Land reclamation activities can, directly and indirectly, impact the environment. Examples of direct effects include alterations in coastal geomorphology, variations in the chemical content of water and changes in biological composition along the littoral zone. The indirect impacts can involve geological changes and increase vulnerability to natural disasters. Reclamation processes also result in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from vehicle and machinery fuel use and through the release of carbon stored in vegetation, soils and sediment in mangroves and seagrass ecosystems. Considering the global extent of land reclamation, the scale of these emissions is likely to be of widespread interest. The case of Jakarta Bay provides useful insights that can contribute to the improved environmental management of kindred land development projects in Indonesia and other parts of Asia. More than 5,100 ha of new land mass is planned from the Jakarta Bay reclamation. Preliminary analysis suggests that 30% of the planned area will require more than 150.7 million cubic metres of sand sourced from 8,628 ha of marine quarry area. In this study, we examine the sources of GHG emissions in these activities and the potential opportunities available to reduce them. The audience for this paper includes policymakers, environmental practitioners, city developers and postgraduate scholars dealing with land reclamation or other major infrastructure developments.

## INTRODUCTION

Among the world’s nations, Indonesia has the second longest coastline [1]. Economic activities in its archipelago have been historically located in coastal areas [2], especially on Java island. Demand for new landmasses close to developed areas is escalating in the coastal zone. Plans for reclamation in Indonesia have thus increased in the past couple of years.

Globally, China and the Netherland are the countries with the highest reclaimed land areas (Figure 1). Technological development of construction methods has expanded the scope and increased the scale of possible operations. Due to this acceleration, the adaptation of coastal habitats to rapid change can be limited.

FIGURE 1.

Countries with the highest reclaimed land (as of date) [3–6].

FIGURE 1.

Countries with the highest reclaimed land (as of date) [3–6].

Land reclamation projects have a significant bearing on the environment in terms of their physical [7, 8], ecological [9], geotechnical [10] and social and economical make-up [3]. As distinct from slower-moving, natural, physical and geographical change, reclamation can

• change sea currents and coastal bathymetry [7, 11];

• influence water pH, salinity, electric conductivity and pollutant counts [9];

• cause loss of biodiversity with a reduction of fish density and species and a downturn in the water bird population [3, 12]; and

• create geological disasters such as liquefaction and land subsidence [4, 5, 13].

Land reclamation is one of the main causes of the loss of vegetated coastal areas in tropical regions [14]. These zones play a significant role in climate change mitigation, because they absorb a large share of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions [1517]. Saline marshes [18], mangrove forests [15] and seagrasses [19, 20] are the significant elements in coastal carbon sequestration. Approximately 10% of the carbon sequestration of the ocean occurs due to seagrasses, which cover only 0.2% of the marine area [19]. The terrestrial contribution of mangroves to sequestration is only 1% of that of the world’s forests, but the proportion increases to 14% for ocean carbon sequestration [15]. The combination of mangrove forests and seagrasses accounts for 24% of ocean carbon sequestration capacity.

Land reclamation of coastal areas requires vast resources of materials and use of heavy equipment. The utilisation of sand for construction is increasing notably around the world [21], and mining is common in the rivers and in the shallow coastal zone. It affects three systems: the source area, where the sand is extracted; the receiving system, where the sand is used; and the transportation system, denoting the area through which transit occurs [22]. Systems-thinking is thus useful in that it

• promotes interconnection between the quarries and the dumping site;

• differentiates responsibilities between near and distant quarries;

• reduces spillover effects such as threats to natural species and the extent of carbon emissions; and

• establishes policy guidelines and the mitigation of unforeseen effects [22].

Spillover effects, in this case carbon emissions, increase with the volume of material and the distance from quarry locations. Furthermore, expansion of land reclamation into a wider and deeper area of the coastal zone [23] can threaten habitat. The loss of wetlands can reduce sequestration capabilities and release carbon emission from exposure of soil and plant decomposition. Given the situation in the quarry zone and the site, land reclamation activity is an imminent threat to wetland conservation.

By way of foregoing inquiries, Chen et al. [24] investigated the ecological footprint of sea reclamation based on biological resource consumption and energy use. Brunori et al. [25] examined the effect of reclamation of a formerly mined area by planting a particular species (English Oak) to sequestrate carbon. After 3 years of tree growth, absorption of carbon was higher than the level of emitted carbon in the originally mined area [25]. Notwithstanding these various projects, the carbon footprint due to the conversion of a shallow coastal area into a new land mass remains to be examined. These elements, along with GHGs created during transportation and construction, are neglected in many land reclamation projects’ feasibility studies, being seen merely as indirect effects of the process.

Although GHG emissions are an indirect outcome of land reclamation, they affect climate change. Climate impacts vary according to the zone and area. They include sea level rises, severe drought and alternatively extreme rainfall that generates floods. Calculating emissions from reclamation is, therefore, a significant requirement in the public interest. Of course, many other socioeconomic issues arise due to the robust nature of the endeavour. Although important, we have not appraised them here since they fall beyond the scope of this case study.

## CASE STUDY EXAMINATION

### Land Reclamation in Indonesia

Land reclamation in Indonesia dates to the first President’s direction to re-establish the coastal area of Jakarta Bay as the showcase of the nation. President Soekarno slated the development of northwest Jakarta to minimise flooding issues and designate the city’s northeast for recreational purposes. The latter project started with reclamation in February 1962, involving an area of 552 ha [26]. Owing to political instability, it was abandoned and restarted in the late 1980s with work around Ancol as the recreational area [26]. A contemporaneous project was the Pluit urban polder in the northern area of Jakarta constructed in 1981. It occupies 2,260 ha of new landmasses, with 3% of the area designed for a retention pond. These two early initiatives demonstrated proof of concept for newly designated precincts.

There are 37 sites of ongoing and planned land reclamation throughout Indonesia (Figure 2), with the total area of 244.60 km2 (Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries). Proposals include single-purpose instances such as a harbour or airport, to multi-purpose surroundings such as a residential complex or industrial zone. The Ministry of Forestry and Environment, the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, local governments, NGOs and nearby residents are the stakeholders directly affected and have strong interests in the reclamation issue. As the country with the world’s greatest area of mangroves and variety of mangrove species [27], Indonesia is finding that such planning is significantly threatening vulnerable ecosystems. As distinct from reclamation practice in European countries and China, where land is used for agriculture [4, 28], Indonesia’s focus is mostly on residential complexes.

FIGURE 2.

Land reclamation sites in Indonesia. Source: Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries.

FIGURE 2.

Land reclamation sites in Indonesia. Source: Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries.

### Rapid Development of Land Reclamation in Jakarta

Jakarta Bay, to the north of Jakarta City, has an area of 490 km2. Several of its islands serve East Asian–Australasian Flyway bird migration [29]. The bay is the estuary of 13 rivers flowing from the West Java hinterland and Jakarta city. A significant amount of pollution is created and disposed in the bay, causing water quality to deteriorate. Sediment supply from the West Java hinterland has also resulted in infilling of the bay and increased water turbidity. The West Java hinterland, upstream from Jakarta, is a volcanic zone with agricultural activities on its rich soils.

Flooding problems, land subsidence, traffic congestion and economic growth have driven the need for new land masses alongside the established urban development in Jakarta. The city is translocating to the shallow coastal region to its north. The biggest reclamation plan is the National Capital Integrated Coastal Development (NCICD). Another project includes reclamation at Muara Karang for an electric steam power plant and expansion of the Pantai Indah Kapuk residential area.

Initiation of land reclamation took place in 1995 with the newly enacted government regulation, Presidential Decree No. 52, regarding Reclamation of the Northern Jakarta Coast. It was further implemented via the Jakarta Governor’s Regulation No. 121/2012, which described Jakarta Bay as a reclamation zone, an area to be enhanced technically to improve its function and economic value. Jakarta has a massive plan to expand the ground area around its bay. There is a scheme for 17 new islands in the northern part, extending from Babelan in the east to the Kamal sub-district in the west [30]. The total extent planned for reclamation is 5,100 ha [30].

The depth of reclamation will be from −1 to −9 m for the various islands in the bay [30]. The height of reclaimed land is planned to be 4 m above mean sea level. Overall, the height of the new islands thus varies from 5 to 13 m from the seabed. The distance of newly reclaimed islands from Jakarta’s northern coastline is 300 m.

Meanwhile, environmental deterioration has occurred in the bay area. Incoming organic and inorganic matters have resulted in algae blooms and insufficient oxygen for fish [31]. The blooms are expanding into a larger area of the offshore zone [32]. Another indication of decaying environmental quality is the content of heavy metal in the seawater and in sediment concentration. Pb (plumbum, lead) comes mainly from the Tanjung Priok area, while Cu (cuprum, copper) and Zn (zinc) are sourced from the centre and southwest of the bay [32]. Another indication of deteriorating water quality is the linear alkylbenzenes (LAB) content. With respect to the megacity’s performance, concentration in Jakarta Bay is twice that of Tokyo Bay [33]. This higher level of deposition results from a higher level of untreated sewage pouring into Jakarta Bay from the densely populated city and comparatively poorer quality waste treatment system. It has subsequently lowered the population of molluscans [34], benthic faunas [32] and fish inhabitants [35]. Yet, the poor condition of the bay confronts an equally serious threat from expanding land reclamation, which could increase water turbidity and lower the photosynthetic capability of the shallow water inshore.

Rapid development has reduced the green space and wetland. Part of the mangrove forests in the Muara Angke area had an area of 1,344.62 ha in the 1960s [36]. In 1988, with the enactment of the Ministry of Forestry Decree No. 097/KPTS-II/88, 831.63 ha of the mangrove forest area was utilised for settlement and commerce [36]. Currently, there are 327.7 ha of mangroves left in the sub-district [36]. It is the last location of this forest type in the Jakarta region.

As development proceeds, the distances involved in transporting fill materials are necessarily increasing. GHG emission from transportation is non-linear, rising 300% as against a 250% increase in distance [37]. Bilec et al. [37] thus suggest incentives for the consumption of local material for construction. Although the emission rate has been included in the Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA) of Reclaimed Islands, the focus is mainly to fulfil the environmental standard.

Raw materials used for land reclamation are sand and soil [38, 39], whether extracted from nearby hills [23] or as sediment from the seabed and river. The utilisation of sand from the shallow seabed will eventually destroy seagrass, which has an important role in carbon sequestration. Retrieval of soil from the hills will convert source areas into open space that could create erosion and ultimately reduce the ability to sequester carbon emissions. In these ways, we see the true indirect effects of carbon emission due to land reclamation at source sites for materials.

### Land Reclamation Resources

The utilisation of local marine raw material is becoming difficult, due to the progression of the reclamation area into a deeper zone. The works require much more infill that cannot be obtained from the immediate vicinity. The operational quarry area is located >50 km from the reclamation site. The farthest source is ~260 km away (Figure 3).

FIGURE 3.

Available quarry area and distance to the reclamation site for the Jakarta Bay Land Reclamation project. Source: Google Earth, data compiled from the EIA of Reclaimed Islands.

FIGURE 3.

Available quarry area and distance to the reclamation site for the Jakarta Bay Land Reclamation project. Source: Google Earth, data compiled from the EIA of Reclaimed Islands.

Each new island requires a specific amount of raw material (Table 1). The total area of eight planned islands (from current available data, the total proposed islands number 17) is 1,486.5 ha (30% of the total land reclamation plan). This initial 30% will require 150.7 million cubic metres of sand, 5.7 million cubic metres of rock and 1.6 million cubic metres of soil (Table 1). The available sand from the quarry area is 240.76 million cubic metres (Table 2). However, the material needed will also potentially deplete 8,628 ha (Table 2) of marine quarry area, extending over seagrasses, mangroves and mudflats. The current data indicate that one part of the reclaimed area is drawing on 5.8 times the quarry area (based on the volume requirement and area of the sand mining concession). Further investigation is needed to establish the proportion of quarry area, which is wetland or has carbon sequestration potential and will be affected by the reclamation.

TABLE 1.

Requirement of material for land reclamation islands

No.IslandArea (ha)WorkersHeavy machinesSand requirement (m3)Rock requirement (m3)Topsoil requirement (m3)
285 1,000 35 18,663,055 826,256 34,396
310 na na 20,900,000 750,382 37,414
275 na na 19,209,597 836.2 33.19
190 300 34 25,000,000 700 342
161 117 na 10,600,000 780 150
63 300 136 11,600,000 531 315
I (west) 202.5 687 252 43,154,877 1,849,801 243,000
447 140 41 1,600,719.6 69,268 480

Total 1,486.5   150,728,249 5,570,870 1,635,000
No.IslandArea (ha)WorkersHeavy machinesSand requirement (m3)Rock requirement (m3)Topsoil requirement (m3)
285 1,000 35 18,663,055 826,256 34,396
310 na na 20,900,000 750,382 37,414
275 na na 19,209,597 836.2 33.19
190 300 34 25,000,000 700 342
161 117 na 10,600,000 780 150
63 300 136 11,600,000 531 315
I (west) 202.5 687 252 43,154,877 1,849,801 243,000
447 140 41 1,600,719.6 69,268 480

Total 1,486.5   150,728,249 5,570,870 1,635,000

Source: Compiled from EIA of Reclaimed Islands CDE, F, G, H, I (west) and K.

TABLE 2.

Available quarry area for land reclamation material

No.Concession holderArea (ha)LocationEstimate volume (m3)Estimate dredge depth (m)Distance to site (km)
PT. Jetstar 2,076 Banten Province 20,760,000 73
PT. Jetstar 1,000 Banten Province 3,000,000 0.3 68
PT. Jetstar 1,000 Banten Province 2,500,000 0.25 65
PT. Jetstar 940 Banten Province 1,500,000 0.16 60
PT. Jetstar 1,000 Banten Province 3,000,000 0.3 60
PT. Wahana Tanggamus Berkah – Tanggamus District, Lampung Province 25,000,000 – 260
PT. Labitra Ardhu Syakirah 920 Serang District, Banten Province 50,000,000 5.4 55
PT. Tobas Kaula Kencana 692 East Lampung 60,000,000 8.7 200
PT. Citra Harapan Abadi 997 Lampung Province 50,000,000 206
10 PT. Permata Sumber Energi (PSE) 1,000 Serang District, Banten Province 25,000,000 2.5 85

Total 9,625  240,760,000
No.Concession holderArea (ha)LocationEstimate volume (m3)Estimate dredge depth (m)Distance to site (km)
PT. Jetstar 2,076 Banten Province 20,760,000 73
PT. Jetstar 1,000 Banten Province 3,000,000 0.3 68
PT. Jetstar 1,000 Banten Province 2,500,000 0.25 65
PT. Jetstar 940 Banten Province 1,500,000 0.16 60
PT. Jetstar 1,000 Banten Province 3,000,000 0.3 60
PT. Wahana Tanggamus Berkah – Tanggamus District, Lampung Province 25,000,000 – 260
PT. Labitra Ardhu Syakirah 920 Serang District, Banten Province 50,000,000 5.4 55
PT. Tobas Kaula Kencana 692 East Lampung 60,000,000 8.7 200
PT. Citra Harapan Abadi 997 Lampung Province 50,000,000 206
10 PT. Permata Sumber Energi (PSE) 1,000 Serang District, Banten Province 25,000,000 2.5 85

Total 9,625  240,760,000

Source: Compiled from EIA of Reclaimed Island CDE, F, G, H, I (west) and K.

If requisite data are available, an empirical approach to estimate GHG emission from utilisation of heavy equipment can be envisioned via the formula [40, 41]:

$∑i=1i=nEMCO2=Qi×EFi$

where

i: heavy machinery numbers

$EMCO2$: Total emission from various heavy machines (tonnes)

Qi: fuel consumption for each heavy machine (litre)

EFi: emission factor for each heavy machine (tonnes CO2 ev/litre)

The list of heavy machinery (Table 3) varies for each land reclamation island due to their varying structures in design. Given the same kind of heavy machine, differences also occur due to engine capacity and the manufacturer’s specifications. Fuel consumption can be obtained from the contractor conducting the land reclamation. It varies based on motor size, duration of work and distance travelled. Emissions of each heavy machine can be found in the manufacturer’s information and the emission tier compliance.

TABLE 3.

Detail requirement of heavy machinery for land reclamation islands

Heavy machineryIslands

CFHI (west)K
Cutter suction dredger (CSD)  15
Trail suction hopper dredger (TSHD) 50
Tugboat + barge 16
Crane barge
Bulldozer
Crane
Transportation boat   10
Dump truck   233
Spray pontoon 18
Perforated VD
Backhoe dredgers
Compaction rollers
Rapid compaction drillers
Onshore vertical drain inserters
Survey boat
Inspection boat
Platform boat
Anchor boat
Wire crane with clamshell and orange peel grab
Pontoon with offshore vibro-compaction equipment

Total 35 34 136 252 41
Heavy machineryIslands

CFHI (west)K
Cutter suction dredger (CSD)  15
Trail suction hopper dredger (TSHD) 50
Tugboat + barge 16
Crane barge
Bulldozer
Crane
Transportation boat   10
Dump truck   233
Spray pontoon 18
Perforated VD
Backhoe dredgers
Compaction rollers
Rapid compaction drillers
Onshore vertical drain inserters
Survey boat
Inspection boat
Platform boat
Anchor boat
Wire crane with clamshell and orange peel grab
Pontoon with offshore vibro-compaction equipment

Total 35 34 136 252 41

Source: Compiled from EIA of Reclaimed Islands CDE, F, G, H, I (west) and K.

The quarry area of 9,625 ha is located at Banten Bay and Lampung Province (Figure 3). The transport distance varies from 55 to 260 km (Figure 3). Based on the estimated volume, the depth of dredging ranges from 0.16 to 8.7 m (Table 2). The quarry areas located lesser than 100 km from the reclamation site have available 105.76 million cubic metres of material. The proportion of material within 100 km radius and beyond 200 km radius reveals significantly more material in the further area (Figure 4). Emission from the transportation task is likely to escalate due to the expanded distance.

FIGURE 4.

Available material within 100 km radius from the site and beyond 200 km distance.

FIGURE 4.

Available material within 100 km radius from the site and beyond 200 km distance.

Land reclamation around Jakarta Bay is set to cover 5,100 ha. Currently, available data cover only 30% (1,486.5 ha) of the total area. The requirement of sand for this 30% of the planned area is 150.7 million cubic metres. Under a linear assumption, there will be another 351.82 million cubic metres needed to complete the planned 5,100 ha. In total, there is a requirement for 502.6 million cubic metres to finish the reclamation.

With respect to the distance from the reclamation site, available materials (105.76 million cubic metres) from quarries within 100 km will cover only 70.18% of the planned area, drawing in further sources beyond 200 km. Apart from the marine sand, there is a requirement for rock and topsoil. This type of material is transported by the dump truck, an extensive carbon emitter compared with sea transportation. Given the monumental scale involved in these projects, it is important comprehensively to conceptualise and then accurately to quantify the overall carbon footprint from reclamation activities. This article represents an initial move towards that end.

## CASE STUDY QUESTIONS

1. 5,100 ha area is to be reclaimed. Is this area the size of a shopping centre, a soccer stadium or a whole town?

2. Can we develop a metric to contextualise a land development of this extent? Would it be based on the area to be redeveloped around scale, concerning the required infrastructures or the nature of the utilisation zone?

3. What socioeconomic impacts are the land reclamation activities likely to have on the surrounding communities (given that the northern area of Jakarta is a lower income area compared with the reclaimed area which is likely to be a higher income area)?

4. How should we estimate the GHG emissions from land reclamation? Where should we define our operational scope for the emissions estimate; the area to be reclaimed, the development works or also the quarries?

I extend my gratitude to the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries for the ongoing and planned land reclamation data and the Jakarta Governmental Office for the Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA) of Reclaimed Islands (CDE, F, G, H, I (west) and K).

## FUNDING

The authors thank the Indonesia Endowment Fund for Education (LPDP), Ministry of Finance, Republic of Indonesia (Grant No: 20151222015021) for its financial support in this case study.

## COMPETING INTERESTS

The authors claim no competing interests.

## REFERENCES

REFERENCES
1.
Factbook C.
Central Intelligence Agency
.
Benin
:
2012
. Available: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html.
2.
Pires T, Cortesão A.
The Suma Oriental of Tome Pires, Books 1-5
.
London
:
Asian Educational Services
;
1990
.
3.
Duan H, Zhang H, Huang Qet al.
Characterization and environmental impact analysis of sea land reclamation activities in China
.
Ocean Coastal Manage
.
2016
;
130
:
128
137
.
4.
Hoeksema RJ.
Three stages in the history of land reclamation in the Netherlands
.
Irrig Drain
.
2007
;
56
(
S1
):
113
126
.
5.
Martín-Antón M, Negro V, del Campo JM, López-Gutiérrez JS, Esteban MD.
Review of coastal land reclamation situation in the world
.
J Coastal Res
.
2016
;
75
(
sp1
):
667
671
.
6.
Zainal K, Al-Madany I, Al-Sayed Het al.
The cumulative impacts of reclamation and dredging on the marine ecology and land-use in the Kingdom of Bahrain
.
Mar Pollut Bull
.
2012
;
64
:
1452
1458
.
7.
Baolei Z.
Environmental impacts of sea reclamation in Jiaozhou Gulf, Shandong province of China
.
Nat Hazards
.
2012
;
63
(
2
):
1269
1272
.
8.
Guo H, Jiao JJ.
Impact of coastal land reclamation on ground water level and the sea water interface
.
Groundwater
.
2007
;
45
(
3
):
362
367
.
9.
Wang L, Coles N, Wu C, Wu J.
Effect of long-term reclamation on soil properties on a coastal plain, southeast China
.
J Coastal Res
.
2014
;
30
(
4
):
661
669
.
10.
Jiao JJ, Nandy S, Li H.
Analytical studies on the impact of land reclamation on ground water flow
.
Groundwater
.
2001
;
39
(
6
):
912
920
.
11.
Wang K, Zhang X, Chen Z, Zhou F, Nie X.
Tidal and prism analysis of sea reclamation project in coastal bay
.
Water Resour
.
2015
;
42
(
5
):
635
651
.
12.
Suo A, Cao K, Zhao J, Lin Y.
Study on impacts of sea reclamation on fish community in adjacent waters: a case in Caofeidian, north China
.
J Coastal Res
.
2015
;
73
(
SI
):
183
187
.
13.
Mulder EFJd, Bruchem AJv, Claessen FAM, Hannink G, Hulsbergen JG, Satijn HMC.
Environmental impact assessment on land reclamation projects in the Netherlands: a case history
.
Eng Geol
.
1994
;
37
:
15
23
.
14.
Valiela I, Bowen JL, York JK.
Mangrove forests: one of the world’s threatened major tropical environments
.
Bioscience
.
2001
;
51
(
10
):
807
815
.
15.
Alongi DM.
Carbon sequestration in mangrove forests
.
Carbon Manage
.
2012
;
3
(
3
):
313
322
.
16.
Chmura GL, Anisfeld SC, Cahoon DR, Lynch JC.
Global carbon sequestration in tidal, saline wetland soils
.
Global Biogeochem Cycles
.
2003
;
17
(
4
):
1
12
.
17.
Duarte CM, Losada IJ, Hendriks IE, Mazarrasa I, Marba N.
The role of coastal plant communities for climate change mitigation and adaptation
.
Nat Clim Change
.
2013
;
3
(
11
):
961
968
.
18.
Kirwan ML, Mudd SM.
Response of salt-marsh carbon accumulation to climate change
.
Nature
.
2012
;
489
(
7417
):
550
553
.
19.
Fourqurean JW, Duarte CM, Kennedy Het al.
Seagrass ecosystems as a globally significant carbon stock
.
Nat Geosci
.
2012
;
5
(
7
):
505
509
.
20.
Kennedy H, Beggins J, Duarte CMet al.
Seagrass sediments as a global carbon sink: isotopic constraints
.
Global Biogeochem Cycles
.
2010
;
24
(
4
):
1
8
.
21.
UNEP.
Global Material Flows and Resource Productivity: Summary for Policymakers
.
Paris
:
International Resource Panel
;
2016
.
22.
Torres A, Brandt J, Lear K, Liu J.
A looming tragedy of the sand commons
.
Science
.
2017
;
357
(
6355
):
970
971
.
23.
Glaser R, Haberzettl P, Walsh R.
Land reclamation in Singapore, Hong Kong and Macau
.
GeoJournal
.
1991
;
24
(
4
):
365
373
.
24.
Chen W, Meng H, Wang X, Zhang L.
The Ecological Impact Assessment of Sea Reclamation Projects Based on Ecological Footprint Analysis: Xiamen Case Study. Paper presented at the 2010 4th International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedical Engineering (iCBBE)
;
2010
25.
Brunori A, Sdringola P, Dini Fet al.
Carbon balance and life cycle assessment in an oak plantation for mined area reclamation
.
J Cleaner Prod
.
2016
;
144
:
69
78
.
26.
Kusno A.
Runaway city: Jakarta Bay, the pioneer and the last frontier
.
Inter-Asia Cult Stud
.
2011
;
12
(
4
):
513
531
.
27.
Spalding M, Kainuma M, Collins L.
World Atlas of Mangroves
.
New York
:
Earthscan
;
2010
.
28.
Wang W, Liu H, Li Y, Su J.
Development and management of land reclamation in China
.
Ocean Coastal Manage
.
2014
;
102
(
Part B
):
415
425
.
29.
Tirtaningtyas FN, Yordan K.
Updating the seabird fauna of Jakarta Bay, Indonesia
.
Mar Ornithol
.
2016
;
45
:
11
16
.
30.
Frenkel R, Paassen Fv, Dewi S, Mulyadi S, Supartinah.
Master Plan National Capital Integrated Coastal Development. NCICD in Regional Planning Context. Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations
.
Jakarta
:
2014
.
31.
Ladwig N, Hesse K-J, van der Wulp SA, Damar A, Koch D.
Pressure on oxygen levels of Jakarta Bay
.
Mar Pollut Bull
.
2016
;
110
(
2
):
665
674
.
32.
Rees JG, Setiapermana D, Sharp VA, Weeks JM, Williams TM.
Evaluation of the impacts of land-based contaminants on the benthic faunas of Jakarta Bay, Indonesia
.
Oceanolog Acta
.
1999
;
22
:
627
640
.
33.
Rinawati, Koike T, Koike Het al.
Distribution, source identification, and historical trends of organic micropollutants in coastal sediment in Jakarta Bay, Indonesia
.
J Hazard Mater
.
2012
;
217–218
:
208
216
.
34.
van der Meij SE, Moolenbeek RG, Hoeksema BW.
Decline of the Jakarta Bay molluscan fauna linked to human impact
.
Mar Pollut Bull
.
2009
;
59
(
4–7
):
101
107
.
35.
Prabowo H, Suprapto H, Oswari T.
Environmental Degradation and Fisherman Livelihoods in Jakarta Coastal Area. International Conference: The 12th Biennial Global Conference of the International Association for the Study of the Commons; July 14-18, 2008 University of Gloucestershire
.
Cheltenham, UK
:
2008
.
36.
Ambinari M, Darusman D, Alikodra HS, Santoso N.
Penataan peran para pihak dalam pengelolaan hutan mangrove di perkotaan: studi kasus pengelolaan hutan mangrove di Teluk Jakarta
.
Jurnal Analisis Kebijakan
.
2013
;
13
(
1
):
29
40
.
37.
Bilec M, Ries R, Matthews HS, Sharrard AL.
Example of a hybrid life-cycle assessment of construction processes
.
J Infrastruct Syst
.
2006
;
12
(
4
):
207
215
.
38.
Lee S, Karunaratne G, Yong K, Ganeshan V.
Layered clay-sand scheme of land reclamation
.
J Geotech Eng
.
1987
;
113
(
9
):
984
995
.
39.
Li JG, Pu LJ, Zhu Met al.
Evolution of soil properties following reclamation in coastal areas: a review
.
Geoderma
.
2014
;
226
:
130
139
.
40.
Australian Government Department of Environement, Water, Heritage and the Arts
.
Emission Estimation Technique Manual for Combustion Engines
. Version 3.0.
2008
.
41.
Australian Government, Department of the Environment
.
National Greenhouse Accounts Factors: Australian National Greenhouse Accounts
.
2015
.