European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 25, Number 1(2011)
Malaysian Urban Indicators Network: A Sustainable Development Initiative in Malaysia Marlyana Azyyati Marzukhi Faculty of Architecture, Planning and Surveying Universiti Teknologi MARA, 40450 Shah Alam, Malaysia E-mail:
[email protected] Tel: +6013-395 3379 Dasimah Omar Faculty of Architecture, Planning and Surveying Universiti Teknologi MARA, 40450 Shah Alam, Malaysia E-mail:
[email protected] Oliver Ling Hoon Leh Faculty of Architecture, Planning and Surveying Universiti Teknologi MARA, 40450 Shah Alam, Malaysia E-mail:
[email protected] Muhammad Sharil Hamir Faculty of Architecture, Planning and Surveying Universiti Teknologi MARA, 40450 Shah Alam, Malaysia Maassoumeh Barghchi Faculty of Architecture, Planning and Surveying Universiti Teknologi MARA, 40450 Shah Alam, Malaysia Abstract Sustainable development means the capacity to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. In Malaysia, the effort to implement sustainable development was highlighted in the Eight Malaysian Plan in 2001 to 2005. In year 2004, a set of indicators that can measure the sustainability of development which is known as Malaysian Urban Indicators Network (Murni Net) System was formed. It is an attempt for the government to ensure fulfilling their national aspiration in realizing the concept of sustainable development in this country. This system provides 55 indicators in measuring the sustainability of urban areas which administered by Local Authority. Since the implementation, it is said to improve the sustainability of many cities based on scores achievement. Therefore, the objectives of this paper are to identify number of indicators use by selected local authorities in Malaysia and also to determine the scores achievement by the cities to be awarded as sustainable cities in Malaysia. Expert interviews were conducted to town planners in 7 Local Authorities. It shows that it was a non-optimal use of indicators by Local Authorities as only 10 main indicators are used out of 55 indicators. There is also no uniformity on the use of indicators but somehow the sustainable cities still can be awarded.
77
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 25, Number 1(2011) Keywords: Sustainable Development, Indicators, Malaysian Urban Indicators Network, Local Authority
1. Introduction National Urbanization Policy (2006) outlines the importance of creating an urban area that has vision with a community and prosperous life through sustainable urban development. Increasing the quality of life refers to the quality of infrastructure and facilities which provided for city residents such as housing, education, recreation and public facilities. Sustainable city is also important in controlling the development of a town based on the quantity and quality of infrastructure and facilities are sufficient to avoid other problems, such as lack of housing in urban areas that will cause squatter settlements. Sustainable urban development process is under the responsibility of State Government and Local Authorities that play a key role in creating a sustainable city. Sustainable urban development that carried out by Local Authority is focus on enhancing the quality of the environment through the collection of information, strategies, make decisions and implement strategies that are planned. The strategies will also lead to the major goal; the development of a sustainable city by creating a city that could serve as the main engine for national level. Indicators are often mentioned in policy studies because they claim to make available information about the linkages between different sectors and about emerging trends (OCED, 1996). Indicators are important in the implementation of the concept of sustainability in the planning and city development. Indicators used as a tool in monitoring and show the sustainability of city development and should closely associated with the main objective of sustainable urban development. The indicators must be able to show the level of sustainability of a city. Indicators have also been accepted as a prerequisite in designing and making more sustainable future in local and global level (Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia, 2005). The purpose of indicators is to provide a tool for guidance in sustainability policies, including monitoring of measures and their results, and communication to the public (Spangenberg et al., 2002). With sustainability as the goal, the use of indicators for urban monitoring and regulation is becoming more and more in demand (Repetti and Desthieux, 2006). The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, ICLEI, in Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia (2005) explain that indicators; a measure that gives a summary of information about a subject or a description of the problem. Indicators used to show trends and provide quantitative and qualitative information. Indicators are also one of measuring tools that can be used effectively to enable interested parties; to assess the achievement of a community, the community or a city. Sustainability indicators and indices may serve as compasses on the journey to urban sustainability. They are useful tools for evaluating, reporting and reorienting progress towards sustainable development (Mega, 2010). Malaysia Urban Indicators Network or also known as Murni Net is developed by the Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia, Ministry of Housing and Local Government Malaysia. The system serves as an approach that is able to measure the sustainability of a city and region through the 11 planning sectors. Those eleven (11) planning sectors are divided into fifty five (55) urban indicators. This approach is implemented by all Local Authorities in Malaysia. The total fifty five (55) indicators used as an overall indication of the sustainability of the city are as following: No. 1
2
Planning Sectors Demography
Housing
Indicators 1. Urbanization rates 2. Population density 3. Average annual growth rate of population 4. Median age 5. Average household size 6. The ratio of house price to income
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 25, Number 1(2011)
3
Urban Economics
4
Utilities and Infrastructure
7. The ratio of house rent to income 8. The ratio of floor space per one person 9. The percentage of housing stock 10. Unemployment rate 11. Employment growth rate 12. The rate of employment growth 13. The poverty rate of population 14. Income distribution (Gini coefficient) 15. Water consumption rate for each population 16. The rate of water loss 17. Percentage of the flood area 18. Average daily garbage collection for each resident 19. Percentage sewerage service (connected) received by residential
5
Public Facilities and Recreation
20. The ratio of doctor to the population 21.The ratio of total land area of public open space to 1,000 people 22. The ratio of teachers to primary school student 23. The ratio of pre-school to the population 24. The ratio of halls to the population 25.Percentage of financial allocation for environmental management 26. The ratio of cases of asthma to 10,000 population 27.Percentage allocation of financial for landscaping program 28. Water quality index (WQI) 29.Percentage of area receiving garbage collection services 30. Percentage of solid waste recycling 31.The number of noise complaints received in a year 32.The ratio of cases of waterborne diseases and food to 10,000 population
6
Environment
7
Sociology and Social Impact
33.Percentage of population participation in community programs
8
Land Use
9
Heritage and Tourism
34. The quality of health services 35. The ratio of index crimes to 10,000 people 36. The ratio of juvenile cases to 10,000 people 37. The ratio of arrest cases (social problem) to 1,000 population 38. The rate of divorce to 1,000 households 39.Percentage approval of Certificate Fitness for Occupancy 40. Percentage of passing land for community facilities 41. Percentage of residential floor area in the city 42. The percentage of expenditure for maintenance and the beautification of the tourist attractions area 43.The percentage of attractions area
10
Transport and Accessibility
44. Percentage of public transport users
45. The quality of public bus services 46. Percentage of expenditure to improve the accessibility system 47. The percentage of private cars without passenger in central city during peak hour in the morning 48. The ratio of the number of road accidents to 10,000 people 49. The percentage of cases involving fatal accidents 11 Management and Finance 50. Local revenue per capita 51. The rate of tax collection 52. The ratio of flow to the emoluments 53. Expenditure per capita 54.The ratio of officers to population groups and associations 55. Percentage of operating expenditure over revenue Source: Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia
In 2004, the efforts to provide a set of indicators of sustainable development has been disclosed with the intention of using it as tools to ensure that the planning and development give positive impact 79
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 25, Number 1(2011) to society and reduce problems related to the natural environment. Some set of sustainability indicators are use, by using data as a key reference in the analysis of the sustainability of the area. The results of analysis will be used by the government to focus on follow-up process for solving the problem and issues in the planning and development. Through its implementation, a question raised in respect of the effectiveness of the system by using the indicators since its launched seven years ago. According to the Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia (2004), there are five main stages in the implementation of Murni Net System in Local Authority as shown in Figure 1 below. Figure 1: The Process of MURNI Net Implementation
Agencies will give required data on the other meeting and Local Authority will key in the data on the Murni Net System (in the meeting) Data were entered into the system will be sent to the Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia to assess whether it exceed the requirement or not If the data has met the requirements, the decision will be taken to the National Physical Council for agreeing the marks of sustainability that have been issued by Murni Net System The decision will be taken and be announced at the World Town Planning Day and the cities that achieve sustainability will be given award
Information and Data Collection 1
2
Preparation of Database
Meeting by Local Authority or State Town and Country Planning with agencies that have been involve
3
Preparation of Technical Report 4
Preparation of Town Report 5
After the implementation of urban indicators by Local Authorities for their respective cities, the results of the scores for each indicator will be added to get the final scores for the urban indicators which have been used. Generally, scores can be divided into three scales. First scale is zero percent (0 %) to fifty percent (50%) is for not sustainable city. For city that achieve semi-sustainable city, overall score on the system is between fifty percent (50%) to eighty percent (80%) while the score for a sustainable city is between eighty percent (80%) to hundred percent (100%). Overall score will only be summed up after the data for the urban indicators are key-in and will be processed by the system automatically. Finally, after analyzing by the system, the overall mark will be displayed. Table 1 shows the number of cities that achieved score as sustainability city based on results from Murni Net System from year 2004 until 2010.
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 25, Number 1(2011) Table 1:
The Number of Local Authorities Administrative Area that Achieved Score as Sustainability City by Year 2004 – 2010
No. of Cities Used Murni Net System 2004 8 2005 15 2006 14 2007 47 2008 59 2009 101 2010 105 Source: MURNI Net Gateway, 2011 Year
No. of Cities Score as Sustainable City 0 2 1 5 9 29 49
Percentage (%) 0 13.33 7.14 10.64 15.25 28.71 46.67
Table 1 show the increasing number of cities used Murni Net since the system started in year 2004. The number of cities that score marks between eighty percent (80%) to hundred percent (100%) also increase to 49 cities to be awarded as sustainable city. Table 2 below shows the changes in the top ranking for the cities that achieve score as sustainable city by Murni Net System. The highest scores was Malacca that achieved the top three ranked for four years continuously as sustainable city. It also shows that each of the cities, regardless of the administrative level has a probability to achieve sustainable city by implementing Murni Net System. Table 2:
Top 3 Sustainability City by Year
Year One 2004 2005 Malacca 2006 Malacca 2007 Jelebu 2008 Rompin 2009 Labis 2010 Kulim Source: MURNI Net Gateway, 2011
Ranking Two None Kuala Lumpur None Malacca Shah Alam Bentong Putrajaya
Three None None Tapah Malacca Mersing Shah Alam
2. Materials and Methods The selected studies areas were based on proportional stratified sampling and simple random sampling techniques. Based on the sampling techniques, 7 cities under three level of local authority administrative area were selected and divided into two categories such as five cities are sustainable and the others are categorized as semi-sustainable city. The cities that selected as a sample of the research are shown in Table 3. Table 3:
Selected City under Local Authority Administrative Area
Sustainable City Georgetown Sepang Selama Batu Pahat
Semi-Sustainable City Ipoh Teluk Intan Tangkak
The interview was conducted using open ended questions to the town planning officers who in charge in processing Murni Net System in the respected local authority area. The study also focused on 81
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 25, Number 1(2011) the number of indicators used by Local Authority in Murni Net System to determine sustainability level of a city.
3. Results and Discussion The study has addressed directly to the Local Authorities that play as a key player in the implementation of Murni Net system. The results showed the effect on the number of urban indicators used with the sustainability score achievement for a city. Table 4 below describes the usage of urban indicators by each local authority that represented by the different administrative level. Table 4:
Usage of Murni Net Indicators by Local Authorities Usage of Indicators
Administrative Level
Cities
City Council
Ipoh Batu Pahat George-town Sepang Teluk Intan Selama Tangkak
Municipal Council
District Council Total
Several % 14.30
All % 14.30
14.30 14.30 14.30 14.30 14.30 85.70
14.30
According to Table 4, it shows the majority of Local Authorities use only several indicators from 55 indicators to show the sustainability of the city. This raised the question whether is there any main reasons that prevent Local Authorities from using all the indicators. Table 5 below describes the number of indicators used by Local Authorities in determining the sustainability of the city. Table 5:
Indicators Used by Local Authorities
Urban Indicator Sustainable Level Used Rejected Ipoh 41 14 Semi-sustainable Batu Pahat 55 0 Sustainable Georgetown 16 39 Sustainable Municipal Council Sepang 38 17 Sustainable Teluk Intan 38 17 Semi-sustainable Selama 20 35 Sustainable District Council Tangkak 38 17 Semi-sustainable Note: The level of urban sustainability using sustainability performance score by 2010 in MURNI Net (2011) Administrative Level City Council
Cities
According to the Table 5 above, the findings indicate that the number of urban indicators used by Local Authorities did not affect the score of sustainability for a city. It can be see through a comparison made by the different level of Local Authorities that administrate the city. The usage rates of urban indicators are not optimal causes the need to review the factors which cause the majority of Local Authorities did not use all the 55 indicators in measuring the sustainability of the city. Table 6 below describes several factors that cause majority of Local Authorities rejects some of the indicators. The finding shows that 3 Local Authorities choose the indicators from the Murni Net because of recommendations given by the Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia. This finding raise questions on the needs of many urban indicators but did not used with optimal and comprehensively. Besides that, Local Authorities also rejected some of the urban indicators because of no data or limited data which required from the technical department or agency. Table 6 shows that
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 25, Number 1(2011) there are 10 main indicators used by Local Authorities in its administrative area to measure the sustainability of the city. These indicators are capable to be uniform indicator for all Local Authorities to implement it. Table 6: No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
The Most Chosen Indicators by Local Authorities Urban Indicators Average daily garbage collection for each resident The ratio of pre-school to the population The ratio of halls to the population The percentage allocation of financial for landscaping program The percentage of area receiving garbage collection services The number of noise complaints received in a year Percentage approval of C.F.O Local revenue per capita The rate of tax collection Expenditure per capita
The 10 indicators outlines above are suitable to serve as uniform indicator for every Local Authorities whether in the City Council, Municipal Council or District Council. There are 4 indicators rejected by most Local Authorities and these indicators are potential to be rejected as indicators in the future system such as the rate of employment growth, income distribution, percentage of public transport users and the quality of public bus services. Most of the Local Authorities respond that there is a need to standardize the indicators based on the level of administrative areas. The standardization of indicators will improve the accuracy of the score and can also determine the level of sustainability of the city.
4. Conclusion In a conclusion, the implementation of Murni Net is a suitable approach to measure the sustainability of a city. However, based on the study conducted, there are still some problems on the system. It should be improved to increase the efficiency of the system. Several proposals have been formulated to create a new injection for this system. The main goal for this proposal is to increase efficiency in the implementation by Local Authorities in the future. The proposals include a number of uniform indicators that are closely related to the determination of sustainability criteria and types of data needed to meet the system requirements.
References [1]
[2] [3] [4] [5]
Blackburn, W.R., 2007. “The Sustainability Handbook: The Complete Management Guide to Achieving Social, Economic and Environmental Responsibility”. Cromwell Press,United States. Bell, S. and Morse, S., 2003. “Measuring Sustainability”. Earthscan Publication Limited. Brandon, P.S., and Lombardi, P., 2005. “Evaluating Sustainable Development”. Black Well Publishing. Dernbach, J.C., 2002. “Stumbling Toward Sustainability”. Environmental Law Institute, United States. Department of Town and Country Planning of Peninsular Malaysia and Ministry of Housing and Local Government Malaysia, 2005. ”Guidelines and User Guide of Malaysian Urban Indicators (MURNI Net)”. Town and Country Planning of Peninsular Malaysia and Ministry of Housing and Local Government Malaysia, Malaysia. 83
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 25, Number 1(2011) [6]
[7] [8] [9]
[10] [11] [12] [13]
Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia and Ministry of Housing and Local Government Malaysia, 2006. ”National Urbanization Policy (DPN)”. Malaysia National Libraries, Malaysia. Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia, 2011. ”MURNI Net Gateway”. Retrieved January 14, 2011 from www.townplan.gov.my/murninet/. Hasna, A.M., 2007. “Dimensions of Sustainability”. Journal of Engineering for Sustainable Development: Energy, Environment, and Health 2, pp. 47–57. Irina, G. Malkina-Pykh., 2002. “Integrated Assessment Models And Response Function Models:Pros And Cons For Sustainable Development Indices Design”. Journal of Ecological Indicator. Lomberg, M., 2004. “Healthy Cities: Improving Urban Life (Understanding Global Life)”. Weigh Publishers Inc, Malaysia. Mega, V.P., 2010. “Sustainable Cities for the Third Millennium: The Odyssey of Urban Excellence”. Springer and Business Media, London. Sinha, P.C., 1998. “Sustainable Development: International Encyclopedia of Sustainable Development Series”. Anmol Publications Private Limited, New Delhi. The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, ICLEI., 1996. “The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide: An Introduction to Sustainable Development Planning”. The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), The International Development Research Centre (IDRC) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Toronto.
