Building a National Dataset

Data is sometimes underappreciated. However, it has extraordinary importance. President Jokowi himself stated in the May 2019 edition of The Economist, as cited by Kompas on 25 Nov. 2019, that data is a resource more valuable than oil.

Information system experts have long been familiar with the term GIGO (garbage in, garbage out). The point is that data speaks. Erroneous data (input) will produce garbage (output). A lot of "commotion" (suing each other) happens simply because of different data. We read in the mass media about the many demands on newspapers, magazines and people that the data (conclusions/opinions) produced is different from the data of other people (petitioners).

"One map policy"

Data has tremendous impact. No decision is made without data. It can have very broad scope, such as in cases of religious defamation that always start from questionable data. Whether it really happened, whether it was due to editing, the point is that the data is used as an argument. Any decision made must always refer to the data.

But have we improved our data? Who is authorized to publish the data? How exactly is a decision taken? Sometimes the simple things really need to be thought out carefully. Here, we are not just talking about single data or a single map (one map policy). This piece attempts to discuss research-based data on spatial planning, which has been this writer’s research subject for almost 30 years.

It must be recognized that data is indeed expensive and difficult to gather. But it must also be recognized that the damage will be even more costly if decisions are made based on incorrect data. This paradigm must be addressed so that a single dataset can be developed.

AFP/LIONEL BONAVENTURE AND NICOLAS ASFOURI

These three file photos show from top: the Google logo displayed on a screen and reflected on a tablet in Paris, France, April 29, 2018; Twitter logos on a computer screen in Beijing, China, March 23, 2018; and the logo of social the network Facebook displayed on a screen and reflected on a tablet in Paris, France, April 28, 2018. - US President Donald Trump stepped up his criticism of internet firms Tuesday, August 28, 2018, hours after attacking Google over what he called "bias" against him and his supporters. "Google and Twitter and Facebook -- they are really treading on very, very troubled territory and they have to be careful," Trump told reporters at the White House. The comments come after the president last week slammed social media firms for what he claimed was suppression of conservative voices, and Tuesday\'s tirade against Google that claimed news search results were "rigged" to favor "left-wing media. "

In the field of urban and regional planning, it seems apparent from studying the many existing spatial documents that plans are based on the existing data, not the data that is needed. Once data on a certain aspect (for example, disasters) are available, the aspect is analyzed. If no data is available on a particular aspect, then this aspect is not analyzed. It is impossible to delay a plan or program until the data is ready. As a result, what happens is that they are made "as is".

We all read the statement of the National Development Planning Minister/Head of the National Development Planning Agency (Bappenas) on the extremely poor data on agriculture. Either the data is not available or the data is dissimilar/does not correlate. It is hard to imagine how policies can be made under such conditions. And then the finger pointing starts (initiated mainly by universities), meaning that if the necessary data is not available, this is mentioned to point the finger at the institution responsible for the data (or a “data trustee” in the lexicon of the one map policy).

Gathering data is indeed very expensive. After the Berlin Wall came down, it took the former territories of West Berlin and East Berlin at least one year just to agree to integrate their data vertically and horizontally. This did not even reach the point data collection, and had just arrived at the point of talking about which data, defining them, achieving common understanding of the data, and so on.

Other countries have been discussing the importance of this issue since the 1950s (Guttenberg, Journal of the American Planning Association/JAPA)

Other countries have been discussing the importance of this issue since the 1950s (Guttenberg, Journal of the American Planning Association/JAPA). Unfortunately, we haven\'t moved to improve our data. This writer once made a detailed spatial plan (RDTR) for a city in Sulawesi and submitted the total cost (Rp 1.8 billion) to the ITB, which was putting together the RDTR. Compare this with the RDTR that was prepared for a city in Java of the same area and conditions (no maps at a scale of 1:5,000 ere available), which cost only Rp 136 million that could be disbursed through an electronic auction, or Electronic Procurement Service (LPSE).

On the other hand, there are issues with the government’s policies that relate to limited space, while there is no institution that doesn\'t need space or people who don\'t talk. The absence of data from the institutional side clearly leads to a lack of accommodation of that institution’s spatial needs. The absence of data could be caused by the fact that the institution is not willing to provide the data (for whatever reason) or because the data was never created.

Data in the ICT era

Many other things are related to data, especially if we speak about digital data, big data, the Internet of Things, etc. Basically, data is available indefinitely in almost all sectors. Data mining, or how data can be retrieved and studied, is very interesting. Twitter can be used to look at the level of urbanization in an area because of the assumption that only urban people "make use of Twitter".

Remote sensing can also be used to take nighttime imagery, by using the city lights on an island, to look at the distribution of urbanization (developed areas). Not to mention, drones can also be used in mapping and other tasks. The planning paradigm in the era of information and communication technology (ICT) has also shifted to "mutual agreement" (Klosterman, 2001), which means that common ground (data) exists for collaboration and participation in planning agreements.

But has this happened? Not yet, and it even seems neglected. This writer\'s research shows that a geographic information system (GIS) is unavailable in Indonesia, even though it is one of the most important tools for a variety of needs in planning and decision-making. GIS is needed not just by the government; the private sector also needs and uses GIS for investment. What is available is geographic information (without a system), which is independent and cannot be exchanged or used for time series analyses.

The writer does not speak about the extremely sophisticated (advanced) aspects of GIS, such as artificial intelligence (AI), but rather about the basic capabilities of GIS software. In fact, the high cost of compiling/building a database can be ignored if data can be shared. According to a US study, data sharing produces four times the profit when building data (URISA). Disaster data is currently available, but not on an adequate scale, and is only available at a small scale (1:250,000), whereas a more detailed scale is needed for cities.

Data integration

Decisions and policy plans at different levels also require different data. It is impossible to talk about decisions (policies) without seeing the hierarchy of decision-making.

For example, let’s talk about a city with a 2.5 million population. It falls under the mayor’s authority or jurisdiction to refer to this figure. However, the head of the population office must be able to refer to this figure in more detail, until the very last digit. A village head must also be able to explain this figure better. Here, it means that the data must be gathered from the ground up, not from the top. Meanwhile, the instruction comes from the top (policy) and is then translated into an action. Huxhold (1991) describes this database development process in a simple way.

The licensing system, which the government is integrating electronically (online single submission/OSS) and is implemented, is very good. However, without the support of clear hierarchical data, it is useless because the data has a different meaning for a mayor, who is more interested in making strategic decisions with investors that are oriented more towards the technical matters of operation. This has also happened in the one map policy, which is a good concept but has not (yet) been integrated vertically and horizontally.

Disagreements in this data relate to the existing paradigm, and the different levels of decision-making involved causes unclear interpretations in licensing. Licensure as a development instrument should be understood according to the decision-making hierarchy and authorities by referring to the Huxhold diagram, which shows the different levels of authority in decision-making.

In connection with this licensing hierarchy, the Meikarta case indirectly illustrates the different data needed for each licensing level (principle permits, location permits, planning permits, and building permits/IMB).

In connection with this licensing hierarchy, the Meikarta case indirectly illustrates the different data needed for each licensing level (principle permits, location permits, planning permits, and building permits/IMB). Principle permits are more to do with strategic decisions whether it is available in the development plans or not; location permits are more tactical because they refer to location, including the investor’s ability to clear land; planning permits are about integrating with the surrounding areas; while the IMB is more operational because it refers to building safety, environmental comfort, etc.

It can be concluded that data is vital. Unfortunately, however, the effort to build a database is still neglected. The one data policy and the one map policy already exist, but must be viewed in the broader context of the decision-making hierarchy and the variety of interests (understanding) across sectors. Integrating data or maps, both vertically and horizontally, can no longer be neglected given the high costs of correcting a wrong decision or policy. A more intriguing question is whether the data is deliberately not being made so that we can be more "flexible" and accountability is more difficult? Of course, this cannot be the case. As Edward Deming said, “Without data, you are just another person with an opinion.”

Roos Akbar, Urban planning professor, ITB