harvey, 2003). Moreover, the notion is contextualised by UN-HABITAT (2004) in which one of the rights is the status of being a legal resident. Bearing this in mind, the thesis initially investigated the current legal status of the community’s dwellings, in other words, whether the local government recognises the communities as legal residents.
In addition to the perception by the community about being protected against eviction, the thesis argues that legitimation by local government of the residential status is fundamental and may contribute to the perception of being protected against forced eviction. This includes whether the residents are visible and recognised as legal citizens. Having recognition by the local government, the thesis hypothesises that such recognition manifests the forms of legitimation of the community’s existence. There are essentially two aspects examined to comprehend the forms of legitimation by local government constituting: the community’s perception on being legal citizen; and the legal status of dwellings. The thesis also asked the communities whether there is a possibility of future forced eviction. These aspects were taken into account to get deep insights and to investigate other factors beyond what has been discussed in the literature regarding perceived tenure security. These aspects are then analysed along with the degree of tenure security perceived by the communities.
Legal status of the residents and their dwellings
Firstly, being legal citizen means the residents are registered in a civil book of the sub-district office and provided with a family and identity card. Secondly, the thesis asked the residents whether local government agreed with them about their dwellings.
In the case of Menteng Dalam, firstly, in relation to being legal residents, the survey revealed that, of 117 surveyed residents, 97% of them (114 residents) have an identity card while 3% of them (3 residents) did not have. Secondly, the survey revealed that 96% of the surveyed residents (113 residents) claimed that local government agrees with their residential status while 4% of them (4 residents) claimed the opposite. In the case of Tanah Tinggi, in terms of being legal residents, the survey revealed that 100% of the surveyed residents (128 residents) have an identity card. In terms of legal dwellings, the survey revealed that 96% of the surveyed residents (122 residents) claimed that local government agreed with the legitimacy of their dwellings while 4% of them (6 residents)
99 claimed the opposite. The reasons for the claims for both cases can be seen in Table 8-1 below (more than one response is possible):
Table 8-1 Reasons for legitimacy of dwellings (Source: survey results)
# Reasons for legal status of dwellings Menteng Dalam Tanah Tinggi (Number of (Number of responses) responses) 1 Land related document possession 68 (total) 58 (total) landowners without land title 35 19 landowners with land title 31 38 non-landowners 2 1 2 Long duration of occupation 67 (total) 60 (total) landowners without land title 34 21 landowners with land title 19 27 non-landowners 14 12 3 Self-build houses 18 (total) 14 (total) landowners without land title 12 9 landowners with land title 6 5 non-landowners - - 4 Provision of basic infrastructure and services 34 (total) 42 (total) landowners without land title 18 22 landowners with land title 8 8 non-landowners 8 12 5 Identity card possession 59 (total) 32 (total) landowners without land title 33 15 landowners with land title 14 13 non-landowners 12 4 6 Others Less than 10 (total): Less than 15 (total): conformity to zoning local government’s plan, rights of programs, payment citizens, and of property tax, and government’s care government’s care
The figures above show that almost all residents in two locations possess identity cards and claim a legal status for their residences. It can be seen that both communities, with title or not, perceived the status of the residential tenure derived mostly from duration of stay and land-related documents. In particular, landowners without title also perceived it from the possession of identity cards and provision of basic infrastructure and services. This implies that the existences of the two communities were recognised by local authorities.
These conditions were then emphasised by the community head of Menteng Dalam saying, “Identity cards indeed generate the community’s perception on the legitimation of the residence status”. He further asserted that local government also legitimates the status of residence by empowering the community of the neighbourhood (RW Binaan) in any local program in that the community is empowered through the capacity building such as sewing course and entrepreneurship. A different view was given by the community head of Tanah Tinggi who explained, “Assigning RT and RW is a fundamental recognition from local government in that there is no neighbourhood (kampung) if there is no RT and RW, and, based on this, local government
100 levies property tax (PBB) and implements various programs such as land titling program”. He further explained, “Such recognitions, including the programs such as foot path construction, land titling, influence the community’s perceived tenure security”. In addition to this, the head of NGO 1 underlined, “When urban kampung dwellers do not have identity cards, they are not recognised by local government and thereby are considered as illegal citizens since they occupy lands they do not belong to. Consequently those citizens do not get access to health services, education, etc, including local government’s program of community empowerment”. He further elaborated that in Jakarta, there are many informal kampung which exist without any formal recognition like RT and RW. Such kampung occupy land considered ‘illegal’ or ‘restricted’, such as on the river banks, along railways, under road bridges, in prime locations near economic activities, in green areas, and on abandoned land owned by private companies or individuals. Assignment of RT and RW appears to be the initial stage of the recognition and legitimation of local government, in this case the Sub-district office. On the basis of that, the local government carries out the administrative functions as the lowest level of local government such as population inventory.
The possibility of future forced eviction
Lastly, in terms of a possibility of future forced eviction, the survey in Menteng Dalam revealed that overall: 1) 10% of the surveyed residents (11 residents) felt it was impossible for them to be evicted; 2) 4% of the surveyed residents (5 residents) felt it was somewhat impossible; 3) 16% of the surveyed residents (19 residents) felt neutral (neither impossible nor possible); 4) 47% of the surveyed residents (55 residents) felt it was somewhat possible; and 5) 23% of the surveyed residents (27 residents) felt it was possible. Furthermore, many of the landowners with land title (44%), over half of the landowners without land title (55%), and over one third of non-landowners (38%) perceived that future forced eviction is somewhat possible.
Meanwhile, the survey in Tanah Tinggi revealed that overall: 1) 14% of the surveyed residents (18 residents) felt it was impossible they would be forcibly evicted; 2) 5% (6 residents) felt it was somewhat impossible; 3) 25% (32 residents) felt neutral (neither impossible nor possible); 4) 51% (65 residents) felt it was somewhat possible; 5) 5% (7 residents) felt it was possible. About one third of landowners with land title (34%) and the majority of both landowners without land title (63%) and non-landowners (56%) perceived that future forced eviction is somewhat possible. The reasons for the (possible) future forced eviction for both cases can be seen in Table 8-2 below (more than one response is possible):
101
Table 8-2 Reasons for the (possible) future forced eviction (Source: survey results)
# Reasons for the (possible) future forced Menteng Dalam Tanah Tinggi eviction (Number of (Number of responses) responses) 1 Public development 85 (total) 60 (total) landowners without land title 42 23 landowners with land title 17 20 non-landowners 26 17 2 Commercial (private) development 18 (total) 23 (total) landowners without land title 7 13 landowners with land title 10 6 non-landowners 1 4 3 Flood (disaster) prone 1 (total) 1 (total) landowners without land title - 1 landowners with land title 1 - non-landowners - - 4 Illegal occupation 1 (total) 1 (total) landowners without land title - 1 landowners with land title 1 - non-landowners - - 5 Others: do not know 3 (total) 24 (total) landowners without land title 1 5 landowners with land title 1 8 non-landowners 1 11
As described earlier on the residential and citizenship status, both communities were recognised by local authorities and legitimised as legal residents. This legitimacy feeling may lead to the feeling of security. Nonetheless, half of the respondents (63%)26 felt that forced eviction is possible to happen in the next five years. The most prominent reason behind this was public interest development, especially perceived by most landowners with no land title (Table 8-2 above). This concern was also confirmed by both NGOs who noted that urban kampung dwellers are not secure from forced eviction in that they may get evicted anytime. This is mainly because urban kampung dwellers are deprived from access (rights) to land, especially those without land title.
In a similar vein, the Community Head 2 underlined, “The community still feels threatened by forced eviction including the landowners with land title, even more for the landowners with no land title due to legal uncertainty”. He further stated, “Some community feels secure but on the other hand they expect to benefit from a future land registration program (PRONA) to increase their land status and legal certainty; they feel they deserve it since they have lived (there) for long, 30-40 years, even hereditary”. Similarly, “Most kampung dwellers in Jakarta have occupied the State land for decades, 30 – 40 years”, observed Social Planning Expert. State land occupation is apparently common in urban kampung across Jakarta.
In the case of eviction, the Community Head 1 explained, “Even if there would be a forced eviction, the community prefers to be evicted by the private developers because they would give more money
26 The percentage derives from the average of the percentage who perceives somewhat possible and possible in both case study areas. 102 for compensation based on the market price instead of property tax offered by local authorities”. In this case, this situation showed the community’s preference for eviction by the private sector, in order to earn more compensation. They are aware of the strategic location close to the business district, so they hold-out the properties to the highest buyer.
The figures in Table 8-3 show that both types of landowners in both areas mostly feel less secure or less certain about being protected against forced eviction, especially those landowners without land title. In this case, the Head of Sub-district office 1 advised about a plan of an inspection road along the river in Menteng Dalam and as shortcut to the main road, “The inspection road will be built along the river passing through the neighbourhood and the main road and consequently affects those living along the road”. This is most likely the reason behind such perception by most of the community and thus affected by the construction plan.
Table 8-3 The sense of protection against forced eviction by land tenure categories in Menteng Dalam and Tanah Tinggi (Source: survey results)
Case study Protection against forced eviction*
1 2 3 4 527
(uncertain) (less (less (certain) (very uncertain) certain) certain)
Menteng Dalam Group 1 Landowners with title Count 7 9 2 10 4
2 Landowners without Count 9 17 15 11 0 title
3 Non-landowners Count 8 14 5 4 1
Total Count 24 40 22 25 5
Tanah Tinggi Group 1 Landowners with title Count 3 6 7 8 20
2 Landowners without title Count 3 9 18 14 4
3 Non-landowners Count 2 10 12 9 3
Total Count 8 25 37 31 27
27 The thesis re-groups the scales into less certain and certain scale in the text; the former scale is aggregated from uncertain to less certain while the latter is aggregated from certain and very certain. This scale regrouping also applies for other extent: possibility to sell land and ability to inherit land. 103
* This table shows the numbers of cases that fall into each cross-identified category. The figures are shown for illustrative purposes only. It was not possible to carry out a full cross-tabulation because too many cells were occupied by less than the minimum number of 5 cases.
In sum, the survey in Menteng Dalam revealed that, overall, 30 (26%) of surveyed households perceived they were certain on being protected against forced eviction, while 86 (74%) of them perceived to be less certain on being protected against forced eviction. Meanwhile, in Tanah Tinggi, overall, 58 (45%) of the surveyed households perceived to be certain on being protected against forced eviction while 70 (55%) of them perceived to be less certain on being protected against forced eviction (Table 8-3).
The research also explored the extent of perceived tenure security in the form of a priority scale. The surveyed households in Menteng Dalam, regardless the land tenure categories, assigned protection against forced eviction as the third rank with 47 (55%) responses (Figure 8-1 in Section 8.4). The figures reveal that being protected against forced eviction appears to be the least concern for the community. In Tanah Tinggi, the surveyed households, regardless the land tenure categories, assigned protection against forced eviction as the first priority with 47 (51%) responses (Figure 8-2 in Section 8.4).
Figure 8-1 in Section 8.4 for Menteng Dalam implies that being protected against forced eviction is not the main concern perceived by the community and thus becomes the third priority, even perceived by both types of landowners. Despite so, the Community Head confirmed that, “The community still feels insecure from forced eviction due to the lack of land-related documents”. Land-related documents, regardless of the forms, seem to be the most prominent driving factor of perceived tenure security. This was confirmed by 64% of the surveyed households perceive secure by having land-related documents (Table 7.1). On the other hand, the figures of Tanah Tinggi imply that being protected against forced eviction turns out to be the main concern of the community. This is further confirmed by landowners with land title and with no land title who assigned it as the first priority. In regard to this, Land Office Head 2 argued that “Land tenure security is indeed about protection against forced eviction, but more importantly it means that the land holder also feels secure from others’ claims or probably land grabbing by others, which means that he/she has rights there and is recognised by the neighbours”. Similarly, Land Law Expert 2 expressed, “Speaking of urban slums (kampung) in Jakarta, the most prominent thing in tenure security is that the dwellers feel secure against forced eviction, and then followed by the possibility to sell and to get a mortgage”. However, Land Law Expert 1 pointed out that “Land tenure security is all about legal certainty of land possession and ownership”. She further explained, “By this, the dweller is recognised as the real holder of land rights and thus obtained protection from the government”.
104
Given the communities’ perceived tenure security above, Land Officer 2 underlined, “There may have been a different perception from local government in defining State land, in that local government may view State land as assets owned by the State where no claim is on it and when the State needs the land for development, the land occupants should leave”. Meanwhile, National Land Agency officer perceives that State land from its definition stipulated in Basic Agrarian Law (BAL) stating that for consecutive 20 years, the land occupants who have lived there and proven by fact are entitled to upgrade their land occupancy. The Land Officer 2 further explained, “National land agency (BPN) in this case refers to BAL in which a peaceful occupation for consecutive 20 years is acknowledged where the land occupants have utilised with a good will and taken care, instead of being abandoned land; this needs to be taken into account”. He implied that there is a need to have the same perception or definition of State land among the different stakeholders.
Another opinion was posed by the Head of NGO 1 saying, “In my opinion, land tenure security happens, firstly, when we have lived on a particular land for 10, 15 and 20 years, and taken care of the land well. Secondly, it is of course from the legal aspect in which they are recognised as RT and RW in that kampung. Next it is about land occupation-related documents, not necessarily land title, or statement letter of land occupation acknowledged by neighbours, RT, RW, Sub-district office etc”. He implies that the most important thing in land tenure security is recognition by factual existence (de facto). Along with him, the Head of NGO 2 underlined, “Recognition by other people mainly generates de facto tenure security; such recognition derives from the fact that they have lived there for long and built social network”. He added, “Economic activities (home industry) and property taxation also contribute to tenure security”. This condition implies that de facto tenure is more relevant in generating tenure security perceived by the NGOs. Such de facto tenureships result from the length of stay for decades, legitimation of household association (RT) and neighbourhood association (RW), and land possession documents, instead of land ownership (land title), such as statement letter of land occupation witnessed by neighbours, RT, RW, and sub-district office. This situation is considered the fundamental existence of the urban kampung dwellers. Additionally, the home-based activities show how the communities have made intensive use of their only assets for livings for decades and thus may improve the long existence in the neighbourhood.
Above all, the fear of forced eviction haunted urban kampung dwellers. This current condition was confirmed by both NGOs who noted that urban kampung may get evicted anytime since they lack of legal acces to land. Additionally, land officers underlined that when there is no clear land-related documents, the urban kampung dwellers may get forcefully evicted. In a similar vein, the two community heads gave their views on the current concerns of forced eviction. In this case, both sub-
105 district officers implied that the forced eviction occurs when the land use does not conform to zoning plan.
8.2 Possibility to sell land
This section elaborates on the community residents’ perceptions of the possibility to sell their land as one of the measures of the extent of tenure security. This is further explored in accordance to land tenure categories (especially landowners with title and landowners with no title) using qualitative data. The non-landowners were excluded in further analysis since they merely rent the property. Also, they delivered incomplete responses in the survey resulting in blank or null values. In regard to the possibility or ability to sell land, the survey revealed that communities show different perceptions. Most of community of Menteng Dalam were certain about their possibility for them to sell their land, whereas those of Tanah Tinggi perceived otherwise. Further, in Menteng Dalam, such perception is mostly dominated by the perception from the landowners without land title, while, in Tanah Tinggi, it is common to both types of landowners. This condition apparently expresses different preferences or intentions about their future plans.
The survey in Menteng Dalam revealed that, overall, 55 (56%) of the surveyed households perceived to be certain on the possibility to sell land while 43 (44%) of them perceived less certain on the possibility to sell land. Meanwhile, in Tanah Tinggi, overall, 26 (20%) of the surveyed households perceived to be certain on the possibility to sell land while 102 (80%) of them perceived less certain on the possibility to sell land (Table 8-4 below for further details). This condition was then clarified by both community heads. The community head of Menteng Dalam saying, “The landowners sell the properties through the deeds of notary or sub-district office, so-called AJB”. Despite the fact that the possibility to sell land has nothing to do with land tenure status, land transactions have taken place through the legitimation of sub-district or legal entity (notary). In addition, he went on saying, “Particularly for the landowners without land title, additional documents, i.e. surat penguasaan fisik (land occupation letter) and surat tidak sengketa (no dispute letter) issued by the sub-district office, are required for the transactions”. On the other hand, a different situation was reflected in the community of Tanah Tinggi. Regardless of the types of landownership, the community seems to be reluctant to sell the properties. Unlike the case of Menteng Dalam, the community of Tanah Tinggi prefer to stay instead of moving out. This was then confirmed by the community head of Tanah Tinggi saying, “Land purchase in this neighbourhood only occurs for those with land title, but not for those without land title”. This condition confirms the reluctance of most community to move out the neighbourhood since they have lived there for decades.
106
Table 8-4 The sense of possibility to sell land by land tenure categories in Menteng Dalam and Tanah Tinggi (Source: survey results)
Case study Possibility to sell land*
1 2 3 4 5
(less (less (very uncertain) certain) certain) (uncertain) (certain)
Menteng Group 1 Landowners with Count 7 6 3 10 6 Dalam title
2 Landowners without Count 11 3 4 24 11 title
3 Non-landowners Count 5 3 1 3 1
Total Count 23 12 8 37 18
Group 1 Landowners with Tanah Tinggi Count 24 4 1 8 7 title
2 Landowners without Count 27 7 5 7 2 title
3 Non-landowners Count 34 0 0 2 0
Total Count 85 11 6 17 9
* This table shows the numbers of cases that fall into each cross-identified category. The figures are shown for illustrative purposes only. It was not possible to carry out a full cross-tabulation because too many cells were occupied by less than the minimum number of 5 cases.
The thesis summarises the extent of perceived tenure security in form of a priority scale. The surveyed households of Menteng Dalam, regardless of the land tenure categories, assigned possibility to sell land as the second 35 (41%) responses (Figure 8-1 in Section 8.4). The figures reveal that the community of Menteng Dalam regards selling the properties as possibility, especially for those without land title as shown in Table 8-4 where most of them prefer to sell the properties. This condition may be generated by the sense of possible eviction by the private sectors that visited the neighbourhood to acquire lands, claimed one of the surveyed households. In this case, this implies that eviction by the private developers is preferable especially by those without land title and expecting a higher compensation. Meanwhile, those of Tanah Tinggi, regardless of the land tenure categories, assigned the possibility to sell land as the third rank with 72 (78%) responses
107
(Figure 8-2 in Section 8.4). As discussed earlier, confirming the situation above, the possibility to sell land is not preferred for the community of Tanah Tinggi.
8.3 Ability to inherit land
This section elaborates on the sense of ability to inherit land by those in different land tenure categories (especially landowners with title and landowners with no title) and then it is analysed along with qualitative data. Like in the previous section, in further analysis, the non-landowners were also excluded. The survey revealed that both communities roughly perceived similar views in which they mostly perceived to be certain on being able to inherit land.
The survey results in Menteng Dalam (Table 8-5 below for further details) revealed that, overall, 69 (71%) of the surveyed households perceived to be certain on being able to inherit land while 29 (29%) of them perceived less certain on being able to inherit land. The figures show that most landowners felt certain on being able to inherit land. Moreover, land inheritance has been recognised by the sub-district office which records the administrative letters, namely surat oper alih ahli waris (a letter of inheritance to heirs) as explained by the head of community 1. The head of sub-district office 1 added, “In case of inheritance dispute, the sub-district acts as the mediator of conflict resolution and this is done through the way of kinship”. On the other hand, the survey in Tanah Tinggi revealed that, overall, 93 (73%) of the surveyed households perceived to be certain on the possibility to inherit land while 35 (27%) of them perceived less certain on the ability to inherit land.
Table 8-5 The sense of ability to inherit land by land tenure categories in Menteng Dalam and Tanah Tinggi (Source: survey results)
Case study Possibility to inherit land*
1 4 2 3 5
(less (less (very (uncertain) uncertain) certain) (certain) certain)
Menteng Group 1 Landowners with Count 3 5 3 11 10 Dalam title
2 Landowners without Count 1 4 6 17 25 title
3 Non-landowners Count 1 3 3 4 2
108
Total Count 5 12 12 32 37
Tanah Tinggi Group 1 Landowners with title Count 1 2 2 8 31
2 Landowners without title Count 3 4 9 23 9
3 Non-landowners Count 8 0 6 21 1
Total Count 12 6 17 52 41
* This table shows the numbers of cases that fall into each cross-identified category. The figures are shown for illustrative purposes only. It was not possible to carry out a full cross-tabulation because too many cells were occupied by less than the minimum number of 5 cases.
The thesis summarised the extent of perceived tenure security in the form of a priority scale. The surveyed households of Menteng Dalam, regardless of the land tenure categories, assigned ability to inherit land as the first priority with 38 (45%) responses (Figure 8-1 in Section 8.4). The output of cross tabulation in Table 8-3 is confirmed by the scale priority in Figure 8-2 (Section 8.4) which considers the sense of being able to inherit as the first (main) concern as their perceived tenure security. Meanwhile, the surveyed households of Tanah Tinggi, regardless of the land tenure categories, assigned ability to inherit land as the second priority with 40 (44%) responses (Figure 8- 2). This sense of being able to inherit land resulted from the cross tabulation in Table 8-3 seems to be roughly in line with the scale priority depicted in Figure 8-2 where both types of landowners prefer to pass on the properties to the heirs rather than selling them.
8.4 Summary
This section summarises the discussion about the extent of the communities’ perceived tenure security. This chapter aims to answer the research questions on “What is the current condition of land tenure security in urban kampung in Jakarta?”, and on “How do both urban kampung dwellers and public authorities perceive land tenure security?” In sum, the community of Menteng Dalam perceived their tenure security as being associated with: being possible to inherit land; followed by being able or possible to sell land; and being protected against forced eviction. Meanwhile, the community of Tanah Tinggi perceived their tenure security as being associated with: being protected against forced eviction; followed by being possible to inherit land; and being able or possible to sell land. This difference of the extent of perceived tenure security will be further analysed in Chapter 10 using combined methods: descriptive and inferential.
The thesis found that overall, in Menteng Dalam, 26% of the surveyed households perceived to be certain on being protected against forced eviction while 74% of them perceived less certain on 109 being protected against forced eviction. On the other hand, in Tanah Tinggi, overall, 45% of the surveyed households perceived to be certain on being protected against forced eviction while 55% of them perceived to be less certain on being protected against forced eviction. The figures indicate that landowners in both locations mostly feel less secure from being protected against forced eviction (Table 8-3). This was probably influenced by the widely reported forced eviction of Kampung Pulo during the survey (Jakarta Post, 2015). Paricularly in Menteng Dalam, a planned inspection road might also contribute to such lower perception on being safe from forced eviction. The two community heads confirmed the current concerns of their communities about forced eviction.
This current condition was confirmed by both NGOs who noted that urban kampung may get evicted anytime due to the deprivation of legal access to land. Similarly, land officers asserted the clarity of land-related documents when it comes to forced eviction. In this case, both sub-district officers implied that the forced eviction occurs when the land use does not conform to zoning plan. Regarding this, NGO head 2 critisised the forced eviction in Kampung Pulo that it was conducted in the name of public order law for those living along the river, which is irrelevant, since the settlements are located in a proper designated use of land. He went on stating that ‘public Interest’ is used to justify the forced eviction. It can be inferred that despite possessing full landownership, the communities still felt insecure from forced eviction, even more for those without land title. The uncertainty they might be facing due to occupying State land exacerbates the uncertainty and thus leads to being threatened by forced eviction.
Figure 8-1 Priority scale of the extent of perceived tenure security in Menteng Dalam (Source: survey results)
110
Figure 8-2 Priority scale of the extent of perceived tenure security in Tanah Tinggi
(Source: survey results)
Firstly, in respect to protection against forced eviction, the thesis investigated the residential status of the communities prior to investigating the extent of tenure security. The thesis argues that the status of legal residents and the residential status may influence their perceived tenure security. The thesis summarises that both communities are well-recognised by local government; this can be seen from the fact that they mostly possess identity cards being legal citizens. Aside from that, they perceived that local government agrees with their dwellings mainly because they have lived there for a long time and many possessed land-related documents. Most landowners with land title perceived it from land-related documents while most landowners without land title did from their length of stay. Moreover, despite being recognised by local government, both communities felt that forced eviction could happen in the future due to mostly public interest development e.g. road and green space provision; this was mostly perceived as a possibility by landowners without land title. They also mentioned private development as one of the reasons for (possible) future forced eviction -- most landowners with land title in Menteng Dalam and most landowners without title in Tanah Tinggi perceived so. This is probably because, in terms of location, Menteng Dalam is more strategic than Tanah Tinggi, closer to the shopping centres.
Secondly, in respect to the possibility of selling land, thw two communities expressed contradictory perceptions. Most of the first community perceived to be certain, whereas the second one did the opposite. Most landowners without land title in Menteng Dalam had such a perception while both types of landowners in Tanah Tinggi had this perception. This is further seen in the priority scale where, in Menteng Dalam, most landowners without land title assigned the possibility to sell as the second priority (Figure 8-1) and most landowners with land title assigned it as the third priority. However, unlike Menteng Dalam, in Tanah Tinggi, both types of landowners mostly assigned the possibility to sell as the third priority. Such expressions imply that possibility to sell land turns to be
111 not as important as being protected against forced eviction as perceived by both types of landowners, but especially for those in Menteng Dalam. This is confirmed by the scale priority depicted in Figure 8-2 where possibility to sell land becomes the second major concern after being protected against forced eviction. This condition is likely generated by the sense of possible eviction by the private sector and thus being able to sell properties for a higher compensation. This condition captures the problems of the scholars opposing de Soto’s proposition of market-based formalization of titles. Payne (2001b) highlights that the resultant market pressures may contribute to the loss of assets of the beneficiaries and thereby increasing the number of homeless. In a similar vein, Doebele (1987) argued that gentrification by higher income groups makes the newly land titled owners vulnerable. The newly titled land owners are considered as vulnerable in the sense of the land and housing market as they may lose their only assets. However, in the situation explored in the two case studies, the eviction and sale are expressions of public or private interests being served, rather than expressions of a full residential land market. As Payne (2001b) suggests there is still the question of where those who sell their land for increased compensation will live.
Lastly, in respect to ability to inherit land, both communities expressed similar perceptions. Both communities mostly perceived themselves to be certain about being able to inherit land. This is further shown by relatively similar proportion of both types of landowners in Menteng Dalam. Yet, in Tanah Tinggi, landowners with land title mostly dominated the proportion. Such perceptions are also shown in the priority scales where the community of Menteng Dalam assigned it as the first rank or priority dominated by both types of landowners (Figure 8-1) and the community of Tanah Tinggi assigned it as the first and second priority dominated by most landowners without land title and with land title, respectively. The ability to inherit land turns out to be more important than possibility to sell land, but less important than being protected against forced eviction (Figure 8-2).
112
CHAPTER 9: ESTIMATING THE EFFECTS OF THE COMMUNITIES’ PERCEIVED TENURE SECURITY
As part of the conceptual framework (Figure 4.1), the effects of land tenure security are essentially the impacts resulting from the degree of perceived tenure security discussed in Chapter 4 (particularly Section 4.2 on impacts of de facto and de jure tenure). The thesis initially identifies the general impacts of perceived tenure security and then narrows down to specific impacts. The thesis argues that the specific impacts have a direct relationship with the perceived tenure security. This chapter further examines and analyses the degree of perceived tenure security of communities in the case study areas and how this perception appears to influence the effects or outcomes. As detailed in Section 4.2, the thesis examines the general impacts from several literature sources (Payne, 2001b; Durand-Lasserve and Royston, 2002; Payne et. al, 2009; de Soto, 2000) which, at later stage, focusing on specific direct impacts, including: 1) housing investment (de Soto, 2000; Reerink & van Gelder, 2010); 2) provision of infrastructure and services and access to credit (de Soto, 2000; UN-HABITAT, 2008b); 3) enabled land and housing market (UN-HABITAT, 2008b); 4) social disruption (Durand-Lasserve, 2006a); and 5) cost-associated burden (Sjaastad and Cousins, 2009; Payne, 2001b; Doebele, 1987). These impacts also have a strong association with the ultimate goal of tenure security—protection against forced eviction and are summarised as the effects of tenure security. In terms of an enabled urban land and housing market, the thesis had to exclude this effect due to limited data from the communities to corroborate this association, for the survey identified almost no urban land market activity.
This chapter seeks to answer the research questions on “What are the ‘effects’ of tenure security in urban kampung in Jakarta?”, and “To what extent, do the ‘effects’ of tenure security act reciprocally to further improve tenure security?” (Sub-questions 3b and 4). This chapter includes quantitative and qualitative analysis on the effects of land tenure security, and provides a summary in form of a priority scale of the effects. Various tabulations and logistic regression are used to investigate the relationship between the extent of perceived tenure security and the effects while the possible reciprocal relationship is analysed by using cross tabulation. The possible reciprocal relationship focuses on such impacts as housing investment, and provision of basic infrastructure and services. Land titling, housing investment, and provision of basic infrastructure and services may have a triangular causal relation. Yet, Payne et. al (2009) argued that the link between titling and housing improvement is hardly measureable when provision of services and infrastructure is in place. Therefore, this thesis attempts to investigate whether secure tenure leading to perceived tenure security matters for housing investment and access to infrastructure and services and/or whether
113 having such investment and access may generate the perceived tenure security. This reciprocal relationship only focuses on the housing investment and the provision of basic infrastructure and services since other effects obtained few responses which may imply their insignificance or irrelevance.
The analysis is conducted on the basis of a number of assumptions. The thesis assumes that the priority scale of the effects of land tenure security has an inverted proportion with the Likert-scale and thereby it is weight-scored or converted to Likert-scale. The weight scoring is aimed to run the analysis of logistic regression in the same scale - ordinal scale. For instance, those who respond one ‘effect’ as the first priority would be converted to the most extreme agreement in Likert-scale (i.e. priority “1” becomes strongly agree “5”; priority “2” becomes agree “4”), and so forth. In logistic regression, for those responding one ‘effect’ criterion as the first and second priority would be considered as being possible to happen while the remaining (as the third, fourth, and fifth) priorities would be considered as impossible. Since tenure security is not only a matter of law but also that of perception as claimed by Payne et. al (2009), an assumption was made that when a respondent feels possible that he or she experienced a given impact of tenure security, is predicted that he or she would highly prioritise such an impact, in this case, the first two out of five priorities for the ‘effect’ of tenure security considered to be possible to happen, indicated by “1” and the last three priorities considered to be impossible to happen, indicated by “0”.
The chapter is divided into six sections elaborating each effect of tenure security in the two case study areas. Section 9.1 describes the possibility of housing investment. Section 9.2 discusses that of provision of infrastructure and basic services. Section 9.3 analyses that of access to credit. Section 9.4 discusses that of social disruption. Section 9.5 describes that of cost-associated burden, and Section 9.6 summarises the effects of tenure security in two case study areas. The analysis of each effect employs a mix of descriptive and inferential outputs and qualitative data.
9.1 Housing investment
As discussed in Section 4.2, land titles may encourage the beneficiaries to invest in their housing. Yet, there has been some debate about this. One argument is posed by Gilbert (2002) and Payne (2001b), stating that land tenure status is not the sole factor generating tenure security and so encouraging housing improvement; instead security is generated more by the perception (or not) of the possibility of forced eviction. Gilbert (2002) explained that the poor have not much money to improve their housing and prefer to spend money on other basic needs such as meals and clothes (Angel, 1982; Bromley, 2008). However, housing investment has come to be a part of the international debate claimed as one of the effective outcomes from (the impacts of) land titling 114
(Payne, 2001b; Durand-Lasserve and Royston, 2002; Payne et. al, 2009). The survey revealed that both communities perceived house investment as the strongest impact of land tenure security; such a perception was held by both types of landowners, those with land title and those with no land title. This may imply that they still invest in housing regardless of the land tenure forms. In reverse, housing investment apparently influences the communities’ perceived tenure security.
The survey results revealed that in the sense of housing investment likely experienced by the community, in Menteng Dalam, overall, 99 (85%) of the community perceived that they are likely to invest in housing while 18 (15%) felt otherwise. These figures include the majority of landowners with title and without title for the possibility of housing investment (Table 9-1). Meanwhile, in Tanah Tinggi, the survey revealed that, overall, 115 (90%) of the community would be likely to invest in housing while 13 (10%) would be unlikely to do so. The former figure includes the majority of both types of landowners.
Table 9.1 The possibilty of housing investment by the extent of perceived tenure security in Menteng Dalam and Tanah Tinggi (Source: survey results)
Case study Housing Investment (HI*) Total
28 0 1 (Impossible) (Possible)
Menteng Dalam Group 1 Landowners with land title Count 8 24 32
2 Landowners without land title Count 10 43 53
3 Non-landowners Count 0 32 32
Total Count 18 99 117
Group 1a Landowners with land title Count 6 38 44 Tanah Tinggi 2 Landowners without land title Count 7 41 48
3 Non-landowners Count 0 36 36
Total Count 13 115 128
* This table shows the numbers of cases that fall into each cross-identified category. The figures are shown for illustrative purposes only. It was not possible to carry out a full cross-tabulation because too many cells were occupied by less than the minimum number of 5 cases.
28 “0” refers to as impossibility to happen while “1” refers to as possibility to happen. These notations were built on the basis of scale priority in the survey in which the respondents were asked whether the given effects of tenure security, i.e. housing investment (HI), provision of basic infrastructure and service (PIS), access to credit (AC), social disruption (SD) and cost-associated burden (CB), occur or were experienced by the community. 115
From the above figures, it can be inferred that both communities, regardless of land tenure forms, most likely invest in housing, especially those with no land title. This was then clarified by the Community Head 1 saying, “Although housing improvement program does not take place here, the communities still improve their houses at their own costs”. Responding to this, the head of Sub- district Office 1 confirmed, “The housing improvement supposed to be implemented this year (2015) has not been realised”. The self-financed housing improvement is probably done because they have lived there for long time as Land Law Expert 1 explained, “Housing investment has to do with the culture in that they have occupied and continuously made use of the land so that the sense of belonging is getting bigger and thereby omitting the legal status of the land, and they may finally upgrade their houses”. This condition may indicate that length of occupation really matters to generating perceived tenure security and thus encourages the community to invest in housing. The survey revealed that 86 out of 117 surveyed households have renovated their houses with 75 responses using their own costs. Most of the surveyed households (59 responses) have improved the floors of the houses. While other responses showed the improvement of roofs (43), structure/walls (39), extra bedrooms (34), and extra level (26). Such improvements may take place in combination.
In the community of Tanah Tinggi, both land owners with land title and no land title, most likely invest in their housing. Despite this, the Community Head 2 explained, “Most houses had been benefitted from Kampung Deret program, especially during Jokowi’s office29 as Jakarta Governor where the requirements were flexible, with no legal status of land, instead of encompassing land occupation letter (surat penguasaan fisik), no dispute letter (surat tidak sengketa), tax property receipt, family card, and identity card”. He further explained that even if there was no such program, the communities still renovated their houses. “Kampung deret program (row kampung program) had been implemented in the neighbourhood with such requirements as a statement letter from head of household association (RT) and of neighbourhood association (RW) stating at least 5- year residence in the neighbourhood, and land purchase evidence”, confirmed the Head of Sub- district Office 2. Moreover, as is Land Law Expert 1’s explanation in Sub-section 9.1.1, she underlined that the sense of belonging of the property owner generated from long occupation encourages the communities to invest in housing. The existence of the housing improvement program by local government may also imply that the legal status of land in Tanah Tinggi is more recognised by local government which can also mean that there are more land owners with land title than in Menteng Dalam. This is further indicated in the composition of the surveyed land tenure categories in Figure 7.1 and 7.6 in Section 7.1 for Menteng Dalam and Tanah Tinggi, respectively.
29 Jokowi-Joko Widodo was the 16th Governor of Jakarta. As governor, his office lasted from 15 October 2012 – 16 October 2014 (see www.wikipedia.org). At present, he is the President of Republic of Indonesia. 116
There are indeed more land owners with land title in Tanah Tinggi sub-district, constituting 44 in comparison to 32 for those in Menteng Dalam. In respect to the types of housing investment, the survey in Tanah Tinggi revealed that 92 out of 128 surveyed households have renovated their houses with 17 responses using their own costs and 67 responses benefitting from Kampung Deret program. Furthermore, most of the surveyed households (70 responses) have improved the structures of the houses and responses showed the improvement of floors (56), roof (55), extra levels (45), and extra bedrooms (31).
117
Most of the community of Menteng Dalam (85.5%) felt that they would likely invest in housing (Appendix F). This was generated by the ability to inherit land depicted in Table 9-2 below where ability to inherit land (PI) significantly affected housing investment by landowners with the significance value of 0.001 (lower than the cut value of 0.05). In other words, there is a significant relationship between ability to inherit land and housing investment. Having the significant value, it can be said that, the reason to invest in housing is that the communities have the intention to pass on their assets to their heirs. Additionally, this is justified by 71% of the surveyed households who perceived to be certain to be able to inherit land and also by 45% of the responses assigning ability to inherit land as the first priority of the extent of perceived tenure security (Section 8.3). This implies that in Menteng Dalam, at least, the community feels that the ability to pass on land and housing to their heirs is a significant effect and outcome of secure land tenure.
Unlike Menteng Dalam, although most of the community of Tanah Tinggi (90.6%) invested in housing (Appendix F), the statistical relationship with perceived tenure is not significant (cut value higher than 0.05: Table 9.3). In other words, the perceived tenure security did not encourage the community to invest in housing. This is probably because they mostly have benefitted from the housing improvement program.
As pointed out by scholars (e.g. Gilbert 2002; Payne 2001b; and Reerink & van Gelder 2010), the sense of being protected against forced eviction is the ultimate goal of perceived tenure security but this not the case for the community of Menteng Dalam. This condition reveals that despite the threat of forced eviction, the community perceived their tenure security to be related to the ability to inherit land and this reflects the current condition of the perceived tenure security.
Table 9-2 The possibility of housing investment by the extent of perceived tenure security in Menteng Dalam (Source: logistic regression output)
Variables in the Equation
B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)
Step 1a PE .213 .191 1.251 1 .263 1.238
PS -.369 .190 3.782 1 .052 .692
PI .611 .189 10.486 1 .001 1.843
118
Table 9-3 The possibility of housing investment by the extent of perceived tenure security in Tanah Tinggi (Source: logistic regression output)
Variables in the Equation
Wald df Sig.
Step 1a PE 3.458 4 .484
PS 9.419 4 .051
PI 2.936 4 .569
The thesis then summarised the effects generated by perceived tenure security in the form of a priority scale, excluding social disruption and cost-associated burden. This is mainly aimed to figure out the positive potential effects that may be experienced by the communities. The surveyed households of Menteng Dalam, regardless of the land tenure categories, assigned housing investment as the first rank with 47 (58%) responses (Figure 9-1). For the community of Menteng Dalam, housing investment became the first priority likely experienced by them as the impact of perceived tenure security. In Tanah Tinggi, the community assigned housing investment as the first rank with 59 (68%) responses (Figure 9-2). From the discusiion above, in the sense of priority, housing investment became the strongest impact of tenure security driven by the sense to inherit the assets.
In sum, housing investment turns out to be the strongest effect of tenure security perceived by both communities, especially for the community of Menteng Dalam where the housing improvement program by local government had not been implemented. This is premised on the intention of inheritance rather than a property market (Table 9.2). Despite a rumour of forced eviction, especially the provision of an inspection road along the river stated by the community head 1, he added that there is basically no significant issue of eviction existing. This condition likely underpins the perceived tenure security as being able to inherit land and housing for the sustainable livings of the family. Meanwhile for the community of Tanah Tinggi, such outcome of perceived tenure security is most likely derived from the intervention of housing improvement program, rather than the perceived tenure security.
119
Possible reciprocal relationship between housing investment and perceived tenure security
Regarding the possible reciprocal relationship between housing investment and perceived tenure security, especially on the perceived protection against forced eviction, the survey in Menteng Dalam (Table 9.4 below) revealed that: 1) For the landowners with land title, 16 out of 27 (59%) responses indicates that housing investment made them feel safe from forced eviction while 11 out of 27 (41%) expressed otherwise, with 1330 (77%) responses feeling secure and 4 (23%) responses feeling less secure; 2) For landowners with no land title, 31 out of 47 (66%) responses indicates that housing investment made them feel safe from forced eviction while 16 out of 47 (34%) expressed otherwise, with 30 (97%) responses feeling secure and 1 (3%) responses feeling less secure; and 3) For non-landowners, 5 out of 13 (38%) responses indicated that housing investment made them feel safe from forced eviction while 8 out of 13 (62%) expressed otherwise, with 2 (33%) responses feeling secure and 4 (67%) responses feeling less secure.
In the other case study, the survey in Tanah Tinggi (Table 9.5 below) revealed that: 1) For the landowners with land title, 19 out of 41 (46%) responses indicates that housing investment made them feel safe from forced eviction while 22 out of 41 (54%) expressed otherwise, with 15 (88%) responses feeling secure and 2 (12%) responses feeling less secure; 2) For landowners with no land title, 24 out of 48 (50%) responses indicates that housing investment made them feel safe from forced eviction while 24 out of 48 (50%) expressed otherwise, with 19 (76%) responses feeling secure and 6 (24%) responses feeling less secure; and 3) For non-landowners, 3 out of 30 (10%) responses indicates that housing investment made them feel safe from forced eviction while 27 out of 30 (90%) expressed otherwise, with 2 (67%) responses feeling secure and 1 (33%) responses feeling less secure.
30 The value derives from housing investment (“HI_2”) where the communities were asked the level of perceived tenure security of being protected against forced eviction as a (possible) result of housing investment. Yet, the thesis re-groups the scales into less secure and secure scale in the text; the former scale is aggregated from insecure to less secure while the latter is aggregated from secure and very secure. This scale regrouping also applies for the remaining effects: provision of basic infrastructures and services (“PIS_2”), and access to credit (“AC_2”). 120
Table 9.4 The reciprocal relationship between housing investment and protection against forced eviction in Menteng Dalam (Source: survey results)
Housing Protection against forced eviction by Housing Investment Investment HI_2* HI_131
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 (Insecure) (Less (Less (Secure) (Very (Yes) (No) Total insecure) secure) secure)
Group 1 Landowners with Count 16 11 27 1 2 1 11 2 title
2Landowners Count 31 16 47 0 0 1 27 3 without title
3 Non-landowners Count 5 8 13 0 3 1 1 1
Total Count 52 35 87 1 5 3 39 6
* This table shows the numbers of cases that fall into each cross-identified category. The figures are shown for illustrative purposes only. It was not possible to carry out a full cross-tabulation because too many cells were occupied by less than the minimum number of 5 cases.
Table 9.5 The reciprocal relationship between housing investment and protection against forced eviction in Tanah Tinggi (Source: survey results)
Housing Protection against eviction by Housing Investment Investment HI_2* HI_1
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 (Insecure) (Less (Less (Secure) (Very (Yes) (No) Total insecure) secure) secure)
Group 1 Landowners with Count 19 22 41 0 1 1 13 2 title
2 Landowners Count 24 24 48 2 0 4 18 1 without title
3 Non-landowners Count 3 27 30 0 0 1 2 0
Total Count 46 73 119 2 1 6 33 3
31 In the survey, the communities were asked whether the given effects of tenure security generate the perception of being protected against forced eviction; “1” refers to “Yes” while “2” refers to “No”. The question was asked in respect to housing investment (“HI_1”), provision of basic infrastructures and services (“PIS_1”), and access to credit (“AC_1”). Yet, not all surveyed communities gave their responses. 121
* This table shows the numbers of cases that fall into each cross-identified category. The figures are shown for illustrative purposes only. It was not possible to carry out a full cross-tabulation because too many cells were occupied by less than the minimum number of 5 cases.
The above figures show that more than half of the community of Menteng Dalam (60%) felt that housing investment increases their perceived tenure security (Table 9-4). In details, over than half of the surveyed landowners with land title (59%) perceived being safe from forced eviction due to housing investment and so did the landowners with no land title (66%). As is indicated in Table 9.1, most landowners invest in their housing at their own cost despite no housing improvement program by local government. This is inferred in Table 9.2 in that ability to inherit land generates housing investment. On the other hand, overall less than half of the residents of Tanah Tinggi (39%) felt safe from forced eviction by investing in housing (Table 9-5). In details, almost half of the surveyed landowners with land title (46%) perceived that they are safe from forced eviction and so do landowners with no land title (50%). It can be seen that there are more residents who felt that housing investment increases tenure security in Menteng Dalam. Despite no housing improvement program, their efforts to self-finance housing investment influenced their perceived tenure security.
9.2 Provision of basic infrastructure and services
This section discusses provision of infrastructure and services and its correlation with housing investment and land titling. As discussed earlier in Section 4.2, it is difficult to measure the impact of titling when provision of services and infrastructure is already in place as noted by Payne et al. (2009). Moreover, they also argued that the link between titling and housing improvement is difficult to measure when provision of services and infrastructure accompanies land tenure regularization. However, this section specifically attempts to examine whether land titling is an absolute requirement in order to gain access to basic infrastructure and services. This is undertaken by investigating the communities’ perceived tenure security, as a result of land titling, likely leading to the provision of infrastructure and services.
Land titling and provision of, access to, urban services and infrastructure may have a triangular- relation with housing investment. Land titling may induce provision of urban services and infrastructure, and housing investment. On the one hand, titling may attract investment on services and infrastructure, securing investment and ensuring cost recovery. On the other hand, provision of urban services and infrastructure may encourage dwellers to invest in the physical structure of their housing. Yet again, housing investment may be a result of land titling and/or provision of basic services and infrastructure. However, this potential relationship has been critisised by several scholars (e.g. Angel, 1982; Gilbert, 2002; Bromley, 2008). They underline that evidence of such a
122 relationship between tenure security and housing investment is difficult to assess, when provision of infrastructure and basic services accompany tenure regularization.
The survey revealed that both communities have benefitted from the local government’s program of basic infrastructure and services. Despite this, some of them felt doubtful in gaining access to such provision, especially those with land title living in Menteng Dalam. Moreover, 76 (65%) of Menteng Dalam community would likely gained access to basic infrastructure and services where most of them were landowners without title, and few landowners with title perceived otherwise. Overall, 102 (80%) of Tanah Tinggi community (both types of landowners: Table 9-6) believed in gaining access to such provisions.
Table 9.6 The possibility of provision of basic infrastructure and services by the extent of perceived tenure security in Menteng Dalam and Tanah Tinggi (Source: survey results)
Case study Provision of basic infrstructures and services Total PIS*
0 1
(Impossible) (Possible)
Menteng Group 1 Landowners with Count 21 11 32 Dalam title
2 Landowners Count 20 33 53 without title
3 Non-landowners Count 0 32 32
Total Count 41 76 117
Tanah Tinggi Group 1 Landowners with Count 12 32 44 title
2 Landowners without Count 14 34 48 title
3 Non-landowners Count 0 36 36
Total Count 26 102 128
* The contingency coefficient is 0.000 and 0.002 for Menteng Dalam and Tanah Tinggi respectively with the significance level of 95% (the cut value is 0.05).
123
The above figures show that in Menteng Dalam, the landowners with land title felt that they unlikely obtain access to basic services and infrastructure. However, those with no land title felt that most of them likely obtain access to basic services and infrastructure. In this case, the head of sub- district office 1 described a plan for an inspection road along the river cutting the neighbourhood and consequently affecting those living along the planned road. This is probably what generates the contradictive perceptions of landowners with land title in particular. Despite having land title, the landowners still felt threatened because their residences are likely affected by the provision of inspection road; in this case, as a consequence, instead of gaining the access, they might be evicted. In addition, the perception of the landowners with land title is also likely driven by the location of the houses far from the foot path provided by local government.
Apart from such inspection road, the provision of basic infrastructure and services by local government has been carried out regularly, as the Community Head 1 explained, “Infrastructure programs such as ‘MHT’ (road and footpath provision) is annually realised and garbage pickup services every week”. Moreover, the Head of Sub-district Office 1 further explained that any development program will be discussed in a forum, so-called Musrenbang Kelurahan (Musyawarah Perencanaan Pembangunan –Sub-district annual community planning meeting), attended by local authority technical staff such as, local planning agency, public works agency, and the community representatives to disseminate the programs as well as to accommodate the community’s needs. Local government has been continuously providing basic infrastructure and services for the communities. From a different perspective, the Head of NGO 2 posed his views criticizing the programs, “The community needs not only physical access but also non-physical access covering social and economic needs and these can be achieved by community empowerment”. He continued, “If this is not achieved, despite kampung improvement with its facilities, the communities may sell their properties to meet their real needs”. Regardless of land tenure forms, the community of Menteng Dalam was still provided with basic infrastructure and services; as such might be the trade-off of tax property, instead of land tenure status.
In contrast, in Tanah Tinggi, most landowners perceived that they would likely gain access to basic infrastructure and services and this includes the landowners without land title. According to the Community Head, “So far, local government has been implementing road and drainage improvement, ‘MHT’ program, and provided an integrated public space for children in 2015”. This was confirmed by the Head of Sub-district Office saying, ‘MHT’ is one of the programs resulted from Musrenbang (Forum of development plan) and is conducted in accordance to community’s needs and requests”. He further explained that the program requires no land possession and ownership evidences, and yet the program somehow raises the rumour of forced eviction as its
124 consequence. Despite this, since the community has benefitted from the local government program of basic infrastructure and services for long, this is likely what forms their perceptions on access to basic infrastructure and services.
More than half of surveyed community of Menteng Dalam (66.7%) felt that they would be likely to gain access to basic infrastructure and services (Appendix F). This was generated by the ability to inherit land depicted in Table 9-7 below with the significance value of 0.044 (lower than the cut value of 0.05). The figure showed that ability to inherit land seems to be relevant for the community of Menteng Dalam to gaining access to services and infrastructure. This may imply that when the community felt able to inherit land, this generated their perception of gaining access to basic infrastructure and services. This perception is most likely dominated by the landowners without land title that most of them likely believed in gaining access to infrastructure and services as indicated in Table 9-6. As the community head 1 said, “The provision of basic infrastructure and services somehow gives positive influence to the sense of perceived tenure security”. This condition refers to the ability to inherit land and housing in which the inheritance is more important than the development of the property market mechanism where being protected against forced eviction acts as the main goal.
Most of Tanah Tinggi community (81.3%) felt that they would be likely provided with basic infrastructure and services (Appendix F). Yet, this had little relevance with the perceived tenure security (Table 9-8). As discussed earlier, the community head 2 underlined that basic infrastructure and service-related programs have been implemented in the area and they are annually allocated in the regional budget. This condition may imply that the sense of gaining access to basic infrastructure and services is not the result of the perceived tenure security by the community, instead from the regular provision of basic infrastructure and services by local government.
Table 9-7 The possibility of provision of basic infrastructure and services by the extent of perceived tenure security in Menteng Dalam (Source: logistic regression output)
Variables in the Equation
B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)
Step 1a PE -.015 .143 .011 1 .917 .985
PS -.157 .134 1.390 1 .238 .854
PI .261 .129 4.070 1 .044 1.298
125
Table 9-8 The possibility of provision of basic infrastructure and services by the extent of perceived tenure security in Tanah Tinggi (Source: logistic regression output)
Variables in the Equation
Wald df Sig.
Step 1a PE 3.512 4 .476
PS 7.237 4 .124
PI 3.306 4 .508
The thesis then summarised the effects generated by perceived tenure security in the form of a priority scale. The community of Menteng Dalam, regardless of the land tenure categories, assigned provision of infrastructure and services as the second priority with 35 (52%) responses (Figure 9-1). Meanwhile, the community of Tanah Tinggi also assigned provision of infrastructure and services as the second priority with 50 (60%) responses (Figure 9-2).
From the above figures, it is apparent that provision of basic infrastructure and services was the second priority of the effects perceived by the community of Menteng Dalam. This is mostly generated by the sense of the ability to inherit land. This may imply that as the assets are passed on, the community expects to gain access to infrastructure and services for sustainable living in the long run. Despite the fact that in terms of access of infrastructure and services most landowners with land title perceivedthis to be less likely as indicated in Table 9-8, both types of landowners still benefitted from the infrastructure and services provided by local government. Such perception of the landowners with land title is most likely because the houses are located far from the footpath provided by local government. This is also the case of Tanah Tinggi where such provision also takes place regularly in the neighbourhood although the perceived tenure security has nothing to do with the provision of basic infrastructure and services (Table 9-8).
Possible reciprocal relationship between provision of basic infrastructure and services and perceived tenure security
Regarding the possible reciprocal relationship between provision of basic infrastructure and services and perceived tenure security, especially on the perceived protection against forced
126 eviction, the survey in Menteng Dalam (Table 9.9 below) revealed that: 1) For the landowners with land title, 20 out of 32 (62%) responses indicates that provision of basic infrastructure and services made them feel safe from forced eviction while 12 out of 32 (38%) expressed otherwise, with 17 (81%) responses feeling secure and 4 (19%) responses feeling less secure; 2) For landowners with no land title, 34 out of 53 (64%) responses indicates that provision of basic infrastructure and services made them feel safe from forced eviction while 19 out of 53 (36%) expressed otherwise, with 30 (86%) responses feeling secure and 4 (14%) responses feeling less secure; and 3) For non- landowners, 16 out of 31 (52%) responses indicates that provision of basic infrastructure and services made them feel safe from forced eviction while 15 out of 31 (48%) expressed otherwise, with 12 (71%) responses feeling secure and 5 (29%) responses feeling less secure.
Meanwhile, in Tanah Tinggi, it can be seen in Table 9-10 that: 1) For the landowners with land title, 19 out of 42 (45%) responses indicated that provision of basic infrastructure and services made them feel safe from forced eviction while 23 out of 42 (55%) expressed otherwise, with 17 (85%) responses feeling secure and 3 (15%) responses feeling less secure; 2) For landowners with no land title, 18 out of 48 (38%) responses indicates that provision of basic infrastructure and services made them feel safe from forced eviction while 30 out of 48 (62%) expressed otherwise, with 17 (85%) responses feeling secure and 3 (15%) responses feeling less secure; and 3) For non-landowners, 3 out of 32 (9%) responses indicates that provision of basic infrastructure and services made them feel safe from forced eviction while 29 out of 32 (91%) expressed otherwise, with 2 (100%) responses feeling secure and none of the responses feeling less secure.
Table 9.9 The reciprocal relationship between provision of basic infrastructure and services and protection against forced eviction in Menteng Dalam (Source: survey results)
Provision of basic Protection against eviction by provision of basic infrastructure and infrastructure and services services PIS_2* PIS_1
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 (Insecure) (Less (Less (Secure) (Very (Yes) (No) Total insecure) secure) secure)
Group 1 Landowners with Count 20 12 32 1 2 1 14 3 title
2 Landowners Count 34 19 53 0 2 2 28 2 without title
127
3 Non-landowners Count 16 15 31 0 3 2 12 0
Total Count 52 70 46 1 7 5 54 5
* This table shows the numbers of cases that fall into each cross-identified category. The figures are shown for illustrative purposes only. It was not possible to carry out a full cross-tabulation because too many cells were occupied by less than the minimum number of 5 cases.
Table 9-10 The reciprocal relationship between provision of basic infrastructure and services against forced eviction in Tanah Tinggi (Source: survey results)
Provision of basic Protection against eviction by provision of basic infrastructure and infrastructure and services services PIS_2* PIS_1
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 (Insecure) (Less (Less (Secure) (Very (Yes) (No) Total insecure) secure) secure)
Group 1 Landowners with Count 19 23 42 - 1 2 16 1 title
2 Landowners without Count - 18 30 48 0 3 17 0 title
3 Non-landowners Count 3 29 32 - 0 0 2 0
Total Count 40 82 122 - 1 5 35 1
* This table shows the numbers of cases that fall into each cross-identified category. The figures are shown for illustrative purposes only. It was not possible to carry out a full cross-tabulation because too many cells were occupied by less than the minimum number of 5 cases.
In sum, the figures in both tables indicate that overall most residents felt safe from forced eviction by gaining access to basic services and infrastructure (Table 9-6). This excludes landowners with title in Menteng Dalam. Both types of landowners in Menteng Dalam (Table 9-9), perceived that, in reverse, provision of basic infrastructure and services would generate their sense of being safe from forced eviction. This is not the case of Tanah Tinggi (Table 9-10). The latter is probably seen by the community of Tanah Tinggi as the form of recognition by local government with the annual provision of infrastructure and services, ‘MHT’ program.
9.3 Access to credit
Access to credit is one of the effects mostly mentioned by scholars in respect to land titling. Land title, indeed, is the secure form of land tenure needed to get access loan from formal credit sources.
128
As discussed earlier in Section 4.2, de Soto’s thesis gains numerous critiques as stated by Goldfinch (2015) that the issue lies on the capability of the poor to pay back the credit, including the interest rate. On the other hand, Payne (2001b) pointed out that the financial institutions consider the ability of the borrowers to repay loans as the fundamental requirement. Payne further underlined that the poor may lose the only asset when they borrow money from a formal credit institution. In respect to this, Payne et al. (2009) and Gilbert (2002) bring forward the informal credit mechanism, such as micro credit run by informal institutions or families, which is more flexible. Speaking of formal credit, Bromley (2008) noted that the central point of access to formal credit is a secure income stream that guarantees the household as a potential customer of the bank. This section attempts to discuss whether this is the case for the urban kampung dwellers in Jakarta. The survey revealed that both case study communities have benefitted from the program of micro credit finance provided by local government with very low interest rates. Having benefitted from such programs, the communities optimally make use of the loan for doing and even expanding their businesses.
The survey revealed that in Menteng Dalam 98 (84%) of the community felt that they would be unlikely get access to formal credit. These include the majority of both types of landowner. Meanwhile, in Tanah Tinggi, it can be seen that overall 110 (86%) of the community perceived that they are unlikely to obtain access to formal credit which includes most of both types of landowner (Table 9-11).
Table 9-11 The possibility of access to credit extent of perceived tenure security in Menteng Dalam and Tanah Tinggi (Source: survey results)
Case study Access to credit
AC* Total
0 1
(Impossible) (Possible)
Menteng Dalam Group 1 Landowners with title Count 23 9 32
2 Landowners without title Count 45 8 53
3 Non-landowners Count 32 0 32
Total Count 98 17 117
129
Tanah Tinggi Group 1 Landowners with title Count 37 7 44
2 Landowners without title Count 37 11 48
3 Non-landowners Count 36 0 36
Total Count 110 18 128
* The contingency coefficient is 0.013 and 0.010 for Menteng Dalam and Tanah Tinggi respectively with the significance level of 95% (the cut value is 0.05).
From the above figures of Menteng Dalam, it appears that both types of landowners felt that they are unlikely to obtain access to formal bank credit (Appendix F). This was then clarified by the Community Head saying, “Few residents have lodged formal credit to State-owned commercial bank while most of them prefer to make use of micro credit program from local government through BKM (Badan Keswadayaan Masyarakat) in Sub-district office”. This may imply that they seem to be reluctant dealing with the formal credit agency. Also, this might mean that they have benefitted from the micro credit program provided by local government. The community head further described that the program is dedicated to small entrepreneurship with the loan up to ten million rupiah depending on the type of business (e.g. warung, toko, as the guarantee of the loan), and it has low interest rate and even insurance. In respect to this, the Head of Sub-district Office confirmed, “The micro credit program, Cooperative Finance Service (KJK), is provided by small- medium entrepreneurship agency for those doing small business, lack of business capital, and willing to expand the business, and land title is not the requirement”. Unlike micro credit program, the credit from the commercial bank seems to be more burdensome for the residents with the high interest rate. This was clarified by the Community Head 1 saying, “The loan from the bank requires at least notary deeds, even land title as well as building permit (IMB)”. However, he continued, “Should the residents have no building permit; they may get ‘PM1’, a letter indicating the designated use of residential area”. In contrast with the community head 1, Land Law Expert posed a different view, “Besides land title and notary deeds, girik (ex-adat land tenure form) is also recognised by the commercial bank, especially State-owned bank”, and the bank gives loan for micro entrepreneurship with the guarantee of the potential business”. She further explained, “Girik is a land tenure form that is in transition phase [followed up] to land title”.
The survey results in Tanah Tinggi (Table 9-11) show that few landowners, both with land title and no land title, perceived they would have access to formal credit from private banks. The reason was explained by the Community Head, “The community has benefitted the program of community empowerment provided by local government (PPMK-Program Pemberdayaan Masyarakat
130
Kelurahan) focusing on small business with no guarantee of loan, very low interest, and the threshold up to 1.5 million rupiah (approximately A$ 150)”. Similarly, the Head of Sub-district Office described, “The community has benefitted from the micro credit program for a long time with such requirements as identity card, family card, and small business evidence, and such program does not require collateral as well as very low interest”. Nonetheless, he continued saying, “Many residents also borrow money from the State-owned commercial bank using land title, notary and sub-district office deeds, and girik as the guarantee”. He further explained that those borrowing money from bank intend to expand their businesses. Considering the higher number of land owners with land title in Tanah Tinggi, it is reasonable that many of them have lodged a loan to the State- owned commercial bank for expanding the business.
Most of the community of Menteng Dalam (86.1%) felt that they were unlikely to get access to formal credit (Appendix F). This sense was generated by the ability to inherit land depicted in Table 9-12 below with the significant value of 0.004 (lower than the cut value of 0.05). This may imply that the community is reluctant to borrow money from commercial banks which may result in the loss of their assets for their heirs, and they also feel satisfied with the access to micro credit program by local government. In the other case, as much as 84.4% of Tanah Tinggi community perceived that they were unlikely to gain access to formal credit (Appendix F) where as such was derived from the possibility to sell land (PS) with the significance value of 0.028 (Table 9-13).
Table 9-12 The possibility of access to credit by the extent of perceived tenure security in Menteng Dalam (Source: logistic regression output)
Variables in the Equation
B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)
Step 1a PE -.224 .190 1.396 1 .237 .799
PS .288 .181 2.517 1 .113 1.333
PI -.514 .177 8.393 1 .004 .598
131
Table 9-13 The possibility of access to credit by the extent of perceived tenure security in Tanah Tinggi (Source: logistic regression output)
Variables in the Equation
Wald df Sig.
Step 1a PE 1.980 4 .739
PS 10.904 4 .028
PI .567 4 .967
The thesis then summarised the effects generated by perceived tenure security in form of a priority scale. The surveyed households of Menteng Dalam, regardless of the land tenure categories, assigned access to credit as the third priority with 18 (51%) responses (Figure 9-1). In this case, since provision of infrastructure and services has become the second priority of the effects by the community of Menteng Dalam, access to credit was considered as the third priority by the community. For the case of Tanah Tinggi, the surveyed households, regardless the land tenure categories, also assigned access to credit as the third priority with 43 (70%) responses (Figure 9-2).
From the above figures, access to credit was considered by both communities as the third priority of the effect of tenure security. The community of Menteng Dalam perceived it due to the ability to inherit land. This may imply that the community felt access to credit is important for the sustainability of their generations to make living. Meanwhile, for the community of Tanah Tinggi, their sense of selling property underlies the sense of being able to access to credit in which most community use the loan to upgrade their small business.
9.4 Social disruption
As discussed in Section 4.2, social disruption is regarded as one of the prominent impacts of perceived land tenure security. This is likely premised on the lack of access to land and housing and also access to credit, especially by the urban poor. On one side, land titling benefits the landholders while on the other side marginalizing the vulnerable groups. In this case, Payne (2001b) critisised land titling saying that it may create a large number of homeless people. Similarly, Doebele (1987, pp. 124) pointed out that land titling may end up with gentrification, the buying-up of poor households’ lands and houses by middle- and high-income households. This may lead to a greater number of homeless people. If this is the case, instead of increasing tenure security, land titling may
132 actually decrease tenure security, especially for those with new land title and tenants (Payne et al., 2009). Ultimately, this condition may lead to social disruption. The survey revealed that both communities felt that social disruption is most unlikely to happen in the neighbourhoods.
The survey reveals that in Menteng Dalam, overall, 92 (79%) of the community felt unlikely to experience social disruption which includes most of both types of landowner. On the other hand, in Tanah Tinggi, the survey revealed that, overall, 113 (88%) of the community perceived that they would not experience with social disruption. This includes the perception of the majority of both types of landowner (Table 9-14).
Table 9-14 The possibility of social disruption extent of perceived tenure security in Menteng Dalam and Tanah Tinggi (Source: survey results)
Case study Social Disruption
SD* Total
0 1
(Impossible) (Possible)
Menteng Group 1 Landowners with title Count 23 9 32 Dalam 2 Landowners without title Count 38 15 53
3 Non-landowners Count 32 0 32
Total Count 92 24 117
Tanah Tinggi Group 1 Landowners with title Count 40 4 44
2 Landowners without title Count 42 6 48
3 Non-landowners Count 36 0 36
Total Count 113 10 128
* This table shows the numbers of cases that fall into each cross-identified category. The figures are shown for illustrative purposes only. It was not possible to carry out a full cross-tabulation because too many cells were occupied by less than the minimum number of 5 cases.
The above figures indicate that social disruption is most unlikely to be experienced by the community of Menteng Dalam, especially for landowners with land title and those with no land title. As the Community Head 1 explained, “No social disruption occurs in the neighbourhood, especially caused by debt problems”. He implied that no residents are involved in a commercial bank loan leading to the loss of their assets and moving out. He further said that the reason to move out is “because the respective residents want to live in the home land or in the suburb area”. It 133 seems that there is no resident involved in the debt payment of loan to the bank. A same perception on social disruption was also felt by most of the community of Tanah Tinggi. They do not experience with social disruption in the neighbourhood. However, the Community Head 2 claimed, “Some residents, especially those with land title have moved out due to an urgent economic need such as debts and other reasons”. Although most residents felt that they do not experience social disruption, some residents, in fact, have sold their properties to compensate for their economic hardship and moved out.
Table 9-15 The possibility of social disruption by the extent of perceived tenure security in
Menteng Dalam (Source: logistic regression output)
B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)
Step 1a PE -.393 .188 4.378 1 .036 .675
PS .336 .170 3.886 1 .049 1.399
PI -.376 .162 5.362 1 .021 .687
Table 9-16 The possibility of social disruption by the extent of perceived tenure security in Tanah Tinggi (Source: logistic regression output)
Variables in the Equation
B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)
a Step 1 PE 1.740 4 .783
PS 11.868 4 .018
PI 7.931 4 .094
Table 9-15 above showed that all extent of perceived tenure security generated the sense of social disruption in which ability to inherit land (PI) significantly affected the sense of social disruption by the community of Menteng Dalam with the significant value of 0.021. The figures may imply that the perceived tenure security leads to the sense of social disruption; in particular, the possibility to inherit land most significantly influences such perception. Meanwhile, Table 9-16 shows that
134 possibility to sell land (PS) affected the community of Tanah Tinggi to social disruption and this is shown with the significance value of 0.018. The figures may imply that being able to sell land leads to social disruption. This makes sense for those who intend to gain windfall profit from the property sale, especially the newly titled landholders, or those who are involved with the debt issues.
9.5 Cost-associated burden
One of the multiplier effects of land title for local authority is that the local authority may collect tax and benefit from the increase in revenue of property tax (e.g. Sjaastad and Cousins, 2009). On the other hand, the increase of tax may lead to incremental cost for the urban poor post newly titled land. This consequently entails a cost-associated burden for them. Several scholars (Sjaastad and Cousins, 2009; Payne, 2001b; Doebele, 1987) highlighted the cost burden for the urban poor in theform of taxes due to formalization of title and consequently the urban poor could not meet the high taxes. In this case, instead of gaining the tax increase, the municipality may impoverish the urban poor resulting from the formalization of land titling. The survey revealed that majority of both communities perceived that they felt no burden with any cost-associated burden, in this case of the property tax. Jakarta local government specially treats the urban poor by giving a dispensation of property tax and even the tax has been nullified since 2016 based on Governor Regulation regarding the waiver of property tax for landed house, rental storey building (Rusunawa), and owned storey building (Rusunami) with the property tax purchase value (NJOP) up to 1 billion rupiah (Jakarta Government, 2015).
The survey reveals that in Menteng Dalam, overall, 98 (84%) of the community felt that they were unlikely to experience a cost-associated burden, particularly property tax. This includes the perception of most of both types of landowner. In the other case, in Tanah Tinggi, it can be seen that overall, 123 (96%) of the community felt no burden on the property tax where most of both landowners perceived so (Table 9-17).
135
Table 9-17 The possibility of cost-associated burden by the extent of perceived tenure security in Menteng Dalam and Tanah Tinggi (Source: survey results)
Case study Cost-associated Burden
CB* Total
0 1
(Impossible) (Possible)
Menteng Dalam Group 1 Landowners with title Count 21 11 32
2 Landowners without title Count 47 7 53
3 Non-landowners Count 32 0 32
Total Count 98 18 117
Tanah Tinggi Group 1 Landowners with title Count 40 4 44
2 Landowners without title Count 47 1 48
3 Non-landowners Count 36 0 36
Total Count 123 4 128
* This table shows the numbers of cases that fall into each cross-identified category. The figures are shown for illustrative purposes only. It was not possible to carry out a full cross-tabulation because too many cells were occupied by less than the minimum number of 5 cases.
The above figures show that majority of landowners in Menteng Dalam perceived that they are not burdened with the amount of property tax. The Community Head 1, in this regard, explained, “The community here is obedient to pay the property tax”. He further elaborated that when the community feels that the tax is too high, local government gives dispensation. Even when outstanding property tax occurs from the previous years; local government eliminates the fines and applies deduction of the property tax. The figures from Tanah Tinggi show that majority of landowners felt no burden with the amount of property tax. This was then clarified with the Community Head 2 saying, “At first, the community feels objection with the amount of property tax, and then an adjustment on the basis of the area of land and house takes place to determine an appropriate and reasonable amount”. In the case of tax burden, local government has been flexible in determining the property tax amount and applies special treatment for urban poor.
136
Table 9-18 below, in respect to extent of perceived tenure security, shows that ability to inherit land (PI) generated the issue of cost-associated burden with the significance value of 0.015. The figure of ‘PI’ may imply that being able to inherit land affected the sense of cost-associated burden by the community of Menteng Dalam, in this case the property tax. In other words, they are likely concerned with the property tax burdening their heirs in the future. On the other hand, Table 9-19 below depicted that all extent of perceived tenure security, possibility of forced eviction (PE), possibility to sell land (PS) and ability to inherit land (PI) did not generate cost-associated burdens. In other words, there was no cost burden perceived by the community of Tanah Tinggi which is likely due to the dispensation of property tax amount and free land registration program.
Table 9-18 The possibility of cost-associated burden by the extent of perceived tenure security in Menteng Dalam (Source: logistic regression output)
Variables in the Equation
B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)
Step 1a PE .197 .175 1.261 1 .262 1.217
PS -.204 .169 1.461 1 .227 .816
PI -.386 .159 5.926 1 .015 .680
137
Table 9-19 The possibility of cost-associated burden by the extent of perceived tenure security in Tanah Tinggi (Source: logistic regression output)
Variables in the Equation
B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)
Step 1a PE .824 4 .935
PS 7.742 4 .102
PI .556 4 .968
9.6 Summary
This section provides a summary of the effects of tenure security. Each effect is described in order. The chapter seeks to answer the research questions on “What are the ‘effects’ of tenure security in urban kampung in Jakarta?” and “To what extent, do the ‘effects’ of tenure security act reciprocally to further improve tenure security?”. The thesis summarises the surveyed households’ responses in respect to the effects shown in Figure 9.1 and 9.2 in Menteng Dalam and Tanah Tinggi Sub-district, respectively.
Summary Block 16 Menteng Dalam 47 50 40 35 30 24 20 18 20 14 13 14 13 8 9 9 11 9 8 10 0 Housing Access to credit Provision of Social disruption Cost-associated improvement infrastructures & burden basic services
Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3
Figure 9.1 Priority scale of the effects of tenure security in Menteng Dalam
138
Summary Block 16 Tanah Tinggi
80 59 60 43 50 40 19 18 9 11 16 9 13 20 7 4 4 0 3 0 Housing Access to credit Provision of Social disruption Cost-associated improvement infrastructures & burden basic services
Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3
Figure 9.2 The summary of priority scale of the effects of tenure security in Tanah Tinggi
From the above figures, it can be seen that, the strongest effect of tenure security perceived by both communities are as follow, in descending order of importance: 1) housing improvement; 2) provision of basic infrastructure and services; and 3) access to credit. In essence, both communities perceived the same way to the effects of perceived tenure security. Each effect is now discussed separately in more detail.
Firstly, the housing investment is regarded by the communities as the most prominent effect of perceived tenure security. Both communities still invest in housing regardless of land tenure forms. However, for the community of Menteng Dalam, the housing investment is generated by the sense of being able to inherit land since housing improvement program was not in place, while the community of Tanah Tinggi has benefitted from the housing improvement program. The latter may imply that the program is regarded by the community as the manifestation of local government’s recognition. Nonetheless, the two cases revealed that neither land tenure status nor the perception of protection from forced eviction does necessarily encourage the communities to invest in housing. Instead the sense of belonging, driven likely by the intention to inherit, to the properties does so. In the absence of land title and housing improvement programs, most surveyed communities still invest in housing (Table 9-1). This is, in fact, in line with what has been implied by scholars (e.g. Adianto et al, 2016; Reerink and van Gelder, 2010; Winayanti and Lang, 2004). Additionally, having benefitted from the housing improvement program, the communities feel more recognised by local government.
Secondly, in terms of provision of basic infrastructure and services, both communities, regardless of the land tenure and except the landowners with land title in Menteng Dalam, perceived that they would gain access to basic infrastructure and services. For the community of Menteng Dalam, such perception is generated by the sense of being able to inherit land, apart from the annual basic
139 infrastructure and services provided by local government. The community of Tanah Tinggi perceived that they would still gain access likely because local government annually provides and improves basic infrastructure and services. As stated by Payne et. al (2009), it is unclear whether land titling encourages the provision basic infrastructure and services. In this regard, this is probably not the case of urban kampung in Jakarta. Land title absolutely gives no pressure to such provision; instead the property tax allocated for such provisions in the regional annual budget does. Additionally, the mandate of provision of basic infrastructure and services, contained in Indonesia Government (2010) regarding the implementation of zoning plan, allows the government and local government to control the use of land conforming to the zoning plan so that any development goes along with the zoning plan.
Thirdly, in terms of access to credit, the benefit of access to micro credit was felt by both communities. Both communities have benefitted from the micro credit provided by local government. Nonetheless, few of them borrow money from the State-owned commercial bank, especially for the expansion of small business. Referring to the critics to de Soto’s claim on the effectiveness of land titling to access to credit, the urban poor may lose their properties due to the high interest of commercial banks (Payne, 2001b). In respect to this, despite holding land titles, most landowners in both locations seem to be reluctant to borrow money from the commercial bank; this is probably because the communities consider the higher rate of interest and the scale of business. Despite so, micro credit has been considered essential and useful for running the small entrepreneurship to ensure the sustainability of their livelihoods.
Fourth, in terms of social disruption, both communities basically felt no social disruption in the neighbourhoods; especially those of Menteng Dalam: despite having perceived tenure security, they were not involved in the debt issue with the commercial bank. However, in the case of debt issue leading to social disruption, the community of Tanah Tinggi might experience this since there are more landowners with land title. This sense was generated by the perceived tenure security of being able to sell land and they were probably encouraged to borrow money from the commercial bank; as a result, they were involved in bad debts. As stated by Payne (2001b) and Doebele (1987, p. 124), land titling may create a large number of homeless people due to gentrification. Subsequently, instead of increasing land tenure security, land titling may actually decrease tenure security, especially for those with new land title (Payne et al, 2009). This is the case of the community of Tanah Tinggi and confirmed by the head of Tanah Tinggi community where some of them have sold their (only) assets to pay their debts to the bank and move out to somewhere in the suburb area. The issue of social disruption, in fact, occurred in the neighbourhood where many residents have benefitted from the land registration program.
140
Lastly, in terms of the cost-associated burden from property-related tax, most communities in both locations perceived that cost-associated burden is never an issue. For the community of Menteng Dalam, the perception was driven by the sense of being able to inherit land. As described by the head of land office 1, inheritance of properties is subject to the tax of land and building rights. Despite this, in the survey, both communities felt no objection with the amount of property tax. This opposed the statement by Sjaastad and Cousins (2009), Payne (2001b), and Doebele (1987) pointing out that the increase of property tax resulted from the newly titled land will burden the urban poor. But in Jakarta special policies have been put in place to reduce the burden. According to Jakarta Government (2015), landed house, rental storey building (Rusunawa), and owned storey building (Rusunami) with the property tax purchase value (NJOP) up to 1 billion rupiah are free from property tax (PBB). The local government had nullified the property tax (PBB) since 2016, especially for the newly titled land. In addition to that, according to Jakarta Government (2016), land purchase, newly title, and inheritance with the tax value (NJOP) up to two billion rupiah are not the subject of land and building rights tax occurring by land transfer (BPHTB). It can be inferred that there is likely to be no issue of tax burden by the urban poor if policies such as these are put in place but clearly without them there would be, as Payne (2001b) and others have pointed out, a serious cost burden problem.
In relation to the (possible) reciprocal relationship between the effects and perceived tenure security (Research sub-question 4), notably protection against forced eviction, the discussion underlined the followings. Firstly, it is noted that for the community of Menteng Dalam, housing investment at their own cost, in fact, induces the feeling of being safe from forced eviction. Similarly, for the community of Tanah Tinggi, where a housing improvement program took place, they also perceived that housing investment generates a sense of being protected against forced eviction. Such perception was mostly posed by landowners without title. Despite this, the community felt more recognised by local government, as stated by the community head.
Secondly, provision of basic infrastructure and services, despite the fact that both communities perceived they would gain access to basic infrastructure and services, only community of Menteng Dalam considered that such provision reciprocally generate or improve their tenure security while that of tanah Tinggi regarded it as recognition by local government.
Lastly, for access to credit, a minority of both communities perceived that they would gain access to credit, particularly formal credit from a bank. This may imply that both communities have been satisfied with the micro finance program dedicated for small entrepreneurship. In contrast, access to credit seems to be irrelevant to generating perceived tenure security.
141
Above all, although both communities felt that they would invest in housing and get provision of basic infrastructure and services, as such does not necesarily generate their perception of tenure security, particularly for the community of Tanah Tinggi; instead they felt more recognised. In contrast, the community of Menteng Dalam felt otherwise. The survey revealed that the local respective programs do not actually generate perceived tenure security as in Tanah Tinggi. A self- finance housing investment influences the community’s perceived tenure security, especially the sense of being protected against forced eviction as in Menteng Dalam.
142
CHAPTER 10: MODELLING THE COMMUNITIES’ PERCEIVED TENURE SECURITY
This chapter aims to enhance the descriptive analysis of the causes of the extent of tenure security discussed in the previous analysis chapters, Chapter 7 and 8, and the relationship between them. Employing SEM-PLS for inferential analysis, the thesis attempts to further investigate the strength of each criterion of the causes and the extent of perceived tenure security and the relationship between them.
This chapter seeks to explore further the answers to the research questions on “How do both urban kampung dwellers and public authorities perceive land tenure security?”, and “What are the ‘causes’ of tenure security in urban kampung in Jakarta?” (Sub-questions 2 and 3a) partially analysed in previous chapters. In order to answer these questions, the output of SEM-PLS will be linked to the previous analysis chapters (Chapter 7 and 8), compared and analysed together. The chapter is divided into 3 sections covering the model analysis of SEM-PLS in the two case study areas. Section 10.1 describes the overall relationship between the ‘causes’ and the extent of tenure security from the perspective of the communities, using SEM-PLS. Section 10.2 discusses the specific relationship between the ‘causes’ and the extent of tenure security by land tenure categories using SEM-PLS Multi Group Analysis (hereafter SEM-PLS MGA). This method is basically used to test whether the land tenure categories result in significant differences in their perspectives on the causes and the perceived tenure security, and in further detail, whether the differences are reflected in the parameter estimates e.g. outer loadings32 and path coefficients33. Lastly, Section 10.3 provides the summary of all sections.
10.1 The overall relationship between the causes and the extent of land tenure security
This section focuses on the relationship model between the causes and the extent of tenure security and then uses this modelling in conjunction with the descriptive and qualitative analysis from the previous chapters. The aim is to enhance the general overview of the community’s perception on their tenure security discussed in the previous chapters, especially to measure the strength of the relationship between the ‘causes’, and the extent of tenure security. The principal (quantitative) analysis is used to explore the structure of theory based on the literature and developed for the thesis (Figure 4-1). The thesis expands the pre-determined hypotheses and redesigns this in form of a linear relationship as depicted in the conceptual framework. The survey revealed, in a combined
32 Outer loading refers to as the estimated relationships in reflective measurement models (i.e., arrows from the latent variable to its indicators).They determine an item's absolute contributions to its assigned construct (Hair Jr et. al, 2013). 33 Path coefficient refers to as estimated path relationships in the structural model (i.e., between the constructs in the model). They correspond to standardised betas as is in a regression analysis (Hair Jr et. al, 2013). 143 analysis, that both communities viewed possessing land-related documents as the most prominent factor of their tenure security, especially those who do not have formal land title. This is probably because such documentations as land occupation letters (surat penguasaan fisik) and no dispute letters (surat tidak sengketa) showing the residential status is legitimated by the sub-district office. As a result, the communities felt secure and expected to be safe from forced eviction.
This section is organised in three sub-sections. Sub-section 10.1.1 discusses the relationship (path) model of Menteng Dalam. Sub-section 10.1.2 discusses that of Tanah Tinggi and Sub-section 10.1.3 analyses the (combined) two locations together. In this section, the thesis combines both quantitative (descriptive and inferential) analysis using cross tabulation and SEM-PLS, respectively and qualitative analysis.
10.1.1 Case study A: Menteng Dalam
The thesis builds the path model (Figure 10-1) for the two case study areas on the basis of the conceptual framework (Figure 4-1). In the path model, size of settlement and support from non- government organization (NGO) were excluded. Size of settlement had been accommodated in the case study area with different size. The analysis reflects potential differences between the two case study areas in relation to the causes, the extent, and the effects of tenure security. Meanwhile, the fieldwork for the case studies showed that support from NGOs did not exist in the two case study areas. Yet, it was covered from other NGOs serving other areas considering their long experiences with the slum dwellers across Jakarta.
The general path model (Figure 10-1) illustrates the relationship of the causes (‘CC’) and the extent of tenure security (‘TS’). This thesis modified the general path model in accordance to the conceptual framework (Figure 4-1). The modified path model is initially built on the basis of the idea of the causes and the extent of tenure security. These ideas are, in this statistical approach, reconstructed into so-called ‘construct or latent variables’. Each construct is developed by its indicators and each indicator contains a value from the coded data.
According to the literature, the first construct of the ‘causes’ of tenure security, labelled as ‘CC’, is developed bythe following indicators: land-related document (‘LD’); duration of occupation (‘DO’); social cohesion (‘SC’). The relationship between ‘CC’ and its indicators is then labelled as ‘outer model 1’ (measurement model). The second construct, tenure security, known as ‘TS’ in the diagram, is built on three indicators which are: protection against forced eviction (‘PE’); possibility to sell (‘PS’); and possibility to inherit (‘PI’). The relationship between ‘TS’ and its indicators is labelled as the ‘outer model 2’. The inner model (structural model) is depicted as the relationship
144 between constructs i.e. the relationship between ‘CC’ and ‘TS’. Having developed the constructs with the indicators in the path model, the thesis used a technique called bootstrapping for significance testing of the path model.
CC
Figure 10-1 The output of the general path model analysis (first bootstrapping) using SEM-PLS in Menteng Dalam
In order to estimate the hypothesised path model on the basis of the conceptual framework, the thesis adopts rules of thumb suggested by Hair Jr et. al (2013) to measure the statistical significance of each indicator. The rules of thumb are as follows: 1) P value (significance level) <= 0.05 with probability of standard error (confidence level) at 95 %; 2) Outer loading (Outer model) >= ± 0.7; and 3) Path Coefficient (Inner model) standardised values > ± 0.2 is significant whereas those < 0.1 are not significant, for the sample size up to 1,000 observations. The evaluation starts from the outer and then goes to the inner model.
Having run the first bootstrapping analysis, the thesis then conducted an evaluation of the output of the path model exhibited in Figure 5-4, Section 5.4. In the case of the general path model in this thesis, a formative measurement model did not exist to show the causality from the indicators to the constructs. Instead, all of the measurement is reflective showing the causality from the constructs to its indicators. The construct of causes of tenure security is reflected by, for instance, having a land- related document. As a consequence, circumstances such as having a land-related document considerably influence the perceived tenure security. This also applies for other causes such as the duration of land occupation and degree of social cohesion. The same logic is also applied for the indicators of the extent of perceived tenure security, for instance, being protected against eviction.
145
The perceived tenure security is reflected by the sense of being safe from forced eviction; this also applies for other indicators of the extent of tenure security such as being able to sell and inherit properties. Since there is no formative measurement in the path model, the evaluation skips the second step, the evaluation of the formative measurement model. The analysis in this current chapter initially discusses in detail the iterative process of bootstrapping.
The analysis initiates assessment of the outer models, the reflective measurement models. Figure 10-1 above exhibited that: 1) in the outer model 1, all indicators of ‘CC’ met the thresholds of P value and path coefficient, ‘DO’, ‘LD’, and ‘SC’ with P value and outer loading of 0.000 and 0.886, 0.000 and 0.885, and 0.000 and 0.802, respectively; but 2) in the outer model 2, ‘PI’ has higher P value than the cut value of 0.05 and therefore it is eliminated. Therefore, from this bootstrapping of the model, some of the results achieved statistical significance. Subsequently, the analysis re-ran the second bootstrapping. The path model was corrected to provide statistically significant results as depicted in Figure 10-2 below, especially for the construct of ‘TS’.
CC
Figure 10-2 The corrected general path model (second bootstrapping) using SEM-PLS in Menteng Dalam
The second bootstrapping yielded the value of SRMR34 of Menteng Dalam equal to 0.142 (see: Appendix C). As described in Section 5.4, Hu and Bentler (1999) suggest the cut-off value of SRMR be not higher than 0.08. According to that, the SRMR value of Menteng Dalam is higher than the cut-off value which means the path model of Menteng Dalam is not a good fit to the data, which means the relationship between the causes and the extent of tenure security is less strong.
34 Standardised Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) is the square root of the difference between the residuals of the sample covariance matrix and the hypothesised covariance model; it is a measure that demonstrates whether the hypothesised model fits the data (Hooper et al, 2008). The value of SRMR is considerably not more than 0.08 (Hu and Bentler, 1999). 146
Despite this, the path model will be further analysed specifically through the significance of each indicator to measure the strength of the ‘cause’ criteria in relation to the extent of tenure security.
From Figure 10-2 above, it can be seen that, overall:
1) In the outer model 1, duration of occupation (‘DO’) turned out to be the most significant indicator contributing to the value of assigned construct of ‘CC’ with a P value of 0.000 and outer loading of 0.886, followed by land-related document (‘LD’) and social cohesion (‘SC’);
2) In the outer model 2, the possibility to sell land (‘PS’) turned out to be the most influential factor contributing to the construct of ‘TS’ with a P value of 0.000 and outer loading of 0.729, followed by protection against forced eviction (‘PE’) with a P value of 0.000 and outer loading of 0.683; and
3) In the inner model 1 between ‘CC’ and ‘TS’, ‘CC’ significantly contributed as much as 0.392 to ‘TS’ with a P value of 0.000. This condition showed that length of stay is not a sole dominant factor generating communities’ perceived tenure security; possessing land-related documents also significantly contributes to the perceived tenure security.
These outputs were then be compared and analysed together with the cross tabulation and priority scale results depicted earlier in Chapter 7 and Chapter 8.
Firstly, in respect to the causes of tenure security, Figure 7-12 showed that land-related documents are the most dominant factor in generating greater levels of perceived tenure security, followed by duration of occupation and social cohesion. Yet, when analysed with the SEM-PLS results depicted in Figure 10-2, duration of occupation acts as the strongest indicator generating the perceptions of greater tenure security, despite slight difference of outer loading with land-related document in terms of their significance in creating perceptions of tenure security. This was confirmed by 74% of the responses including both types of landowners feeling secure (Table 7-2). Similarly, Land Law Expert 2 underlined that length of residence manifests the relationship between the person and land and consequently strengthens the relationship. This implied that length of residence may indirectly increase the sense of land tenure security as the landholder feels ‘attached’ to the land.
The discussion shows that both possession of land-related documents and duration of occupation significantly generate greater perceived tenure security with almost similar levels of contributions by each factor. Thus, even if residents have lived for a long time in the neighbourhood, they are also aware of the importance of possessing land-related documents for their greater long-term security. This was confirmed by 68 responses mentioning possession of land-related document influencing their perception on their existences leading to their degree of land tenure security (Section 7.1). It
147
can be inferred that length of stay in the neighbourhood, despite slight difference in value compared with land-related documents, becomes the strongest factor of perceived tenure security in Menteng Dalam and the perceived tenure security itself is mostly indicated by the sense of the possibility of being able to sell land and houses.
Lastly, when it comes to the extent of perceived tenure security (Table 8-3), the majority of the A community perceives their tenure security itself to be less certain when it is defined as being safe from forced eviction. This is further strengthened in the priority scale that considers protection against forced eviction as the third priority (Figure 8-1). Instead of protection against forced eviction, as exhibited in Table 8-4, more than half of the community perceives tenure security as related to the possibility to sell land -- this is confirmed by the possibility to sell land as their first priority. The discussion reveals that the inferential analysis using SEM-PLS seems to be in line with the descriptive analysis using cross tabulations and priority scales, in which the community perceived their land tenure to be secure due to the possession of land-related documents and length of stay. They see tenure security as related to having the possibility to sell their land, rather than being protected against forced eviction.
10.1.2 Case study B: Tanah Tinggi
Similar to what has been conducted for Menteng Dalam, the analysis ran the first bootstrapping and the result is shown in Figure 10-3 below.
CC
Figure 10-3 The output of the general path model analysis (first bootstrapping) using SEM-PLS in Tanah Tinggi
The first bootstrapped model seen in Figure 10-3 was then assessed. The figures above exhibit that:
1) In the outer model 1, all indicators of ‘CC’ meet the thresholds of P value and path coefficient, duration of occupation (‘DO’), land-related document (‘LD’), and social cohesion (‘SC’) with P
148
value and outer loading of 0.000 and 0.940, 0.000 and 0.907, and 0.000 and 0.794, respectively; and
2) In the outer model 2, possibility to sell land (‘PS’) has higher P value, 0.696, than the cut value of 0.05 and therefore it is eliminated. Then, the analysis re-runs the bootstrapping (the second) resulting in what is shown in Figure 10-4 below.
CC
Figure 10-4 The corrected general path model (second bootstrapping) using SEM-PLS in Tanah Tinggi
The second bootstrapping resulted in an estimate of SRMR of Tanah Tinggi with the value of 0.072 (see: Appendix D), close to the cut off value of 0.08; this means the path model of Tanah Tinggi better fits the data or has greater validity than that of Menteng Dalam. From Figure 10-4 above, it can be seen that, overall:
1) In the outer model 1, duration of occupation (‘DO’) turns out to be the most significant indicator contributing to the assigned construct of ‘CC’ with P value of 0.000 and outer loading of 0.938, followed by land-related document (‘LD’) and social cohesion (‘SC’);
2) In the outer model 2, protection against forced eviction turns to be the highest driving factor contributing to the construct of ‘TS’ with P value of 0.000 and outer loading of 0.988, followed by ‘PI’ with P value of 0.049 and outer loading of 0.417; and
3) In the inner model 1 between ‘CC’ and ‘TS’, ‘CC’ significantly contributes as much as 0.367 to ‘TS’ with P value of 0.000.
The outputs of SEM-PLS were then linked to those of cross tabulation and priority scale in Chapter 7 on the causes of tenure security and Chapter 8 on the extent of perceived tenure security for further analysis.
149
Firstly, according to Figure 7-12, most of the community perceives their tenure to be secure by having land-related documents, followed by social cohesion, and duration of occupation. This differs from the results of SEM-PLS depicted in Figure 10-4 for Tanah Tinggi where duration of occupation acts as the strongest indicator generating their perceived tenure security. This was confirmed by 68% of the responses, including the majority of both types of landowner (Table 7-2). It can be inferred that duration of occupation, followed by land-related documents and social cohesion, significantly generate a higher level of perceived tenure security.
Lastly, in respect to the extent of perceived tenure security, Table 8-5 showed that the majority of the community in Tanah Tinggi perceives their tenure security itself as being able to inherit the assets, so did the priority scale indicate. Yet, when analysed using SEM-PLS, the result showed that being safe from forced eviction is more relevant than being able to inherit. This condition may be affected by the fact that there are more landowners with land title and reflect that they intend to sustain their family living there.
10.1.3 Combined case study areas: Menteng Dalam and Tanah Tinggi
Having analysed the causes of tenure security and the strength of tenure security for each case study in the previous sub-sections, this sub-section then combines the analyses of both case study areas involving SEM-PLS and cross tabulations to give an overall assessment of the results. This is undertaken by combining the respective data of both locations and running the path model bootstrapping; the bootstrapping results in the SRMR value of 0.058 (Appendix E). This means that the model is less than the cut-off value of 0.08 which implies the model fits the combined data. This combined analysis aims to generalise the real perceived tenure security of both communities. In detail, the process results in a path model depicted in Figure 10-5 below.
CC
Figure 10-5 The path model using SEM-PLS in both case study areas
150
From Figure 10-5 above, it can be seen that, overall:
1) In the outer model 1, ‘CC’ and its indicators of ‘LD’, ‘DO’, and ‘SC’, land-related document (‘LD’) turns out to be the strongest cause of tenure security with a P value of 0.000 and an outer loading of 0.914, followed by social cohesion (‘SC’) and duration of occupation (‘DO’).
2) In the outer model 2, being protected against forced eviction (‘PE’) is statistically very significant with a P value of 0.000 and an outer loading of 0.999 while the possibility/ability to inherit land (‘PI’) is not significant with a P value of 0.388 and an outer loading of 0.184; and
3) In the inner model 1 between ‘CC’ and ‘TS’, ‘CC’ contributes as much as 0.291 to ‘TS’ with a P value of 0.000. This means the relationship between the causes and the extent of tenure security is significant and the constructs are correlated.
From the above figures, it can be inferred that having land-related documents significantly contributes to the strength of perceived secure tenure and this is shown as being protected against forced eviction, recognised by the communities as the major perceived indicator of tenure security. These combined outputs are then further analysed with a recapitulation of the cross tabulation results in respect to the causes and the extent of tenure security depicted in Tables 10-1 and 10-2 below.
Table 10-1 A combined perceived tenure security against causes of tenure security in Menteng Dalam and Tanah Tinggi
Perceived tenure security*
1 435 2 3 5
(less (less (very (insecure) insecure) secure) (secure) secure)
Causes of 1 Land-related documents Count 23 34 36 136 15 tenure security 2 Duration of occupation Count 19 20 33 162 11
3 Social cohesion Count 16 24 34 150 19
*This table shows the numbers of cases that fall into each cross-identified category. The figures are shown for illustrative purposes only. It was not possible to carry out a full cross-tabulation because too many cells were occupied by less than the minimum number of 5 cases. According to Table 10-1, 151 surveyed respondents (61.9%) felt secure by possessing land-related documents. As many as 173 responses (70.6%) refer to length of residence which generates their
35 The thesis re-groups the scales into less secure and secure scale in the text; the former scale is aggregated from insecure to less secure while the latter is aggregated from secure and very secure. This also applies for the extent of tenure security. 151 tenure security. Lastly, there were 169 respondents (69.5%) claiming that having a strong bond within the community which influences their tenure security. Given these fact, when analysed with the SEM-PLS outputs, there seems to be a difference in respect to the causes of tenure security. As exhibited in Figure 10.5 above, having land-related documents is the major factor in generating the tenure security, followed by a strong social bond and the length of residence. Despite this, as explained by both community heads, land-related documents are the most important element in generating tenure security in which possessing land-related documents in any form are legitimated by the sub-district office. This was also supported by the heads of sub-district office who said that tenure security occurs when the residents can provide themselves with lawful land-related evidences recognised by local government.
Table 10-2 A combined perceived tenure security against the extent of tenure security in Menteng Dalam and Tanah Tinggi
Perceived tenure security*
1 4 2 3 5
(less (less (very (uncertain) uncertain) certain) (certain) certain)
Extent of 1 Protection against forced Count 32 65 59 56 32 tenure eviction security 2 Possibility to sell land Count 108 23 14 54 27
3 Possibility to inherit land Count 17 18 29 84 78
* This table shows the numbers of cases that fall into each cross-identified category. The figures are shown for illustrative purposes only. It was not possible to carry out a full cross-tabulation because too many cells were occupied by less than the minimum number of 5 cases. In respect to the extent of tenure security, the combined analysis using SEM-PLS indicated that being protected against forced eviction turns out to be the major concern for the communities, followed by the ability to inherit the properties (see: Figure 10-5). This contradicts with the results shown in Table 10-2, where ability to pass on the properties becomes the major concern for the communities with 162 responses (71.8%), followed by protection against forced eviction with 88 responses (36%), and possibility to sell land with 81 responses (35.8%). However, given the fact that 79% of the communities believed future eviction is possible, it is reasonable to suppose that the communities’ major concern has something to do with the possibility of forced eviction. Hence, this justifies what has resulted from the SEM-PLS where being protected against forced eviction mostly reflected the communities’ sense of tenure security; the communities apparently desire to live in the
152 current neighbourhood. As they feel secure, they appreciate the possibility of passing on the properties to the next generation.
10.2 The relationship between the causes and the extent of land tenure security: by groups
As described earlier in this thesis and especially in this chapter, documentation of land ownership or other forms of rights to land are important ‘causes’ of perceptions of increased tenure security, both by residents and local government representatives. The survey has shown that, in the context of kampung in Jakarta, there are several forms of land rights and tenure. This section analyses the perceptions of tenure security from the perspective of three land tenure groups or categories, namely landowners with land title (Group 1), landowners without land title (Group 2), and non- landowners (Group 3).
Similar to the previous section, this section investigates the relationship between the ‘causes’ and the extent of tenure security but in more detail from the point of view of the land tenure categories. The relationship is depicted in a path model and analysed using what is called a multi-group analysis (structural equation model – partial least square – multi-group analysis, or SEM-PLS MGA). This is aimed to measure the strength of the specific perception of each group as to their perceived tenure security.
The survey revealed that landowners with title in both locations considered length of stay as the most prominent cause of tenure security. Yet, this perception led them to a different perspective over tenure security. The landowners with land titles of Menteng Dalam viewed their perceived tenure security mostly as being about the ability to sell land, and then being protected against forced eviction while those of Tanah Tinggi viewed it mostly as being safe from forced eviction, and then being able to inherit land. Meanwhile, the landowners without land title in both locations had different perspectives on their perceived tenure security. Those of Menteng Dalam felt that land- related documents were the strongest factor generating their tenure security, followed by duration of occupation and social cohesion whereas those of Tanah Tinggi perceived that duration of occupation was the strongest factor. They saw tenure security as the possibility to sell land for Menteng Dalam and ability for their heirs to inherit land for Tanah Tinggi. The summary of the SEM-PLS MGA output in comparison of the two case study areas is provided in Table 10-3 in Section 10.3.
This section is developed in two sub-sections. Sub-section 10.2.1 discusses the relationship (path) model specifically from the perspective of land tenure categories in Menteng Dalam and Sub- section 10.2.2 elaborates that of Tanah Tinggi.
153
10.2.1 Case study A: Menteng Dalam
As discussed in the previous section, the path model was developed on the basis of the conceptual framework. At the end, the analysis comes up with the same general path model (Figure 10-1), including the output values. However, when it comes to the analysis of each group, the output values are different. The final output of the general path model using SEM-PLS MGA for Menteng Dalam is shown in Figure 10-6 below.
CC
Figure 10-6 The corrected general path model (third bootstrapping) using SEM-PLS MGA in Menteng Dalam
Generated from Figure 10-2, Figure 10-6 shows a similar result in that length of residence, despite a slight different output value with land-related documents, becomes the most significant factor in generating perceived tenure security in Menteng Dalam and such perception is highly reflected by the sense of possibility to sell land, followed by protection against forced eviction. Moreover, the relationship between the construct of ‘CC’ and ‘TS’ is considered significantly strong where all causes contribute as much as 0.392 (higher than the cut value of 0.2) to perceived tenure security.
Then, the analysis comes down to the perspective of each land tenure group as shown in Figure 10- 7, Figure 10-8, Figure 10-9 for group 1 (landowners with land title), group 2 (landowners having other documentation but not land title), and group 3 (non-landowners), respectively.
154
CC
Figure 10-7 The path model of group 1 using SEM-PLS MGA in Menteng Dalam
For group 1 (landowners with land title), Figure 10-7 above reveals that:
1) In the outer model 1, land-related document (‘LD’) has a high outer loading although P value of 0.057 almost fits to the cut value of 0.05. The remaining indicators of ‘CC’, duration of occupation (‘DO’) and social cohesion (‘SC’), however, indicate a low significance level;
2) In the outer model 2, both indicators of ‘TS’ turn out to be insignificant; in particular, protection against forced eviction (‘PE’) has a negative relationship with the construct of ‘TS’. In respect to this, Hair Jr et. al (2013) underlined that a negative relationship demonstrates a situation where high collinearity reverses the sign of the weaker indicator. This means the ‘PE’ is less correlated with the construct of ‘TS'; and
3) In the inner model, despite a strong positive relationship between the construct of ‘CC’ and ‘TS’ with the path coefficient of 0.274, the P value of 0.514 indicates that the relationship is statistically insignificant.
It can be inferred that, for landowners with land title, they perceived tenure security of being able to sell land, instead of being safe from forced eviction, from the possession of land-related documents.
The outputs of SEM-PLS MGA by land tenure categories are then compared and analysed with the cross tabulation and priority scale results in Chapter 7 and Chapter 8. The analysis is put in order by land tenure categories, namely landowners with land title (Group 1), landowners without land title (Group 2), and non-landowners (Group 3). It can be seen in Table 7-1 and Figure 7-11 that land- related document becomes the most significant indicator generating perceived tenure security for landowners with land title, followed by length of dwelling and strong social cohesion. The same case occured when the community was asked whether local government agrees with the dwelling status in Section 8.1. Firstly, out of 68 responses indicating the reason for a perception of greater 155 tenure security of being the possession of land-related documents, 31 responses were from landowners with land title. Secondly, however, 19 out of 68 responses by landowners with land title gave length of residence as a significant factor. Here, land-related documentation becomes the most important factor in generating the certainty of the dwelling status leading to the perceived tenure security.
The results of descriptive analysis above seem to be similar to the outputs of SEM-PLS MGA in Figure 10-7 above in which, according to the outer loadings, land-related documents indeed gives the greatest tenure security, followed by duration of occupation and social cohesion despite the fact that the significance levels are all low.
When it comes to the extent of perceived tenure security in relation to the causes of tenure security, the descriptive analysis in Chapter 8 revealed that the community ability to pass on land becomes their major concern, followed by ability to sell land, and being safe from forced eviction (Table 8-5 and Figure 8-1). These figures of descriptive analysis however contradict to the outputs of SEM- PLS MGA in which the community perceived the land tenure security mostly over the possibility to sell land, instead of ability to inherit and being protected against forced eviction which they felt were less important. In this regard, as described in Section 8.1 above, most surveyed households believed that in the future there was the possibility of forced eviction for public interest development as well potentially for private development. This perception, in fact, was felt mostly by landowners with land title (44%). Particularly, in the case of eviction, the landowners with land title preferred to sell their land to the private sector expecting a higher compensation since they own land title. The analysis continues to group 2 shown in Figure 10-8.
CC
Figure 10-8 The path model of group 2 using SEM-PLS MGA in Menteng Dalam
156
For group 2 (landowners having other documentation but not land title, Figure 10-8 above shows that:
1) In the outer model 1, land-related document (‘LD’) turns out to be the strongest indicator of ‘CC’ with a P value of 0.003 and an outer loading of 0.952, followed by duration of occupation (‘DO’) and social cohesion (‘SC’);
2) In the outer model 2, protection against forced eviction (‘PE’) turns out to be the most significant indicator of ‘TS’ with a P value of 0.007 and an outer loading of 0.807, but this is not the case for the possibility to sell land (‘PS’); and
3) In the inner model, despite a strong positive relationship between the construct of ‘CC’ and ‘TS’ with the path coefficient of 0.377, the P value of 0.107 indicates that the relationship is statistically insignificant.
It can be inferred that, for landowners without land title, despite not having this formal land title, they are aware of their possession of land documents that support their residential status and these generate their perceptions of being protected against forced eviction.
This was also a similar case when the community was asked whether local government agrees with the dwelling status (as discussed in Section 8.1). Firstly, out of 68 responses indicating the reason of being the possession of land-related documents, 35 of these responses were by landowners without land title. Secondly, similarly, for the reason of length of stay, 34 out of 67 responses were posed by landowners without land title. This showed that, for the landowners without land title, they perceived their tenure security more from length of stay despite the awareness of the importance of having land-related documents in any form.
The data of descriptive analysis (Table 7-1, 7-2, and 7-3) showed that the landowners without land title put length of stay and social cohesion ahead of possession of land-related documents. This was further confirmed by 66 households when asked about the reason for their perceived dwelling status. This condition might be generated from their perspective of land occupation that has lasted for years in that they have utilised and taken care of the land for their livelihoods. According to Land Law Expert 1 when interviewed, non-title land documents can be considered as de facto tenure forms showing that a person has made use of land continuously and intensively which is recognised by customary (Adat) law and such law grew from the social values instead of government stipulation. On the other hand, the respondents were aware that the land-related documents they have are not as strong as land title.
157
The descriptive analysis figures above clearly indicate a result that differs from the outputs of the SEM-PLS MGA in Figure 10-8 above, where having land-related document becomes the major indicator generating perceived strength of tenure security (followed by duration of occupation and social cohesion). This apparent contradiction actually explains the complex relationship amongst the ‘cause’ factors. As described in Section 8.1, most surveyed household perceived that the fact that the local government accepts the legitimacy of their dwellings is most likely generated from the length of their residence in the neighbourhood (in some cases, for decades). Subsequently, such length of stay has strengthened the social bond within the community. This situation may imply that the recognition of the legitimacy of the community’s dwellings is basically derived from the length of residence and having additional land-related documents legitimated by the sub-district office - these act as the impact or consequence of such long occupation of State land. However, the community is also aware of the importance of these documents in supporting their dwellings status as well as for land transfer purpose. But what then of the actual extent of tenure security perceived by these landowners without land title?
Tables 8-3, 8-4, and 8-5 imply that the community’s preference of perceived tenure security is being able to inherit and sell land rather than being protected from forced eviction. Like the landowners with land title, a similar perception is also felt by the landowners without land title (55%), in Section 8.1, in which they believed in the future there was the possibility of forced eviction for public interest development as well as the private development. In this case, they preferred to sell their land to the private sector for higher compensation based on market value, instead of local government who compensated for eviction based on the property tax value.
However, this differs from the priorities identified through the SEM-PLS MGA, where protection against forced eviction was identified as their major concern in relation to perceived tenure security, followed by possibility to sell their land. Despite having non-land title documents, the community perceived their land tenure to be secure from forced eviction. This is probably generated by the legitimation of their status by the Sub-district office who issued additional land-related documents that validated their occupation of their dwellings (i.e. land occupation letter and letter of no dispute) described in Sub-section 7.1.1. The situation may also imply that having realised the non-title documents are not as strong as land title, in case of eviction, they would be getting lower compensation, so that they prefer to stay and expect to be protected against forced eviction by living there for decades. The analysis then continues to group 3 (leaseholders) as shown in Figure 10-9 below.
158
CC
Figure 10-9 the path model of group 3 using SEM-PLS MGA in Menteng Dalam
For group 3 (non-landowners), Figure 10-9 above shows that:
1) In the outer model 1, all causes meet the thresholds of P value and outer loading in which duration of occupation (‘DO’) becomes the strongest criterion with a P value of 0.000 and an outer loading of 0.924, followed by social cohesion (‘SC’) and land-related documents (‘LD’);
2) In the outer model 2, protection against forced eviction (‘PE’) turns out to be the most significant criterion of ‘TS’ with a P value of 0.002 and an outer loading of 0.828, but this is not the case for possibility to sell land (‘PS’); and
3) In the inner model, ‘CC’ significantly contributes as much as 0.481 to ‘TS’ with a P value of 0.000.
It can be inferred that, for non-landowners, length of stay and social cohesion, since they do not own the land, really matter for generating perceived tenure security in that they are highly concerned about having protection against forced eviction.
The figures in Table 7-1, Table 7-2, and Table 7-3 seem to be similar to the outputs of SEM-PLS MGA in Figure 10-9 above (for those with land title), where most of the respondents perceived their land tenure to be secure because of their length of residence, social cohesion of the kampung, and their possession of land-related documents, in that order. As depicted in Figure 7.7, many of the non-title holders hold verbal agreements about their rent. Their perception of tenure security appears reasonable but since they are not the landowners, they perceived their tenure security to arise from their length of residence which in turn generates the level of social cohesion built within the community. The analysis now deals with the extent of tenure security for these non-landowners.
159
The perceived tenure security over ability to sell and inherit land is less relevant, despite the existence of lease arrangements made amongst some of the kampung dwellers, since they do not CC own the land and property. In the SEM-PLS MGA model, non-landowners perceived the land tenure security as being protected against forced eviction, and there was a statistically insignificant value for their perceptions about possibility of selling the land. However, although the non- landowners perceived the land tenure security mostly as protection against forced eviction (Table 8- 3), they felt pessimistic being safe from such forced eviction. This is indicated by the 38% of them who believed in the possibility of future forced eviction for the purpose of public interest development.
10.2.2 Case study B: Tanah Tinggi
Similar to the case study of Menteng Dalam, the path model was developed and the analysis was conducted in the same way, using SEM-PLS MGA. At the end, the analysis came up with the same general path model using SEM-PLS as in the case of Tanah Tinggi (Figure 10-1), including the output values. However, the output values are different when it comes to the analysis of each group. The end output of the general path model using SEM-PLS MGA is shown in Figure 10-10 below.
CC
Figure 10-10 The corrected general path model (third bootstrapping) using SEM-PLS MGA in Tanah Tinggi
Figure 10-10 above reveals the same description as depicted in Figure 10-1, in that, in general, duration of land occupation, followed by having land-related documents and social cohesion, turn into the strongest indicators generating perceived tenure security of being protected against forced evictions. Moreover, the relationship between the construct of ‘CC’ and ‘TS’ is considered significantly strong where all causes contribute as much as 0.367 to perceived tenure security.
160
Then, the thesis considered the perspective of each land tenure category shown in Figure 10-11, Figure 10-12, Figure 10-13 for group 1 (those with land title), group 2 (those with non-title documents), and group 3 (renters/non-landowners), respectively.
CC
Figure 10-11 The path model of group 1 using SEM-PLS MGA in Tanah Tinggi
For group 1 (those with land title), Figure 10-11 above reveals that:
1) In the outer model 1, duration of occupation (‘DO’) turns into the strongest criterion in generating perceived tenure security with a P value of 0.000 and an outer loading of 0.882, followed by land-related document (‘LD’) and social cohesion (‘SC’);
2) In the outer model 2, protection against forced eviction (‘PE’) turns into the greatest extent of perceived tenure with a P value of 0.000 and an outer loading of 0.994; and
3) In the inner model, the relationship between the construct of ‘CC’ and ‘TS’ is highly strong with a P value of 0.006 and a path coefficient of 0.446; this relationship is considered highly correlated.
It can be inferred that, for landowners with land title, despite having this title, length of residence strongly influences their perception of being protected against forced eviction. Furthermore, this situation may imply that the community might intend to stay longer in the neighbourhood. The thesis further analysed the outputs of SEM-PLS MGA on the basis of land tenure categories by incorporating the analysis discussed in Chapter 7 and 8. The proportion of surveyed households by land tenure categories in Tanah Tinggi consist of 44 title landowners (34%), 48 non-title landowners (38%), and 36 non-landowners (28%) (Figure 7-2).
For the first land tenure category, landowners with land title in respect to the ‘causes’ of tenure security, the descriptive analysis in Chapter 7 revealed that: 161
1) Most landowners with land title (75%) perceived their land tenure to be secured from forced eviction by having land-related documents (see: Table 7-1);
2) Most landowners with land title (75%) perceived their land tenure to be secured from forced eviction because they have lived in the kampung for a long time (see: Table 7-2); and
3) Most landowners with land title (88%) perceived their land tenure to be secured from forced eviction by having strong social bonds (see: Table 7-3).
A similar situation is also shown in Chapter 8 (Section 8.1) where the surveyed community was asked the dwelling status in relation to the local authority’s recognition or agreement. A total of 38 out of 58 responses (66%) from landowners with land title referred to the possession of land-related document while 27 out of 60 responses (40%) referred to length of residence. Despite having land title, they also considered length of stay essential for the dwelling status that leads to the perceived tenure security.
The figures of descriptive analysis look different, in descending order of importance, from the outputs of SEM-PLS MGA depicted in Figure 10-11 above in which duration of occupation (‘DO’) gives the greatest tenure security, followed by land-related document (‘LD’) and social cohesion (‘SC’). In this case, despite living in the neighbourhood for decades, the community still perceived that land-related document can protect them from forced eviction. This was explained by the Community Head saying that duration of land occupation has to do with the assurance of the land status. In a similar vein, the head of the Sub-district office underlined the importance of possessing lawful land-related documents for the greatest land tenure security, specifically land titles, land deeds, and building permits. The analysis now deals with the extent of tenure security perceived by landowners with land title.
The figures of actual perceived tenure security (Table 8-3, Table 8-4, and Table 8-5) however differ from the outputs of the SEM-PLS MGA in which the community perceived the land tenure security mostly over being protected against forced eviction. Despite this, most surveyed households believed in the possibility of future forced eviction for public interest development; 34% of landowners with land title felt it was possible that future forced eviction might occur for mostly the purpose of public interest development. The analysis then continues to group 2 (those with non-title documents) as shown in Figure 10-12.
162
CC
Figure 10-12 The path model of group 2 using SEM-PLS MGA in Tanah Tinggi
For group 2 (those with non-title documents), from Figure 10-12, it can be seen that:
1) In the outer model 1, ‘DO’ turns out to be the strongest indicator of ‘CC’ with a P value of 0.000 and an outer loading of 0.971, followed by social cohesion (‘SC’) and land-related document (‘LD’);
2) In the outer model 2, protection against forced eviction (‘PE’) turns out to be the most significant indicator of ‘TS’ with a P value of 0.000 and an outer loading of 0.941, followed by the possibility/ability to inherit land (‘PI’) with a P value of 0.753 and an outer loading 0.753; and
3) In the inner model, the relationship between the construct of ‘CC’ and ‘TS’ is very strong with a P value of 0.001 and path coefficient of 0.390; this indicates that the relationship is statistically significant, and the constructs are highly correlated.
From Figure 10-12, it can be inferred that, for landowners with legitimate documents but without land title, they perceived that length of residence highly generates their perceived tenure security of being protected against forced eviction.
The figures from the earlier descriptive analysis (Tables 7-1, 7-2, and 7-3) showed that the landowners without land title put social cohesion ahead from length of stay and land-related document possession as the factors that created greater security of tenure. This situation clearly contradicts the outputs of the SEM-PLS MGA as shown in Figure 10-12 above where duration of occupation (‘DO’) becomes the major indicator generating perceived tenure security, followed by social cohesion (‘SC’) and possession of land-related document (‘LD’). As described in Section 8.1, most surveyed household perceived that local government agreeing to the legitimacy of their dwellings -- likely generated from the length of stay -- for decades with 60 responses is a little more
163 frequent than those for land-related document. This situation subsequently grew the social bond within the community.
The figures from the descriptive analysis imply that the community’s preference to be able to inherit land over being protected from forced eviction and the possibility to sell land (Tables 8-3, 8- 4, and 8-5). However, the opposite situation was revealed from the SEM-PLS MGA where protection against forced eviction becomes their major concern in their concept of tenure security, followed by the possibility to inherit land and the possibility to sell land. In respect to this, the community head explained in an interview (Section 8.1) that the community’s perception of their tenure security has been adequate since they have resided in the kampung for decades. Despite this, however, regardless of the types of land-related-documents they possess, they still feel threatened by the possibility of eviction. This fear of eviction was indicated by most of the surveyed households who believe in the possibility of future eviction for (most-likely) public interest development; this was particularly the case for the 63% of the landowners without land title (Section 8.1). The analysis continues to group 3 (those who do not own the land) as shown in Figure 10-13 below.
CC
Figure 10-13 The path model of group 3 using SEM-PLS MGA in Tanah Tinggi
For group 3 (renters/non-landowners), Figure 10-13 shows that:
1) In the outer model 1, land-related document (‘LD’) and duration of occupation (‘DO’) have a slight difference in the output values, with a P value of 0.037 and an outer loading of 0.954, and P value of 0.041 and outer loading of 0.953, respectively;
2) In the outer model 2, protection against forced eviction (‘PE’) turns out to be the greatest criterion of ‘TS’ with an outer loading of 0.906, despite a P value of 0.133; on the other hand, possibility/ability to inherit land (‘PI’) is irrelevant to the sense of perceived tenure security; and
164
3) In the inner model, the relationship between ‘CC’ and ‘TS’ is not significant with a P value of 0.313; in other words, the constructs are weakly correlated. It can be inferred that, for non- landowners, land-related document and length of residence influence their perceived tenure security on being protected against forced eviction. However, as such is statistically proven to be weak.
The figures of causes of tenure security reveal that for non-landowners, social cohesion turns out to be the strongest factor of perceived tenure security (Table 7-1). However, the figures seem to contradict the outputs of the SEM-PLS MGA shown in Figure 10-13 above in which most of them perceived their land tenure would be more secured if they had land-related documents (‘LD’) and a long length of residence (‘DO’) with a very slight different value of outer loadings while social cohesion was insignificant. This condition depicts that despite not having legitimated proof of access to land and the house, the non-landowners realised the importance of land-related documents, at least for them, since they had mostly verbal agreement for the evidence of the rental dwelling (see: Figure 7.8). The analysis below continues to explore the extent and meaning of tenure security.
Despite the fact that almost two thirds of the non-landowners perceived tenure security as being able to inherit land (Table 8-5 and Figure 8-6), the perception is not legally available to them since they rent the property. This is confirmed by the outputs of SEM-PLS MGA in which the non- landowners perceived the land tenure security as being protected against forced eviction. But, only few of them felt safe from forced eviction. In particular, regarding point 1, the reason why there was less than half of non-landowners who perceived their land tenure to be secure is likely to be because around 56% of them believed in the possibility of future forced eviction, most likely for public development (see: Section 8.1).
10.3 Summary
This chapter seeks to answer the research questions: “How do both urban kampung dwellers and public authorities perceive land tenure security?” and “What are the ‘causes’ of tenure security in urban kampung in Jakarta?” (Sub-questions 2 and 3a). The summary describes the causes of perceptions about tenure security and then continues to the extent or meaning of tenure security as perceived by the communities and local authorities. The summary of comparative outputs of SEM- PLS MGA by groups of land tenure categories in both locations is shown in Table 10-3 below.
165
Table 10-3 Comparison of perceived tenure security by land tenure categories in both locations (using SEM-PLS and SEM-PLS MGA)
# Land Tenure Menteng Dalam Tanah Tinggi Categories
Methods Causes of tenure Extent of tenure Causes of tenure Extent of tenure security security security security
SEM- 1. Duration of 1. Possibility to 1. Duration of General path 1. Protection PLS occupation sell (‘PS’) occupation model against (‘DO’) 2. Protection (‘DO’) forced (Overall) 2. Land-related against forced 2. Land-related eviction documents eviction documents (‘PE’) (‘LD’) (‘PE’) (‘LD’) 2. Possibility to 3. Social 3. Social inherit (‘PI’) cohesion cohesion (‘SC’) (‘SC’)
SEM- 1. Land-related 1. Possibility to 1. Duration of 1. Landowners 1. Protection PLS documents sell (‘PS’) occupation with land against MGA (‘LD’) 2. Protection (‘DO’) title forced 2. Duration of against forced 2. Land-related eviction (Group 1) occupation eviction documents (‘PE’) (‘DO’) (‘PE’) (‘LD’) 2. Possibility to 3. Social 3. Social inherit (‘PI’) cohesion cohesion
SEM- 1. Land-related 1. Protection 1. Duration of 2. Landowners 1. Protection PLS documents against forced occupation without land against MGA (‘LD’) eviction (‘DO’) title forced 2. Duration of (‘PE’) 2. Social eviction (Group 2) occupation 2. Possibility to cohesion (‘PE’) (‘DO’) sell (‘PS’) (‘SC’) 2. Possibility to 3. Land-related inherit (‘PI’) documents
166
SEM- 1. Duration of 1. Protection 1. Land-related 1. Protection 3. Non- PLS occupation against forced documents against Landowners MGA (‘DO’) eviction (‘LD’) forced (Group 3) 2. Social (‘PE’) 2. Duration of eviction cohesion 2. Possibility to occupation (‘PE’) (‘SC’) sell (‘PS’) (‘DO’) 3. Land-related documents (‘LD’)
In terms of causes of tenure security, overall, length of stay appears to be the most prominent cause of community perceptions of land tenure security, followed by land-related documents and social cohesion. However, the causes vary across the land tenure categories (groups) and case study areas. Both types of landowners, with and without land titles, in Menteng Dalam considered land-related documents as the most prominent factor generating tenure security, though this is not the case for the non-landowners. In sum, both communities, according to Figure 10.5 (Sub-section 10.1.3), considered the possession of land-related documents as the most prominent factor in driving communities’ perception of tenure security.
In terms of the extent of tenure security, as perceived by those surveyed the landowners with land title in Menteng Dalam, most felt that the possibility of selling their land is more relevant, especially when they intended to sell the properties to gain more compensation. The community was aware of the market pressure from the private sector, considering the kampung’s strategic location close to a shopping centre. However, for the landowners without land title, they preferred to stay and felt safe from forced eviction since their dwellings were legitimated by the sub-district office. At the same time, they also expected to benefit from any future government land registration program. This condition showed that the location of a neighbourhood may create different pressures especially in the case of eviction either by the public or the private sector. This is definitely not the case of Tanah Tinggi where all groups understood their tenure security as being protected against forced eviction as well as indicating an ability to pass on the lands and houses to their heirs.
Unlike Menteng Dalam, the community of Tanah Tinggi has seen more intervention by various local government’s programs (such as Kampung Deret- Housing Improvement Program, see: Section 9.1) despite not being a strategically located neighbourhood. This situation may imply that different level of recognition between the two case study areas is visible and this may influence the ways the communities perceive security of tenure. To generalise the findings, this thesis ran a simultaneous analysis using SEM-PLS and cross tabulation and then summarised the two outputs.
167
The summarised output (Table 10-4) derives from Figure 10-5 (SEM-PLS), and Tables 10-1 and 10-2 (cross tabulations), in a combined analysis.
Table 10-4 Comparison of ‘causes’ and extent of tenure security in both locations (using SEM-PLS and cross tabulation – both combined analysis)
# Methods
SEM-PLS Cross tabulation
1. ‘Causes’ of 1. Land-related documents 1. Duration of occupation tenure security (‘LD’) (‘DO’)
2. Social cohesion (‘SC’) 2. Social cohesion (‘SC’)
3. Duration of occupation 3. Land-related documents (‘DO’) (‘LD’)
2. Extent of tenure 1. Protection against forced 1. Possibility to inherit security eviction (‘PE’) (‘PI’)
2. Possibility to inherit (‘PI’) 2. Protection against forced eviction (‘PE’)
3. Possibility to sell (‘PS’)
From Table 10-4 above, it can be seen that there is quite a difference in terms of both the ‘causes’ and extent of tenure security from different analyses. However, the communities were aware of the importance of the possession of land-related documents when it comes to being protected against forced eviction. Table 10-4 (SEM-PLS) also reveals that possession of land-related documents turns out to be the most significant factor and this was justified by the Community Heads and the Sub- district Officers underlining that land-related documents are really crucial for tenure security, especially for protection against forced eviction. In regard to the degrees of tenure security, the communities implied their intentions to stay for a long time. This means the sense of being safe from forced eviction dominates the perceptions. Subsequently, once they felt so, they implied to pass on the properties to the heirs in order to maintain the sustainability of their future living.
On the other side, the local government viewed the extent of tenure security as being protected against forced eviction, as the ultimate goal. Local government also perceived tenure security through the lens of the zoning plan. If the neighbourhood is in a properly designated use of land as is allocated in the zoning plan, then the residents could be safe from forced eviction. However, the
168 eviction in Kampung Pulo shows that conformity to planning does not necessarily yield protection against forced eviction as there the eviction was carried out in the name of public order, instead of zoning plan encroachment, as was identified by NGO head 2 during a fieldwork interview. In this case, the evicted residents were likely seen by the local government as the illegal land occupants of State land. However, in the lens of the law, according to both land law experts interviewed (see: Section 7.1), State land occupied by a person for at least 20 consecutive years is considered to be as ‘adverse possession’, and this was confirmed by land officers (see: Section 8.1) who underlined the good will of the land occupant taking care and making use of the land for a long time, at least 20 consecutive years, acknowledged by the Basic Agrarian Law (BAL). This appears to be the fundamental issue of eviction where people who occupy State land for a long time are not necessarily regarded as the actual landowners. As discussed in Sub-section 8.1, a different perspective over State land occupation existed between Jakarta local government and land offices where it was seen by local government as an encroachment despite the fact that the communies have lived there for decades.
Indicators suggested by Durand-Lasserve (2006a) in Section 3.2, except for NGOs support, were indeed generating the perceived tenure security in both locations. The settlement size, in particular, represented in a large and small area seems contributive, in a reverse manner, to the degree of perceived tenure security, in that in the small area (Tanah Tinggi), the sense of being safe from forced eviction is higher that the large area (Menteng Dalam). This could be seen in the level of perceived tenure security in both locations, from the outer loadings of 0.683 and 0.988 for Menteng Dalam and Tanah Tinggi respectively, depicted in Figures 10-2 and 10-4. This shows that there is substantial difference between Menteng Dalam (the large settlement) and Tanah Tinggi (the small settlement). This condition is probably more affected by the level of local authorities’ recognition which may be related to the programs of local government, and the location of the settlement. The community of Tanah Tinggi has benefitted more programs such as housing improvement and land registration than that of Menteng Dalam. Meanwhile, Menteng Dalam is more strategically located than Tanah Tinggi and thus is more threatened by forced eviction, either by private or public sector.
The extent of perceived tenure security suggested by the Federation of International Surveyors (FIG) and the United Nations Centre for Human Settlement (UNCHS) was adopted in the thesis, namely protection against forced eviction, the possibility of selling land, and the possibility or ability to inherit land (UN-HABITAT, 2004, p. 13) (Section 3.2). In this case, two different views on tenure security occurred from the communities. The community of Menteng Dalam perceived tenure security as the sense of possibility to sell land and of being protected against forced eviction
169 while the community of Tanah Tinggi viewed tenure security as being protected against forced eviction and being able to inherit or pass on their land.
These different perspectives may be the result of what has been experienced by the communities, relating to the location and the level of recognition of local government. For instance, in the case of Menteng Dalam, it is located in a prime location close to one of the prominent shopping centres in Jakarta. This strategic location benefits the community on one hand while, on the other, it leads to being threatened by private development. The benefit they might gain is likely in the case of land buy-out and the landholders most likely would be compensated in a higher land value as the consequence of land purchase by the developer. Consequently, however, the former landholders would have to move out from the place they have resided in for decades. In the second area, the community of Tanah Tinggi has benefitted from several programs of local government in housing improvement, basic infrastructure and services, and micro credit, whereas, in Menteng Dalam, there have not been any housing improvement programs. This showed a different level of recognition from local government. As the survey revealed that less than one third of the landowners in Menteng Dalam hold actual land title, this is likely the reason of such a different level of recognition in local government’s programs. This may imply that, in order to implement the housing improvement programs, land tenure status (or atleast, formal land rights status) turns out to be one of the major considerations.
170
CHAPTER 11: CONCLUSION, POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH
11.1 Conclusions
The form of secure tenure has been a matter of global discussion in the context of adequate housing and sustainable livelihoods. This thesis investigates the forms of land tenure (that in turn may realise adequate housing and sustainable livelihoods) on the basis of the local context of urban kampung in Jakarta and the perception of community and local authorities on tenure security. This was conducted by examining the causes, the extent and the impacts of tenure security perceived by the urban kampung residents as well as the reciprocal relationship among such factors. The conceptual framework developed in this thesis to show these relationships is illustrated in Figure 4- 1. The thesis aims to contribute to the theoretical debate on what tenure security entails, especially on the de facto or de jure tenure aspects, perceived tenure security by the kampung dwellers in Jakarta and the forms of tenure and their implications as understood by local authorities. The thesis also contributes to the theoretical debate on land tenure through the analysis of the (reciprocal) relationship between the impacts and the extents of tenure security. Ultimately, it gives policy recommendations on land tenure regularization on provision of secure tenure suggested by UN- HABITAT (2004, p.3) as one of the important steps to realise ‘the right to the city’ of the urban poor, as legal residents. This includes bringing forward the significance of land tenure status in the local definition. The policy recommendations are expected to comply with the New Urban Agenda of Sustainable Urban Development for Social Inclusion and Ending Poverty, point 35:”…promoting increased security of tenure for all…recognizing the plurality of tenure security…through effective administration systems…” (UN, 2017, p. 13).
The main research question asks: “What is the relationship between the ‘causes’ of tenure security, the extent of tenure security itself, and the ‘effect’ of tenure security?” To answer the main question, five sub-questions were developed as follow:
1) What is the current condition of land tenure security in urban kampung in Jakarta? 2) How do both urban kampung dwellers and public authorities perceive land tenure security? 3) What are: (a) the ‘causes’ and (b) ‘effects’ of tenure security in urban kampung in Jakarta? 4) To what extent, do the ‘effects’ of tenure security act reciprocally to further improve tenure security? and 5) What policy recommendations can be made for more secure tenure for urban kampung dwellers?
171
These questions are discussed one by one in sub-sections below. Ultimately, this thesis provides recommendations (specifically discussed in Section 11.2) for land regularization to meet adequate housing and sustainable livelihoods of the communities. The outputs are expected to contribute to the knowledge about land tenure security on the basis of the local context of Indonesia, notably in Jakarta.
11.1.1 What is the current condition of land tenure security in urban kampung in Jakarta?
In urban areas, as underlined by Payne and Majale (2004), land tenure is considered complex and not as simple as a dichotomy of formal and informal or legal and illegal. Most urban people live along a continuum of existing land tenure forms, ranging from informal to formal tenure. In Jakarta, it was found that there is a wide range of tenure forms existing in urban kampung. Most urban kampung dwellers live along this continuum of land rights as defined by UN-HABITAT (2008b). This various tenure forms (land rights) are depicted in a local continuum perceived by the communities and land law expert (local government) illustrated in Figures 7-9 and 7-10, respectively. This local continuum of land rights leads to different perceived tenure security by the communities and local government.
As discussed in Section 3.2, land tenure security mainly relates to the issue of being protected against forced eviction (UN-HABITAT, 2004). The two NGOs asserted that urban kampung dwellers in Jakarta are prone to forced eviction due to lack of legal access to land: they mostly occupy State land without land titles. This implies that the residents may get forcefully evicted anytime. This current condition was also confirmed by the two community heads and land officers, despite being recognised by local government as legal residents and legal dwellings. The clarity of land-related documents turns out to be fundamental for secure feeling from forced eviction. Also, the forced eviction in Kampung Pulo (Jakarta Post, 2015) apparently contributes to this current condition. In this regard, non-title documentations are considered as de facto tenure forms showing a continuous and intensive use of land and are recognised by customary law within the community (Land Law Experts). When it comes to tenure security, it is all about legal certainty of land possession and ownership which consequently being protected against forced eviction (Land Law Experts). Land possession may refer to non-title documentations and thereby entitled to protection from the government.
This current condition was confirmed by the findings in the two case study areas where, overall, the majority of both communities felt less certain they were being protected against forced eviction, especially landowners without land title. The survey revealed that despite possession of full ownership, the communities do not necessarily feel totally secure from forced eviction (Table 8-3). 172
However, most of urban kampung dwellers have enjoyed de facto residential status by living there for a long time and have been recognised by the surrounding neighbours. Even they have enjoyed de jure residential status as legal residents through the legitimation of household association (RT) and neighbourhood association (RW). This situation is considered as fundamental to their existences for decades and has been preserved among them. Their long existence is also manifested in the home-based economic activities for their livelihoods.
In line with what has been inferred above, being protected against forced eviction is considered the ultimate objective of tenure security (Reerink & van Gelder, 2010; UN-HABITAT, 2008b). Given the fact that full ownership (title) is not necessarily leading to the sense of being safe from forced eviction (Section 8.1), the case studies have proved that the communities (especially the landowners without land title) felt unsafe due to the incident of forced eviction for the reason of State land occupation. Ultimately, the communities felt uncertain about the land occupation status and this leads to feeling at risk of forced eviction.
11.1.2 How do both urban kampung dwellers and public authorities perceive land tenure security?
As described in the previous sub-section, the ultimate objective of tenure security is being safe from forced eviction (Reerink & van Gelder, 2010; UN-HABITAT, 2008b). The research showed that being protected from forced eviction was only one of the considerations that led to feelings of security. This thesis found that in addition to this the possibility to sell land and the possibility to inherit land were important to urban kampung residents. This condition was then justified by the inferential analysis in a combined analysis (Figure 10-5) where the thesis found that being safe from forced eviction is the most prominent meaning of land tenure security. Both communities see that being protected against forced eviction becomes their major concern. This may imply that, regardless of land tenure forms, the communities felt anxious with the burgeoning issue of forced eviction. Following the sense of being protected against forced eviction, the communities also felt that being able to pass on their land and house to ther heirs is more relevant than selling them. This may indicate the intention of the communities to keep staying in the neighbourhood probably for their sustainable livelihoods. This is likely because of the proximity to the job market or economic activities.
Nonetheless, perceived tenure security differs across case study areas. As shown in Table 8-3, both communities generally perceived that they were less secure from being protected against forced eviction, notably landowners without land title. The community of Menteng Dalam (large area)
173 perceived their tenure security as: being possible to inherit land; followed by being able to sell land; and being protected against forced eviction (Figure 8-1). On the other hand, the community of Tanah Tinggi (small area) perceived their tenure security as being protected against forced eviction, followed by being possible to inherit land and being able to sell land (Figure 8-2 and Table 10-3). This difference, however, was likely influenced by the intervention of the land registration program (PRONA). In other words, there are more landowners with land title in Tanah Tinggi than those in Menteng Dalam having benefitted from the land registration program and other local programs such as housing improvement (kampung deret) and footpath pavement (‘MHT’) program. This condition also indicates a different level of recognition by central government (land offices) and local government for the respective programs. In addition, the survey revealed that in Menteng Dalam less than one third of the landowners hold actual land title (Sub-section 7.1.1). This is likely the reason for such a different level of recognition in the local government’s programs, especially housing improvement program. As implied by the Sub-head of Housing Agency in Sub-section 7.1.1, the program requires the legality of land status. This condition reveals that land tenure status is fundamental for implementing housing improvement program.
Communities’ perceived tenure security was also influenced by the sense of the legal status of the residents and the dwellings. The discussion (Section 8.1) revealed that the majority of the two communities are recognised as legal citizens by having identity cards. Subsequently, the majority of the community claims the status of their dwellings is acknowledged by the local authorities. This was mostly generated from the possession of land-related documents and having lived there for a long time. Most landowners with land title felt secure by possessing land-related documents while most landowners without land title felt so from their length of stay.
Despite being recognised by local government, both communities still believed in the possibility of future forced eviction. In this case, public development turns out to be the most prominent reason given, followed by private development. This was felt by most landowners with land title of Menteng Dalam and by most landowners without title of Tanah Tinggi. Particularly, landowners without land title felt this due to the legal uncertainty of State land occupation. Such perception may also be affected by the strategic location of the neighbourhoods that is close to a job market (shopping centre) where Menteng Dalam is more strategically located than Tanah Tinggi. Therefore, the community of Menteng Dalam would prefer to be able to inherit or sell their properties than being safe from forced eviction for higher compensation.
174
Recalling the discussion about the extent or meaning of tenure security in Section 3.2, it lies on the terms of a degree of confidence, certainty, and ultimate protection against forced eviction (UN- HABITAT, 2008b). In addition, Angel (1982) underlined that feeling secure from forced eviction is essentially subjective: what is expected. Thus, land tenure security is very complex and problematic since it pertains to the matters of both perception and law (Payne et. al, 2009). In this thesis, the former matter is analysed from the community’s perspective while the latter is seen from the view of local authorities. Local authorities viewed tenure security from a slightly different perspective from the communities’ perspective. The local authorities viewed tenure security as a result of the possession of lawful land-related documents, particularly land title and deeds. Such documents lead to the perception of secure tenure by local authorities in that it is considered highly correlated with being protected against forced eviction. Another aspect of local government, in respect to perceived tenure security, is the zoning plan. In this case, local authorities pointed out that, in the case of eviction, conformity to zoning plan is the key and that conformity to the zoning plan may guarantee the designated use of land so that the residents can be protected against forced eviction.
However, the forced eviction in Kampung Pulo, a non-case study area, told a different story. Despite the conformity to planning, some residents were still evicted. The eviction in Kampung Pulo has shown that although a settlement is in an appropriately designated zone as stipulated in the zoning plan, eviction is still possible. This is most-likely related to the State land occupation by the communities. The land status seems to be the key to being protected against forced eviction. As discussed in Section 8.1, occupation of State land is regarded as an encroachment by local government although this kind of land occupation, referred to as ‘adverse possession’, is acknowledged by the Basic Agrarian Law (BAL). There is a different perspective over State land occupation between local government and the National Land Agency (land offices). This needs to be synchronised among them as the burgeoning forced evictions (e.g. Kampung Pulo) took place on State land.
Above all, conformity to the zoning plan and land status is essential in generating perceived tenure security which ultimately means being protected against forced eviction. In particular, land status is seen differently from the land occupational status, the way land is occupied. Land status is more about a fundamental assurance of to whom the land belongs: State land; or land with attached rights; or publicly or privately owned. The issue of land status is indeed fundamental and crucial to give legal assurance of landownership. As asserted by Krueckeberg (1995, p. 301), the central issue of a zoning plan is land use where the issue of property ownership is embodied and planning should
175 therefore accommodate this issue of -‘To whom things belong’-. Planning should thus include not only land use but also land tenure aspects.
11.1.3 What are the ‘causes’ and ‘effects’ of tenure security in urban kampung in Jakarta?
11.1.3.1 What are the ‘causes’ of tenure security in urban kampung in Jakarta?
Exploring the generating causes of tenure security in urban kampung in Jakarta, this thesis investigates whether the criteria suggested by Durand-Lasserve (2006a, p. 4), such as length of occupation, size of settlement, social cohesion, and support from non-governmental organizations, are experienced by the local residents. The thesis adds land-related document into the criteria since tenure security pertains to both de facto and de jure tenure. The NGOs were eventually excluded from the analysis since the two communities had no experience with them. Yet, the thesis conducted interviews with other NGOs serving in other areas in Jakarta, considering their long experiences dealing with slum communities The survey revealed that the communities perceived their tenure security mostly through possession of land-related documents and being legal residents with identity cards.
Land-related documents
Overall, the communities mostly perceived their tenure to be secure by having land-related documents, followed by having a strong social bond and having lived there for a long time (Figure 10-5): especially, those without title in Menteng Dalam (Figure 10-8). Regardless of tenure forms, the possession of land-related documents, not necessarily titles, turns out to be the most prominent factor in driving communities’ perception of tenure security. This was confirmed in Table 7-1 showing that, on average, as many as 62% of the surveyed households perceived they were secure by possessing land-related documents. This is also the case of kampung in Bandung (Reerink, 2011). Additionally, both communities prioritised possessing land-related documents as the main generating factor of their tenure security (Figures 7-11 and 7-12).
However, more landowners with land title in Menteng Dalam (around 90%) perceived their tenure to be secure than did those of Tanah Tinggi (around 75%) despite the fact that there are more landowners with title in Tanah Tinggi (Section 7.1). This situation may imply that the high number of landowners with land title does not necessarily increase their full perceived tenure security, but it makes them feel more recognised for the various local programs including footpath pavement, access to micro credit, and land registration. This situation is apparently different from what
176
Winayanti and Lang (2004) found in other kampung in Jakarta where government’s provision of public services generated perceived tenure security.
The landowners without title relied on documents other than the title, such as notary deeds, girik, statement letter of building ownership on State land, Dutch stamped agreement letter, property tax receipt, non-stamped agreement letter, and property purchase receipt, in descending order of security (Figure 7-11). Such documents as notary deeds, girik, and statement letter of building ownership on State land were mostly found on the ground. In fact, girik (ex-tribal rights) and garapan (occupancy rights) still exist to date (Section 3.4) as the result of the interaction between Dutch and indigenous land tenure arrangements during the colonial period (Figure 3-2).
The statement letter of building ownership on State land, in particular, appears to be the manifestation of garapan (current occupancy rights in post-colonial period). All non-title land- related documents are regarded as the base rights for land tenure upgrading. In the case of tenure upgrading, for the non-title holders, the local government, here the sub-district office, issues a land occupation letter (surat penguasaan fisik) and no dispute letter (surat tidak sengketa) to assure ‘who owns what and for how long’ on a specific piece of land. In addition to these documents, a recommendation letter for tenure upgrading on State land from the sub-district office head is also required. Such documents legitimated by the sub-district offices showed that the State-land occupant enjoys administrative recognition from local government. This condition shows the administrative dualisms, as the result of the past unification efforts of Basic Agrarian Law (BAL) described by Leaf (1994), still exists today, especially the unregistered land administered by the sub-district offices.
The thesis has used the framework of land rights from UN-HABITAT (2008a) to develop a ‘local continuum of land rights’ for the kampung of Jakarta based on the perceptions of landholders (Figure 7-9) and land law experts and local authorities (Figure 7-10). According to the two local continuums of land rights, it can be seen that several documents lie in different position in both continuums from the communities’ and land law’s perspective. One of the most prominent land- related documents is the statement letter of building ownership on State land. Despite being poorly regarded in terms of the degree of legal status (Figure 7-10), the statement letter of building ownership on State land is perceived by the communities as providing security (Figure 7-9). This indicates that this document is considered as the current garapan (occupancy rights) legitimated by the sub-district office and thereby greatly contributes to communities’ perceived tenure security. Furthermore, referring to a continuum of land rights as depicted in Figure 3-1, this garapan right represents the adverse possession due to the long occupancy on State land. This is acknowledged by
177 the BAL stating the minimum length of occupancy of 20 consecutive years. However, by the fact of forced eviction on the ground, there is a different view held by the local government on the definition of ‘adverse possession’ on State land in which the long-term occupant is not necessarily the actual landholder.
On top of land tenure status, the zoning plan is also considered as the key of the sense of protection against forced eviction, especially by local authorities. In granting types of land rights, the land offices take into account planning advice and ground check of land use to detailed zoning plan to ensure conformity of existing land use against the detailed zoning plan. This is aimed to identify the size of land free from future development plan and then determine types of land title. Granting types of land rights involves the discretion of the land office head. For instance, in Menteng Dalam, it was found that some local dwellers were granted rights of use (HP) while in Tanah Tinggi most landowners were granted rights of ownership (HM) and rights of building (HGB). This shows that the land office head has discretion in granting a specific type of land rights which is mainly based on the zoning plan.
Duration of occupation
In terms of duration of occupation, residents of both communities have lived in the neighbourhoods for more than 20 years on average. This means the length of time is longer than the defined time of 20 consecutive years and thus, if relevant, can be considered as ‘adverse possession’. In two neighbourhoods, about 71% of the residents, perceived their tenure to be secure by having lived there for a long time (Table 7-2). This is further justified by around 70% of the surveyed residents stating that length of residence mostly generated secure tenure (Table 10-1). However, according to the statistical analysis of Figure 10-5, the length of stay least generated perceived tenure security. Despite this, having lived there for a long time has contributed to perceived tenure security and this can be associated with garapan rights or adverse possession. The communities have peacefully occupied the lands for decades and the occupation was recognised within the community, even by sub-district offices. This can also mean that length of stay or occupation is reasonably viewed as the major generator of de facto land tenure security and the recognition by local authorities generated more secure feeling.
In this case, the landowners with no title were still aware of the importance of possessing land- related documents. As described in Section 7.2, one factor that may generate tenure security is that the land holder has lived there for a long time since length of stay strengthens the relationship between a person and land. The long occupancy of land should also be accompanied by a
178 supporting document recognised by the local authorities to prevent future (possible) claim by another party and leading to land dispute. With such document, local authorities, in this case the sub-district offices recognise de facto possession of land. In this regard, the sub-district offices in Jakarta have legitimated such land possession with a statement letter of land occupancy (Surat Penguasaan Fisik) and no dispute letter (Surat Tidak Sengketa).
Social cohesion
When it comes to social cohesion, both communities generally felt strong social bonds built over a long time within the neighbourhoods and despite diverse ethnicity. As discussed in Section 7.3, on average, around 70% of the surveyed households perceived their tenure security to be secure by having strong social bonds. Such strong social bonds have been built through communal activities such as general cleaning of the neighbourhoods and reciting Quran, the intensive interaction, and their closeness.
The importance of the social cohesion within the community is depicted in the priority of their perceptions (Figures 7-11 and 7-12). The two communities in fact perceived slight different priorities. The community of Menteng Dalam viewed social cohesion less important than length of stay while that of Tanah Tinggi viewed it vice versa. This condition indicates that having a strong social bond matters for secure tenure for the community of Tanah Tinggi, but not as much for the community of Menteng Dalam. This is likely because Tanah Tinggi is small in area size.
Size of settlement
In this thesis, the settlement size is represented by the two case study areas: Menteng Dalam (large size) and Tanah Tinggi (small size). As summarised in Section 10.3, the sense of being protected against forced eviction perceived by the two communities has shown a different level of outer loadings (influence): that of Tanah Tinggi is higher than that of Menteng Dalam (Figures 10-4 and 10-2 respectively). It can be inferred that the settlement size seems to be not much of an influence. Despite the fact that Tanah Tinggi is smaller in size, the community felt more secure from forced eviction. This is likely generated from the higher number of landowners with land title found in place, due to the intervention of various local authorities’ programs, especially the land registration program. The higher sense of being secure may also imply that they have stronger social bonds since the community claimed the strong social bond as the second generating factor, after land- related documents, of tenure security. Thus, it can be said that the smaller the size of the settlement, the stronger the social bonds, at least from the data here.
179
Location
As noted in Sub-section 11.1.2, a different perception about tenure security was also affected by the strategic location of the neighbourhoods where Menteng Dalam is more strategically located than Tanah Tinggi. This has led the perception of the community of Tanah Tinggi to feel less threatened from the market pressure. Menteng Dalam is surrounded by main roads and shopping centres. This spatial aspect seems to be another essential factor in affecting the way the communities sense their perceived tenure security, especially on being protected against forced eviction by the private or public sector.
11.1.3.2 What are the ‘effects’ of tenure security in urban kampung in Jakarta?
As discussed in Chapter 9, it can be inferred from the research results that housing improvement, provision of basic infrastructure and services, and access to credit are the major effects of perceived tenure security in urban kampung and that both communities perceived less social disruption and cost-associated burden, in terms of property tax. The communities of urban kampung in Jakarta are mostly experienced with such impacts.
Housing investment
Whether or not the housing improvement program of local governments is applied, both communities still invest in improving their housing, especially the majority of landowners without land title (81% and 85%, respectively) (Table 9-1) and strengthened by the majority of responses (47 and 59, respectively) in both cases considering housing investment as their first priority they are likely to do or obtain once they felt secure (Figures 9-1 and 9-2). In Tanah Tinggi, the reason behind this is most likely that they mostly benefitted from housing improvement program (locally known as kampung deret) as Table 9-3 infers and that housing investment was not influenced by perceived tenure security. Prior to the housing improvement program, they also benefitted from the land registration program called PRONA. This is likely to be the reason why the local government has intervened in this neighbourhood with various programs. The local government of Jakarta apparently follows de Soto’s claim (2000) in which land title is considered as the pre-requisite of housing investment program.
On the other hand, the community of Menteng Dalam have not benefitted from any government housing improvement program. However, they still invested in their houses using their own funding. This was confirmed by around 85% of the surveyed residents saying that they would most likely invest in housing, especially those without title (Appendix F). This goes along with the
180 studies conducted in urban kampung by Adianto et al (2016) in Jakarta, Reerink and van Gelder (2010) in Bandung, and Winayanti and Lang (2004) in Jakarta. The reason for that is the intention for descendants to inherit their assets (Table 9-2). This implies that passing on the lands and houses to the next generation in fact is far more significant than the development of a capitalist land and property market, as suggested by de Soto (2000), in encouraging housing investment. Perceived tenure security is indeed adequate to stimulate housing investment, as suggested by van Gelder (2009), as it is in Menteng Dalam. Above all, the findings show that title is not the sole generator for housing investment. The community of Menteng Dalam had proved this and this was influenced by the intention of inheritance.
Provision of basic services and infrastructure
In terms of provision of basic infrastructure and services, both communities mostly perceived that they would gain access to basic infrastructure and services. However, the proportion is slightly different between the two neighbourhoods: that of Tanah Tinggi (around 80%) is higher than that of Menteng Dalam (65%), (Table 9-6), although both communities continuously obtain access to pavement improvement every year (‘MHT’ program-footpath pavement). This may confirm that the neighbourhoods are located in a properly designated use of land - residential area (Figures 6-3 and 6-8 for Menteng Dalam and Tanah Tinggi, respectively). This fact shows that such provision by local government clearly does not consider land tenure status, especially land title. Instead this is a case of the obligation of local government to give incentives to any development that conforms to zoning plan as mandated in Government Regulation of Implementation of Zoning Plan Number 15/2010 (Indonesia Government, 2010). This clarity of the provision of infrastructure and services in urban kampung in Jakarta addresses the issue noted by Payne (2009) stating that whether titling encourages the provision of basic services and infrastructure is unclear – in the Jakarta case, basic provision is required by law whatever the titling situation.
However, the lesser number of the surveyed community in Menteng Dalam who felt less convinced in terms of access to infrastructure was influenced by the development plan of inspection road along the river. The development affected the residents living along the planned road. They might feel threatened by such a development plan. As shown in Table 9-7, it was found that the intention to pass on their properties influenced the community of Menteng Dalam to gain access to services and infrastructure, but this was not the case of the community of Tanah Tinggi. This may imply that the community of Tanah Tinggi seems to be convinced with the access to infrastructure regularly provided by local government. Above all, regardless of land tenure forms, both communities enjoyed gaining access to infrastructure and services provided by the local government such as foot
181 path pavement and garbage pick-up services since such basic provision is actually required by law. This is not the case mentioned by UN-HABITAT (2016b, p.1) in that informal settlement and slums lack, or are cut off from, basic services and infrastructure.
Access to credit
When it comes to access to credit, both communities felt they were unable to gain access to formal bank credit (Table 9-11 and Appendix F). This perception was probably because they had benefitted from the micro credit program provided by local government. In the sense of access to credit, the community of Menteng Dalam perceived that the ability to inherit land generated the sense of access to credit (Table 9-12) while for the community of Tanah Tinggi, the possibility to sell land generated the sense of access to credit (Table 9-13). These different perceptions may imply their different priorities or scale of business in respect to credit, particularly the business they have run. Moreover, the greater sense of doing business of Tanah Tinggi community was probably more affected by their strategic location close to the traditional shopping centre (i.e. Pasar Senen) so they run bigger business there. Meanwhile, for the community of Menteng Dalam, they mostly run the small business in their houses (i.e. warung, toko - home shops). The assumption that title improves access to formal credit was not supported by the two case studies. Particularly, the majority of landowners with title seemed to be reluctant to borrow money from banks. Realizing the potential loss of their assets, the community intended to pass on their assets to the future generations as for Menteng Dalam community.
All in all, both communities felt happy and satisfied with the micro credit program provided by local government with the low interest and no mortgage required, for running their small enterprises. In contrast, they avoided the high interest charges and mortgage requirements offered by the commercial banks. This condition has shown that titling does not necessarily lead to improved access to formal credit as argued by van Gelder (2009) in that the landowners with title, especially in Menteng Dalam, prefer to avoid the commercial banks due to the high interest and the potential loss of their only assets. The issue of bad debt has been a concern for several scholars (e.g. Goldfinch, 2015 and Payne, 2001b) where the communities may get involved in it even lose their assets, if they get credit from the formal institution. In this case, Jakarta local government has implemented micro credit program in such a flexible mechanism so it lessens the burden on the urban poor as suggested by Payne (2009) and Gilbert (2002). Despite this, there were still a few of them who borrowed money from the banks for upgrading their scale of business and thus experiencing bad debts.
182
Social disruption
In terms of social disruption effects, both communities mostly felt no social disruption in their neighbourhoods. This thesis research found that social disruption has a correlation with access to credit in that the community who experiences with a non-performing loan would lose their assets and move out. For the community of Menteng Dalam, residents did not experience with the bad debt issue with the commercial bank that may ultimately lead to moving out from the neighbourhood. Instead, the issue of non-performing loan was actually experienced by the community of Tanah Tinggi where there are more landowners with land titles benefitted from land registration program (PRONA) and a few of them borrowed money from the commercial bank. This was influenced by the perceived tenure security of being able to sell land (Table 9-16). Consequently, they had to sell the properties and moved out of the area. This is actually the argument of Payne (2001b) and Doebele (1987) that land titling may lead to a large number of homeless people. Subsequently, at the end, instead of increasing land tenure security, land titling may actually decrease, or even diminish, tenure security, especially for those with newly titled land (Payne et al, 2009). In sum, local authorities should take this issue into account beforehand, especially the land offices, when they grant land rights; in order to sustain the new land title holders for a long term goal, a restriction to sell out the properties for a certain time is to be considered. This may prevent social disruption as underlined by Payne (2005) where the provision of individual title may lead to the sale of the properties and the beneficiaries expect to experience again with the same benefit.
When it comes to social disruption due to market pressure, this has been experienced by the Menteng Dalam community (Section 8.2). Realising the more prime location, the residents prefer to sell their properties to the highest buyer: private sector. This condition justifies the conclusion in Sub-section 11.1.3 about location where this spatial aspect becomes another cause of perceived tenure security.
Cost-associated burden
The communities in both locations mostly felt that property-associated costs have never been an issue - in this case property tax (Table 9-17). As shown in Table 9-18, the perception of the community of Menteng Dalam, was driven by the sense of being able to inherit land while, as seen in Table 9-19, the community of Tanah Tinggi felt that there is no correlation between tenure security and cost-associated burden. Speaking of inheritance in relation to tax, as concerning the Menteng Dalam community, inheritance of properties is basically subject to the tax of land and building rights (BPHTB). However, in the case of Jakarta, the local government has nullified the tax 183
(Jakarta Government, 2016). The issue addressed by Sjaastad and Cousins (2009), Payne (2001b), and Doebele (1987) stating that the increase of property tax resulted from the newly titled land will burden the urban poor is tackled by the local taxation policy. Jakarta Government (2015) waives the property tax (Section 9.6). In sum, Jakarta local government, in the case property-related tax, has lessened the burden of the urban poor. Both legal security and perceptions of security (which impact on tenure security) are influenced by a number of factors in addition to tenure, such as government policies and programs.
11.1.4 To what extent, do the ‘effects’ of tenure security act reciprocally to further improve tenure security?
The thesis hypothesised a novel relationship between the outcomes of tenure security and tenure security itself. It hypothesises a possible reciprocal relationship between the ‘effects’ of tenure security and extent of tenure security, notably protection against forced eviction, as shown in the conceptual framework (Figure 4-1). This relationship was found to exist.
Firstly, the two communities mostly invested in housing (Table 9-1) and this, in turn, influenced the sense of being protected against forced eviction (Tables 9-4 and 9-5). As discussed in Section 9.1, there is a reciprocal relationship between the housing investment and the perceived tenure security occurs in Menteng Dalam and Tanah Tinggi. Interestingly, however, such perception of Menteng Dalam (Table 9-4) is greater than that of Tanah Tinggi: 60% of the respondents in Menteng Dalam felt so (dominated by landowners without title (66%) and 45 responses of it felt secure from forced eviction. Given the fact that only the community of Tanah Tinggi benefitted from the housing improvement program by local government, this condition implies that the intervention by local government in housing investment does not necessarily improve perceived tenure security.
Secondly, Menteng Dalam community felt secure from forced eviction by gaining access to basic infrastructure and services while Tanah Tinggi community felt otherwise (Tables 9-9 and 9-10, respectively). The latter happens because they felt it is a kind of recognition. Unlike the housing improvement program, this program appears to be implemented without a requirement of land tenure status. Instead, it is required by law as mandated in Government Regulation of Implementation of Zoning Plan Number 15/2010 (Indonesia Government, 2010) that provision of basic infrastructure and services is given to support the use of land that conforms to the zoning plan. In this case, such provision is one of the incentives provided by the Government and/or local
184 government in controlling the use of land stipulated in the zoning plan so that any development goes along with the zoning plan.
Lastly, when it comes to access to credit, few residents of the two communities responded to whether access to credit leads to perceived tenure security. It can be inferred that the communities felt that access to credit has been irrelevant with tenure security. This is likely because they both have benefitted from the micro credit program and this made them feel more recognised instead of being safe from forced eviction.
In sum, housing investment and access to basic infrastructure and services seems to contribute to the way the communities perceive their tenure to be secured. However, the intervention by local government with their respective programs does not necessarily lead to improved tenure security as in Tanah Tinggi; instead, self-finance housing investment does as in Menteng Dalam.
11.2 Policy Recommendations
As concluded in the previous sub-sections, the possession of land-related documents turns out to be the most prominent factor in driving communities’ perception of tenure security and this significantly generates the perceived tenure security as being safe from forced eviction. Moreover, recognition from local government was felt inadequate to ensure the existing land tenure arrangement, especially by those who do not possess land titles. As seen in Figures 7-5 and 7-6, they mostly hold occupancy letter in form of statement letter of building ownership on State land from sub-district offices, and ex-tribal tax letter (girik). As perceived by the communities and local authorities through the local continuum of land rights (Figures 7-9 and 7-10), land title gives the greatest tenure security, followed by notary deeds. In the sense of perceived tenure security, the communities expect the ultimate protection against forced eviction and possibility or ability to inherit the properties (Table 10-4). This condition implies that, having lived there for a long time, the communities prefer to stay in the current neighbourhoods for the reason of the sustainable livelihood with the family. Therefore, they struggle against forced eviction which would break their current family living close to the job market.
185
Land tenure arrangement
Tenure status is a fundamental issue of slums in Jakarta, but it is not included in the local definition by local authorities (i.e. BPS Jakarta 2013). Thus, it is recommended that identifying a slum neighbourhood needs to take tenure status into account in the local definition.The forced eviction in Kampung Pulo (Jakarta Post, 2015) has shown that the certainty of land tenure status is highly crucial, besides the zoning plan, in ensuring the existence of the settlement in the sense of protection against forced eviction.
Furthermore, there is a different view over State land by the local government (Section 8.1). The peaceful occupation of a piece of land for at least 20 consecutive years is acknowledged under BAL and this tenure, in fact, exists across urban kampung in Jakarta, in the past locally known as garapan. Most urban kampung dwellers in Jakarta reside on State land and thereby hold mostly non-title documents. Such non-title documents are regarded as base land rights (alas hak) referring to land status whether it is State or adat (ex-tribal) land. In this case, to date, past dualism in land (administrative) records, as a result of past effort of BAL to unify land tenure arrangement, still exist: registered land by land offices and unregistered land by local government (sub-district offices). It is recommended that land tenure arrangement should be managed by one institution, a land office that has function to deal with land affairs, both registered and unregistered land, throughout Indonesia. This has become one of the concerns noted by Farvaque and McAuslan (1992), McAuslan (2000), and Sivam (2002) about poor land management system leading to tenure insecurity. Furthermore, the different perspective of State land occupation should be synchronised among stakeholders so that any claim over State land occupation can be more clarified and acknowledged; particularly, this long-occupancy of land needs to be recognised by local authorities (Jones, 2016b). Hence, the predominant garapan (occupancy) rights on State land need to be recorded and legitimated by National Land Agency as it turns out to be the prerequisite of tenure upgrading.
Land tenure regularization
As suggested by van Gelder (2009), tenure regularization or formalization may have different impacts depending on the context and thus any intervention should carefully consider this context. Formalization may end up with speculation leading to the loss of the new title land. This has been the concerns of scholars (e.g. Payne et. al, 2009; van Gelder, 2009) in which formalization could
186 diminish tenure security instead of increasing it. Should there be an approach to tackle the issue of tenure security, the approach lies on the local government’s will as suggested by Durand-Lasserve & Selod (2009). More importantly, the approach should then consider the local knowledge: social values and norms (Durand-Lasserve, 2006; Durand-Lasserve & Selod, 2009; Deininger, 2010). Such local government’s will can be represented in the integration of informal with formal system through formal regularization (direct formalization-title-based) or social-economic integration of informal system (indirect tenure formalization-rights-based) as described by Durand-Lasserve (2006) (Section 4.3). Experiences have suggested to enchance tenure security by providing legal assurance to occupancy rights to mitigate the potential negative impacts of formalization (van Gelder, 2009; Durrand-Lasserve, 2006; Payne, 2001). Bearing this in mind, it is recommended that rights-based (indirect formalization) approach shoud be implemented to mitigate such potential negative impacts of formalization. Nonetheless, given the fact that land titles gives the greatest tenure security as viewed by the communities and by academics or by local authorities (Figures 7-9 and 7-10), individual titling, thus, can be regarded as a long-term objective (Durrand-Laserve, 2006). In addition to this, given the fact that full ownership (title) is not necessarily leading to the sense of being safe from forced eviction and the residents felt that future forced eviction is possible (Section 8.1), declaration (guarantee) by local government that they will not be forcibly evicted is considered important to give assurance of their existence, as suggested by Payne (1997). This aligns with the New Urban Agenda point 107 by UN (2017, p. 27) stating that the development of policies is to prevent arbitrary forced eviction.
Along with it, as Nakamura (2016) and Payne (2001) suggested, legal assurance of occupancy rights could be integrated into the long term titling program and more importantly the economic betterment and sustainability (Payne, 2005; Bromley, 2008; Tunas & Peresthu, 2010; Jones, 2012) considering the local continuum of land rights and the livelihood of the urban poor (Payne & Majele, 2004; UN-HABITAT, 2004). The local authorities are to recognise and acknowledge the occupancy rights on State land (garapan). This is done by incrementally upgrading the tenure into intermediate tenure along the local continuum of land rights (Payne, 1997). In the local context, such intermediate tenure is manifested in deeds by either notary or sub-district offices, in form of (enhanced) statement letter of building ownership on State land (Figure 7-10), may give more legal assurance on this predominant State land occcupancy. Whilst keeping the communities’ existence in the current place, their livelihood may also gradually improve along with the long-term titling program. Consequently, this may minimise land and property market distortion (Durand-Lasserve, A., & Royston, L, 2002).
187
At the end, in the context of long-term titling, the potential loss of newly titled landholders in the current location is crucial to be considered. To ensure their existence in the current place, it is recommended that a restriction to sell the newly titled properties for a certain time should be applied to prevent a possibility of sale and thereby maintaining the existence of the urban poor in the future. The residents should then be granted provisional individual titles. This tenure type is subject to certain conditions known as delayed (provisional) freehold (Sub-section 3.1).
As an initial step of rights-based approach, local government and the National Land Agency (land offices) identify, examine and clarify the land status, the existing tenure forms, across urban kampung in Jakarta before implementing land registration program from the lowest level of administrative units (sub-district). This also involves active participation of the communities in land status inventory including the real landholders and the boundaries. This inclusive (participatory) planning approach starts with fit-for-purpose mapping where the community themselves identify and delineate their lands along with the provision of land-related documentations. This inclusive approach could have project design implications as the first step in land tenure regularization through indirect formalisation (incremental approach). Next step would be developing inclusive land information system to identify areas in need of tenure regularization (e.g. slums) (UN- HABITAT, 2008b). This aims to determine priority areas for provision of secure tenure. These steps are considered crucial to develop inclusive and accountable land registration using basic land inventory information such as cadastre as suggested by UN (2017) point 104 in the New Urban Agenda.
Inclusive planning and pro-poor land policy
The urban land development policy in the global south encounters inappropriate use of land resources, inflexible land regulatory and legal frameworks, poorly coordinated land management institutions, inappropriate land pricing and taxation, inadequate land information and the lack of secure tenure (Farvaque and McAuslan, 1992; McAuslan, 2000; Sivam, 2002). Rakodi (1996) has suggested that the state should then intervene in urban land development policy including land tenure (property rights), land-use planning and regulations, and land taxation. Krueckeberg (1995, p. 301) has suggested that the issue of property ownership should be embodied in planning. It is recommended that any land tenure form should be considered in designating a zoning plan across Indonesia. In other words, a zoning plan should reflect what has existed on the ground and thereby avoiding arbitrary forced eviction. This is in line with the New Urban Agenda point 111 stating that planning regulation is to combat and prevent arbitrary forced eviction (UN, 2017, p. 28). In this case, public need would be met and maintained and public resistance that may occur would be 188 avoided. In this regard, despite the current forced evictions, Jakarta local government has put their concerns about the provision of decent housing for urban poor and their livelihoods. They apply inclusive planning where slum areas are explicitly included in the zoning plan of ‘R8’, namely Rumah Susun Umum (literally General Social Housing).
In the context of land policy, particularly land taxation, Jakarta local government lessens the burden of the urban poor by waiving the property tax (PBB), and land and building rights tax (BPHTB) due to land transfer or first-time land registration. This is in fact the key to minimise or even remove the unexpected outcome of titling in terms of cost-associated burden for the urban poor. Yet, particularly the waiver of BPHTB may encourage the beneficiaries of title program to sell the newly title land and redo the same process as concerned by Payne (2005). It is recommended that waive of property rights tax (BPHTB) for first-time land registration should be applied throughout Indonesia not only to ease access of urban poor to land and housing, but also to keep registered land record.
Pro-poor land management tool
Concerns about the decreasing affordability of land for urban low-cost housing (Koppel, 1993) and effective use of urban land (Doebele, 1987) remain in question. Locally, Jakarta local government has addressed this issue by implementing housing improvement program (kampung deret), despite the fact the program does not necessarily lead to improved tenure security. Recalling the New Urban Agenda point 97 by UN (2017, p. 24) about slum and informal settlement upgrading through integrated and participatory approaches involving all relevant stakeholders and inhabitants, the thesis ponders about what can be further done to realise improved tenure security as well as providing more access to land and housing for the urban poor. Similarly, Jones (2016) suggests that a bottom-up approach is needed to accommodate the housing needs of kampung dwellers. A notion of ‘twin-track’ approach is then suggested by (Payne, 2005; UN-HABITAT, 2004; UN-HABITAT, 2008b), where the goal is not only improving tenure security, but also the provision of more accessible and affordable housing for the urban poor in the future.
As suggested by local land law experts and planners, land readjustment, locally known as land consolidation, can be a potential alternative and solution to improve the existing living conditions of kampung and to ensure the sustainability of the communities in the current neighbourhoods. The underlying principle of land readjustment is that it is a bottom-up approach that requires cooperation among landowners, resulting in sharing of costs and benefits. This active participatory approach is urgently needed where demand for land is high but supply of land is low, as it is in
189
Jakarta (Supriatna & van der Molen, 2014). Land readjustment is a multipurpose tool that can provide a number of benefits in urban development, including: land assembly or consolidation for development sites; land acquisition for public purposes; construction of transport infrastructure; zoning plan implementation; equitable sharing of costs and benefits; land title registration; and timely land development (Archer, 1994). It makes way for a planned development (UN-ESCAP, 1995). Likewise, UN-HABITAT (2008c) underlined that land readjustment can be used as an alternative strategic way to provide land and housing for urban poor on the same site as their current residence. Moreover, Hong and Needham (2007) asserted that land readjustment has the potential to create win–win situations for both local communities and local government. In the long run, land readjustment may realise not only adequate housing but also improves tenure security, and the sustainable livelihood of the urban poor on the same site is maintained.
190
11.3 Further Research
This thesis aimed at investigating the perceived tenure security from the perspective of the communities and local government. A theoretical framework was developed in form of a linear relationship among these criteria: the ‘causes’, the extent, and the ‘effects’ of land tenure security. More importantly, the possible reciprocal relationship was analysed to give additional contribution. However, this thesis does not cover all areas on land tenure security and thus recommends several potential issues for further research, as follows:
1. Given the importance of the theoretical framework developed for this thesis and its critical importance to the research undertaken, it would be useful to apply it to other urban kampung areas in Indonesia, or even in other developing country contexts.
2. A research to further investigate the legal degree of each land tenure form in the local continuum of land rights is crucial as it may affect the decision of forced eviction in the future.
3. Land tenure arrangements vary throughout Indonesian cities with their different characteristics and complexity. Further research could be a comparative study among different regions (or kampung type) on land tenure security issues in accordance to its typical local knowledge. The study might result in different insights and approaches to tackle this issue.
4. Government has intervened to improve the condition of slums in Jakarta with its various programs. Particularly, the programs pertaining to land tenure issues (e.g. kampung deret- literally row kampung) require further investigation of their outcomes and efficacy, when it comes to perceived tenure security.
5. Indonesia has implemented land registration program (e.g. PRONA) with land title provision. Yet, this needs to be further investigated, especially in terms of the outcomes and sustainable existence of the beneficiaries and whether they still live in the current place or not.
6. Considering the scarce urban land, the provision of decent (social) housing for urban poor may embark on the development of vertical housing. Prior to that, a research which study the socio- culture and economic dimension of the poor is considerably essential as they ultimately could be placed in a new structure, different from the current longstanding situation, as well as with the trade-off of landed properties to strata units.
191
REFERENCES
Acedo, F. J., & Jones, M. V. (2007). Speed of internationalization and entrepreneurial cognition: Insights and a comparison between international new ventures, exporters and domestic firms. Journal of World Business, 42(3), 236-252.
Adianto, J., Okabe, A., Ellisa, E., & Shima, N. (2016). The Tenure Security and Its Implication to Self-Help Housing Improvements in the Urban Kampong: The Case of Kampong Cikini, Jakarta. Urban and Regional Planning Review, 3, 50-65.
Agamben, G. (1998). Homo sacer: Sovereign power and bare life. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Angel, S. (1982). Land tenure for the urban poor: Human Settlements Division, Asian Institute of Technology.
Archer, D. (2012). Baan Mankong participatory slum upgrading in Bangkok, Thailand: Community perceptions of outcomes and security of tenure. Habitat International, 36(1), 178-184.
Archer, R. W. (1994). Urban land consolidation for metropolitan Jakarta expansion, 1990-2010. Habitat International, 18(4), 37-52. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0197-3975(94)90016-7.
Archer, R. W. (1990). An outline urban land policy for the developing countries of Asia: Urban Land Program, Human Settlements Division, Asian Institute of Technology.
Augustinus, C. (2003). Handbook on best practices, security of tenure, and access to land: implementation of the Habitat Agenda: UN-Habitat.
BAPPENAS. (2012). Report On the Achievement of Millennium Development Goals in Indonesia 2011. Jakarta: Ministry of National Development Planning/ National Development Planning Agency (Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional).
Bayat, A., & Denis, E. (2000). Who is afraid of ashwaiyyat? Urban change and politics in Egypt. Environment and Urbanization, 12(2), 185-199.
Bazoglu, N et. al. (2011). Monitoring Security of Tenure in Cities: People, Land, and Policies: United Nations Human Settlements Programme.
Benjamin, S., Arifin, M. A., & Sarjana, F. P. (1985). The housing costs of low-income kampung dwellers: A study of product and process in Indonesian cities. Habitat International, 9(1), 91- 110. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0197-3975(85)90036-0
192
Berner, E. (2001). Learning from informal markets: Innovative approaches to land and housing provision. Development in Practice, 11(2-3), 292-307. doi: 10.1080/09614520120056423
Boone, H. N., & Boone, D. A. (2012). Analysing likert data. Journal of extension, 50(2), 1-5.
Boonyabancha, S. (2009). Land for housing the poor—by the poor: experiences from the Baan Mankong nationwide slum upgrading programme in Thailand. Environment and Urbanization, 21(2), 309-329.
BPN. (2017). Land book data of Jakarta Province by Sub-districts (updated 2017). Jakarta: Ministry of Agrarian and Spatial Planning/ National Land Agency (Kementrian Agraria dan Tata Ruang ATR/BPN).
BPS Pusat. (2011). Susenas (Survei Sosial Ekonomi Nasional) (National socio-economic survey). Jakarta: Badan Pusat Statistik Indonesia.
BPS Jakarta. (2013). Evaluasi Rukun Warga (RW) Kumuh (Evaluation of slum neighbourhoods). Jakarta: Badan Pusat Statistik Indonesia.
Brennan, E. M. (1993). Urban land and housing issues facing the Third World.
Bromley, D. W. (2008). Formalising property relations in the developing world: The wrong prescription for the wrong malady. Land Use Policy, 26(1), 20-27. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.02.003.
Chin, W.W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equa•tion modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295-358). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cybriwsky, R., & Ford, L. R. (2001). City profile: Jakarta. Cities, 18(3), 199-210. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0264-2751(01)00004-X.
Dale, P. F., & McLaughlin, J. D. (1988). Land information management: an introduction with special reference to cadastral problems in Third World countries. de Soto, H. (2000). The mystery of capital: Why capitalism triumphs in the West and fails everywhere else. United Kingdom: Basic Books, New York.
Deininger, K. W. (2010). Innovations in Land Rights Recognition, Administration, and Governance: World Bank.
Dirman. (1958). Perundang-undangan agraria di seluruh Indonesia (Agrarian laws for all of Indonesia). Jakarta: J.B. Wolters.
193
Doebele, W. A. (1987). Land policy. Shelter, settlement and development, 110-132.
Doebele, W. A. (1994). Urban Land and Macro Economic Development: Moving from “access for the poor” to urban productivity. In G. Jones and P. M. Ward, eds. Methodology for Land and Housing Market Analysis. London University College Press.
Dowall, D. E., & Leaf, M. (1991). The Price of Land for Housing in Jakarta. Urban Studies, 28(5), 707-722. doi: 10.1080/00420989120080881
Dowall, D. E., Clarke, G., & mondiale, B. (1996). A framework for reforming urban land policies in developing countries: World Bank Washington, DC.
Durand-Lasserve, A. (2006a). Informal settlements and the Millennium Development Goals: global policy debates on property ownership and security of tenure. Global Urban Development, 2(1), 1-15.
Durand-Lasserve, A. (2006b). Market-driven evictions and displacements: Implications for the perpetuation of informal. Informal Settlements: A Perpetual Challenge? 207.
Durand-Lasserve, A., & Royston, L. (Eds.). (2002). Holding their ground: Secure land tenure for the urban poor in developing countries. Earthscan.
Durand-Lasserve, A., & Selod, H. (2009). The formalization of urban land tenure in developing countries. Urban land markets: improving land management for successful urbanization, 101- 132.
FAO. (2002). Land Tenure and Rural Development. Retrieved from Roma: ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y4307e/y4307e00.pdf
Farvacque, C., & McAuslan, P. (1992). Reforming urban land policies and institutions in developing countries (Vol. 5): World Bank Publications.
Fekade, W. (2000). Deficits of formal urban land management and informal responses under rapid urban growth, an international perspective. Habitat International, 24(2), 127-150. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0197-3975(99)00034-X.
Firman, T. (2004). Major issues in Indonesia's urban land development. Land Use Policy, 21(4), 347-355. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2003.04.002.
Firman, T. (1999). From `global city’ to `city of crisis': Jakarta metropolitan region under economic turmoil. Habitat International, 23(4), 447-466. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0197- 3975(99)00020-X.
194
Fitzpatrick, D. (1997). "Disputes and pluralism in modern Indonesian land law."Yale J. Int'l L. 22: 171.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative inquiry, 12(2), 219-245. Chicago.
Ford, L. R. (1993). A model of Indonesian city structure. Geographical Review, 374-396.
Gautama, S., & Harsono, B. (1972). Agrarian Law. Bandung: Universitas Padjajaran, Bandung.
Gefen, D., Straub, D., & Boudreau, M.-C. (2000). Structural equation modeling and regression: Guidelines for research practice. Communications of the association for information systems, 4(1), 7.
Gilbert, A. (2002). On the mystery of capital and the myths of Hernando de Soto: What difference does legal title make? International Development Planning Review, 24(1), 1-19.
Gilbert, A. (1990). The costs and benefits of illegality and irregularity in the supply of land. The Transformation of Land Supply Systems in Third World Cities. Aldershot, UK: Avebury.
GLTN (2017). GLTN's Civil Society Organizations urban cluster Regional Learning Exchange: Strengthening land tenure security for urban poverty reduction in Asia-Pacific. November 7-8, 2017, Bayview Park Hotel, Manila.
GLTN (2015). Securing land and property rights for all: Property theory methapor and the continuum of land rights. Report 8, 2017, Kenya.
Goldfinch, S. (2015). Property rights and the mystery of capital: A review of de Soto’s simplistic solution to development. Progress in Development Studies, 15(1), 87-96. doi: 10.1177/1464993414546971.
Green, D. H., & Ryans, A. B. (1990). Entry strategies and market performance causal modeling of a business simulation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 7(1), 45-58.
Hair Jr, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): Sage Publications.
Harjoko, T.Y. (2004), ‘“Penggusuran” or eviction in Jakarta’, 15th Biennial Conference of Asian Studies Association, Canberra.
Harsono, B. (1981). Hukum Agraria Indonesia: Djambatan.
Harvey, D. (2003). The right to the city. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27(4), 939-941. doi: 10.1111/j.0309-1317.2003.00492.x
195
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. Advances in International Marketing (AIM), 20, 277-320.
Henseler, J., Dijkstra, T. K., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Diamantopoulos, A., Straub, D. W., Calantone, R. J. (2014). Common Beliefs and Reality About PLS: Comments on Rönkkö and Evermann (2013). Organizational Research Methods, 17(2), 182-209. doi:10.1177/1094428114526928
Hoffman, M., & Marbun, T. M. H. (1990). Unregistered land rights: their role in improving housing quality: Urban Institute.
Hogg, R. V., Tanis, E., & Zimmerman, D. (2014). Probability and statistical inference: Pearson Higher Ed.
Hong, Y.-H., and Needham, B. (2007), Analyzing Land Readjustment, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, MA.
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Articles, 2.
Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (2004). Applied Logistic Regression: Wiley.
Hu, L. t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118.
Indonesia Government. (2011). Undang-Undang Perumahan dan Kawasan Permukiman Nomor 1 Tahun 2011 (Act of Housing and Residential area). Jakarta: Government of Indonesia.
Indonesia Government. (2010). Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 15 Tahun 2010 tentang Penyelenggaraan Tata Ruang (Government Regulation of Implementation of Zoning Plan). Jakarta: Government of Indonesia.
Jakarta Government (1989). Keputusan Gubernur Nomor 1227 Tahun 1989 tentang Pemecahan, penyatuan, penetapan batas, perubahan nama kelurahan yang kembar/sama dan penetapan luas wilayah kelurahan di daerah khusus ibukota Jakarta (Governor Decree of sub-division, merge, limit stipulation, name change, and area stipulation of sub-district across Jakarta region). Jakarta: Jakarta Government.
Jakarta Government. (2014). Peraturan Daerah Nomor 1 Tahun 2014 tentang Rencana Detil Tata Ruang dan Peraturan Zonasi (Local Regulation of detailed zoning plan). Jakarta: Jakarta Government.
196
Jakarta Government. (2015). Peraturan Gubernur Nomor 259 Tahun 2015 tentang Pembebasan Pajak Bumi dan Bangunan Perdesaan dan Perkotaan atas Rumah, Rumah Susun Sederhana Sewa, Rumah Susun Sederhana Milik dengan Nilai Jual Obyek Pajak sampai dengan Rp. 1.000.000.000 (Satu Miliar Rupiah) (Governor Regulation of waiver of property tax in urban and rural area for landed house, rental vertical housing, owned vertical house with tax value up to one billion rupiah). Jakarta: Jakarta Government.
Jakarta Government. (2016). Peraturan Gubernur Nomor 193 Tahun 2016 tentang Pembebasan 100% (Seratus Persen) atas Bea Perolehan Hak atas Tanah dan Bangunan karena Jual Beli atau Pemberian Hak Baru Pertama Kali dan/atau Pengenaan sebesar 0% Bea Perolehan Hak atas Tanah dan Bangunan karena Peristiwa Waris atau Hibah Wasiat dengan Nilai Jual Obyek Pajak sampai dengan Rp. 2.000.000.000 (Dua Miliar Rupiah) (Governor Regulation of waiver of land and building rights tax for sale or first-time land registration, inheritance, and grant inheritance with tax value up to two billion rupiah). Jakarta: Jakarta Government.
Jakarta Housing and Building Agency. (2013). Peta RW kumuh berdasarkan kecamatan (Slum neighbourhood map by districts). Jakarta: Jakarta Government.
Jakarta Post (2015). ‘Violent eviction of poor in kampung pulo’, 20 August.
Jellinek, L. (1991), The Wheel of Fortune: The History of a Poor Community, Allen & Unwin Pub- lishers, Crows Nest, NSW.
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26. doi: 10.3102/0013189x033007014.
Jones, P. (2017). Formalizing the Informal: Understanding the Position of Informal Settlements and Slums in Sustainable Urbanization Policies and Strategies in Bandung, Indonesia. Sustainability, 9(8), 1436.
Jones, P. (2016a). Informal urbanism as a product of socio-cultural expression: Insights from the Island Pacific Dynamics and Resilience of Informal Areas (pp. 165-181): Springer.
Jones, P. (2016b). Unpacking Informal Urbanism: Urban Planning and Design Education in Practice. Bandung: ITB University Press.
Jones, P. (2012). Searching for a little bit of utopia – understanding the growth of squatter and informal settlements in Pacific towns and cities. Australian Planner, 49(4), 327-338. doi:10.1080/07293682.2011.626565.
197
Julien, P. A., & Ramangalahy, C. (2003). Competitive strategy and performance of exporting SMEs: An empirical investigation of the impact of their export information search and competencies. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27(3), 227-245.
Kombe, W. J., & Kreibich, V. (2000). Reconciling informal and formal land management:: an agenda for improving tenure security and urban governance in poor countries. Habitat International, 24(2), 231-240.
Koppel, B. (1993). Land policy problems in East Asia: understanding the past and moving toward new choices. Land policy problems in East Asia: toward new choices. A comparative study of Japan, Korea and Taiwan. B. Koppel and DY Kim (eds.). East West Center and Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements, Honolulu, 3-47.
Krueckeberg, D. A. (1995). The difficult character of property: to whom do things belong? Journal of the American Planning Association, 61(3), 301-309.
Leaf, M. (1994). Legal Authority in an Extralegal Setting: The Case of Land Rights in Jakarta, Indonesia. Journal of planning education and research, 14(1), 12-18. doi: 10.1177/0739456x9401400102.
Leaf, M. (1993). Land rights for residential development in Jakarta, Indonesia: the colonial roots of contemporary urban dualism. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 17(4), 477-491.
Leaf, M. (1991). Land regulation and housing development in Jakarta, Indonesia: From the "Big Village" to the "Modern City". (PhD dissertation), University of California, Berkeley.
Lee, D. Y. (2001). Power, conflict and satisfaction in IJV supplier—Chinese distributor channels. Journal of Business Research, 52(2), 149-160.
Lee, M. (1996). The evolution of housing finance in Indonesia: Innovative responses to opportunities. Habitat International, 20(4), 583-594. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0197- 3975(96)00030-6.
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of psychology.
Marshall, M. N. (1996). Sampling for qualitative research. Family Practice, 13(6), 522-526. doi: 10.1093/fampra/13.6.522.
Marx, B., Stoker, T., & Suri, T. (2013). The economics of slums in the developing world. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27(4), 187-210.
Mattingly, M. (1993). Urban management intervention in land markets.
198
McAuslan, P. (2000). The global imperative of land reform: the legal and institutional element. Paper presented at the International Conference on Land Policy, Jakarta, Indonesia.
McAuslan, P. (1985). Urban land and shelter for the poor. International Institute for the Environment and Development, Washington, DC.
McCarthy, P. (2003). Understanding Slums: Case Studies for the Global Report on Human Settlements 2003: Jakarta, Indonesia. Nairobi: United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat).
McKinsey Global Institute (2014). A blueprint for addressing the global affordable housing challenge.
Menard, S. (2010). Logistic Regression: From Introductory to Advanced Concepts and Applications: SAGE Publications.
Nakamura, S. (2016). Does slum formalisation without title provision stimulate housing improvement? A case of slum declaration in Pune, India. Urban Studies, 54(7), 1715-1735. doi:doi:10.1177/0042098016632433.
Obermayr, C. (2013). Sustainable city management in Surakarta (Indonesia). Dealing with informal settlements an example for ‘Good Governance.
Payne, G. (2005). Getting ahead of the game: A twin-track approach to improving existing slums and reducing the need for future slums. Environment and Urbanization, 17(1), 135-146. doi: 10.1177/095624780501700114.
Payne, G. (2002). Land, rights and innovation: Improving tenure security for the urban poor: ITDG publishing.
Payne, G. (2001a). The impact of regulation on the livelihoods of the poor.
Payne, G. (2001b). Urban land tenure policy options: titles or rights? Habitat International, 25(3), 415-429. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0197-3975(01)00014-5.
Payne, G. (1997). Urban land tenure and property rights in developing countries: a review. London: IT Publications.
Payne, G., Durand-Lasserve, A., & Rakodi, C. (2009). The limits of land titling and home ownership. Environment and Urbanization, 21(2), 443-462. doi: 10.1177/0956247809344364
Payne, G. K., & Majale, M. (2004). The urban housing manual: Making regulatory frameworks work for the poor: Earthscan.
199
Pavlou, P. A., & Chai, L. (2002). What Drives Electronic Commerce across Cultures? Across- Cultural Empirical Investigation of the Theory of Planned Behavior. J. Electron. Commerce Res., 3(4), 240-253.
Peng, C.-Y. J., Lee, K. L., & Ingersoll, G. M. (2002). An Introduction to Logistic Regression Analysis and Reporting. The Journal of Educational Research, 96(1), 3-14. doi:10.1080/00220670209598786.
Pullman, M. E., Granzin, K. L., & Olsen, J. E. (1997). The efficacy of cognition-and emotion-based “buy domestic” appeals: Conceptualization, empirical test, and managerial implications. International business review, 6(3), 209-231.
Raharjo,W.(2010).Speculative Settlements: Built Form/Tenure Ambiguity In Kampung Development (PhD Thesis), University of Melbourne.
Rakodi, C. (1996). Urban land policy in Zimbabwe. Environment and Planning A, 28(9), 1553- 1574.
Reerink, G. (2011). Tenure security for Indonesia’s urban poor: A socio-legal study on land, decentralisation, and the rule of law in Bandung: Leiden University Press.
Reerink, G., & van Gelder, J.-L. (2010). Land titling, perceived tenure security, and housing consolidation in the ‘kampung’s of Bandung, Indonesia. Habitat International, 34(1), 78-85. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2009.07.002.
Roy, A. (2009). Why India Cannot Plan Its Cities: Informality, Insurgence and the Idiom of Urbanization. Planning Theory, 8(1), 76-87. doi:10.1177/1473095208099299.
Roy, A. (2005). Urban Informality: Toward an Epistemology of Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 71(2), 147-158. doi: 10.1080/01944360508976689
Singh, N., Fassott, G., Chao, M. C., & Hoffmann, J. A. (2006). Understanding international web site usage: A cross-national study of German, Brazilian, and Taiwanese online consumers. International Marketing Review, 23(1), 83-97.
Sivam, A. (2002). Constraints affecting the efficiency of the urban residential land market in developing countries: a case study of India. Habitat International, 26(4), 523-537.
Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed: Yale University Press.
Setiawan, B. (1998). Local dynamics in informal settlement development: a case study of Yogyakarta, Indonesia. (PhD Thesis), University of British Columbia.
200
Silas, J. (1992). Government-community partnerships in ‘kampung’ improvement programmes in Surabaya. Environment and Urbanization, 4(2), 33-41. doi: 10.1177/095624789200400204.
Sjaastad, E., & Cousins, B. (2009). Formalisation of land rights in the South: An overview. Land Use Policy, 26(1), 1-9.
Smart, A. (1986). Invisible real estate: investigations into the squatter property market. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 10(1), 29-45.
Steinberg, F. (2007). Jakarta: Environmental problems and sustainability. Habitat International, 31(3–4), 354-365. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2007.06.002
Struyk, R. J., Hoffman, M. L., & Katsura, H. M. (1990). The market for shelter in Indonesian cities: The Urban Insitute.
Sub-district Menteng Dalam, Local Government. (2014). Annual Report. Jakarta: Jakarta City Government.
Sub-district Tanah Tinggi, Local Government. (2015). Annual Report. Jakarta: Jakarta City Government
Supriatna, A., & van der Molen, P. (2014). Land readjustment for upgrading Indonesian kampung: a proposal. South East Asia Research, 22(3), 379-397. doi: 10.5367/sear.2014.0218
Tibaijuka, A. (2006). The importance of urban planning in urban poverty reduction and sustainable development. Paper presented at the World Planners Congress, Vancouver.
Tunas, D., & Peresthu, A. (2010). The self-help housing in Indonesia: The only option for the poor? Habitat International, 34(3), 315-322. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2009.11.007
UN (2017). New Urban Agenda. The Habitat III Secretariat. Quito. Retrieved from: http://habitat3.org/wp-content/uploads/NUA-English.pdf.
UN (2015), The Millennium Development Goals Report. UN-Habitat (2015), World Cities Report 2016.
UN (2013). The Millenium Development Goals Report 2013. New York.
UN-ESCAP (1995), ‘Land readjustment’ (chapter 10), Municipal Land Management in Asia: A Com- parative Study, UN ESCAP, Bangkok.
UN-ESCAP and UN-HABITAT (2015). The State of Asian and Pacific Cities 2015. PFD Media Group, London.
UN-HABITAT (2016a). World Cities Report 2016. Nairobi.
201
UN-HABITAT. (2016b). HIII THEMATIC MEETING ON INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS. Retrieved from Nairobi: https://unhabitat.org/pretoria-declaration-on-informal-settlements.
UN-HABITAT (2016c). The New Urban Agenda. The United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development (Habitat III). Quito.
UN-HABITAT. (2015a). Sustainable Development Goals. Rio de Jeneiro.
UN-HABITAT (2015b), Urbanization for Prosperity: Policy Statement 25th Session of the Governing Council; the ‘housing at the centre’ recommendation is listed as one of the key levers for achieving the New Urban Agenda –
UN-HABITAT. (2012). State of the world's cities 2012/2013 (World Urban Forum ed.). Nairobi.
UN-HABITAT. (2009a). Planning Sustainable Cities: Policy Directions (Vol. 978-92-113-2003-9). Nairobi.
UN-HABITAT. (2009b). Pro-poor land and housing. Paper presented at the International tripartite conference on urbanization challenges and poverty reduction in African, Caribbean and Pacific countries, Nairobi.
UN-HABITAT. (2008a). Low Income Housing: Approaches to help the urban poor find adequate accomodation (Vol. Report of Housing the Poor in Asian Cities, Quick Guide 2). Nairobi.
UN-HABITAT. (2008b). Secure land rights for all Global Land Tools Network. Nairobi.
UN- HABITAT (2008c), Land: A Crucial Element in Housing the Urban Poor: Housing the Poor in Asian Cities, Quick Guide 3, UN-Habitat, Nairobi.
UN-HABITAT. (2007a). How to develop a pro poor land policy. Nairobi.
UN-HABITAT. (2007b). Sustainable Urbanization: local action for urban poverty reduction, emphasis on finance and planning. Nairobi.
UN-HABITAT. (2004). Pro-poor Land Management Integrating Slums into city planning approaches. Nairobi.
UN-HABITAT. (2003). The Challenge of Slums Global Report in Human Settlement. London.
UN-HABITAT. (2002). Cities Without Slums. Paper presented at the World Urban Forum.
Urdan, T. C. (2005). Statistics in Plain English: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
202
Uzun, B et. al. (2010). Legalizing and upgrading illegal settlements in Turkey. Habitat International, 34(2), 204-209. doi: DOI: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2009.09.004. van Gelder, J.-L. (2010). What tenure security? The case for a tripartite view. Land Use Policy, 27(2), 449-456. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.06.008. van Gelder, J. L. (2009). Legal tenure security, perceived tenure security and housing improvement in Buenos Aires: an attempt towards integration. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 33(1), 126-146.
Ward, P. M. (1982). Self-help housing: a critique: Mansell London.
Watson, V. (2009). Seeing from the South: Refocusing urban planning on the globe’s central urban issues. Urban Studies, 46(11), 2259-2275.
Watson, V. (2003). Conflicting rationalities: implications for planning theory and ethics. Planning Theory & Practice, 4(4), 395-407. doi: 10.1080/1464935032000146318
Williamson, I. P. (2000). Best practices for land administration systems in developing countries. http://hdl.handle.net/11343/33904
Winayanti, L., & Lang, H. C. (2004). Provision of urban services in an informal settlement: a case study of ‘kampung’ Penas Tanggul, Jakarta. Habitat International, 28(1), 41-65. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0197-3975(02)00072-3.
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods: Sage publications.
Zhu, J., & Simarmata, H. A. (2015). Formal land rights versus informal land rights: Governance for sustainable urbanization in the Jakarta metropolitan region, Indonesia. Land Use Policy, 43, 63- 73.
203
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: Survey Questionnaire
QUESTIONNAIRE
I. LOCATION
101. MUNICIPALITY :
102.DISTRICT :
103. SUB-DISTRICTS :
104. NEIGHBORHOOD (RW) :
105. HH ASSOCIATION (RT) :
106. HOUSE NUMBER :
II. SURVEYOR
201. NAME :
202. DATE :
203. SIGNATURE :
III. GENERAL INFORMATION OF THE AREA
301. NEIGHBORHOOD AREA :
302. # HH ASSOCIATION (# RT) :
303. # HH :
IV. GENERAL INFORMATION OF RESPONDENT 401. Name : ......
402. Age: …………….
403. Sex : 1. Male 2. Female
404. Last Education level 1. Elementary School 4. University
2. Junior High School/equal 5. No school
3. Senior High School/equal 6. Others, please specify : ………………………...……..… )
405. Occupation : ………………
406. Employment 1.Full Time
2. Part-Time
3. Unemployed
407. Monthly income (one house): 1. < 1 Million Rupiah 3. 2,1 - 3 Million Rupiah
2. 1 - 2 Million Rupiah 4. > 3 Million Rupiah 408. Number of family member (including you) : ………… person
204
V. LAND-RELATED DOCUMENTS
501. Are You: 1.Owner
2. Non- Owner (tenant)
502. What is the status of your current residence : 1. Ownership a. Individual
b. Legal Entity
2. Ownership with no title
3. State Land
4. I don’t Know
503. How do you acquire (access) the land : 1. By Purchase 4. Occupy
2. By Inheritance 5. Rent
3. Grant 6. Others, please specify …………….
504. Do you have any land-related document: 1. Yes
2. No continue to no. 507
If YES, what is the type of document? (if possible, please show it)
505. Owner 506. Non-owner
1.Land Title : a. Rights of Ownership 1. Land occupation letter (sub-district)
b. Rights of Building 2. Tenancy letter
c. Rights of Use 3. Registered lease agreement
2. Girik 4. Unregistered lease agreement
3. Verponding Indonesia 5. Informal agreement (written)
4. Deed of Sales/ Notary (AJB Notaris) 6. Verbal agreement (unwritten)
5. Stamped Agreement Letter 7. Occupation with prior permission
6. Non-stamped Agreement Letter 8. Occupation with no prior permission
7. Purchase receipts 9. Others, please specify …………….
8. Property tax 11. None of them
9. Bulding ownership/purchase/inheritance statement letter/deed by sub-district office (AJB Kelurahan)
10. Others, please specify …………….
11. None of them
507. How secure are you from eviction by possessing the land-related documents :
1. Insecure 4. Secure
2. less insecure 5. Very secure
3. less secure
VI. LENGTH OF OCCUPANCY
601. How long have you lived here : ...... Years
602. How secure are you from eviction by living for the given years ?
1. Insecure 4. Secure
2. less insecure 5. Very secure 3. less secure
205
VII. SOCIAL COHESION
701. How close are you with your neighbours : 1. Not close
2. Less close
3. Quite close
4. Close
5. Very close
702. How often do you talk to your neighbor 1. Never
2. Rarely
3. Sometimes
4. Often
5. Always
703. Have you ever borrowed money from your neighbor?: 1. Yes
2. No, Continue to 705
704. If yes, for what : 1. daily needs 3. housing renovation
2. small business 4. others, please specify :……………………………………………..
705. Is there any routine activitiy in the community: 1. Yes, Please Specify: ......
2. No STOP
707. How routine/often is the activity : 1. Twice a week 4. Every month
2. Every week 5. Others, please specify : …………….
3. Twice a month
708.How often do you participate in the activity : 1. Never 4. Often
2. Rarely 5. Always
3. Sometimes
709. Please define the social bond you feel in the community : 1. Not strong at all
2. Slight strong
3. Quite strong
4. Strong
5. very strong
710. How secure are you from the eviction with the given socil cohesion "
1. Insecure 4. Secure
2. less insecure 5. Very secure
3. less secure
711. Do you happen to know the history of the land you have lived? If yes, please explain:
206
VIII. SUPPORT FROM NGO
801. Is there any NGO empowering community : 1. Yes
2. No STOP
802. If Yes, please specify : ………………...... WhatIf yes, is please the focus mention : ...... the name of the NGO
803.Please describe the role of NGO: 1. Not important at all 4. Important
2. Slight important 5. Very important
3. Somewhat important
804. How secure are you from the eviction with the support of the NGO:
1. Insecure 4. Secure
2. less insecure 5. Very secure
3. less secure IX. GENERATING FACTORS OF TENURE SECURITY (SUMMARY) 901. Please rank the following factors in order as a driving factor of your perceived tenure security : (starting from 1 for your most dominant factor) : Possession of land-related document
Length of occupation
Size of settlement
Social cohesion
Support from civil society group
Other. please specify: …..
207
X. HOUSING IMPROVEMENT
1001. What was the wall of your house made of (past) : 1. Woven bamboo 4. Zinc
2. Concrete 5. Plywood
3. Wood 6. Others, please specify:…..
1002.What is the wall of your house made of (present) : 1. Woven bamboo 4. Zinc
2. Concrete 5. Plywood
3. Wood 6. Others, please specify:…..
1003. What was the floor of your house made of : 1. ceramic/marble/granite 4.Wood
2. Tiles 5. Soil
3. cement 6. Others, please specify:…..
1004. What is the floor of your house made of : 1. ceramic/marble/granite 4.Wood
2. Tiles 5. Soil
3. cement 6. Others, please specify:…..
1005. What was the roof of your house made of : 1. Concrete 3. Shingle 5. Asbestos 7. Others, please specify:…..
2. Clay 4. Zinc 6. Palm fiber
1006. What is the roof of your house made of : 1. Concrete 3. Shingle 5. Asbestos 7. Others, please specify:…..
2. Clay 4. Zinc 6. Palm fiber
1007.How many bedrooms were there in your house (past) : 1. 1 4. 4
2. 2 5. > 4
3. 3
1008.How many bedrooms are there in your house (present) : 1. 1 4. 4
2. 2 5. > 4
3. 3
1009. How many floors were there in your house (past) : 1. 1 3. > 2
2. 2
1010. How many floors are there in your house (present) : 1. 1 3. > 2
2. 2
1011.How do you obtain the house: 1. Self-built/organized 5. Occupied/invaded
2. Direct Purchase 6. Rent/lease
3. Inherited 7. Public/private financing program
4. Grant 8. Others, please specify: …………….
1012. What is the status of your house: 1. Ownership 5. Family/relative ownership
2. Lease (years) 6. Work facility
3. Rent (monthly) 7. Others, please specify: …………….
4. Free rent
1013. What is the area of your house: ……………………… m2
1014. What is the area of your land: ……………………… m2
1015. Do you have building permit (IMB): 1. Yes
2. No
3. Don’t know
1016. Have you ever renovated your house: 1. Yes
2. No STOP 3. Don’t know
1017. If Yes, How do you finance the renovation:1. Self-Financed
2. Government Program, please specify: ......
3. Others, please specify: ......
1018. If Yes, what was renovated : 1. Structure/wall (total renovation) 4. Extra levels
(more than 1 answer is possible) 2. Floors 5. Roofs
3. Extra bed rooms 6. Others, please specify: ......
1019. Does housing improvement affect your perceived tenure security (protected agains eviction) 1. Yes
2. No STOP
1020. If Yes, How secure are you from eviction by improving the house:
1. Insecure 4. Secure
2. less insecure 5. Very secure 3. less secure
208
XI. PROVISION OF INFRASTRUCTURES AND BASIC SERVICES
1101. What is the power source of your house : 1. Power meter 4. Don’t know
2. Power with no meter 5.Others, please specify: ......
3. No power
1102. What is the source of drinking water: 1. Piped water (PAM) 4. Water street vendor
2. Water pump 5. Packaged water
3. Well 6.Others, please specify: ......
1103.What is the type of your sewerage : 1. Private septic tank 4. Public sewerage with no septic tank
2.Private sewerage with no septic tank 5. No sewerage
3.Public septic tank 6. Don’t know
1104. What is the fund of the sewerage provision: 1. Local government 3. Don’t know
2. Self-financed 4. Others, please specify: ......
1105. What is the road made of : 1. Asphalt 4. Soil
2. Concrete 5. Others, please specify: ......
3. Rocks
1106. What is the fund of the road cosntruction : 1. Local government 3. Don’t know
2. Self-financed 4. Others, please specify: ......
1107. How do you dispose garbage : 1. Garbage bin 4. Throw into river
2. Pile 5. Others, please specify: ......
3. Burn
1108. Is there any garbage pickup service: 1. Yes, please specify : ……………………..
2. No STOP 3. Don’t know
1109. If Yes, how often is it : 1. Every day 4. Once a week
2. Three times a week 5. Others, please specify: ......
3. Twice a week
1110.Does provision of infrastructure and basic service affect your perceived tenure security : 1. Yes
(protected agains eviction) 2. No STOP
1111. If Yes, How secure are you from eviction by provision of infrastructure and basic service:
1. Insecure 4. Secure
2. less insecure 5. Very secure
3. less secure
XII. ACCES TO CREDIT
1201. Have you ever borrowed money : 1. Yes
2. No continue to 1204
1202. If Yes, who do you borrow the money from : 1. Formal financial institutions (e.g. Bank, Cooperative) 4. Neighbors
2. Personal Creditor 5. Others, please specify: ......
3. Group saving
1203. Is there any collateral from the loan: 1. Yes, please specify: ......
2. No
1204.Have you ever benefitted from micro credit program: 1. Yes
2. No STOP
1205. If Yes, What kind of micro credit is it: 1. PNPM (Program Nasional Pemberdayaan Masyarakat) 4. Personal loan
2. KUR ( Kredit Usaha Rakyat) 5. Cooperative
3. Public Bank credit program 6.Others, please specify: ......
1206. Does access to creedit affect your perceived tenure security (protected agains eviction): 1. Ya
2. Tidak STOP
1207. If Yes, How secure are you from eviction byhaving access to credit :
1. Insecure 4. Secure
2. less insecure 5. Very secure 3. less secure
209
XIII. ENABLED URBAN LAND AND HOUSING MARKET
1301. Have you ever bought or sold a house : 1. Yes
2. No STOP
1302. How do you sell or buy the land: 1. Deeds by notary 4. Stamped agreement letter (e.g. 'segel')
2. Deeds by notary/sub-district office 4. Non-Stamped agreement letter
3. Purchase receipt 5. Others, please specify: ......
XIV. SOCIAL DISRUPTION
1401. Is there any new resident in the neighborhood : 1. Yes
2. No
1402. Do you know how they acquire land/house: 1. Yes
2. No Continue to 1404
1403.If Yes, please specify: 1. Self-built 5. Grant
2. Housing program by government/private 6. Occupied/invaded
3. Purchase 7. Rent/lease
4. Inherited 8. Others, please specify: ......
1404. Is there any of your neighbors moving out: 1. Yes
2. No STOP
1405. Do you happen to know the reason: 1. Yes Please specify :……………………………………………………..
2. No
XV. COST-ASSOCIATED BURDEN (e.g. Land registration fee, property tax)
1501. How do you find the amount of property tax: 1. Very low 4. High
2. Low 5. Very hhigh
3. Moderate 6. Others, please specify: ......
1502. How do you find the land registration process : 1. Don’t understand 4. Long process
(more than 1 answer is possible) 2. Tedious 5. Don’t know
3. High cost 6. Others, please specify: ......
For those who do not own land title :
1503. Are you willing to upgrade the status of your land and building ownership :
1. Yes, please specify the kind of ownership : ......
2. No
1504. What would you (expect to) do if you have land title : 1. Build/improve housing
2. Gain access to credit
3. Gain access to infrastructures and basic services
4. Sell the property and move out
5. Incurred higher property tax
6. Others, please specify: ......
XVI. IMPACTS OF TENURE SECURITY 1601. Please rank the following impacts in order as the most likely you would do/expect to get as you feel secure (starting from 1 for your most dominant impact) :
Build/improve housing
Gain access to credit
Gain access to infrastructures and basic services
Sell the property and move out
Incurred higher property tax Others, please specify: ......
210
XVII. PERCEPTION OF TENURE SECURITY
1701. Do you have an identity card (KTP) : 1. Yes
2. No
1702. Do you think there is a possibility of eviction within the next five years: 1. Impossible 4. Somewhat possible
2. Somewhat impossible 5. Possible
3. Neutral
1703. If Yes, what would be the reason of the eviction: 1. Public interest (road, park, etc)
2. Commercial development (mall)
3. Disaster prone (flood)
4. Occupy withou permission
5. Others, please specify: ......
1704. Do you think Government agree on your residence: 1. Yes
2. No STOP
1705. If Yes, what would be the reason: 1.Possess land-related documents
(more than 1 answer is possible) 2. Long duration of occupation
3. Self-built
4. Provision of infrstructure and basic services (e.g. road, utilities)
5. Possess identity card
6. Others, please specify: ......
1706.How certain that you are not evicted: 1. Uncertain 4. Certain enough
2. Slight certain 5. Very certain
3. Somewhat certain
1707.How certain that you are able to sell your property: 1. Uncertain 4. Certain enough
2. Slight certain 5. Very certain
3. Somewhat certain
1708. How certain that you aare able to inherit your property : 1. Uncertain 4. Certain
2. Less uncertain 5. Very certain
3. Less certain
1709. Please rank the followings in order as the most likely you would do/expect to get (as the result of your perceived tenure security)
(starting from 1 for your most dominantresult) :
You would not be evicted
You are able to sell property
You are able to inherit
Others, please specify: ......
1710. Overall, how secure are you based on possession of land-related documents, long occupation, social cohesion, size of settlement, and support from NGO :
1. Insecure 4. Secure
2. less insecure 5. Very secure
3. less secure
211
APPENDIX B: Interview Guides
PREFACE This research analyses community’s perception on the land tenure security in Jakarta. The purpose of this research is to investigate the factors determining community perception, the extent of tenure security and its impacts. We are highly appreciated your participation. Information acquired from this interview is confidential and only be used for academic purpose. I. LOCAL GOVERNMENT (Urban Planning Agency, Housing Agency, Statistics Bureau and Sub- Districts Office) A. Urban Planning Agency 1) What is the role and responsibility of your organization? In regard to slum area, what is the task of your organization? 2) How do you describe informal settlements, slum area and illegal settlements? 3) Do you perceive them as the same entity? Why? 4) What are the criteria of informal settlements, slum area and illegal settlements? 5) Is the land tenure security includes in the criteria? 6) What kind of settlements represents informal, slum and illegal settlements in Indonesia particularly Jakarta? What about urban kampung?
(Question 2 to 6 was also asked to all stakeholders to get insights from different views: Q2-How do you describe informal settlements, slum area and illegal settlements?; Q6-What kind of settlements represents informal, slum and illegal settlements in Indonesia particularly Jakarta? What about urban kampung?)
7) How do you perceive slum area? How do you see slum from land tenure perspective? 8) How do you define formal, semi-formal and informal landholders (land tenure)? 9) What is the relation between formal, semi-formal and informal landholders and settlements type? 10) From spatial planning perspective, how do you see slum area? 11) Are Informal settlements ‘ear-marked’ in the city plan? 12) Where does the largest informal settlement area reside? What is designated use of land? 13) How does the local government prevent the growth of informal settlement? 14) What is the implication of local government to informal settlements? 15) Does the spatial planning system take existing land use into account? Why? 16) Does the spatial planning system take land tenure into account? Why? 17) What needs to do to cope with the existing informal settlements and its potential growth? 18) Should spatial planning system take into account the existing land tenure? Why? 19) How should the planning system prevent the growth of slum?
212
B. Housing Agency 1) How do you see slum area? How do you see slum from land tenure perspective? 2) How do you define formal, semi-formal and informal landholders (Land tenure)? 3) What is the relation between formal, semi-formal and informal landholders (land tenure) and settlements type? 4) What is your view on illegal housing construction? 5) How do you define tenure security? 6) What are the requirements for Building Permit? 7) Is there any specific requirement regarding land tenure to obtain building permit? 8) Do you map the slum settlements in your region? How do you classify slum? 9) Has there any housing program been done to cope with slum settlements? What is the focus of that program? 10) Who is the beneficiary? 11) Where is the source of the funding? 12) What is the major impediment of the program? 13) How does local government prevent the development of informal settlement? 14) What is the implication of local government to informal settlement? 15) In your opinion, what is tenure security? 16) What is the land tenure security? What is improved land tenure security? 17) What should be done to cope with slum settlement? 18) Does MHT program consider land status?
C. Statistics Bureau Jakarta 1) How is the social economic condition of the slum community in your region? 2) How do you define housing/settlement as slum? Is tenure security one of the criteria? Why? 3) Is there any rank in defining the level of slums? How do you rank it? 4) How do you define tenure security?
213
D. Sub-district Office 1) What kind of land tenure exists in your region? What is the majority? 2) Is there any land dispute in your region? What is the cause of it? 3) What is the resolution of that land dispute? 4) Do you have record of various land tenure forms? 5) Do you have spatial data of the record? 6) How do you develop the spatial data? Is it based on cadastral mapping or sketch? 7) Do you have the authority to issue land document? What is the land document? 8) What is your role in land transaction? 9) Is there any slum neighbourhood in your region? 10) How do you view slum area in your region? How do you see that from land tenure perspective? 11) Are they secured from evictions? How could they reside for a long time there? 12) How do you define tenure security? 13) Is there any government program on infrastructure and service provision, land and housing in your region, particularly in slum area? If yes, what are the programs? 14) Who is the beneficiary of the program? 15) Where is the funding coming from? 16) What are the focuses from those programs? 17) What is the requirement of each program? 18) Is land tenure one of the requirements? Why? 19) What the major impediment of the programs? 20) What are the implications of local government for informal settlement? 21) Is land tenure security including on the criteria? 22) What is the land tenure security? What is improved land tenure security? 23) Is there any soft loan for urban slum? 24) If it is yes, what are the criteria to obtain loan? 25) Is land tenure including on the criteria? 26) What is the purpose of soft loan program? 27) Does the program require any collateral? If yes, what is the collateral? How much is the maximum amount of loan? 28) How much is the interest? And how long is the instalment?
214
II. Ministry of Agrarian and Spatial Planning/ Land Office 1) What is your view on the slum area? How o you view it from the land tenure perspective? 2) How do you define Formal, Semi-Formal, and Informal Land Right Holders? 3) What kind of land tenure does exist in your neighbourhood? What is the majority? 4) Are there any land disputes in your neighbourhood? What are the causes? 5) What are the resolutions from the land disputes? 6) Do you have any record of the land tenure? 7) Do you have the authority in issuing documents related to land? What are the documents? 8) What are the types of land rights that are recognized by the state? 9) How long does the land right types apply? 10) What is your role in the land transaction? 11) Are there any slum areas in your neighbourhood? 12) Are they protected against the eviction? 13) How do you define the land tenure security? 14) Is there any government program on the provision of infrastructure, land and housing in your neighbourhood, especially in the slum area? If yes, what are the programs? 15) Who are the beneficiaries of each program? 16) Where does the fund of the programs come from? 17) What are the programs focusing on? 18) Are there any requirements from each program? 19) Is land tenure security one of the requirements? Why? 20) What is the major impediment of the programs? 21) What are the implications given by the local government towards the informal settlement? 22) What are the requirements in granting the rights on land? 23) What are the land registration procedures? 24) Are the procedures distinguished upon the land right types? 25) Which kind of lands that can be registered? 26) How long is the process of granting land rights? How much does it cost? 27) What is secure tenure? What is improved tenure? 28) What kind of land right that should be granted to the slum dwellers? Why? 29) What should be done in coping with the slum area? 30) What is the difference between the PRONA program and land adjudication? 31) In the study area, there are different kinds of land title, freehold and rights of building, why is that? Does it have to do with the land status or else?
215
III. Public Figures 1) What is your view on the slum area? How do you see it in the perspective of land tenure? 2) What kind of land tenure that exist in your neighbourhood? What is the majority? 3) Are there and land disputes in your neighborhood? What are the causes? 4) What are the resolutions from the land disputes? 5) How long (in average) have the people resided in this neighborhood? 6) Has there ever been any eviction in the past five years or more? If yes, who were evicted and what are the reasons? 7) Is the social bond strong? If yes, what makes it like that? 8) Is there any NGO that helps the community empowerment here? What is the name of the NGO? 9) What are the roles of the NGO? 10) In your opinion, does the NGO benefit the people? 11) Has there ever been any government program on land or housing here? 12) What are the programs focusing on? 13) Who are the beneficiaries? 14) What is the major impediment of the program? 15) In your opinion, what is land tenure security? 16) What is secure tenure? What is improved tenure? 17) What should the Government do in overcoming the slum? 18) Has anyone receive any micro credit from the government or other financial institutions? What are the collaterals?
216
IV. Non-Government Organization (NGO) 1) Is your organization registered? 2) What are the vision and mission of your organization? 3) What is the role of your organization? 4) What have you done to the people in the slum area? 5) How many areas/slum areas have your organization empowered? 6) Is there any slum area under your organization’s supervision get evicted? If yes, why are they evicted? 7) Please explain the characteristics of the slum area organization’s supervision? Especially concerning the status of their residence? What do they really need, especially in terms of land tenure? 8) Have you ever been involved in government programs? What is the name of the program? 9) In your opinion, are slum dwellers protected against eviction? Why? 10) What is your opinion on the land and housing program from the government? 11) Do you support the programs? 12) What kind of support that your organization gives to the people concerning the land tenure? 13) In your opinion, what are the causes of the slum growth? Is land tenure one of it? 14) What is the characteristic of the slum in Indonesia? 15) What do the slum dwellers need most in terms of land tenure? 16) In your opinion, what is the tenure security? 17) In your opinion, how important is tenure security? 18) In your opinion, are the people of the slum area safe from the eviction? If yes, how safe are they? 19) What are the factors generating tenure security? 20) What are the impacts of the tenure security? 21) What is your opinion concerning the land and housing programs in the slum area by government? 22) In your opinion, are those programs benefitting the community? Why? 23) In your opinion, what is the major impediment of the programs? 24) What are your inputs/critics to those programs? 25) What is your input for future programs? What should be done to cope with slum? 26) In your opinion, what is improved tenure? 27) In your opinion, what should be done to prevent the growth of the slum in the future? 28) What kind of land tenure should be granted for slum dwellers?
217
V. Academics/Researcher 1) What is your view on slums? What is the view from land tenure perspective? 2) How do you define the formal, semi-formal and informal land rights holders (land tenure status)? 3) What is the relation between the formal, semi-formal and informal land tenure status and the types of housing (formal and informal) 4) In your opinion, what are the causes of the slum area growth? Is land tenure one of them? 5) What is the characteristic of slums in Indonesia? 6) Have you ever done a research on slums? If yes, what and where is it? 7) What are the results and recommendations from the research? 8) In your opinion, what is tenure security? 9) In your opinion, how important is tenure security? 10) In your opinion, are the slum dwellers protected against eviction? If yes, how secure are they? 11) What are the generating factors of tenure security? 12) What are the impacts of the tenure security? 13) What is your opinion concerning the land and housing programs in the slum area by government? 14) In your opinion, does the program benefit the slum dwellers? 15) In your opinion, what is the major impediment? 16) What is your input/critic to those programs? 17) What is improved tenure? 18) In your opinion, what is the best way in improving the slum area condition? 19) In your opinion, what is the best way in preventing the growth of the slum in the future? 20) How should the spatial system overcome the existing slums and future slums? 21) Does the spatial planning system consider land use and land tenure? 22) How should the spatial planning system prevent the growth of the slums? 23) What kind of land tenure should be granted to the slum dwellers? Why? 24) What should be done in improving the slums?
218
APPENDIX C: SEM-PLS report of Menteng Dalam R Square R Square R Square Adjusted TS (Tenure security) 0.154 0.147
f Square C C TS CC (Causes of TS) 0.182 TS
Construct Reliability and Validity Composite Average Variance Cronbach's Alpha rho_A Reliability Extracted (AVE) CC 0.824 0.853 0.893 0.736 TS -0.004 -0.004 0.666 0.499
Discriminant Validity
Fornell -Larcker Criterion
C C TS CC 0.858 TS 0.392 0.706
Cross Loadings
C C TS DO (Duration of 0.886 0.355 occupation) LD (Land-related 0.884 0.382 documents) PE (Protection against 0.268 0.683 forced eviction) PS (Possibility to sell) 0.286 0.729 SC (Social cohesion) 0.801 0.251
Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT)
C C TS CC TS 6.662
219
Collinearity Statistics (VIF)
Inner VIF Values
C C TS CC 1.000 TS
Outer VIF Values
VIF DO 2.034 LD 1.878 PE 1.000 PS 1.000 SC 1.732
Model_Fit
Fit Summary Estimated Saturated Model Model SRMR 0.142 0.142 d_ULS 0.304 0.304 d_G 0.105 0.105 Chi-Square 71.843 71.843 NFI 0.516 0.516
rms Theta
rms Theta 0.421
220
APPENDIX D: SEM-PLS report of Tanah Tinggi
R Square
R Square TS 0.135
R Square Adjusted
R Square TS 0.128
f Square CC TS CC 0.156 TS
Average Variance Extracted (AVE) Average Variance
Extracted (AVE) CC 0.779 TS 0.575
Composite Reliability Composite
Reliability CC 0.913 TS 0.699
Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's
Alpha CC 0.860 TS 0.431
221
Discriminant Validity
Fornell -Larcker Criterion
CC TS CC 0.883 TS 0.367 0.759
Cross Loadings
CC TS DO 0.938 0.386 LD 0.907 0.332 PE 0.378 0.988 PI (Possibility to inherit) 0.063 0.417 SC 0.797 0.223
Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT)
CC TS CC TS 0.438
Collinearity Statistic (VIF)
Inner VIF Values
CC TS CC 1.000 TS
Outer VIF Values
VIF DO 2.949 LD 2.583 PE 1.081 PI 1.081 SC 1.796
222
SRMR
SRMR Composite Model
0.042
SRMR Common Factor Model
0.072
223
APPENDIX E: SEM-PLS report of Menteng Dalam and Tanah Tinggi (Combined) R Square
R Square
R Square TS 0.085
R Square Adjusted
R Square TS 0.081
f Square CC TS CC 0.093 TS
Average Variance Extracted (AVE) Average Variance
Extracted (AVE) CC 0.754 TS 0.516
Composite Reliability Composite
Reliability CC 0.902 TS 0.591
Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's
Alpha CC 0.841 TS 0.236
224
Discriminant Validity
Fornell -Larcker Criterion
CC TS CC 0.868 TS 0.291 0.718
Cross Loadings
CC TS DO 0.787 0.164 LD 0.914 0.283 PE 0.293 0.999 PI 0.015 0.184 SC 0.899 0.282
Heterotrait- Monotrait Ratio (HTMT)
CC TS CC TS 0.440
Collinearity Statistic (VIF)
Inner VIF Values
CC TS CC 1.000 TS
Outer VIF Values
VIF DO 1.757 LD 2.361 PE 1.018 PI 1.018 SC 2.113
225
SRMR
SRMR Composite Model
0.024
SRMR Common Factor Model
0.058
226
APPENDIX F: Logistic Regression Output of Predicted Effects of Tenure Security (Housing investment, Provision of basic infrastructure and services, and Access to credit)
Housing Investment (HI) Menteng Dalam (Case study 1)
Classification Tablea
Predicted
HI Percentage Observed 0 1 Correct Step 1 HI 0 1 17 5.6
1 0 99 100.0 Overall Percentage 85.5
Tanah Tinggi (Case study 2)
Classification Tablea
Predicted
HI Percentage Observed 0 1 Correct Step 1 HI 0 2 11 15.4 1 1 114 99.1
Overall Percentage 90.6
Provision of basic infrastructure and services (PIS) Menteng Dalam
Classification Tablea
Predicted
PIS Percentage Observed 0 1 Correct
Step 1 PIS 0 5 36 12.2 1 3 73 96.1 Overall Percentage 66.7
227
Tanah Tinggi
Classification Tablea
Predicted
PIS Percentage Observed 0 1 Correct Step 1 PIS 0 3 23 11.5 1 1 101 99.0 Overall Percentage 81.3
Access to credit (AC) Menteng Dalam
Classification Tablea
Predicted
AC Percentage Observed 0 1 Correct Step 1 AC 0 98 0 100.0 1 16 1 5.9 Overall Percentage 86.1
Tanah Tinggi
Classification Tablea
Predicted
AC Percentage Observed 0 1 Correct Step 1 AC 0 107 3 97.3 1 17 1 5.6 Overall Percentage 84.4
228
APPENDIX G: Structure of nodes (interview data analysis using NVivo)
1. Current condition of land tenure security (Parent node) a. Eviction: (Child node) 1) Community perspective (Sub-child node) 2) Government perspective b. Possibility to sell c. Possibility to inherit d. Government intervention: 1) Land affairs 2) Housing 3) Infrastructure and basic services 4) Community empowerment 5) Public administration 6) Planning 2. Generating factors of land tenure security a. Land-related documents b. Duration of occupation c. Social cohesion d. Support from NGO 3. Impacts of land tenure security a. Housing investment b. Provision of infrastructure and basic services c. Access to credit d. Cost-associated burden e. Social disruption 4. Perception on tenure security 5. Solution for slums
229
APPENDIX H: Ethics approval letter
230