Search

This paper examines how Chinese transnational investments, as (re)framed in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), contribute to changes in urbanisation processes in Southeast Asia. On the ground, the BRI becomes contextualised and intersects with local and national development trajectories. The growing presence of Chinese actors in the region intensifies urban dynamics, especially in secondary cities and emerging urban sites, where the BRI is used as a lever for local internationalisation strategies. The heterogeneous nature of the links between the BRI and various large urban projects is demonstrated on the basis of case studies involving changing consortia of private and public Chinese and Southeast Asian actors. A regional approach allows us to identify connections and shared processes across Southeast Asian countries. It provides a historically grounded understanding of how the BRI incorporates long‐term interactions with China and more recent partnerships in Southeast Asian countries. The paper paves the way for a research agenda that contests the image of China as a monolithic actor implementing the BRI uniformly and consistently. Further analyses are needed to examine systems and networks of actors as well as the local urban politics that affect the BRI on the ground. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The phenomenon of urban expansion in Southeast Asia has increased since the 1960s due the land development for the capital as well as surrounding cities supporting it. Since the 1970s, private developers in Jabodetabek have transformed rural areas into new cities and connecting them primarily via toll roads. They have developed the suburb aggressively for real estate projects, resulting in rapid urban sprawl. Most of these new cities are outfitted with amenities, including schools, hospitals, sewage systems, medical facilities, security personnel, and public parks. Some were motivated by the need for new settlements, while others were motivated by economic and industrial growth. However, the new cities have become segregated communities because they are heavily guarded, gated, and surrounded by walls. Their existence creates disparities between private cities and surrounding kampongs, which can be problematic for the surrounding society. Through literature review, mapping, interviews, and taking Bintaro Jaya as the case study, this paper analyses the characteristics of the private city in Southeast Asia and the Indonesian context as well as how gentrification resulting from land transformation has become the primary driver of urban expansion. This paper argues that the definition of Private cities cannot be generally adopted to Indonesian context. • Politics, economics, and way of life contribute to urban segregation in the development of private cities. • The primary drivers of private cities are safety and lifestyle. • Private cities have caused urban segregation and gentrification. • Private cities caused disparities between the private developed areas and the surrounding kampong. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper broadens the scope of hierarchical knowledge in urban climate governance, moving beyond the traditional focus on large, global cities in specific regions. By scrutinising cities' mitigation actions in the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) for the year 2019, the study encompasses data from over 800 local governments and over 3700 reported mitigation actions. Spanning a diverse range of cities with varying populations, global city status, and regional locations, the analysis aims to uncover cities' sectoral focus and financial and implementation arrangements. It further explores whether there are significant differences between diverse cities and their reported actions. The analysis highlights the dominance of building and infrastructure among different cities' reported mitigation actions and most cities having successful implementation and finance by largely relying on local sources. Notably, most cities demonstrate successful implementation and finance predominantly sourced locally. Surprisingly, no discernible variations were found in cities' sectoral focus and financial and implementation arrangements based on their population and GDP per capita. However, cities with distinct global economic statuses exhibit notable differences in sectoral focus, even though no disparities exist in finance and implementation approaches. Global cities, in particular, show a higher percentage of actions related to building, energy, and transportation compared to non-global cities. Significant differences also emerge across regions, particularly in infrastructural sectors such as building, waste, and energy supply, as well as in the implementation and funding of actions. For instance, Latin America, Southeast Asia, and Oceania showcase the lowest percentage of actions in the building sector but the highest in waste, distinguishing them from other regions. These findings underscore the potential of smaller cities, with lower economic status and those lacking global city status in successfully funding and implementing their mitigation actions despite regional variations. The study challenges prevailing hierarchical assumptions about cities based on size and economic status, emphasising the importance of tailoring solutions to address unique needs and priorities of different regions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]