Next Article in Journal
Resilience Thinking and Landscape Complexity in the Basentello Valley (BA, MT), c. AD 300–800
Next Article in Special Issue
The Climate of My Neighborhood: Households’ Willingness to Adapt to Urban Climate Change
Previous Article in Journal
Historical Evolution and Multidimensional Characterisation of the Butia Palm Landscape: A Comprehensive Conservation Approach
Previous Article in Special Issue
Proposing a Governance Model for Environmental Crises
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Land
Volume 12
Issue 3
10.3390/land12030650
land-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Community-Based Approach for Climate Resilience and COVID-19: Case Study of a Climate Village (Kampung Iklim) in Balikpapan, Indonesia

by
Ariyaningsih
* and
Rajib Shaw
Graduate School of Media and Governance, Keio University, Fujisawa 252-0816, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Land 2023, 12(3), 650; https://doi.org/10.3390/land12030650
Submission received: 5 February 2023 / Revised: 25 February 2023 / Accepted: 7 March 2023 / Published: 10 March 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Using the Climate Smart Communities Approach to Achieve Resilient Communities and Landscapes)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
COVID-19 and climate change are widely recognized to negatively impact communities in developing countries. Like several other developing countries, Indonesia also dealt with climatic hazards such as flooding and landslides during the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, after the Paris Agreement was signed, the government launched a “Climate Village” program or Kampung Iklim (ProKlim) to enhance community contribution in addressing climatic hazard impacts. Yet, numerous studies have researched integrating COVID-19 and climate change impacts, which calls for a concept of community resilience. To bridge this gap, the objective of this research is to understand and measure the local adaptation and mitigation activities in ProKlim through the smart village concept. Methodological literature review, situation analysis through interviews, and field observations are applied in this study. This research used five indicators to measure the current situation of the Climate Village, which are: resilience, mobility, community, perspectives and digitalization. The findings reveal that the implementation of smart villages in ProKlim is still in its preliminary stages and must seek innovation and system integration from smart cities and smart communities. This research also suggests feasible strategies to build community resilience: (i) collaborative governance in the Climate Village program implementation, (ii) promoting the Climate Village program to other sectors for ICT, and (iii) strengthening community participation in implementing the smart village concept.

1. Introduction

COVID-19 has been believed to be the most threatening biological hazard people have ever faced and draws attention to the severity of climate change. Since the COVID-19 outbreak, some researchers have discussed the urgency and concerns related to climate change. Moreover, climate change issues have not been prioritized due to the COVID-19 impact [1]. It is assumed that COVID-19 research and projects have the potential to take away from climate goals. However, climate-related disasters and COVID-19 have had the same massive influence [2]. Evidence also showed that due to the government′s lockdown strategy during COVID-19, economic activities in many sectors responsible for significant greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have nearly collapsed [3]. Moreover, current evidence in Germany shows that the staying-at-home strategy or isolating the effects of COVID-19 have increased energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions [4]. In addition, the research conducted in Liberia revealed that climate-resilient initiatives also have adverse effects due to the COVID-19 crisis [5]. Numerous studies on the correlation between COVID-19 and climate change have been examined during COVID-19. In the meantime, some researchers have questioned climate change′s role as one of the possible causes of the emergence of this virus [6,7]. However, only a few of them have researched incorporating climate change and COVID-19 as compound hazards into a concept of community resilience. For instance, previous research only discusses the relationship between climate change impact and COVID-19 [1,8,9], COVID-19 and air quality [10] and COVID-19 related to waste management [11,12].
Climate change and COVID-19 negatively impact low-income communities in developing countries [13]. As a developing country, Indonesia is simultaneously dealing with climate change impacts and COVID-19. According to the Indonesian COVID-19 task force website (https://covid19.go.id/id (accessed on 15 December 2022)), the total number of positive cases in January 2023 was 6,726,086 people, with 160,727 deaths. To deal with COVID-19, the Indonesian government (GoI) has implemented several national and regional policies, such as a lockdown strategy, social distancing and fund assistance [14,15]. However, the COVID-19 outbreak has shown limitations in its regulations. A top-down approach has typically been used rather than a bottom-up [16]. During COVID-19, Indonesia was still dealing with the climate change impacts and climate-related hazards, such as floods and landslides [17,18]. From January 2022 to December 2022, 3494 natural hazards were recorded in Indonesia. Floods are Indonesia′s most common natural hazard, with 1506 cases representing 43.1 per cent of total disaster cases. In addition, there were 1045 extreme weather events, 633 landslides, 251 forest fires or land fires, 28 earthquakes, 26 erosions, and 4 droughts [19]. Developing and revising strategies or policies to manage not only the COVID-19 pandemic itself, but also potential impacts and interconnections with other crises such as climate crisis, will be a constant challenge for countries while COVID-19 continues.
Comprehensive measures such as climate change policies, legislation, strategies, and programs have been developed by Indonesia′s government (GoI) to support adaptation to and mitigation of climate change impacts [20,21]. The government aims to reduce climate change impacts through land use planning, energy conservation, sustainable waste management, and clean and renewable energy sources. Unfortunately, the government cannot stand alone to tackle climate change impacts in the current era of global governance; instead, expanding the collaboration is highly required. Furthermore, a study conducted in Bangladesh highlights that an improved stakeholders′ network pattern is essential [22]. In line with that, the Government of Indonesia (GoI) has started collaboration among all stakeholders and communities to implement adaptation and mitigation actions effectively and achieve national climate goals ultimately [21]. As climatic hazards influence outbreak response worldwide, the COVID-19 pandemic will provide governments with the greatest challenge in handling compound hazards. A long-term strategy for pandemic preparedness is necessary for climate adaptation, and immediate action is necessary to reduce the deaths caused by climate change [23].
The Government of Indonesia (GoI) launched a ground-breaking project in 2012 through the Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MoEF), known as “Kampung Iklim” (or ProKlim [24]. ProKlim′s primary goal is to raise public awareness of climate change and its impacts on Indonesia, strengthen community resilience, and promote a low-carbon lifestyle. In addition, based on the Director General of Climate Change Number in 2017, Proklim′s objectives include improving local communities′ ability to adapt to climate change and involving more communities in sharing information and best adaptation and mitigation practices. According to legislation by the Minister of Environment and Forestry of the Republic of Indonesia in 2016, ProKlim (Program Kampung Iklim) is an award that recognizes local climate actions taken by community villages. ProKlim also aims to strengthen and enhance communities through government support and expand community participation and stakeholder involvement, such as the private sector, civil society organizations, NGOs, and academia. Furthermore, to prioritize this program, the government includes ProKlim in the national medium-term strategic program, which will continue to be strengthened and prioritized until 2030, with a target of 20,000 villages or sub-districts by 2025.
Communities at the local level must be included in the planning process to mitigate the effects of climate change and biological hazard (the COVID-19 pandemic) and disaster preparedness and response strategies. The community-based disaster approach has received much attention from researchers in recent years. For instance, this concept is used for flood disasters [25], agriculture sectors [26,27], and other climate change issues [28,29,30]. However, it is a well-known fact that the research discussing the role of the community in simultaneously coping with compound hazards such as COVID-19 and climate change to assist government policies is extremely limited. The research on climate change and COVID-19 only discusses the impacts of COVID-19 or only focuses on the relationship [6,31,32,33]. In light of the increasing amount of evidence linking the COVID-19 pandemic and the growing frequency and severity of climatic hazards, this research tries to understand and measure the current condition of the local community to adapt to climate change during COVID-19 through the Climate Village program, while addressing research questions: (i) What is the current condition of ProKlim activities? (ii) What are the feasible strategies to build community resilience to address compound hazards (climatic hazards and climate change) in the ProKlim area? In addition, this research adopts a methodological literature review and interviews. In recognition that the previous research for managing compound hazards at the local level is less integrated with the smart village approach or lack of a community-based approach, the authors believe that this novel community approach, which combines theory and case studies, will be better implemented in the future.
In the remaining parts, we focus on the literature on smart villages and community-based approaches in the context of COVID-19 and climate change in Section 2. In addition, Section 3 describes the methodology used in this study and the context and case study of Balikpapan City, Indonesia. Section 4 provides results on overviews of the Climate Village (ProKlim) and the implementation of the Climate Village in addressing climate change impacts and COVID-19. Section 5 discusses the findings and the community-based approach′s outcomes. In addition, this section also emphasizes challenges. Section 6 summarizes our findings, advances conclusions, and suggests future research.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Kampung toward Climate Smart Village for Managing Multiple Hazard

After COVID-19 began, several climate hazards collided with the outbreak, putting vulnerable people at risk [23]. Besides the COVID-19′s sudden impact, climate change′s impact, such as flooding, landslides, and heatwave, worsens yearly. To overcome climate change issues, the village community has implemented an adaptation and mitigation plan at the lowest level to deal with climate change impacts, such as raising floors and roofs to avoid the flood risk that inundates the community house. COVID-19, on the other hand, significantly influences climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies [34]. The fact is that COVID-19 has caused significant delays in implementing many programs, including green and climate-smart initiatives in many countries [5]. On the other hand, the lesson of the COVID-19 pandemic includes the importance of taking a holistic and balanced approach to managing environmental and climatic factors, especially at the local or village level [35].
Kampungs are a type of settlement in Indonesia with unique characteristics [36]. In Indonesia, the village (or kampung) is at the lowest administrative level and is particularly vulnerable to climate change [37]. Kampung means village (kampong in Malaysia-Melayu language) and it is applied to describe the administrative area of a rural village in Indonesia, the same as the term “desa” [36,38]. Moreover, an urban kampung is typically populated by people who have relocated from a rural village searching for employment. As a result, the community shares the same characteristics. This urban kampung preserves the characteristics of a village in an urban area while also transforming the economic activity of its residents from primary (agriculture and livestock) to formal-informal livelihood [24,36].
At the village level, a climate-smart village is a grand European concept to tackle climate change locally. In this definition, the term “smart villages” refers to communities that refuse to expect change and instead produce ideas and take initiative, shifting from reactive to proactive [39]. One envisioned outcome of a “smart village” is smart growth, or an economy based on learning, discovery, and invention [40]. In addition, the smart village′s idea is represented as a development model centered on five main categories: Resilience, Mobility, Community, Perspectives, and Digitalization [41]. In this classification, resilience means implementing pro-environmental policies and solutions, increasing local food production and availability, and strengthening working and pre-working-age citizens′ hard and soft skills. For mobility, it guarantees that public transport in those areas is integrated, including the accessibility and condition of transport facilities and infrastructure. In addition, community in this category refers to community activity and social participation, whether active or passive. Perspectives define activities that foster a cohesive and active community as social participation. In the meantime, digitalization ensures Internet access, including for the elderly and those at risk of digital poverty or social exclusion;, as well as the digitalization of public services [41,42,43,44].
While the idea of a “smart village” is based on the larger model of a “smart city”, the challenges that rural and urban areas face appear to be unique and require different solutions when these two ideas are implemented [42,44,45]. Regarding the discrepancy between rural and urban areas, it could be argued that sustainable development in both “smart” settlements—cities and villages—requires a focus on the community rather than on other parts [44]. In addition, research on smart villages can be divided into eight categories: social, material, technical, organizational, economic, administrative, technological, and auxiliary, which include public services and technology (e.g., objectives, challenges, and conditions) [44]. Even though culture is not discussed much in the current literature, it plays an essential role and should not be ignored in smart villages [21,41,46]. Although digitalization and inventiveness are central to the idea of smart villages, this term cannot be overly defined because it implies processes in the context of responses and transformations to the causing challenges, rather than specific domains of activity.
The European Union has adopted a comprehensive and integrative strategy to achieve the same ends. For instance, the German project ‘Digitale Dörfer’, running from 2015 to 2019, provides another example of implementing the smart village concept [47]. Since most Germans (63.3 percent) reside in rural areas, the smart strategy for rural development is consistent with the country′s overall development objectives. Increasingly, urbanization is not resistant to COVID-19, so the climate adaptation community needs to work on a long-term plan for COVID-19 preparedness [23,44,48,49]. Environmental (sustainable management of resources, ecosystem resilience) and socioeconomic (institutional organization, empowerment, food security) factors are both considered in the climate-smart village approach, which encourages the development of context-specific land management practices through community participation [43]. When a climate-smart village strategy was implemented, an innovation platform emerged as the method′s primary driving force [43,50]. Finally, the smart abilities of the residents of a community determine how “smart” that community is. The extent to which we can shape knowledge is primarily determined by the community′s needs [51].

2.2. Community-Based Approach for Climate Stress and COVID-19

It is well understood that communities stand to suffer the most in the event of a disaster [52] because they are the first to experience the effects of disasters [53]. In the same situation as when the pandemic was confirmed, most communities should be able to respond to COVID-19. In some cases, the community is assisted by institutions and they work together in dealing with this biological hazard [54]. Communities must be resilient in order to better prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters. A people-centered DRR (Disaster Risk Reduction) program design is needed, and understanding the community′s exposure could help strengthen community disaster resilience [55,56]. Moreover, there is growing evidence that a community-based approach can help to adapt and mitigate climate change′s negative effects while fostering individual agency and societal resilience [57]. Sustainable community resilience can only be encouraged with the local initiative′s help and its residents′ creativity. Therefore, international agencies, national and local governments, experts, academics, and NGO or non-profit organizations can help create locally relevant, sustainable, and culturally appropriate solutions by adequately supporting community-based approaches that directly engage the vulnerable population.
The resilience′s capacity to ensure buffer capacity in the face of system damage can encourage scientifically grounded coordination and decision-making. When people have unequal opportunities to obtain necessities such as food, water, and medical care, their social networks and social capital deteriorate as a result [58]. To survive the COVID-19 epidemic, people needed to rely on their connections to the community and traditional wisdom [59]. However, local resilience to climate change has received little attention during COVID-19 since community resilience to disasters such as climate change is tied to certain essential features inside the community, including social capital, local resources, social innovation, and centralized decision-making. In the meantime, technological infrastructure built into cities can help people better cope in the face of a pandemic [60]. Interventions to promote resilience at the local level should address the potential effects of the intervention on system resilience rather than focusing solely on one form of climate impact [61]. Thus, it is preferable to engage in measures that lessen the system′s exposure to risk as a whole rather than those that address a single risk factor [61]. Lastly, there are numerous aspects to consider. However, two key obstacles that question the environmental and social sustainability paradigms associated with resilience are climate change, urban planning in light of the COVID-19 outbreak, and post-COVID-19 challenges [62]. Furthermore, this research′s conceptual understanding can be seen in Figure 1.

3. Method and Study Case

3.1. Research Methodology

A scoping review of the grey literature was conducted to achieve our research goal. While systematic reviews are frequently used to report on the efficacy of interventions, scoping reviews are better suited to answering more broad questions and can be used to cover knowledge gaps in the current body of literature [63]. Documents from the grey literature can benefit practitioners and decision-makers in various sectors since they usually include policy and research information from credible sources and are easily accessible [64].
The following is a description of the analysis stages carried out in this study, and the flow of the research can be seen in Figure 2.
Step 1: Content analysis. In this step, regulations and the literature were reviewed. The qualitative phase was performed by analyzing relevant Indonesian laws in the Climate Village (ProKlim Policy). A literature review related to climate-smart villages and community-based approach was conducted (the results of the literature review can be seen in the previous sub-section, which are Section 2.1 and Section 2.2). In addition, policy review and policy analysis were performed in this step.
Step 2: Situation analysis and interview. From Step 1, the policy and literature review results were compared to the Climate Village′s current condition and implementation. The respondents were chosen based on purposive sampling from each village (15 villages selected). During the interview, respondents were asked about five indicators for measuring smart village conditions (Resilience, Mobility, Community, Perspectives, and Digitization). The scoring was used to describe the state of Balikpapan villages. Each condition was rated between 1 (poor, not available/nonexistent) and 5 (good, fully sufficient). The combination of this process generates the strategies for a community-based approach for climate-smart communities for managing compound hazards: Climate Change and COVID-19.

3.2. Case Study Area (Balikpapan, Indonesia)

Balikpapan City relies on the direct trade and industry center for its economy [65]. There are many urban villages in this city. In addition, Balikpapan City was also chosen because of its vulnerability to climate change issues, particularly flood risk, and community interest in understanding climate change and developing strategies to address negative impacts [18]. Furthermore, according to COVID-19 national data, Balikpapan City was the largest contributor to COVID-19 cases in 2021, compared to other cities in East Kalimantan Province. Moreover, Balikpapan has registered 15 kampungs in its communities in the government′s Climate Village program. According to data from the Balikpapan City Environmental Agency (2022), only three villages were registered with ProKlim in 2018 (Teritip, Manggar, and Lamaru). Further, in 2019, villages were registered, namely the Kariangau and Karangjoang villages. When the pandemic started in 2020, surprisingly, Balikpapan City increased to a total of 12 Climate Villages, which was reported in ProKlim. However, in 2021, only three villages took part in this program. Finally, Balikpapan City currently has 15 ProKlim villages. Figure 3 shows the distribution of Kampung Iklim in (Balikpapan City) Indonesia.

4. Results

4.1. Climate Village (ProKlim) Policies in National Level

Article 70 of the Law of the Republic of Indonesia No. 32 of 2009 on Environmental Protection and Management mentions that the community has the same rights and opportunities to participate actively in environmental protection and management. To support the community′s rights and opportunities, the Indonesian government has been trying to improve environmental regulations related to village development, as seen in Figure 4. Climate change policies come in various forms, including laws, government regulations, and presidential decrees. Indonesia became aware of climate change after approving the UNFCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change); as a result, in 2010, Indonesia developed the Indonesia Climate Change Sectoral Roadmap (ICCSR), which was later translated into the 2014 National Action Plan for Climate Change Adaptation (RAN-API).
Indonesia has approved and signed the Paris Agreement through Law No. 16/2016 to increase its dedication to tackling climate change based on the data of the Government of Indonesia in 2016 [66]. To support the Paris Agreement, at the end of 2016, Indonesia launched the Climate Village program (ProKlim) to enhance the adaptation to and mitigation of climate change regulation. ProKlim has a legislative framework for implementation in the structure of the Minister of Environment Regulation No. 19/2012 on the Climate Village program. The Regulation of the Minister of Environment and Forestry Number: P.84/MenLHK-Setjen/Kum.1/11/2016 on the Climate Village program serves as the legal foundation or legal umbrella for ProKlim, which has been followed by the Regulation of the Director General of Climate Change Control Number: P.1/PPI/SET/KUM.1/2/2017 on Guidelines for Implementing the Climate Village Program. In addition, the updated regulation regarding ProKlim is Regulation of the Director General of Climate Change Number P.4/PPI/API/PPI.0/3/2021 Concerning Guidelines for Implementing the Climate Village Program.
The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) is in charge of the national-level ProKlim program, which aims to enhance stakeholder participation, including the community, in building resilience to climate change impacts and decreasing GHG (Green Gas House) emissions, as well as recognizing mitigation and adaptation action plans that can improve local welfare [67]. ProKlim has the potential to provide knowledge and skills to the community to face and tackle the climate change impacts, as an empowerment approach to achieve local SDGs (sustainable development goals). ProKlim is a bottom-up policy set by the government to achieve the Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) target in 2030, where Indonesia aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 29 (twenty-nine) per cent through the (government) effort to 41 (forty-one) percent (in collaboration with the international agency) as part of Indonesia′s commitment to the Paris Agreement, which has previously been followed up in the form of the issuance of the Law of the Republic of Indonesia [68]. The growth of ProKlim is through the enrichment of innovative climate change adaptation and mitigation initiatives implemented in collaboration between the government (party) and “Non-Party Stakeholders”. The empowerment of communities in ProKlim is intended to improve their capacity to adapt to and mitigate climate change. In the practical sphere, community empowerment has guided the success of development programs, particularly in rural areas. ProKlim is thus handled to succeed in both community sustainability and independence [68].
Climate change adaptation and mitigation measures are the key components of ProKlim implementation, with the types of activities chosen by the Ministry of Environment and Forestry. Adaptation measures include (a) climate disaster management, (b) boosting food security, (c) dealing with or anticipating climate disasters in coastal areas, and (d) controlling climate-related diseases. However, mitigation measures include (a) waste and waste management, (b) the application of new renewable energy and energy conservation, (c) low GHG emission agricultural production, (d) increasing plant cover, and (e) forest and land fire prevention and control. The government intends to record ProKlim activities in more than 10,000 Climate Village locations scattered across all provinces in Indonesia to indicate ProKlim′s success in achieving Indonesia′s 2030 NDC objective. By 2030, each district/city in Indonesia is scheduled to have at least 20 ProKlim locations of various types, including Pratama, Madya, Utama, and Lestari.

4.2. Implementation Climate Village (Kampung Iklim) in Balikpapan City, Indonesia

East Kalimantan has joined the FCPF (Forest Carbon Partnership Facility) program, a global partnership of government, business, civil society, and indigenous peoples that focuses on reducing deforestation and forest degradation emissions, conserving forest carbon stocks, implementing sustainable forest management, and increasing forest carbon stocks in national development. The activities are called REDD + (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation), which are a mechanism to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by compensating parties that prevent deforestation and forest degradation [69]. The ERPD proposal document mentions Balikpapan′s Kampung Iklim (Climate Village program), demonstrating that Balikpapan is prepared to implement the ProKlim′s adaptation and mitigation programs based on the East Borneo Environmental Agency in 2022.
In Balikpapan, the village program (Kampung Iklim program) is being implemented, and several villages are receiving financial assistance through CSR (Corporate Social Responsibilities). ProKlim in Manggar, for instance, is from the government, and its community, The Agriculture and Fisheries Food Service, the Non-Government Organization of Manggar Village, and public companies such as Pertamina RU (Refinery Unit) V, PT. Pama Persada, and PT. Thiess Haliburton Astra Group all collaborated on this program as well. The activities at the Manggar ProKlim include the conservation of mangrove forests for eco-tourism, waste management with a sanitary landfill system, and intercrop or polyculture for the agricultural system. Meanwhile, in Kampung Baru village, the collaboration is with PT. Pama Persada and PT. THIESS, with support from the government program KOTAKU “no slums in the cities” program.
Karangjoang′s village program also collaborates under a CSR (Corporate Social Responsibilities) scheme, as with Astra Company and State Electricity Company of Indonesia (PLN). According to observations and interviews, the ProKlim in Balikpapan has increased community awareness of nature. Proklim impacted the microclimate change by indirectly decreasing micro-temperature and contributing to lowering disaster risk by implementing mangrove conservation. Furthermore, ProKlim in Balikpapan is thought to be effective in preserving rainwater through rainwater harvesting, conserving biodiversity through mangrove conservation, securing food stock using hydroponic and aquaculture, providing green space for eco-tourism or leisure, and also increasing social cohesion. Table 1 and Figure 5 show the activities of PrKklim in Balikpapan City.
In Balikpapan, where most of the area is coastal, mangrove conservation activities dominate the Climate Village program. Mangrove conservation activities in Balikpapan contribute to the local economy through eco-tourism, in addition to helping reduce the impact of climate change. It is emphasized that evolving forestry programs with the local community in Indonesia have improved the community′s legal access to forest management, to meet their livelihood needs while maintaining and improving forest cover [70]. Communities in Balikpapan Bay, East Kalimantan, whose livelihoods rely on the natural productivity of mangrove forests, have benefited economically from restoration activities through the increased harvesting of wood and fish products [65,70]. Furthermore, according to the respondents, Kampung Kangkung in Sumberejo village in Balikpapan City, established in 2019 by a community leader initiative, has the potential to become a Climate Village (Kampung Iklim) because the village has implemented food security measures and converted its garden land into educational tourism activities. However, this village does not have a ProKlim registration.
Waste management is the second most common activity in the Climate Village program. The construction of the Manggar landfill area is one example of waste management, with innovations using methane gas from waste as a source of electricity for lighting and an alternative fuel for gas stoves. Climate change mitigation activities in these kampungs include solid waste management through the containerization and collection, processing, utilization, and application of the zero-waste concept. However, only one village used rainwater harvesting to address water issues in their community. Twelve of the fifteen respondents believe that the community had a deficient perception of the performance of ProKlim activities during COVID-19; nonetheless, they are aware that the program is good and that the climate change issues are being addressed.
Regarding resilience, all respondents believe that implementing smart villages in ProKlim is still in its early stages and they must seek innovation and system integration from smart cities and smart communities. Because most local governments and communities are used to working with individual systems, this integration is still a major challenge. Figure 6 shows the community′s perception of the existing conditions in the villages implementing ProKlim during COVID-19. The clusters were divided into sub-districts by the researchers. According to the findings of the primary survey, the East Balikpapan sub-district ranks first in the community category. South Balikpapan, on the other hand, is positive in the mobility category. South Balikpapan is a developed area that serves as the primary network for trade and business centers. Respondents agreed that mobility was their potential to implement the Climate Village program due to the good accessibility and well-connected road in South Balikpapan; on the other hand, people in East Balikpapan stated that the family character and community initiatives had a significant impact on the progress of the ProKlim (Climate Village) program.
In North Balikpapan, the community category scores highly on Kampung Iklim (ProKlim) activities. According to the interview results, many activities involve the community, which is classified as active in carrying out adaptation or mitigation in the Climate Village program. All categories in West Balikpapan have the same value. This category can be described as balanced, as nothing stands out. Overall, the Climate Village villages in Balikpapan have good implementation in terms of local food provision and sufficient participation when contributing to Climate Village program policies. However, digitalization is still far from expectations because some communities, especially elderly people, cannot access the internet due to a lack of Wi-Fi, and few residents have smartphones. In fact, digitalization is critical to implementing the smart village concept and supporting the village′s goals. Moreover, respondents believe that social media platforms can help with communicating during COVID-19, citizen participation, and interaction with local governments. Facebook, Twitter, and even Instagram are direct channels for citizens to communicate with local government and express their desires. There is compelling evidence that social media assists governments in empowering citizens and expanding democracy, particularly in more open local governments [71,72].

5. Discussion

The current state of readiness of Balikpapan′s Climate Villages to become smart villages is still in its early stages. This is proven by the fact that only a few villages have been registered in the Climate Village program (about 15 villages have been registered). They have the potential to become smart villages based on the findings of the situation analysis. Digitalization technologies such as big data, AI, and IoT used by the community can foster smart village implementation. As stated in the literature review, digitalization is critical for the formation of smart villages and smart communities. As a result, digitalization has the potential to improve the innovation and transition that occurs in the traditional world, and digitalization in the village can be effectively implemented through the collaborative integration of businesses, community, and government municipalities [73].
Stakeholders from the Government of East Kalimantan Province explained climate change policies in regencies/cities throughout East Kalimantan, and climate change targets for 2030 aligned with Regional Strategic Planning [24]. Moreover, it is hoped that the City of Balikpapan can achieve climate resilience at the local level by reducing carbon emissions, so that the threshold for increasing the earth′s temperature below 2 degrees Celsius is maintained and that it can be reduced to 1.5 degrees Celsius. The mitigation and adaptation of climate change efforts at the site level are critical to building resilience in protecting food, water, and energy resources [74]. The current situation is that the government has fully supported it through ProKlim. Practically, however, community readiness and awareness are still required to implement this program. ProKlim is intended to support low-carbon and climate-resilient development policies consistent with a commitment to contribute to global efforts to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.
The active participation of the community and other stakeholders is required to build national resilience in the face of a changing climate and to meet the target of reducing the GHG emissions set by Law Number 16 of 2016 [21]. With the preparation of the ProKlim Road Map, it is expected that strengthening local climate change adaptation and mitigation actions at the site level will run more efficiently, resulting in real positive benefits for the nation and state of Indonesia. Interventions and guidance provided by governments and multilateral institutions in response to COVID-19, the climate crisis, and their confluence must consider the communities′ specific vulnerabilities, needs, and circumstances. After reflecting and conducting case studies at the community level, as well as investigating their integration with national regulations, the strategies that can be implemented for the smart village program to support climate-smart communities are shown in Figure 7 and described as follows:

5.1. Collaborative Governance in the Climate Village Program Implementation

Problem-solving collaboration between departments and public organizations is possible [75]. This can require municipalities and/or government departments to share responsibility and authority with the private sector, local community, and stakeholders collaborating on problem-solving and decision-making [45,76,77]. Based on the implementation of the ProKlim program in Balikpapan, it is possible to conclude that cities must address challenges, issues, and opportunities beyond policy enablers to control policies for relevant activities. Since the local government cannot achieve success on its own, it may be beneficial to enable the integration of policies at various levels of government, encouraging the participation of a diverse range of stakeholders, implementing an open data policy that makes data freely available to the public without restrictions, and investigating new and novel sources of funding that could assist cities in successfully implementing environmentally friendly projects [39,78,79]. Therefore, institutional design, which is based on participatory inclusiveness, forum exclusivity, clear ground rules, and process transparency, can support and collaborate with various parties in smart village activities [45].
The difficulty of collecting data, evaluating effectiveness, and considering potential trade-offs and synergies across domains is exacerbated because adaptation and mitigation cross traditional sectoral boundaries. For instance, adaptation measures are frequently associated with long timelines and ambiguous, potentially shifting goals. Measuring their impact using conventional government planning can be challenging. To address these issues, collaboration can occur at various levels and can be inter-organizational, cross-sectoral, or through government–community relations [80,81,82]. Integration and collaboration between governments are also tricky when each government′s programs and plans overlap [45,83]. As a result, the program′s implementation is rendered ineffective. Thus, the Climate Village program must be integrated with low-emission spatial planning and development plans and participatory and transparent management.

5.2. Promoting the Climate Village Program to Other Sectors for ICT

The findings show that digitalization is low in Balikpapan′s ProKlim. On the other hand, technology incorporates a wide range of tools to facilitate data and information sharing between city administrations, government institutions and departments, citizens, and all parties involved in smart city projects. Some examples include wired and wireless internet access, interconnected and ubiquitous computer networks, always-on systems, completely virtual technologies, and an architecture focused on providing user services [84,85]. Social media and other ICT-based applications can increase community engagement in public debates and inform government about community needs. The community can then be viewed as one of the primary sources of information about what is going on in the site or village [29,86,87]
Establishing smart communities in smart cities typically has intersectoral links and promotes community participation in decision-making, monitoring services, and supporting feedback beyond collaboration between government agencies [88]. Furthermore, external collaboration can be improved through involvement and partnership with stakeholders such as private companies, universities, community representatives, and specific groups [45,89,90]. They collaborate with companies to ensure the success of ProKlim activities, just as the villages in Balikpapan have done. Public–private partnerships (P-P-Ps), inter-sectoral partnerships, and relationships with citizens whose lives are tangentially impacted by ProKlim activities are all examples of external collaboration. The local community must be able to keep up with the development of new technologies and smart processes, posing a challenge to government agencies [80]. In addition, this impedes the government′s efforts to address human resources issues and the limited budget, limiting progress in some areas. Collaboration between universities, companies, and government is one strategy to overcome this issue.

5.3. Strengthening Community Participation in the Smart Village Concept Implementation

Consistent with the literature review, the data analysis reveals that ICT (Information and Communication Technology) significantly facilitates information and sharing and integrates government and community. The relationship between communities and governments can be improved through community engagement because it promotes two-way communication, collaboration, and participation [91]. Adaptability, interaction patterns, and the capacity of communities in the digital transformation process all assist smart village implementation. In the face of climate change, local communities must take the lead to mitigate its effects and respond fairly to those it affects. When given the chance and resources, communities can plan for, adapt to, and respond to emergencies [25,57,92].
Despite the global uncertainties, there is still hope for programs that use local knowledge and resources and involve the community participants in program implementation, design, and planning. The ability of communities to adapt conditions has been shown to improve when mitigation and adaptation processes are built from the ground up, as has been argued in the academic literature [29,93]. It is essential to develop flexible strategies where the community, as in Kampung Sumberejo, may initiate programs. The process would consist of transformative action on national, regional, and international scales, participatory solutions, and iterative learning at the local level.
According to the findings [52], the most critical part of the role of local actors is partnership and collaboration. Every organization has its own unique characteristics, resources, and knowledge bases. To improve the response to COVID-19, strategies are needed by putting SFDRR (Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction) into action. The strategies currently in place for community disaster resilience have the capability to improve the COVID-19 responses by supporting scientific knowledge in the understanding of risks, strengthening risk governance, and enhancing community-based activities [94].

5.4. Policy Implication of This Case Study

The application of the strategies mentioned above is an important matter to community resilience at the local level. The implementation of smart villages or a community-based approach that is integrated at the local level needs to be taken forward as the policy. The research findings and proposed strategies in this research generate prospects for the government or decision-makers or other stakeholders to deliberately aspire for policy planning. Moreover, the method and approach adopted for this research can overcome the issue at the local level and identify the current potency or characteristics for smart village implementation. The indicators for identifying the current situation reflect the adaptation choices of communities, which provides new insights into moving towards resilience. In addition, for preparing a disaster risk policy or community-based approach for compound hazards, the stakeholders can conduct more detailed studies to achieve community resilience. Generally, this study reflects that a community-based approach based on compound hazards for the implementation of the smart village can be used as an approach to prioritize interests and also identify community adaptation or mitigation for climate action at the lowest level.

6. Conclusions

This research contributes to a better understanding of implementing a community-based strategy in implementing Climate Villages. This research makes major contributions to feasible strategies to implement smart communities in the Climate Village program. The research′s evidence-based land literature review results show that the local community at the site level suffers from climate change and COVID-19. Based on a theoretical perspective, this research explains how to measure the readiness of a Climate Village using five indicators (Resilience, Mobility, Community, Perspectives, and Digitalization). This study investigated the context of the Climate Village program (ProKlim) of the Central Government, which is implemented by local government and community. The proposed strategies are divided into three: (i) Collaborative governance in the implementation of the Climate Village program, (ii) Promoting the Climate Village program to other sectors for ICT, and (iii) Strengthening community participation in implementing the smart village concept. The limitation of this research is that the cases are only located at the kampung level, or village level; as a result, the findings may only apply to this specific scenario. Future research should focus on higher levels of development area to identify the challenges in each context. In addition, future research should be integrated with national planning. Regarding the constraints of the study, it is possible to point out that there were a restricted number of participants. Only one person in each kampung agreed to be interviewed by authors.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.; methodology, A.; analysis, A.; investigation, A.; writing—original draft preparation, A.; writing—review and editing, A. and R.S.; visualization, A.; supervision, R.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscripts.

Funding

This research received funding from Doctoral Student Grant-in-Aid Program by the Ushioda Memorial Fund 2022, Keio University, Japan.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available upon request from the authors.

Acknowledgments

The first author acknowledges MEXT-Japan scholarship and the Global Resilience and Innovation Laboratory (GRIL), Keio University for providing support in carrying out research. Thanks to the local government of Balikpapan City especially for Environmental Agency for providing data.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Loureiro, M.L.; All, M. How Has the COVID-19 Pandemic Affected the Climate Change Debate on Twitter? Environ. Sci. Policy 2021, 124, 451–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Izumi, T.; Shaw, R. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction a Multi-Country Comparative Analysis of the Impact of COVID-19 and Natural Hazards in India, Japan, the Philippines, and USA. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2022, 73, 102899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Filho, W.L.; Wall, T.; Alves, F.; Nagy, G.J.; Li, C.; Mucova, S.; Joost, J.P.; Ricardo, L.; Rayman-Bacchus, L.; Totin, E.; et al. The Impacts of the Early Outset of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Climate Change Research: Implications for Policy-Making. Environ. Sci. Policy 2021, 124, 267–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Halbrügge, S.; Schott, P.; Weibelzahl, M.; Ulrich, H.; Fridgen, G.; Schöpf, M. How Did the German and Other European Electricity Systems React to the COVID-19 Pandemic? Appl. Energy 2021, 285, 116370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Van Bodegom, A.J.; Koopmanschap, E. The COVID-19 Pandemic and Climate Change Adaptation; Wageningen Centre for Development Innovation: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  6. Fuentes, R.; Galeotti, M.; Lanza, A.; Manzano, B. COVID-19 and Climate Change: A Tale of Two Global Problems. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Guo, Y.; Cao, Q.; Hong, Z.; Tan, Y.; Chen, S.; Jin, H.; Tan, K.; Wang, D.; Yan, Y. The Origin, Transmission and Clinical Therapies on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Outbreak—An Update on the Status. Mil. Med. Res. 2020, 7, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Forster, P.M.; Forster, H.I.; Evans, M.J.; Gidden, M.J.; Jones, C.D.; Keller, C.A.; Lamboll, R.D.; Le Quéré, C.; Rogelj, J.; Rosen, D.; et al. Resulting from COVID-19. Nat. Clim. Change 2020, 10, 913–919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Zou, L.; Ruan, F.; Huang, M.; Liang, L.; Huang, H.; Hong, Z.; Yu, J.; Kang, M.; Song, Y.; Xia, J.; et al. SARS-CoV-2 Viral Load in Upper Respiratory Specimens of Infected Patients. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020, 382, 1177–1179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Becchetti, L.; Conzo, G.; Conzo, P.; Salustri, F. Understanding the Heterogeneity of Adverse COVID-19 Outcomes: The Role of Poor Quality of Air and Lockdown Decisions. SSRN Electron. J. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Szczygielski, J.J.; Charteris, A.; Bwanya, P.R.; Brzeszczyński, J. The Impact and Role of COVID-19 Uncertainty: A Global Industry Analysis. Int. Rev. Financ. Anal. 2022, 80, 101837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Singh, E.; Kumar, A.; Mishra, R.; Kumar, S. Solid Waste Management during COVID-19 Pandemic: Recovery Techniques and Responses. Chemosphere 2022, 288, 132451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. John, W.; Myae, C.; Vidallo, R.; Sin, P.; Zhang, Y.; Monville-oro, E.; Gonsalves, J. Current Research in Environmental Sustainability The Mitigating Role of Climate Smart Villages to the Impacts of COVID-19 Pandemic in the Myanmar Rural Communities. Curr. Res. Environ. Sustain. 2022, 4, 100152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ayu, P.; Candra, C.; Wibawa, G.; Kadek, N.; Arieska, C. Kebijakan pemerintah dalam menangani COVID 19. Ganesha Civ. Educ. J. 2021, 3, 10–18. [Google Scholar]
  15. Ariyaningsih; Sukmara, R.B.; Pradita, L. The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction: Insight from Covid-19 in Balikpapan City, Indonesia. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 896, 12068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Sacks, E.; Yangchen, S.; Marten, R. COVID-19, Climate Change, and Communities. Lancet Planet. Health 2021, 5, e663–e664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ratih Indri Hapsari; Mohammad Zenurianto View of Flood Disaster Management in Indonesia and the Key Solutions. Am. J. Eng. Res. 2016, 5, 140–151.
  18. Ariyaningsih, S.V.; Sukhwani, V.; Shaw, R. Vulnerability Assessment of Balikpapan (Indonesia) for Climate Change-Induced Urban Flooding. Int. J. Disaster Resil. Built Environ. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. BNPB Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana. Data Informasi Bencana Indonesia (DIBI). Available online: https://bnpb.cloud/ (accessed on 17 February 2022).
  20. Tacconi, L.; Muttaqin, M.Z. Forest Policy and Economics Reducing Emissions from Land Use Change in Indonesia: An Overview. For. Policy Econ. 2019, 108, 101979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Rijhwani, V.; Singh, T. Strengthening Community Level Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Actions: Indonesia’s Climate Village Programme (PROKLIM) (pp. 1–10). 2019. Available online: https://www.transparency-partnership.net/system/files/document/200113_GPD_Indonesia_RZ.pdf (accessed on 15 December 2022).
  22. Parvin, G.A.; Dasgupta, R.; Abedin, A.; Ingirige, B.; Kibria, M.G.; Fujita, K.; Basu, M.; Shaw, R.; Nakagawa, H. Disaster Experiences, Associated Problems and Lessons in Southwestern Coastal Bangladesh: Exploring through Participatory Rural Appraisal to Enhance Resilience. Sustain. Resilient Infrastruct. 2023, 8, 223–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Phillips, C.A.; Caldas, A.; Cleetus, R.; Dahl, K.A.; Declet-barreto, J.; Licker, R.; Merner, L.D.; Ortiz-partida, J.P.; Phelan, A.L.; Spanger-siegfried, E.; et al. Compound Climate Risks in the COVID-19 pandemic. Nat. Clim. Change 2020, 10, 586–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Sumbodo, B.T.; Arida, N.S.; Suryasih, I.A. Kampung versus Climate Change: The Dynamics of Community Empowerment through the Climate Village Program (ProKlim) Kampung versus Climate Change: The Dynamics of Community Empowerment through the Climate Village Program (ProKlim). Physics Conf. Ser. 2019, 1424, 12055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Azizi, K.; Kofi, S.; Saija, L.; Ghadir, M.; Meier, C.I. Urban Climate Integrated Community-Based Approaches to Urban Pluvial Flooding Research, Trends and Future Directions: A Review. Urban Clim. 2022, 44, 101237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ogura, S. An Arts-Based Approach to Community Documentation and Revitalization of Nutritious and Drought-Tolerant Indigenous Crops for Climate Change Adaptation. Lancet Planet. Health 2019, 3, S19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Gevaña, D.T.; Pulhin, J.M.; Tapia, M.A. Chapter 13—Fostering Climate Change Mitigation Through a Community-Based Approach: Carbon Stock Potential of Community-Managed Mangroves in the Philippines. In Coastal Management; Krishnamurthy, R.R., Jonathan, M.P., Srinivasalu, S., Glaeser, B., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2019; pp. 271–282. ISBN 978-0-12-810473-6. [Google Scholar]
  28. Leknoi, U.; Yiengthaisong, A.; Likitlersuang, S. Community Engagement Initiative amid Climate Change Crisis: Empirical Evidence from a Survey across Bangkok Metropolis of Thailand. Cities 2022, 131, 103995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Marasco, S.; Kammouh, O.; Cimellaro, G.P. Disaster Resilience Quantification of Communities: A Risk-Based Approach. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2022, 70, 102778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Busayo, E.T.; Kalumba, A.M. Recommendations for Linking Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction in Urban Coastal Zones: Lessons from East London, South Africa. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2021, 203, 105454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Sharifi, A.; Khavarian-Garmsir, A.R. The COVID-19 Pandemic: Impacts on Cities and Major Lessons for Urban Planning, Design, and Management. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 749, 142391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ishiwatari, M.; Koike, T.; Hiroki, K.; Toda, T.; Katsube, T. Managing Disasters amid COVID-19 Pandemic: Approaches of Response to Flood Disasters. Prog. Disaster Sci. 2020, 6, 100096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Vahidi, H.; Taleai, M.; Yan, W.; Shaw, R. Digital Citizen Science for Responding to Covid-19 Crisis: Experiences from Iran. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 9666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Hidayati, I.; Putri, I.A.; Ghani, M.W.; Situmorang, A. Small-Scale Fishing Families and Their Daily Multiple-Stressor on Climate Change and COVID-19: Preliminary Findings Small-Scale Fishing Families and Their Daily Multiple-Stressor on Climate Change and COVID-19: Preliminary Findings. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 739, 12047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Rasul, G. Twin Challenges of COVID-19 Pandemic and Climate Change for Agriculture and Food Security in South Asia. Environ. Chall. 2021, 2, 100027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Funo, S.; Yamamoto, N.; Silas, J. Typology of Kampung Houses and Their Transformation Process—A Study on Urban Tissues of an Indonesian City. J. Asian Arch. Build. Eng. 2002, 1, 193–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  37. Wahyudi, R.; Lasekti, R. Forest Policy and Economics Policy Forum: Village Fund for REDD + in Indonesia: Lessons Learned from Policy Making Process at Subnational Level. For. Policy Econ. 2020, 119, 102274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Colombijn, F. I Am a Singer’: A Conversation with Johan Silas, Architect and Urban Planner in Surabaya, Indonesia. Indonesia 2016, 7–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Sobolewska-Mikulska, K.; Mroczkowski, R. Land Use Policy Implementation of the Smart Village Concept Based on Selected Spatial Patterns—A Case Study of Mazowieckie Voivodeship in Poland. Land Use Policy 2021, 104, 105366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Guzal-Dec, D.; Zwolińska-Ligaj, M.; Zbucki, Ł. The Potential of Smart Development of Urban-Rural Communes in Peripheral Region (a Case Study of the Lublin Region, Poland). Misc. Geogr. 2019, 23, 85–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Chmiel, B.; Zukowska, S.; Połom, M. The Smart Village Concept and Transport Exclusion of Rural Areas—A Case Study of a Village in Northern Poland. Land 2023, 12, 260. [Google Scholar]
  42. Komorowski, Ł. Smart Villages: Where Can They Happen? Land 2020, 9, 151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Sanogo, D.; Sall, M.; Camara, B.A.; Diop, M.; Badji, M.; Ba, H.S. The Climate-Smart Village Approach: Putting Communities at the Heart of Restoration. Sustainability 2020, 10, 2559. [Google Scholar]
  44. Zavratnik, V.; Kos, A.; Duh, E.S. Smart Villages: Comprehensive Review of Initiatives and Practices. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Roidatua, M.R.; Purbantara, A. Collaborative Governance in Developing Smart Village. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Rural Socio-Economic Transformation: Agrarian, Ecology, Communication and Community Development Perspectives, RUSET 2021, Bogor, Indonesia, 14–15 September 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Wang, X.; Kang, M.; Sun, H.; De Reffye, P.; Wang, F. DeCASA in AgriVerse: Parallel Agriculture for Smart Villages in Metaverses. IEEE/CAA J. Autom. Sin. 2022, 9, 2055–2062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. European Network for Rural Development. Digital Villages Germany; ENRD Contact Point: Bruxelles, Belgium, 2019; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  48. Di, M.; Baker, M.L.; Daszak, P.; De Barro, P.; Eskew, E.A.; Godde, C.M. Sustainable Development Must Account for Pandemic Risk. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2020, 117, 3888–3892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Carlson, C.J.; Albery, G.F.; Merow, C.; Trisos, C.; Zipfel, C.; Eskew, E.; Olival, K.; Ross, N.; Bansal, S. Climate change increases cross-species viral transmission risk. Nature 2022, 607, 555–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Raile, E.D.; Young, L.M.; Berger, U.G.; Wooldridge, L.; Post, L.A. Political Will and Public Will for Climate-Smart Agriculture in Senegal Opportunities for Agricultural Transformation. J. Agribus. Dev. Emerg. Econ. 2019, 9, 44–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Wang, Q. Increased Attention to Smart Development in Rural Areas: A Scientometric Analysis of Smart Village Research. Land 2022, 11, 1362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Phong, T.V.G.; Shaw, R. Enhancing Community Resilience Through Information Management: Flood Risk. In Geoinformatics for Natural Resource Management; Nova Science Publishers, Inc.: Hauppauge, NY, USA, 2009; p. 165. [Google Scholar]
  53. Shaw, R. Chapter 1 Overview of Community-Based Disaster Risk Reduction; Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.: Bingley, UK, 2001; Volume 10. [Google Scholar]
  54. Botzen, W.; Duijndam, S.; Van Beukering, P. Lessons for Climate Policy from Behavioral Biases towards COVID-19 and Climate Change Risks. World Dev. 2021, 137, 105214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Mutiarni, Y.S.; Nakamura, H.; Bhattacharya, Y. The Resilient Community: Strengthening People-Centered Disaster Risk Reduction in the Merapi Volcano Community, Java, Indonesia. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Oktari, R.S.; Shiwaku, K.; Munadi, K.; Syamsidik; Shaw, R. Enhancing Community Resilience towards Disaster: The Contributing Factors of School-Community Collaborative Network in the Tsunami Affected Area in Aceh. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2018, 29, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Kirkby, P.; Williams, C.; Huq, S. Community-Based Adaptation (CBA): Adding Conceptual Clarity to the approach, and Establishing Its Principles and Challenges. Clim. Dev. 2018, 10, 577–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Djalante, R.; Shaw, R.; DeWit, A. Building Resilience Against Biological Hazards and Pandemics: COVID-19 and Its Implications for The Sendai Framework. Prog. Disaster Sci. 2020, 6, 100080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Van Doren, T.P.; Zajdman, D.; Brown, R.A.; Gandhi, P.; Heintz, R.; Busch, L.; Simmons, C.; Paddock, R. Social Science & Medicine Risk Perception, Adaptation, and Resilience during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Southeast Alaska Natives. Soc. Sci. Med. 2023, 317, 115609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Ningrum, V.; Subroto, A. Urban Community Resilience Amidst the Spreading of Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19): A Rapid Scoping Review. Sustainability 2022, 14, 10927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Choko, O.P.; Olabisi, L.S.; Onyeneke, R.U.; Chiemela, S.N.; Liverpool-tasie, L.S.O.; Iii, L.R. A Resilience Approach to Community-Scale Climate Adaptation. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Moraci, F.; Errigo, M.F.; Fazia, C.; Campisi, T.; Castelli, F. Cities under Pressure: Strategies and Tools to Face Climate Change and Pandemic. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Arksey, H.; O’Malley, L. Scoping Studies: Towards a Methodological Framework. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 2005, 8, 19–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Godin, K.; Stapleton, J.; Kirkpatrick, S.I.; Hanning, R.M.; Leatherdale, S.T. Applying Systematic Review Search Methods to the Grey Literature: A Case Study Examining Guidelines for School-Based Breakfast Programs in Canada. Syst. Rev. 2015, 4, 138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Lahjie, A.M.; Nouval, B.; Lahjie, A.A.; Ruslim, Y.; Kristiningrum, R. Economic Valuation from Direct Use of Mangrove Forest Restoration in Balikpapan Bay, East Kalimantan, Indonesia. F1000Research 2019, 8, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Oktari, R.S.; Dwirahmadi, F.; Gan, C.C.R.; Darundiyah, K.; Nugroho, P.C.; Wibowo, A.; Chu, C. Indonesia’s Climate-Related Disasters and Health Adaptation Policy in the Build-Up to COP26 and Beyond. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Nugroho, N.P.; Supangat, A.B.; Indrawati, D.R.; Savitri, E.; Nugroho, A.W.; Auliyani, D.; Wuryanta, A.; Riyanto, H.D.; Harjadi, B. Improvement of Integrated Watershed Management in Indonesia for Mitigation and Adaptation to Climate Change: A Review. Sustainability 2022, 14, 9997. [Google Scholar]
  68. Wiati, C.B.; Dharmawan, I.W.S.; Sakuntaladewi, N.; Ekawati, S.; Wahyuni, T.; Maharani, R.; Hadiyan, Y.; Naibaho, Y.; Satria, W.I.; Ngatiman, N.; et al. Challenges to and Strategies for the Climate Village Program Plus: A Lesson Learned from Indonesia. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Harris, N.L.; Petrova, S.; Stolle, F.; Brown, S. Identifying Optimal Areas for REDD Intervention: East Kalimantan, Indonesia as a Case Study. Environ. Res. Lett. 2008, 3, 35006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Indrajaya, Y.; Yuwati, T.W.; Lestari, S.; Winarno, B.; Narendra, B.H.; Yudono, H.; Hadi, S.; Rachmanadi, D.; Turjaman, M.; Nugroho, N.P.; et al. Tropical Forest Landscape Restoration in Indonesia: A Review; USDA: Washington, DC, USA, 2022; ISBN 6281392577088. [Google Scholar]
  71. Bonsón, E.; Royo, S.; Ratkai, M. Facebook Practices in Western European Municipalities: An Empirical Analysis of Activity and Citizens’ Engagement. Adm. Soc. 2014, 49, 320–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Bonsón, E.; Royo, S.; Ratkai, M. Citizens’ Engagement on Local Governments’ Facebook Sites. An Empirical Analysis: The Impact of Different Media and Content Types in Western Europe. Gov. Inf. Q. 2015, 32, 52–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Kumar, P.; Singh, R.; Gehlot, A.; Vaseem, S. Computers & Industrial Engineering Village 4.0: Digitalization of Village with Smart Internet of Things Technologies. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2022, 165, 107938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Laukkonen, J.; Kim, P.; Lenhart, J.; Keiner, M.; Cavric, B.; Kinuthia-njenga, C. Combining Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Measures at the Local Level. Habitat Int. 2009, 33, 287–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Lassa, J.A. Negotiating Institutional Pathways for Sustaining Climate Change Resilience and Risk Governance in Indonesia. Climate 2019, 7, 95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Meijer, A.; Rodrı, M.P. Governing the Smart City: A Review of the Literature on Smart Urban Governance. Int. Rev. Adm. Sci. 2016, 82, 392–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Moloney, S.; Fünfgeld, H. Emergent Processes of Adaptive Capacity Building: Local Government Climate Change Alliances and Networks in Melbourne. Urban Clim. 2015, 14, 30–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Hammi, B.; Khatoun, R.; Zeadally, S.; Fayad, A.; Khoukhi, L. IoT Technologies for Smart Cities. IET Networks 2018, 7, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Kitchin, R. The Real-Time City? Big Data and Smart Urbanism. GeoJournal 2014, 79, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Nam, T.; Pardo, T.A. Conceptualizing Smart City with Dimensions of Technology, People, and Institutions. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Conference of Digital Government Research, College Park, MD, USA, 12–15 June 2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Nam, T.; Pardo, T.A. The Changing Face of a City Government: A Case Study of Philly311. Gov. Inf. Q. 2014, 31, S1–S9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Tuya, M. De Information Sharing as a Dimension of Smartness: Understanding Benefits and Challenges in Two Megacities. Urban Aff. Rev. 2021, 57, 8–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Takara, K. Promotion of Interdisciplinary and Transdisciplinary Collaboration in Disaster Risk Reduction. J. Disaster Res. 2018, 13, 1193–1198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Gil-Garcia, J.R.; Pardo, T.A.; Nam, T. What Makes a City Smart? Identifying Core Components and Proposing an Integrative and Comprehensive Conceptualization. Inf. Polity 2015, 20, 61–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Anthopoulos, L.; Reddick, C.G. Smart City and Smart Government: Synonymous or Complementary? In Proceedings of the 25th International World Wide Web Conference, Montréal, QC, Canada, 11–15 April 2016; pp. 351–355. [Google Scholar]
  86. Castelnovo, W.; Savoldelli, A. Citizen’ s Engagement and Value Co-Production in Smart and Sustainable Cities. Int. Conf. Public Policy 2015, 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  87. Krongthaeo, S.; Piaseu, N.; Junda, T.; Wall, B.M. Community-Based Flood Preparedness for Thai Dependent Older Adults. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2021, 63, 102460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Alawadhi, S.; Aldama-nalda, A.; Chourabi, H.; Ramon, J.; Leung, S.; Mellouli, S.; Nam, T.; Pardo, T.A.; Scholl, J.; Walker, S.; et al. Building Understanding of Smart City Initiatives. In International Conference on Electronic Government; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  89. Haines, V.A.; Godley, J.; Hawe, P. Understanding Interdisciplinary Collaborations as Social Networks. Am. J. Community Psychol. 2011, 47, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Hidayat, H.Y. Petabencana.Id in Flood Disaster Management: An Innovation in Collabora-Tive Governance-Based Early Warning System in Indonesia. J. Kebijak. dan Adm. Publik 2020, 24, 61–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Gil-garcia, J.R.; Zhang, J.; Puron-cid, G. Conceptualizing Smartness in Government: An Integrative and Multi-Dimensional View. Gov. Inf. Q. 2016, 33, 524–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Karki, G.; Bhatta, B.; Devkota, N.R.; Acharya, R.P.; Kunwar, R.M. Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) Interventions and Indicators in Nepal: Implications for Sustainable Adaptation. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Shaw, R.; Sakurai, A.; Oikawa, Y. New Realization of Disaster Risk Reduction Education in the Context of a Global Pandemic: Lessons from Japan. Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci. 2021, 12, 568–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Shaw, R.; Kim, Y.; Hua, J. Progress in Disaster Science Governance, Technology and Citizen Behavior in Pandemic: Lessons from COVID-19 in East Asia. Prog. Disaster Sci. 2020, 6, 100090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Land 12 00650 g001 550
Figure 1. Conceptual Understanding of Community-Based Approach for Smart Village (source authors).
Figure 1. Conceptual Understanding of Community-Based Approach for Smart Village (source authors).
Land 12 00650 g001
Land 12 00650 g002 550
Figure 2. Research Flowchart (Source: authors).
Figure 2. Research Flowchart (Source: authors).
Land 12 00650 g002
Land 12 00650 g003 550
Figure 3. ProKlim (Kampung Iklim) in Balikpapan City (source: authors with data from Balikpapan City Environmental Agency, 2022).
Figure 3. ProKlim (Kampung Iklim) in Balikpapan City (source: authors with data from Balikpapan City Environmental Agency, 2022).
Land 12 00650 g003
Land 12 00650 g004 550
Figure 4. History of Climate Village (Kampung Iklim) Policy in Indonesia (source: authors, adapted from Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MoEF)).
Figure 4. History of Climate Village (Kampung Iklim) Policy in Indonesia (source: authors, adapted from Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MoEF)).
Land 12 00650 g004
Land 12 00650 g005 550
Figure 5. Number of Climate Village (ProKlim) Activity in Balikpapan City, Indonesia (Source: authors based on data collection).
Figure 5. Number of Climate Village (ProKlim) Activity in Balikpapan City, Indonesia (Source: authors based on data collection).
Land 12 00650 g005
Land 12 00650 g006 550
Figure 6. Smart Village Current Condition During COVID-19 in Balikpapan (source: authors analysis).
Figure 6. Smart Village Current Condition During COVID-19 in Balikpapan (source: authors analysis).
Land 12 00650 g006
Land 12 00650 g007 550
Figure 7. Feasible Framework to Support Smart Climate Communities for Climate Village (Source: authors).
Figure 7. Feasible Framework to Support Smart Climate Communities for Climate Village (Source: authors).
Land 12 00650 g007
Table
Table 1. Climate Village (ProKlim) Activities in Balikpapan City, Indonesia.
Table 1. Climate Village (ProKlim) Activities in Balikpapan City, Indonesia.
NoLocation (Sub-District)Location (Village)Activities
1East Balikpapan (Balikpapan Timur)Teritipconservation of mangrove forests to address coastal abrasion and flooding
Manggar
  • conservation of mangrove forests for eco-tourism
  • Balikpapan City waste management with a sanitary landfill system
  • Intercrop or polyculture
Lamaruconservation of mangrove forests to address coastal abrasion and flooding
Manggar Baruconservation of mangrove forests
2North Balikpapan (Balikpapan Utara)Karangjoangagricultural cultivation
Graha Indahconservation of mangrove forests
Batu Amparwaste management (3R) implementation
Muara Rapakconservation of mangrove forests
3South Balikpapan (Balikpapan Selatan)Sepinggan
  • agricultural cultivation
  • improved vegetation and land cover
  • Prevention of land and forest fire
Sungai Nangkawaste management (3R) implementation
4West Balikpapan (Balikpapan Barat)Margasari
  • implementation of rainwater harvesting
  • agricultural cultivation
  • eco-tourism of floating settlement
Baru Tengahwaste management (3R) implementation
Baru Uluwaste management (3R) implementation
KariangauAgriculture, Forestry, and Land Use (AFOLU)
Margomulyo
  • conservation of mangrove forests for eco-tourism
  • implementation of waste bank
Source: authors, with data from Ministry of Environment and Forestry of the Republic of Indonesia (2022).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ariyaningsih; Shaw, R. Community-Based Approach for Climate Resilience and COVID-19: Case Study of a Climate Village (Kampung Iklim) in Balikpapan, Indonesia. Land 2023, 12, 650. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12030650

AMA Style

Ariyaningsih, Shaw R. Community-Based Approach for Climate Resilience and COVID-19: Case Study of a Climate Village (Kampung Iklim) in Balikpapan, Indonesia. Land. 2023; 12(3):650. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12030650

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ariyaningsih, and Rajib Shaw. 2023. "Community-Based Approach for Climate Resilience and COVID-19: Case Study of a Climate Village (Kampung Iklim) in Balikpapan, Indonesia" Land 12, no. 3: 650. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12030650

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop