Lesson video

Hello and welcome.

My name is Ms. Harrison and I'm so excited to be learning with you today.

Today's lesson is called "Strategies for achieving sustainability: 'top-down' strategies." Grab everything you might need for today's lesson and let's begin our learning.

By the end of today's lesson, you will be able to assess the advantages and disadvantages of top-down strategies for making Jakarta more sustainable.

Before we can begin this learning, we need to find the keywords that we'll be using throughout today's lesson.

The keywords are top-down development, infrastructure, and sustainable.

Top-down development.

This is development led by governments or large organisations, often with large-scale funding and limited community input.

Infrastructure.

These are services and facilities in a city, like transport systems, clean water supply, sewage networks, and waste disposal, that help support people's everyday needs.

Sustainable.

This is managing resources or services in a way that meets needs now without damaging the future.

Now that we've defined these keywords, we can begin our learning.

The first question we're going to explore in today's lesson is, how has the government improved water supply? Top-down development is when governments or large organisations make decisions and lead major projects, often on national or city-wide scale.

The key players in top-down development include governments, transnational corporations, and intergovernmental organisations like the World Bank or Asian Development Bank.

These players are involved in processes such as providing aid, giving loans, or investing through foreign direct investment.

The main aim of top-down development is to improve infrastructure, such as transport, water supply, electricity, and public services, often with the goal of boosting the economy and attracting investment.

Why might a government choose top-down over local-led development? Pause the video here whilst you decide and press play when you're ready to continue.

Excellent.

Let's hear some answers.

One student said, "Top-down development is faster, well-funded, and supports national goals, but it may ignore local people's needs.

Is that right?" Yes, that's correct.

Whilst top-down development is often faster and better funded because it's led by powerful organisations like governments and TNCs, which have access to large budgets, loans, and expertise, these projects usually support national goals such as economic growth, improved infrastructure, or global investment.

However, a common criticism is that they ignore local needs because decisions are made by people at the top, often far from the communities affected.

Projects may fail to consider what local people actually want or need.

This can lead to solutions that are less effective, unsustainable, or even harmful for some groups, especially in poorer or in informal areas.

So while top-down development can bring major benefits, it also risks leaving out the voices of those that it's meant to help.

True or false? Top-down development is always designed and led by local communities.

Pause the video here whilst you decide and press play when you're ready to continue.

Fantastic.

This statement is false.

I would now like you to explain why.

Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to continue.

Excellent.

The reason why this statement is false is because, top-down development is led by governments or large corporations, not local communities.

It often aims to improve infrastructure at a city-wide or national level.

Well done if you managed to explain that correctly.

You've done brilliantly.

By 2023, most of Jakarta's water system was privately managed and many people lacked safe drinking water.

Laura has said, "Not everyone had access to water and some of the water people had access to was contaminated with chemicals and toxins which could make people ill with cholera.

Is that right?" Yes, she's correct.

And Sofia said, "Some kampungs did not have access to water and people had to use wells or spend money on bottled water." And that's also correct.

And spending money on bottled water was an extreme financial burden for those people.

What would a more sustainable water supply look like? Jakarta's current water supply is not sustainable.

Too many people rely on groundwater and this is causing the land to sink, a process known as subsidence.

If more people had access to piped, treated water, the need to extract groundwater would fall, helping to protect the land and make the city more sustainable.

Another solution is rainwater harvesting, collecting and storing rainwater for household use.

This would help to reduce the demand on groundwater.

Jakarta's rivers are heavily polluted with sewage and industrial waste, making them unsafe and unusable.

Right now, this is not a sustainable water system.

If wastewater treatment improved, less sewage would enter the rivers, and if forest and wetlands in the upstream areas were protected or restored, water quality would improve naturally.

Together, these changes would create a more sustainable and balanced water supply, benefiting both people and the environment.

In recent years, Jakarta's government has taken major steps to improve access to clean and reliable water.

Back in 2010, much of the city still relied on groundwater, which was leading to problems like land subsidence and unsafe drinking water.

By 2015, the government began investing in piped water systems to reduce dependence on wells.

Progress was slow at first.

By 2020, only 50% of residents had access to piped water.

By 2023, the city ended private ownership of water services.

Control was handed over to PAM Jaya, a public provider, to make water access more fair and affordable.

By 2024, coverage had improved to 65% of residents, a clear sign of progress.

The city's goal is to reach 100% access by 2030, ensuring that everyone in Jakarta has safe, treated water in their homes.

Are Jakarta's water services becoming more sustainable? Pause the video here whilst you have a think and press play when you're ready to continue.

Excellent.

So yes, Jakarta's water service is becoming more sustainable, but there is still progress to be made.

The city has taken important steps like reducing reliance on groundwater, which has been causing land subsidence.

Investments in piped water systems, meaning more people now have access to clean, treated water.

In 2023, the government returned water services to public control, aiming to make access more affordable and reliable.

By 2024, 65% of residents had piped water, with the goal of reaching 100% by 2030, a move that supports long-term sustainability.

However, challenges remain.

Water pollution, limited wastewater treatment, and unequal access in poorer areas still pose risks.

So while Jakarta is clearly moving in the right direction, continued investment and better management are needed to make the system fully sustainable for everyone.

What change happened in Jakarta's water system in 2023? A, all residents gained access to clean water.

B, PAM Jaya took over from a private company.

C, the city began relying on more groundwater.

Or D, a new landfill was open to manage waste.

Pause the video here whilst you decide and press play when you're ready to continue.

Excellent.

The answer is B.

PAM Jaya took over from a private company.

Well done.

Top-down control of Jakarta's water service allows the government to invest in long-time infrastructure projects that improve access and protect the environment.

One major project is the Water Treatment Plant.

Its purpose is to help fix leaks, upgrade old pipelines, and improve the overall efficiency of the water supply system.

The project also includes the goal to reforest river banks, which helps protect water quality by reducing pollution, erosion and sediment flowing into rivers.

This is an example of how top-down investment can support sustainable water management, combining technology with the environmental protection to create a more reliable and cleaner water system for Jakarta's future.

Why would forests help make water supply more sustainable? Pause the video here whilst you have a think and press play when you're ready to continue.

Fantastic.

Forests help make water supply more sustainable because they play a key role in protecting and improving water quality.

Trees and vegetation reduce soil erosion, which means less mud and sediment gets washed into rivers and reservoirs.

This keeps the water cleaner and reduces the need for expensive treatment.

Forests also filter pollutants and help to regulate water flow, reducing the risk of flooding during heavy rain and maintaining water levels during dry periods.

By restoring and protecting forested areas, Jakarta can improve the health of river systems, supporting biodiversity, and ensure a cleaner, more reliable water supply for the future.

I would like you to add the missing labels to the project, purpose, and goal.

Pause the video here whilst you attempt this and press play when you're ready to continue.

Excellent.

These are the missing labels to the project, purpose, and goal.

Well done if you managed to remember those.

Jakarta's government has made real progress in improving the city's water infrastructure, but there are still challenges around access and fairness.

On the one hand, top-down development has clear strengths.

The government has funded large-scale infrastructure with plans designed by experts.

Current systems now supply 4,750 litres of treated water every second.

However, local communities still have concerns.

Many feel their needs are not fully considered, and that solutions may not be the right fit for their specific neighbourhoods, especially in kampungs or poorer districts.

In many cases, low-income areas receive improved services last, and when outside contractors are used, few local jobs are created, meaning residents may not see the full benefits.

So while the government-led projects can deliver widespread improvements, it's important it also include local voices to make sure development is fair and effective for everyone.

Which of the following reduce the sustainability of Jakarta's top-down water strategy? Is it A, local needs are sometimes overlooked? B, access to piped water is expanding.

C, upstream areas are being reforested.

Or D, solutions might not fit certain neighbourhoods.

Pause the video here whilst you decide and press play when you're ready to continue.

Excellent.

The answers are A, local needs are sometimes overlooked, and D, solutions might not fit certain neighbourhoods.

Well done if you identified those correctly.

I would now like you to fill in the blanks using the words below.

The text is discussing, how has the government improved water supply? Pause the video here whilst you attempt this task and press play when you're ready to continue.

Fantastic.

Let's check our answers.

Your text should read like this.

In 2023, the government ended private control of water and handed it to PAM Jaya, a public provider.

One major project is their Water Treatment Plant, which focuses on fixing leaks and upgrading pipes.

The long-term goal is to provide 100% piped water access by 2030.

Although this system can supply 4,750 litres of clean water per second, some poorer areas still receive services last, raising concerns about how sustainable the scheme is.

Well done if you managed to complete that task correctly.

You've done brilliantly.

We're now going to explore our second question of today's lesson.

How effective is Jakarta's waste strategy? Jakarta produces thousands of tonnes of waste every day, but until recently, there was no long-term, sustainable system in place to manage it.

Much of the waste is either dumped in rivers, burned in open spaces, or left in unofficial dumping sites, where it causes serious pollution and health risks.

The city's main landfill, Bantar Gebang, is now overflowing, with piles of rubbish reaching up to 50 metres high.

The site pollutes the air with methane gas and spreads waste into nearby water sources, harming both people and the environment.

There are also very few recycling systems in place.

Most waste is mixed together with little sorting or reuse, meaning valuable materials are wasted and plastic pollution continues to build up.

Jakarta urgently needs a more sustainable waste management strategy to reduce environmental damage and protect public health.

Why is dumping waste like this not sustainable? Pause the video here whilst you decide and press play when you're ready to continue.

Fantastic.

Dumping waste like this is not sustainable because it causes long-term damage to the environment, public health and the economy.

When waste is dumped in rivers or open sites, it leads to water and air pollution, which harms wildlife and increases the risk of flooding by blocking drains and waterways.

Sites like Bantar Gebang landfill are already overflowing, and with piles reaching up to 50 metres high, there's simply no more space to keep dumping this way.

Open landfills also release methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, that contributes to climate change and increases the risks of fires.

Without proper recycling or waste treatment, valuable materials are lost and the city is forced to rely on unsustainable methods that can't keep up with a growing population.

A more sustainable solution would reduce waste, increase recycling, and protect both people and the planet in the long term.

What would a more sustainable waste solution look like? Half of Jakarta's waste is organic, like food scraps and plant material.

Right now, most of it ends up in a landfill where it rots and releases harmful gases like methane.

This is not sustainable, as it pollutes the air and adds to climate change.

A more sustainable approach would involve sorting waste at source.

If organic waste was separated, it could be used for composting or turned into biogas, keeping it out of the landfill.

Other materials like plastic and paper could also be sorted and sent for recycling rather than being dumped.

Unreliable waste collection is another major problem.

When bins aren't emptied regularly, people are more likely to burn rubbish or dump it in rivers and open spaces, causing pollution and health risks.

This is also not sustainable.

A more sustainable system would provide regular, reliable waste collection, especially in poorer areas.

Alongside this, public education campaigns could teach people how to reduce plastic use and manage waste more responsibly, helping to cut pollution and protect Jakarta's environment for the future.

What is one consequence of Jakarta's current waste problem? Is it A, recycling rates have reached 70%? B, Bantar Gebang landfill is shrinking.

C, waste is polluting rivers and air.

Or D, most waste is burned for energy.

Pause the video here whilst you decide and press play when you're ready to continue.

Excellent.

The answer is C.

Waste is polluting rivers and air.

Well done.

To improve waste management, Jakarta's environmental agency has employed sanitation workers to collect rubbish from homes and businesses across the city.

The waste is taken to one of over 1,000 temporary storage sites located throughout Jakarta.

These sites help manage waste at a local level before it is moved on.

From there, the rubbish is transported to Bantar Gebang, the city's largest landfill.

The system helps prevent illegal dumping and ensures more waste is managed through formal channels.

While this is a step forward, long-term sustainability will still depend on improving recycling, reducing the amount of waste sent to landfill, and building public awareness about responsible waste disposal.

Why might this not improve the sustainability of Jakarta's waste strategy? Pause the video here whilst you decide and press play when you're ready to continue.

Excellent.

Let's check some answers.

Alex said, "It's just adding more waste, including more organic waste, to nearly-full landfills." And he's right.

While collecting waste and transporting it to a landfill is better than dumping it in rivers or open spaces, it does not solve the root problem.

It just moves the waste somewhere else.

This approach still relies heavily on landfill, which is not sustainable in the long term.

Landfills like Bantar Gebang are already overflowing and they release methane gases which contribute to climate change.

Simply sending more waste there does not reduce pollution or the volume of rubbish being produced.

Also, this system does not include sorting recycling, so organic waste still rots in landfills, and recyclable materials, like plastic and paper, are thrown away instead of being reused.

True or false? All waste in Jakarta is collected and taken straight to landfill.

Pause the video here whilst you decide and press play to continue.

Excellent.

This statement is false.

I would now like you to explain why.

Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to continue.

Fantastic.

The reason why this statement is false is because, waste is first collected by sanitation workers, then taken to one of over 1,000 temporary sites before being transported to Bantar Gebang, the largest landfill.

Well done if you managed to explain that correctly.

You've done brilliantly.

New top-down technology initiatives are being introduced in Jakarta to help tackle the city's waste crisis and improve recycling rates.

One example is the Octopus app, which helps users track and trade valuable recyclable items, like plastic bottles and cans.

Thanks to the app, over 1,000 tonnes of waste are being diverted from landfill every month.

Other app-based shops are also working to reduce packaging waste, allowing people to buy goods with less plastic and reuse containers.

Currently, only 7.

5% of Jakarta's waste is recycled, but with the help of these digital tools, the goal is to increase recycling to over 30% by 2030.

These top-down tech solutions show how innovation, backed by government or private investment, can support more sustainable waste management across the city.

What are the issues with app-based initiatives in Jakarta? Pause the video here whilst you have a think and press play when you're ready to continue.

Brilliant.

Let's check our answers.

Lucas said, "Not everyone in Jakarta has a smartphone, so poorer people can't use the apps." And Sofia said, "The apps don't fix bigger problems like waste not being sorted or dumped into rivers." What could the government do to bridge this gap? Pause the video here whilst you have a think and press play when you're ready to continue.

Fantastic.

To bridge the gap between app-based recycling initiatives and the people who are currently left out, the government could take several important steps.

Firstly, they could invest in digital access by improving internet coverage and making affordable smartphones more widely available in low-income areas.

This would help more people use recycling apps and benefit from new technologies.

Second, the government could run public education campaigns to teach people how to use the apps, why recycling matters, and how to sort waste at home.

This would raise awareness and increase participation.

They could also link these apps to local waste-collection systems, making it easier for people to drop off or sell recyclables, especially in kampungs and informal areas.

While Jakarta has introduced several top-down waste solutions, there are still major challenges and growing criticism of how effective they really are.

Fewer than 10% of households currently sort their waste before collection, which makes recycling difficult.

Only 25% of residents have been educated on how these waste systems work.

So many people don't know what they should do.

Even with new systems in place, just 7.

5% of waste is recycled, showing that top-down efforts haven't yet made enough of a difference.

There are also concerns about the working conditions of those managing waste.

Over 600 safety complaints have been made by workers, highlighting the risks faced by sanitation staff and waste pickers.

How could the government involve local people more? Pause the video here whilst you have a think and press play when you're ready to continue.

Excellent.

The government could involve local people more by making them an active part of the solution, not just the users of top-down systems. One way is through community education programmes that teach people how to sort waste, use recycle facilities, and reduce plastic waste.

These could run in schools, neighbourhood centres, and kampungs.

The government could also support local recycling groups, and create jobs for residents in waste sorting, composting, or collection.

This would not only improve the system, but also boost incomes in poorer areas.

A government official said, "We have made huge progress in building infrastructure and collection systems. But now we need the public to sort their waste and reduce the way they throw away." A resident in a kampung said, "No one has explained how to recycle here.

We just put everything in one bag and hope the collectors take it because sometimes they don't!" A resident in South Jakarta said, "We use a recycling app and separate our waste, but I don't know if it's actually recycled after collection." And these are some views from different people within Jakarta about the waste management system that they're using.

Why might residents in kampungs struggle to recycle their waste? A, they refuse to follow rules.

B, they have too many recycling bins.

C, they lack information and support on recycling.

D, they have a lot of waste.

Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to continue.

Excellent.

The answer is C.

They lack information and support on recycling.

Well done.

Aisha and Sofia are having a discussion about who experiences the biggest gap in the waste system.

Who is correct? Pause the video here and read both Aisha and Sofia's statements, and press play when you're ready to continue.

Fantastic.

The statement that's correct is Aisha's.

I would now like you to explain why.

Pause here and press play when you're ready to continue.

Fantastic.

The reason why Aisha is correct is because, many people, especially in kampungs, are often left behind.

Fewer than 10% sort their waste, and only 25% have had any education on the system, making it harder to take part.

Well done if you managed to explain that correctly.

You've done brilliantly.

I would now like you to identify which statement is a positive or negative of Jakarta's top-down development strategy for waste.

Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to continue.

Fantastic.

Before we check our answers, I would like you to complete one more task.

Do you think Jakarta's top-down strategy for managing waste is working? Use evidence from the table to support your answer.

Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to continue.

Excellent.

Let's check our answers.

For the first one, I asked you to identify which statement was positive or negative.

This first statement, over 1,000 waste deposit sites created, is positive.

Less than 10% of households sort waste before collection is negative.

Only 25% of residents educated on waste system is negative.

Over 1,000 tonnes of waste diverted from landfill monthly is positive.

And only 7.

5% of waste is recycled is negative.

Well done if you managed to identify those correctly.

For the second question, your answer might include some of the following points.

Jakarta's top-down waste strategy has made some progress, but it still has some problems. One positive is that over 1,000 waste deposit sites have been created, and more than 1,000 tonnes of waste is being diverted from landfill every month.

This shows the government is investing in infrastructure.

However, there are still big issues.

Fewer than 10% of households sort their waste, and only 25% of people have had any education on the system.

As a result, only 7.

5% of waste is recycled.

This suggests that the strategy is not fully reaching communities or educating people about the importance of recycling.

Well done on this task.

I hope you managed to get some of the answers correct.

You've done brilliantly.

We're now going to explore our final question of today's lesson.

What are Jakarta's top-down transport solutions? Jakarta's traffic is a serious challenge, with the city becoming increasingly congested due to heavy reliance on private cars and motorbikes.

Every day, the roads experience severe gridlock, especially during rush hour.

Many roads are poorly planned and not designed to handle the huge number of vehicles.

This constant traffic doesn't just waste time.

It also causes high levels of air pollution, which affects the public health and the environment.

The economic impact is massive.

It's estimated that Jakarta loses around 7.

4 billion US dollars each year in productivity and fuel costs due to traffic delay.

Solving this problem is essential for making the city more livable, efficient and sustainable in the future.

Why might people choose cars over public transport? Pause the video here whilst you decide and press play when you're ready to continue.

Fantastic.

Lucas said, "People might choose cars because public transport in Jakarta can be crowded and sometimes delayed, so having a car feels easier and more reliable." Sofia said, "Public transport in Jakarta isn't always well connected, so using a car makes it easier to reach places that are far or not near a station." I hope you managed to come up with ideas like these as well.

To tackle traffic congestion and reduce air pollution, the government has launched major infrastructure projects aimed at transforming Jakarta's transport system.

The plan includes building MRT, mass rapid transport, underground rail, a BRT, a bus rapid transport network, and a new LRT, light rail transit system.

These systems are designed to make travel more affordable, efficient and accessible for everyone.

The overall goal is to encourage people to switch from private vehicles to public transport, and by 2030, the government aims for 60% of all daily trips in Jakarta to be made using public transport.

This shift is expected to cut emissions, reduce traffic delays, and make the city more sustainable and livable.

True or false? Jakarta's government only invested in buses to improve transport.

Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to continue.

Fantastic.

This statement is false.

I would like you to explain why.

Pause here and press play to continue.

Fantastic.

The reason why it's false is because, the government invested in a full transport network, including MRT, BRT, and LRT, to improve access and reduce emissions.

Hopefully, 60% of trips will be taken on a mode of public transport by 2030.

Well done if you explained that correctly.

Top-down planning has allowed Jakarta to invest in large-scale sustainable transport projects that wouldn't be possible without strong government funding and coordination.

The new MRT system, along with other upgrades, have already helped reduce traffic congestion by 40% and is expected to cut carbon emissions by 36% in coming years.

Today, the MRT and other public transport options serve over 600,000 commuters every day, offering a faster, cleaner alternative to private vehicles.

The current expansion, known as MRT Phase 2A, is backed by $1.

4 billion investment, showing how top-down development can drive long-term improvements in urban mobility and support Jakarta's move toward a greener, more efficient future.

What are some reported benefits of Jakarta's MRT Phase 2A project? A, serves over 600,000 daily commuters.

B, expected to increase car use.

C, funded with $1.

4 billion investment.

Or D, may reduce congestion and emissions.

Pause here and press play to continue.

Excellent.

The answers are A, C, and D.

Well done if you managed to get those correct.

While government-led transport projects have made some progress, they still have pushback and limitations.

Despite major investment, around 75% of daily trips in Jakarta are still made by motorcycle or car.

Many people say that public transport is too slow.

In fact, 40% of commuters gave this as their main reason for not using it.

Another challenge is access.

Fewer than 25% of the city's residents live near reliable public transport options, meaning large parts of the population are still dependent on private vehicles.

There are also local concerns, especially in areas like Kota Tua, Jakarta's historic district.

People worry that expanding transport networks could lead to damage to cultural heritage sites.

This shows that while top-down planning can deliver big improvements, it must also address local needs, speed, access, and cultural preservation to be fully effective.

True or false? Most people in Jakarta now use sustainable public transport instead of unsustainable motorbikes or cars.

Pause the video here and press play to continue.

Excellent.

This statement is false.

I would like you to explain why.

Pause here and press play to continue.

Fantastic.

The reason why this statement is false is because, around 75% of daily trips in Jakarta are still made using motorcycles or private cars, showing limited progress in shifting to sustainable public transport.

Also, 40% of residents said the transport was too slow.

Well done if you explained that correctly.

I would like you to read the stakeholder statements.

What do the different opinions suggest about the strengths and weaknesses of the transport plan? We have a government official, a resident of a kampung, a cultural heritage campaigner, and a resident of South Jakarta.

Pause the video here whilst you attempt this task and press play when you're ready to continue.

Fantastic.

Let's check our answer.

Your answer might have included some of the following points.

The different opinions show how Jakarta's top-down transport plan has some clear strengths but also important weaknesses.

The government planner believes the system will reduce congestion and cut carbon emissions by up to 36%, which is a big benefit for the whole city and a key step toward a more sustainable future.

Similarly, the resident in South Jakarta sees the MRT as reliable and fast, showing that for people in well-connected areas, the system is already working well.

This matches the government's aim to serve over 600,000 daily commuters through MRT Phase 2A.

However, not everyone is seeing these benefits.

The residents in the northern kampung said there is no MRT nearby, and buses are overcrowded or delayed.

This reflects the fact that less than 25% of Jakarta's population lives near reliable public transport and 75% of daily trips are still being made by private vehicles, which limits the potential environmental benefits.

The cultural heritage campaigner also raises concerns about the MRT construction damaging buildings in Kota Tua, which includes structures that are over 200 years old.

That shows the plan may not have fully considered the impact on local, cultural, and historic sites.

Overall, the strengths include improved infrastructure and reduced carbon emissions, which support Jakarta's long-term sustainability goals.

However, the weaknesses, such as unequal access, overcrowding, and damage to heritage, show that more inclusive and balanced planning is needed to make the system both fair and truly sustainable for everyone.

Well done on this task.

You've done brilliantly.

We've now come to the end of our learning on the strategies for achieving sustainability, top-down strategies.

Before we end this lesson, let's summarise everything we've learned today.

Jakarta's top-down development strategies aim to make the city's water, waste, and transport systems more sustainable.

In the water sector, control was returned to the public provider in 2023, with the goal of achieving 100% piped water access by 2030.

While access has improved, many poorer areas still struggle to get reliable, clean water.

For waste management, over 1,000 storage sites have been set up, and large landfills, like Bantar Gebang, handle most of the city's rubbish, but recycling rates remain low and waste is still often dumped in rivers or open spaces, especially where collection is unreliable.

In terms of transport, the government is expanding public systems like the MRT to reduce traffic congestion and emissions.

These systems are helping, but coverage is still limited, and most people still rely on motorbikes and cars for daily travel.

Overall, Jakarta's top-down strategies are making positive steps, but more work is needed to ensure fair access, local involvement, and long-term sustainability.

Well done on today's lesson.

You've done brilliantly.

And I look forward to learning with you again very soon.