1. Introduction
The Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) policy triggered debates within sustainable urban development in the early 1990s. The concept aimed to address urban transportation issues, including severe traffic congestion, by combining urban land-use and transport systems [1]. TOD manages people’s mobility by decreasing trip distances and maximizing transport service efficiency by concentrating urban development around transit stations [2]. The key TOD characteristics advocated are high density, being pedestrian-friendly, and mixed-use space following the widely known three ‘D’ aspects of density, diversity, and design [3,4]. Subsequently, they became 5Ds, including density, diversity, design, destination accessibility, and distance to transit [5]. TOD policies aim to achieve a sustainable land-use and transport system through enhancing accessibility by providing high-level transport connections [6,7,8]. This would attract people to use public transport, reducing traffic congestion, energy consumption, and air pollution [9].
Extensive literature has assessed TOD’s effectiveness by examining its key components, including the connection of transit stations and land-use density, diversity, and proximity to transport nodes. Other components are cycling and pedestrian-friendly developments related to accessibility based on infrastructure development [1,10,11]. A Beijing case study identified unique policies and strategies for mixed land use to enhance metro stations’ accessibility [11]. In this context, the short distance between metro stations that provides a pedestrian-friendly environment is more important than bus connections [11]. Other studies showed that the TOD infrastructure is expensive, requiring high initial capital investment, with city governments often failing to secure investors [12]. Similarly, operational and maintenance costs are problematic, including financial sustainability only achievable by fulfilling density or maximum ridership [13]. Many TOD projects failed to meet their intended objectives [10]. Moreover, there are mixed results regarding implementing the transit-oriented metropolis, the extended version of TOD that clusters the city into adaptive and transit, strong-core, and hybrid [3]. Commuters in South Korea still adopt high mobility, using private automobiles to surrounding areas [14].
Some studies highlighted the relationship between urban spatial land-use development and travel patterns [15,16], including the impact of land use and income on travel behavior [17,18,19]. Other studies examined market forces as the dominant factors influencing an individual or firm’s decisions when selecting office or home locations [20]. Adjusting locations between private housing and employers optimizes travel duration and distance by generating maximum ridership [21]. Furthermore, Ref. [22] highlighted the relationship between land use in areas within a 500 m radius around rail stations and ridership patterns in Seoul. Ref. [23] developed a TOD model to achieve optimal land-use allocation within stations to maximize transit ridership in Jakarta. Similar studies were conducted in metropolitan cities in Japan and China, including Hong Kong, regarding the relationship between property development and the transport rail system [13,24]. Extensive studies in China focused on alternative urban land-use allocations that increase transport ridership [25,26], including using a generic algorithm and the grey linear programming technique [27]. When identifying contributing factors for TOD performance, studies on physical infrastructures with the socio-economic and cultural aspects of the key TOD stakeholder, including the commuters, received scant attention.
The TOD concept has been implemented in many metropolitan cities worldwide [10]. However, the concept is relatively new in Indonesia, with limited literature on its policy and implementation. For instance, from the 330 TOD articles reviewed by [10], case studies were drawn from cities in the USA, Europe, Australia, and a few in Asia, including cities in China, Japan, and Thailand. Indonesia’s capital city, Jakarta, the world’s fourth most populous city and South-East Asia’s largest, received no mention. The concept was first included within the policy document enacted in 2012 on the Jakarta 2030 Regional Spatial Plan, also known as Jakarta RTRW 2030. However, the key implementing regulations have only been stipulated since 2017. An efficient transport system and effective urban development are essential to support the Jakarta metropolis with its 29,313,171 people, including 1.2 million commuting daily and population growth of 2–4% [28]. With TOD still in its infancy, a recent study suggested that the government prioritize the diversity of land-use allocation to generate maximum transport ridership [23]. Shortly after 2012 enacted the Jakarta 2030 Regional Spatial Plan policy, Ref. [21] assessed the characteristics of the locations proposed as TOD areas through GIS analysis. Additionally, the study examined the relevant factors related to commuters’ socio-economic profiles, mobility, and preference regarding TOD implementation through a survey of 400 respondents. With few exceptions, including [21,23], the existing literature largely focuses on physical factors related to TOD implementation.
The review of 330 TOD projects’ implementation worldwide summarized different impacts on travel behavior, land-use and spatial distribution, real-estate prices, residential location, and community life [10]. TOD debates have shifted from their initial main goal of addressing urban mobility and transportation issues to its impact and physical factors influencing its performance. Although TOD addresses urban transportation issues, the current discussion focuses on making it functional at any cost. The critical question is to whom TOD should be functional. Furthermore, the literature on the relationship between land-use development and travel patterns focuses predominantly on travel distance between housing and work locations, relying on physical infrastructure development.
Moreover, the on-going COVID-19 pandemic has affected travel behavior overall, with governments worldwide imposing travel restrictions, including a reduction in public transports’ usage and the closure of public facilities and non-essential retail stores. Policies to restrict public mobility, such as physical and social distancing and ‘lock down’, are implemented in many countries to mitigate the spread of the virus, and people’s risk perception of it plays a significant role. A study in China [29] emphasized the critical role of risk perception, perceived understanding, and safety climate for the successful implementation of social distancing policies. Relevant to risk perceptions, other studies have highlighted the role of social media, both positively and negatively, when spreading misinformation [30,31]. A joint force between governments and scientists from various domains of epidemiology, governance, economy, and psychology, was called to create potent and persuasive media content for successful healthcare protection campaigns [30]. The campaign, which included a ‘stay-at-home’ regime regulating individuals when conducting distance working or studying [30], led to the transition from working in offices to remote operations.
Many countries have also enacted various public health strategies, including contact tracing and quarantine, with peoples’ willingness to participate influenced by factors such as level of knowledge, ethical and psychological aspects that ultimately determine the effective implementation of the strategies [32]. Another study in Switzerland [33] also identified health risk perception as an important driver for people’s acceptance of government’s measures for COVID-19 mitigation. The health risk perception has a mediating effect, which further enhances public obedience of social distance behaviors. In addition, a China study [34] discussed how regulatory punishment affects social distancing obedience behavior and could have a greater effect by enhancing risk perception. While the long-term effect of the COVID-19 pandemic warrants further research, this present study aims to extend the existing literature by presenting the preliminary findings of the COVID-19 effects on the changes in commuters’ travel behavior.
Overall, this study contributes to the existing literature by focusing on two TOD impacts, including changes in commuters’ travel behavior and land-use and spatial distribution [10] in the Jakarta metropolitan area. It fills a gap in the TOD literature regarding the lack of a longitudinal study [10]. Furthermore, this study supports [21] with an eight-year lapse since the inclusion of the TOD concept in 2012 within the Jakarta 2030 Regional Spatial Plan. First, it aimed to examine the progress and barriers to TOD implementation. Second, this study aimed to determine changes in commuters’ mobility through a survey of 400 respondents and land-use spatial distribution via the geographic information system within the several TOD areas in the Jakarta metropolitan area. It used the 2013 and 2020 data to determine how these changes were influenced by TOD-related developments. Third, this study aimed to establish appropriate policy recommendations on how the Jakarta and national governments should pursue TOD or alternative policies to achieve sustainable urban transportation and development.
2. Materials and Methods
This section outlines the significance of the Jakarta metropolitan area as an important case study and the methods of data collection and analysis. The methods used include the geographic information system (GIS) and the survey of 400 daily commuters who live within the TOD radius area in 2013 as repeated in 2020.
2.1. The Jakarta Metropolitan Area
The Jakarta metropolitan area that includes the cities of Jakarta, Bogor, Depok, Tangerang, and Bekasi, together known as Jabodetabek, is an important case study for the following reasons. First, it has the potential to offer a transit-supportive environment covering 5489 km2 and a density of 9756 people per km2 in 2020 [35]. Although residential areas have shifted from the Jakarta Capital and spread across the suburbs, employment remains concentrated in the Capital. Second, the TOD concept was included within the 2012 enacted policy document of the Jakarta 2030 Regional Spatial Plan, but the key implementing regulations were stipulated from 2017 onwards. The slow progress and barriers to TOD implementation necessitate appropriate policy recommendations. Third, Jabodetabek is a metropolitan area with 29.3 million people, including 1.2 million commuting daily and population growth of 2–4% [28]. This implies the need for efficient and sustainable transportation and effective urban development. Fourth, the public transport infrastructure has improved with light rail transit (LRT), rapid mass transit (MRT), and busway systems. However, their numbers are insignificant compared with the growth of private motor vehicles of 58,180 annually [28]. Jabodetabek’s administrative territories include Jakarta province, Bogor city and district, Bekasi city and district, Tangerang city, South Tangerang city, and Tangerang district. These territories hold significant relevance, as they were included within the initial TOD plan incorporated within the Jakarta 2030 Regional Spatial Plan. They are also relevant to the rail network development plan, a policy established by the national government through the Ministry of Transport and Network.
Daily commuters in Jabodetabek increased tenfold between 1985 and 2002 [36], 1.5-fold from 743 thousand trips in 2000 to 1.1 million in 2010 [37], and grew to 1.38 million trips in 2014 [38]. In 2019, daily commuters decreased to 1.2 million trips [28]. About 80% of the trips in 2014 were made by private vehicles [21], reducing to 66% in 2019 [39].
Jakarta is Indonesia’s first province to include a TOD concept within its Regional Spatial Plan 2030 issued in 2012. Its implementation has been slow and uncertain, challenged by barriers, such as overlapping institutional infrastructures. One implementing regulation is the Spatial Plan and Zoning issued in 2014 [40]. Other policy documents include Governor Regulations number 44 of 2017 on the Development of TOD replaced by number 67 of 2019, and number 140 of 2017 on the Assignment of the MRT Jakarta Corporation to manage the first phase of the MRT operation, the TOD North–South corridor [41]. Furthermore, Presidential Regulation number 55 of 2018 on the Greater Jakarta Transportation Master Plan [42] was issued to regulate TOD implementation in the Jabodetabek area. Although there is convergence between policies issued by the Jakarta provincial, Jakarta metropolitan, and national governments, several differences exist regarding selecting TOD areas [40,42].
2.2. Geographic Information System (GIS) and Analysis of Land-Use Changes
Land-use maps were constructed according to the basic land-surface map developed by the National Agency of Land Survey. These maps were analyzed using the ArcGIS system of 2013 and 2020 and data from field surveys. The land-use structure and spatial growth analysis included the growth or expansion of urban forms, density, diversity or heterogeneity, and connectivity [43,44]. Moreover, this study utilized Google Earth satellite imagery to construct the relevant land-use maps of 2013 and 2020 for the Jakarta region. It examined land-use changes between 2013 and 2020 through the following steps.
This study conducted spatial digitization involving data processing from satellite imagery into vector data using ArcGIS 10.1 version. The categorical maps of the urban green space were manually interpreted based on the same ArcGIS 10.1. The same image or spatial interpretation was then conducted to classify land use following the National Agency of Land Survey’s classification comprising residential areas, workplaces, public facilities, and green open space.
Following the GIS results of the land-use maps, this study used the non-site-specific-accuracy method [45] to calculate the total area assigned to each land-use category and compare the changes between 2013 and 2020. It compared the overall figures with the size and distribution of land use of the categories. Since both maps use the same classification scheme, they were classified at the same level of detail.
The location areas are the planned and considered as TOD areas in Jabodetabek, eight areas in Jakarta city and six in the suburbs (Figure 1). The selected TOD areas within Jakarta capital are grouped into three categories: (1) those that are MRT based consist of Dukuh Atas, Lebak Bulus, and Kampung Bandan; (2) those that are commuter rail based consist of Manggarai and Senen, and (3) those that are BRT based include Harmoni, Blok M, and Grogol. The six studied areas within the suburbs have not received formal TOD interventions and still operate as ordinary transit areas (Figure 1). The other TOD areas depicted in Figure 1, including Bogor, Depok, Depok Baru, Tangerang, Tangerang Selatan, and Bekasi, are the main railway networks where commuters begin their departure from each of the suburbs to Jakarta capital as the main destination.
Eight TOD areas were selected as samples for the following reasons. Six of them, i.e., Dukuh Atas, Manggarai, Harmoni, Senen, Blok M, and Grogol were included within the 2030 Jakarta Regional Spatial Plan. The other two areas, Lebak Bulus and Kampung Bandan, were specifically planned as TOD-based MRT Stations (Figure 2).
Following [44], this study employed a spatial unit of analysis of 1 km radius of the TOD area. It adopted the following formula to measure land-use diversity.
(1)
The formula is explained as follows:
LUDI (land use diversity index): this is an index used for representing the land-use mix or homogeneity rate of land use in a given area.
li: the ratio of a particular area of the land-use category to the total area being analyzed.
li multiplied with the (ln i) which is divided by the total area (ln 4) within the TOD area with four land-use categories.
Since LUDI is normalized using the natural logarithm of the number of land uses, its value lies between 0 and 1, where 0 represents homogenous land use, and 1 indicates the tract of land that is equally distributed across all land use types. A higher diversity index implies many diverse activities within the proximity of TOD areas. This reflects the population’s mixed socio-economic condition and better synergies between various land-use functions.
2.3. Survey of 400 Daily Commuters Who Live in Planned TOD Areas in 2013 and Repeated in 2020
Each of the 2013 and 2020 surveys involved 400 daily commuters, who live in planned TOD areas, moving from Bogor, Depok, Tangerang, Bekasi (Bodetabek) to the Jakarta capital city mainly for work reasons. The 2013 survey was conducted after the TOD concept was included within the 2012 policy document of the 2030 Jakarta Regional Spatial Plan. In both surveys, 400 respondents were selected randomly from the transit areas within the six rail stations in suburban areas (Bogor station, Depok station, Depok Baru station, Tangerang station, South_Tangerang station, and Bekasi station). Furthermore, 50 respondents were added in 2020 from the newly operated Lebak bulus MRT station (Figure 2). The 400 people surveyed in the eight TOD areas studies were purposely selected to meet two criteria: (1) worker/employee, and (2) commuter who lives within a radius of 1 km of a TOD area and works in the Jakarta capital. The population (i.e., number of employees) in aggregate was 4.047 in 2013 and 4.582 people in 2020, hence the number of surveyed people reached 9.8% and 8.7% of the population, respectively.
The 2020 survey was conducted in August to examine changes in commuters’ travel behavior and their preferences relating to TOD implementation. The main 2013 survey questions were used in data collection. Information was collected on commuters’ geographic origins, including distance to the transit locations, residential status, length of residency, reasons to select residences, and access to transit locations. Furthermore, the survey focused on the purpose of their mobility and the spatial distribution of workplaces and distance. The commuters’ mobility, including modes of transport, frequency of trips, average commuting time, travel cost, fuel consumption, and total time of return travel, were also surveyed. Additionally, data were collected on their TOD implementation understanding and preferences for the design and rationale of residence selection. The 2020 survey included a question on commuters’ preference to work from home due to the COVID-19 pandemic which has influenced their travel behavior. The limitation of this research design was the respondents asked in 2013 were not same as the respondents in 2020, although the residents are in the same area within TOD area.
3. Results
3.1. The Changes of Land-Use and Spatial Distribution within TOD Areas between 2013 and 2020
Land-use changes within a one-kilometer radius of TOD areas between 2013 and 2020 are outlined in Table 1 and Table 2. In Table 1, the changes within the eight TOD areas in Jakarta city are less significant than in suburban areas (Table 2).
The comparison of the diversity variable in Jakarta between 2013 and 2020 showed that the TOD residential areas grew significantly (Table 1). The growth was almost twofold in the Harmoni area that hosts the central station of the Trans-Jakarta busway system. Moreover, there was a diversity of around 3–5% within TOD areas, such as Manggarai, Blok M, and Grogol. A decrease in diversity occurred only in the Senen area, and no changes were recorded in the Lebak Bulus and Kampung Bandang areas. Workplaces showed a decrease within all TOD areas, except Blok M, Lebak Bulus, and Senen. Lebak Bulus hosts the new MRT station, showing the highest increase in the workplace category. Furthermore, a significant increase occurred in public facilities within six TOD areas and a decrease in Blok M and Lebak Bulus. The green open space function decreased in all areas.
The changes in public facilities areas are insignificant in Dukuh Atas, Manggarai, Harmoni, and Kampung Bandan at the expense of green open space (Table 1). This could be attributed to the government enlarging the station areas and supporting facilities in the initial TOD development. Based on the diversity index values, only Dukuh Atas and Harmoni had an increase in the diversity of land use. Dukuh Atas is a central hub of transportation modes, including the MRT, BRT, rail commuter, and airport rail, and has a high diversity index of 0.92. Harmoni, the central hub of BRT, has a moderate diversity index of 0.77. These two central transit hubs experienced an increase in the diversity index. Therefore, the other six sampled areas failed to achieve TOD’s criteria of land-use diversity.
Figure 2 shows the comparison of the diversity variable in four large-scale TOD areas in Jakarta city in 2020. It shows that residential areas dominate in Lebak Bulus with 52% followed by workplaces with 23%, public facilities with 13%, and green open spaces with 9.95%. Residential areas and workplaces hold similar proportions in Dukuh Atas, the central hub of Jakarta’s major land transportation. In Harmoni and Blok M areas, the BRT large-scale TOD regions, residential areas, and workplaces are similar, with the previous functional area experiencing a significant decrease in its green open space.
The GIS-based analysis of land-use changes between 2013 and 2020 showed a large difference in the diversity of the planned TOD areas between those in sub-urban Bodetabek and those in Jakarta. Most locations in sub-urban Bodetabek experienced a decrease in residential built areas but an increase in workplaces (Table 2). There was a notable increase in workplaces in Depok, South Tangerang, and Bekasi directly connected to Jakarta through the mass transport system (Table 2). This could be attributed to the private sector’s decision to choose the suburbs as an affordable location for their business activities. In this case, the accessibility variable to the Jakarta central business district is no longer an issue.
Moreover, Table 2 shows that public facilities grew significantly in all planned TOD areas within the suburbs in the eight-year lapse. Although green open spaces decreased in Jakarta (Table 1), they increased in some major Bodetabek’s TOD areas, such as Depok, South Tangerang, and Bekasi (Table 2). All TOD areas have higher land-use diversity to suit TOD criteria based on the diversity index.
3.2. Housework: Changes in Commuters’ Preference between 2013 and 2020
The survey results (Table 3) indicate that accessibility contributed most to commuters’ reasons to choose housing locations in the east and west suburbs in 2013. In contrast, most commuters selected the south suburbs due to social factors, including geographical proximity with extended family members and kinship relations. There are significant differences in commuters’ preferences between those from the east and west suburbs with others in the south suburbs. Accessibility, price, and social factors became the three highest priorities in east and west suburbs. However, south suburbs’ commuters cited the social, green open space, and price factors. In 2020, accessibility, social, and price factors remained the three of the most cited preferences. The green open space was the least and most cited factor in 2013 and 2020, respectively, and is even higher than the public and water facility factors. Another notable finding was the factor related to the new development of the MRT, where the near MRT station factor was the least cited. The south suburb’s commuters mostly considered the social factor in choosing house locations in 2013 and 2020. The east suburb’s commuters consistently cited accessibility as the most important factor, while the west suburbs changed preferences from accessibility in 2013 to the price factor in 2020.
Furthermore, Table 4 highlights commuters’ reasons to select workplace locations in 2020. It shows whether their decisions were influenced by the newly developed transport infrastructures, such as MRT, LRT, better access to the transit stations of the Trans-Jakarta bus system, or geographic proximity of transport lines to workplaces. Commuters from all suburbs predominantly considered the place of employer factor as the main reason to choose the workplace location. The second reason by commuters from the east and west suburbs was near commuter line KRL, an electricity-based mass train. Almost the same percentage was revealed by commuters from the South suburbs. A notable finding was the factor of near MRT or LRT being the least cited reason.
3.3. Changes in Commuters’ Travel Behavior between 2013 and 2020
The main modes of public transportation cited (Table 5) included train, regular bus, BRT Trans-Jakarta bus, and City minibus, known locally as angkot. The 2020 survey included MRT, which became operational in March 2019. The findings in Table 6 show that the commuters’ main concern is the availability of a reliable public transport system and not the distance between their residential and workplace locations. The current KRL commuter lines play a key mobility role in the Jakarta Metropolis, with a stable growth rate of more than 50% in 2013 and 70% in 2020. Consequently, 57% of commuters from East suburbs consistently use this transportation mode (Table 5). Moreover, Table 5 shows that there is a significant increase in the use of the BRT Trans-Jakarta bus, from 0.6% in 2013 to 10.5% in 2020. A significant change occurred in the travel mode of west suburb commuters, where the use of KRL commuter lines increased from 8.3% in 2013 to 72.4% in 2020. There was a 1.5% usage of the MRT and a decrease in using the regular bus and city minibus. Most BRT Trans-Jakarta corridors connect all Jakarta city and suburban areas. The use of MRT by the east suburb’s commuters is low, while the south suburbs’ commuters hold the highest usage with 14%. Furthermore, KRL commuter lines and BRT usage increased to 4.9% and 4.7%, respectively. The usage of the mass transit system, including the KRL commuter lines, BRT, and MRT, increased significantly between 2013 and 2020.
As shown in Table 5, there is a significant shift in commuters’ using private vehicles from all the departure points, with a sharp increase in motorcycle usage. Moreover, commuters rarely use bicycles, which are non-existent at some departure points. The east suburbs commuters’ use of private cars and motorcycles increased about fourfold and twofold in 2020, respectively. In the west suburbs, the usage of cars decreased almost half, from 10.2% to 5.2%. However, the use of motorcycles increased nearly two and a half fold, and bicycle usage, a new phenomenon, increased by 1.5%. Furthermore, the south suburbs’ usage of motorcycles surged from 0% in 2013 to 50.4% in 2020. The speed factor explains why private vehicle usage is still dominated by motorcycles, which is because they navigate severe traffic congestion efficiently.
The respondents were also asked whether their reasons for using public transport were influenced by the newly developed transport infrastructures such as MRT and LRT (Table 6). They were also asked whether their reasons were influenced by other mass transit systems, such as the BRT Trans-Jakarta bus or the development of more pedestrian spaces.
As shown in Table 6, the MRT and LRT infrastructure has the most significant impact on commuters from the south suburbs deciding their public transport use. The reason for this could be that the first operated line of the MRT service is through the south suburbs. Moreover, the better-connected Trans-Jakarta bus and newly operated MRT impacted the decision of the west suburbs’ commuters. The most important reason for using public transport is the cost, except for the south suburban commuters. New transport infrastructure and cost were cited almost equally in the south suburbs, with 38% and 31%, respectively. Other main decision-making factors when using public transport is the improvement in connectivity of the Trans-Jakarta bus. Although the LRT was built in the east part of Jakarta, it is not preferred by commuters because of its high cost. As for walking, this study found that commuters preferred not to walk between the point of origin to transit stations or from the stations to the destination. More than 50% of the commuters traveled to the stations, not by foot. Overall, the cost factor is the one of the dominant reasons to use public transportation (Table 6).
3.4. Changes in Commuters’ Travel Behavior Impacted COVID-19
Survey results (Table 7) showed that commuters, predominantly from the east and south suburbs of Jakarta, were largely unaffected by the COVID-19 pandemic-related measures. They still used the trains from the transit stations to work places. Different results were observed in the west suburbs, where the majority of commuters changed their mode of transport, no longer using trains (Table 7). Noticeably, commuters also tended not to change their pattern of accessing the station, i.e., the way they travel from home to the transit stations during the pandemic. This can be attributed to two factors: the limited choice of modes of transport offered in transit stations, and the unavailability of alternative modes that connect the stations to their residence. These are classic factors that occur in many transit stations that are still in the early development stage, especially when the supporting infrastructure is still not fully prepared, as advocated by the TOD concept.
With regard to the survey question on changes in traveling time and frequency of traveling, the survey results (Table 7) showed that most of the commuters reduced their daily commuting time during the pandemic. They tended to focus only on essential travel, such as commuting to the work places, where many employers operated shift work, and buying essentials or acquiring basic services, including education and health. An interesting finding is that commuters from the south suburbs predominantly showed no changes in traveling time and frequency, also tending to maintain the use of trains as their preferred mode of transportation to their workplace and other destinations. Relating to travel limitations imposed during the pandemic, most commuters showed changes in their mobility behaviors. The commuters from all transit stations were more careful in avoiding rush hours, which are usually crowded with passengers, and switched their travel to non- peak hours. Thus, they could still travel but avoid crowded situations and long queues which could pose dangerous health risks during the pandemic.
4. Discussion
4.1. The Changes of Land-Use and Spatial Distribution
Research results showed that the increase in the residential function around TOD areas in Jakarta was evident, although the suburbs experienced a decrease (Table 1). This suggests an improved readiness and interest of commuter around TOD areas in 2020, eight years after the concept was included within Jakarta’s spatial planning policy document in 2012. Moreover, the increase in the number of commuters from the south suburbs who gave greater transportation access to TOD areas in the capital city suggests that TOD areas have become a more desirable location for workplaces.
Following our findings, Jakarta Metropolis’s governments and urban planners need to improve policies that enable residential and working places around TOD areas with high connectivity and accessibility to public transportation. The aim of moving commuters closer to workplaces is to decrease their mobility, travel distances, and usage of private vehicles. This policy was usually advocated based on the argument that placing residential and workplaces around TOD areas significantly enhances the land-use density and diversity [43,46,47,48]. However, governments should cautiously adopt this strategy and learn from other TOD implementations that failed to attract enough people to reside within TOD areas, including cases in Thailand [49,50]. In Thailand’s case, the TOD areas were deserted by native residents because they could not afford the housing prices that had increased drastically since the development of infrastructure [48,50]. Furthermore, local authorities failed to attract new residents to move to the TOD areas for the same reason [50]. Studies worldwide suggest that local governments could not establish affordable housing due to the sharp rise in land price within TOD areas [10,51,52]. In contrast, the TOD concept succeeded in Shenzen, China, partly due to establishing government-subsidized rental housing [52].
Another notable finding from our study (Table 1) shows a significant increase in public facilities at the expense of green open space (GOS) in the capital city. Most of the capital’s land is owned by the National or Jakarta government and has been used by previous development projects [53]. Therefore, relevant government authorities must utilize GOS to develop the required public facilities within the transport systems, including stations and pedestrian spaces. For almost a decade, TOD has been implemented solely by governments’ legal authorization to manage GOS. Therefore, governments should engage the private sector through a public–private TOD partnership (PPP) to address this limitation [54].
4.2. The Change of Commuters’ Preference to Choose Workplace and Housing Locations
The TOD components of land-use diversity and destination accessibility were considered to be more significant than others by commuters. Commuters from all suburbs predominantly considered the place of employer factor as the main reason to choose the workplace location. Our finding differs from other studies which showed that regional accessibility influenced travelers’ behavior as an important predictor of rail station ridership [55].
This finding informs relevant policymakers and urban planners to focus on the enhancement of the accessibility of workplace and housing locations as part of their TOD strategic implementation. Previous TOD studies recommended the universal increase in land-use density and diversity around transit stations [43,46]. However, our study found other factors critical to TOD implementation. These are socio-economic and cultural aspects, including commuters’ customs and practices, which should be accounted for when governments implement TOD. For instance, commuters’ preference for housing location was also significantly influenced by kinship relations or the social factor (Table 3), reflecting the local culture. Commuters live near their families and relatives, who provide child care and livelihood support. Other social factor variables include the feeling of security and belonging as discussed by van Gent et al. [56].
The existence of new transport infrastructures, such as MRT and LRT, did not significantly influence commuters’ choice of workplace (Table 4). This means that ridership should be increased to achieve a sustainable transport system. As advocated across the TOD literature, transit ridership could be enhanced by improving multi-modal connections and planning land use that attracts travelers and serves as a destination in chained trips [57]. Although feasible, these strategies depend largely on the expensive development or expansion of physical transport infrastructures, such as MRT and LRT. City governments often cite financial barriers as the main challenge to implementing TOD [58]. Another notable finding of our study is with regard to commuters’ preference in choosing housing locations influenced predominantly by kinship relations (Table 3), that reflects the local culture of living in close proximity to family and relatives.
4.3. The Change of Commuters’ Travel Behavior
One of our key findings is related to the existence of new transport infrastructure, such as MRT and LRT, which did not significantly influence the use of public transportation by the majority of commuters, although it impacted the travel behavior of the south suburbs’ commuters (Table 6). The better connectivity of the Trans-Jakarta bus also has more impact to endorse the commuter to use public transportation. These findings also suggest that increased ridership of existing transport systems may hold greater prospects for success for achieving a sustainable transport system, compared to building new transport systems which commuters cannot afford. This relates to another key finding for which “travel cost” was cited as one of the most important factors when using public transport. For example, while LRT has been built and is operational in eastern Jakarta, it is considered expensive and, thus, not preferred by commuters, costing twice that of the Trans-Jakarta bus and thrice the commuter rail [59]. This finding resonates with an earlier study in Beijing which highlighted time punctuality, affordable cost, and comfortable experience as factors attributing to the commuters’ subjective experience toward traffic congestion and which ultimately influenced their travel behavior [60].
Pedestrian-friendly spaces, a key characteristic of TOD, have less impact on commuters’ decision to use public transportation (Table 6). This finding differs from those in other large cities, such as Seoul, where walking and bicycling are prominent modes of transport [57]. However, a positive link exists between MRT availability and pedestrian space in the south suburbs. Commuters’ walking behavior has increased significantly within the south suburbs and decreased in the other two suburbs (Table 6).
Walking is one of TOD’s primary goals as part of integrating land-use and transport development [43,44,46]. However, pedestrian space would only be an influencing factor with an integrated transport infrastructure network. This finding differs from the commonly advocated TOD concept. Based on TOD, a pedestrian-friendly design, including the threshold distance to transit stations and walking destination, promotes pedestrian mobility and increases transport ridership [61]. Indonesians’ walking habit is low, with the country being placed last out of 46 countries and territories for the number of citizens walking steps [61]. A pedestrian-friendly infrastructure is considered a key factor in enhancing walking behavior. However, the online motorcycle taxi, known locally as Gojek, has discouraged the walking habit, with commuters using it instead of walking to and from transit stations, this in line with [62].
While the COVID-19 pandemic and mobility restrictions have changed human mobility, in general, our finding suggests that the pandemic has not significantly impacted commuters’ travel behavior in our study areas. Differing from China as the first country that implemented a national lockdown [29], Indonesia, including the Jakarta metropolitan, did not implement a lockdown policy. Instead, certain mobility restrictions were imposed when cases of COVID-19 increased severely. In our study areas, through governments’ regulations on mobility restrictions, the changes in commuters’ travel behavior varied. In many transit stations, commuters did not voluntarily change their preferred modes of transportation during the restriction periods, still relying on ordinary trains to serve their mobility. As discussed earlier, this can be attributed to the lack of alternative modes of public transport meeting commuters’ main considerations, i.e., price affordability. Nonetheless, whilst the commuters’ willingness to comply with the local authority’s public health strategies during the pandemic was not as full as expected, there was evidence of travel behavioral changes with regard to travel time and frequency.
Further research needs to be conducted following the post-pandemic phenomenon and related policies. Specifically following [31], future research in the Jakarta metropolitan area needs to focus on attributing factors that may influence people’s willingness to comply with public health strategies, including ethical, psychological, and practical factors that were deemed to be important and frequently discussed within the existing literature [31]. Moreover, as highlighted by other studies [29,30,33], the following key interrelating factors also warrant study in the Jakarta metropolitan area: how public guidance influences the risk perception of individuals, the role of social media in shaping such risk perception, and the extent to which risk perception and regulation punishment affect social distancing obedience behavior.
5. Conclusions
-
Through a geospatial information system analysis and survey of 400 daily commuters who live within a 1 km radius of the planned TOD case study areas conducted in 2013 and 2020, our study examined changes in the spatial distribution of land use and commuters’ travel behavior, determining the extent to which TOD implementation influenced these changes, thereby informing appropriate future policies. While acknowledging the importance of land-use diversity and accessibility within the modes of transit transportation, i.e., the physical aspect of which has become a major focus of the existing TOD literature, our research findings revealed a significant weight on social and culture as key factors that influenced commuters’ travel behavior, with kinship relations being the main reason for choosing housing locations.
-
A significant increase in public facilities at the expense of green open space (GOS) indicates that TOD implementation was conducted by the government with the sole authority to manage GOS, lacking private sector involvement.
-
Our study found workplace and home culture as key factors for commuters’ decisions to support TOD implementation, highlighting socio-cultural elements as key determining factors toward achieving sustainable urban transportation and development. The cost factor was the commuters’ main reason for using public or private modes of transportation, reflecting specific mobility habits and local culture. Therefore, we call for policymakers and urban planners to consider these aspects when designing transit areas and enhancing accessibility to commuters’ housing locations and workplaces. Specifically, the workplace is important because commuters cannot change employment easily.
-
We also found that the COVID-19 pandemic has not caused significant change in the mobility behavior pattern of commuters who live within planned TOD areas in the Jakarta Metropolitan areas. This is attributed to the factor that commuters’ ability to change employment is limited. Following our research findings, our policy recommendations comprise two aspects on which governments should focus: (1) improving public transportation modes which are affordable, and (2) establishing good access and connectivity between housing and workplaces.
-
There are several key limitations of this study, and we recommend that future research pays particular attention toward addressing them. Firstly, our sampled population consisted of commuters who live within a 1 km radius of the planned TOD areas. Thus, they may not have all the attributes that comprehensively match with the characteristics of the overall commuting population. Secondly, we surveyed different individuals as research respondents between 2013 and 2020. Therefore, the survey results might not prove the relationships and consistencies of the same commuters. Moreover, future research is required to include workers whose workplaces are within those planned TOD areas to explore their dominant travel behaviors and the relationship between the points of origin and destination within TOD areas.
Conceptualization, H.S.H. and M.M.; methodology, H.S.H.; formal analysis, H.S.H.; investigation, H.S.H.; resources, H.S.H.; data curation, H.S.H.; writing—original draft preparation, H.S.H.; writing—review and editing, M.M.; visualization, H.S.H.; supervision, M.M.; project administration, M.M.; funding acquisition, M.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
This research was funded by Research and Development Division Universitas Indonesia, grant number NKB-1455/UN2.RST/HKP.05.00/2020.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Enlarge this image.Figure 1. Map of the Jakarta metropolitan area (Jabodetabek) and the main TOD areas.
Enlarge this image.Figure 2. Eight TOD main areas in Jakarta city, a GIS-based land use map of 2020.
Land use diversity index in a radius of 1 km of TOD areas in Jakarta capital city.
| TOD Areas | Residential (%) | Work Places (%) | Public Facilities (%) | Green Open Spaces (%) | Diversity Index | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2013 | 2020 | 2013 | 2020 | 2013 | 2020 | 2013 | 2020 | 2013 | 2020 | |
| Dukuh Atas | 36.79 | 35.48 | 36.17 | 36.91 | 5.09 | 11.54 | 21.95 | 16.06 | 0.88 | 0.92 |
| Manggarai | 60.15 | 65.64 | 27.85 | 18.91 | 5.78 | 11.61 | 6.22 | 3.83 | 0.72 | 0.70 |
| Harmoni | 18.66 | 33.91 | 66.05 | 48.84 | 5.49 | 15.59 | 9.79 | 1.65 | 0.70 | 0.77 |
| Blok M | 43.97 | 46.39 | 31.40 | 33.18 | 14.80 | 13.49 | 9.74 | 6.94 | 0.89 | 0.85 |
| Grogol | 55.04 | 60.44 | 21.18 | 15.66 | 11.41 | 16.36 | 12.38 | 7.53 | 0.84 | 0.78 |
| Senen | 51.36 | 50.46 | 28.28 | 29.46 | 17.55 | 18.40 | 2.81 | 1.68 | 0.80 | 0.78 |
| Lebak Bulus | 53.09 | 53.50 | 18.80 | 23.49 | 15.66 | 13.05 | 12.45 | 9.95 | 0.87 | 0.84 |
| Kampung Bandan | 25.44 | 25.43 | 45.33 | 42.41 | 12.08 | 23.44 | 17.14 | 8.72 | 0.91 | 0.91 |
Land use diversity index within a radius of 1 km of TOD areas in suburban Bodetabek.
| TOD Areas | Residential (%) | Work Places (%) | Public Facilities (%) | Green Open Spaces (%) | Diversity Index | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2013 | 2020 | 2013 | 2020 | 2013 | 2020 | 2013 | 2020 | 2013 | 2020 | |
| Bogor | 50.76 | 48.80 | 31.14 | 17.83 | 3.45 | 20.17 | 14.64 | 13.20 | 0.80 | 0.90 |
| Depok | 78.09 | 67.09 | 8.10 | 11.88 | 3.24 | 7.39 | 10.57 | 13.65 | 0.54 | 0.71 |
| Depok Baru | 65.15 | 65.76 | 15.01 | 15.26 | 2.46 | 7.94 | 17.15 | 11.04 | 0.69 | 0.73 |
| Tangerang | 61.66 | 57.97 | 18.26 | 14.44 | 8.60 | 15.84 | 11.48 | 11.75 | 0.77 | 0.82 |
| Tang-Sel | 75.35 | 66.26 | 2.68 | 4.37 | 2.47 | 5.36 | 19.51 | 24.01 | 0.52 | 0.66 |
| Bekasi | 57.83 | 39.14 | 13.97 | 23.70 | 8.78 | 15.07 | 19.43 | 22.09 | 0.81 | 0.96 |
Commuters’ preference in choosing housing location in Jakarta suburbs (in percentage (%)).
| 2013 | 2020 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Influencing Factors | East Suburbs | West Suburbs | South Suburbs | East Suburbs | West Suburbs | South Suburbs |
| GOS | 7.50 | 7.60 | 19.30 | 16.60 | 17.40 | 20.20 |
| Social (kinship) | 19.60 | 19.60 | 20.10 | 24.80 | 17.20 | 24.90 |
| Accessibility | 24.60 | 24.60 | 18.30 | 25.30 | 24.20 | 24.70 |
| Price | 21.00 | 21.00 | 19.70 | 21.40 | 24.30 | 21.80 |
| Public Facility | 15.80 | 15.80 | 11.00 | 13.60 | 20.70 | 12.30 |
| Water Facility | 11.50 | 11.50 | 11.70 | 11.20 | 13.60 | 10.20 |
| Near The MRT | 3.70 | 0.00 | 6.10 | |||
Note: GOS: Green open space.
Commuters’ reasons to choose workplace locations in Jakarta capital city.
| Commuters’ Origin (Bodetabek Areas and Jakarta Suburbs) | Reasons to Choose Workplace Locations 2020 in Percentage (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Near CL | Easy Access to Trans-Jakarta Bus | Near MRT/LRT | Place of Employers | Others | |
|
19.3 | 1.8 | 0.9 | 78.9 | 1.8 |
|
20.9 | 7.5 | 0.0 | 71.6 | 0.0 |
|
21.7 | 0.0 | 1.6 | 54.3 | 22.5 |
Notes: CL: commuter line; MRT: mass rapid transit; LRT: light rapid transit.
Shared modes of public and private transportations within TOD areas in Jakarta suburbs.
| Public Transportation Usage | |||||||||
| Commuters’ Origin | 2013 | 2020 | |||||||
|
KRL
|
Bus | BRT Trans-Jakarta |
City Mini
|
KRL Commuter Lines | Bus | BRT Trans-Jakarta |
City Mini
|
MRT | |
| East suburbs of Jakarta | 57.1 | 5.2 | 0.6 | 13.0 | 57.9 | 3.5 | 10.5 | 0.0 | 0.9 |
| West suburbs of Jakarta | 8.3 | 21.4 | 6.5 | 11.7 | 72.4 | 0.0 | 7.5 | 1.5 | 1.5 |
| South suburbs of Jakarta | 54 | 10.0 | 0.0 | 5.0 | 58.9 | 0.0 | 4.7 | 0.8 | 14.0 |
| Private Transportation Usage | |||||||||
| 2013 | 2020 | ||||||||
| Car | Motorbike | Bicycle | Car | Motorbike | Bicycle | ||||
| East suburbs of Jakarta | 5.2 | 29.9 | 1.3 | 19.3 | 43.0 | 0.0 | |||
| West suburbs of Jakarta | 10.2 | 28.9 | 0.0 | 5.2 | 69.4 | 1.5 | |||
| South suburbs of Jakarta | 17.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 16.3 | 50.4 | 0.8 | |||
Notes: KRL: ‘Kereta Rel Listrik’, i.e., an electricity-based mass train, also known as ‘commuter line’. MRT: mass rapid transit; LRT: light rapid transit; BRT: bus rapid transit.
Reasons to use public transport by commuters within TOD areas in suburbs.
| Suburbs | Reasons to Use Public Transport (In Percentage (%)) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| New Transport Infrastructure (MRT, LRT) | Better Connectivity of Trans-Jakarta Bus | Pedestrian Space | Cost | |
| East suburbs of Jakarta | 9.6 | 11.4 | 0.0 | 31.6 |
| West suburbs of Jakarta | 23.9 | 22.4 | 1.5 | 29.1 |
| South suburbs of Jakarta | 38.0 | 16.3 | 8.5 | 31.0 |
Change of travel behavior influenced by COVID-19 (in percentage (%)).
| Item/Sub-Urbs | No | Yes | No Answer |
|---|---|---|---|
| Use of train from the station | |||
| East suburbs of Jakarta | 48.4 | 51.6 | 0 |
| West suburbs of Jakarta | 72.0 | 28.0 | 0 |
| South suburbs of Jakarta | 37.0 | 63.0 | 0 |
| Changes in traveling time and frequency | |||
| East suburbs of Jakarta | 46.5 | 53.5 | 0 |
| West suburbs of Jakarta | 25.0 | 63.0 | 12 |
| South suburbs of Jakarta | 71.0 | 27.0 | 2.0 |
| Changes in mobility due to service limitations | |||
| East suburbs of Jakarta | 26.8 | 66.8 | 6.4 |
| West suburbs of Jakarta | 34.0 | 43.0 | 22.0 |
| South suburbs of Jakarta | 20.0 | 58.0 | 2.0 |
References
1. Abdi, M.H.; Lamíquiz-Daudén, P.J. Transit-oriented development in developing countries: A qualitative meta-synthesis of its policy, planning and implementation challenges. Int. J. Sustain. Transp.; 2020; 16, pp. 195-221. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2020.1858375]
2. Thomas, R.; Bertolini, L. Defining critical success factors in TOD implementation using rough set analysis. J. Transp. Land Use; 2017; 10, pp. 139-154. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2015.513]
3. Cervero, R. The Transit Metropolis: A Global Inquiry; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1998.
4. Loukaitou-Sideris, A. Transit-Oriented Development in the Inner City: A Delphi Survey. J. Public Transp.; 2001; 3, pp. 75-98. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5038/2375-0901.3.2.5]
5. Ewing, R.; Cervero, R. Travel and the Built Environment. J. Am. Plan. Assoc.; 2010; 76, pp. 265-294. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944361003766766]
6. Curtis, C.; Scheurer, J. Planning for sustainable accessibility: Developing tools to aid discussion and decision-making. Prog. Plan.; 2010; 74, pp. 53-106. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2010.05.001]
7. Handy, S.L. Accessibility- vs. Mobility-Enhancing Strategies for Addressing Automobile Dependence in the U.S.; University of California at Davis Recent Work: Davis, CA, USA, 2002.
8. Papa, E.; Bertolini, L. Accessibility and Transit-Oriented Development in European metropolitan areas. J. Transp. Geogr.; 2015; 47, pp. 70-83. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2015.07.003]
9. Gu, P.; He, D.; Chen, Y.; Christopher Zegras, P.; Jiang, Y. Transit-oriented development and air quality in Chinese cities: A city-level examination. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ.; 2019; 68, pp. 10-25. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2018.03.009]
10. Ibraeva, A.; de Correia, G.H.A.; Silva, C.; Antunes, A.P. Transit-oriented development: A review of research achievements and challenges. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract.; 2020; 132, pp. 110-130. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2019.10.018]
11. Lyu, G.; Bertolini, L.; Pfeffer, K. How does transit-oriented development contribute to station area accessibility? A study in Beijing. Int. J. Sustain. Transp.; 2020; 14, pp. 533-543. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2019.1578841]
12. Wang, J.; Samsura, D.A.A.; van der Krabben, E. Institutional barriers to financing transit-oriented development in China: Analyzing informal land value capture strategies. Transp. Policy; 2019; 82, pp. 1-10. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2019.07.010]
13. Suzuki, H.; Murakami, J.; Hong, Y.-H.; Tamayose, B. Financing Transit-Oriented Development with Land Values: Adapting Land Value Capture in Developing Countries; World Bank Publications: Washington, DC, USA, 2015.
14. Vongpraseuth, T.; Seong, E.Y.; Shin, S.; Kim, S.H.; Choi, C.G. Hope and reality of new towns under greenbelt regulation: The case of self-containment or transit-oriented metropolises of the first-generation new towns in the Seoul Metropolitan Area, South Korea. Cities; 2020; 102, 102699. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102699]
15. Dargay, J.; Hanly, M. The impact of land use patterns on travel behaviour. Proceedings of the European Transport Conference (Etc); Strasbourg, France, 8–10 October 2003; 15.
16. Loo, B.P.Y.; Chow, A.S.Y. Changing Urban Form in Hong Kong: What Are the Challenges on Sustainable Transportation?. Int. J. Sustain. Transp.; 2008; 2, pp. 177-193. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15568310701517331]
17. Cao, M.; Hickman, R. Understanding travel and differential capabilities and functionings in Beijing. Transp. Policy; 2019; 83, pp. 46-56. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2019.08.006]
18. Gim, T.-H.T. Analyzing the city-level effects of land use on travel time and CO2 emissions: A global mediation study of travel time. Int. J. Sustain. Transp.; 2021; 15, pp. 1-18. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2021.1901163]
19. Zegras, P.C.; Srinivasan, S. Household Income, Travel Behavior, Location, and Accessibility. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board; 2007; 2038, pp. 128-138. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2038-17]
20. Schirmer, P.M.; Van Eggermond, M.A.B.; Axhausen, K.W. The role of location in residential location choice models: A review of literature. J. Transp. Land Use; 2014; 7, 3. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.v7i2.740]
21. Hasibuan, H.S.; Soemardi, T.P.; Koestoer, R.; Moersidik, S. The Role of Transit Oriented Development in Constructing Urban Environment Sustainability, the Case of Jabodetabek, Indonesia. Procedia Environ. Sci.; 2014; 20, pp. 622-631. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2014.03.075]
22. Kim, C.; Kim, S.W.; Kang, H.J.; Song, S.M. What makes urban transportation efficient? Evidence from subway transfer stations in Korea. Sustainability; 2017; 9, 2054. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su9112054]
23. Berawi, M.A.; Saroji, G.; Iskandar, F.A.; Ibrahim, B.E.; Miraj, P.; Sari, M. Optimizing Land Use Allocation of Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) to Generate Maximum Ridership. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 3798. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12093798]
24. Cervero, R.; Murakami, J. Rail and Property Development in Hong Kong: Experiences and Extensions. Urban Stud.; 2009; 46, pp. 2019-2043. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0042098009339431]
25. Li, Y.; Guo, H.L.; Li, H.; Xu, G.H.; Wang, Z.R.; Kong, C.W. Transit-Oriented Land Planning Model Considering Sustainability of Mass Rail Transit. J. Urban Plan. Dev.; 2010; 136, pp. 243-248. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9488(2010)136:3(243)]
26. Ma, X.; Chen, X.; Li, X.; Ding, C.; Wang, Y. Sustainable station-level planning: An integrated transport and land use design model for transit-oriented development. J. Clean. Prod.; 2018; 170, pp. 1052-1063. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.182]
27. Lin, J.J.; Li, C.N. A grey programming model for regional transit-oriented development planning. Pap. Reg. Sci.; 2008; 87, pp. 119-138. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1435-5957.2007.00146.x]
28. Central Bureau of Statistics. Jabodetabek Commuter Statistics. 2019; Available online: https://www.bps.go.id/publication/2019/12/04/eab87d14d99459f4016bb057/statistik-komuter-jabodetabek-2019.html (accessed on 5 August 2020).
29. Xie, K.; Liang, B.; Dulebenets, M.A.; Mei, Y. The Impact of Risk Perception on Social Distancing during the COVID-19 Pandemic in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2020; 17, 6256. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17176256] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32867381]
30. Tsoy, D.; Tirasawasdichai, T.; Kurpayanidi, K.I. Role of Social Media in Shaping Public Risk Perception during COVID-19 Pandemic: A Theoretical Review. Int. J. Manag. Sci. Bus. Adm.; 2021; 7, pp. 35-41. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18775/ijmsba.1849-5664-5419.2014.72.1005]
31. Malecki, K.; Keating, J.A.; Safdar, N. Crisis communication and public perception of COVID-19 risk in the era of social media. Clin. Infect. Dis.; 2021; 72, pp. 697-702. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa758]
32. Khorram-Manesh, A.; Dulebenets, M.A.; Goniewicz, K. Implementing Public Health Strategies—The Need for Educational Initiatives: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2021; 18, 5888. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18115888]
33. Siegrist, M.; Luchsinger, L.; Bearth, A. The Impact of trust and risk perception on the acceptance of measures to reduce COVID-19 cases. Risk Anal.; 2021; 41, pp. 787-800. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/risa.13675]
34. Yuan, J.; Zou, H.; Xie, K.; Dulebenets, M.A. An Assessment of Social Distancing Obedience Behavior during the COVID-19 Post-Epidemic Period in China: A Cross-Sectional Survey. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 8091. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13148091]
35. Demographia. Demographia World Urban Areas. Demographia World Urban Areas; 16th ed. Demographia: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2020.
36. JICA. The Study on Integrated Transportation Master Plan for Jabodetabek: Final Report Summary Report; JICA: Tokyo, Japan, 2004.
37. JICA. Project for the Study on JABODETABEK Public Transportation Policy Implementation Strategy (JAPTraPis)—Final Report: Main Text; JICA: Tokyo, Japan, 2012.
38. BPS. Statistics of DKI Jakarta Province. Jakarta in Figures 2015; Jakarta Bureau Statistics: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2015.
39. Ministry of Transportation. National Transportation Data (in Bahasa); Central of Bureau Statistics: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2020.
40. Jakarta Provincial Government. Regulation of Jakarta No. 1 Year 2014 about Detailed Spatial Plan and Zoning Regulation; Jakarta Provincial Government: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2014.
41. Jakarta Provincial Government. Regulation of Jakarta No. 140 Year 2017 about Assignment of PT. MRT Jakarta as the Main Operator of The TOD Corridor (North-South) of Phase 1 MRT Jakarta; Jakarta Provincial Government: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2017.
42. Government Republic of Indonesia. President Regulation No. 55 Year 2018 about Transportation Master Plan of Jakarta, Bogor, Depok, Tangerang, and Bekasi; Government Republic of Indonesia: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2018.
43. Cervero, R.; Kockelman, K. Travel demand and the 3Ds: Density, diversity, and design. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ.; 1997; 2, pp. 199-219. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1361-9209(97)00009-6]
44. Ann, S.; Jiang, M.; Yamamoto, T. Re-examination of the standards for transit oriented development influence zones in India. J. Transp. Land Use; 2019; 12, pp. 679-700. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2019.1534]
45. Congalton, R.G. Accuracy assessment and validation of remotely sensed and other spatial information. Int. J. Wildland Fire; 2001; 10, 321. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1071/WF01031]
46. Calthorpe, P. The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community, and the American Dream; Princeton Architectural Press: New York, NY, USA, 1993.
47. Curtis, C.; Renne, J.L.; Bertolini, L. Transit oriented development: Making it Happen. Transit Oriented Development: Making it Happen; Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.: Farnham, UK, 2009.
48. Knowles, R.D.; Ferbrache, F.; Nikitas, A. Transport’s historical, contemporary and future role in shaping urban development: Re-evaluating transit oriented development. Cities; 2020; 99, 102607. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102607]
49. Mansury, Y.S.; Tontisirin, N.; Anantsuksomsri, S. The impact of the built environment on the location choices of the creative class: Evidence from Thailand. Reg. Sci. Policy Pract.; 2012; 4, pp. 183-205. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1757-7802.2012.01068.x]
50. Nakamura, K.; Gu, F.; Wasuntarasook, V. Failure of Transit-Oriented Development in Bangkok from a Quality of Life Perspective. Asian Transp. Stud.; 2016; 4, pp. 194-209.
51. Lin, J.-J.; Jen, Y.-C. Household Attributes in a Transit-Oriented Development: Evidence from Taipei. J. Public Transp.; 2009; 12, pp. 105-125. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5038/2375-0901.12.2.6]
52. Qi, N. Impacts of Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) eon the Travel Behavior of its Residents in Shenzhen, China. Master’s Thesis; University of Waterloo: Waterloo, ON, Canada, 2017.
53. Dirgahayani, P.; Syabri, I.; Waluyo, N.P. Land Governance for Transit Oriented Development in Densely Built Urban Area (Case Study: Jakarta, Indonesia). IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci.; 2015; 158, 12019. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/158/1/012019]
54. Huston, S.; Darchen, S.; Ladouceur, E. TOD Development in Theory and Practice: The Case of Albion Mill. Proceedings of the 18th Annual PRRES Conference; Adelaide, Australia, 15–18 January 2012; Volume 2, 864.
55. Pan, H.; Li, J.; Shen, Q.; Shi, C. What determines rail transit passenger volume? Implications for transit oriented development planning. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ.; 2017; 57, pp. 52-63. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.09.016]
56. Van Gent, W.; Das, M.; Musterd, S. Sociocultural, economic and ethnic homogeneity in residential mobility and spatial sorting among couples. Environ. Plan. A Econ. Space; 2019; 51, pp. 891-912. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0308518X18823754]
57. Rodríguez, D.A.; Kang, C.-D. A typology of the built environment around rail stops in the global transit-oriented city of Seoul, Korea. Cities; 2020; 100, 102663. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102663]
58. Rosalin, A.; Kombaitan, B.; Zulkaidi, D.; Dirgahayani, P.; Syabri, I. Towards Sustainable Transportation: Identification of Development Challenges of TOD area in Jakarta Metropolitan Area Urban Railway Projects. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci.; 2019; 328, 012006. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/328/1/012006]
59. Dahlan, A.F.; Fraszczyk, A. Public Perceptions of a New MRT Service: A Prelaunch Study in Jakarta. Urban Rail Transit.; 2019; 5, pp. 278-288. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40864-019-00116-0]
60. Wu, W.; Wang, M.; Zhang, F. Commuting behavior and congestion satisfactionevidence from Beijing, China. Transp. Res. Part D; 2019; 67, pp. 553-564. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2018.12.023]
61. Althoff, T.; Sosič, R.; Hicks, J.L.; King, A.C.; Delp, S.L.; Leskovec, J. Large-scale physical activity data reveal worldwide activity inequality. Nature; 2017; 547, pp. 336-339. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature23018] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28693034]
62. Irawan, M.Z.; Rizki, M.; Joewono, T.B.; Belgiawan, P.F. Exploring the intention of out-of-home activities participation during new normal conditions in Indonesian cities. Transp. Res. Interdiscip. Perspect.; 2020; 8, 100237. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2020.100237] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34173476]
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Mulyani, Mari 2 1 Research Center of Spatial Planning and Transit Oriented Development, School of Environmental Science, Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta Pusat 13420, Indonesia;
2 Research Center of Spatial Planning and Transit Oriented Development, School of Environmental Science, Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta Pusat 13420, Indonesia;