Risk reduction through spatial plan: A case study from Surabaya, Indonesia

Spatial planning has a vital role in mitigating and reducing risks by discouraging settlements and other forms of development in hazard-prone areas. Integrating spatial planning and disaster risk reduction is crucial to achieving resilient cities. Selecting Surabaya City in Indonesia as a case study, this research uses a questionnaire, in-depth interview, and documentary study to evaluate the performance of Surabaya spatial planning documents on risk reduction. This paper aims to formulate substantial steps to integrate risk reduction in Indonesian spatial planning based on evaluation to Surabaya spatial plans. The result shows that the performance of Surabaya spatial plans on average is scored 2.26 out of 5, indicating that the integration of disaster risk reduction on the Surabaya spatial planning document is still low. In response to this performance gap, eight policy recommendations are formulated to improve the future Indonesian spatial plan. In conclusion, the policy recommendations for future Indonesian spatial planning in making resilient cities are; conducting comprehensive research on risk management, mainstreaming risk reduction in development policies, limiting urban development in hazard-prone areas, providing adequate risk reduction infrastructures and emergency infrastructures, considering both hazard and risk maps for land-use allocation, making a detailed land-use control based on varieties of relevant hazards, and enacting clear incentives and disincentives mechanism related to risk reduction.


Introduction
Climate change and disaster risk reduction are among the main concerns in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as reflected in goals number 11th and 13th [1,2].Disaster risk reduction is a systematic development and application of policies, strategies, and practices to minimize vulnerabilities and disaster risks throughout society to avoid (prevention) or limit (mitigation and preparedness) the adverse impact of hazards [3].Strengthening urban resilience in the context of risk reduction has been embodied in various international initiatives, such as Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, Disaster Resilience Scorecard for Cities, and 100 Resilient Cities.In minimizing disaster risk, spatial planning has an important role [4,5].The integration of disaster risk reduction in spatial planning is a prominent contributor to achieving resilient cities, particularly in high-risk areas [6].Spatial planning helps mitigate disasters and reduce risks by discouraging settlements in hazard-prone areas and plotting the routes for transport, electricity, water, sewage, and other critical facilities away from the hazard [7,8].Spatial planning provides helpful planning tools for mainstreaming disaster risk reduction into the urban development process, e.g., mapping, zoning, and participatory planning [9].Carter [22,23] 5.The availability of infrastructure related to development plan The availability of risk reduction infrastructure to minimize all potential risks adequately [23,24] The availability of complete and valid evacuation plan [25,26,27] 3. Land-use plan 6. Development  In assessing the performance of current Surabaya spatial plans, four steps are as follows.1. Making a set of variables and parameters with 1-5 likert scales of assessment based on relevant literature.The value one indicates the lowest performance, while the five indicates the best performance.Table 1 explains the key variables and parameters for the assessment process that applied for both plans.The arrangement of these variables and parameters needs to consider specific hazards (four types of hazards for the Surabaya case study) as indicated in the Medium-Term of Surabaya Development Program (RPJMD).2. Conducting a combination of questionnaires and in-depth interviews in assessing the performance of Surabaya spatial plans as the primary rating.A set of questionnaires evaluates the current performance of Surabaya spatial plans.Afterward, in exploring the reasons, the evaluation process uses an in-depth interview to minimize subjectivity and validate the rating from questionnaires.The overall performance of Surabaya spatial planning documents based on this primary rating uses an average validated rating among stakeholders.
In the primary rating, the six key respondents are the actors involved in making Surabaya spatial planning documents.Two respondents are officers from the provincial government (Public Works Agency (P-PW) and Planning Board (P-PB)) who have the authority to give substantial agreement on the proposed spatial plans.Two respondents are officers from the city government (Public Works Agency (S-PW) and Planning Board (S-PB)) who are the project manager for both spatial plans.One respondent is from the Indonesian Planning Expert Association (IAP-Ikatan Ahli Perencana) East Java Province, which facilitates a planner's professional work certification.The last respondent is the planning expert (TL), who was involved in the arrangement of Surabaya spatial plans.Those six key respondents represent the relevant stakeholders in arranging current Surabaya spatial planning documents.3. The next step is a secondary rating that performs by reading and collecting supporting statements from Surabaya spatial planning documents conducted by the research team.This is done to avoid respondent subjectivity and bias during the primary rating assessment process to achieve better results.4. A final rating is an average of both primary and secondary ratings.This average rating is the final rating to define the overall performance of Surabaya spatial planning documents in reducing the risks.The score for each variable is obtained from the average of its constituent parameters.The score for each key subject is obtained from the average of its variables, while the total score is derived from the average scores of the four key subjects.

Results and Discussion
According to the National Act No. 26 in 2007 concerning Spatial Planning, there are two primary spatial planning documents in Indonesia; 1) regional spatial plan or Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah (RTRW) and 2) detailed spatial plan or Rencana Detail Tata Ruang (RDTR).The regional plan (RTRW) covers the guideline for development policy, general land-use plan, major infrastructure plan, strategic zone, essential development program, and land-use control.Meanwhile, the detailed plan (RDTR) covers a more detailed and specific land-use zone for building permits, building code, zoning regulations, detailed development program, specific urban infrastructure, and additional regulations.RTRW Surabaya has covered the subjects of disaster evacuation routes (with a scale of 1:25,000), land-use zoning of vulnerable areas, and land-use zoning for evacuation areas.In addition, RDTR Surabaya covers the subjects such as; disaster evacuation routes (with a scale of 1:5,000), building standardization, and zoning regulation.Both plans have focused on responding to the flood and urban fire risks.
The following section elaborates further on the performance of risk reduction from the key subjects in Surabaya spatial planning documents: development policies, structure plan, land-use plan, and landuse control, respectively.

Development policies
The goal in the spatial planning document steers the main objective of city development.They should be formulated to reduce all the known risks in Surabaya and guide how spatial planning could reduce risks.The subject on the 'development policies' (consisting of goals, policies, and strategies) should reflect the government's approach to risk management.Pontoh & Kustiawan (2009) argue that development policies must address potential strategic issues [21].Significant disaster risks should be one of the potential issues in formulating goals, policies, and strategies.The whole risk management package in spatial planning shall include the concept of hazards, vulnerability, and capacity [2,34] as well as mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery [35].
From the spatial planning goal in RTRW Surabaya, there is no specific word related to 'risk reduction.'The main words of the city development goal are mostly related to economic development, stating "trading city as a sustainable national and international service center."In addition, the city development objective in RDTR Surabaya elaborate on this goal further with the statement of the development of Surabaya city that integrates with nature protection.Again, there is no specific word representing the risk reduction concept in this subject; even though the goal in RTRW Surabaya contains the keyword sustainable, this terminology is too broad and does not yet explicitly address disaster risk reduction.
However, even though the keyword of risk reduction is not explicitly mentioned, the stakeholders argue that the content of spatial planning has embodied the strategy to respond to two main disaster issues (namely floods and urban fires).Efforts to reduce the risk of these two types of disasters have been prepared quite well, such as the availability of water reservoir plans, urban drainage plans, and evacuation routes.The respondents state that the main reason for not mentioning risk management in the spatial planning goal is to focus on economic development rather than risk reduction.The planning consultant asserts that risk reduction has been one of the primary considerations in making the goal, even though it is not stated explicitly.This statement is reflected in the quotes below: "No, it is not explicitly stated.But of course, it is clear that it (disaster issue) is considered as part of the contents that must be covered.Perhaps, it has been accommodated in the keyword of "sustainable" … And again, it (disaster issue) must have been considered even though it is not a top priority, since our main goal for the Surabaya spatial planning is to bring prosperity (advancement) for the city … " (TL, 27.03.2018) The development policies and strategies in both spatial plans have indirectly mainstreamed the concept of disaster management.The main focus to reduce the level of hazards can be seen in many development policies by constructing infrastructure, mainly related to floods (both in RTRW and RDTR documents).The reduction of hazard level does not cover the whole part of risk management that shall consider hazards, vulnerability, and capacity concepts.For example, the policies discussed on the hydrant network and evacuation plan regarding the urban fire.The current development policies from Surabaya spatial planning documents have not yet adequately addressed the policies in reducing the risk of the other potential hazards in Surabaya (storms and earthquakes).The Medium-Term of Surabaya Development Program (RPJMD) has identified these two hazards, but there has not been sufficient elaboration on risk reduction to these hazards in the current Surabaya spatial planning documents.
Meanwhile, in the spatial planning strategy, disaster risk management is integrated into water resource management, drainage, and evacuation route planning.It is in line with the guideline for arranging regional spatial plans (RTRW) from the Ministry of Public Works (currently updated by Ministry of Agrarian and Spatial Planning Regulation).As part of the spatial planning content, the strategies have mainstreamed flood and fire risk reduction in Surabaya.However, it has not accommodated the risk of earthquakes and storms yet.

"...Concerning policies and strategies, the reference already exists. The reference for the making of the regional spatial plan (RTRW) is explained in the Regulation of Minister of Public Works,
No. 17/ 2009 … There are several strategies to respond to disasters, of course, for example: evacuation routes, drainage (for flood), zoning for protected areas, and so on…" (P-PB, 28.03.2018) The assessment for this subject concluded that the performance of development policies in mainstreaming disaster risk management is still low, with a score of 2.05 out of 5. From the compilation of in-depth interviews and document studies, efforts to reduce disaster risk are partly included in spatial planning goals, policies, and strategies.In addition, the perception of potential hazards in Surabaya currently applies mainly to the two types of disasters: floods and urban fire.Meanwhile, the other potential disasters, such as storms and earthquakes, have not been sufficiently accommodated in the current spatial planning policies.This condition is due to the limitation of data and information since the particular agency related to the disaster risk management, Municipal Disaster Management Authority of Surabaya (BPBL or later renamed BPBD), was established in 2017, long after the regional spatial plan (RTRW) was ratified.
To achieve urban resilience, disaster risk reduction has to be mainstreamed even from the goals, policies, and strategies of spatial plans.Assigning disaster risk reduction as a priority will guide the spatial planning to embrace the whole concept of risk management.Additional scientific research must be performed to study the whole concept of hazard, vulnerability, and capacity for all risks in Surabaya.The additional research thus will improve the integration of disaster risk reduction into the spatial planning documents of Surabaya in the future.activities to the risk maps of Surabaya (Figure 1), it can be understood that the central activity locations in Surabaya are not planned to avoid disaster risk locations.For example, the center of UP Tambak Oso Wilangun is at risk of flood, and the centers of UP Rungkut, UP Dharmahusada, and UP Wonokromo are at risk of urban fire.
The detailed spatial plan (RDTR) of Surabaya also shows the same pattern, where some central activities are located in hazardous areas.However, in dealing with this situation, the municipality plans to install emergency infrastructures to reduce disaster risks.For example, a sluice and flood early warning system was constructed to minimize the flood risk.Meanwhile, for the central activity locations at risk of urban fire, the municipality plans to provide evacuation routes and evacuation centers.
From the interview, S-PB and S-PW explained that the central activity location in Surabaya is not either approaching or avoiding the risk area since the market drives it.However, additional risk reduction infrastructures support the locations if they are in risky areas.Therefore, the locations of main activities are still tolerable to some extent since they are supported by the infrastructure related to risk reduction.Unfortunately, the considered risks are limited only to flood and urban fire (not yet mentioned earthquakes and storms).The quotes below reflect the statement.
" … There are various considerations (in selecting the locations of central activity).We look at the economic potential of that particular location.So, yes, it is not avoiding but also not approaching close to (risk areas), but rather, we see the potential of the place… Then we support it with several infrastructures (which can reduce risk) …" (S-PW, 28.04.2018)Accordingly, the score for determining the location of central development in the Surabaya spatial plan is 3.21 (adequate).Even though they are in risky areas, the development programs support providing adequate risk reduction infrastructures.The role of thumb for central development allocation should consider two points.First, the location should avoid the risky areas, and second, in the case of unavoidable risky areas, the central development should be supported by infrastructures related to risk reduction and emergency infrastructures.

3.2.2.
Major infrastructure location to reduce potential risks.Infrastructure is a system and assets, both physical and virtual, that makes the city work [36].In responding to disaster risk, infrastructure planning must be made resilient.Carlson & Doyle (2002) argue that infrastructure resiliency refers to the performance of a system or network when encountering unexpected external disruptions [37].The primary infrastructure must be located away from high-risk areas to reduce the risk of collapsing infrastructure [24].If this is not possible, infrastructure located in risky areas needs to be complemented by additional infrastructures [23].The additional infrastructure in this context can be the two major infrastructure types: risk reduction infrastructures and emergency infrastructures.Risk reduction infrastructure is a set of amenities to lower the risk of inevitable disaster, e.g., the construction of drainage canals to reduce floods.Meanwhile, emergency infrastructure is a set of utilities needed to respond to an emergency during a disaster event, such as an inflatable rescue boat for evacuation during a flood [30].
In RTRW and RDTR Surabaya, the main focus of infrastructure planning is minimizing disaster risk areas.Several infrastructures are planned to reduce the risk but are only limited to flood and urban fire.In RTRW Surabaya, further elaboration on flood risk reduction infrastructures concerns the construction of reservoirs, infiltration wells, improvement of reservoir function, utilization of channels for water storage, and installation of biopores for flood control.RTRW Surabaya also mentions the drainage system development plan and the optimization and provision of public hydrant networks at strategic locations (including settlement areas) to reduce urban fire risk.In RDTR Surabaya, a plan to build a water pumping house also complement the drainage system for flood control.
The same information was acquired from the results of the in-depth interview.The respondent clarified that infrastructure allocation is integrated with risk reduction.However, it is still limited since not all infrastructure planning has considered all disaster risks-the quotes below direct in the statements above.
"… In the case of flood, how do you deal with the flood?You have to drain it, including detaining it in a pumping well, then building a retention pond, then making a boezem, then forming a wide channel.Those are solutions.… It means that if the drainage is heavily loaded, and then the infiltration is good, it will reduce inundation and there will be no flood so there will be no disaster… Then, there is an analysis of the necessity of water (hydrants) for firefighting.The prediction has been made ... " (TL, 27.03.2018)Hence, in the section of major infrastructure location, the score can be given as 2.36 (low), as there is an integration of infrastructure plan in minimizing hazard level but only limited to flood and urban fire.

Evacuation routes.
An evacuation route plan provides the availability of an emergency infrastructure plan in RTRW and RDTR Surabaya.Evacuation is when threatened groups are displaced from dangerous to safer places in response to a hazardous event or the aftermath [38].Regarding predictable disasters such as floods, evacuation is available before a disaster happens, and the main objective for this situation is to minimize the impact of disaster event, cost of evacuation and select the best location for rescue facilities [25,26,27].The evacuation planning in a city is adequate if an evacuation route is available for all predictable disasters and scientifically verified evacuation analysis.
In Surabaya, some evacuation routes are available in both spatial planning documents.However, these evacuation routes are mainly available for flood and urban fire.The national guideline for spatial planning did not mention clearly that evacuation routes should be available for all types of hazards, only limited to those with high vulnerability.RTRW Surabaya has provided the evacuation route for flood and urban fire.Some criteria for the evacuation route are to have a minimum of 3 to 4 meters of right of way (ROW) of a road to ensure that the firefighting truck can pass through the road and one open space for evacuation shelter in every neighbourhood unit.In RDTR Surabaya, an evacuation route is also available (complemented with an assembly point) drawn on a map with a scale of 1:5,000, as shown in Figure 2. Visualization on the map for evacuation routes is only available in RDTR Surabaya.The stakeholder from the provincial agency argues that the evacuation plan in both RTRW and RDTR Surabaya is adequate.All the evacuation routes functioned to minimize the impact of a flood.Meanwhile, the evacuation shelter considers both urban fire and flood.There is no specific information yet about the evacuation route concerning the other two types of disaster risks (earthquake and storm).Consequently, the information on the evacuation route is only partially discussed in this section, and thus the final score given is 2.21 (low).
To conclude, from the variable central of development location and infrastructure (contains parameters primary infrastructure location and evacuation route), the total score given for the subject of structure plan is 2.75 (adequate), explaining that integration of risk reduction in structure plan is at a moderate level.As mentioned in the Surabaya spatial planning documents and supported by the respondents' argument, the plans have sufficiently accommodated risk reduction for flood and urban fire.However, the other two hazards are still infrequently addressed in RTRW and RDTR Surabaya.The accommodation of risk reduction is considered decent if the implementation is available for all scientifically predictable disasters.Therefore, the other types of hazards (storm and earthquake) should also be integrated into the future spatial planning document of Surabaya to create a more resilient structure plan.

Land use plan
Assessment in the subject on land-use plan attempts to evaluate urban development and investment guidelines related to risk and the availability of risk mapping for all significant potential disasters.The final score for this subject is 2.18, meaning that the integration of land-use plan with risk management is still low.

Development and investment guideline related to risk. According to Saunders & Kilvington
(2016), risk-based land-use planning means the ability to describe different levels of risk (such as acceptable, tolerable, or intolerable) and associate them with appropriate land-use policies [28].The guideline for urban development and investment should avoid the high-risk area as the primary goal of risk-based land-use planning is to lower the costs and effects for communities from the risk of available hazards [29].In addition, to support the new urban development center, risk reduction and emergency infrastructure should also be supplied to deal with possible risks [30].In recent decades, the rapid development of settlement, service, and commercial activities resulted in land scarcity in Surabaya.The market based on land availability in the city drives this rapid development.Therefore, the development and investment guideline in Surabaya is not based on risks consideration.Comparing the flood hazard map to Surabaya land-use plan (Figure 3), in South Surabaya and Western Surabaya (which have a higher risk of flooding compared to other parts of Surabaya), these regions are projected as settlements and services centers as vacant land tends to be available in the city outskirt.The flow of investment is already growing progressively in those regions.Meanwhile, on the Northern Coast of Surabaya (which is also a high-risk flood area), the region is plotted as the warehouse center and extension area of Teluk Lamong Port, an important trading center for the city.
Rather than making a land-use plan based on risk consideration, Surabaya focuses more on preserving protected areas prone to disaster and providing infrastructures that can reduce risks (of flood), such as drainage improvement, mangrove conservation areas, water spring conservation areas, and green space for water catchment.Public green space can also function as an assembly point during an emergency evacuation.This scheme is similar to responding to other disasters such as urban fires.
The integration of disaster risk reduction in the Surabaya land-use plan (contains parameters urban development and investment) is low (2.00).In creating the land-use plan for Surabaya, the method tends to plan the land use based on the market situation.This approach results in the direction of city development, and investment in Surabaya might be approaching a risky area.Several efforts, such as preserving the function of the existing protected areas, are a form of risk reduction in the city of Surabaya.The quotes below are direct in the statements above."....In the land-use plan that we created, we plotted particular area as green (protected area).Take water reservoir for an example, it is a form of our commitment to balance city development and its ecology.One of the ecological services of the water reservoir is to protect the city against flood.If city development takes place everywhere, then there will be no more protected area, no more (urban) forest, no more green space and thus will result in the air quality, and etc…" (S-PB, 21.03.2018)3.3.2.The availability of risk mapping for all the significant potential disasters.Risk mapping is an essential tool for reducing the risks of natural and technological hazards [31,32].The availability of a hazard or disaster risk map as an overlay on a land-use map illustrates how to keep people away from the danger.The risk map should be drawn upon all available hazards based on a scientific approach and verified by the local or national authority [30].
The overlay map of disaster-prone areas provided by the authorized agency in Surabaya is only limited to fire and flood.The overlay hazard map in RTRW Surabaya shows the areas that historically experienced high floods and urban fire frequencies.Unfortunately, the maps for storms and earthquakes were not available.There was no official risk map for storms and earthquakes with a particular map scale (1:25000 for RTRW and 1:5000 for RDTR), both from the Surabaya government and from higher government authorities.
"… There are two types of maps (overlay maps concerning disaster-prone areas) that are being used.Those are floods and urban fires, and so they result in the land-use map like this … " (TL, 27.03.2018)The map is only about a hazard map rather than a risk map from the risk perspective.There is no assessment concerning vulnerability and capacity related to flood and urban fire.Therefore, the score for this parameter can be valued as 2.36 (low), reflecting that the existing overlay map is only a hazard map that covers only flood and urban fire.

Land use control
The essential purpose of controlling land use is to establish restrictions on the land considered important or used for the public interest [33].Based on National Act No. 26 in 2007 concerning Spatial Planning, several instruments for land-use control that can be integrated into disaster risk reduction efforts in the high-risk area include (1) limited land-use activities, (2) building intensity regulation (GFA, BCA, FAR), (3) building regulation (setback, height, distance between two buildings), (4) minimum infrastructure, (5) incentive and disincentive, (6) reporting, monitoring, evaluation, and sanction mechanism.
In Surabaya, several land-use control instruments related to risk reduction consist of building intensity regulation, building layout, and minimal infrastructures to respond to flood and fire risks.RTRW Surabaya mentions the zoning plan criteria for areas prone to floods, fires, and other disasters (such as earthquake).It includes utilizing vacant space for green space and non-green space for IOP Publishing doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1353/1/01200111 emergency assembly points, infrastructure for fire safety, compliance with building safety standards to prevent fire, and low-intensity permission for space around disaster-prone areas.In line with RTRW, RDTR Surabaya also elaborates these rules.The minimum infrastructure requirements in RDTR organize the efforts to deal with flood and urban fire, which include: the provision of green space as a catchment area, provision of adequate firefighting infrastructure and adequate road access, provision of a fire hydrant, control of distances between buildings and development of a local road network to provide easy access for firefighters with a minimum road width of 3.5 meters.
In RTRW and RDTR Surabaya, land-use control in the zoning plan, building intensity regulation, incentive, disincentive, and monitoring mechanism are already mentioned.However, even though landuse control is already provided, it is merely a general guideline and has not yet comprehensively addressed all disaster risk reduction in Surabaya (as seen in the following quotes below).Hence, the score for the subject on land-use control is 2.08 (low)."... Normatively, the mechanism of incentive and disincentive in detailed plan (RDTR) must exist.But that's in general term and later will be translated into more technical or operational term, something like that.But, when it comes to the topic of disaster, we don't have one (incentive and disincentive) yet … The incentives are not yet oriented towards disaster risk reduction, but rather towards the imposition of traffic and the preservation of cultural heritage..." (S-PB, 21.03.2018) The lack of information about incentives, disincentives, and monitoring mechanisms has been a problem in Surabaya and other Indonesian cities, as there is no minimum standard for integrating risk management into land-use control from the national regulation.Consequently, risk reduction programs have not been appropriately addressed comprehensively in the current spatial planning documents [12].Therefore, incentives and disincentives concerning risk reduction should be established and mainstreamed to engage more public participation in minimizing the risks.For example, disincentive development can be an obligation for the developers to provide emergency infrastructures or risk reduction infrastructures if they invest in a high-risk area.

Synthesis
After interviewing key respondents and performing the secondary rating for both Surabaya spatial planning documents, the overall point for Surabaya spatial plans (RTRW and RDTR) in accommodating risk reduction is 2.26 out of 5.This assessment indicates the low performance on risk reduction from the current Surabaya spatial planning documents.None of the key subjects (in spatial planning documents) has excellent performance (at least scored 3), reflecting that the Surabaya spatial plans have not adequately accommodated the risk reduction.As seen in Figure 4, the subject of the structure plan has the highest performance with a score of 2.75; meanwhile, the development policies have the lowest performance with a score of 2.05.In almost all key subjects, the primary rating always has a higher value than the secondary rating, indicating the notion of overconfidence from the respondents on the performance of Surabaya spatial plans in managing urban risks.Figure 4 illustrates the complete scoring result of Surabaya spatial planning documents in reducing risks.
Four main factors result in the lack of integration of risk reduction in the Surabaya spatial plans.First, the guidelines for the arrangement for RTRW and RDTR from the Ministry of Public Works has not prioritized disaster risk reduction effort yet.The whole concept of risk management (hazard, vulnerability, and capacity) was not yet mainstreamed in the national guideline.Second, there are several differences concerning the level of priority from stakeholders in Surabaya spatial plans, where the current spatial plan mainly concerns city development in terms of economics (as a trading city).Third, there is not yet a complete and comprehensive study regarding disaster management in Surabaya (which includes risk characteristics, risk level, risk mapping, and action plans for minimizing the risks).Last but not least, there is not yet a precise mechanism concerning incentives and disincentives concerning disaster risk reduction in Surabaya.

Conclusion
This paper aims to formulate policy recommendations to integrate risk reduction into spatial planning based on evaluation to Surabaya spatial plans.The performance of Surabaya spatial plans (RTRW and RDTR) on disaster risk reduction is still low, with a final score of 2.26 out of 5. Consequently, Surabaya spatial planning documents are still insufficient to minimize all disaster risks in Surabaya.Surabaya's performance in integrating risk into spatial planning is typical issues in Indonesian cities since there is inadequate protocol for incorporating risk management into the spatial planning document.This paper proposes eight policy recommendations for better integration of risk reduction with the future spatial planning documents, which are: 1. Arrangement of further comprehensive research concerning risk management which includes all relevant hazard types, vulnerability, capacity, risk assessment and actions to minimize risks.2. The objective of disaster risk reduction must be sufficiently accommodated in the key subjects of spatial planning documents, particularly in the section of goals, policies and strategies.3. Placement for central activity locations and investment growth centre (especially for housing, offices and commercials) to be developed in areas with low levels of hazard.In the case of development centre locations are unable to avoid medium to high level of hazards, they should be supported by risk reduction infrastructures and emergency infrastructures.4. Risk reduction infrastructures and evacuation system should be well-designed and covering all types of relevant hazards. 5. Land-use allocation should be overlaid with all relevant hazards map.Furthermore, risk map should also be integrated as part of the consideration for land-use planning map.6. Spatial planning programs should take into account the risk assessment from all relevant hazards to support the urban structure and land-use plan.7. Land-use control should integrate zoning regulation, building intensity, building regulation and minimum standard of infrastructures with risk management concept.8. Promotion of clear and detailed incentive and disincentive mechanisms, monitoring and evaluation concerning disaster risk reduction.Surabaya spatial planning documents are legally compliant and adhere to regulations.However, upon evaluating their performance in disaster risk reduction through the literature, numerous shortcomings have been identified.Therefore, these proposed policy recommendations could serve as a valuable lesson for other cities in formulating more resilient spatial plans.This output also contributes to the reconstruction of theories related to low-risk spatial planning.
3.2.Structure plan 3.2.1.Central of development location.The city's center of development consists of the service and commercial center.Therefore, the main activities location should avoid disaster-prone areas.Urban development regulation should guide the residential, service, or commercial development to avoid areas at risk of earthquakes or floods [22].Moreover, Jackson (2010) added that adequate emergency infrastructure and risk reduction infrastructure to deal with disaster risk should support the city center's development [23].(a) (b) Figure 1.(a) The map of flood-prone areas and (b) The map for fire-prone areas.The economic and urban development concepts direct the location for central development in Surabaya rather than the risk management concept.The risk consideration is not minimized by avoiding hazard areas but by applying additional infrastructure to reduce the risk.In RTRW Surabaya, the central activity locations of the city consist of Development Unit or Unit Pengembangan (UP) Tanjung Perak and UP Tunjungan.Besides the central activity, there are also sub-central activity locations which are consisted of UP Kertajaya, UP Dukuh Pakis, UP Tambak Oso Wilangun, and later are supported by local district service centers spreading throughout the city.These centers mainly function for trade and service activities, public services, industry, offices, and seaports.Comparing the maps of central IOP Publishing doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1353/1/0120017

Figure 2 .
Figure 2. The evacuation routes and locations of assembly point.

Figure 3 .
(a) Flood-prone areas and (b) Current land-use planning map of Surabaya.

Figure 4 .
Figure 4. Surabaya spatial planning documents' performance in risk reduction.

Table 1 .
et al. (2015) Variables and parameters in assessing the performance of Surabaya spatial plans.