Coping with strategic ambiguity in planning sustainable road development: balancing economic and environmental interests in two highway projects in Indonesia

References

• [BKSDA] Balai Konservasi Sumber Daya Alam Sumatera Barat, [DPJ] Dinas Prasarana Jalan Provinsi Sumatera Barat. 2009. Perlindungan Sumber Daya Alam dan Peningkatan Fungsi Jalan dan Jembatan Kelok Sembilan Suaka Alam Air Putih Propinsi Sumatera Barat [Forest conservation and reconstruction of the kelok-9 roads and bridges in the nature conservation area of air putih]. Padang: Pemerintah Provinsi Sumatera Barat.
   Google Scholar
• Ackrill R, Kay A. 2011. Multiple streams in EU policy-making: the case of the 2005 sugar reform. J Eur Public Policy. 18:72–89.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Béland D. 2016. Kingdon reconsidered: ideas, interests and institutions in comparative policy analysis. J Comp Policy Anal Res Pract. 18:228–242.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Béland D, Howlett M. 2016. The role and impact of the multiple-streams approach in comparative policy analysis. J Comp Policy Anal Res Pract. 18:221–227.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• [CMEA] Coordinating Ministry for Economic Affairs. 2011. Masterplan for acceleration and expansion of Indonesia economic development 2011–2025. 1st. Jakarta: Coordinating Ministry for Economic Affairs/The Ministry of National Development Planning.
   Google Scholar
• Bueno PC, Vassallo JM, Cheung K. 2015. Sustainability assessment of transport infrastructure projects: a review of existing tools and methods. Transp Rev. 35:622–649.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darmoyono LTDJWW 2019. Value Capturing for Regional Road Development: A Responsive Institutional Design Approach for Indonesia [unpublished PhD thesis]. Groningen: University of Groningen.
   Google Scholar
• De Bruijn H, Leijten M. 2007. Megaprojects and contested information. Transp Plan Technol. 30:49–69.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delphine, Witte P, Hartmann T, Spit T, Zoomers A. 2019a. For the greater good?—A critical reflection on assessing indirect economic effects caused by large transport projects. Open J Civ Eng. 09:135–156.
   Google Scholar
• Delphine, Witte P, Spit T. 2019b. Megaprojects–an anatomy of perception: local people’s perceptions of megaprojects: the case of Suramadu, Indonesia. Disp. 55:63–77.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• [DPJ] Dinas Prasarana Jalan. 2001. Studi Analisis Mengenai Dampak Lingkungan Kelok 9 [Environmental impact assessment for Kelok-9]. Jakarta: Pemerintah Provinsi Sumatera Barat.
   Google Scholar
• [DPJ] Dinas Prasarana Jalan. 2002. Laporan Analisis Investasi: Pekerjaan Perencanaan Teknis Jalan dan Jembatan Kelok 9 Provinsi Sumatra Barat [Report on investment analysis: a technical plan for kelok-9 road and bridge]. Jakarta: Pemerintah Provinsi Sumatera Barat.
   Google Scholar
• [DPJ] Dinas Prasarana Jalan Provinsi Sumatera Barat. 2004. Proses Izin Guna Hutan dari Dinas Kehutanan Prop. Sumbar: kegiatan Pembangunan Jalan dan Jembatan Kelok-9 [Forest land clearance from the provincial forestry agency for the implementation of the kelok-9 roads and bridges]. Padang: Pemerintah Provinsi Sumatera Barat.
   Google Scholar
• [DGH] Directorate General of Highways. 2005. Implementation Program for Kelok-9 road and bridge construction project West Sumatra. Jakarta: Ministry of Public Works.
   Google Scholar
• [DGH] Directorate General of Highways. 2014. Jembatan Kelok 9 [Kelok-9 Bridge]. Jakarta: Direktorat Jenderal Bina Marga.
   Google Scholar
• Diaz-Sarachaga JM, Jato-Espino D, Castro-Fresno D. 2017. Methodology for the development of a new sustainable infrastructure rating system for developing countries (SIRSDEC). Environ Sci Policy. 69:65–72.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisenberg E. 1984. Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication. Commun Monogr. 51:227–242.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer TB. 1999. Comparative analysis of environmental and socio-economic impacts in SEA for transport related policies, plans, and programs. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 19:275–303.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer TB. 2004. Transport policy making and SEA in Liverpool, Amsterdam and Berlin - 1997 and 2002. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 24:319–336.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer TB. 2006. Strategic environmental assessment and transport planning: towards a generic framework for evaluating practice and developing guidance. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 24:183–197.
   Google Scholar
• Flyvbjerg B. 2006. Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qual Inq. 12:219–245.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gartner C. 2016. The science and politics of infrastructure research: asserting power, place, and agency in infrastructure knowledge. J Hum Dev Capab. 17:377–396.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibson RB. 2013. Sustainability assessment: pluralism, practice and progress. In: Bond A, Morrisson-Saunders A, Howitt R, editors. Sustain assess plur pract prog. 1st ed. Abingdon (Oxon): Routledge; p. 3–17.
   Google Scholar
• Giezen M 2012. Navigating Mega Projects through Uncertainty and Complexity: Strategic and Adaptive Capacity in Planning and Decision-Making [dissertation]. Amsterdam: The University of Amsterdam.
   Google Scholar
• Giezen M. 2013. Adaptive and strategic capacity: navigating megaprojects through uncertainty and complexity. Environ Plan B Plan Des. 40:723–741.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giezen M, Salet W, Bertolini L. 2015. Adding value to the decision-making process of mega projects: fostering strategic ambiguity, redundancy, and resilience. Transp Policy. 44:169–178.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• [JBT] Jasamarga Bali Toll. 2013. Perubahan Andal Pembangunan Jalan Tol Nusa Dua-Ngurai Rai-Benoa [The revision of environmental impact assessment the nusa dua-ngurah rai-benoa toll road]. Denpasar: Jasamarga Bali Toll.
   Google Scholar
• Giovanna D, Leitmann JL, Mackay A. 2006. Amdal reform and decentralization: opportunities for innovation (Discussion papers, East Asia and Pacific environment and social development department). Washington (DC): World Bank.
   Google Scholar
• [JM] Jasa Marga, Pelindo, Angkasapura, [PPB] Pengembangan Pariwisata Bali. 2011. Laporan analisis dampak Lingkungan/Andal Jalan Tol Nusa Dua-Ngurah Rai-Benoa [Environmental impact assessment for nusa dua-ngurah rai-benoa toll road]. Denpasar: PT Jasa Marga.
   Google Scholar
• Glasbergen P, Driessen PPJ. 2005. Interactive planning of infrastructure: the changing role of Dutch project management. Environ Plan C Gov Policy. 23:263–277.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gudmundsson H, Hall RP, Marsden G, Zietsman J. 2016. Sustainable transportation: indicators, frameworks, and performance management. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Hacking T, Guthrie P. 2008. A framework for clarifying the meaning of triple-bottom-line, integrated, and sustainability assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 28:73–89.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Healy P. 2006. Collaborative planning: shaping places in fragmented societies. Second. Edi. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
   Google Scholar
• Heeres N, Tillema T, Arts J. 2018. The changing role of decision support instruments in integrated infrastructure planning: lessons from the sustainability check. Transp Plan Technol. 41:679–705.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hermansen EAT. 2015. Policy window entrepreneurship: the backstage of the world’s largest REDD+ initiative. Env Polit. 24:932–950.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hildén M, Furman E, Kaljonen M. 2004. Views on planning and expectations of SEA: the case of transport planning. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 24:519–536.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• [LBLL] Lembaga Bina Lansekap dan Lingkungan (Universitas Trisakti). 2009. Nature and engineering in harmony: detailed engineering design Lansekap Jalan dan Jembatan Kelok-9 [Detailed engineering design of the Kelok-9 Roads and Bridges]. Jakarta: Lembaga Bina Lansekap dan Lingkungan.
   Google Scholar
• Hoch C. 2008. A pragmatic inquiry about planning and power. In: Healy P, Hiller J, editors. Polit econ divers pragmatism vol 2 crit essay plan theory. United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis Ltd; p. 473–487.
   Google Scholar
• Howitt R. 2013. Sustain assess plur pract prog. In: Contested spatiality: geographical scale in sustainability assessment. 1st ed. Abingdon (Oxon): Routledge; p. 68–84.
   Google Scholar
• [MPW] Ministry of Public Works. 2011a. Persyaratan Teknis Jalan dan Kriteria Perencanaan Teknis Jalan [Technical requirements and planning criteria for roads]. Indonesia: Kementerian Pekerjaan Umum.
   Google Scholar
• [MPW] Ministry of Public Works. 2011b. Peraturan Presiden Tentang Rencana Tata Ruang Kawasan Metropolitan Denpasar, Badung, Gianyar, dan Tabanan) [The presidential regulation concerning the metropolitan spatial plan of Denpasar, Badung, Gianyar, and Tabanan]. Jakarta (Indonesia): Kementerian Pekerjaan Umum.
   Google Scholar
• Howlett M. 2009. Governance modes, policy regimes and operational plans: A multi-level nested model of policy instrument choice and policy design. Policy Sci. 42:73–89.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howlett M. 2014. From the “old” to the “new” policy design: design thinking beyond markets and collaborative governance. Policy Sci. 47:187–207.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howlett M. 2018. Moving policy implementation theory forward: A multiple streams/critical juncture approach. Public Policy Adm. 34:405–430.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jeon CM, Amekudzi AA, Guensler RL. 2013. Sustainability assessment at the transportation planning level: performance measures and indexes. Transp Policy. 25:10–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joumard R, Nicolas J-P. 2010. Transport project assessment methodology within the framework of sustainable development. Ecol Indic. 10:136–142.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• [PPSB] Pemerintah Provinsi Sumatera Barat. 2012. Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah Provinsi Sumatera Barat [Regional spatial plan of the West Sumatra Province]. Padang (Indonesia): Pemerintah Provinsi Sumatera Barat.
   Google Scholar
• Karim AT 2016. Konsep Pembangunan Jalan Tol Bali Mandara: strong, eco-friendly, green and beautiful [The concept of Bali-Mandara Highway toll development]. In: Int Qual Prod Conv. Denpasar.
   Google Scholar
• Kemp R, Martens P. 2007. Sustainable development: how to manage something that is subjective and never can be achieved? Sustain Sci Pract Policy. 3:5–14.
   Google Scholar
• Kingdon JW. 1984. Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Boston: Little Brown.
   Google Scholar
• Kingdon JW. 2014. Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Essex: Person Education Limited.
   Google Scholar
• Kumar R. 2014. Research methodology: a step-by-step guide for beginners. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Lamade T, Budijanto R, Suseno DH. 2014. Tol bali: over the sea tollway. Jakarta: Expose.
   Google Scholar
• Lawalata GM, Suprayoga GB, Kadar E, Ronny Y, Gunarta SG. 2013. Jalan Hijau Indonesia [Indonesia green road]. Bandung: CV Adika & Kementerian Pekerjaan Umum.
   Google Scholar
• Miharja M, Woltjer J. 2010. Inter-local government collaboration and perceived transaction costs in Indonesian metropolitan transport planning. Int Dev Plan Rev. 32:167–189.
   Google Scholar
• Morrison-Saunders A, Pope J, Bond A. 2015. Handbook of sustainability assessment. Cheltenham (UK): Edward Elgar Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Nykvist B, Nilsson M. 2009. Are impact assessment procedures actually promoting sustainable development? Institutional perspectives on barriers and opportunities found in the Swedish committee system. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 29:15–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Othman AEA. 2013. Challenges of mega construction projects in developing countries. Organ Technol Manag Constr An Int J. 5:730–746.
   Google Scholar
• Pojani D, Stead D. 2015. Sustainable urban transport in the developing world: beyond megacities. Sustainability. 7:7784–7805.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Priemus H. 2007. Development and design of large infrastructure projects: disregarded alternatives and issues of spatial planning. Environ Plan B Plan Des. 34:626–644.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Purvis B, Mao Y, Robinson D. 2018. Three pillars of sustainability: in search of conceptual origins. Sustain Sci. 14:101–110.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramani TL, Zietsman J, Gudmundsson H, Hall RP, Marsden G. 2011. Framework for sustainability assessment by transportation agencies. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board. 2242:9–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reardon L. 2018. Networks and problem recognition: advancing the multiple streams approach. Policy Sci. 51:457–476.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Regmi MB 2014. Moving towards sustainable transport system in Asia. In93rd Annu Transp Res Board Meet. Washington, D.C: Transportation Research Board; p. 1–15.
   Google Scholar
• Runhaar H, Driessen PPJ. 2007. What makes strategic environmental assessment successful environmental assessment? The role of context in the contribution of SEA to decision-making. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 25:2–14.
   Google Scholar
• Sala S, Ciuffo B, Nijkamp P. 2015. A systemic framework for sustainability assessment. Ecol Econ. 119:314–325.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salet W, Bertolini L, Giezen M. 2013. Complexity and uncertainty: problem or asset in decision making of mega infrastructure projects? Int J Urban Reg Res. 37:1984–2000.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salling KB, Banister D. 2009. Assessment of large transport infrastructure projects: the CBA-DK model. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract. 43:800–813.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scandelius C, Cohen G. 2016. Achieving collaboration with diverse stakeholders-The role of strategic ambiguity in CSR communication. J Bus Res. 69:3487–3499.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silverman D. 2014. Interpreting qualitative data. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Simanjuntak I, Frantzeskaki N, Enserink B, Ravensteijn W. 2012. Evaluating Jakarta’s flood defence governance: the impact of political and institutional reforms. Water Policy. 14:561–580.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stoeglehner G, Neugebauer G. 2013. Integrating sustainability assessment into planning: benefits and challenges. In: Bond A, Morrison-Saunders A, Howitt R, editors. Sustain assess plur pract prog. 1st ed. Abingdon (Oxon): Routledge; p. 245–262.
   Google Scholar
• Van Bueren E, Ten Heuvelhof E. 2005. Improving governance arrangements in support of sustainable cities. Environ Plan B Plan Des. 32:47–66.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Bueren EM, Klijn E-H, Koppenjan JFM. 2003. Dealing with wicked problems in networks: analyzing an environmental debate from a network perspective. J Public Adm Res Theory. 13:193–212.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Stigt R, Driessen PPJ, Spit TJM. 2013. A window on urban sustainability. Integration of environmental interests in urban planning through “Decision windows.”. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 42:18–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yin RK. 2014. Case study research: design and methods. California: Sage Publications Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Zahariadis N. 2016. Delphic oracles: ambiguity, institutions, and multiple streams. Policy Sci. 49:3–12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zohlnhöfer R, Herweg N, Rüb F. 2015. Theoretically refining the multiple streams framework: an introduction. Eur J Polit Res. 54:412–418.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar