Community Resilience Analysis on Displaced Residents now Living in
Rusunawa Marunda
Sherley Runtunuwu
a
, Febriane Paulina Makalew
b
, Deyke Junita Femeli Mandang
and Estrellita Varina Yanti Waney
Manado State Polytechnic, Department of Civil Engineering, Polytechnic Campus Street, Manado, Indonesia
Keywords: Community Resilience, Urbanization, Relocation.
Abstract: Increasing urbanization rates have made Jakarta the second biggest urbanized area in the world. Some impacts
of the high urbanization rate are the emergence of slums, social and economic gaps, unemployment, crime,
and pollution. The government of Jakarta has tried to straighten up the areas belonging to the government that
the community converts into homes and economic centers. The people were relocated to Rusunawa provided
by the government, one of which is Rusunawa Marunda in North Jakarta. However, after the relocation and
displacement, other problems emerged because the people lost their job and needed to adapt to their new
environment. This study aimed to examine the community resilience of displaced residents living in
Rusunawa Marunda. Community resilience represents the ability of the community to lessen, adapt, and
recover from an unfortunate event or shock. Data were collected using questionnaires, interviews, and
observations. Data were analyzed using Structural Equation Modelling based on Partial Least Square. Our
findings confirmed that the community resilience of the displaced residents living in Rusunawa Marunda was
formed by the ecological, social, cultural, and physical aspects. However, the economy, human resources,
politics, and technology did not create the community resilience of displaced residents living in Rusunawa
Marunda.
1 INTRODUCTION
As the capital city of Indonesia, Jakarta has become
the center of economic and political activities; this
has made Jakarta the second largest urbanized area in
the world after Tokyo-Yokohama (Demographia,
2019). The urbanization rate of an urban area like
Jakarta has brought positive changes, including
improvement in public transportation, infrastructure
development (roads, bridges, and others), economic
activities, public welfare, facilities, public services,
and quality human resources.
However, there are also some setbacks from the
urbanization rate. Vulnerability in megacities starts
from an unplanned urbanization process, resulting in
a loss of governability (Kraas and Mertins, 2014). In
addition, unplanned urbanization leads to negative
a
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2274-0566
b
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3625-3996
impacts, including the emergence of slums, social and
economic inequality, unemployment, crime,
conversion of public land, water and air pollution, and
increased risk of natural disasters (Pravitasari, 2018).
Since 2013, the government of Jakarta has tried to
straighten up the areas belonging to the government
that the community has converted into homes and
economic centers illegally. The government has
moved these people to rumah susun sederhana sewa
(Rusunawa)
3
. The reasons for relocation include city
planning, the government’s limited capacity to
provide funding for decent housing, and
modernization (Wilhem, 2011).
The people living on the government’s land
illegally are often reluctant to be relocated because
they say they have lived in the area for so long. Other
reasons for refusing the relocation include not having
3
Simple apartments—they usually come in multi-storey
buildings built by the government in a residential area and
rented out to underprivileged families with monthly
payments.
Runtunuwu, S., Makalew, F., Mandang, D. and Waney, E.
Community Resilience Analysis on Displaced Residents now Living in Rusunawa Marunda.
DOI: 10.5220/0011819900003575
In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Applied Science and Technology on Engineer ing Science (iCAST-ES 2022), pages 547-552
ISBN: 978-989-758-619-4; ISSN: 2975-8246
Copyright © 2023 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. Under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)
547

the money needed to rent decent houses or Rusunawa
and being afraid of losing their current jobs or
livelihood. They also say that getting home
ownership credit is complicated. The following
reason is their need for a rather big house because
they have a big family of more than four people. They
also need additional rooms in their home to do their
job as carpenters, farmers, or traders or to live near
their business sites. The other reasons include
inadequate public and social infrastructure and
facilities in Rusunawa, the weak position as tenants
of Rusunawa, especially dealing with Sales and
Purchase Agreements (SPA) of Rusunawa units, and
many other reasons (megapolitan.kompas.com,
2015).
Nevertheless, the government of Jakarta
continues the relocation process despite the
unwillingness of those people living on the
government’s land illegally and turning the land into
slums. The government relocates the people into
some Rusunawa buildings, including Rusunawa
Marunda in North Jakarta.
Community resilience is crucial. The government
must carefully plan how these displaced residents
adapt to the new environment, recover from the
displacement, and move on with their lives to face
challenges (sustainability) (Zautra et al., 2009). This
study aimed to examine the community resilience of
displaced residents living in Rusunawa Marunda
from many perspectives, including the economic,
social, cultural, human resource, ecological, physical,
political, and technological
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
Community refers to people who live within
particular geographic boundaries, are involved in
social interactions, have one or more psychological
ties, and are bound by a place to live (Christenson et
al., 1989). Resilience is a learning process to live in
changes and uncertainties, maintain diversity for
reorganization and renewal, combine various
knowledge, and create opportunities for self-
organization (Berkes et al., 2003). Resilience theory
is a multifacet study that is being developed
continuously from many fields of study. In essence,
resilience theory discusses the strength people and
systems show to tackle difficulties.
The United State Agency for International
Development (USAID, 2013) defines resilience as the
ability of people, households, communities,
countries, and systems to lessen, adapt, and recover
from an unfortunate event or shock. Community
resilience presents as a unified interrelated capacity to
absorb, anticipate, and adapt to various types of
shocks and stresses (Aditya et al., 2015). The capacity
aims to reduce vulnerability or a condition
determined by physical, social, economic, and
environmental factors or processes (Longstaff, 2010;
Ajita and Howard, 2016; Barrow Cadbury Trust,
2012) that can put a community in danger. In
addition, community resilience can also be formed
through technological aspects. Mankiew (2006)
explains that technology is an essential factor that can
function to multiply or accumulate production output
from the capital and human resources so that the
economy experiences doubled growth. The United
Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia
and the Pacific (UNESCAP, 2016) states that
technology Information Communication (ICT) has an
important role and is an integrated part of almost
every aspect of life. Several studies confirm that
community resilience can be formed through access
to political authorities for people to voice their
aspirations (Longstaff, 2010; Atreya and Kunreuther,
2016) and to identify the potential in their community
with the knowledge and skills they have (Barrow
Cadbury Trust, 2012).
Runtunuwu (2018) identifies eight (8) aspects to
understanding community resilience for Rusunawa
residents: ecological, social, cultural, physical,
economic, human resource, political, and
3 RESEARCH METHOD
The present quantitative study emphasized
quantification in data collection and analysis with a
deductive approach. However, the quantitative design
might not be able to capture the structural and
cognitive aspects of Rusunawa residents deeply; this
could be anticipated by providing open-ended
questions in a questionnaire so that residents could
freely express their thoughts as information. Thus, the
qualitative approach was employed to gather more
comprehensive data from respondents.
3.1 Data
The population of the present study was residents of
Rusunawa Marunda. Therefore, the selection
criterion for respondents was the household head or
the housewife living in the Rusunawa unit that was
part of the relocation program by the government of
Jakarta. Data were collected through interviews and
observations.
iCAST-ES 2022 - International Conference on Applied Science and Technology on Engineering Science
548

3.2 Data Analysis
We used Structural Equation Modelling; SEM
enabled us to observe the overall relationship between
indicators and variables and the relationship between
variables.
SEM is a multivariate analysis technique that
combines aspects of factor analysis and multiple
regression analysis to allow researchers to examine a
series of dependent relationships between measured
variables and latent constructs (Hair et al., 2016).
Latent constructs cannot be measured directly but can
be determined through one or more indicators, called
measured variables, observed variables, or manifest
variables (Hair et al., 2016).
We used SEM to prove the hypothesis in this
study based on component or variance, commonly
known as Partial Least Square (PLS). The SEM-PLS
method is based on a causal relationship, where
changes in one variable affect other variables.
4 RESULT AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Outer Model Evaluation
The analysis of the measurement model (outer model)
was done at a 5% significance level. The results are
shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: The Initial Path Coefficients of Community
Resilience.
4.2 Inner Model Evaluation
After analyzing the measurement model (outer
model), the structural model analysis (inner model)
was carried out in the initial test with a 5%
significance level. Finally, the Goodness of Fit (GoF)
is used to evaluate the measurement and structural
models and provides a simple measure of the overall
model prediction. The GoF value was 0.554, which is
included in the large category.
After that, hypothesis testing was carried out by
looking at the PLS results of the path coefficient
section, as shown in Table 1.
Table 1: The Initial Path Coefficients of Community
Resilience.
Variable
Original
Sample
(O)
t-
Statist
ics
H
0
Conclu
sion
Economic
aspect on
community
resilience
0.552 1.631 Accepted
Not
signifi
cant
Social aspect
on community
resilience
0.714 5.972 Rejected
Signifi
cant
Cultural aspect
on community
resilience
0.671 5.238 Rejected
Signifi
cant
Human
resource aspect
on community
resilience
-0.101 0.547 Accepted
Not
signifi
cant
Ecological
aspect on
community
resilience
0.761 5.639 Rejected
Signifi
cant
Physical aspect
on community
resilience
0.464 3.284 Rejected
Signifi
cant
Political aspect
on community
resilience
0.231 0.892 Accepted
Not
signifi
can
t
Technological
aspect on
community
resilience
-0.310 1.185 Accepted
Not
signifi
cant
Next, several other models were tested to meet all
the criteria for a match between the model and the
research data. Finally, we modified the model by
removing invalid indicators and dimensions with no
significant effect on community resilience, namely
economic, human resource, political, and
technological aspects, as shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2: The Final Path Coefficients of Community
Resilience.
Community Resilience Analysis on Displaced Residents now Living in Rusunawa Marunda
549

The Goodness of Fit (GoF) is used to evaluate the
measurement and structural models and provides a
simple measure of the overall model prediction. The
GoF value was 0.557, which is included in the large
category.
After that, hypothesis testing was carried out by
looking at the PLS results of the path coefficient
section, as shown in Table 2.
Table 2: The Final Path Coefficients of Community
Resilience.
Variable
Original
Sample
(
O
)
t-
Statis
tics
H
0
Conclu
sion
Social
aspect on
community
resilience
0.748 5.671 Rejected
Signi
ficant
Cultural
aspect on
community
resilience
0.687 5.265 Rejected
Signi
ficant
Ecological
aspect on
community
resilience
0.773 8.341 Rejected
Signi
ficant
Physical
aspect on
community
resilience
0.478 3.299 Rejected
Signi
ficant
Table 2 confirms the following. First, the social
aspect significantly affects community resilience
with a t-statistic of 5.671, which is bigger than 1.96
(5.671 > 1.96). Second, the cultural aspect
significantly affects community resilience with a t-
statistic of 5.265, which is bigger than 1.96 (5.265 >
1.96). Third, the ecological aspect significantly
affects community resilience with a t-statistic of
8.341, which is bigger than 1.96 (8.341 > 1.96).
Finally, the physical aspect significantly affects
community resilience with a t-statistic of 3.299,
which is bigger than 1.96 (3.299 > 1.96).
Our findings confirmed that the most dominant
aspect that formed community resilience of displaced
residents living in Rusunawa Marunda was the
ecological aspect (R-square of 0.597 or 59.7%). It
was followed by the social aspect (R-square of 0.559
or 55.9%), the cultural aspect (R-square of 0.472 or
47.2%), and the physical aspect (R-square of 0.229 or
22.9%).
Figure 3: The Dominant Aspects that Formed Community
Resilience of Displaced residents Living in Rusunawa
Marunda.
We ended up with only four (4) out of eight (8)
aspects that formed the community resilience of
displaced residents living in Rusunawa Marunda.
This finding rejected the initial assumptions of the
initial model that used eight (8) aspects as the
hypothesis (economic, social, cultural, human
resources, ecology, physical, political, and
technological aspects). Furthermore, our findings
contradict previous studies because they used
different traumatic events from our study that used
relocation of people living on the government’s land
(open green space) illegally. For example, Longstaff
(2010) examined the effect of disaster and terrorism
events on community resilience. Ajita and Howard
(2016), Roger (2016), Barrow Cadbury Trust (2012),
and British Red Cross ( 2013) examined the effect of
disaster events. In addition, Schwind et al. (2009)
examined the effect of economic crisis.
The relocation has been a political will
positioning the now-residents of Rusunawa Marunda
as the subject of development; thus, the respondents
felt that the political aspect was the primary cause for
their traumatic experience of being relocated. The
effect of the relocation as a traumatic event was that
the people felt that the government intentionally and
consciously changed the people’s fate. Thus, the
displaced residents now living in Rusunawa Marunda
see any assistance or programs the government offers
to help them adapt and continue their lives
meaningless and could not give them the same life
they used to have. To sum up, the displaced residents
now living in Rusunawa Marunda did not consider
the political aspect crucial in forming community
iCAST-ES 2022 - International Conference on Applied Science and Technology on Engineering Science
550

resilience, which contradicts the results of previous
studies.
The displaced residents now living in Rusunawa
Marunda also did not see the economic aspect as
necessary for their resilience. It happened because
they had lower income than they used to before
relocation. In addition, although they paid less to live
in Rusunawa than they used to, the people believed
they spent more on daily needs than before. This
happened because the relocation had forced them to
leave their previous business behind, such as selling
goods and working in entertainment centers, making
them lose their livelihoods. Since these people only
had the skill of sellers or trades in economic centers,
the technological and human resource aspects were
not needed in forming resilience in their new place
because Rusunawa Marunda is not a center of
economic or entertainment activities. In addition,
they spent less in their previous home because they
lived illegally without paying rent—they also got the
water service and electricity illegally.
Natural resource quality, equity, natural resource
utilization, and diversity dominate ecological aspects.
The displaced residents now living in Rusunawa
Marunda perceived that water quality and service,
environment, and household waste disposal and
sanitation are better than in their previous residential
under the roads and/or near river banks.
Connectedness is the dominant indicator in
shaping the social aspect than the organizational
indicator. For example, although housing placement
is done randomly, respondents from the relocation
area found it comfortable hanging out with their
neighbors because they were well received. For
organizational indicators, the involvement of the
majority of residents in social organizations was
because they found the organizations fulfilled their
needs, such as religious services, community
services, sports, social gatherings, skill development,
and waste banks. Barrow Cadbury Trust (2012)
mentions that connectedness can shape community
resilience.
In the cultural aspect, value conformity and
comfort were more dominant than new habits.
Respondents felt calmer and more comfortable
because they lived in a decent house and could better
follow the growth of their children. Children could
actively play in a good place. Residents were
involved in various social activities.
The physical aspect in sequential was formed by
health, education, market, worship, work and
recreation facilities. According to respondents,
Rusunawa Marunda provided complete and
affordable physical facilities. In addition, a play area
for children helped the displaced residents, especially
parents, feel secure knowing that their children
played in a safe place, especially those previously
living in the Kalijodo area.
5 CONCLUSIONS
This study analyzes the community resilience of the
displaced residents now living in Rusunawa
Marunda. Our findings confirmed only four (4) out of
eight (8) aspects forming the community resilience of
these displaced residents in Rusunawa Marunda. Our
finding differed from previous studies because we
used different traumatic events, namely relocation of
people living illegally on the government’s land
(open green space). Previous studies examined the
effect of disaster and terrorism (Longstaff, 2010;
Howard, 2016; Roger, 2016; Barrow Cadbury Trust,
2012; British Red Cross, 2012) or economic crisis on
community resilience (Schwind et al., 2009).
The community resilience of the displaced
residents now living in Rusunawa Marunda was
formed by the ecological aspect, especially water
quality and service, environment, and household
waste disposal and sanitation that were better than in
their previous residential under the roads and/or near
river banks. The social, cultural, and physical aspects
were the dominant aspects after the ecological aspect
for community resilience.
The political aspect, such as aspiration and
government assistance, was not perceived as an
essential or dominant aspect of forming community
resilience of these displaced residents. The economic,
technological, and human resource aspects were also
not seen as crucial in forming community resilience
in Rusunwa Marunda. They had to pay more expense
living in Rusunawa for rent, electricity, and water—
all things they could get illegally before moving to
Rusunawa. However, they made less money because
they no longer lived in the economic and
entertainment centers where they could work freely—
Rusunawa is a housing complex, not an economic
center. Many people who used to work without
specific skills were forced to leave such unskilled
jobs when moving to Rusunawa Marunda—they
could neither use their capacity nor the technology
available to improve their capacity.
REFERENCES
Aditya B, Emma L, Emily W, and Thomas T. 2015.
Resilience in the SDGs: developing an indicator for
Community Resilience Analysis on Displaced Residents now Living in Rusunawa Marunda
551

target 1.5 that is fit for purpose. Shaping policy for
development. Overseas Development Institute.
London, UK /Odi.org
Ajita Atreya and Howard Kunreuther. 2016. Measuring
community resilience: the role of the community rating
system (SRS). Risk management and decision processes
center, the Wharton School, University Pennsylvania,
USA
Barrow Cadbury Trust. 2012. Adapting to change: the role
of community resilience. The Young Foundation, UK
Berkes F, J Colding, and C Folke. 2003. Navigating social-
ecology systems: building resilience for complexity and
change. Cambridge university press, Cambridge, UK
British Red Cross-International federation of red cross and
red crescent societies. 2013. Options for including
community resilience in the post-2015 development
goals. Geneva, Switzerland
Christenson JA, K Fendley and JW Robinson Jr. 1989.
Community development in perspective. USA: IOWA
State University Press
Demographia. 2019. Demographia World Urban Area 15
th
annual report 2019 (Built-up urban area or world
agglomeration)
Hair Jr, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., and Sarstedt, M.
2016. A primer on partial least squares structural
equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage publications.
Kompas.com. 2015. Permasalahan Sosial-Ekonomi Warga
Rusunawa Tengah Dikaji Artikel ini telah tayang
https://megapolitan.kompas.com/read/2015/12/01/155
52751/Permasalahan.Sosial-
Ekonomi.Warga.Rusunawa.Tengah.Dikaji. Diakses
pada 14 Maret 207
Kraas, F., and Mertins, G. 2014. Megacities and global
change. In Megacities (pp. 1-6). Springer, Dordrecht.
Longstaff, Patricia H., Nicholas J.Amstrong, Keil Perrin,
Whitney M.P., Matthew A H. 2010. Building Resilient
Communities: a Preliminary Framework for
Assessment. Homeland security affairs, Vol VI, No.3
Mankiew, N.G., 2006. The macroeconomist as a scientist
and engineer. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(4),
pp.29-46.
Pravitasari, A.M. 2018. Dampak Urbanisasi dan
Perkembangan Perkotaan di Jabodetabek dan
Sekitarnya serta Pengaruhnya pada Peningkatan
Degradasi Lingkungan
Roger Blakeley. 2016. Building community resilience:
report prepared for NZ society of local government
managers (SOLGM). New Zealand.
Runtunuwu, S., Antariksa, S., Surjono, Ismu R. D. A.,
2018, The Conceptual Framework of Community
Resilience of the Flat Residents. International Journal
of Engineering and Technology, 7 (4.40) (2018) 172-
178, Website: www.sciencepubco.com/index.php/IJET
Schwind, K., Localize, B., Cordova, L., Goldberg, L.,
and Salzman, S. 2009. Community Resilience
Toolkit. Oakland: Bay Localize. Accessed May 29, 2015
UNESCAP. 2016. Building e-resilience: Enhancing the
role of ICTs for Disaster Risk Management (DRM).
United Nations Economic and Social Commission for
Asia and the Pacific. ICT and Development Section.
USAID. 2013. The resilience agenda: measuring resilience
in USAID. USAID, Washington https://www.usaid.
gov/sites/default/files/documents/1866/Technical%20
Note_Measuring%20Resilience%20in%20USAID_Ju
ne%202013.pdf.
Van Breda, A.D., 2001. Resilience theory: A literature
review. Pretoria, South Africa: South African Military
Health Service.
Wilhelm, M. 2011. Approaching disaster vulnerability in a
megacity: community resilience to flooding in
two kampungs in Jakarta. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). University of Passau, Achen.
Zatura, A. 2009. “Resilience: One part recovery, two part
of sustainability”, Journal of Personality, vol/issue:
77(6), pp. 1935-1943.
iCAST-ES 2022 - International Conference on Applied Science and Technology on Engineering Science
552