Content uploaded by Anindrya Nastiti
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Anindrya Nastiti on May 04, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
www.water-alternatives.org Volume 10 | Issue 1
Nastiti, A.; Meijerink, S.V.; Oelmann, M.; Smits, A.J.M.; Muntalif, B.S.;
Sudradjat, A.; Roosmini, D.; Cultivating innovation and equity in co-production
of commercialized spring water in peri-urban Bandung, Indonesia.
Water Alternatives 10(1):
Nastiti et al.: Co-production of commercialized spring water in Bandung Page | 134
Cultivating Innovation and Equity in Co-Production of
Commercialized Spring Water in Peri-Urban Bandung, Indonesia
Anindrya Nastiti
Environmental Management Technology Research Group, The Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Institut Teknologi Bandung, Bandung, West Java, Indonesia; anindrya@tl.itb.ac.id
S.V. Meijerink
Institute for Management Research, Radboud University, Nijmegen; s.meijerink@fm.ru.nl
Mark Oelmann
Hochschule Ruhr West, University of Applied Science, Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany; mark.oelmann@hs-
ruhrwest.de
A.J.M. Smits
Institute for Science, Innovation, and Society, Radboud University, Nijmegen; and Delta Areas and Resources
Applied Research Centre, Van Hall Larenstein University of Applied Science, Velp, the Netherlands;
a.smits@science.ru.nl
Barti Setiani Muntalif
Environmental Management Technology Research Group, The Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Institut Teknologi Bandung, Bandung, West Java, Indonesia; barti_setiani@yahoo.com
Arief Sudradjat
Environmental Management Technology Research Group, The Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Institut Teknologi Bandung, Bandung, West Java, Indonesia; arief.sudradjat@yahoo.com
Dwina Roosmini
Environmental Management Technology Research Group, The Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Institut Teknologi Bandung, Bandung, West Java, Indonesia; dwinaroosmini@yahoo.com
ABSTRACT: This paper examines a co-production arrangement between private actors, households, and
community actors occurring within the framework of scheme of commercialised spring water in peri-urban
Bandung, Indonesia. We argue that the provision of spring water in Ujungberung District is a form of co-
production, characterised by: (1) any one, or the elements, of the service production process being shared; (2) the
presence of a fundamental shift in the balance of power between the primary producers and users/communities,
and (3) the existence of mutual support and relationship networks, rather than a clearly defined delineation
between providers and clients. Actor contributions defined as inputs along the value chain of spring water
production were examined. We describe interactions between local private actors and community members in
planning, service delivery, and conflict management with respect to disruption of water supplies, free-riding
behaviour, and the geographical distribution of services. This paper identifies several institutional innovations that
may yield a safer and more affordable water supply and nurture equity in the sense of: (1) improved access to
Water Alternatives - 2017 Volume 10 | Issue 1
Nastiti et al.: Co-production of commercialized spring water in Bandung Page | 135
water for the previously unserved people by piped water and boreholes; (2) the opportunity to negotiate from
below; and (3) transparency and accountability.
KEYWORDS: Co-production, equity, innovation, water commercialisation, Indonesia
INTRODUCTION
"(The previous owners of the springs) sell their land and their springs to the water entrepreneurs so
these entrepreneurs can bring water to us… What’s the use if spring water cannot flow to our houses?
It will benefit no one if the water stays uphill". This statement, by a citizen of Ujungberung District,
Bandung, Indonesia, illustrates how the locals see spring water commercialisation as a means of
bringing clean water to people’s homes. Transporting water to human settlements has been a challenge
since the early history of urban development. In the postcolonial area of the South, population growth
at the outskirts of cities is occurring faster than in the urban centres, yet infrastructure development is
inconsistent (Firman, 2004; Norstrom, 2007). Development of centralised water infrastructure has
focused mainly on urban centres and has not reached the sprawling areas at the fringes of cities. Peri-
urban citizens remain underserved, if at all, since neither networked state utilities nor large-scale
private water companies are able (or, often, willing) to serve these areas effectively (Allen et al., 2006).
The lack of a state-led service for water supply provides market opportunities for private actors to
fill the gap of water provision. Local private actors, rather than state actors, serve as the main provider
of basic services in many of the areas underserved by state-owned water companies (Venkatachalam,
2014). This paper examines the provision of commercialised spring water in Ujungberung District,
Bandung. In the management practice of commercialised natural resources, commercial principles
(such as efficiency and profit-maximisation) are introduced (Sangameswaran, 2009). What’s more, in
the wake of its inception in the early 2000s, the commercialisation of spring water in Ujungberung
District has also been followed by interactions between local private actors, community actors, and
households. These interactions are an example of co-production. Scholars traditionally define co-
production as "the joint production of public service between citizens and the state, with any one or
the elements of the production process being shared" (Allen et al., 2006: 340). The co-production
concept is rarely applied during the characterisation of active engagements between non-state actors.
Yet, the notion of co-production fundamentally reflects the relationship between service providers and
service users in which users play an active role in improving the service they receive.
This paper presents a case study of a private and citizen co-production process occurring within the
framework of a spring water commercialization scheme. We specifically address the following
questions. Firstly, how is spring water service provision co-produced in Ujungberung District? We
investigate the engagement of citizens, not merely as users, but also as (co)producers along the value
chain of the production of drinking water, a range of processes in which they add value to raw water
sources through abstraction, transportation, treatment, and distribution. The added value in these
processes lies in the sense of the usability of spring water for the citizens in Ujungberung District;
without these processes, people will not be able to enjoy the benefit of spring water daily. Secondly,
does the co-production contribute to the improvement of service delivery? Who has the most
convenient access to water, socially and geographically? These questions address whether innovations
and equitable access along service provision are produced as results of the co-production processes.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. First, we briefly review the literature over
private actors’ involvement in the drinking water sector, along with definitions and experiences of co-
production arrangements, before describing the method of our study and the case study area. Then we
describe aspects of co-production within the commercialised spring water value chain and address the
question whether such processes contribute to innovation and equity. Last, we discuss our results and
Water Alternatives - 2017 Volume 10 | Issue 1
Nastiti et al.: Co-production of commercialized spring water in Bandung Page | 136
present conclusions. We demonstrate that commercialisation of spring water serves as a starting point
for the establishment of a co-production arrangement between private actors, households, and
community actors. Several institutional innovations that may yield a better service and nurture equity
are highlighted.
PARTICIPATION OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND CO-PRODUCTION IN SERVICE DELIVERY OF THE WATER SUPPLY
The involvement of private actors in water supply has been debated for a long time. Attempts to
involve private actors in urban water supply network investments marked a departure in the late 1980s
(Prasad, 2006).
1
International financial institutions and donor agencies expected private actors to
provide a more efficient service and a better form of governance compared to 'low-level equilibrium'
services provided by the state, in which low efficiency leads to low-quality service (Prasad, 2006). Even
so, private actors’ participation is often viewed to result in a violation of human right to water as these
actors operate on the basis of full-cost recovery through user fees and, further, profit-making (Budds
and McGranahan, 2003). For example, private-sector participation in water supply service of the capital
city of Indonesia, Jakarta, may reduce water affordability as a consequence of tariff increase (Bakker et
al., 2008). The poor, who cannot pay for water, are further excluded from basic water services. For
these underserved poor, small-scale private providers (SSIPs) increasingly assume a role as the
dominant providers. This type of water vending accounts for a large proportion of total water revenues
and is no longer a fringe activity (Gulyani et al., 2005).
In many private-led water provision systems, both provided by large private corporations and SSIPs,
citizens have traditionally been perceived as merely consumers at the receiving end of the water supply
system. However, studies have documented that citizens occasionally contribute to the provision of
water services through engagement in certain strategies that maintain the expected level of service
(Allen et al., 2006; Mitlin, 2008). These strategies often occur jointly with the activities of private actors.
For example, MacCarthy et al. (2013) reported the existence of 'self-supply' markets in which the local
private sector provides drilling and pumping technologies to enable households to access shallow
groundwater. The 'citizens as service providers' complement traditional water service providers.
Citizens who play significant roles in service provision transform the traditional model of service
production into one of co-production (Pestoff, 2006).
To guide the analysis, full understanding of co-production is necessary. The theoretical notion of co-
production has been interpreted widely. In literature on new public management, the conceptions of
co-production often lie within the scope of state and citizen collaborations (Brudney and England, 1983;
Pestoff, 2006). The participation of citizens in these collaborations is voluntary in nature, rather than
contracted (Brudney and England, 1983; Isham and Kähkönen, 1998). These voluntary acts are the
distinct features of co-production that lead to the improvement of service quality and/or quantity.
Ahlers et al. (2014) describe co-production as a process where hybrid service provision modalities
produce new meaning. Ostrom (1996: 1073) defines co-production as "the process through which
inputs used to provide a good or service are contributed by individuals who are not in the same
organisation". Ostrom’s definition is used to guide the analysis in this study, even though in her
definition the primary producer is usually a governmental agency. Alford (2014) also advocates a
1
Attempts to involve the private sector were formalised in the Act of Water Resources of the Republic of Indonesia of 2004.
The Act of Water Resource Number 7 regulates the rights of water utilisation and the rights of water commercialisation (the
rights to obtain, use, or commercialise water for specific uses, e.g. water use in production/manufacturing processes). One
year after its enforcement, a judicial review of the legislation was brought to court. The act was perceived to: (1) open the
door to privatisation that reduces the state’s ability to support human rights in relation to water; (2) fundamentally reform the
ownership of water, and (3) undermine the socioeconomic, cultural, and religious values of water (Constitutional Court, 2013).
The judicial review of the act led to its retraction, effective in 2015.
Water Alternatives - 2017 Volume 10 | Issue 1
Nastiti et al.: Co-production of commercialized spring water in Bandung Page | 137
deeper analysis beyond the simple attribution of co-producers, to include what they do for, and gain
from the co-production process. This definition allows further analysis of the capacity and motivations
of each actor.
Early definitions of co-production restricted the definition of co-producers to consumers, and thus
disseminated the notion of 'consumer producer' (Joshi and Moore, 2004). Consumers (partly) provide
their own services, contributing to the service they receive (Pestoff et al., 2006). The involvement of a
diverse range of organisations undertaking social activities aimed at raising the quality of public services
has also been recorded; thus co-producers may also be volunteers and community members (Bovaird,
2007). Pestoff and Brandsen (2010) refer to these actors as the 'third sector' in public service delivery,
which includes the voluntary sector, the (private) non-profit sector, and civil society. Parks et al. (1981:
1002) suggest that collaborations "may occur directly through coordinated efforts in the same
production process, or indirectly through independent, yet related efforts". Our study emphasises the
coordinated efforts of private actors and the third sector in the co-production of services, and includes
the separate contributions of households to service quality improvement.
Pestoff and Brandsen (2010) have discussed the advantages of co-production of service delivery
compared to their traditional counterparts in which citizens merely function as users. This article
focuses on the potential contributions of co-production towards innovation and equity. Pestoff and
Brandsen (2010: 228) define innovation as "the ability to renew the collective structure of service
provision, whether it be in terms of skills, activities or even the underlying paradigm", or concerning
"the quality of the service itself".
In the water supply sector, equity of access to water is entered in the framework of Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) (UN – Water et al., 2015). The United Nations (2007) also emphasises that
poor households should not be burdened by higher water expenditure than the rich. SDGs also require
to "allow the poorest and most vulnerable to negotiate from below" and demand more transparency
and accountability in its conceptions of equity (UN-Water et al., 2015: 5). McMillan et al. (2014)
examine technical water committees in Venezuela with respect to co-production of water service
delivery. Reduction of asymmetry in the availability of information and improved accountability are the
main advantages of this arrangement. Jakobsen and Andersen (2013) further argue that the main
constraint suffered by disadvantaged citizens during co-production is their lack of knowledge (and
materials). Thus, evidence that the Venezuelan water committees reduce knowledge barriers suggests
that co-production also contributes to reduced inequity. Two studies in South America, McMillan et al.
(2014) and Llano-Arias (2015), discuss cases of state and citizen co-production. However, evidence
elucidating the contributions of private/citizen co-production towards equity remains scarce. We
analysed the case of a commercialised spring water source supplied by local, small-scale private actors,
and investigated any potential resulting institutional innovations and whether these arrangements
come at a cost to equity.
THE CASE STUDY OF UJUNGBERUNG DISTRICT, BANDUNG, INDONESIA
Data collection
To understand how water is co-produced, we conducted semi-structured interviews with local private
actors, community actors, and households (see Table 1). We recruited participants mainly based on
information provided by a key informant and recommendations made by the interviewees. There is
limited documentation on the occurrence of non-state-led water provision in Ujungberung District.
Thus, we first distinguished different types of water sources used among households in Ujungberung
District, and identified relevant individuals/groups (and their related activities) within the chain of
water service production: from usage, distribution, treatment, transportation, and source extraction.
Water Alternatives - 2017 Volume 10 | Issue 1
Nastiti et al.: Co-production of commercialized spring water in Bandung Page | 138
Table 1. Interviewees and interview questions.
Interviewees
Interview topics
Three spring owners and/or operators;
Business establishment, raw water
sources, operation and maintenance
(O&M) practices, costs, volume of water
sales, water pricing, labour
arrangements, quality assurance,
business strategy, free-riding behaviours,
and relationships with other actors.
Two water tanker truck owners who buy water from
spring owners and sell it to commercial clients, e.g. refill
water kiosks.
Five refill water kiosks that own and operate small bottled
water facilities. They sell pre-treated water in refillable 19
litre bottles.
Two pushcart vendors that sell water door to door to
households.
Three senior community members and local chiefs2 who
have gained experience with both state and co-production
regimes of water provision since the 1980s.
Experiences before and after both
commercialisation of spring water and
co-production took place, (before and
after receiving?) information on the
water allocation agreement between
entrepreneurs and the community.
Two volunteer water stewards, who contribute to the
operation, maintenance, monitoring, and allocation of
water delivered by spring-water entrepreneurs to a
communal tank.
O&M of distribution network of spring
water.
A water watcher who is responsible for the monitoring of
the spring water distribution network.
Two households that have individual connections to spring
water sources.
Household economy, the maintenance of
service levels, free-riding behaviour, and
attitude towards commercialising of
spring water.
A supervisor from the municipal piped water company
(MWC).
O&M of the treatment plant and
distribution network.
To further facilitate understanding of user’s experiences with different modes of provision, additional
semi-structured interviews were conducted with 70 household participants in Ujungberung District. We
collected data on types of access, household strategies, the perception towards dimensions of access
(physical access, quality, continuity, quantity, and affordability of water), and expenditure for water. All
interviews in this study were recorded on a digital voice recorder and transcribed in the original
language: a mix between Bahasa and Sundanese.
Data analysis
We conducted a content analysis of all interview transcripts, codified key terms, and extracted
emerging themes (Elo and Kyngäs, 2008; Otero et al., 2011). To understand how water is produced, we
followed Ostrom’s (1996) concept of co-production, i.e. the process by which individuals from different
organisations contribute inputs to the water supply service provision. We examined the input
contributions of water actors along the value chains of water production. We operationalised input as
2
A local chief is a neighbourhood head appointed by the community members. A local chief is responsible in assisting public
service activities and bridging the communication gap between the government and the community.
Water Alternatives - 2017 Volume 10 | Issue 1
Nastiti et al.: Co-production of commercialized spring water in Bandung Page | 139
production factors that are used to deliver water supply to consumers: human labour, technology, land,
and financial capitals.
Next, we scrutinised how we could properly evaluate the contribution of co-production to
innovation. As discussed in Nganyanyuka et al. (2014), water supply has dimensions of access that
relate not only to the physical access, but also to water quality, water quantity, water continuity, and
affordability. Following Pestoff and Brandsen (2010), we conceived of innovation as a renewed
structure in the provision of water service delivery that leads to an improvement in one or more
dimensions of access in water service delivery. Assessing the contributions of a renewed provision
structure was done by: (1) comparing different modes of provision, and (2) revisiting the characteristics
of past water services and contrasting those with present circumstances. We identified both actors and
their activities which have contributed significantly to changes in physical access, quality and
affordability of water provision.
Next, we examine the change in access to water and operationalised the concept of equity of
Jakobsen and Andersen (2013) to understand how co-production may affect equity of water supply
provision. We also sought to reveal the effect of co-production on accountability, examined available
evidence of negotiations at the grass-roots level and determined the presence of any knowledge barrier
that could impact access to water services. We obtained insights from community members and
household users. Additionally, we investigated geographical differences in access to spring water
services.
Water provision in Ujungberung District, Bandung, Indonesia
Bandung, the capital city of West Java Province, Indonesia, consists of 32 districts and is inhabited by a
population of 2.5 million. Roughly a third of the water supplied in Bandung City is provided by the
Municipal Water Company (MWC) (Yamani, 2002). We selected one of the eastern districts,
Ujungberung District, as the central research area of this analysis owing to the presence of
commercialising of spring water (see Figure 1). This district is a rural-urban fringe region and consists of
18,467 households (Statistical Office of Bandung City, 2015). The elevated part of this district sits
adjacent to the neighbouring Bandung Regency, which is mostly unserved by the MWC water service.
3
The MWC of Bandung City currently serves only 6.7% of the district’s population through household
connections (Government of Bandung City, 2014). The water is supplied from a water treatment and
distribution facility, Mini Plant (MP) Cipanjalu, which was built in 2004. Meanwhile, most of the
district’s population are served by self-service (i.e. groundwater and surface water sources, including
spring water) or through commercial means (i.e. sale of both bottled water and spring water by local
entrepreneurs). More than 77% of households in Ujungberung District rely heavily on groundwater
extracted through boreholes or dug wells (Bandung City Health Office, 2013). Spring water had also
previously been utilised, but not to the degree that it is being extracted at present. Formerly, spring
water users obtained their water on the basis of neighbourly relations: spring water was gifted and
collected in containers. At present, spring water, well-known as 'mountain water', is sold extensively
within and outside the district.
3
The administrative hierarchy of Indonesia extends from the level of national government, to provincial government,
city/regency government, district, and finally village. City has the same administrative level as regency, only a city has urban
characteristics, whilst a regency has more rural characteristics. A city or regency consists of districts, and a district con sists of
villages.
Water Alternatives - 2017 Volume 10 | Issue 1
Nastiti et al.: Co-production of commercialized spring water in Bandung Page | 140
Figure 1. Map of Ujungberung District (from Google Earth© 2017).
Note: The district is well-known for commercialising of spring water. Spring water sales take place mainly in pangkalan shown
by red rectangles.
THE VALUE-CHAIN OF COMMERCIALISED SPRING WATER
Commercialised spring water first entered the market in the early 2000s when some landlords sold
parcels of land which included springs to local water entrepreneurs. We examine the value chain of
commercialised spring water from source to consumer and identified three types of actors and their
roles in the value chain of spring water: local private actors, community actors and committees, and
household users (see Figure 2). Water extracted at the springs is transported to refill kiosks by tanker
trucks. The water is then treated, packed, and distributed by refill kiosks to household users as readily
available drinking water. Water from springs is also distributed to houses through pushcarts, hoses or
buckets from communal water tanks. Prior to use, households may also adopt several strategies to
improve quality or ensure availability of spring water from vendors or communal water tank (i.e.
through boiling and filtering water followed by storage). Co-production processes particularly occur in
the distribution of water until it reaches household users.
Water Alternatives - 2017 Volume 10 | Issue 1
Nastiti et al.: Co-production of commercialized spring water in Bandung Page | 141
Figure 2. Value chains of commercialised spring water in Ujungberung District.
Extraction
Treatment
Household strategies
Transportation
Transportation
Use
WM
Spring
Primary
Reservoir Secondary
Reservoir
Tanker
truck Communal
water tank
Pushcart
vendors
Refill
kiosk
Household
use
Water
meter
Valve
$
$
$
Direct sale with
water buckets
$
$
$
Direct sale with
water buckets
$
Municipality
$
Municipality
Household
use Household
use Household
use
Individual
connection
pays IDR
50,000 per
month
Communal
payment of
IDR
300,000 per
month
Individual
connection pays
IDR 20,000 per
month
Selling
price
IDR 158
per L
Selling price IDR
150 per L
Selling price
IDR 200 per L
Selling price IDR
26 to IDR 34 per L Valve
Selling
price IDR
30 per L
Pump
Water boiling/
filtering/ storage
Selling price IDR 3
to IDR 4 per L
Water
Extraction
Tax
Pangkalan
Motorcycle
LEGEND
L=litre
Black font indicates actors/activities
Red font indicates the price/costs of water
Water boiling/
filtering/ storage
Water extraction
To acquire the freshwater in springs, local entrepreneurs bought land parcels from former landlords. An
entrepreneur invested roughly IDR 100,000,000 (USD8475)
4
to install one typical extraction facility for
spring water, i.e. spring protection structures, primary reservoirs, gravity-led piping systems, secondary
concrete reservoirs, and electrical pumps. As shown in Figure 1 above, the natural spring is protected
by concrete structures which also facilitate water flow to a primary reservoir. Water is delivered from
the primary reservoir through piping systems, partly underground and partly on the surface, to a station
in which a secondary reservoir is located. Stations in which water sales activities take place are locally
known as pangkalan. We identified ten pangkalan in our study area, including those located in the
administrative territory of the neighbouring regency (Figure 1).
'Raw' water transportation from springs/pangkalan to refill kiosks
Spring owners, or pangkalan owners, sell water to their primary customers, tanker trucks owned and
operated by individuals who serve as the primary transporters of spring water to commercial clients
(i.e. refill kiosks) and industrial clients (e.g. manufacturing or beverage industries that require bulk
water supply for their production processes). Electrical pumps are used to draw water from secondary
reservoirs into tanker trucks that have a capacity of 3000 to 5000 litres. Additionally, pangkalan owners
4
The IDR to USD exchange rate in August 2014 was IDR 11,800 per USD1.00.
Water Alternatives - 2017 Volume 10 | Issue 1
Nastiti et al.: Co-production of commercialized spring water in Bandung Page | 142
commonly provide their own tanker trucks. The selling price of water from tanker truck owners to refill
kiosk owners depends on the distances over which the water is transported. Prices range between IDR
130,000 (USD11.00) and IDR 170,000 (USD14.5) per 5000 litres (or IDR 26 to 34 per litre). The price is
based on fuel costs, and the salary of truck drivers and their assistants. Some kiosk owners provide their
own tanker trucks to buy raw water supply from pangkalan.
Water treatment by refill kiosks
Refill kiosks apply industrial processes that treat raw water to produce potable water, which they
subsequently sell directly to consumers in refillable bottles (Ministry of Industrial and Trade, 2004).
Tanker trucks deliver raw water three times a week to the refill kiosks. Water is stored until it is treated
to provide drinking water. Refill kiosk owners buy a set of water treatment units that typically apply
filtration, and ozone purification processes. The cost of a single unit ranges from IDR 21,000,000 (USD
1780) to IDR 35,000,000 (USD 2966). Filtered and disinfected water is then bottled using 19-litre plastic
containers. Kiosk owners sold water to consumers for a price of IDR 3000 (USD 0.25) per container (or
IDR 158 per litre).
Water distribution to household users
Spring water reached users via several different pathways: pushcart vendors, refill kiosks, directly from
pangkalan through individual networks, or indirectly via communal tanks. Pushcart vendors buy water
from pangkalan at a price of IDR 1500 (USD 0.13) per 10 litres (or IDR 150 per litre) using pickup trucks,
each with a capacity of 1000 litres. These vendors mainly sell water to regular household clients at a
price of IDR 2000 (USD 0.17) per 10 litres (or IDR 200 per litre). Water vendors own multiple units of
pushcarts and hire other individuals to sell water door to door. However, water delivered by these
vendors is not potable water. Refill water kiosks deliver to households water that can be supposedly
consumed directly without treatment, mainly by motorcycles.
Spring water is also distributed through individual and communal networks. We focused on
pangkalan that allow local communities to tap from the reservoir, either directly to premises using
rubber hoses or indirectly via communal water tanks. It is in these situations where co-production,
characterised by the voluntary efforts of community actors and users to enhance the service quality of
water provision, occurs. Households situated near pangkalan have negotiated a monthly price of IDR
50,000 (USD 4.3) for individual connections that provide two or three hours of water supply daily. A
pangkalan owner explained the arrangement, "that house only receives water in the evening, we cut off
the supply in the morning. That’s the deal we talked about, no written agreements". Under this
arrangement, individual households are responsible for the setting up and maintenance of their own
supply network and storage tanks.
If a communal supply is arranged, pangkalan owners and community actors initially come to an
informal agreement. This agreement allows the pangkalan owners to sell water outside Ujungberung
District only if they also provide water to local communities. Pangkalan owners initiate supply to local
communities after supply trucks stop operating for the day. Further, local communities are responsible
for the distribution of water from pangkalan to the point of use. Different neighbourhood communities
acquire spring water from pangkalan in turn for three hours per day. Personnel volunteered as water
stewards are responsible for: (1) setting up the distribution and storage system, (2) negotiating the
schedule for distribution within neighbourhoods, (3) operating and maintaining the water delivery
system, (4) collecting payments, and (5) recording complaints. Spring water from pangkalan is
distributed through rubber hoses to iron water tanks with a capacity of 3000 litres. Water is further
distributed from communal tanks to dwellings through individual connections. Additionally, water is
sold directly from communal tanks for IDR 500 or USD 0.04 per 3.3 litre bucket. When the water supply
is maintained according to the agreed schedule of three hours per day, households with individual
Water Alternatives - 2017 Volume 10 | Issue 1
Nastiti et al.: Co-production of commercialized spring water in Bandung Page | 143
connections pay IDR 20,000 every 10th day of the month (USD 1.7). However, these households can pay
less (IDR 15,000 or USD1.3) if the supply of water is interrupted. The continuity-based price was
considered to be a strong advantage of this arrangement in comparison with the piped water service
provided by the MWC. Fees are collected by water stewards and IDR 300,000 (USD 25.4) of the
collected fees is paid to pangkalan owners as a standard monthly payment. Any remaining fees are used
to maintain the tanks and distribution network.
Figure 4. (a) A truck is filling its tank with spring water in a pangkalan; (b) household water storage; (c)
and (d) two examples of communal water tank.
Household strategies and water usage
Households use water that is delivered either by pushcart vendors or through a communal or individual
network for drinking, bathing, washing, and cleaning. To improve the quality of water, households boil
spring water obtained from communal tanks, individual networks, and pushcart vendors prior to
drinking. Households adopt water storage practices to mitigate for the unreliable water supply. These
strategies are individual household’s contribution to the co-production process for the provision of
water supply.
THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF CO-PRODUCTION TO INNOVATION AND EQUITY IN WATER SERVICE PROVISION
In this section, we discuss how collaborations between private, community, and household actors have
contributed towards innovations in service provision and equitable access to water in Ujungberung
District. Users’ experiences of water delivered were analysed to determine any change in the
dimensions of access resulting from the co-production process. We interviewed 70 householders with
Water Alternatives - 2017 Volume 10 | Issue 1
Nastiti et al.: Co-production of commercialized spring water in Bandung Page | 144
an average income of IDR 3,000,000 (the Minimum Regional Salary of Bandung City 2014
5
is IDR
2,000,000); 34% of householders interviewed used spring water and only 11% enjoyed a piped water
service daily. The others rely on groundwater extracted from boreholes with pumps or dug wells.
However, the use of multiple water sources is a common practice: 67% of households combine
different water sources to be used daily. Some households whose main water supply consisted of
shared or individual access to spring water previously relied on an unimproved source which is
unreliable during the dry season, i.e. water vendors or dug wells. In general, the joint activities of spring
entrepreneurs and community actors have led to an increase in diversity of water sources in the
district;56 out of the 70 households which we have interviewed are unserved by 'improved' water
sources (i.e. piped water and boreholes); now these households can enjoy spring water daily. This has
improved household’s physical access to water.
Our interviewees expressed a strong preference towards spring water. Spring water is generally
perceived to offer superior quality compared with other water sources (i.e. the MWC’s piped water
service, shallow groundwater, and surface water). As shown in Table 1, spring water delivered through
individual connections and from communal tanks has a lower coliform faecal count compared to piped
and well water (Iqbal et al., 2015). As a householder put it, "now, we can use (spring) water for drinking.
We cannot do that with water from our well". More than 70% of interviewees drank spring water, while
piped water and water from shallow dug wells was mainly used for non-drinking purposes.
Our findings also suggest that the presence of a network of spring water allows households to access
safer water at a cheaper cost compared to previously available sources. Individual or shared spring
water connections had the lowest initial charges compared with piped water or the construction costs
associated with boreholes or dug wells (see Table 1).
Water extracted from an individual borehole of at least 60 meters depth was perceived as an ideal,
yet expensive and often unaffordable, solution.
6
Well operations also lead to energy costs that result
from the use of extraction pumps and other costs are incurred due to the construction of storage
facilities. Spring water users were charged the lowest monthly payment compared to piped water users
and users of water provided by private vendors. Hence, affordability of access to water has been
improved by the provision of spring water. On the other hand, the water cost gap still persists between
those with access to the spring water network and those who rely on spring water sold by vendors. "It
(the spring water connection) is cheap, actually. Imagine if we had to buy water in jerrycans. It costs IDR
1500 for a small one, ten jerrycans cost IDR 15,000 and that is not even enough for bathing".
Following the improvement of physical access to better quality and more affordable water supply,
we then discuss which actors contribute to these improvements (see Figure 3). In the early
establishment of the spring water businesses, community actors came to an agreement with spring
owners who expect them to distribute some water for the local communities if they continue to sell
water to areas outside Ujungberung District. Since citizens hold more power to bargain, the power
relationship that exists between citizens and local private actors is different from that existing between
citizens and large private companies, like in Jakarta, or state-owned companies. A formal permit is
issued by local administrators when entrepreneurs intend to establish business activities. Refusal to
save water for local people may jeopardize the sustainability of water entrepreneur’s business. A local
chief suggested:
5
The Regional Minimum Salary is a minimum standard for industries to provide monthly salary to the unmarried labourers. It is
proposed by a regional-level committee consisting of representatives of bureaucrats, academics, labourers, and industries; it
may be revised each year and is stipulated through a provincial-level regulation.
6
The soil layer in Ujungberung area is highly rocky which makes drilling difficult. Approximately IDR 6,000,000 (US$ 508.5) is
required to drill to a depth of up to 40 meters, almost three times the minimum monthly regional salary of Bandung City in
2014. An interviewee revealed the application of a staged drilling strategy applied over several years to maintain affordability.
Water Alternatives - 2017 Volume 10 | Issue 1
Nastiti et al.: Co-production of commercialized spring water in Bandung Page | 145
Table 1. Cost estimates and potability of different water sources.
Water source
Initial cost
in IDR 1000
Cost per
litre, in IDR
1000
Monthly
cost, in IDR
1000
Average faecal coliform
concentration in water
samples, in MPN
Metered piped water from
the MWC
739-750
0.01
50-120
190.1
Boreholes
2500-11,500
N/A
N/A
9.4
Dug wells
500-2500
-
-
420.0
Individual spring water
connection
200
-
15-50
5.8
Shared spring water via
communal tank
200-237
N/A
20-50
Spring water bought with
buckets from communal tank
-
0.15
N/A
Branded bottled water
40
6
70-170
9.4
Refilled bottled water
35
1
26-50
145.2
Pushcart vendor
-
1
50-200
7.5
Notes:
Costs were estimated based on the information obtained from the interviews with households and local contractors in
Ujungberung District.
The average monthly household income of participants is IDR 3,000,000.
N/A=Data not available
Participants could not provide an estimate of the monthly cost of a borehole, but we suggest it may be significant if the
energy cost of water pumping is considered.
Data on coliform concentration are taken from Iqbal et al. (2015). MPN=Most Probable Number. The water quality
record does not differentiate between the type of spring water connection. For drinking water, faecal coliform
concentration must be 0 (Ministry of Health, 2010).
If they want to build a business, they need our permission. Our regulations forbid anyone to commercialise
water, but it is happening. The entrepreneurs have invested so much in the creation of reservoirs, a
network system, and in tankers. They need to sell water. If we act there will be no water for sale. So we
keep quiet, we need water, too. What’s important is that there is no clash between the entrepreneurs and
the people. We could’ve played rough, but we understand each other.
Multiple actors jointly contribute their inputs particularly in the distribution chain.
A spring owner also confided, "It’s hard to build a business in the middle of a place like this, let’s just
say that we are vulnerable. If we don’t provide water, although we lack it sometimes, it won’t be good
for us. At least we have each other’s back". Even so, we found other pangkalan who do not allow
community to tap from their springs, and still, the threat of business termination has never
materialised.
Water Alternatives - 2017 Volume 10 | Issue 1
Nastiti et al.: Co-production of commercialized spring water in Bandung Page | 146
Figure 3. The actor and input diagram in the value chain of commercialised spring water in Ujungberung
District.
Extraction Treatment
Use
Pangkalan
owners
Pangkalan
owners
Tanker truck ownersTanker truck owners
Water VendorsWater Vendors
Refill kiosk
owners
Refill kiosk
owners
Community
leaders
Community
leaders
Water
stewards
Water
stewards
Water watchersWater watchers
Household-
users
Household-
users
Transpor-
tation
Distribution
Distribution
Investment in infrastructure; O&M
of reservoir; water quality test; tax
negotiations
Investment, O&M of water treatment units;
home delivery service; water quality
inspection
Investment in
trucks; O&M costs
Investment and O&M of
pushcarts
Negotiations
and conflict
management
O&M of communal
water tank; payment
collection; complaints
and conflict
management
Monitoring
and repair;
conflict
mediations
In-cash contributions in O&M of
communal water tank and distribution
system; household strategies
Household
strategies
Extraction Treatment
Use
Pangkalan
owners
Tanker truck owners
Water Vendors
Refill kiosk
owners
Community
leaders
Water
stewards
Water watchers
Household-
users
Transpor-
tation
Distribution
Distribution
Investment in infrastructure; O&M
of reservoir; water quality test; tax
negotiations
Investment, O&M of water treatment units;
home delivery service; water quality
inspection
Investment in
trucks; O&M costs
Investment and O&M of
pushcarts
Negotiations
and conflict
management
O&M of communal
water tank; payment
collection; complaints
and conflict
management
Monitoring
and repair;
conflict
mediations
In-cash contributions in O&M of
communal water tank and distribution
system; household strategies
Household
strategies
Local
communities
Local
communities
Participatory
monitoring
LEGEND
Commercial
actors
Commercial
actors
Community
actors
Community
actors
HouseholdsHouseholds
On the other hand, the community’s supply of water depends on the sustainability of water
entrepreneurships. If the commercialisation of spring water did not take place, the community may not
be able to enjoy the spring water. The local community does not have any financial means to bring
water from the springs to people’s premises. A senior member of the community put it as follows: "it
takes a lot of money to build a network to deliver water from the springs to the second reservoirs.
Trucks are also needed to bring water from the reservoirs. Trucks also cannot run by themselves, fuel
and drivers are needed, hence, money". The senior community member later emphasised that "it is a
business, but otherwise, people in Ujungberung District would not have clean water".
Private actor’s investments and operations are mainly driven by the profit motive and the need to
sustain business activities. Spring owners/operators strived to attract new customers but kept loyal
customers by applying many strategies. These range from setting up a negotiable and competitive
selling price, ensuring good water quality through a well-maintained distribution network, to promoting
the results of water quality testing. The refill kiosk owners interviewed avoid using groundwater or
piped water as raw water sources, and instead opt for spring water that has a good reputation for
quality. Additionally, refill kiosks gain customer’s loyalty by maintaining their treatment efficacy, and in
some cases using water-quality testing certificates to promote their products. To some extent, these
business strategies result in indirect effects (externalities) that lead to improvements in physical access
to the network of spring water and an accompanying safer and/or more affordable supply compared to
other water sources.
Apart from the contributions of co-production to the improvement of physical access, quality, and
affordability, we observed that cooperation between local entrepreneurs and community members
extends to conflict management. This was articulated by a local chief when discussing water as a source
of conflict, "water is hot, even if it is actually cold". Potential sources of conflict relating to equity are
water disruption, free-riding behaviour, and inequalities in the geographical distribution of services.
Water Alternatives - 2017 Volume 10 | Issue 1
Nastiti et al.: Co-production of commercialized spring water in Bandung Page | 147
Water Disruption Problems. Households connected to individual spring water supplies are serviced
continually, although households sometimes suffered from low water pressure. However, households
that rely on communal tanks experienced frequent water disruption, particularly during dry periods.
Although households using spring water and piped water supplied by the MWC experienced similar
problems of poor daily and seasonal continuity, households preferred the spring water source. During
the dry season, or when demand is high, the spring owner is often unable to provide sufficient water to
supply both businesses and households at the same time. Ujungberung District is famous for its
mountain water. Therefore, commercial and industrial clients of spring water entrepreneurs are spread
throughout the city and over neighbouring regencies. Water must be delivered by tanker trucks beyond
the district limits to these commercial and industrial clients. These types of clients benefit local
entrepreneurs rather than household or communal users primarily because they buy water in large
quantity per trip and pay in higher prices.
Minor unrest and distrust are sparked when entrepreneurs are accused of prioritising commercial
and industrial clients, while local entrepreneurs claim that they never actively reduce the supply to the
local community. Such conflicts are managed by local chiefs and water stewards. Their presence, and
the social relationships between actors, help bypass the traditional complaints procedure. Households
convey their complaints to local chiefs, who are responsible for immediately conveying complaints to
operators of spring water. If the problem lies in the distribution system between the spring water
reservoir and the communal tank, for example due to damaged pipes, households, together with local
water stewards and local chiefs take collective responsibility for repairing the network or paying for
repairs. In this way problems have a greater chance of being resolved rapidly.
7
Free-riding behaviour and participatory monitoring. In the late 1980s, a state-led piped water service
supplied clean water to communities in the Ujungberung District. At that time, raw water sources were
bought from natural spring sources owned by members of the local community. The piped water
service was stopped to some areas, three years after the MWC began their operations. A senior
community member suggested that the short life of the MWC service in certain areas was mainly driven
by the occurrence of massive and illegal water tapping. As a senior community member recounted, "the
officers monitored the reservoir… but they did not monitor the network rigorously. People began
stealing water. There was no water. It took so long for the water to flow. The water was taken all the
way along. People drilled the pipes, like woodpeckers". At present, spring owners face similar, yet less
significant, problems. Some illegal actions occurred during times of water shortage. People siphoned
water by perforating plastic pipes and diverting water to their dwellings without permission, often using
mechanical pumps. Identifying evidence for water theft was straightforward, particularly during the
rainy season because (1) water flow rate suddenly decreased; or (2) the water turns murky because
contaminants were sucked into the system through punctures.
These problems are mitigated by some forms of participatory monitoring. Spring owners are
negatively affected by deteriorations in water quality and reduced water flows that result from illegal
tapping. Therefore, spring owners work hard to alleviate illegal tapping at the point of extraction and
transportation. Households become aware of occasional water theft when there is a sudden decrease
of water pressure. Households contribute to monitoring at the point of distribution by reporting
leakage occurrences to water stewards or network watchers, who then investigate the distribution
hoses. Network watchers voluntarily monitor the distribution system and local people report
7
Compared to the MWC, the complaints procedure for the connection of spring water is much less complex. In the case of
disruptions to piped water supply and problems relating to water meters or water bills, consumers are required to attend the
central office in the northern part of Bandung City and formally file their complaints by filling out forms. Following this,
consumers wait for up to one month for their complaint to be addressed.
Water Alternatives - 2017 Volume 10 | Issue 1
Nastiti et al.: Co-production of commercialized spring water in Bandung Page | 148
occurrences of damage within the spring water distribution network. A water committee member
confided:
Now our watchers monitor. People also monitor the water, should such things (illegal tapping) happen,
they get annoyed. We know exactly which hose goes to which neighbourhood. If parts of the network pass
along a motor taxi terminal, the drivers will tell us. If parts of the network run through a small shop, they
will tell us.
In the past, some conflicts arose around the use of the communal spring water tank. Water is scheduled
to be delivered to a certain neighbourhood for three hours a day, for example from 7 a.m. to 10 a.m.
After 10 a.m.; the valve supplying that neighbourhood is closed, and water is diverted to another
neighbourhood. Incidences of flow being diverted to neighbourhoods which were not scheduled to
receive water at that time outside the allocated period have occurred. Again, the watchers are tasked
with preventing such occurrences.
Geographic distribution of service. Individual and shared access to the network of spring water are
confined to locations where gravity allows water flow. Networks of spring water use rubber or plastic
hoses, which are more vulnerable than the PCV, asbestos or iron pipes used by the MWC. Even so,
hoses are preferable to other type of pipes due to the flexibility of hoses. The network of spring water is
often sighted at unprotected locations, such as the roadside. The durability of these hoses is hence
reduced when greater lengths are used, in term of the susceptibility to frequent damage by traffic. We
found communities located in this 'technical outreach' of the network of spring water are not served by
such a system. Our interview revealed that there was a shared consciousness that "not all can get water
from the communal tank" and that "the water won’t be enough". To further reduce the conflicts
between those who receive spring water service and those who do not, the water stewards determined
the monthly fees of IDR 300,000. This fee is collected from the households using spring water service
and paid to the pangkalan owners. However, pangkalan owners do not press people to pay this fee.
Water stewards and senior community members insisted on setting this fee. This monthly fee was not
the price of water nor the price of water distribution. It was rather 'the price of peace'. A high fee
would lead to protests from local people who feel they were entitled to a water supply, while supplying
the water for free would trigger protests based on social envy from those who are unable to access
spring water.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Private actors and co-production
This study highlights co-production occurring within the value-chain of commercialised spring water.
Commercialising of spring water started to occur when local entrepreneurs identified a gap in the
market for drinking water supply left by the state that provided an inadequate service for all citizens in
Ujungberung District. An example of commercialising of water in South Africa suggests that
disengagement of citizens is worsened and access to water services by poorer people is reduced
(McDonald and Ruiters, 2005). Our findings demonstrate that private control over natural water
sources stimulates institutionalised co-production arrangements and institutional innovations, which
further leads to an improved access to a safer and more affordable water supply, and nurture equity.
Cooperation between private and community actors demonstrates its effectiveness at reducing tension
between market-based provision and added value for the public (Bovaird, 2006).
This study analyses the cooperation and experiences of private actors, households, and community
actors, that Pestoff and Brandsen (2010) refer to as the 'third sector', in co-producing spring water
supply services. The term co-production is commonly used to describe the arrangements in which
services are jointly produced by state agencies, citizens, and communities only (Brandsen and Honingh,
Water Alternatives - 2017 Volume 10 | Issue 1
Nastiti et al.: Co-production of commercialized spring water in Bandung Page | 149
2015). However, the involvement of private parties in co-production activities is referred to in public-
private partnership arrangements (Klijn and Teisman, 2005). The concept of co-production, or co-
creation, is also found in the relationships between private service providers and their clients in service-
based industries (Auh et al., 2007; Ordanini and Pasini, 2008; Voorberg et al., 2014).
We argue that the case of spring water distribution in Ujungberung District is a form of co-
production since this arrangement displays the characteristics of co-production described by Boyle and
Harris (2009) who identify primary producers and users/communities as both co-planners and co-
deliverers of services. Aside from any one or the elements of the service production process being
shared, co-production is further defined by: (1) the presence of a fundamental shift in the balance of
power between the primary producers and users/communities, and (2) the existence of mutual support
and relationships networks rather than a clearly defined delineation between providers and clients
(Boyle and Harris, 2009).
In the planning phase of water distribution system, private actors and the third sector negotiate the
extent and means by which spring water can reach the community. In the service delivery phase,
private actors (spring owners) provide the water while the community actors including water stewards,
water watchers, and local chiefs maintain the sustainability of spring water delivery via the distribution
network. Lastly, households individually contribute to improvements in the quality and continuity
dimensions for water services they receive. Inconsistent supply and water quality problems are
mitigated through home strategies such as water treatment and storage and by giving feedback
regarding service quality addressed by community and private actors.
We have observed a fundamental shift in the balance of power among actors. When spring water
was given based on neighbourly relationships, users relied on the generosity of spring owners who
provided free water. With respect to the state-led piped water service, there is a sense that the MWC
exerts authority over their clients, reflected in a lack of action in response to customer’s demands for
service improvements (Nastiti et al., 2017). This example of co-production extends beyond "volunteers
ministering to ever more passive needy individuals on the fringes of public services, whilst the
professionals continue with business as usual" (Boyle and Harris, 2009: 17). Users positioned at the
receiving ends of the water service are motivated to assist in the provisioning of spring water by
establishing water committees which regulate water allocation at distribution points or, at the very
least, report service quality problems and leakages within distribution networks. This is similar to what
Alford (2014) described when referring to the role of building occupants in providing early notification
to the fire department when fire occurs.
As previously described, the size of the water entrepreneurships, the requirements for local permits,
and the social relationship between private and community actors shift the balance of power of
primary producers away from private actors to the community. The practices of the MWC are defined
strictly by typical state provider and client relationships, in which the installation of new connections,
the submission of complaints, monitoring of meters, and all other regular activities of water provision
are conducted through formal means and procedures. Our interviewees suggested that the MWC
retains all control over their provision of water. In contrast, the relationships of local private actors with
the local community are based on informal agreements and social relations, thus giving room for
grassroots negotiations and reducing communication barriers. Contrary to a typical provider and client
relationship, the co-production arrangement in the Ujungberung District promotes partnerships
between the private sector and the community.
Ostrom (1996: 1074) argued that the major examples of infrastructure such as water and sanitation
works are "not where one would first look to find important, replicable examples of effective co-
production". Our case study of the Ujungberung District indicates that the provision of spring water
characterised by co-production makes up a third of water used by households we interviewed. The
contributions of different actors stimulate improvements in the overall quality of water supply service.
Water Alternatives - 2017 Volume 10 | Issue 1
Nastiti et al.: Co-production of commercialized spring water in Bandung Page | 150
Our findings show that there are improvements in the physical access, quality and affordability
dimensions of water service because of institutional innovations. These innovations manifest
themselves mainly in the distribution chain because of cooperation between local private actors and
community actors, i.e. through negotiation, participatory monitoring, and conflict management.
Pestoff and Brandsen (2010) argued, however, that innovation alone is not sufficient as it must also
be accessible to a broad range of users. This emphasises the equity issue in service improvement.
Although in general the co-production processes in the Ujungberung District have improved access to
water for the previously unserved by piped water and boreholes, had given the opportunity to
negotiate from below, and yield in a more transparent and accountable provision, we showed that the
impact of co-production is in line with the particularistic nature of the third sector, where the benefits
of improved quality of the water service are restricted to a group of users (Pestoff and Brandsen, 2010).
In our example, groups with geographical advantages in relation to the spring water service, those with
the financial means to provide their own spring water connections, and neighbourhoods able to
effectively negotiate with local entrepreneurs benefited over others. Despite the remaining
inconsistent service coverage, co-production has led to the introduction of viable options for increased
access to clean spring water for previously unserved households.
To further understand and better manage co-production arrangements, Alford (2014) suggests a
classification for co-producers that focuses on service outcomes rather than just service outputs. In the
case of Ujungberung District, the co-production process is not limited to the output of consistently
supplying good quality water to consumers. It also includes the outcomes of safeguarding public health
and general well-being, and reducing conflicts among neighbourhoods which may occur in association
with commercialised spring water. The motivations of local private actors in co-production activities are
characterised mainly by profit and business sustainability, while the motivations of community actors
gravitate towards maintaining peace and reducing tensions and conflicts in the district, while household
users expect to receive access to a clean, adequate, and affordable water supply that promotes health
and productivity. For the co-production process to thrive, positive relationships between actors with
different motivations are essential. Therefore, the act of negotiation, and the cultivation of
transparency and accountability are required. We suggest that the acknowledgement of each co-
producer’s motivations, and an understanding of how these motivations regulate the co-production
arrangement are vital to optimise the co-production process.
The policy implications of co-production within commercialised spring water
While we found that co-production processes within commercialised spring water might indeed
improve access to water, concerns over the presence of capitalistic entities in basic infrastructure
service remain. These concerns gravitate not only in a worry that the prime economic motives of these
entities may someday trump the social aspect of water, but also on the potential problem of excessive
extractions which may lead to the degradation of spring water resources. We then place the discussion
within the broader spectrum of water governance by focusing on the role of the state and the current
legislative framework in mitigating these disasters.
By law, raw water abstraction for commercial purposes is permitted based on commercial water
rights, an instrument to limit the volume of water that can be extracted by permit holders. If enforced
properly, such an instrument was expected to prevent ecological problems caused by excessive
extractions. The newly enacted Drinking Water Bill 122/2015 further implies that any business with
water as commodity intended to be produced not for the sake of self-sufficiency, violate this Bill. At the
city level, the licensing instrument is still in place: every person or entity that performs groundwater
and surface water extraction, including pangkalan, requires a Water Extraction Permit (WEP) from the
Water Alternatives - 2017 Volume 10 | Issue 1
Nastiti et al.: Co-production of commercialized spring water in Bandung Page | 151
Mayor
8
(Government of Bandung City, 2002). WEP holders are also required to pay a levy based on the
volume of water they extract. Failure to fulfil these obligations leads to a forced suspension of business
activities, but we found partial enforcement of this legal obligation in which not all pangkalan operate
legally with a WEP. We estimate that the amount of tax is 1.25 times higher than the maximum gross
monthly revenues of a pangkalan. The high cost of formalisation discourages pangkalan to legally
register their activities with the city, making it difficult for the government to control the volume of
water extracted by these entities.
The new 122/2015 Drinking Water Bill also mentions that state organisations shall be given priority
to manage and provide water supply services. The current mayor of Bandung City, Ridwan Kamil, had
requested to acquire privately owned springs for public company’s raw water supply. Out of 400 springs
located in Bandung City, only 70 are in operation for public use. This brings us to the discussion of re-
municipalisation as a form of government intervention that sheds light on the debate of public-private
ownership in water provision service. The recent debate in the international and national communities
are whether to formalise the informal water provision or heighten the role of the public sector through,
perhaps, a re-municipalisation (Valdovinos, 2012). We suggest that the success of re-municipalisation
and its effect on water market depends on the acceptance or willingness for the community to embrace
water provided by the public sector, which is known to be unreliable. A separate study in our case study
area demonstrates that a loss aversion behaviour of a perceived poor service quality may demotivate
households to connect even when households have the sole authority to decide and are given options
to connect (Nastiti et al., 2017).
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
We conclude that rather than making a distinction between state or market provision, water supply
management incorporates a broad spectrum of provision structures. Private sector involvement does
not necessarily lead to less equity in terms of: (1) improved access to water; (2) the opportunity to
negotiate from below; and (3) transparency and accountability. However, this will depend on the
presence of effective local community actors. Institutional innovations established in the co-production
process in the Ujungberung District, Bandung have yielded a safe and affordable water supply service
for citizens who previously had no access to piped water or boreholes in the district. Multiple case
comparisons are required to confirm the generalisability of our results to all private/citizen co-
productions, and will further increase understanding of this particular institutional arrangement.
Findings in Greater Jakarta provide an example of a similar supply system where spring water is
delivered by trucks. Similar communal provisions were also found in other peripheral areas of
Bandung.
9
Further research is needed to fully understand how this type of co-production arrangement
may contribute to larger-scale urban water planning. Additional research should be conducted to
analyse how changes in the local institutional framework of urban water management can further
improve such co-production arrangements.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank Jon Matthews for his valuable insights in improving this article. We also
acknowledge Dr. Gertjan Geerling and Dr. Marisa Handajani for managerial support. The research is
partly funded by the Water and Health research programme at Deltares (the Netherlands) and the
8
An exception to this are households that use private wells with an extraction volume of less than 100,0 00 litres per month
and a depth of 40 to 60 metres.
9
Field findings by Indrawan Prabaharyaka provide an example of a similar supply system in the Greater Jakarta area where
spring water is delivered by trucks. Similar communal provisions were also found in other peripheral areas of Bandung.
Water Alternatives - 2017 Volume 10 | Issue 1
Nastiti et al.: Co-production of commercialized spring water in Bandung Page | 152
International Office of Radboud University Nijmegen (the Netherlands). This research is also part of the
Alliance for Water, Health, and Development, a joint research and education programme of Institut
Teknologi Bandung, Universitas Padjajaran, Radboud University, and Deltares. The PhD program is
partly supported by the Directorate General of Higher Education (Indonesia).
REFERENCES
Ahlers, R.; Cleaver, F.; Rusca, M. and Schwartz, K. 2014. Informal space in the urban waterscape: Disaggregation
and co-production of water services. Water Alternatives 7(1): 1-14.
Alford, J. 2014. The multiple facets of co-production: Building on the work of Elinor Ostrom. Public Management
Review 16(3): 299-316.
Allen, A.; Davila, J.D. and Hofmann, P. 2006. The peri-urban water poor: Citizens or consumers? Environment &
Urbanization 18(2): 333-351.
Auh, S.; Bell, S.J.; McLeod, C.S. and Shih, E. 2007. Co-production and customer loyalty in financial services. Journal
of Retailing 83(3): 359-370.
Bakker, K.; Kooy, M.; Shofiani, N.E. and Martijn, E.J. 2008. Governance failure: Rethinking the institutional
dimensions of urban water supply to poor households. World Development 36(10): 1891-1915.
Bandung City Health Office. 2013. Unpublished data.
Bovaird, T. 2006. Developing new forms of partnership with the 'market' in the procurement of public services.
Public Administration 84(1): 81-102.
Bovaird, T. 2007. Beyond engagement and participation: User and community coproduction of public services.
Public Administration Review 67(5): 846-860.
Boyle, D. and Harris, M. 2009. The challenge of co-production – How equal partnerships between professionals and
the public are crucial to improving public services. London,
http://s.bsd.net/nefoundation/default/page/file/312ac8ce93a00d5973_3im6i6t0e.pdf (accessed 29 May
2015)
Brandsen, T. and Honingh, M. 2015. Distinguishing different types of coproduction: A conceptual analysis based
on the classical definitions. Public Administration Review 76(3): 427-435.
Budds, J. and McGranahan, G. 2003. Are the debates on water privatization missing the point? Experiences from
Africa, Asia and Latin America. Environment & Urbanization 15(2): 87-114.
Brudney, J. and England, R. 1983. Toward a definition of the coproduction concept. Public Administration Review
43(1): 59-65.
Elo, S. and Kyngäs, H. 2008. The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing 62(1): 107-115.
Firman, T. 2004. Demographic and spatial patterns of Indonesia’s recent urbanisation. Population, Space and Place
10(6): 421-434.
Government of Bandung City. 2002. Bandung City Regulation Number 08 Year 2002 regarding groundwater
management. Bandung, Indonesia.
Government of Bandung City. 2014. The masterplan of drinking water provision system of Bandung City. Bandung:
The Municipal Planning Agency (BAPPEDA).
Gulyani, S.; Talukdar, D. and Mukami Kariuki, R. 2005. Universal (Non)service? Water markets, household demand
and the poor in urban Kenya. Urban Studies 42(8): 1247-1274.
Iqbal, M.; Nastiti, A. and Muntalif, B.S. 2015. Improved but not always safe : A microbial water quality analysis in
Bandung peri-urban households. In The 5th Environmental Technology and Managemen t Conference, pp. 1-8.
Bandung, 2015.
Isham, J. and Kähkönen, S. 1998. Improving the delivery of water and sanitation: A model of co-production of
infrastructure services. Working Paper No. 20.
Jakobsen, M. and Andersen, S.C. 2013. Coproduction and equity in public service delivery. Public Administration
Review 73(5): 704-713.
Water Alternatives - 2017 Volume 10 | Issue 1
Nastiti et al.: Co-production of commercialized spring water in Bandung Page | 153
Joshi, A. and Moore, M. 2004. Institutionalised co-production: Unorthodox public service delivery in challenging
environments. Journal of Development Studies 40(4): 31-49.
Klijn, E.H. and Teisman, G. 2005. Public-private partnerships as the management of co-production: Strategic and
institutional obstacles in a difficult marriage. In Hodge, G. and Greve, C. (Eds), The challenge of public-private
partnerships: Learning from international experience, pp. 95-116. Cheltenham, UK & Northampton, USA:
Edward Elgar.
Llano-Arias, V. 2015. Community knowledge sharing and co-production of water services: Two cases of
community aqueduct associations in Colombia. Water Alternatives 8(2): 77-98.
MacCarthy, M.F.; Annis, J.E. and Mihelcic, J.R. 2013. Unsubsidised self-supply in eastern Madagascar. Water
Alternatives 6(3): 424-438.
McDonald, D.A. and Ruiters, G. 2005. The age of commodity: Water privatization in southern Africa. London:
Earthscan.
McMillan, R.; Spronk, S. and Caswell, C. 2014. Popular participation, equity, and co-production of water and
sanitation services in Caracas, Venezuela. Water International 39(2): 201-215.
Ministry of Health. 2010. The Regulation of the Ministry of Health, 492/MENKES/PER/IV/2010 regarding drinking
water quality requirements. Jakarta, Indonesia.
Ministry of Industrial and Trade. 2004. The Decree of the Industrial and Trade Minister of Republic of Indonesia
Number 651/MPP/Kep/10/ 2004 regarding Technical Requirements of Refill Water Kiosks and its Distributions.
Jakarta, Indonesia.
Mitlin, D. 2008. With and beyond the state – Co-production as a route to political influence, power and
transformation for grassroots organizations. Environment & Urbanization 20(2): 339-360.
Nastiti, A.; Muntalif, B.S.; Roosmini, D.; Sudradjat, A.; Meijerink, S.V. and Smits, A.J.M. 2017. Coping with poor
water supply in peri-urban Bandung, Indonesia : Towards a framework for understanding risks and aversion
behaviours. Environment & Urbanization 29(1): 1-20.
Nganyanyuka, K.; Martinez, J.; Wesselink, A.; Lungo, J.H. and Georgiadou, Y. 2014. Accessing water services in Dar
es Salaam: Are we counting what counts? Habitat International 44(2014): 358-366.
Norstrom, A. 2007. Planning for drinking water and sanitation in peri-urban areas – A proposed framework for
strategic choices for sustainable living. Sundbyberg,
www.siwi.org/documents/Resources/Reports/Report21_Peri-Urban_Areas_2007.pdf (accessed 2 March 2015)
Ordanini, A. and Pasini, P. 2008. Service co-production and value co-creation: The case for a service-oriented
architecture (SOA). European Management Journal 26(5): 289-297.
Ostrom, E. 1996. Crossing the great divide : Coproduction, synergy, and development. World Development 24(6):
1073-1087.
Otero, I.; Kallis, G.; Aguilar, R. and Ruiz, V. 2011. Water scarcity, social power and the production of an elite
suburb. The political ecology of water in Matadepera, Catalonia. Ecological Economics 70(7): 1297-1308.
Parks, R.B.; Baker, P.C.; Kiser, L.; Oakerson, R.; Ostrom, E.; Ostrom, V.; Percy, S.L.; Martha, B.; Whitaker, G.P. and
Wilson, R. 1981. Consumers as coproducers of public service: Some economic and institutional considerations.
Policy Studies Journal 9(7): 1001-1011.
Pestoff, V. 2006. Citizens and co-production of welfare services. Public Management Review 8(4): 503-519.
Pestoff, V. and Brandsen, T. 2010. Public governance and the third sector: Opportunit ies for co-production and
innovation? In Osborne, S.P. (Ed), The New Public Governance? Emerging perspectives on the theory and
practice of public governance, pp. 223-236. Oxon: Routledge.
Pestoff, V.; Osborne, S.P. and Brandsen, T. 2006. Patterns of co-production in public services. Public Management
Review 8(4): 591-595.
Prasad, N. 2006. Privatisation results : Private sector participation in water services after 15 years. Development
Policy Review 24(6): 669-692.
Sangameswaran, P. 2009. Geoforum neoliberalism and water reforms in western India : Commercialization, self-
sufficiency, and regulatory bodies. Geoforum 40(2): 228-238.
Water Alternatives - 2017 Volume 10 | Issue 1
Nastiti et al.: Co-production of commercialized spring water in Bandung Page | 154
Statistical Office of Bandung City. 2015. Ujungberung in Figures 2015. Bandung City: Statistical Office of Bandung
City.
United Nations. 2007. Annual Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and Reports of
the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Secretary-General (Vol. 13655).
UN-Water; UNICEF and UN-DESA. 2015. The Post 2015 Water Thematic Consultation Report.
www.unwater.org/downloads/final9aug2013_water_thematic_consultation_report.pdf (accessed 2 November
2015)
Valdovinos, J. 2012. The remunicipalization of Parisian water services: New challenges for local authorities and
policy implications. Water International 37(2): 107-120.
Venkatachalam, L. 2014. Informal water markets and willingness to pay for water: A case study of the urban/2
poor in Chennai City, India. International Journal of Water Resources Development 31(1): 134-145.
Voorberg, W.H.; Bekkers, V.J.J.M. and Tummers, L.G. 2014. A systematic review of co-creation and co-production:
Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Management Review 17(9): 1333-1357.
Yamani, Z. 2002. Kehausan di ladang air: Pencurian air di Kota Bandung dan hak warga yang terlupakan (Thirst in
water mines: Water theft in Bandung City and abandoned civil rights). Bandung: Lembaga Studi Pers dan
Pembangunan/Bandung Urbane Community/Walhi Jabar/FK3I Jabar.
THIS ARTICLE IS DISTRIBUTED UNDER THE TERMS OF THE CREATIVE COMMONS ATTRIBUTION-NONCOMMERCIAL-SHAR EALIKE
LICENSE WHICH PERMITS ANY NON COMMERCIAL USE, DISTRIBUTION, AND REPRODUCTION IN ANY MEDIUM, PROVIDED THE
ORIGINAL AUTHOR(S) AND SOURCE ARE CREDITED. SEE HTTP://CREATIVECOMMONS.ORG/LICENSES/BY-NC-SA/3.0/LEGALCODE
