The spatial decisions of land developers are known to play a significant role in driving urban expansion into previously undeveloped areas. This is especially the case in developing country contexts. Using the Jakarta Metropolitan Area as the case study context, we model the impact of capital possession by land developers on the location selection and unveil the way in which this exerts an effect on the spatial patterns of urban development. Through a hybrid agent-based and microeconomic modelling approach, different scenarios of capital possession and loans are simulated. Results show that areas with high values of return and low development costs are most likely to emerge as targeted locales. In order to result in measurable impact on the Jakarta Metropolitan Area urban footprint, developers need to possess a minimum capital investment of US$375 m allied with a 75% lending capacity. Results also reveal that the impact of the large land developers – those with in excess of US$750 m in capital that bring higher levels of lending leverage – extend the urban footprint in more predictable ways compared to land developers with less capital and lending capacity. Our study demonstrates the value of adopting an agent-based model to explore how human decisions at the individual scale can influence the emergence of new urban forms in a rapidly developing metropolitan region.
AlmagorJBenensonICzamanskiD (2017) The evolution of the land development industry: An agent-based simulation model. In: Martin BehnischMMeinelG (eds) Trends in Spatial Analysis and Modelling: Decision-Support and Planning Strategies.
Berlin:
Springer, pp.93–120.
2.
AlonsoW (1960)
A theory of the urban land market. Papers in Regional Science6(1): 149–157.
3.
Bookout LW (1990) Residential Development Handbook. Washington, DC: ULI-Urban Land Institute.
4.
Batty M (2013) The New Science of Cities. MIT Press.
5.
BroitmanDCzamanskiD (2012)
Polycentric urban dynamics: Heterogeneous developers under certain planning restrictions. Journal of the Urban & Regional Information Systems Association24(1): 25–34.
6.
BroitmanDCzamanskiD (2015)
Bursts and avalanches: The dynamics of polycentric urban evolution. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design42(1): 58–75.
7.
BuitelaarEGalleMSorelN (2011)
Plan-led planning systems in development-led practices: An empirical analysis into the (lack of) institutionalisation of planning law. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space43(4): 928–941.
8.
CoiacettoE (2001)
Diversity in real estate developer behaviour: A case for research. Urban Policy and Research19(1): 43–59.
9.
CoiacettoE (2006)
Real estate development industry structure: Consequences for urban planning and development. Planning Practice and Research21(4): 423–441.
10.
DongZSingTF (2017)
Developers’ heterogeneity and real estate development timing options. Journal of Property Investment & Finance35(5): 472–488.
11.
DowallDELeafM (1991)
The price of land for housing in Jakarta. Urban Studies28(5): 707–722.
12.
FengYLiuYTongX (2018)
Comparison of metaheuristic cellular automata models: A case study of dynamic land use simulation in the Yangtze River Delta. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems70: 138–150.
13.
FergusonBWHoffmanML (1993)
Land markets and the effect of regulation on formal-sector development in urban Indonesia. Review of Urban & Regional Development Studies5(1): 51–73.
14.
FilatovaT (2015)
Empirical agent-based land market: Integrating adaptive economic behavior in urban land-use models. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems54: 397–413.
15.
FilatovaTParkerDvan der VeenA (2009)
Agent-based urban land markets: Agent’s pricing behavior, land prices and urban land use change. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation12(1): 3.
16.
FirmanT (2004)
Major issues in Indonesia’s urban land development. Land Use Policy21(4): 347–355.
17.
Fisher-GewirtzmanDBlumenfeld-LiberthalE (2012)
An agent-based model for simulating urban morphology: Sachnin as a case study. Survey Review44(325): 162–167.
18.
FontaineCMRounsevellMDA (2009)
An agent-based approach to model future residential pressure on a regional landscape. Landscape Ecology24(9): 1237–1254.
19.
GillenMFisherP (2002)
Residential developer behaviour in land price determination. Journal of Property Research19(1): 39–59.
20.
GoldbergMA (1974)
Residential developer behavior: Some empirical findings. Land Economics50(1): 85–89.
21.
HakimIParolinB (2009)
Spatial structure and spatial impacts of the Jakarta Metropolitan Area: A Southeast Asian EMR perspective. International Journal of Human and Social Science4(2): 397–405.
22.
HuangQParkerDCFilatovaT, et al. (2013a)
A review of urban residential choice models using agent-based modeling. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design40: 661–689.
23.
HuangQParkerDCSunS, et al. (2013b)
Effects of agent heterogeneity in the presence of a land-market: A systematic test in an agent-based laboratory. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems41: 188–203.
24.
Indonesia Ministry of Public Works (2016) eProcurement Barang dan Jasa (eProcurement for Government Services and Goods). Available at: http://lpse.pu.go.id/eproc/ (accessed 5 June 2019).
25.
KaiserEJ (1968)
Locational decision factors in a producer model of residential development. Land Economics44(3): 351–362.
26.
LambinEFTurnerBLGeistHJ, et al. (2001)
The causes of land-use and land-cover change: Moving beyond the myths. Global Environmental Change11(4): 261–269.
27.
LiuY (2012)
Modelling sustainable urban growth in a rapidly urbanising region using a fuzzy-constrained cellular automata approach. International Journal of Geographical Information Science26(1): 151–167.
28.
MansonSO’SullivanD (2006)
Complexity theory in the study of space and place. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space38(4): 677–692.
29.
MohamedR (2009)
Why do residential developers prefer large exurban lots? Infrastructure costs and exurban development. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design36(1): 12–29.
30.
ParkerDCFilatovaT (2008)
A conceptual design for a bilateral agent-based land market with heterogeneous economic agents. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems32(6): 454–463.
31.
ParkerDCMeretskyV (2004)
Measuring pattern outcomes in an agent-based model of edge-effect externalities using spatial metrics. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment101(2–3): 233–250.
32.
RudinJR (1978) The Changing Structure of the Land Development Industry in the Toronto Area.
Toronto:
University of Toronto, Centre for Urban and Community Studies.
33.
SamatNHasniRElhadaryYAE (2011)
Modelling land use changes at the peri-urban areas using geographic information systems and cellular automata model. Journal of Sustainable Development4(6): 72–84.
34.
SetoKCKaufmannRK (2003)
Modeling the drivers of urban land use change in the pearl river Delta, China: Integrating remote sensing with socioeconomic data. Land Economics79(1): 106–121.
35.
Statistics Indonesia (2018) Population of Indonesia by Province.
Jakarta:
Badan Pusat Statistik (BPS).
36.
SunSParkerDCHuangQ, et al. (2014)
Market impacts on land-use change: An agent-based experiment. Annals of the Association of American Geographers104(3): 460–484.
37.
SusantonoB (1998)
Transportation land use dynamics in metropolitan Jakarta. Berkeley Planning Journal12(1): 126–144.
38.
Taubenböck H, Wiesner M, Felbier A, et al. (2014) New dimensions of urban landscapes: The spatio-temporal evolution from a polynuclei area to a mega-region based on remote sensing data. Applied Geography 47: 137–153.
39.
TianGQiaoZ (2014)
Modeling urban expansion policy scenarios using an agent-based approach for Guangzhou metropolitan region of China. Ecology and Society19(3): 52.
40.
United Nations (2017) The 2017 Revision of World Urbanization Prospects.
New York:
UN.
41.
VermeirenKVan RompaeyALoopmansM, et al. (2012)
Urban growth of Kampala, Uganda: Pattern analysis and scenario development. Landscape and Urban Planning106(2): 199–206.
42.
WahyudiALiuYCorcoranJ (2019a)
Combining Landsat and landscape metrics to analyse large-scale urban land cover change: A case study in the Jakarta Metropolitan Area.Journal of Spatial Science 64(3): 515–534.
43.
Wahyudi A, Liu Y and Corcoran J (2019b) Generating different urban land configurations based on heterogeneous decisions of private land developers: An agent-based approach in a developing country context. Journal of Geo-Information 8(5): 229.
44.
WhiteREngelenG (1993)
Cellular-automata and fractal urban form – A cellular modeling approach to the evolution of urban land-use patterns. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space25(8): 1175–1199.
45.
WinarsoH (2000) Developer’s Behaviour in Residential Land Development in Jabotabek, Indonesia.
London:
University of London.
46.
WinarsoHFirmanT (2002)
Residential land development in Jabotabek, Indonesia: Triggering economic crisis?Habitat International26(4): 487–506.
47.
XieQGhanbari ParsaARReddingB (2002)
The emergence of the urban land market in China: Evolution, structure, constraints and perspectives. Urban Studies39(8): 1375–1398.
48.
Xie Y, Batty M and Zhao K (2007) Simulating emergent urban form using agent-based modeling: Desakota in the Suzhou-Wuxian region in China. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 97(3): 477–495.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
