Skip to main content
Original Research Article Open Access SINTA 2 Accredited

Sensitivity Indicators Analysis and Regional Sustainable Development Status in Indonesia

Authors

  • 1 Directorat General of Regional Autonomy of Ministry of Home Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia
  • 2 IPB University image/svg+xml ROR IPB University
  • *Corresponding author
DOI
10.21787/jbp.09.2017.265-280
Published & Pages
28 November 2017 · pp. 265-280
Manuscript History
Received22 Oct 2017 Published28 Nov 2017
Read PDF 1.6 MB Cite

1,027 Views 666 Downloads

Abstract

Indonesia is one of the largest archipelagic country in the world, with an area of 1,913,578.67 km2, and consists of 34 provinces, 415 regencies, and 93 cities. Since the end of centralistic governance under Soeharto's administration in 1999, Indonesia has adopted a decentralized governance system to deliver national and regional development. It has been noted that Indonesia has variations in social, economic, ecological, and institutional dimensions between a province to another province in Indonesia. This study aims to analyze the sensitivity of indicator and hierarchy of sustainability of province in Indonesia, using a scalogram method, and analyze the status of sustainable development of the regions, using cluster and flag analysis method. The research shows two most sensitive indicators, the ratio of paved road length to area width and the GDP per capita. Both of these indicators are very effective in increasing the sustainability of provincial development in Indonesia. Of the 33 provinces studied, 24 are at a moderate level of sustainability. Flag analysis showed that the SDG scenario is better than the NC-MEA and the BAU at Region I to III.

Keywords:

Read the Full Text

The full text of this article is available as PDF. Version of record published in Vol. 9 No. 2 (2017).

Open PDF

References

16 references
  1. Erlinda, N. (2016). Pembangunan Wilayah Berkelanjutan di Provinsi Jambi dan Implikasi Model Jamrud. Bogor Agricultural University. Retrieved from http://repository.ipb.ac.id/handle/123456789/81527
  2. Fauzi, A., & Oxtavianus, A. (2014). The Measurement of Sustainable Development in Indonesia. Jurnal Ekonomi Pembangunan, 15(1), 68–83. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/11617/4780
  3. Jesinghaus, J. (2007). Indicators: Boring Statistics or the Key to Sustainable Development? In T. Hák, B. Moldan, & A. L. Dahl (Eds.), Sustainability Indicators: A Scientific Assessment (pp. 83–95). Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
  4. Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 17 of 2007 concerning the National Long-Term Development Plan Year 2005-2025, Pub. L. No. 17 (2007). Indonesia.
  5. Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 23 of 2014 on Regional Government, Pub. L. No. 23 (2014). Indonesia.
  6. Nijkamp, P., & Vreeker, R. (2000). Sustainability Assessment of Development Scenarios: Methodology and Application to Thailand. Ecological Economics, 33, 7–27.
  7. Poveda, C. A., & Lipsett, M. G. (2011). A Review of Sustainability Assessment and Sustainability/Environmental Rating Systems and Credit Weighting Tools. Journal of Sustainable Development, 4(6), 36–55. http://doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v4n6p36
  8. Regulation of the Minister of Home Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia Number 56 of 2015 concerning Code and Data of Administrative Government Region, Pub. L. No. 56 (2015). Indonesia.
  9. Regulation of the President of the Republic of Indonesia Number 5 of 2010 concerning the National Medium Term Development Plan Year 2010-2014, Pub. L. No. 5 (2010). Indonesia.
  10. Rustiadi, E., Saefulhakim, S., & Panuju, D. R. (2009). Perencanaan dan Pengembangan Wilayah. Jakarta: Yayasan Obor Indonesia.
  11. Saefulhakim, S. (2004). Modul Pemodelan. Bogor: Fakultas Pertanian IPB.
  12. Shmelev, S. E., & Rodríguez-Labajos, B. (2009). Dynamic Multidimensional Assessment of Sustainability at the Macro Level: The Case of Austria. Ecological Economics, 68(10), 2560–2573. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.03.019
  13. Spangenberg, J. H., Pfahl, S., & Deller, K. (2002). Towards Indicators for Institutional Sustainability: Lessons from an Analysis of Agenda 21. Ecological Indicators, 2(1–2), 61–77. http://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-160X(02)00050-X
  14. Tong, C., Ye, W.-H., & Hou, B. (2006). Developing an Environmental Indicator System for Sustainable Development in China: Two Case Studies of Selected Indicators. Environmental Management, 38(4), 688–702. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-004-0352-y
  15. United Nations. (2015). Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. General Assembly 70 Session.
  16. World Bank. (2009). Investing in a More Sustainable Indonesia: Country Environmental Analysis. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/699081468040545730/Main-report

Author Biographies

  • Akhmad Fauzi · IPB University

    Department of Resources and Environmental Economics

  • Soeryo Adiwibowo · IPB University

    Department of Communication and Community Development Science

Most read articles by the same author(s)