ICSADU 2017

Towards the new urban agenda of safe cities: a comparative

study on urban crimes in four Indonesian cities

B. Setiawan
Graduate Program in Urban and Regional Plannng, Gadjah Mada University
(Magister Perencaanaan Kota dan Daerah/MPKD, Universitas Gadjah Mada)
Yogyakarta, Indonesia

E-mail: bobi.setiawan@yahoo.com

Abstract. As has explixitly stated in the Habitat III agreement, signed in Quito,
Equador, October 2016, safe cities is one among important global goals that
should be achieved in the next twenty years. Under the title of The New Urban
Agenda, safe city is defined generally by city that is equated with reduced
violence on the one hand, and on the other, with reduced uncertainty. In some
instances it goes further to suggest suggest an association with the desire to
make city supportive of economic growth. This is indeed an interesting and
important agenda as part of efforts to guarantee a more broader goal of
achieving sustainable cities. The fact that under a rapid urbanization and urban
tranformation in Indonesia, urban crimes tend to increase in many Indonesian
cities questions whether Indonesian cities are ready for the idea of safe city.
This paper is a comparative study on four cities in Indonesia which are:
Yogyakarta, Surabaya, Makasar, and Menado, aims to document the types and
level of urban crimes, the spatial dimensions, and how the cities respond to
such problem. It argues that in the past five years, urban crimes tend to increase
in some cities in Indonesia, but with no comprehensive and consistent efforts to
respond such problems. The paper shows that under such circumstances, local
communities did and have to consolidate their resources to make their
communities safer. It is, however, not always effective because urban crime
shoud be effectifelly resolved in a more comprehensive and systematic
approach at the urban level.
Key words: safe city, urban crimes, respond, Indonesia

1. Introduction

1.1 Background: urbanization, urban growth, and urban challenges in Indonesia

With the rapid level of urbanization and urban growth, the sustainability and the quality
lives of the majority of the Indonesian population will depend on the quality of the urban
environment. Based on the data of the Central Bureau of Statistics Indonesia (BPS, 2013),
in 2010, the rate of urbanization in Indonesia is 49.8 percent. Recently, more than half the
ICSADU 2017

residents of Indonesia (53,3%) reside in urban areas. In 2025, with the total population of
around 273 million,approximately68 percent of them will be living in urban areas. Such
rapid urbanization rate which is then manisfestated in the rapid growth of the city should
be anticipated with good planning and appropriate management in order to guarantee its
sustainability.

This current status and future projection of urbanization in Indonesia brings two related
aspects. First, urbanization and urban growth will facilitate the improvement of the quality
of life and the environment of a large part of Indonesia society – something that we all
hope. Second, however, this rapid urbanization phenomenon could increasingly perpetuate
many problems that are already exist, and even leads to the worsening quality of the urban
environment and urban communities – the sustainability of the city and its residents is
questioned.

One among serious problems faced by cities and towns in Indonesia is the increasing rate
of urban crimes, which is then relate to a broader issue of urban safety. As has been
circulated through mass media, almost everyday, incidents of urban crimes, in various
types from pitty pick pocket, thief, social conflicts among neigbourhoods, robery, kids
abused, rape, to murder and even terorism are happened in many cities in Indonesia, both
small, medium, and large cities. Such phenonema are worrying as they threatening the
urban safety specifically and even urban economy in general. As already recorded by
Central Beurau of Statistic, there is a tendency of inceasing urban crimes in Indonesia,
particularly in large cities (BPS, 2016).

1.2 The New Urban Agenda, Habitat III

The United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban

Development haswrapped up in Quito, Ecuador, in October 2016, with delegations
adopting the New Urban Agenda – a new framework that that lays out how cities should
be planned and managed to best promote sustainable urbanization.The conference, hosted
by the city of Quito drew around 36,000 people from 167 different countries over the past
week and a reported 50,000 to the various associated exhibition areas. Habitat III brought
together mayors, local and regional authorities, civil society and community groups, the
private sector and urban planners.

The conference, resulted in the adoption of what famous as the New Urban Agenda,
which sets a new global standard for sustainable urban development, and will help us
rethink how we plan, manage and live in cities. The New Urban Agenda is roadmap for
building cities that can serve as engines of prosperity and centres of cultural and social
well-being while protecting the environment. The Agenda also provides guidance for
achieving the Sustainable Development Goals and provides the underpinning for actions
to address climate change. It will guide the efforts around urbanization of a wide range of
actors — nation states, city and regional leaders, international development funders,
United Nations programmes and civil society — for the next 20 years. Inevitably, this
agenda will also lay the groundwork for policies and approaches that will extend, and
impact, far into the future.
ICSADU 2017

Beyond the specific technocratic solutions of economics and governance, several core
ideas form the ideological underpinnings of the New Urban Agenda.
Democraticdevelopment and respect for human rights feature prominently, for instance, as
does the relationship between the environment and urbanization. For safe cities, the real
bite in the New Urban Agenda is in calling for the integration of crime prevention
strategies into all urban planning efforts. It commits signatory states and cities to
‘integrate measures for urban safety and violence, and crime prevention into all urban
planning efforts, including in informal areas, and pay particular attention to vulnerability
and cultural factors in the development of public security policies, including by
eliminating the stigmatization of certain groups as security threats’.

To stakeholders in the safe-cities space, this paragraph is important because: (1) it lays
emphasis on data (“measures”) that is vitally important in understanding the aggregate and
disaggregated picture; (2) it draws attention to the 863 million slum dwellers that live in
informal settlements; (3) it calls for cultural sensitivity in developing local solutions; and
(4) it calls for the breaking down of the notion that ‘criminals’, ‘offenders’ and
‘perpetrators’ are static categories predetermined by an individual’s or group’s identity.

Since Indonesia has also adopted the NUA, even activelly participated in the preparation
process of the Habitat III, it is crucial for Indonesia then, to elaborate the NUA into
Indonesian contexts, including the issue of safe city. Indonesian’s commitments on The
NUA would be monitored by global community and therefore it also guarentee Indonesian
crdibility at the global level.

1.3 Studies on urban crime and safety

Crime is defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as “an act or the commission of an

act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that
makes the offender liable to punishment by that law; especially : a gross violation of law.”
Meanwhile, the general legal definition of crime would be: “a violation of a law in which
there is injury to the public or a member of the public and a term in jail or prison, and/or a
fine as possible penalties. In the literature, there is some sentiment for excluding from the
"crime" category crimes without victims, such as consensual acts, or violations in which
only the perpetrator is hurt or is involved in something such as the personal use of illegal
drugs.”

The perception of the term crime varied greatly across geographical areas, socio-cultural
and economic differences of societies as well as time lag. This kind of variations makes it
difficult to universally define crime across regions of the world. What may be regarded as
a crime in one region may not be a crime in another and changes over time. For instant,
prostitution and homosexuality are crimes in many regions especially where religion
dictates, while in many others, they are acts of promotion. (Dambazau, 2007; Usman,
Yakubu, & Bello 2012; Tenibiaje, 2010).Therefore, the perception of an act to be a crime
varies with time and location. Similarly, criminal behaviour is a common phenomenon
anywhere and in every society, but certain societies have higher criminal activities than
others and variation can be found in the same society (urban areas), where criminal
activities are prevalent in some locations over others. Within the same city, criminal
ICSADU 2017

activities tend to be higher in the city centres than in the suburbs (Soh, 2012). This may be
connected with the intensities of activities and potentialities for offenders to commit crime
in the city centre. This goes in line with what Ajibola (1990) reported, where crime and
criminal activities are constantly performing and growing in a sporadic facet (cited by
Tenibiaje, 2010).

Recently, urban crime has become a global phenomenon; criminal activities are becoming
increasingly proliferated in many urban areas neither homes nor are markets and schools
places safe because of frequent occurrence of crime incidents. This strengthens the
proposition that population increase (urbanization) with it attended problems might be a
factor for high level of crimes in urban areas and it is also hypothesised that both property
and violent crimes will crop up in densely populated urban areas. In recent years there has
been significant population growth and a global rapid urbanization advances visa-vie it
attended problems among which, Marzbali et al. (2011)concludes that crime has become
one of the most ‘serious social’ problems of urbanization.

The studies on urban crime is generally of two types. The first type of studies that
compare cities, seeking to understand why some have higher crime rates than others. The
second type are studies that focus on explaining variations in crime levels within cities.
However, both types of studies use similar theories and focus on the same social forces to
understand their observations. The primary theories used to study urban crime are social
disorganization, subculture, and conflict theories. While the spatial and environmental
factors tend to be seen as the secondary ones (Rank, 2017).

The social disorganization theory which is commonly seen as the main factor in urban
crimes, is concerned with the way in which characteristics of cities and neighborhoods
influence crime rates. According to Messner (1982), the roots of this perspective can be
traced back to the work of researchers at the University of Chicago around the 1930s.
These researchers were concerned with neighborhood structure and its relationship to
levels of crime. Classical Chicago School theorists, and Shaw and McKay in particular,
were most concerned with the deleterious effects of racial and ethnic heterogeneity,
residential mobility, and low socioeconomic status on an area's ability to prevent crime.
However, since the work of Shaw and McKay and others, researchers who adopt the
macrosocial approach to the study of urban crime have identified a number of additional
"disorganizing" factors including family disruption (Sampson and Groves), relative
poverty (Messner, 1982), and racial segregation (Peterson and Krivo).

Researchers in this area believe that characteristics such as these are likely to lead to high
levels of social disorganization, which in turn increases the likelihood of crime and
criminal violence. In general terms, social disorganization refers to the inability of a
community structure to mobilize the common values of its residents to maintain effective
social controls (Kornhauser). Empirically, the intervening dimensions of community
social organization can be measured in terms of the prevalence and interdependence of
social networks in a community (both formal and informal) and in the span of collective
supervision that the community directs toward local problems (Thomas and Znaniecki;
Shaw and McKay; Kornhauser). Given this, neighborhoods characterized by high levels of
poverty or economic deprivation, residential mobility, ethnic heterogeneity, family
ICSADU 2017

disruption, poor housing conditions, and low levels of education are most likely to be
disorganized and have higher levels of crime and violence.

Disorganization, a lack of solidarity and cohesion, and the absence of a shared sense of
community and mutual commitment between residents allows crime to flourish because
the community's capacity for informal social control (that which does not depend on the
less efficient formal criminal justice institutions) is inhibited. Social disorganization
theory has been criticized for failing to appreciate the diversity of values that exist within
urban areas (Matza), for not recognizing that communities in urban areas indeed may be
organized, but around unconventional values, and for failing to define clearly its main
concept, social disorganization, thereby making the identification and operationalization
of variables difficult (Liska).

In ideological perspective particularly in criminal law, crime is regarded as an act or

omission forbidden by law on pain of punishment or else is a violation of law (Usman et
al., 2012). Similarly, Tenibiaje (2010)expresses crime as an act that violates the law of the
society or serious offence against the law of the society for which there is a severe
punishment by law. In other words, crime is any culpable action or omission prohibited by
law and punishable by the state. In these views, crime is a violation of any law of a given
society and offenders are punishable in accordance to the set of that law. These laws can
either be criminal laws or societal unwritten laws, norms and values, any offender or
violator of such laws is culpable to punishment.

1.4 the objectives and methodology of the paper

This paper has a general goal to document and evaluate the issue of urban crime and urban
safety in Indonesian city and how they relate to the practice of urban policy, planning, and
design. Such general goal is elaborated into four objectives as follows: 1) to document the
incidents of urban crimes in four cities; 2) to analize the spatial patterns of urban crimes;
3) to discuss factors contributed to such crimes, including local community responses; and
4) to discuss how they relate to the practices of urban policy, planning, andf design in
Indonesia.

2. Methods

The research is part of the research road map related to the issues raised in the New
Urban Agenda Habitat III, particularly four key issues: inclusiveness, safety, resilient,
and sustainabilityty of the city. It is, however, has started several years before the Habitat
III in the Graduate Program in Urban and Regional Planning, Department of Architecture
and Planning, Gadjah Mada University, involving master students doing research related
to these four issues for their thesis.

It is a comparative study on four cities in Indonesia which are: Yogyakarta, Surabaya,

Makasar, and Menado, aims to document the types and level of urban crimes, the spatial
dimensions, and how the cities respond to such problem, including local communities.
The four cities were selected to represent big and medium size city in Indonesia and the
ICSADU 2017

availability of the date and information. Data and information were collected by both
primary and secondary data. Some of the data and information for this paper are taken
from the four thesis by which the author of this paper served as the main supervisor of the
researches.

3. Discussions

3.1 Brief Discription of Four City

The four cities explored in this study are: Yogyakarta, Surabaya, Makasar, and
Manado. These four were selected based on the argument that all are categorized big
cities, with different history, characteristics, and development. Comparing those four
would provide understanding on how each city respond the common threat of urban
crimes.

As has discussed previously, urban crimes are closely related to a much broader socio,
economy, and political context of a given setting, in this case the urban setting. It is
therefore important to understand urban crime with a better understanding of the socio,
economy, political, and also physical and environmental setting of the city. The
following table summaries the general discriptions of the four cities explored in this
paper.

Table 1. General Discriptions of Four Cities

No. Aspects Yogyakarta Surabaya Makasar Manado

1 Area 32,5 km2 350,54 Km2. 175,77 Km2 157,26 Km2,

2 Population 554.320 2,853,661 1.130.384 423.257

3 Population density 17.056 jiwa/Km2 8.140 6.431 jiwa 2.691

jiwa/Km2 /Km2 jiwa/Km2.
4 Percentage of Public 17 % 21% 7% 18%
RTH

5 Poverty Rate 8,67% 4,00% 5,36% 4,8%

6 Number of 34,460 (2007) 83.000 20.000 17344
Unemployment
6 PAD/Local Revenue Rp.470,63 miliar Rp3,3 triliun. Rp.900 1,12 Trilyun
milyard
7 Characteristics Inland city; Trade city; Coastal city; Coastal city,
Historic/traditional coastal city; melting pot trade and
city; Center for historic city, for eastren service city.
education; strong social Indonesia;
Tourism city; capital; trade city
famous for its
harmony and
social capital
ICSADU 2017

AS shown in the table above, some characteristics are important to understand the
context of urban crime in evry city. Several aspects could be learned as follows. First is that
these four cities have different level of population density. Yogyakarta is considered the ones
that has a very high population density, while Menado has the lower population density. This
figure is important as references from oher cities in different countries indicate that there is a
significant correlation between population density and urban crime rate. As will be discussed
further, however, the case of Indonesian city is quite diffrenct, because Yogyakarta has the
low rate of crime incidents.

Second, as has suggested in several literature, poverty rate in a given city has a direct
correlation with urban crime incidents. The case of Indonesia cities, however, show a quite
different phenomena. AS shown in the table above, the poverty rate as well as the level of
unemployemnt in the city of Yogyakarta is considered high, but it does not correlate directly
to the level of crime incidents in the city. Such phenomena is interesting and should be further
explored as it possibly relates to another factor of urban crime which is crime prevention. This
issue will be discussed more detail in this following parts of the paper.

Lastly and correspond to the second point, the level of local reveune of the city, which is
could be seen as indicator of the economic or financial capacity of the city, again, does not
sginificantly relate to the urban crime incidents. Among four cities, again, Yogyakarta is
considered the ones that has the lower local revenue, but it does not means that the level of
urban crime in this city is the highest.

In brief, the spatial, economy, and social cnditions of a city should be explored in trying to
understand the urban crime. Theories explaining urban crimes from Western context, however
could ot always used to portray what happned in Eastern context including Indonesia. There is
a need to further explored the socio, cultural context of a society to be able to wholistically
understand urban crime.

3.2 Incidents of Urban Crimes in Four Cities

Because urban crime is considered a recent or contemporary phenomena, studies on urban

crime is limited in Indonesia. Data and information related to urban crime is therefore also
limited. The only data recorded annul rate of urban crime can be found in the Police office in
avery city. In general, all policy office provide quite good data on urban crime, both types and
spatial distribution. Data on urban crime incidents in this study were collected from Police
office in every city. However, since there is no standard definition of urban crime incidents in
Indonesia, data and information in this paper should be critically viewed and interpreted. As
an be seen in the table below, data on urban crme in four cities is recorded in term number in
the past five year. The table also provides the level of urban crime incidents per 100 persons
in the year 2014.

Table 2. Incidents of Urban Crimes in Four Cities

No. City 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

1 Yogyakarta 421 435 400 369 422 0,7/1000

ICSADU 2017

jiwa
2 Surabaya 5532 4563 4400 4232 4125 1,44/1000
jiwa
3 Makasar 3296 2,91/1000
2940 2905 2281 3493 jiwa
4 Manado 1280 1203 1166 1.008 997 2,35/1000
jiwa

Note: For a compilation, in Jakarta, the crime rate per capita during 2008 was about 3,1 cases per
1000 ppeople.

As the table above indicates, the urban crime fluctuate inconsistenly in the past five years in
Yogyakarta and Makasar, while it tend to consistenly went slowdown in Surabaya and
Menado. In Yogyakarta, althouh the incidents of urban crime is considered the lowest among
that of other cities, the incidents of urban crime tends to be the same in the past five years. In
Makasar, the incidents of urban crime tend to increase in te past two years (2014 and 2015).
For now, the present study is not able to expalin such phenomena, but indeed there is a need
to further explore why such interesting phenomena happned.

3.3 The Livability Index and People Perceptions on Urban Crimes and Safety

Despite the level of urban crimes in four cities explored in this study, it is quite interesting
that people’s perception on urban livebility is not always correspond. AS indicates in the table
below Yogyakarta is considered as the city that has the most livebaility index according the
survay by AIP, Planner Association of Indonesia. The case of Yogykarta, again, show that
despite the city has a high degree of poor people and unemployment nmber, local people
considered the city provide good in term livability. In the case of Makasar, there is a quite
significant correlation between the incidents of crime and the level of livebility perceived by
people.
These two data and informatin, however, should be critically interpreted as these two are
taken in different years and also did not designed purposevelly to see the relation between the
two. It would be very interesting and important to further explore and study the link between
these two, as they are very important to understand better about the whole concept of urban
crime, safety, and livability.

Table3. Level of Livability of ten cities in Kota di Indonesia

No. Kota Livebility Incidents of crime
rank per 1000 population
1 Yogyakarta 1 0,7
2 Bandung 2 1,1
3 Semarang 3 1,6
4 Solo 4 0,8
5 Bogor 5 1,01
6 Surabaya 6 1,44
7 Malang 7 0,95
8 Medan 8 2,9
9 Denpasar 9 0,7
10 Makasar 10 2,91

Table 5. Liveability Index

ICSADU 2017

No. City Liveability

Index/score

1 Yogyakarta 65.34

2 Manado 59,9
3 Makasar 56,52
4 Bandung 56,37
5 Jayapura 54,17
6 Surabaya 53,86
7 Banjarmasin 53,13
8 Semarang 52,61
9 Medan 52,52
10 Palangkaraya 52,28
11 Jakarta 52,04
12 Pontianak 51,90

Tabel 6. Relation between crimes level and poverty rate in Makasar city

Jmlh Kasus
Kec Kejahatan Keluarga Misikin
237
Mariso 1936
Mamajang 243 2363
Tamalate 824 3397
Rapocini 0 3430
Makassar 607 4224
U Pandang 269 1024
Wajo 279 1004
Bontoala 512 2044
Ujung Tanah 116 2150
Tallo 407 3312
Panakkukang 221 2450
Mangala 0 1430
Biringkanaya 764 2616
Tamalanrea 0 1645
Jumlah 4479 33025
Sumber: Analisa data

3.4 Types of urban crimes

Another inmportant aspect of urba crime is types of crimes happened in a given city. In the
case of Indonesia, types of urban crimes are depend on the crime classification used by the
Indonesian Police. AS can be seen in the table below, urban crimes are classsified into fiveeen
(15) types. Based on this classification, each police office in te city recorded all crimes
annualy. In the case of Makasar, for example, the variety of urban crimes can be seen in the
table below and some important points could be made as follow. First abused an pity robery is
the highest urban crime types in the city. As this study does not has the similar data on other
ICSADU 2017

city, a comparation could not be explored now. It however, indicates that types of urban
crimes would be relate to the socio, economic cotext of the city. Second, it seems that some
types of urban crime may not have a significant correaltion to the physical characteristics of
the city. Urban crimes such as gambling, corruption, or penipuan may do not significant
correlation with urban physical condition, while the other types of crime may have.
Tabel 4. Types of urban crimes in Makasar city
PELANGGARAN 2014

01. Kebakaran 56
02. Perzinahan 32
03. Perjudian 10
04. Pembunuhan 14

687
05. Penganiayaan Berat

393
06. Penganiayaan Ringan
07. Pencurian berat 379

08. Pencurian ringan 647

09. Pencurian dengan 284
Kekerasan
10. Penggelapan 256
11. Penipuan 576
12. Pengrusakan 184
13. Penadahan 1

1267
14. Lin-lain Kejahatan
15. Pencurian Kendaraan 267
Bermotor
Somber: Makassar dalam Angka 2014

3.5 The Spatial Patterns of Urban Crimes in Four Cities

AS this study is not coprehensive in terms of study coverage, there not yet conclusive
understanding on the relation between urban crime and the spatial pattern of the city. It
however, indicates some interesting points. The first is that popultion density of a given area
or a city is not always correlate to the level of urban crimes. This quite different compare to
some literatures whwich suggest that the two have a significant correaltion.

Table 7. Relation between population density and level of crimes/safety

Kriteri Skor Tingkat Kerawanan

< a71
Jiwa/Ha 5 Sangat Rendah
71-91 4 Rendah
Jiwa/Ha
92-110
Jiwa/Ha 3 Sedang
112-129
Jiwa/Ha 2 Tinggi
ICSADU 2017

> 129 1 Sangat Tinggi

Jiwa/Ha
Sumber: Analisis Peneliti, 2016

The second is that there is an indication that types of land use of the city has a significant
correaltion to the level of urban crimes. As can be indicates from Table below, several types
of land use such as sea port, commercial, and recreational activities tend to be the area with
high intensity of urban crimes. While the housing area tends to be an area with low or
moderate level of urban crimes. Such indication may relate to the discussion on the role of
local community in respond to urban crimes as will be explain further.

The third indication is that in some city, particularly Makasar and Surabaya, urban crimes to
happened most in urban firnge area rather in urban centre. Such phenomea may relate to the
fact that in the fringe area, many area are used for industrial area with no local community
organized local respond to urban crimes.

Tabel 8. Distribution and rate of urban crime in relation with land use of the city, the
case of Makasar city
Jenis Persentase Kejahatan yang
Penggunaan Terjadi Intensitas
Lahan penggunaan
(%)
Tempat 25-30
Hiburan Narkoba Tinggi
Malam
Pemukiman 15-25 Aniaya berat Sedang
Pelabuhan 15-20 Curas Tinggi
Perdagangan 20-25 Curas Tinggi
Sumber: Analisa data

3.6Local Responses To Urban Crimes

Recently many countries had implemented crime prevention as one of the most
effective action to reduce the future risk of crime. It involves the police, the justice
system, surveillance systems and guards, local cooperation between schools, social
authorities and agencies and technical crime prevention such as; locks, alarms on
doors and windows, video cameras and monitor etc, to careful urban planning.

Many services and programs contribute to create a safer communities.

Government, non government organizations and the police all have strategies and
programs to reduce crime. From the experienced of many developed countries,
besides increasing the partnership and the relationship between the local
communities, police and the government, the role of government in supporting local
projects, funding, developing capacity, fostering analysis, setting guidelines and
raising public and professional awareness are also important factors to promotes
effective crime prevention.

Basically there are two types of crime prevention: physical environment

(CPTED) and social development (CPTSD). Both of them emphasize a problem
ICSADU 2017

solving approach to crime prevention strategy and support one another. CPTED is
complemtary to and inter related with CPTSD strategies as people live in the built
environment and the built environment influences how people behave. The physical
environment is connected with the occurence of crime and it also forms the space
ICSADU 2017

within which the police operate. Therefore an effective crime prevention can be
achieved by implementing the two types of crime prevention above.

Truly, social gatherings activities, social solidarities, social kinship and social
harmony still remain strong among the local communities. In fact, these factors
have a great contribution towards the response of the community in preventing
crimes, which is basically based on Javanese culture and tradition. Somehow, the
community in the city of Jogjakarta still preserves rural life in its neighborhoods.
Neighbors still know and care each other, contrary to modern urban life, which is
more individualistic. Only a small parts of Jogjakarta city is influenced by modern
urban life where neighbors don't know and don't care each other because they are
the newcommers in new real estate residential areas.

The concept of community policing actually had been implemented in social lifeof local
communities in Jogjakarta City since 2007. An example isronda/Siskamling ( Environment
Security System) which is more than aneighborhood watch as found in developed countries such
as Japan, USA, andEurope. Ronda/Siskamling as well as other crime prevention systems in

4. Conclusion

This paper concludes at least four important conclussions. The first is that urban crimes tend to
increase in some cities and not in other sities in Indonesia. Both in big cities such as Surabaya,
Makasar, and also medium size cities like Yogyakarta dan Menado, urban crimes are fluctuated
incosistensely. This fenomena indicate that the idea of safe city promoted by Habitat III face a
problematic and challenging issues.

The second finding which is quite contrary to the first finding is that based on survay on liveable
city done by IAP indicated that people’s perception on the issue of urban safety is quite good,
ranging from Yogyakarta, Surabaya, Manado, and Makasar.

Thirdly, this study also find another interesting finding that the spatial patter of the crimes is tend
to be happened in urban fringe areas. This finding is contrary to the finding commonly found in
urban areas in Western countries where urban crimes tedn to be found in urban centres rather in
urban fringes. The finding relates to existing spatial patterns of urban growth in Indonesia
whereas urban fringes are characterized by new urban uses including university campuses,
industrial zones, and othres functions including residential areas, but with no local communities
having long tradition of gotong royong in making sure the safetyness of the areas.

Four, the research found that factor contributed dto urban crimes in urban fringes include: the
land use pattern, social gap, local government responds, and community responses. Among these
factors, community responds seems to be the more crucial ones. The stronger community develop
crimes prevention, the area would have a less crimes rate/incidents.

These four findings are crucial as they relate to the idea of making more safe city as promoted by
Habitat III. The fact that urban crimes tend to increase in urban areas in Indonesiua suggest that
Indonesia needs to develop a comprehensive policy and program to make sure that urban crimes
preventions are in place, particularly in big and medium sizes cities.

This study ends with at least three recommendations. First is that there is a need for developing a
comprehensive and systematic policy and program to achieve safe city, as integral parts of the
Habitat III goals in achieving inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable city. Such policy and
program indeed needs to be integrated with the SDGs goals, since many factors contributed to
ICSADU 2017

urban crimes and urban safety relate directly and indirectly with the seventeens goals within
SDGs.

The second recommendations is that it is cruail for the local government to develop their capacity
in developing a better urban crimes prevention system. It is important for the local/urban
governments to give more priority to urban crimes and urban safety as they are important element
in achieving just and sustainable city and community. More better and effective coordination
needs to be develop, particularlyt between local govenrment, local policy, and local community
nin developing urban crimes prevention systems.

The third recommendation is that it is crucial to strengthen the social capital of the local
community to be able to develop a more effective and efficient local crimes prevenstion system.
The long-tradition model of crime prevention through gotong royong and ronda system needs to
be adjust into a more effice=ient and modern system, using appropriate technology such as CCTV
and others means.

Finnaly, it is important for the planner and urban designer to put urban crime and urban safty into
their city planning and desgin considerations. As urban crimes relate to land use pattern and urban
design, it is important for planner and urban designer to consider several urban planning and
design tools/model for urban crime prevention. A model for less urban crime for Indonesian cities
may need to be develop and tested.

Acknowledgments
Authors wishing to acknowledge the students working on research agenda offer by the author.
Those students have provided important data and important information for this paper. Further,
the author also would like to thanks Canadian Council for Science which provoke the author to
start doing research on the issue of inclusiveness in the early 2000, which then become one
among research agenda of the author.

5. References

1. Baur, Jenelle, 2007, "Fear of Crime: Thelmpact of Age , Victimisation,.Perceived

Vulnerability to Victimisation and Neighborhood Characteristic". ACPR
ISSUES, Australia, http://www.acpr.gov.au./pdf/ACPR_16pdf(accessed ,2009
April 23).

2. Bayley, David H., "Community Policing in Australia an Appraisal Working Paper",

National Police Research Unit, Payneham, 1986,http://www.acpr.gov.au/pdf/ACPR35.pdf,
(accessed, 2009, June 2).

3. BPS - Statistic Board of Jogjakarta City, "Data Statistik Kota Jogjakarta Tahun
2010-2015."

4. Canadian Council on Social Development, http://www.ccsd.ca/cpsd/ccsd

(accessed,2009,April 2009).

5. Claude, Fisher, (1995), "The Subcultural Theory of Urbanism:A twentieth Year

Assessment." American Journal of Sociology:
http://everything2.com/title/subcultural theory. (accessed, 2009, June 7).
ICSADU 2017

6. Crowe, Timothy D.,Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design, Woburn:

Butterworth-Heinemann, 1991, http://law.jrank.org/Prevention Police Role.html,
(accessed 2009, June 7).Delinquent and Criminal Subcultures, http://law.jrank.org/pages/952
(accessed,
2009,June 7).

7. Dolling, Dieter & Thomas Feltas, "Community Policing-Comparative Aspects of

Community Oriented Police Work". http://books.google.com (accessed, 2009
June 1).

8. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research vol.5, no.3, 1997,

http://www.ej9703, (accessed, 2009, May 26).

9. Ferreira, Bertus R., 1996, "The Use and Effective of Community Policing in A
Democracy". Slovenia: College of Police and Security Studies
http://www.ncjrs.gov/policing/use139htm, (accessed, 2009 June1st).

10. Friedmann, Robert R., Community Policing, Comparative Perspectives and

Prospecthttp://books.google .com (accessed, 2009, June 3).

11. Rank.J. 2007. Urban Crime - Explaining Urban Crime - Violence, Social, Subculture,
and Values - http://law.jrank.org/pages/2223/Urban-Crime-Explaining-urban-
crime.html#ixzz4iLsYr11F