Implementing a Participatory Design in the Observation Phase:

Case Study - Sidotopo Railroad Settlements

Lydia Angela Gonodiharjo, Isna Rosyida Cahya, Athiu Izzatillah Takziyati,

and Puspitaningtyas Sulistyowati

Yayasan Arkom Indonesia (YAI) Jawa, Timur

Keywords: Participatory Design, Community-based Development, Railroad Settlement

Abstract: Community-based development can be achieved through community participation in the design process.

Based on Arnstein’s ladder of participation, Surabaya had reached the level of tokenism that includes

informing, placation and information through several ways such as Musrenbang and hearing sessions. This

method had already been used in Surabaya for a community-based sustainable development concept that

accommodates human living activities, leaving no one behind. However, whether a higher level of

participation will be more effective and beneficial for this purpose remains the question. Marginalized

communities often suffer as the most disadvantaged due to under-representation, with the lowest capacity in

advocating their issues and views to ensure inclusion. One of them is the community of railroad settlements

that sprawl wide across Surabaya. Nonetheless, they receive poor attention to city development. This research

observes a participatory process in observation and data collection of the design process. The tools used

include observation, inline process, and participatory mapping; producing potentials and problems about

people, planet, and profit aspects. The community actively engaged as the main actor that observe and analyse

their own physical and social environment. The result of this research is a participatory map that includes

more detail and accuracy regarding site analysis, activities, and user-needs. There are contextual pieces of

information like places they need to improve, their history, and their unique lifestyle. The community also

improved their awareness and engagement about the development of their urban environment. During the

process, they obtained a better understanding of their kampung, their living space, including them as active

participants in improving their urban environment through the design process.

1 INTRODUCTION

In many countries, limited government success in

managing natural resources, providing basic

infrastructure, and ensuring primary social services

has led to the search for alternative institutional

options. There is a shift from supply-driven toward

demand-driven approaches, and from centralistic

control to decentralized local management or co-

management. This shift is intended to increase

efficiency, equity, empowerment, and cost-

effectiveness. One of these options is community-

based development. (Narayan, 1995)

1.1 Community-Based Development

Community-based development (CBD) is an

approach that advocates community participation in

decision-making and management of local

development projects. (Baldwin, 2016) It is focused

on reversing control and accountability towards the

community it is based on. To do this, a deep

understanding of the pre-existing condition of the

community is needed. Planning should be tailored to

the needs and potential of the community instead of

asking the community to abide by the purpose

introduced by the government or planner.

There are a lot of instances where community-

based development fails because of the false focus of

the experiment in which a change is induced from

external ideas assumed to be ‘the best’ for the

community, while the common needs and interests

are neglected. An example of this failure can be

observed from one of the examples illustrated by

Arnstein(1987) in which an urban renewal program

through the CAC (City Advisory Committee) was

carried out. Officials used CAC to educate and

persuade citizens, much like campaigns, about the

Gonodiharjo, L. A., Cahya, I. R., Takziyati, A. I. and Sulistyowati, P.

Implementing a Participatory Design in the Observation Phase: Case Study - Sidotopo Railroad Settlements.

DOI: 10.5220/0013057100002836

Paper published under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

In Proceedings of the 10th Architecture Research and Design Conference (AR+DC 2019), pages 74-84

ISBN: 978-989-758-767-2; ISSN: 3051-7079

legitimacy and need of their programs to improve the

community welfare. A proposal of a multipurpose

center that will house “doctors from the healthcare

department, workers from the welfare department,

and specialists from the employment services” was

presented, asking for approval from citizens that

supposedly had been informed of the program’s

benefits. However, they failed to deliver that the new

multipurpose center would be a one-stop referral

system, to the same old services and town, which only

adds to the bureaucracy of getting services. After the

completion of the multipurpose center, the old town

services would not receive any customer unless they

had the referral form from the center. This only

created yet another problem without asking the right

question nor giving the citizen any involvement in

making decisions.

Another prominent failure of community-based

developments is attempting to achieve results on a

wide scale through the infusion of external

management, funds, and technology, controlled from

a distance. Successful community-based

development must feature a reversal of control from

the authority to the community in the research and

design process. (Narayan, 1995).

However, CBD approaches encompass a wide

variety of levels and types of community participation

and have been advocated by aid agencies starting as

early as the 1950s (White, 1999). Arnstein (1987) in

his Ladder of Participation theory describes this

phenomenon by categorizing the level of community

participation into three stages: no-participation,

tokenism, and citizen power, as described in Figure 1.

Nonparticipation occurs where participation is

substituted by efforts done with the intention of

‘educating’ or ‘curing’ the participants from their

problems rather than enabling genuine participation.

Tokenism allows the participants to have their voice

heard, with varying degrees of influence on the final

decision but without having the power of negotiating

design decisions. In citizen power, the participants

have power in decision-making, whether partially or

fully, through partnership, delegation, or full control.

Quick and Feldman (2011) distinguished the different

approaches of citizen involvement in ‘participation’

and ‘inclusion’. Using the case of the master plan and

budgeting process in Grand Rapids that started in

2001 and the case of the Indian Trails Golf Course,

they divided modes of involvement into participation

and inclusion. According to Quick and Feldman

(2011), the differences in participation and inclusion

are shown in Table 1.

Figure 1. Eight rings of the ladder of participation.

Source : 'A Ladder Of Citizen Participation', Journal of the

American Planning Association (1969)

Table 1. Differences of participation and inclusion

according to Quick and Feldman (2011)

Partici

ation

Involvement is measured b

uantit

artici

ants

Community contributes inputs/data to help the

decision made b

authorit

Decision

rocess is not o

Community isn’t given any chance to explore ways

of knowing or diving into connections between

information

Inclusion

Involvement is measured by the engagement of

multi

ers

ectives

Coproducing decisions between authority and

communit

Sustaining temporal openness to ideas and critics

during the whole process

Engaging multiple ways of knowing, exploring

connections

Reference to Arnstein’s Ladder of Participation in the

formulation of ‘participation’ and ‘inclusion’

category by Quick and Feldman was not described,

however, the illustrated process can be related to

Arnstein’s tokenism and citizen power level of

participation, respectively. Both participation and

tokenism describe a method of citizen engagement

through inputs from the community, but without

community involvement in decision making. And

both inclusion and citizen power describe a method

Implementing a Participatory Design in the Observation Phase: Case Study - Sidotopo Railroad Settlements

of citizen engagement whereas communities have

actual power in making decisions, and the needs of

communities are represented and included in the final

decision.

From both perspectives of Arnstein and Quick and

Feldman, participation and inclusion of communities

in data input and decision making is a relevant topic

that continues to be discussed and can be referred to

determine the best practices in making design for the

community.

1.2 Participatory Planning in Surabaya

Indonesia had begun to make the switch into

community-based development through participatory

methods since the reformation era. According to UU

no. 25/2004, one of the Social Development Planning

System’s purposes is to optimize citizen participation

as a democratic nation. This is important to legitimate

decisions done for national development and give

voice to the people, leaving no one behind. The

system described in UU no. 25/2004 combines a

technocratic approach that is based on the functional

scientific method and framework of an organization

(top-down approach) and a participatory approach

that carries out a planning process with the

involvement of every stakeholder in the development,

including the community (down-top approach). The

combination of the two approaches can be observed

in the implementation of Musrenbang in several

Indonesian cities, including Surabaya.

Surabaya had applied e-Musrenbang since 2010.

E-Musrenbang follows a down-top procedure. In the

beginning, each RW, which is the smallest official

neighbourhood organization after RT, is given access

to an account that can input suggestions into the e-

Musrenbang system. Kelurahan, which consists of

several RWs, organizes and maps the suggestions

before proposing it to Kecamatan, which consists of

several kelurahans, where the selections are either

accepted or rejected. Accepted suggestions then are

brought to Satuan Kerja Perangkat Daerah that will

follow up with a survey to determine the relevancy of

the suggestions. After the confirmation, the selected

suggestions are taken to the city-wide Musrembang

as a contribution to policy and budget making for the

city development.

Although E-Musrenbang was designed to give a

wide opportunity for citizen participation, the process

of policy and design decision making still hugely

depends on the ecopolitics relationships between

governmental institutions involved. The level of

participation involved in still far from what is

expected based on the MDGs (Millenium

Development Goals). (Yunas, 2017) There are a lot

of questions that can be asked here regarding the basis

of suggestion and selection. The citizen, especially

the desperately marginalized ones, are often not

consulted in the formulation of suggestions taking

place at RW level. The decision is held by a few

people with power and access to the Musrenbang

system. The selection process in Kecamatan level

also puts the decision in the hand of a higher

authority, who might choose and eliminate

suggestions based on biases and interests of an elite

few. In short, this process cannot guarantee that the

aspiration of the citizen, especially marginalized

ones, are represented.

1.3 Railroad Settlements in Surabaya

As a coastal city, Surabaya had undergone a rapid city

development due to it’s importance to the nationwide

economy and transportation hub. The development of

Surabaya attracts people, resulting in massive

urbanization. Migrants who started to settle down in

Surabaya typically work as workers in factories,

harbors, and shipyards, as well as traders. The

construction of railroad tracks began in the 19th

century further develops the city. Consequently, a lot

of migrants started to settle down in informal

settlements. One of those informal settlements is

railroad settlements.

Aside from the lack of basic human rights to

housing that include access to a safe, secure,

habitable, and affordable home with freedom from

forced eviction—as typical in the case of informal

settlements—for its’ settlers, railroad settlements

have distinctive characteristics on its own. The lack

of land makes railroad settlers decide and make

borders between their houses and the railroad on their

own, this results in unorderly settlements prone to

dangers from the passing trains. More often than not,

the inhabitants of these settlements are very

marginalized people who are barely involved in the

city planning process. And unlike other informal

settlements like city-center kampung or riverside

kampung, there had been very little attention given to

railroad settlements in the city planning processes and

studies.

1.4 Optimizing Citizen Participation

through Participatory Mapping

To advocate their needs and interests, railroad settlers

and informal settlers in Surabaya as part of the

marginalized communities in Surabaya must rely on

the existing participatory planning system. The

AR+DC 2019 - Architecture Research and Design Conference

existing system, including Musrenbang, can be

evaluated based on Arnstein’s participation ladder.

The levels reached are the three different levels of

tokenism: Informing, Consultation, and Placation, in

which citizen can express their aspiration and ideas,

but has no power in decision-making. In some cases,

the aspirations of the truly marginalized people don’t

even get channelled through the RW level. And so, it

can be said that in the current system, the purpose of

the Social Development Planning System’s purpose

which is to optimize citizen participation is not

optimally attained yet.

Thus, can we use a higher level of participation

for more fruitful participation in the design and

planning process of the city? This research will

discuss an attempt in optimizing citizen participation,

reaching citizen power, through participatory

mapping in the data collection phase of the

participatory planning process. The model used will

require full participation from the citizen level to

produce a comprehensive, complex, and more

relevant data as a very valuable input for the design

and planning process.

2 THEORY AND RESEARCH

METHODS

2.1 Qualitative Research Method

This research uses a qualitative method with a

naturalistic approach. The qualitative research

involves multiple tactics that are both particular to the

context being studied and appropriate to the research

questions being asked, involving the studied use and

collection of a variety of empirical materials. (Groat,

2013) Empirical data was recorded based on the

existing phenomenon in their natural setting and is

synthesized and analyzed to be interpreted and

concluded into a coherent set of data.

2.2 Citizen Power in Arnstein’s Ladder

of Participation

Arnstein’s (1987) Ladder of Participation describes

Citizen Power as the highest level of participation.

This includes partnership, delegated power, and

citizen control. This research’s goal is to leverage

citizen participation into the lowest level of citizen

power which is a partnership. Arnstein argues that

partnership in citizen participation can only be

possible when citizens have access to resources,

including professional help or knowledge regarding

community organizing and the technical and political

aspects of advocacy and design. In short, the

community needs to be empowered and has the

assistance of professional human resource. In most

cases, citizen partnership can only be reached by

demands from the community, who felt that they were

powerless in the decision making of the city planning

process. The example described was that of the

Philadelphia model neighbourhood.

Like most applicants for a Model Cities grant,

Philadelphia wrote its more than 400-page

application and waved it at a hastily called meeting of

community leaders. When those present were asked

for an endorsement, they protested the city’s failure

to consult them on the preparation of the extensive

application. A community spokesman threatened to

mobilize a neighbourhood protest against the

application unless the city agreed to give the citizens

a couple of weeks to review the application and

recommend changes. The officials agreed, and at their

next meeting, citizens handed the city officials a

substitute citizen participation section that changed

the ground rules from a weak citizens’ advisory role

to a strong shared power agreement. (Arnstein, 1987).

In this research, the community is included from

the very beginning of the decision process. The

design process itself is a learning process for all the

participants—both the community and the

architect/researcher. By bringing together the

community and assisting them to observe their

neighbourhood to the planning process, the

community can upgrade their ability and awareness

of information and be more capable of reaching

Citizen Power.

2.3 Design Process: Analysis

Design is a process undergone based on an existing

state and condition to reach the desired state through

some processes. Jay Doblin in his article ‘A Short

Grandiose Theory of Design’ (1987) describes a

design process that consists of Analysis, Genesis, and

Synthesis—which are respectively the data collection

phase, the design phase, and the implementation

phase. The data collection phase can also be called the

observation phase (figure 2).

The information in this analysis phase is collected and

put together comprehensively in information

structuring, resulting in a holistic document

containing all the needed information, to plan the next

steps that will be taken before undergoing the genesis

or the design generation process. This paper will

focus on the analysis phase which represents the

observation phase in design, consisting of

Implementing a Participatory Design in the Observation Phase: Case Study - Sidotopo Railroad Settlements

information gathering, information structuring,

planning, and plan evaluation. All of it was done

through a participative method.

2.3 Participatory Planning and Design

Process: Participatory Mapping

Participatory planning had become an increasingly

prominent concept. Participation in the planning

process enables citizen as the user to communicate

their knowledge and ideas, that are usually kept in

silence. This is especially true in the case of

marginalized people, whose opinion is often

dismissed. By building up confidence in expressing

their opinion, participatory planning can encourage

an active and critical discussion habit for the people,

which can better prepare and engage them for the

sustainability of community-based development.

One of the most important stages of this process is in

the data collection phase. Traditionally, data

collection is done through surveys, interviews, and

passive observations. While data can be effectively

obtained with this method, there are a lot of

shortcomings that can be noted. The community,

treated as an object, can only assist with providing

data that is asked only, unable to add more useful

input that can optimize the local knowledge.

Silas (1993) mentions the five rights of housing—the

right to ownership, the right to quality improvement,

the right to access resources, the right to information,

and the right of governmental assistance where

needed.

However, in many cases, the community was not

given enough information about the design purpose,

procedure, nor big idea. They are not able to even

understand the extent of the right they have in the

design process. The data obtained is very likely to be

biased to the architect/researcher and tailored to a pre-

conjured purpose decided by an elite few, dismissing

the novel options that can be provided with the rich

perspectives of the community. The lack of

communication sometimes also results in overlapping

plans due to incomplete information on the existing

condition that may be counterproductive to the city

development.

The mapping process is not simply a gathering of

information and data and arranging the analyzed data

simply to inform people. The process of mapping

itself also provides a good starting point for all

community members to reflect on how they live in the

community, how things relate to one another both

socially and physically, and to identify the common

community problems that concern everyone. This

opportunity also provides the community with the

chance to form working groups to help determine

community priorities. (Luansang, 2012)

Participatory mapping is so important for the

community because by mapping the whole area, the

community can grasp an understanding of an entire

area, both in physical and socio-economic

dimensions. With the knowledge, the participant

leverages their ability in advocating their needs. And

by enabling community participation in the process of

the map construction, a relationship can be built in the

community as a beginning of a solid and capable

community organization for successful community-

based development. By involving the community

with the full knowledge of their neighbourhood’s

development plans, the community can help reduce

the misinformation, not giving a gap for the common

mistake of overlapping or crashing plans by various

stakeholders. The community will actively engage

when there is a felt need and common interest agreed

upon. In this setting, architects as designer hold the

role to keep a horizontal relationship and fill the

professional—people gap with their skill and

knowledge.

The process of participatory mapping combines

several strategies and is began with observation to

determine the appropriate location. Following that, an

inline process is started to collect more information

and prepare for a community organization. A series

of meetings are held with the community, involving

as many people as possible from various demography

to make a participatory map. The map may include

physical aspects such as houses, infrastructure, and

the environment; as well as the socio-economic

aspects such as demography and the mapping of

existing community organizations. The data obtained

is then interpreted through a forum group discussion

(FGD) to identify existing potentials and problems.

With this method, the main issue and purpose in the

community can be determined as a base for a further

planning process. The result is digitized and

structured into a comprehensive document that can be

used for further processed as well as various other

actions.

This research used this participatory mapping as a

tool, which is divided into pre-participatory mapping

phase and participatory mapping phase. Pre-

participatory mapping is the preparation phase for

community involvement through some processes

including initial observation, assessment and inline.

Participatory mapping phase is the process for

making map together with the community and

analyzing the data.

AR+DC 2019 - Architecture Research and Design Conference

Figure 2. Jay Doblin’s design process chart.

Source : A Short Grandiose Theory of Design, Analysis and Intuition: 1987 STA Design Journal(1987)

3 RESULT AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Pre-Participatory Mapping

The initial observation was used to determine the

research location between several available options.

The observation was done in the Sidotopo Dipo area

settlements because the area is relatively dense. In

this phase, initial data is collected from 4 locations

including RW 02, RW 03, RW 10 and RW 12

Simokerto to determine the most suitable location for

the research. The initial observation is a rapid-

day observation focusing on the visible environment

and community response to outsiders.

The result of the initial observation is as shown in

Table 2:

Based on that initial assessment, RW 10 was

eliminated due to the bad community response.

Assessment is done following the initial observation.

The team contacts the community to get the contact

person and continue to do a deep survey. The

contacted persons are people expected to be able to

become the local actor and act as the local community

leader who will help the researcher team organize the

community. The contacted person is used as an asset

for the following inline process.

The inline process is done by making an event

together with the community, called ‘KAPIREL’. In

this event, we invited communities from the three

selected RW to participate in a sketch and

photography competition about their environment. In

this event, we also held an FGD with the community

to identify their environment through sketches and

photographs. The result of that FGD was a conclusion

to together collaborate in continuous activities,

including participatory mapping. After the event, we

held initial mapping with informal means aside from

the FGD sessions. Through this process, we

concluded that two RT out of the three locations have

a higher rate of community participation which is RT

04 RW 02 and RT 05 RW 12, and thus were chosen

as the research location.

Table 2. Result of Initial Survey in Sidotopo Railroad

Settlements in Simokerto

RW Visible

Environment

Community

Response

Dense and

organized in

several areas, but

still disorganized

in several areas

Open and receptive

Disorganized in

several areas

Bad response, high

crime rate according

to some citizen

The railroad side

is not organized,

but the inside

kampung is quite

organize

Very open and

receptive, already has

an active community

(Kampung Dolanan)

that frequentl

Already organized

in some part

Very open and

receptive,

community actively

participate in city

events

Figure 3. FGD with the community through sketches and

photograph.

3.2 Block Doing Practice

The participatory mapping process was carried out

communally in a forum group discussion. The

community was organized in groups and was told to

look back on their neighbourhood and describe it

through drawing. Drawing is chosen as a method due

to its versatility. Drawing uses symbolism to

Implementing a Participatory Design in the Observation Phase: Case Study - Sidotopo Railroad Settlements

communicate ideas, and it can be done by every

member of the community including children,

teenagers, and adults. Every participant was

encouraged to communicate their knowledge of the

neighbourhood using communally agreeable and

understandable simple symbols. The participants

drew a map indicating houses, roads, and other

infrastructure. In this process, the researcher became

a facilitator who stands by to direct the participants

until the map is finished, asking questions to gain

more information and details.

While the map is being drawn, the community

was encouraged to openly talk about their

neighbourhood. In this stage facilitator asked every

participant one by one to talk, giving chance to every

member of the community to be heard. The

participation of the community is very important, thus

the more people who come means the more complete

and legitimate the resulting data will be.

Discussions are held in suggestions and debate as

the community come into an agreement regarding

information in the map, such as the border, location

of houses, and infrastructure. This is done so that the

resulting data will include different perspectives from

everyone.

The resulting data consists of two kinds of

information, which are physical and non-physical.

1. Physical

Physical data consists of many information

including houses, public facilities, streets,

drainage, electricity system, disaster gathering

point, productive spaces, social spaces, and

other infrastructures. The data also includes

other aspects such as water bodies and

vegetations.

2. Non-physical

Physical data consists of socio-economic data of

the community such as demography, economy,

history, culture, and the mapping of existing

community organizations.

Preparation

3.2.1 Mapping Process in RT 04 RW 02

Simokerto

The community participation recorded is as follows:

- Several meetings were held with the total

participants of 16 people that consists of 5 men,

9 women, and 2 teenagers.

- The process was held in several places including

the local mosque

- The community that attended FGD actively

engaged in the forum.

The community recorded their neighbourhood

using simple hand-drawn maps. In the beginning,

some of the participants expressed their confusion

due to only knowing part of their neighbourhood. But

as the discussion progressed, it could be observed that

the participant became increasingly knowledgeable

about the condition of their neighbourhood, both in

physical and non-physical aspects.

After the mapping process, the people who

participated understood about the current condition of

their neighbourhood. This apprehension was the

beginning of an analysis process that would be done

by the community regarding their neighbourhood.

After the initial analysis of the neighbourhood, the

community then participate in the discussion about

the identification of potential and problem in their

neighbourhood.

Figure 4 (top) and 5 (bottom). Community meetings in

making the participatory map

AR+DC 2019 - Architecture Research and Design Conference

Information about physical data that can be

obtained from the maps are:

1. Houses, streets, and demography, indicating the

location and borders of the RT as well as the

owner of every house.

2. Type of Public facilities, RT 04 has some public

facilities that are used to support the daily life of

the community.

3. Location and type of sources of clean water in

RT 04, which is PDAM and groundwater from

wells, some houses have access to one or both.

4. Building functions, which are as a house, kosts

(monthly rented rooms) or kontrakans (yearly

rented buildings).

5. Private and public bathrooms.

Non-physical data: information was collected

through the discussion process in participatory

mapping. There were several narrations told by the

community that support the complexity of

information regarding the neighborhood and the

larger area. In the forum group discussion, the

participants discussed the economy, culture, the

mapping of existing community organizations, and

history.

Figure 6. Result of the community mapping: hand-drawn

map by the community

In the economic aspect, the community members

are mostly lower-middle-class workers, like street

vendors and market sellers. There is livestock

consisting of goat, cow, chicken, and duck. The

community also obtained capacity building through

several workshops. Existing social ties and culture in

this community make them feel a strong sense of

unity. Community Organizations in this community

recorded include women's group in crafting and a

teenage group for education called the Kampung

Dolanan community. Historical Data about the

growth process of this kampung, from an open space

to condition nowadays, was also obtained. From this

data, this community started to build small houses

sporadically from 1963 and later built improvement

of infrastructures such as roads and public facilities

including public bathrooms.

Figure 7. Result of community mapping: digitalized map by

researcher with several thematic indicators

3.2.2 Mapping Process in RT 05 RW 12

Simokerto

The community participation recorded in the

participatory mapping process in RT 05 RW 12

Simokerto is as follows :

- Several meetings were held with the total

participants of 14 people that consists of 3 men,

9 women, and 2 teenagers.

- The meetings were attended by RT and RW

administrator as well as the local youth

movement group (karang taruna) and elderlies

- The process was held in several places including

the local mosque

- The community that attended FGD actively

engaged in the forum.

In the beginning, some of the participants only knew

part of their neighbourhood. But as the discussion

progressed, it could be observed that the participant

became increasingly knowledgeable about the

condition of their neighbourhood, both in physical

and non-physical aspects. After the mapping process,

the people who participated understood about the

current condition of their neighbourhood. This

apprehension was the beginning of an analysis

process that would be done by the community

regarding their neighbourhood. After the initial

analysis about the neighbourhood, the community

then participate in the discussion about the

identification of potential and problem in their

neighbourhood

Implementing a Participatory Design in the Observation Phase: Case Study - Sidotopo Railroad Settlements

Figure 8 and 9. Community meetings in making the

participatory map

Figure 10. Result of community mapping: hand-drawn map

by the community

Information about Physical Data regarding that can

be obtained from the maps are:

1. Houses, streets, and demography, indicating the

location and borders of the RT as well as the

owner of every house.

2. Type of Public facilities, RT 04 has some public

facilities that are used to support the daily life of

the community.

3. Building functions, which are as houses or

kontrakans (yearly rented buildings).

4. Private and public bathrooms.

5. Greeneries. The community plants a lot of

greeneries along the neighbourhood paths,

including trees, decorative plants, and medicinal

plants.

Non-physical data: information was also collected

through the discussion process in participatory

mapping.

In economic aspects, this community had received

several stimulant funds from the government to

improve the economy of the community including

Program Nasional Pemberdayaan Masyarakat

(PNPM) or National Programme of Citizen

Empowerment and Badan Keswadayaan Masyarakat

(BKM) with a saving and lending program. Social

and Culture aspect was recorded as follows: most

community members are from the Javanese and

Tionghoa ethnic and there is a routinely held

community meeting for all community or specific

group, such as women group, religious group or kids-

caring group (posyandu). Community Organizations

in this community were recorded including women's

group in crafting and youth movement group called

Karang Taruna. Historical data about the growth

process of this kampung was obtained regarding the

process from an open space to condition nowadays.

From this data, this community's growth started in

1947 with Umar Said as the first settler and more

house were built mostly in 1978-1990. This condition

was continued with the improvement of

infrastructures like road and public facilities such as

public bathrooms.

3.3 Data Analysis

The participatory mapping that was done enabled the

community to have a better knowledge of the physical

and non-physical aspects of their neighbourhood.

After understanding the condition of their

neighbourhood, the community was involved in a

discussion to begin the analysis of the potential and

problem of their neighbourhood. In RT 04 RW 02

Simokerto, the participatory mapping process was

followed up by the analysis of potential and problems

via focus group discussion. The forum group

discussion results of RT 04 RW 02 Simokerto are as

follows:

Table 3. Potentials and Problems of RT 04 RW 02

Simokerto

POTENTIAL PROBLEMS

There is an active

woman’s group working

in craft and is supported

by Dreamdelion

Community, Al-Azhar

foundation, and the

college students of Petra

Christian University

Lack of Modal

Lack of Marketing

Lack of Workshop to

rove abilit

Lack of place to

assemble

Lack of cohesiveness in

the group

Kampung Dolanan as a

container for children of

RT 04 RW 02 Simokerto

to get extra education in

general knowledge and

culture, especially in

conserving traditional

games

Garba

roblem

Waste from livestocks

Floodin

Sewe

The river is very dirty

and

shallow

AR+DC 2019 - Architecture Research and Design Conference

By realizing the potential and problems of their

neighbourhood, the community gained more

understanding regarding their circumstances. They

can be more confident in expressing their views and

think comprehensively about their next act and plans.

They started to think about improvements based on

their condition, and their plans are backed up by

sufficient data. This process can be the basis of

participatory planning which aims to solve problems

and utilize potentials of the neighbourhood. With this

method, the community can solve their problem

independently as well as empower themselves to

reach a better living condition.

3.4 Kampung Pinggir Rel (KAPIREL)

Exhibition and Discussion Event

As a follow up from the participatory mapping

process, Arkom Jatim initiated an exhibition and

discussion event with the community, showcasing the

result of the participatory mapping process in the

railroad settlements of Surabaya. The title of the event

was “Menyusuri Sisik Melik Perkembangan

Kampung Pinggir Rel Surabaya” or “Going Along the

Other Side of the Development of Railroad

Settlements in Surabaya”. This discussion was held

for the public audience. The discussion was attended

by the community, the general public, as well as

academics from several subjects including

architecture, history, and sociology. In this discussion,

the community expressed their aspirations to act upon

the mapping results from their respective

neighbourhood. The discussion was also attended by

community members from other railroad settlements

in Surabaya such as Gubeng and Wonokromo railroad

settlements. This event acts as a media to publish the

participatory mapping result and discuss scientifically

with experts from several subjects. With this event, the

community can gain more perspective on the issue and

gain more confidence and ability in advocating their

needs.

Figure 11. Result of community mapping: digitalized map

by researcher with several thematic indicators

Figure 12. Kapirel exhibition and discussion

4 CONCLUSION

The participatory process with citizen power degree

through participatory mapping needs more

community engagement before starting the data

collection phase in the design process. The

information-gathering process needs more

engagement with the community through initial

observation, assessment, inline and last participatory

mapping. The integration of design phase and

participatory mapping can be seen in this table:

Table 4. Integration of participatory mapping and design

phase

Design Process

(Observation

Phase)

Participatory Mapping

Information

gathering

Initial Observation (Pre-

artici

ator

Assessment (Pre-

artici

ator

Inline (Pre-participatory

mapping)

Partici

ator

Information

structuring

Data analysis (Problems and

Solution

Plan

Participatory Planning

Evaluate Plan

This process resulted in a more detailed and accurate

site analysis, activities, and user-needs, including:

1. Accurate location of houses, borders, roads, and

other physical elements

2. Building functions and water resources can be

found in one map

3. Growth history of kampung

4. Problems in kampung especially about safety

issue can be discovered

5. Inclusion of different perspectives from diverse

gender and age groups, as well as in-depth

explorations into problem-solving and making

connections between information

Implementing a Participatory Design in the Observation Phase: Case Study - Sidotopo Railroad Settlements

The information is then analyzed to understand

the aspects they need to improve or ignore, realizing

the problem and making a solution together. Through

this process, the community improved their

awareness and engagement about the development of

their urban environment. They had a better

understanding of their kampung, their living space,

making them participate actively in improving their

urban environment through the design process.

REFERENCES

Arnstein S R 1969 A Ladder Of Citizen Participation,

Journal of the American Planning Association, 35: 4,

216 — 224. (London, Routledge)

Beyerle A 2018 Participation in Architecture : agonism in

practice (Melbourne: University of Melbourne)

Community Architect Network 2011 Community Mapping

for Housing by People Handbook (Bangkok: ACHR)

Doblin J 1987 A Short Grandiose Theory of Design R [eds]

Analysis and Intuition: 1987 STA Design Journal

(Chicago: STA)

Family Health International 2005 Qualitative research

methods: a data collector’s field guide. (North

Carolina: Family Health International & USAID)

Groat L N and Wang D 2013 Architectural Research

Methods (Hoboken: John Wiley& Sons, Inc)

Jenkins P and Miller J 2009 A brief historical review of

Community Technical Aid and Community

Architecture P. L. [eds] Architecture, Participation and

Society (London: Routledge)

Luansang C and Boonmahathanakorn S 2012 The role of

community architects in upgrading; reflecting on the

experience in Asia Environment and Urbanization,

24(497) (New York: SAGE Publishing)

Narayan D 1995 Designing Community-based

Development Social Development Paper 7

(Washington DC: The World Bank Social

Development Family)

Quick K S and Feldman M S 2011 Distinguishing

Participation and Inclusion, Journal of Planning

Education and Research, 31: 272. (California, SAGE)

Sanoff H 2000 Community Participation Methods in

Design and Planning (Hoboken: John Wiley& Sons,

Inc)

Silas J 1983 Spatial Structure, Housing Delivery, Land

Tenure and the Urban Poor in Surabaya, Indonesia, In

Angel S. [eds] Land for Housing the Poor (Bangkok:

Select Books)

Sinaga M 2017 Belajar Bersama Arkom Jogja :

Pengorganisasian Rakyat & Hal-hal yang Belum

Selesai (Yogyakarta: INSISTPress-Arkom Jogja)

Undang-undang Republik Indonesia nomor 24 tahun 2005

tentang Sistem Pembangunan Nasional.

Yunas N S 2017 Efektivitas E-Musrenbang di Kota

Surabaya dalam Sistem Perencanaan Pembangunan

Berparadigma Masyarakat Otoritas : Jurnal Ilmu

Pemerintahan 7(1) 19-27. (Makassar: Program Studi

Ilmu Pemerintahan, FISIP Universitas Muhammadiyah

Makassar)

AR+DC 2019 - Architecture Research and Design Conference