Community governance and participatory design theoretical underpinnings and empirical perspectives from indonesia and myanmar

International Symposium on Community Governance Practices ISCGP July, 04 – 05, 2013, Colombo, Sri Lanka Community Governance and Participatory Design: Theoretical Underpinnings and Empir

International Symposium on Community Governance Practices (ISCGP)

July, 04 – 05, 2013, Colombo, Sri Lanka Community Governance and Participatory Design: Theoretical Underpinnings and Empirical Perspectives from Indonesia and Myanmar

Kien TO

Senior Research Scientist, Singapore University of Technology and Design

20 Dover Drive, Singapore 138682; tokien@sutd.edu.sg

Victoria GERRARD

Director, Opportunity Lab, Singapore University of Technology and Design

Abstract: Participatory decision-making processes used in the design of community

systems, space and technology - or participatory design approach - is an element of community participation The interaction between participatory design and community governance seems highly interesting yet little studied This paper first briefly discusses the theoretical discourse of the relationship between participatory design and community governance The discourse suggests that (1) there is little insight regarding the effect of existing participatory community governance structures on the relevance and effectiveness of a participatory design process, (2) a participatory approach itself is not enough to ensure good governance, and (3) active participation in any decision making process requires a level of trust between stakeholders The paper then considers the early formation of the relationship between participatory design and community governance by discussing empirical studies from two preliminary scoping visits to Indonesia and Myanmar It reflects that superficial information, gathered through observation and interaction, during such preliminary community visits might usefully inform initial participatory design steps The paper recommends that any participatory design approach adopted needs to be developed with the unique characteristics of local governance and that this should begin early in the design process Guidelines should therefore be developed to assist in the identification and evaluation of community governance structures during scoping visits to communities

Keywords: Community governance, participatory design, community participation

1 Community governance and participatory design

This paper seeks to understand the interactions between participation in community governance and the decision making processes used in the design of community systems, space and technology using a participatory design approach It considers how the superficial information gathered during a first visit to a community might usefully inform initial participatory design steps by discussing experiences from preliminary scoping visits to two communities in Myanmar and Indonesia

In theory, participatory design includes a set of methods and techniques to actively involve all stakeholders of a problem in the design process used to overcome it

It is an approach used in a variety of design fields including spatial, architectural, product, and software design Civil, state, industrial and academic stakeholders can be engaged in the process which has traditionally been facilitated by a design agent sympathetic of a participatory approach Its main precedents include participatory action research and public policy development methods, which are heavily promoted by development agencies, including the World Bank (Edwards, 2012) and non-governmental organisations (Archer & Cottingham, 1996: Mayoux & ANANDI, 2005)

Community empowerment rightly motivates the adoption of such approaches (Narayan and Srinivasan, 1994), however there are also notable limitations (Mosse, 1994; Guijt and Shah, 1998; Cooke and Kothari, 2001) including the inherent power inequalities  between  investigators  and  their  ‘informants’  and  the  problems  associated with revealing power relations within communities (Woodhouse, 2007) Therefore, for design practitioners, it is important to decide whether and how participatory methods should be used (Mayoux & Johnson, 2007)

Unlike the development literature, advocates of participatory design rarely acknowledge the limitations and intricacies of these methods, and therefore miss opportunities to effectively engage in their improvement In most cases, the literature asserts that participation in design will create outcomes which better meet the needs of society There is however a severe lack of rigorous enquiry to support these approaches and therefore no clear path to improving them (Sanders & Stappers 2013)

Specifically there is little understanding regarding the effect of existing participatory community governance structure on the relevance and effectiveness of a participatory design process Community governance can be seen as local government

collaborating with a wide range of other stakeholders to determine preferred futures, make decisions and take joint action In practice, there are various ideas about community governance, about whom and what it involves, and about how it should be pursued Community governance seeks to empower local communities not only to make decisions about their neighborhood, but also to play a key role in delivering services and undertake projects in order to achieve their goals (McKinlay et al 2011)

Community governance occurs within the context of a collective of unique political and social agents with competing and consenting voices (Katsaura, 2012) Boltanski and Thevenot (2006) explain that societies are collections of co-existing, interdependent orders each with a unique value-specific justification These interacting orders generate not only conflicts, critiques and disputes but also guide the distribution

of resources and the coordination of social actors Community governance structures can be seen as the realization of this coordination at a local level Introducing new coordinating processes into this context, such as participatory design, requires the justification and critique of its value by the community For participatory design to be embraced by communities, any critique needs to lead to the co-evaluation and change in its processes and outcomes These changes in design process will largely be informed

by existing community governance structures

The level and structures of community governance vary widely by locality and significantly affect the ability of civic initiatives to shape community decision making (Matonyte & Bucaite, 2007) Research shows that a participatory approach itself is not enough to ensure good governance In many cases it has been an imposition of donor agencies in northern democratic countries and remains an alien and ambiguous concept

to many countries in the south (Waheduzzaman, 2008) Advocates of strengthening community governance encourage more spaces for the public to participate in decision making processes that affect their own lives and future (Widianingsih 2006) There are, however, few guidelines describing what these theoretical spaces should look like or how they can be developed within the traditional community governance structures Further exploration of how a model of community participation can be fostered which is appropriate, effective and accepted by the context is needed

Active participation in any decision making process requires a level of trust to

be built between a multitude of stakeholders (Christopher, 2008) Building trust in itself

is a delicate exercise of cultural negotiation over the course of a relationship where early interactions can color the subsequent characteristics of such partnerships Revealing the existing decision making processes of all stakeholders in the early phases of relationship building will help develop the trust required to achieve an honest community based critique of participation and therefore provide an environment to explore models of community participation in design of community policy, spaces and technology

What follows are some preliminary insights from two short scoping field visits

to two communities in Indonesia and Myanmar The discussion explores the realities of building an understanding of community governance structures from such preliminary informal visits and how this might inform a community participation model for subsequent design activities These insights are a very initial exploration of the relationship between participatory design and community governance by the authors

2 Case studies

This empirical study presents short field trips to two communities:

 Sub-neighborhood 08 (or RW 08), Yogyakarta, Indonesia (suburban, visited in

2010) RW stands for Rukun Warga, which means sub-neighborhood

 A village in Ayeyarwady Region, Myanmar (remote rural, visited in 2013) Interviews with community residents were conducted and community interactions were observed and recorded through photography and video, field notes and interview notes

2.1 Case study in Indonesia

In 2010, the first author joined a team of international and local experts to conduct a field  visit  to  ‘Green  Village’  communities  located  in  sub-neighborhood 08 (RW 08) Gambiran, Pandeyan village, Umbulharjo district, Yogyakarta city to observe the community environmental initiatives being conducted there

2.1.1 The site

With an area of 3,185 km2 and population of about 400.000, Yogjakarta City (also known as Jogja, Jogjakarta) can be classified as a small and medium city in the Yogyakarta Special Region, Indonesia (Fig.1) The city is the capital and geographically

located in the center of the province (Shima et al 2006) The city is one of the most important tourist destinations in Indonesia and renowned as a center of classical Javanese culture It is also famous as a center for Indonesian higher education accommodating a number of universities

The ‘Green Village’ communities (Fig.2) are a manifestation of the consciousness of local residents to the importance of protecting the environment The campaign has been running for 5 years, and there have been significant changes in people’s lifestyle toward taking care of the environment

It had been challenging to grow a sense of community and environmental awareness among local residents The site RW08 comprises of 5 RTs (RT stands for

Rukun Tetangga, which means block), namely RT 30, 31, 32, 45 and 47, surrounded by the Gadjah Wong River The river poses a significant flooding threat to the neighbourhood and most significantly to RT 30, RT 45 and RT 47 Large floods in 2005,

2006, and 2007 caused heavy loss of life, damage to property and led to disease outbreaks such as dengue fever Residents realized that the garbage they disposed of directly into the river had partially blocked the flow of water, thereby contributing to the flooding and subsequent environmental and public health issues (Fig 3) In response the residents initiated participatory discussions to overcome the social issues leading to environmental damage in the community After a long process, the community ultimately committed to manage and conserve the environment, and pledged themselves

in the Declaration of 1 April 2007 as a ‘Village Green Gambiran’ in RW 08 (Kampung

Fig 1 Map of the Yogyakarta Special Region

(Source: Joglosema.co.id)

Fig 2 Map of the broader visited area (incl RW08) (Source: Google Map)

Hijau, 2013) (Fig.4) They launched a website for their environmental initiatives called

“Kampung Hijau” (lit means Green Kampung, at: www.kampunghijau.com)

2.1.2 Community governance and participatory design practices

The discussion for this paper will focus on a small community - RT45 - that contains approximately 30 households With support of local collaborators to arrange meetings, excursions and translation, the group was able to observe and interact, both formally and informally, with some community leaders and residents

a Self-nominated self-sustained leadership

The community themselves appointed their leaders, who are often self-motivated activists in the community Many of them are retirees with much time for community work They keep big responsibilities while working voluntarily without salary The community established their own communal committee comprising of motivated residents from different background to manage, oversee and implement different community tasks Two active, highly motivated leaders of the RT45 community seemed eager to improve the quality of the environment and lives of the people, as part of the city’s programs or as their own initiatives. They were also open to get people involved

in supporting them to achieve their goals, which signals a form of participatory community governance When asked about the most important criteria to select people

to the committee, they said ‘enthusiasm’, ‘self-motivation’ and ‘trustability’. 

b Co-design and self-governance of community facilities

Fig 3 Scene of floating garbage on a Gadjah

Wong River ’s branch and its banks, which partly

blocks the flow of water (Source: First Author)

Fig 4 A gate barrier among RTs showing a competition  called  ‘DIY  Green  and  Clean  2010’ (Source: First Author)

As part of a participatory design effort, the community built a small one-storey purpose room (ca 45 m2) as a community house In 2003 a small library was installed in

multi-the space with books donated by multi-the residents and managed by a young volunteer Other recreational facilities include a table-tennis set, a TV set, and a community photo exhibition (Fig.5)

Adjacent to the house is a community playground, with a badminton court, simple

fitness machines, a pavilion and many plants (Fig.6) According to the leaders, the community house and the common ground are visited by the residents from time to time

c Participatory governance of open and public spaces

There is a wide range of small, open and very green spaces in the community and managed by the entire community Many open spaces are widely shared for internal and

Fig 6 Scenes of Community Playground, facilitated with badminton courts, simple fitness machines, a tea pavilion, sorted trash bins and plants The graffiti wall reads: ‘Jadikan Bumi untuk  Kehidupan yang Bermartabat ’  (lit.  means  ‘Make  the  Earth  for  Life  with  Dignity’)  and  ‘Green 

source

public use, and among the residents themselves The public/private status of pathways is often unclear to outsiders, but appears well governed with some private paths made available for public use

d Participatory environmental sustainability initiatives

During the visit, a new initiative was introduced which was inviting the community and external parties to contribute their ideas for the design of a new project called

‘Environment  Education  Park’.  The  5000m2

park would be constructed partly on the land of the community RT45 (Fig.7-left) The leaders described the city’s aims and their ideas regarding the design and development of the site and then part of the visiting group conducted a Q&A session with them Table 1 presents some of the ideas generated during that discussion

Design-related Composting projects, herb/hydroponics/butterfly garden, garden cafe

Everyone can grow anything they want and share, organic food Bio-fertilizer, bio-mass, local trees that edible, etc

Implementation Children participation in ideation, rallies on eco-campaigns, voluntary guides, etc

Network with other communities, incorporate lifeful or sport activities, playgrounds Discuss with municipality for budgeting, etc

Other issues Water treatment plant, bank protection against erosion, regular cleaning programs,etc

The ‘Kampung Hijau’ website shows significant progress has been made (Fig 7-right)

The garbage management system in the community was well organized Sets of bins for metal, paper and plastic were provided by the city in numerous locations Some Fig 7 The 5,000 m2 open space to become “Environmental  Education  Park”  (left, as of 2010 Source: First Author), and the park under construction (right, as of 2013 Source: Kampung Hijau-b)

residents had created additional garbage sorting bags for community use which were hung on the fence outside their house to complement the city’s collecting system. Many households also had a waste bin for biodegradable materials Moreover, there were garbage storage shelters for the residents to gather, sort and store garbage before collection by the government (Fig 8)

2.1.3 Reflections

The community RT15 is very small but dreams ‘big’, with an aspiration to overcome challenges (foremost the flooding issue) and take up opportunities that community participation can bring about to make a better future

The members of the community value and retain a tight social network A good level of trust has been built among stakeholders, including the city, local authorities and residents who seem to interact and collaborate effectively in order to facilitate participation There is significant self-governance and the residents are empowered to engage in community-led planning and development with little national intervention with grass-roots activities The sustainable community initiatives and practices are interesting evidence of overcoming the traditional hierarchy, top-down direction of decision-making by relying on internal strengths, trust, enthusiasm and resources within the community, the most valuable of which are the community members These are strengths that should be leveraged and built upon when considering participatory design activities with the community

Fig 8 A signage in front of the community committee hall, which reads (translated):

“Secretariat/Community  Gadjah  Wong  River/Green  Kampung/Yogyakarta  City/Hot  Spot  Area/  www.kampunghijau.com ”.  City  supplied  sort-out trash bins are on the right side (left) and a community-designated garbage collection hut (right) (Source: First Author)

There are however still challenges that the community of RT15 needs to overcome Some members of the community continue to practice bad environmental habits such as disposing of waste into the river It is unlikely that these habits are due to a lack of green waste disposal facilities and rather suggests that environmental awareness has been internalized to a varying degree by individuals in the community A new participatory approach to encouraging behavior change which meets the needs of these

‘latent’ environmentalists seems necessary A careful understanding of the dynamics of the current relationships between the active green members of the community and those who are generally more disinterested in the initiative is required The choice of a participatory design approach should attempt to recognize and accommodate such community diversities

It is clear that a good attempt at participatory governance has been made however there are also inherent power structures in the community which are difficult to overcome Community consultation is followed by a decision making process by the community leaders who make the final decision This however is a constraint of any participatory process where there needs to be a balance between discussion and action

In addition to this, there are constraints related to whether ideas generated at the ground

or external level are feasible to implement For instance, the documentation of ideas generated from the visiting team was passed to the community leaders as well as local authorities with little certainty of whether they could be realised

The field visit to RT15 provided a preliminary introduction to a dynamic community governed environmentalists Understanding the community governance structures was not the intended focus of the visit, however the recording of the interactions between various community members and the more formal governance structures are interesting when considering the type of participatory design approach to adopt in any future work

2.2 Case study in Myanmar

The purpose of the 2-day visit to a rural coastal village in Myanmar (Jan 2013) was to explore potential collaborative design research and education opportunities Due to current politically sensitive issues in the country, the name of the village is not stated in this paper, and hence, hereinafter referred to as village A