著：（澳）米凱拉·普雷斯科特 （新加坡）耶齊德·尼薩蘭 譯：羅融融

1 研究概述

1.1 從濱水聚落到水敏性城市

縱觀歷史，河流和水系一直是聚居時(shí)不可或缺的考慮因素，但矛盾的是它們也成為這些聚落邁向城市化進(jìn)程中的重要阻礙。在中國(guó)“水系是城市整體景觀設(shè)計(jì)的重要依托……”，“反對(duì)把河流掩蓋起來(lái)，將其變成街道和高樓的排水溝——因?yàn)樾迯?fù)被掩埋的河流得付出昂貴代價(jià)”[1]。這個(gè)環(huán)保主張，尤其是圍繞土地與水關(guān)系的主張，與當(dāng)下流行的城市規(guī)劃中的水敏性城市設(shè)計(jì)方法產(chǎn)生了共鳴。2009年，工程師Wong和Brown闡述了將水敏性理念付諸實(shí)踐的3個(gè)原則：1）將城市視作供給水源的匯集區(qū)；2）城市應(yīng)提供生態(tài)系統(tǒng)服務(wù)；3）城市由水敏性社區(qū)組成[2]。隨后，澳大利亞的水敏性城市設(shè)計(jì)（water-sensitive urban design, WSUD）和新加坡的活躍、美麗和清潔水計(jì)劃（Active, Beautiful,and Clean, ABC）都可以視作是該理念的方法實(shí)踐。30年后，低影響開發(fā)（low-impact development, LID）、基于自然的解決方案（nature-based solutions, NbS）和可持續(xù)排水系統(tǒng)（sustainable drainage systems, SuDS）等類似的方法中也展現(xiàn)了這些特征。

上述方法的共同點(diǎn)是確立了與自然系統(tǒng)協(xié)同以創(chuàng)造環(huán)境、社會(huì)和經(jīng)濟(jì)效益的核心理念與實(shí)踐做法。因地制宜的工程和設(shè)計(jì)策略被用來(lái)改善生物多樣性，并（重新）將自然特征和作用過(guò)程引入都市地區(qū)?；谒粜猿鞘性瓌t，這些策略旨在管理水循環(huán)：保護(hù)和增強(qiáng)河道“健康”，解決排水與洪澇問(wèn)題，在為公眾創(chuàng)造空間的同時(shí)實(shí)現(xiàn)對(duì)水的蓄積、凈化和循環(huán)利用。城市通過(guò)實(shí)施水資源綜合管理，在提升生物多樣性、建設(shè)公共綠地、保障河道健康、促進(jìn)社區(qū)交流以及增強(qiáng)文化內(nèi)涵等方面創(chuàng)造了更多機(jī)會(huì)。最終，這些城市利用水敏性規(guī)劃設(shè)計(jì)方法來(lái)創(chuàng)造相互連接的、充滿活力的宜居社區(qū)。這些概念與風(fēng)景園林師的專業(yè)領(lǐng)域產(chǎn)生了很強(qiáng)的關(guān)聯(lián)性，因此，水敏性策略也被越來(lái)越多地用于干預(yù)水陸關(guān)系。

1.2 邁向水敏性城市

過(guò)去，許多國(guó)家一直遵循“先發(fā)展，后治理”[3]的做法。如今，其他國(guó)家的很多城市都在尋求建設(shè)水敏性城市的“跨越式”途徑。這樣做的目的不僅能避免城市化和人口增長(zhǎng)帶來(lái)的負(fù)面影響[4]，而且能建成更具韌性和可持續(xù)性的水資源管理系統(tǒng)。然而，并不存在一個(gè)所謂的“良方”，可以完美地解決城市在經(jīng)歷快速且失控的城市化和氣候變化后所面臨的復(fù)雜問(wèn)題。

水敏性城市設(shè)計(jì)策略通常在新區(qū)規(guī)劃和開發(fā)中實(shí)施，而很少被應(yīng)用在非正規(guī)聚落等低收入和資源短缺的環(huán)境中[5]。當(dāng)市政基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施無(wú)法適應(yīng)城市發(fā)展時(shí)，低收入社區(qū)可能會(huì)依賴環(huán)境設(shè)施的服務(wù)來(lái)滿足基本需求[6]。同時(shí)，密集的城市結(jié)構(gòu)和社區(qū)的社會(huì)文化因素也影響了基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施改造、開放空間和休閑設(shè)施的建成效果。在治理不善的情況下，相比土地法規(guī)或政策而言，社會(huì)文化因素對(duì)社區(qū)發(fā)展的影響更為顯著[7]。因此，從社會(huì)文化和空間復(fù)雜性的角度理解城市景觀對(duì)于有效運(yùn)用水敏性城市設(shè)計(jì)策略、應(yīng)對(duì)都市濱水景觀的復(fù)雜問(wèn)題是至關(guān)重要的。

風(fēng)景園林師在設(shè)計(jì)過(guò)程中可以通過(guò)思考并回應(yīng)社區(qū)訴求的方式來(lái)加強(qiáng)對(duì)社會(huì)文化方面的關(guān)注。然而，人們可能對(duì)景觀及其服務(wù)產(chǎn)生不同的看法，不同利益相關(guān)者（政府、社區(qū)和個(gè)人）之間的溝通也因此更具挑戰(zhàn)性[8-9]。筆者認(rèn)為，通過(guò)對(duì)本土化行為和策略的密切觀察（圖1），設(shè)計(jì)師可以更好地了解使用者心目中的景觀所應(yīng)具備的功能與生態(tài)性能。設(shè)計(jì)師不要急于對(duì)這些功能進(jìn)行價(jià)值判斷，并立即給它們貼上負(fù)面或正面標(biāo)簽，而是應(yīng)該思考這些功能需求所反映的特定環(huán)境背景。

圖1 行為：當(dāng)?shù)貗D女使用竹制走道和竹筏來(lái)接近河流進(jìn)行家務(wù)勞動(dòng)；策略：用竹子和木材來(lái)加固河岸以防止水土流失Behaviour: Local women use a bamboo walkway and raft (getek) to access the river’s water for domestic tasks. Tactics:Bamboo and timber are used to contain the riverbank and prevent erosion.

2 印度尼西亞雅加達(dá)的水陸互動(dòng)關(guān)系

2.1 背景

有著960萬(wàn)人口的雅加達(dá)是東南亞最大的城市之一，它所處的JABODETABEK城市群（包括雅加達(dá)、茂物、德博克、唐格朗、勿加泗）居民總數(shù)超過(guò)2 700萬(wàn)，是世界上第二大都市區(qū)。該市起源于芝利翁河畔的一個(gè)小港口村，后來(lái)在殖民時(shí)期成為巴達(dá)維亞市。芝利翁河是原住民群體和殖民定居者日常生活所依托的重要基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施，承載了水源供給和水上運(yùn)輸?shù)裙δ?。然而隨著時(shí)間的推移和城市化推進(jìn)，河流開始退化。貨物運(yùn)輸也從水路轉(zhuǎn)向陸路，導(dǎo)致19世紀(jì)末和20世紀(jì)初的新開發(fā)項(xiàng)目都集中在主干道沿線，這也使情況變得更加復(fù)雜。在某種程度上，本土社區(qū)仍然存在，且被圍合在河流、道路與建筑之間。在南亞和東南亞大部分地區(qū)的殖民地規(guī)劃中，種族隔離的空間策略[10]使原住民社區(qū)越來(lái)越多地集中在甘榜（印尼語(yǔ)：kampung）或城中村，這些村落往往位于城市郊區(qū)、易內(nèi)澇或被淹的地區(qū)以及河道沿線等條件不理想甚至糟糕的地區(qū)。其中許多地區(qū)保留了類似甘榜的特征，隨著時(shí)間的推移，由于發(fā)展和氣候變化、土地以及水之間的關(guān)系逐漸顯現(xiàn)，社區(qū)形成了特定的生活方式（圖2、3）。迄今為止，河流及其周邊區(qū)域的破壞和惡化的程度非常嚴(yán)重，由此也對(duì)水質(zhì)和水量（洪水）、自然環(huán)境與生態(tài)、城市環(huán)境與衛(wèi)生狀況等造成影響。從在極端的洪水事件中幸存下來(lái)，到從自然災(zāi)害的創(chuàng)傷中恢復(fù)，再到開展日常生活的常規(guī)活動(dòng)，這一系列實(shí)踐反映了土地和水的相互作用規(guī)律[11]。政府無(wú)力保障社區(qū)的水陸關(guān)系安全，也意味著社區(qū)所享有的生態(tài)系統(tǒng)服務(wù)將不斷被擾亂。因此，在資源有限的情況下，在地化策略塑造了景觀。盡管這樣的景觀通常被貼上污染嚴(yán)重和垃圾管理缺乏等同質(zhì)化標(biāo)簽；拋開這些不談，可以發(fā)現(xiàn)由社區(qū)自發(fā)創(chuàng)造的休閑、管理和其他活動(dòng)空間，本質(zhì)上就是城市化土地與河流景觀相互作用的結(jié)果。

圖2 研究范圍為雅加達(dá)南部的布吉杜里和馬來(lái)由村，選取的研究對(duì)象為位于芝利翁河兩岸的高密度建成區(qū)的社區(qū)Communities within the neighbourhoods of Bukit Duri and Kampung Melayu in South Jakarta were included in the study. The neighbourhoods are located along the densely settled banks of the Ciliwung River

圖3 對(duì)河水的大量消耗導(dǎo)致了河流容量減少及其功能改變。盡管環(huán)境狀況惡化，這些社區(qū)仍然很活躍，居民與河流的互動(dòng)程度也相對(duì)較高The intense use of the river reduces the river’s capacity and compromises its role. Despite the deterioration, the neighbourhoods are lively and communities appear to have a comparatively high level of interaction with the river

2.2 水陸關(guān)系的空間規(guī)劃和管理

在過(guò)去的幾十年里，總體規(guī)劃和立法等一系列的監(jiān)管工具持續(xù)不斷地對(duì)雅加達(dá)的甘榜產(chǎn)生空間層面的影響，也對(duì)污染和日益頻繁的洪水等環(huán)境問(wèn)題的應(yīng)對(duì)帶來(lái)挑戰(zhàn)[12]。雅加達(dá)境內(nèi)的河道改造因?yàn)閮刹繉?duì)立的法規(guī)而變得復(fù)雜：國(guó)家土地局（印尼語(yǔ)：Badan Pertanahan Nasional, BPN）頒布了關(guān)于私人所有權(quán)的法規(guī)；而有關(guān)河流的第38/2012號(hào)政府法規(guī)政策（印尼語(yǔ)：Peraturan Pemerintah 38/2012 tentang Sungai）中規(guī)定河流和邊界由國(guó)家控制。芝利翁河同時(shí)跨越了國(guó)家、省和市的邊界，其管理權(quán)屬于國(guó)家政府而不是地方當(dāng)局，因此，歷史上芝利翁河未能在管理上真正將上下游整合起來(lái)。加上國(guó)家資金投入有限，在過(guò)去幾十年間，實(shí)際上是社區(qū)組織在環(huán)境教育、宣傳和行動(dòng)等方面發(fā)揮了關(guān)鍵作用。2014—2019年，政府頒布了一項(xiàng)政策，明確要求社區(qū)從河邊騰退，包括了撤離居民、清除構(gòu)筑物和植被后進(jìn)行河道渠化的計(jì)劃[13]。最近，關(guān)鍵的立法轉(zhuǎn)變推動(dòng)了印度尼西亞的水資源綜合管理。政府政策的推行集中在對(duì)流域規(guī)模的戰(zhàn)略性規(guī)劃上，通過(guò)與社區(qū)組織合作，在城市和居民區(qū)實(shí)施自下而上的統(tǒng)一行動(dòng)。通過(guò)這種方式，社區(qū)和非政府組織通過(guò)多方共商的城市規(guī)劃形式參與進(jìn)來(lái)，共同描繪了水陸關(guān)系的未來(lái)。在這種新的城市發(fā)展模式中，將對(duì)河流景觀質(zhì)量與功能持有不同看法的利益相關(guān)者聚集在一起，對(duì)于促成積極的溝通與合作是尤為重要的。

2.3 河流中的甘榜

田野調(diào)查是在2013年底到2014年初上述的強(qiáng)制后退和渠化開始前進(jìn)行的。研究地點(diǎn)包括雅加達(dá)南部的布吉杜里和馬來(lái)由村這2個(gè)村級(jí)行政區(qū)（印尼語(yǔ)：Kelurahan）。馬來(lái)由村是該市最古老的村落之一，1 km2內(nèi)有48 000多人[14]，人口密集且主要是非正式定居者。毗鄰河流的社區(qū)單元（印尼語(yǔ)：Rukun Warga,RW）被選為具有城市特征的研究對(duì)象。每個(gè)社區(qū)都有大約80戶家庭，平均家庭規(guī)模為5.7人，通常由幾代人組成。建成區(qū)主要是由木材、磚塊、混凝土和鋼材建造的一、二層樓房。建筑物通常承載居住、家庭手工業(yè)和商業(yè)等復(fù)合功能，并會(huì)隨時(shí)間推移不斷被改造以滿足家庭需要。街道和巷道，以及社區(qū)設(shè)施、開放空間和河道入口是社區(qū)的重要空間節(jié)點(diǎn)，很可能被家庭手工業(yè)、固定攤位、手推車和沿街販賣等社會(huì)經(jīng)濟(jì)活動(dòng)所占據(jù)。

由于土地利用的快速變化和缺乏控制，位于芝利翁河下游的布吉杜里容易受到河流和洪澇災(zāi)害的影響[15-16]。在季風(fēng)季節(jié)，一些區(qū)域可能會(huì)被高達(dá)4 m的洪水淹沒(méi)。在暴風(fēng)雨期間，當(dāng)河水漫過(guò)河岸時(shí)，高約0.5 m的小洪水會(huì)更加頻繁地發(fā)生。人們已經(jīng)適應(yīng)了日益嚴(yán)重的洪水并且大多居住在房屋的2層，在洪水未過(guò)境時(shí)會(huì)將建筑底層空間用于家庭手工業(yè)、烹飪和基本的娛樂(lè)活動(dòng)（看電視）。受高頻洪澇的影響，該社區(qū)已經(jīng)開發(fā)出了一個(gè)洪水預(yù)警系統(tǒng)[17-19]，此外，被稱為互助合作的社區(qū)援助文化提升了社區(qū)韌性，切實(shí)地發(fā)揮了管理作用。

盡管總體上具有相似特征，2個(gè)社區(qū)間仍然呈現(xiàn)出差異性。馬來(lái)由村的調(diào)研樣本是位于半島形場(chǎng)地上的普洛住區(qū)，沿河分布著具有特色的開放空間、公共綠化和私家花園以及緩坡駁岸。這些特征決定了河道景觀的布局并影響其使用狀況。布吉杜里的調(diào)研樣本則以鐵路和河流為界。由于河流的可達(dá)性較差，房屋大多建在河邊，只保留少量的開放空間和植被。

3 將景觀作為一種集成媒介

3.1 方法學(xué)框架

“景觀是創(chuàng)造和改變動(dòng)態(tài)環(huán)境的自然和文化過(guò)程的可見痕跡”[20]。Nassauer認(rèn)為這種可見性意味著每個(gè)人都可以捕捉到他們所關(guān)注的景觀特征及其對(duì)自身的意義。然而，這些特征的意義以及價(jià)值取決于所處的環(huán)境背景。風(fēng)景園林學(xué)[21-22]和地理學(xué)[23-25]先后對(duì)賦予景觀意義與價(jià)值的復(fù)雜性進(jìn)行了深入探討。盡管一個(gè)人可能無(wú)法基于學(xué)科背景或經(jīng)驗(yàn)框架的視角完整“看到”景觀[9,24,26]，但他們可以指明某個(gè)地點(diǎn)或景觀特征并描述所看到的景象。通過(guò)這種方式，景觀被用作“邊界對(duì)象”[27]，使得持不同觀點(diǎn)的人可以分享與景觀屬性有關(guān)的看法。Nassauer[28]提出，通過(guò)將景觀作為媒介（或參考對(duì)象），“不同的意見得以充分討論，再通過(guò)設(shè)計(jì)將討論結(jié)果轉(zhuǎn)化成對(duì)具體問(wèn)題的解決策略?！?/p>

基于水敏性城市主題，筆者對(duì)與河流廊道和植被使用模式有關(guān)的環(huán)境服務(wù)特別感興趣。在同一研究區(qū)域內(nèi)，Vollmer和Gret-Regamey[6]已確定了6種不同的河流環(huán)境服務(wù)形式：1）直接作為衛(wèi)生用水；2）休閑娛樂(lè)；3）種植水生植物；4）作為地下水使用；5）固體廢棄物處理；6）污水處理。本研究重點(diǎn)關(guān)注其中的休閑娛樂(lè)和固體廢棄物處理2項(xiàng)服務(wù)，因?yàn)楣P者認(rèn)為這是與河流景觀轉(zhuǎn)變最直接相關(guān)的行為線索，可以通過(guò)一系列使用策略和主觀行為影響空間的使用（圖1），例如對(duì)河流景觀及其周圍環(huán)境的策略性改造。這樣一來(lái)，基于以景觀為媒介的理念，有關(guān)行為與策略的獨(dú)特案例可以增進(jìn)對(duì)發(fā)展中特大城市的居民、土地與河流之間關(guān)系的理解。這項(xiàng)工作被整合進(jìn)一個(gè)更大的合作研究項(xiàng)目中，該項(xiàng)目涉及3個(gè)空間尺度：流域、廊道和鄉(xiāng)土景觀。這種研究芝利翁河廊道生態(tài)系統(tǒng)服務(wù)的綜合方法在其他出版物中已有提及[12,14,29]。本研究采用定量的空間數(shù)據(jù)獲取方法，以及定量和定性結(jié)合的社會(huì)研究方法。筆者將在本節(jié)概述用到的每一種方法，在第4節(jié)中還將討論濱河社區(qū)在適應(yīng)水陸關(guān)系中的策略與行為。

3.2 數(shù)據(jù)收集

研究選取地處河流廊道內(nèi)的社區(qū)來(lái)識(shí)別和解讀由居民行為與策略引發(fā)的景觀改變。筆者借助社區(qū)參與式的方法來(lái)研究景觀的社會(huì)文化維度，并試圖揭示景觀體驗(yàn)。這種方法源于社會(huì)學(xué)中以描述性結(jié)果為導(dǎo)向的歸納研究，通過(guò)住戶調(diào)查法研判區(qū)域的整體趨勢(shì)。而結(jié)構(gòu)化和半結(jié)構(gòu)化訪談、空間漫步和景觀觀察則被用來(lái)研究特定個(gè)體。通過(guò)有目的抽樣法將受訪者分為住戶、居民代表和當(dāng)?shù)厣鐓^(qū)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)3類利益相關(guān)者群體。后文將詳細(xì)敘述對(duì)不同群體的具體抽樣要求。聘用當(dāng)?shù)卮髮W(xué)生為研究助理，完成住戶調(diào)查、摘要筆記匯編等工作并參與了分析性復(fù)核與審查，為訪談提供支持。研究助理在確保研究可靠性[9]方面發(fā)揮了重要作用。

3.2.1 住戶調(diào)查

使用平板電腦對(duì)雅加達(dá)南部的2個(gè)社區(qū)單元進(jìn)行了住戶調(diào)查。布吉杜里的調(diào)查（n =57）在2014年初進(jìn)行，馬來(lái)由村普洛住區(qū)的調(diào)查（n = 49）于2013年底進(jìn)行。調(diào)查促進(jìn)了對(duì)該區(qū)域居民與環(huán)境互動(dòng)關(guān)系的深層次理解。基于當(dāng)?shù)亟M織結(jié)構(gòu)對(duì)樣本進(jìn)行分層，以確?？臻g分析的地理覆蓋范圍。在每個(gè)社區(qū)單元的空間范圍內(nèi)隨機(jī)抽選5戶，以便在GIS分析中推斷結(jié)果。調(diào)查對(duì)公用空間、植被和河流使用情況等信息進(jìn)行采樣，通過(guò)這些研究揭示城市發(fā)展的文化動(dòng)因。由于Vollmer和Gret-Regamey[6]在同一研究區(qū)域內(nèi)已經(jīng)調(diào)查了貧困水平、水資源和衛(wèi)生設(shè)施覆蓋率，本研究不再涉及。由于土地所有權(quán)是有爭(zhēng)議的，調(diào)查中也未涉及關(guān)于所有權(quán)的進(jìn)一步論述。

3.2.2 半結(jié)構(gòu)化訪談

半結(jié)構(gòu)化訪談能夠針對(duì)當(dāng)?shù)厍闆r進(jìn)行信息收集，并在與居民的互動(dòng)中持續(xù)補(bǔ)充。訪談通常是從與住戶調(diào)查對(duì)象的對(duì)話開始的，這也是雙方友好交流的結(jié)果，或者是社區(qū)成員將調(diào)查者介紹給其他居民后如滾雪球一般不斷擴(kuò)展內(nèi)容。同時(shí)，研究人員為社區(qū)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)擬定了諸如空間規(guī)劃、廢棄物管理和共享空間維護(hù)等具體訪談問(wèn)題。按照民族志的方法，筆者試圖從開展調(diào)研工作的社區(qū)角度來(lái)理解景觀，并基于這種視角來(lái)理解和整理收集到的定量與定性數(shù)據(jù)，然后使用扎根理論方法對(duì)定性信息進(jìn)行分析，從而確定模式并形成假設(shè)[30-31]。

3.2.3 空間漫步

在每個(gè)研究地區(qū)，空間界面都是沿著社區(qū)的主要街道以及與主街和河流垂直的小巷展開的。來(lái)自非政府組織的合作者負(fù)責(zé)引導(dǎo)被試人員在給定的5條步行路線中進(jìn)行選擇，參與者包括非政府組織工作人員、社區(qū)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)以及居民。通過(guò)觀察被試人員在漫步過(guò)程中與居民之間的日常互動(dòng)來(lái)識(shí)別行為特征并總結(jié)行為規(guī)律。受當(dāng)?shù)厝说男袨楹涂臻g使用方式影響而形成的空間形態(tài)是這一調(diào)查方法的重要線索。

3.3 數(shù)據(jù)分析

綜合運(yùn)用扎根理論、統(tǒng)計(jì)分析和空間分析等方法對(duì)收集到的信息進(jìn)行處理。扎根理論方法屬于質(zhì)性研究，是在對(duì)現(xiàn)場(chǎng)筆記、訪談?dòng)涗浐椭亟ǖ膱?chǎng)地空間模型進(jìn)行分析性編碼[30-31]的基礎(chǔ)上歸納總結(jié)形成理論。運(yùn)用統(tǒng)計(jì)分析方法將定量數(shù)據(jù)繪制成概率圖（樣本累積分布圖），結(jié)合訪談和實(shí)地觀察收集到的定性數(shù)據(jù)進(jìn)行分析?？臻g分析法則是在ArcMap（ESRI地圖）中使用“指示克里格”工具（地質(zhì)統(tǒng)計(jì)分析工具包）對(duì)住戶調(diào)查信息進(jìn)行插值計(jì)算，用插值效果圖來(lái)判定住戶與河流的距離對(duì)休閑娛樂(lè)活動(dòng)和固體廢棄物處理行為的影響。

4 基于社區(qū)策略與行為視角的水敏性非正規(guī)聚落景觀改造策略

圖5 某戶到河中進(jìn)行娛樂(lè)活動(dòng)的概率（5-1）和某戶在河中處理垃圾的概率（5-2）Maps showing the probability of a household visiting the river for recreation (5-1) and the probability of a household disposing garbage in the river (5-2)

盡管水敏性城市設(shè)計(jì)策略已經(jīng)應(yīng)用了30年，但各城市仍在努力探索適應(yīng)本土情況的項(xiàng)目實(shí)踐。筆者認(rèn)為，雖然Wong、Brown等所闡述的通用性的水敏性城市設(shè)計(jì)策略能對(duì)項(xiàng)目建設(shè)起到指導(dǎo)作用，但各地政府都必須利用自身經(jīng)驗(yàn)將項(xiàng)目實(shí)施與具體的社會(huì)文化背景相聯(lián)系。本研究的主要貢獻(xiàn)之一是在復(fù)雜和快速變動(dòng)的情況下，將水敏性城市設(shè)計(jì)的3條策略轉(zhuǎn)譯為適用既有聚落的個(gè)性化方案。相關(guān)經(jīng)驗(yàn)源于對(duì)布吉杜里和馬來(lái)由村這2個(gè)從河流中獲得生態(tài)系統(tǒng)服務(wù)的社區(qū)進(jìn)行研究。其特殊之處在于流域跨越地方、省和國(guó)家管轄范圍的復(fù)雜性，導(dǎo)致從政府層面無(wú)法促成其邁向水敏性城市。因此，推進(jìn)鄉(xiāng)土景觀設(shè)計(jì)，需要與包括社區(qū)在內(nèi)的利益相關(guān)者進(jìn)行協(xié)同。通過(guò)將景觀作為媒介的方法，揭示了當(dāng)?shù)厣鐓^(qū)的另一層功能和價(jià)值，有助于理解這種背景下的水陸關(guān)系。研究所收集的信息展現(xiàn)并印證了實(shí)用性改造行為與活動(dòng)策略對(duì)河流景觀空間的顯著影響。

為了將鄉(xiāng)土策略和行為的研究結(jié)果與實(shí)踐聯(lián)系起來(lái)，筆者借鑒了亞洲開發(fā)銀行（Asian Development Bank, ADB）和非正規(guī)聚落及其環(huán)境更新項(xiàng)目（RISE）制定的水敏性非正規(guī)聚落的5項(xiàng)原則。這些原則來(lái)源于該項(xiàng)目在印度尼西亞和斐濟(jì)實(shí)施水敏性城市方法的經(jīng)驗(yàn)[5]，且全面吸收其他優(yōu)秀實(shí)踐項(xiàng)目經(jīng)驗(yàn)，以保障在非正規(guī)環(huán)境中開展水敏性城市設(shè)計(jì)。筆者基于RISE-ADB的原則提出將本土經(jīng)驗(yàn)與水敏性鄉(xiāng)土景觀設(shè)計(jì)相結(jié)合的建議：1）與自然協(xié)作；2）使共同利益最大化；3）在嵌套的空間尺度上進(jìn)行設(shè)計(jì)；4）促進(jìn)可持續(xù)性的制度化；5）以人為本，尊重民意。

4.1 建議一：與自然協(xié)作

通過(guò)訪談可知，居民對(duì)河流的看法及其使用情況與河流的物理狀況有很大關(guān)系。筆者觀察到河流使用行為的減少與物理環(huán)境惡化之間存在正相關(guān)。通過(guò)用木材和混凝土建造樓梯和坡道、鋪設(shè)人行道等策略，可以促進(jìn)駐足休憩、沿河散步、垂釣和游泳等濱河休閑行為發(fā)生（圖4～6）。

圖4 住戶調(diào)查的結(jié)果Household survey results

調(diào)查結(jié)果顯示由于沒(méi)有自來(lái)水供應(yīng)，居民只能將河流作為次要水源，有些人會(huì)利用河水洗漱和做家務(wù)清潔，利用漂浮木筏（印尼語(yǔ)：getek）靠近河邊洗衣服和上廁所；此外，現(xiàn)有化糞池系統(tǒng)的建造和維護(hù)狀況不佳，這2種情況都導(dǎo)致了河水質(zhì)量的惡化[32]。況且本就存在將工業(yè)和生活廢水、固體廢棄物排入河中的污染行為，上述行為導(dǎo)致了水生物種污染和生物多樣性減少，從而加劇了人們對(duì)水污染的擔(dān)憂。

根據(jù)水敏性城市設(shè)計(jì)原則，筆者建議制定策略來(lái)恢復(fù)環(huán)境并減少城市范圍內(nèi)的人為污染。目前政府大力推行了河流渠化工程，然而現(xiàn)實(shí)情況確是導(dǎo)致了沿河廊道開放空間和生境的喪失，以及沿河社區(qū)的搬遷。因此，未來(lái)的項(xiàng)目應(yīng)基于自然系統(tǒng)提供分散式廢水處理設(shè)施和替代性供水，并進(jìn)行在地改造。項(xiàng)目應(yīng)旨在提升環(huán)境質(zhì)量、恢復(fù)城市生態(tài)系統(tǒng)并改善生物多樣性。

4.2 建議二：使共同利益最大化

街道寬度和與主要道路可達(dá)性的限制削弱了河流和社區(qū)之間的聯(lián)系，妨礙了疏散路線和應(yīng)急服務(wù)的有序運(yùn)行，在火災(zāi)和洪水等緊急情況下會(huì)危及社區(qū)。通過(guò)綜合居民調(diào)查和社區(qū)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)訪談信息，以及實(shí)地測(cè)量的街道寬度，研究發(fā)現(xiàn)車輛的可進(jìn)入性影響了社區(qū)的垃圾收集（圖4～6）。例如，狹窄的街道限制了城市垃圾收集車輛的進(jìn)入。因此，垃圾收集服務(wù)往往是借助帶拖車的摩托車或手拉車等臨時(shí)設(shè)施完成，或者根本就沒(méi)有。在居民和垃圾收集者決定如何以及在哪里處理固體廢棄物的過(guò)程中，最終導(dǎo)致廢棄物被直接丟進(jìn)河中的主要原因在于這是最便利的處理方式。

通過(guò)調(diào)查和實(shí)地觀察，筆者關(guān)注到居民對(duì)河流廊道舒適性的認(rèn)識(shí)體現(xiàn)在通過(guò)開發(fā)臨河界面來(lái)享受更涼爽的氣溫、綠色的景致和開放的空間。本研究還指出，需要改善通道來(lái)解決垃圾收集和雨洪管理問(wèn)題。為了實(shí)現(xiàn)這一目標(biāo)，要在社區(qū)內(nèi)展開多方討論以確定具體的實(shí)施方案。通過(guò)商議可以制定指導(dǎo)社區(qū)長(zhǎng)期投資和發(fā)展的全面計(jì)劃（總體規(guī)劃）。計(jì)劃應(yīng)包括因地制宜、針對(duì)具體場(chǎng)地的項(xiàng)目，并將項(xiàng)目的特定環(huán)境變量納入設(shè)計(jì)和實(shí)施中。此舉可以充分利用以社區(qū)為中心的發(fā)展機(jī)會(huì)，提升基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施投資的社會(huì)經(jīng)濟(jì)效益。例如，可以通過(guò)提升可達(dá)性、建筑外立面和開放空間來(lái)提升河流廊道舒適性。此外，蓄積雨水可以為家庭提供替代水源，并減少雨水徑流。

4.3 建議三：在嵌套的空間尺度上進(jìn)行設(shè)計(jì)

圖6 娛樂(lè)活動(dòng)和廢棄物管理基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施的案例Examples of recreational activities and waste management infrastructure

盡管本研究?jī)H限于社區(qū)尺度，但筆者認(rèn)為，鄉(xiāng)土景觀的形成受到更廣泛流域的影響[15]。上游地區(qū)土地利用的變化削弱了地面接收降雨和向含水層回水的能力。在下游研究區(qū)域，高密度聚落中未建設(shè)用地和種植區(qū)域等透水表面非常有限。應(yīng)該將水敏性設(shè)計(jì)策略納入省級(jí)和市級(jí)層面的空間規(guī)劃、土地管理和投資計(jì)劃中。雖然通過(guò)地方干預(yù)不能完全解決河水泛濫問(wèn)題，但可以通過(guò)排水工程和屋頂集雨來(lái)改善降雨管理和減少地方河水泛濫。雖然社區(qū)可能無(wú)法直接影響流域內(nèi)其他地方的土地利用變化，但以社區(qū)為中心的一系列實(shí)踐表明，本土范圍內(nèi)發(fā)生的改變能夠與更廣泛的環(huán)境提升訴求相契合。例如泗水市根據(jù)社區(qū)需求和政府規(guī)定，以社區(qū)為主導(dǎo)，采用建筑退讓和提升可達(dá)性等重建方式促進(jìn)了河岸振興[33]。在已取得成功的基礎(chǔ)上，雅加達(dá)其他社區(qū)也采取了類似方法，從建筑層面開始振興河岸[34]。將此類改造整合到城市開放空間和交通網(wǎng)絡(luò)中，可以實(shí)現(xiàn)更大的共同效益（例如廢棄物管理），但同時(shí)也應(yīng)考慮到社區(qū)內(nèi)的空間和社會(huì)環(huán)境差異。

4.4 建議四：促進(jìn)可持續(xù)性的制度化

部分社區(qū)的居民試圖通過(guò)用木材和混凝土板覆蓋排水溝的方式來(lái)拓展街道寬度。然而，這在便于車輛通行或擺攤售賣的同時(shí)也導(dǎo)致了雨洪徑流的增加。這種變化反映出在局部范圍內(nèi)出現(xiàn)了甘榜紳士化（kampung gentrification）。Simatupang等討論了開發(fā)商主導(dǎo)的甘榜紳士化，認(rèn)為其引發(fā)了建成環(huán)境的形態(tài)改變（例如從1～2層低層建筑為主的住區(qū)轉(zhuǎn)向超級(jí)街區(qū)）[35]。這些變化導(dǎo)致了建成環(huán)境地表的滲透性降低，并危及城市水系統(tǒng)。根據(jù)建議三運(yùn)用水敏性設(shè)計(jì)策略進(jìn)行城市規(guī)劃，需要從政府層面進(jìn)行謀劃，以便將建成環(huán)境的可持續(xù)發(fā)展固化為制度。這樣可以促使開發(fā)商考慮與城市形態(tài)有關(guān)的更廣泛的環(huán)境問(wèn)題，并思考開發(fā)行為對(duì)水系統(tǒng)造成的影響。

大學(xué)研究團(tuán)隊(duì)也可以在促進(jìn)利益相關(guān)者掌握水環(huán)境知識(shí)方面發(fā)揮作用。例如，茂物農(nóng)業(yè)大學(xué)的一個(gè)團(tuán)隊(duì)確立并實(shí)施了在不同場(chǎng)地條件下開挖生態(tài)滲水孔（biopori）等一系列環(huán)境干預(yù)措施。通過(guò)開設(shè)工作坊的形式幫助當(dāng)?shù)卣吧鐓^(qū)理解雨洪徑流，并演示如何開挖滲水孔。社區(qū)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)隨后試圖在各自的社區(qū)內(nèi)運(yùn)用這些措施。而事實(shí)證明，開挖生態(tài)滲水孔等當(dāng)?shù)貫樘岣哂晁聺B率、緩解局部洪水和補(bǔ)給地下水所做的嘗試尚存在不足且難以維持[14,29]。但已建構(gòu)起的社區(qū)經(jīng)驗(yàn)與做法仍能對(duì)改善通行狀況和排水系統(tǒng)起到推動(dòng)作用。

4.5 建議五：以人為本，尊重民意

也許本研究最有意義之處在于發(fā)現(xiàn)了鄉(xiāng)土策略對(duì)景觀塑造的巨大影響。以觀察到的居民行為為線索，可以看到鄉(xiāng)土文化的影響存在于社區(qū)的方方面面。這些社區(qū)不僅在人口組成方面具有異質(zhì)性，居民對(duì)河水漲落的反應(yīng)也有較大差異。筆者發(fā)現(xiàn)，社區(qū)的建筑朝向和河流可達(dá)性等空間特征影響了居民行為與河流舒適性。本研究調(diào)研的2個(gè)濱河社區(qū)一個(gè)位于高地之上，雖能避開洪水侵襲，但與河流的關(guān)系卻最為分離。沿河岸一字排開的封閉建筑界面使人們近水而無(wú)法親水。另一個(gè)社區(qū)盡管毗鄰的河流衛(wèi)生狀況不佳，但公共和私人建筑均臨河而建，使得窗戶、露臺(tái)和陽(yáng)臺(tái)都面向綠色的景致，感受到?jīng)鏊娘L(fēng)。房屋下面的露臺(tái)區(qū)域被用來(lái)作為清真寺外集體禱告前后的聚會(huì)或休息區(qū)。上述2個(gè)調(diào)研實(shí)例體現(xiàn)了河流廊道對(duì)提升社區(qū)生活舒適度的價(jià)值。居民們將既有的強(qiáng)大組織架構(gòu)、社區(qū)推選的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人以及宗教和非宗教社區(qū)團(tuán)體聯(lián)結(jié)起來(lái)。正是由于這種結(jié)構(gòu)，使得社區(qū)具備抵御洪水沖擊的能力[11]。在水敏性項(xiàng)目的實(shí)施中可以重建組織架構(gòu)以及加深居民對(duì)環(huán)境的了解，這將確保項(xiàng)目的針對(duì)性和可持續(xù)性。

5 結(jié)論

協(xié)調(diào)日常景觀與城市決策者和管理者提出的水敏性城市是有難度的。但是通過(guò)作為媒介的景觀方法，能夠認(rèn)識(shí)到現(xiàn)有景觀的特殊特征及其具有在地價(jià)值的實(shí)際功能，幫助風(fēng)景園林師更深入地理解場(chǎng)地并挖掘場(chǎng)地潛力。當(dāng)設(shè)計(jì)需要讓社區(qū)從城市濱水景觀的生態(tài)系統(tǒng)服務(wù)中獲益時(shí)，上述建議尤其重要。正如芝利翁河沿岸所觀察到的空間異質(zhì)性展現(xiàn)了居民、社區(qū)與河流的多元互動(dòng)。雖然許多空間關(guān)系足以說(shuō)明河流在提供服務(wù)方面的積極意義，但有些空間卻導(dǎo)致了消極的環(huán)境行為。生機(jī)勃勃的、被精心維護(hù)的河岸體現(xiàn)了空間方向、可達(dá)性和尺度在建立社區(qū)與河流聯(lián)系過(guò)程中的作用。居民們?yōu)榱四軓暮恿魉峁┑姆?wù)中獲益，已經(jīng)成為改造環(huán)境的策略專家。事實(shí)上，解決方案或許在于我們?nèi)绾位谏鐓^(qū)視角開展土地和河流景觀設(shè)計(jì)，以便將水敏性城市設(shè)計(jì)策略有機(jī)融入并有效實(shí)施。

圖片來(lái)源：

圖1～6?米凱拉·普雷斯科特。

（編輯/王一蘭）

Learning from Kampungs in Jakarta: Contextualising Water Sensitive Cities Principles with Community Tactics and Behaviours

Authors: (AUS) Michaela F. Prescott, (SGP) Yazid Ninsalam Translator: LUO Rongrong

1 Introduction

1.1 From Water-Land Settlements to WSC

Paradoxically, through history, rivers and water systems have been integral to the establishment of settlements, yet they have also borne the brunt of the development of those settlements into cities. In China, “It was the water system that provided the city with the original model for overall landscape design...”. He advocated “against covering rivers up and converting them into drains for our streets and high-rise[s] — how expensive it can be to resurrect buried rivers”[1]. This environmental advocacy, in particular around water-land relationships, resonates with the now popular water-sensitive approach to city planning — Water-Sensitive Cities (WSC). In 2009, engineers Wong and Brown articulated three principles for putting water-sensitive ideas into practice: 1) Cities as Water Supply Catchments;2) Cities Providing Ecosystem Services; 3) Cities Comprising Water Sensitive Communities[2]. Then,examples of the approach were found in Australia through water-sensitive urban design (WSUD)and in Singapore — through the Active, Beautiful,and Clean (ABC) waters program. Three decades later, these attributes are also recognised through other similar approaches, namely: low-impact development (LID), nature based solutions (NbS),and sustainable drainage systems (SuDS).

Common to all these approaches is a central philosophy and practice of working with natural systems to provide environmental, social and economic benefits. Locally-tailored engineering and design strategies are used to improve biodiversity and (re)introduce natural features and processes into urban areas. Building on the principles of WSC, the strategies aim to manage the water cycle: protecting and enhancing the health of waterways, addressing drainage and flooding issues, and creating spaces for the public that also harvest, clean and recycle water. By implementing integrated water management cities create greater opportunities for biodiversity, public green space,improving the health of waterways, connecting communities, and reinforcing cultural significance.Ultimately, these cities will use water-sensitive planning and design to create connected, vibrant and liveable communities. These concepts resonate strongly with the expertise of the landscape architect. As a result water-sensitive strategies are increasingly used to intervene at the land-water nexus.

1.2 Leapfrogging Towards WSC

While in the past many countries have followed a “develop first, clean up later”[3]modus operandi, cities in other countries are now looking to “l(fā)eapfrog” into a WSC. In doing so, they aim to bypass the negative consequences resulting from urbanisation and growth[4], and implement more resilient and sustainable water management systems. However, there is no “silver bullet”solution that can magically solve the complex problems that cities face in the wake of rapid and uncontrolled urbanisation and climatic change.

While WSC principles are commonly implemented within planned areas and new developments, they have rarely been applied in lowincome and resource-constrained settings, such as informal settlements[5]. Low-income communities may rely upon environmental services to meet basic needs when municipal infrastructure is unable to match urban growth[6]. Meanwhile, the often dense urban fabric and the socio-cultural dimensions of communities compromise what can be achieved with retrofitted infrastructure, open space and amenities. In the context of weak governance,these socio-cultural dimensions significantly impact development, comparable to land regulation or policy[7]. Therefore, it is vital to understand the socio-cultural and spatial complexity of urban landscapes so that WSC principles can be implemented meaningfully and mitigate the complex problems of the region’s watery urban landscapes.

Landscape architects can facilitate the reflection of socio-cultural aspects through the inclusion and amplification of community perspectives within the design process. However,people may perceive a landscape — and its and services — differently, and communication between different stakeholders (government, community and individuals) can be challenging[8-9]. We posit that, through close observation of local behaviours and tactics (Fig. 1), designers can understand the functions and ecological performance of a landscape for its constituents. Rather than jumping to value judgments of these functions, immediately labelling them as negative or positive, designers should observe the particular contexts that these are embedded within.

2 Water-Land Interaction in Jakarta,Indonesia

2.1 The Context

Jakarta is one of the biggest cities in Southeast Asia and has a population of 9.6 million inhabitants. Its greater metropolitan area,the urban agglomeration of JABODETABEK(Jakarta, Bogor, Depok, Tanggerang and Bekasi),has a population of more than 27 million —making it the second largest total metropolitan area in the world. The city has its origins in a small port village along the Ciliwung River, which later became the colonial city of Batavia. The river was an important infrastructure for daily life of both the indigenous communities and the colonial settlers, including a water source and transportation route, amongst others. Over time, as the city urbanised, the condition of the river declined.This was compounded by the shift from water to land- or road-based travel for the movement of goods, which caused the concentration of new development along arterial routes from the late 19th and early 20th centuries. To an extent,vernacular neighbourhoods remained and were enclosed between the waterways, roads and buildings. Spatial strategies of racial segregation,which were practiced in colonial planning within much of South and Southeast Asia[10], saw indigenous communities increasingly concentrated in kampungs, or urban village, located in less desirable and poorly provisioned areas such as:the outskirts of the city, in waterlogged or easily flooded areas, and along waterways. Many of these areas have retained kampung-like characteristics,and communities have developed specific ways of living as a response to the land-water nexus that has emerged over time as a result of development and climatic change (Fig. 2, 3).

To date the extent of damage and deterioration to the river and its immediate surrounds is significant and includes impacts to water quality and quantity(flooding), natural environment and ecology, and urban environment and hygiene. The interaction between land and water has been internalised by communities through a variety of experiences —from surviving extreme flood events, to recovering amidst the aftermath of these events, to fulfilling the regular activities of daily life[11]. Governments’inability to safeguard the community’s land-water interaction means that ecosystem services enjoyed by the community are constantly being disrupted.As a result, vernacular tactics within a context of limited resources shape the landscape. Although such landscapes are often labelled as homogenous,ravaged by pollution and the lack of waste management; looking beyond these characteristics we identify heterogeneous conditions, designed by communities to accommodate recreational,stewardship, and other activities as a result of the intertwining of the urbanising land- and riverscapes.

2.2 Spatial Planning and Management of Land-Water Nexus

Over the past decades a range of regulatory tools, such as master plans and legislation, have continued to have spatial implications for Jakarta’s kampungs and have been particularly challenging for the management of environmental conditions,such as pollution and increasingly frequent flooding[12]. Making changes to waterways within Jakarta has been complicated by two contradictory regulations: the National Land Agency (Badan Pertanahan Nasional, BPN) regulation on private ownership rights; and Government Regulation policy No. 38/2012 regarding Rivers (referred locally as Peraturan Pemerintah 38/2012 tentang Sungai) which states that rivers and borders are controlled by the State. The Ciliwung River also runs across national, provincial and municipal boundaries, and its management falls to the National Government, rather than local authorities. The management of the Ciliwung River has therefore historically not integrated both upstream and downstream. Along with financial limitations, these conditions have meant that community-based organisations have taken a key role in environmental education, advocacy and action during the past decades. From 2014 to 2019 the government implemented a policy stipulating a setback from the river’s edge. The implementation of this program included removal of residents, structures and vegetation, followed by channelisation[13]. More recently, critical legislative shifts have progressed integrated water resources management in Indonesia. Government policy implementation is focusing upon catchment scale strategic planning, working with community-based organisations to implement aligned bottom-up initiatives in municipalities and neighbourhoods.In this way, communities and NGOs are engaged in a form of collaborative urban planning, coproducing the future water-land interaction. In this new mode of city development, which brings together stakeholders with diverse perceptions of the quality and function of the riverine landscape,it is critical to facilitate meaningful communication and collaboration.

2.3 Kampung in the River

The fieldwork was undertaken in 2013 and 2014, prior to the enforced set-back and channelisation described above. The study site includes the local administrative districts(Kelurahan) of Bukit Duri and Kampung Melayu in South Jakarta. Kampung Melayu is one of the oldest neighbourhoods in the city and is dense and largely informally settled, home to over 48,000 people within a square kilometre[14]. A community unit (Rukun Warga, RW) adjacent to the river has been selected to provide an urban context. Each of these are home to around 80 households. The average household size is 5.7 persons and often includes multiple generations. The built-up area is predominantly one and two storey buildings built from timber, brick, concrete and steel.Often multifunctional, buildings may include a combination of activities — residential, home industry, and commercial — and will be modified over time to meet the household’s needs. Streets and laneways, as well as community facilities, open spaces and river access points are defining elements of the neighbourhood and may be occupied by.socio-economic activities — including home industries, home-based stalls, carts, and street vendors.

Located along the downstream reaches of the Ciliwung River, the neighbourhoods are subject to fluvial and pluvial flooding as a result of rapidly changing land use and weak controls[15-16]. Some areas may be inundated by floodwaters up to four meters in height during the monsoon. Minor floods of approximately 0.5 metres occur more frequently when the river overtops the banks during storms.People have adapted to the increasing severity of the flooding and live mostly in the second floor of their homes, leaving the bottom levels empty and using these spaces for home industries, cooking,and basic entertainment (i.e. TVs) when it is dry. As a result of the high frequency, the community has developed an early warning system for floods[17-19],and a culture of community aid- locally called gotong royong- fosters community resilience, and locally enforced management.

Despite these common overarching characteristics, the two neighbourhoods are heterogeneous. The Kampung Pulo neighbourhood studied in Kampung Melayu — located on a peninsula of land — has distinctive open spaces along the riverside, communal and private plantings,and gentle sloping banks. These characteristics define the arrangement of this riverine landscape and influence its condition. The neighbourhood studied in Bukit Duri is bounded by the railway and the river. The river is less accessible and houses are mostly built up to the river’s edge, leaving minimal open space and vegetation.

3 Landscape as a Medium for Synthesis

3.1 Methodological Framing

“Landscapes are visible evidence of the integral natural and cultural processes that produce and change dynamic environments”[20]. It is this visibility, argues Nassauer, that means that each person can highlight the landscape characteristics that they notice and what they signify to them.However, the meaning of these characteristics and how they are valued is dependent on context.The resulting complexity of meanings and values ascribed to landscapes has been thoroughly explored, both in landscape architecture[21-22], and preceding this in geography[23-25]. Although a person may “see” the landscape through the lens of their disciplinary or experiential frameworks[9,24,26], they can point out a location or landscape characteristic and describe what they see. In this way, the landscape is used as a “boundary object”[27],allowing different people- who do not agree with each other- to discuss their views relating to the properties of the landscape that are understood by the participants. Nassauer[28]proposes that by using the landscape as medium (as a reference object)“different views can be exchanged and that a design process can move that exchange toward synthesis in relation to some question or problem”.

薰衣草生態(tài)公園是山東省青島市的一個(gè)旅游開發(fā)項(xiàng)目，此處距離竹林的天然分布區(qū)較遠(yuǎn)。雖然當(dāng)?shù)貨](méi)有大面積的竹林，但當(dāng)?shù)卣庾R(shí)到竹材作為建材的良好特性，特邀請(qǐng)華中科技大學(xué)建筑與城市規(guī)劃學(xué)院以竹子為主要材料設(shè)計(jì)公園大門。

Based on the WSC theme, we were particularly interested in environmental services related to the river corridor and vegetation use patterns. Working within the same study area, Vollmer and Gret-Regamey[6]have identified six distinct environmental services along the river: 1) direct sanitary use;2) recreation; 3) harvesting plants; 4) groundwater use; 5) solid waste disposal; and 6) sewage disposal.This paper focuses on two of these services —recreation and solid waste disposal — which we identify as being larger level behavioural cues to understanding the transformation of the riverine landscape. These behaviours are spatialised through tactics, deliberate changes, by a range of actors(Fig. 1), for example strategic modifications of the river landscape and its surrounds. In this way, using the landscape as medium, distinct examples of behaviour and tactics can help us understand the relationship between residents, land and river in an urban riverine landscape within a growing megacity.

This work was embedded within a larger collaborative research project which addressed three spatial scales: the catchment, the corridor, and the local landscape. This mixed methods approach to understanding the ecosystem services of the Ciliwung River corridor is described in several other publications[12,14,29]. The research described in this paper couples quantitative spatial acquisition methods, and quantitative and qualitative social research methods. In this section we outline each of the methods used, meanwhile in section 4 we discuss the tactics and behaviours of river communities navigating the land-water nexus.

3.2 Data Collection

Communities living within the river corridor were invited to identify and decipher landscape changes resulting from resident behaviour and tactics. We used a community participation method to examine the sociocultural dimensions and uncover landscape experiences. The method,stemming from social inductive research, produces descriptive results. A household survey was used to understand larger trends within the study area,while structured and semi-structured interviews,transect walks and landscape observation were used to identify specific instances. Participants were selected with purposive sampling to represent three stakeholder groups: households, neighbourhood leaders, and district leaders of local communities.Specific sampling requirements for these groups are described in the following subsections. Local university students were employed as research assistants and were instrumental to the research.They facilitated interviews, conducted household surveys, compiled summary notes, and were involved in the analytical review. Their involvement as reviewers ensured the reliability of the study[9].

3.2.1 Household Survey

Household surveys were undertaken using a tablet computer in two community units (RW)in South Jakarta. The Bukit Duri surveys (n =57) were done in early 2014, and in the Kampung Pulo neighbourhood in Kampung Melayu (n =49) in late 2013. The survey provided a highlevel understanding of resident–environment interactions within the subdistrict. The sample was stratified using the local organisational structures to ensure geographic coverage for spatial analysis. Five households were randomly sampled per neighbourhood, distributed spatially in order to extrapolate results in the GIS analysis.The surveys sampled information on commonuse space, vegetation, and river use, which were seen to reveal cultural motivations of the urban condition. Poverty levels and water and sanitation coverage were investigated by Vollmer and Grêt-Regamey[6]within the same study area, and were therefore not included in this study. Since land rights are contested, further detail on ownership was excluded from the survey.

3.2.2 Semi-structured Interview

Semi-structured interviews allowed us to gather information specific to local contexts and to continually assimilate information during interactions with the community. Interviews were often extensions of conversations that began with household survey respondents, yet were also the result of convivial interactions, or snowballing when community members introduced us to other residents. Specific interview questions were formulated for community leaders to discuss topics such as spatial planning, waste management and maintenance of shared spaces. Following an ethnographic approach, we attempted to understand the landscape from the perspective of the community that we worked within. We used this lens to understand and synthesise the quantitative and qualitative data we collected. The qualitative information was then analysed using a grounded theory method to identify patterns and form hypotheses[30-31].

In each of the study areas, the transect followed the main street of the neighbourhood, and alleys that ran perpendicular to this street and the river. The NGO partner helped guide participant selection for the walk (n≈5). Participants included collaborators from the NGO, and community leaders and residents. The route was directed by the participants and informal interactions between them and other residents led to opportunities to identify features and uncover information. Physical conditions, resulting from local behaviours and tactics, formed a baseline of factors.

3.3 Data Analysis

The gathered information was analysed using statistical analysis, grounded theory,and spatial analysis. The grounded theory methodology involved analytical coding of the fieldnotes, interview transcripts, and reconstructed spatial models of the sites; prior to theoretical conceptualisation and categorisation[30-31].Probability maps (cumulative sample distribution maps) were interpreted in conjunction with the qualitative data collected within interviews and field observations. The maps were generated in ArcMap (ESRI) using the “Indicator Kriging”tool (Geostatistical Analyst toolkit). These maps were constructed by interpolating spatially located information collected in the household surveys. The maps were used to understand how a household’s proximity to the river affected recreation activities and solid waste disposal practices.

4 Bridging Community Tactics and Behaviours to Landscape Design Recommendations for Water-Sensitive Informal Settlement Upgrading

Despite the WSC approach now being in its third decade of implementation, cities are still struggling to implement projects that are specific to local neighbourhood contexts. It is our opinion that while the WSC principles articulated by Wong and Brown, and Yu, have guided governments to implement projects; each city government must relate these projects to the specific sociocultural context — based on learnings from their own communities. One of the key contributions of this paper relates to how the three WSC principles can be translated into actions in existing settlements,in particular in the context of complex and rapidly transforming conditions. Our learnings relate to the Kampung Melayu and Bukit Duri communities, and how they engage with the ecosystem services of their waterways. In the context of this particular project, as a result of the complexities of implementing spatial changes that cross local, provincial and national jurisdictions,the government was unable to leapfrog into a WSC. The development of local landscape designs would therefore require future codesign with stakeholders, including communities. Through the lens of landscape as a medium we reveal another layer of functionality and value for local communities that helps us understand the landwater nexus within such contexts. The information we collected identified and supported remarkable shifts in behaviour relative to spatial aspects along with pragmatic physical modifications of the river landscape, tactics, which supported activities to occur.

In order to link the findings on tactics and behaviours in vernacular neighbourhoods to practice, we build-off five principles for watersensitive informal settlement upgrading, developed by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the Revitalising Informal Settlements and their Environments Program (RISE). The principles are derived from the program’s experiences implementing the WSC approach in Indonesia and Fiji[5], and broadly align with contemporary best practices and advance them in order to support WSC implementation within such environments. We use the RISE-ADB principles to frame recommendations for how community knowledges can bridge into water-sensitive local landscape design: 1) work with nature; 2) maximise co-benefits; 3) design at nested spatial scales;4) institutionalise for sustainability; 5) peoplecentred, people-powered.

4.1 Recommendation 1: Work with Nature

Based on the interviews, we understand that the perception of and use of the river is significantly linked to the physical condition of the river. We observe a correlation between the reduction in river use and the deterioration of the physical environment. Access to the river for recreational activities — such as sitting beside and walking along the river, fishing, and swimming —is facilitated using tactics such as building timber and concrete access-ways such as stairs and ramps,and paved walkways (Fig. 4-6).Based on the survey we understand that residents do not have a piped potable water supply and use the river as a secondary water source, and in some cases for hygiene and domestic activities.Some residents use the river for hygiene and domestic activities. Floating rafts, locally called getek, facilitate access for washing clothes and toileting. In addition, existing septic systems are poorly constructed and maintained. Both of these contribute to the river’s worsening water quality[32].Existing pollution — as a result of pollution from industrial, domestic wastewater, and solid waste disposal into the river — has led to concerns about water contamination, and related contamination of aquatic species and reduction in species biodiversity.In line with WSC principles, we recommend that strategies are developed to restore the environment and reduce contamination resulting from human activity within the context of the city. So far, the government has privileged channelisation projects. However, the realities of this agenda has unfortunately resulted in a loss of open space and habitat along the river corridor and the displacement of communities along the rivers.Future projects should leverage the use of naturebased systems to provide decentralised wastewater treatment and alternative water supply that can be retrofitted into vernacular neighbourhoods. Projects should aim to restore the environmental quality,and improve biodiversity and urban ecosystems.

4.2 Recommendation 2: Maximise Co-benefits

Limitations to street width and access to the main road reduce connectivity between the river and the community. These constraints can also endanger communities in emergencies such as fire and flood, restricting evacuation routes and access of emergency services. By synthesising the spatially referenced information from resident surveys and community leader interviews, with measurements of street widths taken in the field, we found that vehicular access influences neighbourhood waste collection services (Fig. 4-6). For example, narrow streets may restrict municipal waste collection vehicles from entering. As a result, waste collection services are often ad-hoc, undertaken using motorbikes with trailers or informal hand-pulled carts, or not at all. In the end, convenience can play a deciding role in how and where residents and trash collectors dispose of solid waste, and waste can end up in the river.

From the surveys and field observations we noted how residents recognised the amenity value of the river corridor through developing frontages to the river to take advantage of cooler temperature, a green outlook, and open spaces.Our study also points to how improved access is required to address waste collection deficits, and at the same time resolve stormwater management. In order to achieve this goal, close discussion needs to occur within communities to identify how and where this can occur. Through these conversations,comprehensive community plans (masterplans)can be developed that guide investments and development for the long-term. These should pinpoint tailored, site specific projects which incorporate site specific variables into the design and implementation of programs and projects. This could leverage community-centred development opportunities which catalyse social and economic co-benefits from infrastructure investments. For example, projects can invest in the amenity value of the river corridor by improving access, building frontages and open spaces. Furthermore, collecting rainwater could contribute to an alternative water supply for households and reduce stormwater runoff.

4.3 Recommendation 3: Design at Nested Spatial Scales

Although the study was limited to the neighbourhood, we acknowledge that the local landscape is shaped by its location within the broader river catchment[15]. Upstream land use changes reduce the capacity of the ground to receive rainfall and return water to the aquifers. In the downstream study area, pervious surfaces —such as unbuilt areas and planting — are limited given the dense settlement of the neighbourhood.Water-sensitive principles need to be integrated into provincial and citywide spatial plans, land management and investment plans. Although it is impossible to solve fluvial flooding through local interventions, improved management of rainfall via drainage works and roof capture can reduce local pluvial flooding. While communities may not be able to directly influence land use change elsewhere in the catchment, community-centred projects demonstrate the potential for change to occur at a local scale which is aligned to broader aspirations for environmental improvement. For example, in Surabaya community-driven redevelopment has led to the revitalisation of the riverfront using building set-backs and access improvements in line with both community needs and government regulations[33].Building from this success, other communities in Jakarta have adopted a similar approach to riverfront revitalisation — in this case initiated from a building level[34]. Improvements such as these can be integrated into the urban open space and mobility network, resulting in other co-benefits(for example, waste management), yet at the same time accounting for spatial and socio-physical variation within the neighbourhood.

4.4 Recommendation 4: Institutionalise for Sustainability

Residents in some communities attempted to increase the street width by covering drainage channels with timber and concrete panels.However, while this makes it easier for vehicles to pass or allows for stalls it has also resulted in increased stormwater run-off. Such changes reflect kampung gentrification occurring at a localised scale. Simatupang et al discuss the developer-led gentrification of kampung which is leading to the changing morphology of the built environment (for example from one-to-two storey dwellings into superblock developments)[35].These transformations contribute to the reduced permeability of the built environment and are compromising urban water systems. Following Recommendation 3’s embodiment of watersensitive principles in city spatial plans, a larger government agenda needs to be articulated in order to institutionalise sustainability within the built environment. In doing so, this would allow the developer to take into account broader environmental concerns related to the city’s morphology and consider the impacts of their development relative to the water system.

Universities can also play a role in improving the water-literacy of stakeholders. For example,a team from Institut Pertanian Bogor (Bogor Agricultural University), developed and implemented local interventions such as the biopori water infiltration holes in a range of site conditions. Workshops were used to improve local government, and then community, understanding about stormwater runoff and demonstrate how to implement biopori. Community representatives then attempted to implement them within their neighbourhoods. Local efforts to increase the rate of stormwater infiltration, localised flood mitigation and groundwater recharge, such as biopori, have proved inadequate and difficult to maintain[14,29]. Changes in access and drainage can then build off community knowledge and capacity to implement physical improvements.

4.5 Recommendation 5: People-Centred,People-Powered

Perhaps one of the most meaningful discoveries from our study was the strong influence that the community’s tactics had in shaping the landscape. Observing these cues to human care provided insight to aspects of vernacular culture present in the neighbourhood. The communities are heterogeneous not only in demography but in the way in which they respond to the river’s ebb and flow. We found that neighbourhood spatial conditions, such as the orientation of buildings and degree of access to the river, affected residents’behaviour and the amenity of the river. A community located on high ground and safe from flooding has the most separated relationship from the river, despite being located close to the river’s edge. An impenetrable line of buildings stretches along the riverbank making the river inaccessible.In another neighbourhood, despite the river’s poor condition, both public and private buildings are oriented toward the river with windows,terraces and verandas facing the green outlook and cool breeze. A terrace area below a house is used for gathering, or seating outside a mosque used before and after communal prayers. Such examples illustrate the amenity value of the river corridor for the community. The residents unite through existing strong organisational structures,community-elected leaders, and religious and nonreligious community groups. It was through these structures that the communities had established resilience to shocks, such as floods[11]. Watersensitive project implementation can build-off these structures, along with the community’s close knowledge of the environment. This will ensure the relevance of projects, and sustainability.

5 Conclusion

Sometimes it is hard to reconcile the landscape of the everyday with the visions of WSC that are presented by city-makers and managers.Through the landscape as medium approach,recognising particular characteristics of existing landscapes and their performative functions that are valued by the community, landscape architects can be guided to develop an understanding of the site and its transformation potential. The recommendations above are particularly relevant,when considered relative to the ecosystem and landscape services that communities obtain from the urban riverine landscape. The heterogeneity of spaces observed along the Ciliwung River showed the variety of interactions that households and communities have with the river. While there are a range of spatial relationships to the river that illustrate positive aspects of the river’s services,some spatial conditions were contributing to negative environmental behaviour. Lively and cared-for riverfronts illustrated the role of spatial orientation, accessibility and scaling of spaces in establishing connections between neighbourhoods and rivers. Residents have become experts in tactical adaptations of their environments in order to benefit from the services that the river has to offer. The solution may in fact lie in how,through the design process, we amplify community perspectives about land- and river-scapes in order to contextualise and implement WSC principles.

Sources of Figures:

Fig. 1-6 ? Michaela F. Prescott.

(Editor / WANG Yilan)