Exploring the Urban Greening Community in Jakarta’s Urban Kampung: A Tactical Urbanism Perspective

Abstract

This study examines the urban greening community movement through the lens of tactical urbanism as a community-based urban planning model. Tactical urbanism, gaining traction as both a response and an alternative to urban challenges, is defined by active community participation. This approach challenges traditional top-down planning by offering swift, adaptive, and creative solutions tailored to community needs. By fostering participatory planning, tactical urbanism enhances collective awareness and empowers communities to drive development and address urban issues. The emphasis on grassroots involvement ensures a more inclusive and effective planning process. Despite its potential, tactical urbanism remains under explored within Indonesia’s planning framework. This study analyzes the tactical urbanism process in urban greening communities in Jakarta’s urban kampung, exploring whether tactical urbanism serves as a steppingstone to achieving more strategic long-term goals and examining the role of stakeholders outside the community in this process. In-depth interviews with key members of three urban greening communities and thematic data analysis reveal several key findings: the greening movement is primarily driven by personal initiatives; the formalization of community structures plays a crucial role; government and private sector involvement influences the process of maintaining urban greening community’s needs; empowerment and behavioral changes occur within the community; and organizational sustainability remains a key challenge. Based on the findings, it proposes an “organic tactical urbanism” framework as a practical guide for addressing urban challenges in various contexts.

1. Introduction

Top-down urban planning has been criticized for its rigidity and the lengthy process required to reach the implementation stage, making it challenging to address complex and dynamic urban problems. While hierarchical and structured processes can provide certainty, they do not always guarantee the expected outcomes. Conversely, urban development and problem-solving can be approached in a more flexible, tactical, and community-driven manner. This has led to an increasing need to explore novel approaches that enable strategic, adaptable, and collaborative urban development.

In response to this shift, several new terms have emerged in urban planning to describe various micro-scale, community-driven environmental improvements that help address urban issues governments struggle to resolve quickly. Tactical urbanism, guerrilla urbanism, temporary urbanism, pop-up urbanism, and insurgent urbanism are among the diverse terms used to describe such community-led initiatives, all of which have gained recognition for their tactical approach [1,2]. Among these, tactical urbanism has become the most widely recognized term in contemporary urban planning studies.

Tactical urbanism is an informal intervention in urban development, independently pioneered by individuals or community groups [3]. Its key characteristics include being tactical, fast, low-cost, and temporary while aiming to achieve long-term solutions [4]. This adaptability allows for a range of activities, such as creating spaces for pedestrians and cyclists and enhancing the comfort and safety of surrounding areas. Although historically associated with grassroots initiatives, tactical urbanism has also been adopted by governments and private stakeholders [4].

Tactical activities in city development can be traced back to various historical events, such as the construction of the first streets in Khoirokoitia, the Play Street initiative in New York, the woonerf in Delft, and the ciclovía in Bogotá. Tactical urbanism also encompasses multiple philosophical approaches, including critical pluralist, anarcho-socialist, neoliberal, and libertarian paternalism perspectives [5]. In the United States, where this terminology became popular, the perspective of the New Urbanism movement served as the foundation for the development of tactical urbanism, emerging as a reaction to urban sprawl and a demand for bottom-up planning processes. In the 1960s and 1970s, ‘DIY Urbanism’ evolved as a variation of New Urbanism, marking a significant shift by advocating urban change through community initiatives and activism [6,7,8].

While tactical urbanism has gained popularity in recent years, it has long served as both a critique of and a response to traditional urban planning processes. In this context, the city becomes a space for expression and change [9]. Tactical urbanism, therefore, emphasizes the applicability of knowledge as a learning process for city-building and addressing urban challenges. Its increasing popularity can be attributed to various factors, including citizen frustration with urban issues, economic recessions, radical demands for change, and demographic shifts—particularly the rise of younger urban populations [4]. Moreover, tactical urbanism is believed to enhance community engagement and foster innovation in urban planning and design [10].

There are at least three key forms of tactical urbanism implementation [4]. First, it serves as a community-driven initiative arising from the need for local change and improvement. Second, it acts as a tool to engage community members in the urban planning and development process, facilitated by governments, developers, and community organizations. Third, it functions as a medium for testing long-term policy plans before full-scale implementation. However, Ref. [11] criticized the current approach to tactical urbanism, arguing that government intervention has diluted its original grassroots intentions. Despite this shift, the concept of co-producing solutions between the government and the community remains a flexible and promising strategy for addressing urban challenges and fostering inclusive urban development.

Tactical urbanism implementation can be split into seven categories: specializing, following up, adding, settling, claiming, monitoring, and merging [3]. Specializing involves activities that align with broader objectives of sustaining the city’s ecological environment in accordance with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Following up refers to initiatives inspired by or building upon previous activities. Adding entails introducing new projects to complement existing ones. Settling represents a temporary initiative serving as a test run for potential long-term projects. Claiming pertains to the use of public spaces for community benefit, while monitoring involves activities in which community members oversee urban planning and city development processes. Lastly, merging encompasses multi-stakeholder collaborations between groups with shared interests.

Additionally, Ref. [4] identified five stages of tactical urbanism using a design thinking approach (Figure 1). The first stage, empathize, involves understanding the interests of relevant stakeholders and assessing the target location for implementation. The next stage, define, focuses on identifying problems and opportunities for change, leading to the ideate stage, where brainstorming various solutions takes place. Based on these insights, a suitable project plan is then prototyped and implemented. These structured steps demonstrate that tactical urbanism can be effectively applied to address urban development challenges within community settings. Consequently, tactical urbanism can manifest in various urban planning initiatives, including urban greening communities.

Community-based urban greening activities have emerged as one of the most popular urban movements, aligning with the growing trend of environmental consciousness. At the forefront of these initiatives are urban greening communities, which manage community-run urban vegetation for aesthetic and economic purposes [12]. Furthermore, this movement is expected to mitigate urban temperatures, reduce pollution levels, strengthen urban food security, and improve neighborhood welfare. The community’s role in urban greening has garnered significant attention as a form of local, non-formal, and bottom-up green infrastructure development [6,13,14].

Community-based urban greening activities have several characteristics that make them a part of tactical urbanism planning. First, they are derived from and rely on citizen participation to build and run the program successfully, with or without government intervention. Second, they are simple and low-cost activities, like many other tactical urbanism initiatives. Third, the activities are flexible, easy to implement, and can generate more ideas for improvement, helping to develop the program successfully.

Despite its popularity, there is limited research exploring urban greening as a form of tactical urbanism. Most of the literature presents urban greening as a tactical urbanism project initiated by the government or non-governmental organizations in larger public spaces, i.e., summer streets and Kulturdachgarten in Munich or guerrilla gardening in New York, rather than as initiatives emerging from local neighborhood members within specific community spaces. In contrast, community-based activities in close-knit local neighborhoods align with the socio-cultural characteristics of Jakarta’s urban kampung, making it feasible to implement a tactical urbanism approach within these communities.

It is interesting to explore how urban greening initiatives can grow and be initiated through community-based action, as this would shift the perspective on the urgency and nature of these activities. Did urban greening emerge as a response to citizens’ concerns about the impacts of climate change on urban environments, or as a result of their dissatisfaction with the government’s failure to address urban environmental problems? Does this movement serve only as a short-term solution to achieve long-term strategic goals? To what extent is there government and private sector involvement in urban greening initiatives? These questions shape the framework for examining tactical urbanism activities within urban greening communities. As we explore these perspectives further in this study, we aim for our findings to contribute to the growing literature on citizen participation in urban planning and to serve as a reference for future implementations in other regions. Therefore, this study seeks to elaborate on the tactical urbanism framework in the context of urban greening communities in Jakarta with main research question: How is the process of urban greening community in relation to the tactical urbanism approach in Jakarta’s urban kampung?

2. Urban Greening Community in Jakarta’s Urban Kampung

Like many global megacities, Jakarta has recently experienced rising temperatures due to fluctuating weather patterns. The city’s progress in urban green space construction has not yet reached the capacity needed to effectively cool down the urban environment. As of 2023, the realization of urban green spaces in Jakarta amounted to only 5.2% of the 30% required by Law No. 26 of 2007 on Spatial Planning [15]. Additionally, the city’s high levels of air pollution continue to be an unresolved issue. Poor air quality in Jakarta typically worsens between May and August compared to other months. According to 2023 data from IQAir, an air pollution monitoring site, Jakarta has been ranked several times as having the worst air pollution levels in Southeast Asia [16,17]. Jakarta’s poor air quality contributes to both short- and long-term health complications for its residents.

In light of these findings, greening can be an effective solution to mitigate the impact of rising temperatures [18,19,20] and air pollution in cities [21,22]. However, research indicates that urban green spaces are not equally accessible to all community groups, particularly in low-income neighborhoods [23,24,25,26,27]. In this context, a community’s tactical and rapid planning for urban green spaces can serve as a form of political expression against spatial injustice [7,28].

Urban greening communities in Jakarta are emerging in urban kampungs through independent initiatives or local government interventions. Urban kampung (urban village), also known as kampung kota in Indonesia, is a local type of settlement found in many cities across the country. Although it is considered as an original form of Indonesian city, urban kampung is also found in other Southeast Asia countries, such as Malaysia [29]. It has unique characteristics, such as unplanned spatial layouts, mixed-use spatial patterns, diverse income neighborhoods (typically middle- to lower-income), and close-knit communities with a historical background rooted in urban community development, and it is often overcrowded with a high population density [30,31]. While urban kampung retains the social and cultural characteristics of rural society, it has evolved within an urban setting in line with the process of urbanization. Typically, the residential area of urban kampung is characterized by narrow alleys, cramped houses closely spaced apart, and small plots of land with various types of buildings, ranging from semi-permanent to permanent dwellings. Residents gather at distinct third places—local stalls and neighborhood security posts—where people of all ages socialize. The shared bond among these residents is a fundamental element of their community, serving as vital social capital for urban greening movements. However, these ties are increasingly fading with the development of an ever-more complex and dynamic urban community.

Despite the government’s limited capacity to meet urban greening standards, the role of the community in repurposing specific spaces within their neighborhoods may complement and strengthen existing government efforts in urban greening. A study by [32] demonstrated that urban kampungs in Indonesia can adopt various forms of greening, each with the potential to transform their surroundings: spatially centralized on vacant land, spread out across residents’ yards and houses, or following a longitudinal pattern along the neighborhood’s corridors, roads, and alleys.

The existence of an urban greening community is more than just a tactical solution for reducing the impact of environmental problems and the unequal distribution of urban green spaces in Jakarta. It is a powerful tool for creating a more equitable distribution of green space, thereby improving social ties and cohesion within urban communities [33].

3. Materials and Methods

The urban greening community activities in Jakarta were investigated using a qualitative approach and purposive sampling techniques. We chose three urban greening community organizations for their success in executing greening activities and their impact on their local environment. The sample comprised the Ampar Adhum Community in East Jakarta, the Muara Community in South Jakarta, and the P4S Daun Hijau Cempaka Putih Community in Central Jakarta (Figure 2). These communities were also selected based on organizational experience and longevity (i.e., active for more than ten years). Furthermore, they all operate in areas with comparable features to urban kampung settlement: high-density areas dominated by low-to-middle-income neighborhoods, making the findings applicable to a wide range of urban kampung settings.

In March 2024, semi-structured in-person interviews were conducted with key informants from each community. The informants included FH (male, Ampar Adhum Community), IW (female, Muara Community), and US (male, P4S Daun Hijau Community), who provided in-depth insights into the urban greening communities they have established and governed in their neighborhoods. These three informants are considered local heroes in their community due to their dedication and initiative in building the community. Therefore, the data collected were solely focused on these key informants—who are the initiators and leaders of the urban greening activities in their neighborhood—in order to gain in-depth knowledge about the process of how the urban greening community was built in the first place.

Data obtained from the interviews were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach (Figure 3). This approach provides rich, meaningful insights from the specific stories of key informants through identifying themes within data to uncover general patterns. Thematic analysis allows for deeper understanding by elaborating on the meaning of “keywords” used by informants [34,35,36], which represent key ideas and experiences. Themes are then created based on the relationships between these keywords [33,37]. To facilitate this process, NVivo software (https://lumivero.com/products/nvivo/) was used to organize and systematize the data.

3.1. Ampar Adhum Community Profile

The Ampar Adhum Community is located in RW (Neighborhood Unit) 08, Cipinang Besar Utara sub-district, Jatinegara District, East Jakarta (Figure 4). This neighborhood lies in the most densely populated area of East Jakarta. The Ampar Adhum Community was founded by FH, who is also the Chair of the Ampar Adhum Farmers Group and the Chair of the Collaboration Village in the East Jakarta area. It began in 2015 with the planting of trees around houses in narrow alleys using discarded items, such as paint cans and buckets, as planting media. In 2018, the community was officially established under the name “Ampar Adhum”, derived from the Sanskrit word meaning “serene throne”.

Currently, the Ampar Adhum Community manages 5000 ornamental pots, 2000 medicinal plant pots, 3000 fruit plant pots, and 12,500 planting holes for vegetables. They have also transformed an alley approximately 700 m long into a green space. The community has received several awards from the local government in recognition of its dedication to urban farming, including the “Outstanding Green Alley” award in East Jakarta. In 2020, Ampar Adhum represented East Jakarta in the provincial-level RW Award program. The provincial Department of Food Security, Maritime Affairs, and Agriculture (KPKP) entrusted the community with implementing the Sustainable Food Garden (P2L) program.

3.2. Muara Community Profile

The Muara Village Community is located in RW 03, Tanjung Barat Sub-district, Jagakarsa District, South Jakarta (Figure 5). This area is densely populated, with residents primarily from low-to-middle-income backgrounds. Although the dwellers come from various ethnic groups across Indonesia, the area is predominantly inhabited by the indigenous Betawi ethnic group. Over time, migrants and the local ethnic group have built strong bonds and formed a close-knit relationship.

The Muara Village Community was initiated by IW, a housewife who initially began the greening activity to occupy her free time after moving from Surabaya in 2014–2015. She started growing vegetables and medicinal plants for personal consumption but soon invited several other women from the neighborhood to join her, recognizing that the activity could potentially have promising economic value.

The Muara Community was officially founded in 2016, with women serving as its active members. However, its activities extend beyond farming and gardening. The community is also involved in food processing, particularly the production of traditional Betawi (a native ethnic group of Jakarta) beverages, such as pletok beer (bir pletok), made from ginger. Additionally, the Muara Community established a catering service, which accepts orders for traditional dishes like nasi liwet (a traditional Indonesian rice dish), using ingredients sourced from their agricultural produce. IW’s efforts have significantly improved the economic welfare of the women in her neighborhood and have also contributed to preserving traditional Betawi cuisine. In 2022, IW was honored with an award from the Jakarta Provincial Government as an exemplary female figure for her active role in driving both environmental and societal changes within her community.

3.3. P4S Daun Hijau Community Profile

The P4S Daun Hijau community is situated in RW 03, East Cempaka Putih Sub-district, Cempaka Putih District, Central Jakarta (Figure 6). This settlement has grown since the development of the Djakarta Bypass in 1960s, which connects central Jakarta with the port area in North Jakarta. The P4S Daun Hijau community has become well-known in this area as the Center of Agricultural Training and Village Self-Sufficiency (P4S) due to its successful development. AS, a resident of RW 03 Cempaka Putih, spearheaded the community based on his experience as an agricultural instructor. In 2011, he began utilizing riverbanks, house yards, and alleys to cultivate productive crops such as sweet potatoes, cassava, and corn. AS later invited other residents of RW 03 Cempaka Putih to join the greening efforts and introduced hydroponic farming to the neighborhood.

In 2018, the P4S Daun Hijau community was recognized as an urban farming pioneer in Central Jakarta. It has since received several prestigious awards, including the 2022 Main Award for the Climate Village Program (Proklim) from the Ministry of Environment and Forestry of the Republic of Indonesia, the National Tourism Village Award (which it has held from 2021 to 2023), and the 2021 Provincial Award for Best RW Waste Management.

4. Results

Based on interviews with three leaders of urban greening community activists, we identified the process of urban greening community development and categorized it into five main themes related to tactical urbanism within Jakarta’s urban greening communities. This process was derived from analyzing the personal stories of key informants about urban greening initiatives in their respective neighborhoods. It shares common characteristics of urban greening initiatives in Jakarta’s urban kampung, which serve as key factors in establishing urban greening communities.

• Theme 1: The Greening Movement is Organic and Driven by Personal Initiatives

The interviews revealed that the greening efforts within the community did not initially operate as a formal or structured movement. Instead, the activities began as personal initiatives by individual community members, who subsequently encouraged others to join. These initiators were motivated by a desire to bring about much-needed environmental changes in their residential areas, believing that the benefits of greening would have positive ripple effects throughout their local communities.

I initially used my yards and alleys [in front of my house] to plant new productive crops, such as vegetables. [As the first public greening site], I utilized the riverbanks. I grew vegetables, [such as] sweet potatoes, cassava, and corn. My first public [greening] site was disorganized—it was not well-maintained, rubbish was strewn everywhere, [it] felt barren, and [it] needed more plants. I started introducing and using the existing vacant yard for the plant. The goal was to keep the location green and beneficial for the community. Apart from oxygen production [from the plants], it is also essential to maintain, as people said, providing food security. Because we can save up.

(AS, Daun Hijau P4S Community)

In the beginning, I had no capital [to start] and no network in the neighborhood. It was impossible for me to establish an urban greening community; I needed resources and wasn’t familiar with the neighborhood environment. I eventually challenged myself to grow more plants, flowers, rhizomes, ginger, and so on. So, the motivation [of the individual initiative] was about [establishing] food security, whereby my family would reap the benefits of what I have grown first. When I finally achieved the goal, my neighbors were interested in assisting the initiative. Therefore, there were opportunities for food production on a large scale. [Unfortunately], when other villages have their own greening and food security movements, my village had been passive because its people mostly prioritize the money-making aspects of a movement [as opposed to the environmental benefits].

(IW, Muara Community)

These initiatives by community founders did not always receive immediate or positive responses from local residents. Many people were initially skeptical about the success of these efforts and questioned the tangible benefits of engaging in greening activities. At the time, the community had not fully understood the urgency of urban greening, let alone its far-reaching advantages, such as promoting a healthy living environment, ensuring food security, and enhancing economic welfare. Additionally, the weakening neighborhood ties and diminished community awareness in urban areas further hindered people’s motivation to participate in greening initiatives. Lastly, concerns about the time and financial investments required for involvement also contributed to the community’s initial reluctance.

We (community organizers) would have given up if we hadn’t started the community with the good intention of changing our environment for the better. When we first founded the community, people doubted it’d waste their time—with no compensation, too. We anticipate that such perspectives will always exist. They didn’t understand [the purpose of the movement]. They thought we were involved in this program because we were jobless with no better thing to do. However, from our perspective, greening activities are the same as any other job; the only difference is that it is environment-oriented [with a long-term payback]. We just need to persist. We put in the work first, with no compensation and no budget. But who knows what the future holds? Greening activities did not immediately receive a quick and positive response in the community because only some people value its urgency. There had been other points of initial resistance: Why bother doing more things when people are already busy with their lives? Where will the budget come from?

(AS, Daun Hijau P4S Community)

I was possibly the first to initiate [an urban greening community] in my neighborhood. I wanted to be a driving force for my friends (community members) because the spirit of togetherness [and neighborhood solidarity] is waning in Jakarta. The first problem would be that everyone follows their own routine. Secondly, not everyone loves plants and caring for them. We [community organizers] introduced [greening activities] to the community as a pastime that does not disrupt their routines. We approached people to love plants and converted them into gardening enthusiasts. We started with no clear agenda [in what we wanted to achieve as a community]. At the outset, we encountered people who were hesitant to change their mindsets about gardening. People were mostly only familiar with the concept of geoponics (soil planting), not hydroponics. They also needed to be convinced of the cost; many thought that hydroponics was a costly investment. Even from the local government’s perspective, we understood there was limited awareness about urban farming.

(FH, Amphar Adhum Community)

Community organizers played a key role in motivating residents to engage in the movement by clearly explaining the benefits of urban greening. Their invitations were instrumental in recruiting additional community members, as they demonstrated a steadfast commitment to changing local perceptions of the environment and encouraging greater participation in greening activities.

At the initial stages [of attracting more community members], the problem was that residents were busy with their everyday responsibilities. Hence, people were less concerned [about their surroundings and other people] because they went to work in the morning, arrived home in the afternoon or evening, stayed home during their free time, and went on vacation during the holidays. Hence, they didn’t pay attention to their neighborhood environment. Therefore, we recognized that we must walk the talk. We can’t attract people through mere outreach efforts; we must also be role models [for urban greening] in the neighborhood. We must be consistent in our activity so people can recognize its benefits and imitate our actions.

(AS, Daun Hijau P4S Community)

We instill four principles [to urban greening] in our friends (community members). First, we must have determination; those who wish to participate in urban greening must have fulfilled the first requirement. Second, we should free up our time for this activity because we must consistently care for the plants (watering and feeding). Thirdly, we must be innovative in our greening approaches because our planting arrangement is not in a vast open space; we must be creative in maximizing our planting spaces. The last one is budgeting. We need money (donations), even if a tiny amount, to purchase fertilizer and pots. We are instilling these four basic principles in our community members. Most importantly, everyone is automatically involved [in the community] if they have the will, the time, and the innovation (creativity). For those who do not possess the willingness and time, it could be because they do not like planting. For this group of people, it’s a process. They’ll ultimately learn to love the work. These are pros and cons in the early stages of involvement; we should not force them to love the work instantly.

(FH, Amphar Adhum Community)

• Theme 2: The Process of Formalizing Activities—The Formation of a Structured Core Community

Urban greening communities became institutionalized once community members began actively participating in greening activities. This process of institutionalization took approximately 1–2 years after the initiators launched the greening efforts. Establishing a formal community framework improved coordination and planning, which resulted in increased resident involvement and more effective expansion of urban greening initiatives. However, throughout this process, community members also faced challenges in maintaining their motivation to stay committed to the greening activities.

No, [initially] there was no official community in the neighborhood. We [Daun Hijau P4S Community] were the first established one. We started with ourselves (community organizers); we then invited our friends in the neighborhood (current community members). Then, after developing well, we structured (formal community) the community…

(AS, Daun Hijau P4S Community)

Between the end of 2017 and early 2018, we (community organizers) began conceptualizing the types of plants we should grow and how they can benefit the community. In May 2018, we inaugurated the [formal] community with several individual community organizers. We proposed ampar adhum as the name of the urban greening community. We only founded the community after our [informal] greening activities were well-established [in the neighborhood]; we did not start an urban farming group and then run programs. Since we already operated greening activities, we formed an official community to maximize our operations and create more well-developed activities.

(FH, Amphar Adhum Community)

I hosted an arisan (a social gathering) for about 13-15 women in the neighborhood where we eventually started gardening together [at my house]. They were delighted and started asking questions, ‘Maam, what is this [plant]? Why do you grow [these plants]?’ I persuaded them [to plant themselves] logically, ‘You can consume this plant when you feel unwell. [It helps with recovery.] It’s good to have it handy in your garden.’ I focus on promoting the benefits of planting because they accept this reasoning. I had to convince them, ‘Who knows, maybe there will be benefits for you from this; you are welcome to bring it [home].’…From there, we agreed on May 16, 2016, to set up the Muara Community…

(IW, Muara Community)

We must ensure the community’s enthusiasm [for greening activities] fluctuates healthily. It is important for us to remind and strengthen each other. It’s natural for people to experience ups and downs. While urban greening is an environment-oriented activity, it is also a social one. Whenever we introduce greening activities, people would repeat the same question, ‘What’s the benefit for us?’ Secondly, some people would immediately complain that there was no benefit in joining urban greening. I countered, ‘Well, have you tried it before?’ and they said, ‘No.’ ‘If that’s the case, how could you be so certain [that you would not benefit]?’ Try it first. I believe we can love any work if we do it with an open mind and a happy heart.

(AS, P4S Daun Hijau Community)

• Theme 3: Collaboration with the Government and Private Sector Following the Establishment of the Community

From the initial phase of individual action to the establishment of a formal greening community, the activities were organized without any assistance from the government or private sector. However, once the greening efforts became well-established within the community, support and recognition from external stakeholders followed.

The government supports with training and providing greening infrastructures, such as compost [facilities], waste [management], and cleaning facilities—not in funding. On the other hand, the PLN (National Electricity Company) donates project funding. We then manage the funds accordingly.

(AS, Daun Hijau P4S Community)

The government usually gets involved after the community builds a strong reputation through its positive performance. After operating for approximately 1–2 years, the government would step in and ‘claim’ the community’s work. [The government would say] ‘We have been a patron of their work.’ Before that, we were utterly self-sufficient. [In my opinion], that’s why capital [funding] becomes number four [priority]. The first are willingness, time, and innovation. [When] these three [factors] are already running, many external stakeholders will join, assist, and claim mentorship. After that, we also involve RT and RW (Neighborhood Association) administrators. In Jakarta, the RT administrators receive an operational budget of approximately 2 million (Rupiah) per month for posyandu, posbindu, and lansia (integrated community healthcare center for mother, children, and the elderly). We receive partial funding through this operational budget, which we use for community activities, such as buying [planting] media, pots, fertilizers, and so on. Since our urban greening activities gradually expanded and the operational costs were getting more expensive, several provincial offices supported us, including the Department of Food Security, Maritime Affairs, and Agriculture. It was a cross-ministry collaboration between the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries. Meanwhile, we also collaborated with national corporations, targeting their CSR funds. Those who have collaborated with us are PLN (government electricity company) and BI (government national bank). PLN supplies all our electrical installations. Bali Fiber (another corporate partner) offers free lifetime support for 120 mbps internet network. We install high-tech planting systems and deliver all [planting] instructions using audio recognition technology, including watering instructions. We currently have 5000 pots, so we can’t water them manually. [With this technology system], a single audio command will water all these plants.

(FH, Amphar Adhum Community)

While the roles of the government and private sector are not dominant in the community’s operations, they still provide valuable support and benefits. The community recognizes that maintaining strong relationships with various stakeholders is crucial for expanding its reputation and connecting with external networks and other communities.

[Network] is important for community sustainability because [we cannot survive easily] without links with the government, private sector, and universities. We are not a for-profit entity—we’re a pro-environment [movement], community-based, and volunteer-run. We cannot demand [our community] to be continuously self-sufficient. We know our limits; our community members have their own lives. We can’t get by solely on community donations. To accelerate our programs, we need support from the government to provide facilities and training. State-owned enterprises (Badan Usaha Milik Negara or BUMN) have a budget to support additional facilities. Universities also have community service credits [as graduation requirements for their students]. We then collaborated with several universities, [whereby] the mutual benefits are students can conduct research for their thesis and dissertation with our community.

(AS, Daun Hijau P4S Community)

…I started this [greening activity] from zero. I said it was grassroots because there was no support from the government. The government will only intervene when a community is well-established. [On the other hand], the RT usually wants to facilitate [our programs]. They will contact us if a community bazaar and training program is happening. [We also had an opportunity] from the central government, alhamdulillah (praise be to God). We gained trust [for a partnership] with the government-run Farmers’ Market and the Ministry of Agriculture.

(IW, Muara Community)

• Theme 4: Empowerment and Behavioral Change through Urban Greening

Urban greening communities not only benefit the physical environment in which the community resides, but also empower local organizing efforts and foster pro-environmental attitudes among formal community leaders (RT/RW administrators). According to the initiators of these urban greening communities, the empowerment factor acts as a form of social capital, helping to strengthen the bonds within the community.

[In urban greening movements], we (the community organizers) should never work alone. When we are invited as source persons and training instructors [in any professional capacity], we should never feel like this (representing the community) is a one-man job. Get more community members involved. Everyone should feel that they are part of the team.

(AS, Daun Hijau P4S Community)

Nowadays, my friends (the community organizers) are invited to be source persons [for urban greening events]. They are most often invited for ministerial events, [at least] once a month. If they ever receive honorariums [from those events], they are always welcome to donate them to community activities. Even though their expertise were not acquired through formal education, [for someone] to be invited [to speak on behalf of the urban greening community at external events] means that their expertise [in community organizing] are acknowledged.

(FH, Amphar Adhum Community)

In female-dominated greening communities, empowerment extends to the establishment of internal business units focused on producing traditional beverages and dishes. These units are managed by selected community members who demonstrate potential in processing and developing these products, thus fostering both economic independence and skill development within the community.

From urban farming, the result is robust [economically]. We then grow certain rhizome varieties, such as ginger. The next problem is what we want to do with the plants [after harvesting]. We plant and sell seeds—but rhizomes aren’t the same as mint [for their popularity among consumers). Then, I made bir pletok (a local traditional beverage made from ginger) with my team. From 2016 to 2018, my home is well-stocked with bir pletok that we produced in-house approximately two to three times a week with our community members’ assistance. Once they (community members) absorbed the knowledge [for food production], we observed which members had the potential to join the bir pletok production [team]. Not everyone made the cut. I had to interview people to see if they liked food processing and cooking, their time availability, and whether their families approved [of their prospective work in bir pletok production]. [You ask:] Why do I do this? We want to assemble a strong team. I want to bring these team members, empower them, and make them the representatives of the Muara Community. In 2018, God willing, we established a culinary division that processed our turmeric plants into traditional dishes, such as nasi tumpeng and nasi liwet. All of these products come from our produce. That is the value of empowerment: Helping people discover their potential.

(IW, Muara Community)

Besides empowerment, greening activities have also succeeded in promoting pro-environment community behavior.

When we planted on the roadside, there was a high risk of losing the plants because no one cared for them. Now, people have begun to feel that the plants are their assets, so they take care of them. That is an example of behavioral change. People finally recognize that greening is good. Hydroponics has become increasingly popular [in the community], but it all depends on individual [interest].

(AS, Daun Hijau P4S Community)

Actually, [it is] the culture [of people] that has changed, which is the most essential factor. In the beginning, our plants died, were broken, damaged, and disappeared. None of the plants survived for a year because the residents were unfamiliar with greening activities. There were no plants at all (in the neighborhood). Then, there was a pot [of plant] on the roadside, which annoyed motorcyclists. Someone kicked it on a whim, then [it was] removed, and [the plant was] damaged. In our first year, we were stressed. I told my friends (community organizers) that if we stopped after a year, we would be done [with the greening activities]. [I had thought that] we would step backward. But it was a test. We failed in our first year and again in our second year but managed to save some plants. We replanted the dead plants from the first year, bought seeds [of our lost plants], and rearranged everything. Now, the area feels cool and green again. People take selfies and pre-wedding shots in every corner. When the community has felt the benefits of our greening activities, people will at least protect the plants from damage and looting. We all take care of the plants together. Again, the culture has now changed. The community will defend the sustainability of practices that benefit them positively.

(FH, Amphar Adhum Community)

• Theme 5: Community and Organizational Sustainability

All the greening communities are now well-established and have made significant contributions to urban greening development. However, community initiators have acknowledged the need to recruit more young organizers to ensure the long-term sustainability of these initiatives. This highlights the importance of involving younger generations as potential human resources to maintain and continue greening programs within their neighborhoods and broader community networks.

Community sustainability is a challenge [on its own]. [Communicating with younger generations] is not easy. We’d have to appeal to young people and change their attitude [towards community organizing]. We have embedded intergenerational outreach in our operations, both structurally and in individual community activities. [One time] I gave an external hydroponics training; I brought a young community organizer [to give training alongside me]. This is our attempt to provide an example [for young people].

(AS, Daun Hijau P4S Community)

Human resources are the most crucial factor to developing urban farming activities, [especially because] not everyone enjoys planting and social activities. That’s the problem.

(FH, Amphar Adhum Community)

Based on the information from the five main themes, a conceptual framework can be developed to interpret the process of urban greening communities (Figure 7). In this context, the urban greening process follows sixth stages of development:

• First, all urban greening community stories began with personal initiatives driven by different motives, but they all saw it as an opportunity to improve their neighborhood. Initially, they never intended to form a formal organization, as it started as a small initiative to create better environmental conditions.
• Second, to support their good causes, the initiators needed to involve more neighborhood members by changing perspectives on greening activities, highlighting their potential benefits, and raising awareness of their positive impact.
• Third, a formal organization was established only after more neighborhood members became involved in greening activities. The initiative needed to be organized and sustained to make the activities more permanent and develop long-term goals rather than being seen as short-term and unplanned efforts. The formal organization helped community members stay committed and consistent in greening activities.
• Fourth, the newly structured organization needed collaboration with other stakeholders to sustain its operational activities and secure funding, ensuring the longevity of its programs.
• Fifth, as the urban greening community evolved into a formal organization, its members also developed skills in urban greening expertise. These new skills empowered their roles within the community and provided personal benefits, making them more resourceful individuals.
• Sixth, urban greening communities strive to maintain their existence by incorporating new, younger members into an intergenerational knowledge and responsibility transfer process. This ensures the sustainability of the urban greening community and preserves its organizational legacy.

5. Discussion

The six stages of urban greening community development, derived from the conceptual framework in the Results section, represent the process of tactical urbanism for organic urban greening communities in Jakarta’s urban kampung. As mentioned earlier, urban greening initiatives are one of the most promising activities that illustrate and implement tactical urbanism planning at the grassroots level, due to their main characteristics that align with tactical urbanism activities. Figure 8 illustrates the process of tactical urbanism in Jakarta’s urban greening communities. Our research indicates that these urban greening activities initially adopted a tactical approach, which later evolved into a more strategic one. The program transitioned from a temporary, low-cost initiative to a more structured, formal, and complex community. This evolution highlights the role of tactical urbanism not only as a medium for intervention but as a catalyst for driving such interventions [38].

Studies on urban greening communities in urban neighborhoods reveal that the tactical urbanism process in these contexts is often organic and unplanned. This organic form of tactical urbanism contrasts with the idealized structure described in the design thinking model (

Table 1. Comparison between common tactical urbanism stages and organic tactical urbanism.

Tactical Urbanism Stages [4]	Organic Tactical Urbanism
Begins with intentional planning to achieve a predetermined goal	Begins with personal ideas, is more spontaneous, and initially lacks intentional planning or a clear goal
All stages provide clear guidance for a short-term period of activity	The process evolves from short-term activities to more permanent, long-term community projects
Tactical urbanism is a quick planning approach to achieve small goals, with or without a formal organizational structure	Tactical urbanism serves as a steppingstone for establishing a formal organizational structure to sustain the project in the long run

). The current literature primarily highlights the stages of tactical urbanism from an ideal perspective, providing guidance for implementing successful tactical urbanism planning. Our results contextualize tactical urbanism within the urban kampung setting by presenting an organic perspective that has not been widely explored in the literature. This insight expands the understanding of tactical urbanism in organic, community-based, and close-knit local neighborhoods.

In organic tactical urbanism, community initiators play a critical role in launching urban greening initiatives within their localities. Leaders set an example by implementing simple greening actions and serve as key figures in raising awareness and encouraging community participation. As noted in the interviews, the initial idea for tactical urbanism often emerges from individual, spontaneous initiatives rather than collective planning or structured community action. Consequently, these greening activities are not reactions to government shortcomings in providing equitable access to urban green spaces or addressing spatial inequalities. In this regard, tactical urbanism diverges from being a political response to spatial injustice.

Moreover, tactical urbanism activities did not immediately garner a swift and positive response from the community. While the tactical aspect is evident in the direct actions of initiators, it also requires a systematic approach to engage residents and establish formal greening communities. Key obstacles include limited knowledge about the benefits of greening initiatives, differing views on personal gains, weakening neighborhood ties, and concerns about the time and financial resources required for participation. These factors contribute to an additional phase in the tactical urbanism process: a critical stage of raising community awareness. Indeed, previous urban greening studies have shown that resistance is common in lower-income communities, where residents are often reluctant to take on the financial burden associated with participation in greening activities [39,40].

Due to its temporary and low-cost nature, tactical urbanism manifests early in urban greening as individual initiatives, evolving from ideation to encouragement and, eventually, to community formation. However, formal planning only begins once the community is established. Prior to formalization, planning is limited and primarily focused on attracting community members. Once the community is formed, planning shifts toward managing, empowering, and ensuring the sustainability of greening activities. This shift marks the transition to a phase of strategic, community-driven long-term planning.

Community greening initiatives have not only revitalized social cohesion within urban neighborhoods but have also proven to be powerful tools for enhancing social capital, supporting findings from multiple studies on community-based urban gardening [41,42]. These initiatives have successfully built social capital through local greening efforts by creating networks and fostering collaborative, mutually beneficial partnerships with stakeholders who wield political and financial influence [33]. These accomplishments highlight the transformative potential of the tactical urbanism approach, which extends beyond physical improvements to reshape the character of urban residents and foster stronger community and environmental connections.

Although tactical urbanism is often associated with government agendas, government and private sector involvement in urban greening communities typically does not occur during the initial stages of the process. In these cases, government participation generally begins after the greening community has been formally established and empowered. Rather than directly intervening in operations, government and private sector entities provide support through incidental funding, resources like plant seeds, and facilities to help sustain the program. They also host annual environmental awards to recognize the contributions of these communities to their local environments, fostering healthy competition that boosts greening performance. Furthermore, they assist with marketing community products and invite urban greening members to external events as experts in community-based training and development programs.

The growth and success of urban greening communities have also played a crucial role in driving the Climate Village Program (Program Kampung Iklim, or Proklim), an initiative established by the Ministry of Environment and Forestry in 2016. Proklim aims to promote community-based climate action across the country [43,44]. These policy innovations highlight the growing recognition of community-driven tactical urbanism as an integral part of the broader environmental policy process.

Fundamentally, the government can play an active role in community greening activities by leveraging the leadership of RT/RW administrators, who hold the authority and budget to manage environmental programs at the neighborhood level. With this capacity, they have considerable potential to act as change agents and initiators of tactical urbanism within their communities. However, for this potential to be realized, RT/RW administrators must become more environmentally conscious and take a proactive role in planning and implementing community-based greening initiatives. Unfortunately, many RT/RW administrators have not yet fully embraced their potential as drivers and role models for change in their communities.

A key success of tactical urbanism in urban greening communities is its ability to influence community behavior, transforming residents into proactive participants. This shift represents a model of pro-environmental behavior that is essential for sustainable urban development, as communities are the foundation of urban sustainability [45]. Urban greening communities have contributed significantly to society by enhancing community-based green infrastructure to mitigate urban heat islands, reduce pollution, strengthen food security, improve local welfare, and foster urban regeneration in both sparse and dense urban kampung environments. The behavioral shifts within these communities vary, from active involvement in community organizing to preserving greenery in their surroundings, demonstrating the critical community learning process that underpins the planning and construction of more sustainable cities at the micro level.

The process and success of urban greening communities demonstrate how the tactical urbanism approach can guide communities toward achieving long-term goals. These communities evolve from ad hoc efforts into large-scale tactical urbanism projects [5] that incorporate strategic planning [46]. Today, communities place greater emphasis on human resource management to ensure the sustainability of their activities, including engaging younger generations in community organizing. However, as the scale of greening activities expands, community organizers must remain creative in securing funding to meet the increasing budgetary needs associated with sustaining these initiatives. In addition, to ensure that the community benefits all neighborhood members, the urban greening community organization should remain accessible to anyone who wishes to participate actively. It should also recruit new members to encourage active involvement, ensuring that all members have equal opportunities to contribute and support activities based on their interests and preferences.

Urban greening communities independently manage and fund their operations during the ideation and community formation stages. This self-sufficiency is a vital feature of the tactical urbanism process, challenging the assumption that greening activities are primarily monetized or market-driven projects [47]. While these communities may receive incidental government and private sector funding, they should prioritize independent financing models, such as professionally structured business units, as part of their development agendas. The Muara Community, with its women empowerment leadership model, has expanded its greening programs by running a food processing business unit. In future planning, other communities could also consider establishing and professionally managing for-profit business units as alternative funding sources. During the pilot phase, involving homemakers with more flexible schedules could be a practical strategy to oversee these community enterprises.

6. Conclusions

Tactical urbanism offers a grassroots and spontaneous approach that is well-suited for implementing organic, community-based urban greening initiatives. However, based on our study, the design thinking model does not accurately capture the processes involved in organic urban movements, especially in the context of urban kampung, which has a different socio-cultural background compared to most tactical urbanism research conducted in Western community settings. Moreover, the addition of steps, such as the community awareness and motivation phase, reveals the complexities of urban society that can either strengthen or hinder tactical planning efforts. Therefore, the current research can help broaden the theory and practice of tactical urbanism in more diverse settings.

In urban greening communities, tactical urbanism serves as a steppingstone towards the planning of permanent, long-term greening movements and fosters a learning process for city development. Its strengths make tactical urbanism an ideal approach for the early stages of participatory planning, promoting a bottom-up strategic planning process. As urban development progresses, civil participation will become increasingly crucial in achieving development goals and realizing democratic, community-oriented urban planning.

The framework of tactical urbanism within urban greening communities can serve as a model for fostering thriving greening movements. Successful community initiators provide valuable insights for advancing urban greening across neighborhoods, inspiring the next generation of leaders to implement similar programs. This peer-learning network encourages community-driven problem-solving around environmental and health challenges, builds social capital, and empowers citizens. Additionally, cultivating partnerships with government and other stakeholders is crucial for establishing a sustainable and cohesive urban greening ecosystem. By sharing successful experiences and collaborating, these partnerships can improve urban living environments and replicate effective models in other regions. Ultimately, this approach nurtures active citizen participation, which is vital for building climate-resilient urban communities and ensuring the long-term sustainability of urban environments.

For future research, a quantitative or mixed-method approach can be used to reach more participants and gain perspectives from community members. This can provide a more comprehensive understanding of the organic tactical urbanism process within urban greening communities.