THE CHALLENGES FOR WATER MANAGEMENT IN COASTAL URBAN MEGACITIES (BANGKOK, JAKARTA AND MANILA)

This paper is submitted as presentation material inLink, Engage, Activate, Develop (LEAD) ASEAN Youth Summit, Manila, Philipines

3th-5th December 2013Corresponding author : Putika Ashfar Khoiri (1)

(1) putikaa@gmail.com

ABSTRACT

Over the last three decades, cities in Asia-Pacific have been growing rapidly and transforming functionally and physically. The most spectacular phenomenon of urbanisation in the region is undoubtedly the emergence of megacities, which are characterised by an intensive urbanisation process in their adjacent suburban areas, the urbanised areas extending up to 100 km into cities hinterlands. The term megacity is used for the cities with at least 10 million inhabitants. For the city managers this phenomenon pose both old and new problems, because megacity development has gone hand in hand with urban poverty concentration and environmental degradation, particularly in urban hydrological systems. Hydrological impacts then include the effects of these changes on the natural drainage, runoff, groundwater, sediment, water quality, water demands etc. Even where economic “miracles” have occurred in Asian megacities during the last three decades, urban water supply and sanitation services have remained well below standard. The objectives of this paper are to discuss the issues the challenges of urban water management in three Asian tropical coastal megacities: Bangkok, Jakarta and Manila. The paper also proposes an alternative to improve urban water management to ensure the sustainability and equality of water related services.

KEYWORDS: megacity, urban water management, urban poor, water supply, sanitation and flood.

INTRODUCTION

Bangkok (Thailand), Manila (Philippines) and Jakarta (Indonesia) are national capital in Southeast Asia. The three megacities have physical, environmental and socio-economic similarities, but they have no obvious cultural and religious similarities (Bangkok is a Buddhist city; Manila’s population is predominantly catholic and Jakarta is capital of the biggest Islamic country). They lie within the tropical zone. Throughout a year, the average daily temperature stays within range of 26-28°C. The wet season occurs between November and April, with the rest of the year remaining dry. The average annual precipitation is over 2000 mm, 70% of which is concentrated in the wet season. The peak in rainfall is experienced between January and February when the total reaches 400 mm/month.

Bangkok Metropolitan Administration is located on the lower reach of the Chao Phraya River about 25 kilometres north of the Gulf of Thailand. The metropolitan area covers some 1,569 km² of flat low-lying land, most of which is only 0.5 to 1.5 m above sea level. The Chao Phraya River, which originates in the northern mountains of the country and flows from north to south through the fertile rice fields of the central plains into the Gulf of Thailand, covers area of 162,000 km² almost one third of the whole country. The city was once criss-crossed by canals and waterways. In the early years of Bangkok more than 100 canals were dug; these functioned as highways, providing access to the commercial centres. Because of poor natural drainage the city relied on the canal system for drainage, even though the water level of such

canals is only marginally lower than the land elevation throughout the year. Much of this once extensive system of canals all draining towards the Chao Pharya River, has been filled in to make way for roads; in its present state the canal network now accounts for only some 1.4 % of the city’s surface area. Storm sewers, constructed in lieu of the canals and the remaining canals area not totally capable of coping with the ever-increasing run-off.

Jakarta Metropolitan Area or Jabotabek is comprised of eight administrative units at different levels: Jakarta city has provincial level status and seven municipalities and districts under the jurisdiction of the West Java province (i.e. the municipalities of: Bogor, Tangerang, Bekasi and Depok; and the districts of: Bogor, Tangerang and Bekasi). The city of Jakarta is located on a flat, coastal plain which comprise alluvial land formed by 13 rivers with a total catchment area of 1,058 km². The city, created in the sixteenth century at estuary formed by these rivers where they enter the Java sea, covers 655 km². The northern coastal region, which consist of a low-lying plain with an elevation below 50 m, composes 40% of the whole city area and is subject to flooding from river overspill and heavy local rainfall. Adjacent to this region, a zone of higher elevation of between 5.5 and 10 m gradually rises from the coastal plain to compose some 25% of the city area. The south, an elevated area of between 10 and 50 m composes a further 25% of the city area, while remaining 10% is hilly and lies at an elevation of over 50 m. Further south, the terrain is mountainous and it is there that the rivers which flow trough Jakarta originate. The largest of the rivers is the Ciliung River, which has a catchment area of 347 km² and a total length of 148 km.

Metropolitan Manila (MM) encompasses four cities – Manila Calloncan, Pasay and Quenzon – and 13 municipalities, covering 636 km² (as large as Singapore). The western part of Metropolitan Manila lies in a coastal margin stretching some 30 km along the Manila Bay and is characterised by flat and low-lying terrain with elevations ranging from 0 to 1 meter above mean sea level. The north-eastern part has a rolling topography and extends 20 km inland until the foot of a mountain range. The southern part of Metropolitan Manila is between two large bodies of water, i.e. Manila Bay to the west and Laguna de bay Lake to the east. The Pasig river flows east to west through central Manila and is about 17 km from the confluence of the Marikina river and Napindan channel to Manila Bay. The Pasig:Marikina chatchment is estimated to be about 765 km².

The megacities are centres of political, social and economic activity in most Asian-Pacific nations. For example, the Bangkok Metropolitan Region (BMR), with some 10 million inhabitant accounts for about 15% of Thailand’s total population and about 60% of the nation urban population. In economic terms, Bangkok’s primacy is even more overwhelming. It produces 50% of Thailand’s gross national product (GNP), has 75% of the country’s manufacturing firms (between 1960 and 1986 nearly 83% of the approved investments were made in BMR), and 34% of the financial institutions, which control 70% of the country’s commercial bank deposits. Over 90% of the country’s exports and imports pass through Bangkok. Bangkok is now eleven times larger than the next three most populous cities in the country. The same urban concentration is also found in Jakarta. The Jakarta Metropolitan Area (JMA) accounts for 12% of the GNP, 61% of the country’s bank and financial activities and 31% of domestic industrial output. In 1999, the JMA had an estimated population of nearly 20 million (more than 10% of national population), which is expected to exceed 30 million by the year 2010. Metropolitan Manila is the Philippines’ primary administrative centre, with a concentration of commerce, industry and services. The city is generating one-third of the GNP and receiving 70 % of imported goods. Around 1960 the region accounted

for 2.5 million inhabitants, while current estimations are around 10 million. One out of every six inhabitants of the Philippines and 40 % of its urban population live in the MM.

The massive demographic and economic growth taking place in the three megacities have created urban water management problems: water supply, water pollution, flood, etc.

WATER MANAGEMENT RELATED PROBLEMS: DEGRADATION OF WATER RESOURCES AND INEQUALITY OF WATER SERVICES

Bangkok Metropolitan Administration, Metropolitan Manila and Jakarta Metropolitan Area are experiencing a number of water management problems: water supply, sanitation, water pollution, saltwater intrusion on the freshwater supply and flooding.

Urban water supply

In different ways, water supply is problematic in three megacities, where river water is abundant, are mostly due to the insufficient basic infrastructure for provision of clean water and pollution of water sources. Relatively few households receive clean water piped into their residences and these few are relatively rich households, their water being subsidised.

In Jakarta, only about 11% of the residents have access to piped water. The poor, unless they have access to cheap shallow wells, must rely the relatively expensive water from standpipes, which is usually delivered by vendors. River water passing through megacities is heavily polluted by wastewater from households (liquid and human waste), commercial buildings and institutions, as well as by discharges from industries, erosion, pesticides and fertiliser run-off from agricultural land, solid waste1, and fecal matter from overflowing or leaking septic tanks. Thus, this water is not drinkable. Shallow wells are a cheap source of water for rich and poor alike, but such water is also becoming increasingly polluted by seepage from domestic and industrial wastes, and by saline intrusion due to over-extraction. Kjellén, Brat and McGranahan (1995) reported that almost 80% of the unsalinated areas use well water for drinking, while less than 10% do so in the areas which are classified as having saline ground water. In the absence of potable ground water, the salinated areas have a higher rate of PAM 2

connections and those without connections rely heavily on vendors, reselling piped water. Vendors buy water from public hydrant managers working at least indirectly for the utility and then sell it door to door3.

In Metropolitan Manila, the upper-income residents have piped water, septic tanks with effluent dispersed into covered drains and regular garbage collection. In contrast, about 2 million poor people live in dense and abject conditions in blighted areas. There most housing is makeshift; water is carried from distant sources and the areas are subject to deep flooding during rains. Sewerage, where it exists, is provided through a manual flush toilet to septic tanks, cesspools, vaults and pits, which are often improperly designed. Effluent from these facilities (black water) and grey water kitchen, bath and laundry waste drain to the nearest 1 As Jakarta’s rivers flow through the Metropolitan Area, they pick up large amounts of disposed effluents and solid wastes originating from domestic and industrial sources (around 1400 m3 per day). The disposal of solid waste in water bodies not only degrades water quality but also causes clogging of drains, which in turn causes flooding and littering in Jakarta Bay and Kepulauan Seribu.2 PAM Jaya = Perusahaan Air Minum Jakarta Raya, Jakarta’s municipal water authority.3 Public hydrants in Jakarta are

watercourse. Impervious and saturated soils prevent the proper functioning of subsurface drainage and seepage pits. Typhoid, cholera and gastroenteritis are endemic. More recent statistics are unavailable and will be compiled under a proposed project.

Sources of water and protection of water quality will indeed become more critical with more cases emerging of severe shortages that directly affect daily life. Meeting the problem of water for human use will require application of macro-planning policies to improve the allocation of water among competing interests, as well as better controls on water use within households, industries and commerce. The implicit solution for these problems is to prepare an integrated urban water management plan.

The inadequacy of water delivery network has caused other major side effects. In Bangkok only 21% of the Metropolitan area was found to be serviced by the water network. The lack of piped water led residents in the suburbs to dig water wells. Large scale extraction of ground water has led to compaction of the clays layer under the city, leading to land subsidence and increased frequency of floods. A 1990 study by the Asian Institute of Technology found that metropolitan Bangkok has sank by 1.6 m during 1960-88 period, an average of about 5.7 cm per year. Most of the land subsidence was caused by the widespread pumping of ground water to serve the rapidly expanding metropolis. In 1991, groundwater accounts for 90-95% of daily industrial water consumption (1.6 million m3 per day). Groundwater pumping has also contributed to the intrusion of saltwater from the Gulf of Thailand into freshwater aquifers. The same phenomenon has also been reported in Jakarta, seawater intrusion in the shallow and deep aquifers had reached 10 - 15 km from the coastline (Tjahjadi, 1991).

Land subsidence, widespread flooding, and seepage of saline water into freshwater aquifers pervade a city in which only 2% of Bangkok’s population is connected to the city’s antiquated sewer network. The lower sections of the Chao Praya River are no longer able to support life. With its population doubling every 15 years, ground water depletion has resulted in seepage of the sea water into water tables under the centre of the city.

Sanitation and water pollution

Surface water pollution. Water of the rivers and canals crossing megacities are heavily polluted by waste water from: households (liquid waste and human waste), commercial buildings and institutions together with discharges from industries, erosion, pesticide and fertilizer run-off from agricultural land, solid waste, and fecal matter from overflowing or leaking septic tanks. As a result, the rivers system in megacities are biologically dead and the shoreline of the bays are unsuitable for recreation. In Bangkok, about 1.5 million m3 of wastewater is released into waterways every day and only 23% of Bangkok’s population is connected to sewer systems. Jakarta having no sewer system, the people rely on septic tanks and leaching pits, often improperly designed. Household liquid waste is estimated to contribute 50-75% of the organic loading in the rivers in urban areas, and industrial pollution has contributed in the range of 25-50%. Increasing levels of liquid, solid and toxic waste from industrial and processing activities are causing a decline in fish productivity and increased morbidity and mortality from the spread of infectious diseases. It is reported that mercury pollution in Jakarta Bay has already led to brain disorders among children. In Metropolitan Manila, the daily water pollution load generated in 1995 was estimated at about 980 tons of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), of which 40% was from residential wastewater, 38%

from industries and 22% from solid waste dumped in rivers. Water pollution causes adverse effects for human health, particularly with increases in diarrhoea and cholera, as well as in the cost of treatment for drinking water sources, and in the cost of transporting water from distant sources.

Groundwater contamination. Groundwater is becoming polluted in much of the urban area by seepage from domestic and industrial wastes, and by saline intrusion because of over-extraction. In Jakarta, approximately 60% of the population and about 90% of the big groundwater users (industries, hotels, business centres) rely on the ground water due to the limitations in pipe water supply. Besides its impact on surface pollution, household liquid waste is also polluting water supplies from shallow wells. A survey on shallow wells in Jakarta, where 84% of the samples were contaminated by fecal coliforms, illustrates that groundwater is contaminated on a large scale. Most of the households of Southeast Asian megacities use individual septic tanks, which are without subsurface filters and are not cleaned on a regular basis. Because of bad design, irregular cleansing and poor maintenance, most septic tanks function poorly.

In the long term, the solution to wastewater disposal in the megacities is sewers. But sewers are expensive. In 1977, the Indonesian government had completed a wastewater disposal master plan for Jakarta that recommended phased construction of a conventional sewer system. The World Bank was requested to finance the first stage but rejected it as too expensive and, accordingly, urged the borrower to choose a cheaper alternative. In 1979, the Bank and the Indonesian government agreed on a pilot project that combined piped sewerage and low-cost sanitation. A master plan developed at the same time by the Philippines authorities was similar to the Jakarta project, recommending comprehensive piped sewerage for Manila. The World Bank approved a loan in 1980 to finance the project. In parallel, the Asian Development Bank made a loan for a comprehensive rehabilitation and reconstruction of the existing central sewer system. Bangkok has been undertaking a government-financed wastewater treatment program executed by Bangkok Metropolitan Administration, with partial funding from ADB.

Flooding

Bangkok, Jakarta and Manila suffer from repeated flooding. In many cases, changes in land-use as part of the urbanisation processes increase the susceptibility of flooding. At the same time, the growing concentration of population and economic activities exacerbate the human suffering and economic loss, which results from such urban inundation. Other causes of flooding in coastal megacities are the following factors: local heavy rainfall; high flow in the rivers crossing the cities; the back-up effect of high tides on the rivers; typhoon; land subsidence, and insufficient drainage capacity.

In Bangkok, one of the largest floods in the past several decades occurred in 1983 where Bangkok remained flooded for more than three month. The flood which resulted in severe flood damage was caused by a combination the above factors. In Jakarta the primary causes of periodical flooding are intensive rainfall combined with high tides in Jakarta Bay. This is exacerbated by land subsidence, which is up to 6 cm annually in some parts of the city, and is linked to overexploitation of ground water resources. In Manila, flooding in 1986 that inflicted tremendous damage in Metropolitan Manila and was the most serious to be suffered in recent decades was caused by typhoon.

Efforts to control floods have long been made by the governments of each country. In Jakarta the West Banjir Canal was completed in 1920 and in Bangkok the first formal flood control master plan was established in 1968. The lag in the development of floods control in the megacities are directly linked to the poor control urbanisation, aggravated by lack of human, financial and organisational resources. In particular, the spread of informal settlements in peri-urban areas.

URBAN POOR AND GROWTH OF SLUMS

In most megacities of developing countries (like Jakarta, Manila, Bangkok, Shanghai, Lagos, Bombay etc.), a fairly large proportion of the urban population consists of poor people, sometimes referred to as the “ informal ” population. They have come relatively recently to the city from rural communities in search of a better life, and have settled down mainly in squatter and slum areas in peri-urban. It is estimated that 60% of the urban population of Asia living in slum or squatter settlements and the number of poor in Southeast Asian megacities has doubled over the last 10 years, because of large influxes of migrants from rural areas and from natural population growth. Thus most of the urban poor are not given proper public services (water supply, sanitation, waste removal, electricity and other utilities), primarily for the following reasons: (i) they are not considered to be entitled to this public service because of their illegal settlement and non-tax paying status; (ii) they normally live in areas where such a service is physically difficult, due to narrow streets and other transport conditions; and (iii) they and/or the city authorities simply cannot afford such services even if they wish to have them. When rural poor migrates to urban areas, the implications of the dearth of assets becomes underscored by their lack not only of land but also in the form of human capital. Everywhere, the poor have no or a very low level of educational achievements or marketable skills. They are thus condemned in urban areas to the very lowest paying unskilled work, if they find any work/employment at all. Although urban incomes are generally higher than in rural areas, they are needed for virtually any service or goods – to pay rent, transport costs, food, health costs, so that the living costs of the urban poor are significantly higher than the rural poor. Many items that have to be purchased in urban areas are free or cheaper in many rural areas, as they are growing or are produced locally, e.g. freshwater, fuel, traditional building materials, which has environmental consequences. Poor households thus have to deliberately put out their labour for such income and where possible, diversify their sources of income to reduce the risks that adverse circumstances could cause by a sharp drop of income from one source.

The situation of the urban poor is further exacerbated by their lack of access to the decision-making mechanisms that determine how resources are utilised. The urban poor exist at the fringes of societal activities such as employment, access to social services and are often displaced to environmentally unsafe areas of societal space without any recourse or voice in any of these decisions. Local authorities are still very reluctant to shift their attitudes from a paternalistic approach to an empowering approach, as they view this as loss of control over resources as well as a reduction in their power. Many projects and programmes however, have recognised the importance of civil society participation in terms of encouraging community involvement in decision-making processes and influencing how resources are utilised. This could lead to an increase in self-esteem of individuals and households, stimulating better

community organisation and enhance a community capability to negotiate its role in the development process.

In Asia-Pacific megacities, even where economic “miracle” has occurred during around three decades, significant proportions of the urban population receive income below basic need poverty lines and live in sub-standard housing. It is predicted that 60% of the urban population of Asia would be found living in slum or squatter settlements by the turn of the century unless drastic reforms were undertaken. In Jakarta, Bangkok, Manila, Ho Chi Minh City and Seoul, we still find people making incomes from refuse dumps, the official percentage of families living in sub-standard housing stock in this city remained at around 17 to 25% (Par, Kim, and Yang, 1986). Widening income disparities concurrent with increasing economic growth resulted in an increase in absolute poverty in some megacities.

In Metropolitan Manila, during the past decades the economic growth has been modest and in some years it has been even negative, which could be partly attributed to a debt-service ratio of nearly 40%. The unemployment rate persists at around 30% or 3.2 million people could be considered as poor. Recent calculations even indicate that the actual number could be as high as 4.3 million. These figures indicate the central problem confronting the management of Metropolitan Manila: stagnating economic growth, considerable population increase and high unemployment and poverty rates. To these we can add urban environmental problems, such as the pollution of water and air and large slum areas where people live under appalling conditions (van Naerssen, Ligthard and Zapanta, in Ruland 1996).

When viewing environmental distress and poverty together, the major conclusion to be drawn is that the consequences of environmental deterioration fall heaviest on the poor4. They are most affected by the lack of water supply and sanitation facilities, flooding, over crowding, poor ventilation, etc, and consequently they suffer most from environmental diseases. What is more, their houses are constructed over areas of periodically flooding where there is no sewerage system. In many instances, it is the poor who actually are the de facto caretakers of the environment through the types of jobs generated by environmental disregard on the part of the affluent and elite. Far from “causing” environmental deterioration, poverty is more accurately a manifestation of disempowerment, delegitimation, marginalisation and exploitation of the lower strata of society. Much of the economy of the poor is derived from deteriorating environmental condition in the cities of Asia. Three things characterise the poor societies: lack of assets hence their dependence on their labour for generating income, lack of access to income-generating opportunities and to participate in decision-making.

The link between poverty and environmental degradation in megacities is often most visible in slum settlements. Slum communities in the BMA are typically found in peri-urban area. In 1992, 19.4 % of the BMA urban population, or nearly 1,5 million people, were living in slum communities (NESDB, 1991). In Metro Manila, too, the growth of the population and massive increase of squatter areas all over the metropolitan area urgently demand a well-considered policy towards both illegal subdivisions and large-scale housing and habitat programmes. Two-thirds of the population in Jakarta live in impermanent or semi-permanent housing. Rapid urbanisation, coupled with growing poverty and income inequality, could give rise to higher rates of slum formation in the coming years, and thus expose even people to unhealthy and degraded environmental conditions.

4 Poverty line usually corresponds to World Bank estimates (1985) whereby being poor is associated with per capita income levels of $370 per annum and absolute poverty as those households earning $275 per annum.

Based on poor condition of the megacities, we have to find both a conceptual and programming framework for urban water management and poverty eradication in a sustainable manner. It embraces the principles of sustainable human development through participation, empowerment, gender equity and good governance. The operational framework of the approach will be based on a participatory process which brings together various actors, local government and municipal authorities as well as local communities in processes of decision-making, policy formulation and implementation. Special emphasis will be also placed on rising public awareness among poor community, i.e. providing poor community and local informal organisation with better understanding on how to reach access to water supply and sanitation facilities and then how to get better organised to participate in system management.

CONCLUSION: TOWARDS INTERDICIPLINARY APPROACH AND CROSS-SECTORAL INITIATIVE IN URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT FOR THE URBAN POOR

Megacities managers (government) in Asia have proved themselves to be largely unable to reverse the inequality of public services -particularly water supply and sanitation- of their cities and have been particularly inefficient in attempts to assist the poor in their efforts to manage the environments of slum and squatter settlements being produced and reproduced in and around cities. The reasons for these failures are manifold and systemic. One is the general pattern of top-down exercise of political authority works against the inclusion of needs of much of the population in the routine of governance and planning in the public domain. This concentration of political and planning power has a spatial as well as social or class dimension. Specifically, local municipal governments are rarely given the power to effectively manage the environmental problems they face. Although problems are often better understood and management more appropriately organised at the local level, local governments in most Asian countries are endowed with neither significant political nor economic power and also remain largely unaccountable to the citizenry in their geographical domain.

Governments can and should have a central role in reducing or removing many forms of inequality – for instance in access to water supply and sanitation facilities which ensure that low-income households no longer suffer from the diseases and injuries that are easily prevented or treated. Of course, governments should also guarantee equality in civil and political rights. Competent and effective public services can reduce the level of inequality. Where public agencies ensure that all shelters within cities have adequate provision for water, sanitation, drainage and garbage removal, this also greatly reduces the health burden of having a low income. But in general, governments do little to address such inequalities – and in many instances, they actually reinforce it. Middle and upper-income groups often receive more benefit from publicly funded infrastructures and services than low-income groups. They often underpay for the environmental services they receive from public agencies. Meanwhile, the inadequacies in environmental legislation (or in its enforcement) mean lower costs for many enterprises but increased environmental health risks for many citizens. Most governments will also tend to avoid discussions of inequality since growing health inequalities between rich and poor, that are evident in many nations, raise questions about the full costs of their economic and social policies. In addition, many local authorities are constrained in the possibilities of reducing inequalities both by their national governments and by the conditions imposed by development assistance agencies.

There is an important new element in the thinking about urban water management and poverty reduction. This is the recognition that it is the poor’s lack of influence on government policies and institutions and their lack of protection from the law that explain a significant part of the deprivation they face. There is also the recognition that governments will not address urban poverty and its underlying cause unless “the poor” have more political influence.

This paper proposes the following strategy to urban water management, which could ensure that low-income households access to water supply and sanitation facilities.

- Improvement public awareness of the right for everybody have sustainable access to water supply and sanitation facilities. The poor have to know how to use the strength of the community (particularly the low income) and look for social response (informal community group, NGO and international organisations) to impose demand for basic water supply and sanitation to local governments.

- Fostering regular, formal interaction between local government and civil society (including through community-based, non-governmental organisations and public-private organisations);

- Creation of interdisciplinary networks on urban water management and poverty alleviation that would consist of: central and local government, national and international universities, international organisations, NGOs, local community, etc.

Strengthening institutional framework of urban governance (urban planning and management) and human resources capacity on urban water management. Special emphasis should be also placed on offering political and technical responses to urban water problems that the poor are faced in coastal megacities.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Brownder, J., James, R., Bohland, R. and Scarpaci, J. Patterns of development on the metropolitan fringe expansion in Bangkok, Jakarta and Santiago, Journal of the American Planning Association, No. 3, pp 310-327.

Darniere A.G. and Takahashi, L. M. 1999. Poverty and access: differences and communality across slum communities in Bangkok, Habitat International, vol. 23, No.2, June 1999. pp 271-288.

Drakakis-Smith, D. 1995. Third World cities: sustainable urban development II – population, labour and poverty, Urban Studies, 33, pp 673-701.

Douglass, M. 1992. The political economy of urban poverty and environmental management in Asia: access, empowerment and community-based alternatives, Environmental and Urbanisation, Vol.4, No.2, pp 9-32.

Firman, T. and Dharmapartni I.A.I. 1994. The challenges to sustainable development in Jakarta Metropolitan Region, Habitat International, vol. 18. No. 3. pp 79-94.

Firman, T. 1998. The restructuring of Jakarta Metropolitan Area: A global city in Asia, Cities, vol.15, No.4, pp 229-1998.

Fu-chen Lo and Yue-Man Yeung., 1996, Emerging world cities in Pacific Asia, United Nations University Press, Tokyo, 528 p.

Johnstone, N. 1997. Economic inequality and the urban environment: the case of water and sanitation, Environmental Economics Programme, Discussion Paper, DP 97-03, September 1997.

Khondker, H.H. 1998, Poverty and social integration: historical and comparative perspectives (Case Southeast Asia), International conference: Research Community for Habitat Agenda, 10 p

Ruland, J. 1996. The dynamics of metropolitan management in Southeast Asia, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore, 260 p.

Stubbs J. and Clarke, G. 1996, Megacity Management in the Asian and Pacific Region - Policy issues and innovative approaches, Asian Development Bank, two volumes. 540+398p.

McGee, T.G. and Robinson, I. 1995. The Mega-Urban regions of Southeast Asia, Vancouver, UBC Press.

Razak, Hamidah. Kadar Poliklorobifenil (PCB) di Perairan Sunter - Teluk Jakarta. In Hutagalung, H.P. et al. Support Paper at Workshop on Sea Pollution Monitoring, Jakarta; 7-9 February 1994, pp. 29-35.

Schmidt, J.D. 1998, The Social consequences of global urbanisation, Third World Planning Review, vol.18 No.4, pp-134

Schmidt, J.D. 1998. Globalisation and inequality in urban Southeast Asia, Third World Planning Review, vol. 20 No. 2, pp 127-146.

Thibult, Ch. And Antier, G. 1997, Updating the land use map of metropolitan Manila through spot remote sensing imagery: final technical report, Paris, IAURIF, 72 p.

Yeung, Y.M. and McGee, T.G. 1986, Community participation in delivering urban services in Asia. Ottawa, International Development Research Centre, 279 p.

Yueng, Y.M. 1988. Livelihoods for the urban poor: case for a greater role by metropolitan governments, Regional Development Dialogue, vol. 9, No.4, pp 40-54.

Kingsley. G.T. Ferguson, B.W. Tower B.T. and Dice S.R. 1994. Managing urban environmental quality in Asia, Washington, World Bank, Paper Number 220, 102 p.

Setchell, C.A. 1995. The growing environmental crisis in the world’s megacities – the case of Bangkok, Third World Planning Review, vol. 17 No. 1, pp 1-18.