I think most places will try other things besides moving. There shouldn't be any development on either side of the shoreline. That zone is like an animals skin. Trying to get the oceans into a healthier state is going to be difficult to accomplish while the skin is badly damaged.
In this case, it is probably a case of doing what needs to be done but not for the oblivious reasons.
Jakarka has a lot of issues besides the sinking which probably makes it easier to move compared to other locations. There were/are plans to centralize the government offices outside of the capital because the administrators can't travel to meetings without police escorts or they wouldn't be able to get to meetings in a reasonable amount of time. Consolidating all the government buildings into one location would be a huge construction opportunity to make a lot of money. Upgrade the idea to include building a new capital and the amount of profits for everyone involved escalates sky high. All of which has nothing to do with the environmental factors. 13 rivers flowing through swamplands most of which is already below sea level aggravated by excessive pumping of ground water which will lower land a lot faster than the rising water levels.
So far environmental reasons have not caused much to change in the world, probably will stay like that for a while longer. New York City wants to build up the harbor land underwater above ground level to stop storm surges from flooding the city. Storm surges are now much more likely to inflict excessive damage than other environmental causes. Other coastal cities are also exploring massive sea walls and barriers.
The article says the president has already had 5 years of ambitious infrastructure accomplishments which means the machinery is already set up and simply needs new ground to develop. Indonesia has a large expanding economy, but has taken to borrowing money to fund the infrastructure building. Using other people's money is the fastest way to get things done in today's world.
