Equitable TOD in Jakarta: Mapping Gentrification Risk Across 75 Stations

Transit investment in Jakarta risks displacing the communities it's meant to serve.

Jakarta's new MRT, LRT, and commuter rail systems are reshaping property markets around stations. But the city lacks a systematic way to identify which station areas house vulnerable populations at risk of gentrification-induced displacement.

This study builds that identification layer using the Node-Place-People (NPP) framework — measuring transit connectivity (Node), land use intensity (Place), and social vulnerability (People) across all 75 rail stations in Jakarta.

Data & Methods

Three composite indices were constructed via Principal Component Analysis (PCA) from 20 variables covering transport, land use, and demographics within 800-meter station catchments.

K-means clustering (k=5) grouped stations into typologies based on their combined index profiles.

Variable Inventory

Station Typologies

Vulnerable

Transit Hub

Urban Core

Suburban

Downtown

Five distinct typologies emerged from the clustering analysis. Each station's 800m catchment area is classified by its combined Node, Place, and People profile.

Cluster 1 (Vulnerable) stations concentrate in outer areas with low transit connectivity but high social vulnerability — the frontline of displacement risk.

Cluster 2 (Transit Hub) stations show high Node scores but moderate Place and People values — major interchange points where development pressure is building.

Cluster 3 (Urban Core) stations score high across all three indices — dense, connected, and socially mixed.

The Node index reveals the transit connectivity landscape. Central Jakarta dominates, with a sharp falloff toward the periphery.

The People index maps social vulnerability. The spatial mismatch is visible: high vulnerability often coincides with areas targeted for transit investment.

Explore the map yourself — toggle between views, hover stations for details, click for the full breakdown.

Vulnerable

Transit Hub

Urban Core

Suburban

Downtown

The scatter plots below show how stations distribute across pairs of indices, revealing the structural relationships between transit access, urbanization, and vulnerability:

Vulnerable

Transit Hub

Urban Core

Suburban

Downtown

Policy Directions

Recommendations are tailored to each typology, distinguishing empirical findings from policy instruments drawn from Indonesian regulation and international equitable TOD literature.

Vulnerable

Low transit connectivity, moderate land use, high social vulnerability. Areas with significant informal worker and renter populations near transit stations.

Policy Direction

Prioritize anti-displacement measures before transit improvements amplify gentrification pressure.

Regulatory Instruments

→PBB-P2 property tax exemption for low-income owners
→Gov. Reg. 31/2021 on spatial plan integration
→Community land trust pilots

Transit Hub

High transit connectivity, moderate land use intensity and vulnerability. Major interchange stations with good multimodal access but underutilized surrounding areas.

Policy Direction

Leverage transit advantage with mixed-use development while mandating affordable housing quotas.

Regulatory Instruments

→Jakarta Gov. Reg. 1/2014 on TOD zones
→Inclusionary zoning (20% affordable units)
→Value capture mechanisms (betterment levy)

Urban Core

Moderate-high transit access, high land use intensity, moderate vulnerability. Dense, economically active areas with established urban fabric.

Policy Direction

Manage intensification to prevent displacement; preserve existing affordable housing stock.

Regulatory Instruments

→Rent stabilization in TOD zones
→Heritage preservation overlays
→Green infrastructure requirements

Suburban

Low transit and land use intensity, moderate vulnerability. Peripheral stations in auto-dependent areas with growth potential.

Policy Direction

Enable compact, transit-oriented growth with proactive affordable housing planning before land values rise.

Regulatory Instruments

→Upzoning with affordability mandates
→Land readjustment programs
→Feeder transit network investment

Downtown

High transit and land use intensity, low social vulnerability. Premium city-center locations with established commercial development.

Policy Direction

Capture value from high-performing stations to cross-subsidize equity interventions in Vulnerable areas.

Regulatory Instruments

→Development impact fees
→Cross-subsidization to Vulnerable clusters
→Transit benefit district special levies

Published in Urban and Regional Planning Review (URPR), City Planning Institute of Japan. Co-authored with Tetsuharu Oba, Junichi Susaki, and Yoshie Ishii.

Transit investment in Jakarta risks displacing the communities it's meant to serve.

Data & Methods

Three composite indices were constructed via Principal Component Analysis (PCA) from 20 variables covering transport, land use, and demographics within 800-meter station catchments.

K-means clustering (k=5) grouped stations into typologies based on their combined index profiles.

Variable Inventory

Station Typologies

Vulnerable

Transit Hub

Urban Core

Suburban

Downtown

Five distinct typologies emerged from the clustering analysis. Each station's 800m catchment area is classified by its combined Node, Place, and People profile.

Cluster 1 (Vulnerable) stations concentrate in outer areas with low transit connectivity but high social vulnerability — the frontline of displacement risk.

Cluster 2 (Transit Hub) stations show high Node scores but moderate Place and People values — major interchange points where development pressure is building.

Cluster 3 (Urban Core) stations score high across all three indices — dense, connected, and socially mixed.

The Node index reveals the transit connectivity landscape. Central Jakarta dominates, with a sharp falloff toward the periphery.

The People index maps social vulnerability. The spatial mismatch is visible: high vulnerability often coincides with areas targeted for transit investment.

Explore the map yourself — toggle between views, hover stations for details, click for the full breakdown.

Vulnerable

Transit Hub

Urban Core

Suburban

Downtown

The scatter plots below show how stations distribute across pairs of indices, revealing the structural relationships between transit access, urbanization, and vulnerability:

Vulnerable

Transit Hub

Urban Core

Suburban

Downtown

Policy Directions

Recommendations are tailored to each typology, distinguishing empirical findings from policy instruments drawn from Indonesian regulation and international equitable TOD literature.

Vulnerable

Low transit connectivity, moderate land use, high social vulnerability. Areas with significant informal worker and renter populations near transit stations.

Policy Direction

Prioritize anti-displacement measures before transit improvements amplify gentrification pressure.

Regulatory Instruments

→PBB-P2 property tax exemption for low-income owners
→Gov. Reg. 31/2021 on spatial plan integration
→Community land trust pilots

Transit Hub

High transit connectivity, moderate land use intensity and vulnerability. Major interchange stations with good multimodal access but underutilized surrounding areas.

Policy Direction

Leverage transit advantage with mixed-use development while mandating affordable housing quotas.

Regulatory Instruments

→Jakarta Gov. Reg. 1/2014 on TOD zones
→Inclusionary zoning (20% affordable units)
→Value capture mechanisms (betterment levy)

Urban Core

Moderate-high transit access, high land use intensity, moderate vulnerability. Dense, economically active areas with established urban fabric.

Policy Direction

Manage intensification to prevent displacement; preserve existing affordable housing stock.

Regulatory Instruments

→Rent stabilization in TOD zones
→Heritage preservation overlays
→Green infrastructure requirements

Suburban

Low transit and land use intensity, moderate vulnerability. Peripheral stations in auto-dependent areas with growth potential.

Policy Direction

Enable compact, transit-oriented growth with proactive affordable housing planning before land values rise.

Regulatory Instruments

→Upzoning with affordability mandates
→Land readjustment programs
→Feeder transit network investment

Downtown

High transit and land use intensity, low social vulnerability. Premium city-center locations with established commercial development.

Policy Direction

Capture value from high-performing stations to cross-subsidize equity interventions in Vulnerable areas.

Regulatory Instruments

→Development impact fees
→Cross-subsidization to Vulnerable clusters
→Transit benefit district special levies

Published in Urban and Regional Planning Review (URPR), City Planning Institute of Japan. Co-authored with Tetsuharu Oba, Junichi Susaki, and Yoshie Ishii.