Many urban workers have quietly experienced a lighter life in recent\nyears without having to go to the office every day. Mornings no longer\nstart with a rush. No energy is wasted on the road before work truly\nbegins. There is time for breakfast. There is space to simply sit for a\nmoment without feeling guilty. These small things surprisingly have a\nsignificant impact on quality of life.<\/p>\n
Therefore, it is understandable that working from home \u2014 WFH \u2014 is\nincreasingly viewed as a solution. It is considered to reduce\ncongestion, lower living costs, and even help the environment. But\nperhaps we need to look at it from a different angle.<\/p>\n
Why does working from home feel like a lifesaver for urban life? The\npossibly uncomfortable answer is that cities have so far developed too\nquickly without being truly designed for the people living in them.<\/p>\n
Data from the Central Statistics Agency shows that more than 60 per\ncent of Indonesia\u2019s population now lives in urban areas. Urbanisation\nwill continue to increase in the next two decades. Cities are an\neconomic magnet. People come because jobs are there.<\/p>\n
However, jobs are not always followed by decent living spaces.\nAffordable housing is increasingly distant from economic centres. Many\nfamilies end up living on the outskirts or in peri-urban areas. From\nthere, the long daily journey begins.<\/p>\n
In major metropolises, a round trip of two to three hours is no\nlonger an extraordinary story. It becomes routine. In this context, WFH\nindeed feels like liberation. It eliminates the journey that has long\nbeen considered normal, though actually irrational.<\/p>\n
But that great benefit can also be read as an indicator of failure. A\nwell-designed city should not force its residents to \u201celiminate the\njourney\u201d to make life feel reasonable. The distance between home and\nwork should still be humane. Public transport should be reliable enough\nto be the primary choice. When WFH has a dramatic impact, it means there\nwas previously dramatic inefficiency as well.<\/p>\n
To see its potential impact further, imagine a simple simulation. If\naround 30 per cent of formal workers in Jakarta work from home two to\nthree days a week, the daily commuter volume would certainly decrease.\nCongestion could ease slightly. Fuel consumption would reduce. Even air\nquality might improve on certain days.<\/p>\n
However, this behavioural change will also affect how people choose\nwhere to live. Without the obligation to be present at the office every\nday, some workers will feel no need to live near the expensive city\ncentre. They move further away \u2014 seeking larger homes, lower prices, or\nmore comfortable environments.<\/p>\n
This decision is rational individually. But if it happens en masse,\nthe city will expand. New settlements grow on the fringes. The\ngovernment must expand infrastructure: roads, electricity networks,\nclean water, schools, health facilities. Public transport becomes harder\nto reach dispersed areas. Reliance on private vehicles increases. In the\nlong term, emissions that temporarily decrease due to WFH could rise\nagain.<\/p>\n
Ironically, the benefits of WFH today could accelerate the urban\nsprawl pattern that makes cities more expensive to manage in the future.\nThe impact is also felt on the urban economic structure. Business\ndistrict activities depend on daily mobility. When the flow of workers\ndecreases, small businesses around offices lose customers. Eateries\nbecome quiet. Local transport loses passengers. The daily economy\nbecomes more fragile.<\/p>\n
This is important because urban poverty in Indonesia is not\ninsignificant. The percentage is indeed lower than in villages, but the\nnumber is large \u2014 millions of people live in conditions vulnerable to\nsmall changes in economic activity.<\/p>\n
In other words, WFH can help some groups survive the pressure of\nliving costs, but at the same time shift that pressure to other groups.\nIt reduces the burden of mobility, but does not automatically make the\ncity more inclusive. At this point, WFH should be viewed not as the main\nsolution, but as a mirror. A mirror that shows that so far many city\nresidents have adapted to a system that is actually inefficient.<\/p>\n
Future cities cannot rely solely on work flexibility. They need more\nfundamental changes. Affordable housing must be available near work\ncentres. Public transport must be truly reliable. Economic activities\nneed to be more dispersed so that mobility does not always pile up in\nthe same direction every morning. If these changes occur, working from\nhome will still be useful \u2014 but no longer as a saviour. It will just be\none option in a healthier urban life.<\/p>\n
And perhaps that is the sign of a city starting to truly mature. When\nlife feels humane even without having to distance oneself from it.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/the-other-side-of-wfh-impact-on-urban-economic-structure-1774705875", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }