Optimization of Participatory and Collaborative Planning Methods for Accelerating the Preparation of Detailed Spatial Plans

  • Deni Santo Kementerian Agraria dan Tata Ruang/Kepala Badan Pertanahan Nasional (ATR/BPN), Jakarta, Indonesia
  • Noer Azam Achsani Program Doktoral Sekolah Bisnis, IPB University, Indonesia
  • Ernan Rustiadi Program Doktoral Sekolah Bisnis, IPB University, Indonesia
  • Agus Buono Program Doktoral Sekolah Bisnis, IPB University, Indonesia

Abstract

The availability of Detailed Spatial Plans (RDTR) is crucial for supporting development implementation and ease of doing business. However, there are still problems in the preparation of RDTR, necessitating acceleration. Regarding this acceleration, it is necessary to analyze how participatory and collaborative planning methods can play a role. Participatory and collaborative approaches are important because public trust and stakeholder relationships in participatory and collaborative planning influence the implementation process and planning outcomes. This study aims to identify the relationships between implementing actors and stakeholders involved in the preparation of RDTR so that they can be optimized with a participatory and collaborative approach. The research methods used are Social Network Analysis (SNA), Organizational Network Analysis (ONA), and post-review surveys. The results show that the relationships between implementing actors and stakeholders related to RDTR preparation are not yet optimal, therefore requiring remapping and rearrangement within the legal framework. Participatory and collaborative approaches will elaborate the possibility of more effective and efficient relationships with changes in roles and media of interaction.

Keywords: Collaborative, Network Analysis, Participatory, RDTR, Spatial Planning

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  • Acheampong, R. A. (2019). The concept of spatial planning and the planning system. In Urban Book Series (pp. 11–27). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02011-8_2.
  • Ahrens, R. de B., Lirani, L. da S., & de Francisco, A. C. (2020). Construct validity and reliability of the work environment assessment instrument WE-10. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(20), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17207364.
  • Allmendinger, P. (2002). Towards a post-positivist typology of planning theory. Planning Theory, 1(1), 77–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/147309520200100105.
  • Asri, A., Mirsa, R., & Saputra, E. (2023). Evaluasi Pembangunan Kabupaten Pidie berdasarkan Rencana Detail Tata Ruang (RDTR) [Studi Kasus Kecamatan Pidie]. Jurnal Rekayasa Teknik Dan Teknologi, 7(2), 91–96. https://doi.org/10.51179/rkt.v7i2.2118.
  • Basco-Carrera, L., Warren, A., van Beek, E., Jonoski, A., & Giardino, A. (2017). Collaborative modelling or participatory modelling? A framework for water resources management. Environmental Modelling and Software, 91, 95–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.01.014
  • Brand, R., & Gaffikin, F. (2007). Collaborative planning in an uncollaborative world. Planning Theory, 6(3), 282–313. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095207082036.
  • Byrne, D. (2003). Complexity theory and planning theory: A necessary encounter. Planning Theory, 2(3), 171–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/147309520323002.
  • Darko, A., Chan, A. P. C., Ameyaw, E. E., Owusu, E. K., Pärn, E., & Edwards, D. J. (2019). Review of application of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in construction. International Journal of Construction Management, 19(5), 436–452. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2018.1452098
  • Enemark, S. (2006). Need for Establishing Sustainable National Concepts Understanding the Land Management Paradigm. 12–15.
  • Enemark, S. (2007). Integrated Land-Use Management for Sustainable Development.
  • European Commission. (1999). ESDP, European spatial development perspective?: towards balanced and sustainable development of the territory of the European Union. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
  • Fahmi, F. Z., Prawira, M. I., Hudalah, D., & Firman, T. (2015). Leadership and collaborative planning: The case of Surakarta, Indonesia. Planning Theory, 15(3), 294–315. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095215584655.
  • Fainstein, S. S. (2000). New directions in planning theory. Urban Affairs Review, 35(4), 451–478. https://doi.org/10.1177/107808740003500401.
  • Faludi, A. (1973). A Reader in Planning Theory (A. Faludi, Ed.). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2009-0-10937-6.
  • Heale, R., & Twycross, A. (2015). Validity and reliability in quantitative studies. Evidence-Based Nursing, 18(3), 66–67. https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2015-102129.
  • Healey, P. (1993). The communicative work pf development plans. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 20, 83–104.
  • Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. Macmillan Education UK. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-25538-2.
  • Holden, M. (2008). The tough minded and the tender minded: A pragmatic turn for sustainable development planning and policy. Planning Theory and Practice, 9(4), 475–496. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649350802481371.
  • Holgersen, S., & Haarstad, H. (2009). Class, community and communicative planning: Urban redevelopment at King’s Cross, London. Antipode, 41(2), 348–370. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2009.00676.x
  • Hudalah, D. (2006). Planning System and Its Driving Forces: A New Institutionalist Perspective. Jurnal Perencanaan Wilayah Dan Kota, 17(3), 47–62.
  • Kitchen, T. (2006). Skills for Planning Practice. Macmillan Education UK.
  • Laurian, L. (2009). Trust in planning: Theoretical and practical considerations for participatory and deliberative planning. Planning Theory and Practice, 10(3), 369–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649350903229810.
  • Legacy, C. (2012). Achieving Legitimacy Through Deliberative Plan-Making Processes-Lessons for Metropolitan Strategic Planning. Planning Theory and Practice, 13(1), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2012.649947.
  • Ma, Y., Zheng, M., Zheng, X., Huang, Y., Xu, F., Wang, X., Liu, J., Lv, Y., & Liu, W. (2023). Land Use Efficiency Assessment under Sustainable Development Goals: A Systematic Review. Land, 12(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/land12040894.
  • Paselle, E. (2013). Perencanaan Pembangunan Partisipatif: Studi Tentang Efektivitas Musrenbang Kec. Muara Badak Kab. Kutai Kartanegara. Jurnal Paradigma, 2(1), 10–25. https://doi.org/10.30872/jp.v2i1.339.
  • Raišien?, A. G., & Raišys, S. J. (2022). Business Customer Satisfaction with B2B Consulting Services: AHP-Based Criteria for a New Perspective. Sustainability (Switzerland), 14(12). https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127437.
  • Rustiadi, E., Indraprahasta, G. S., & Mulya, S. P. (2021). Teori Perencanaan: Mazhab dan Praktik Perencanaan Pengembangan Wilayah. Yayasan Pustaka Obor Indonesia.
  • ?ahin, S. Z. (2019). The urbanization policy of Turkey: an uneasy symbiosis of unimplemented policy with centralized pragmatic interventions. Turkish Studies, 20(4), 599–618. https://doi.org/10.1080/14683849.2019.1602826.
  • Saptowalyono, C. A. (2022). Integrasi Rencana Detail Tata Ruang dalam Sistem OSS Masih Minim. https://www.kompas.id/baca/polhuk/2022/09/28/integrasi-rdtr-dalam-sistem-oss-masih-minim.
  • Sari, R. K., Despa, D., & Sukmana, I. (2022). Keterpaduan Infrastruktur Antar Sektor Untuk Mendukung Pengembangan Wilayah. Jurnal Rekayasa Lampung, 1(3). https://doi.org/10.23960/jrl.v1i3.15.
  • Scott, J., & Carrington, P. J. (2011). Sage Handbook of Social Network Analysis.
  • Scott, W. G., & Mitchell, T. R. (1976). Organization Theory?: A Structural and Behavioral Analysis. R.D. Irwin, Homewood, Ill.,1972.
  • Soh, E. Y., & Yuen, B. (2006). Government-aided participation in planning Singapore. Cities, 23(1), 30–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2005.07.011.
  • Stephany, S. (2021). Qualitative Comparative Analysis in Space Utilization Control in Indonesia. University of Groningen.
  • Taufiq, M., Suhirman, & Kombaitan, B. (2021). A Reflection on Transactive Planning: Transfer of Planning Knowledge in Local Community-Level Deliberation. SAGE Open, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211022739.
  • Uittenbroek, C. J., Mees, H. L. P., Hegger, D. L. T., & Driessen, P. P. J. (2019). The design of public participation: who participates, when and how? Insights in climate adaptation planning from the Netherlands. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 62(14), 2529–2547. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2019.1569503.
  • UN-Habitat. (2023). Enabling Meaningful Public Participation In Spatial Planning Processes. United Nations Human Settlements Programme. www.unhabitat.org.
  • Villanueva, G., Gonzalez, C., Son, M., Moreno, E., Liu, W., & Ball-Rokeach, S. (2017). Bringing local voices into community revitalization: engaged communication research in Urban planning. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 45(5), 474–494. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2017.1382711.
  • Westerink, J., Kempenaar, A., van Lierop, M., Groot, S., van der Valk, A., & van den Brink, A. (2017). The participating government: Shifting boundaries in collaborative spatial planning of urban regions. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 35(1), 147–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263774X16646770.
  • World Bank. (2020). Doing Business 2020. World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1440-2.
  • CROSSMARK
    Published
    2024-08-02
    DIMENSIONS
    How to Cite
    Santo, D., Achsani, N. A., Rustiadi, E., & Buono, A. (2024). Optimization of Participatory and Collaborative Planning Methods for Accelerating the Preparation of Detailed Spatial Plans. BHUMI: Jurnal Agraria Dan Pertanahan, 9(1), 63–82. https://doi.org/10.31292/bhumi.v9i1.767