Keberlanjutan Sistem Penyediaan Air Minum Berbasis Komunitas (Studi Kasus: Hippam Mandiri Arjowinangun, Kota Malang)

*Sri Maryati scopus  -  Kelompok Keahlian Sistem Infrastruktur Wilayah dan Kota, Sekolah Arsitektur Perencanaan dan Pengembangan Kebijakan (SAPPK), Institut Teknologi Bandung, Indonesia
Natasha Indah Rahmani  -  Kelompok Keahlian Sistem Infrastruktur Wilayah dan Kota, Sekolah Arsitektur Perencanaan dan Pengembangan Kebijakan (SAPPK), Institut Teknologi Bandung, Indonesia
Anggit Suko Rahajeng  -  Jurusan Perencanaan Wilayah dan Kota, Institut Teknologi Kalimantan, Indonesia
Received: 21 Jun 2018; Published: 31 Aug 2018.
Open Access
Citation Format:
Article Info
Section: Articles
Language: ID
Statistics: 683 2741
Limited capacity of government on drinking water supply has demanded the implementation of Community Based Water Supply System, one of them in the form of a Drinking Water User Association (Hippam). An important issue in community-based water supply is sustainability, from which institutions play a critical factor in the sustained provision of drinking water. Institutions relate to management, maintenance and financing systems, and contribute to technology selection and decision making. The purpose of this study is to explore the institutional conditions as a determinant factor for the sustainability of community-based water management. The study also aims to develop a framework for sustainable institutional assessment in community-based drinking water supply. In this study Hippam Mandiri Arjowinangun (HMA) in Malang City, East Java Province was chosen as a case study. HMA has been operating since 1994. The sustainability of HMA regarding applying the principles of institutional support for sustainability was very interesting as a case. The research method applied qualitative research by comparing the benchmark of institutional principles of sustainability with institutional principles applied to HMA. The result shows that HMA has applied the principles of institutional support for sustainability. However, some issues should be addressed in the HMA sustainability include the delineation of the water source boundary, specific attributes for the users, and the rules of water utilization. The study has also produced an assessment framework for the sustainability of community-based drinking water supply systems from the institutional perspective.
Keywords: common pool resources; community-based water supply provision; Hippam mandiri Arjowinangun; institutions; sustainability

Article Metrics:

  1. Adams, E. A., & Zulu, L. C. (2015). Participants or customers in water governance? Community-public partnerships for peri-urban water supply. Geoforum, 65(July 2018), 112–124. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.07.017
  2. Agrawal, A. (2001). Common property institutions and sustainable governance of resources. World Development, 29(10), 1649–1672. doi: 10.1016/S0305-750X(01)00063-8
  3. Agrawal, A., Brown, D. G., Rao, G., Riolo, R., Robinson, D. T., & Bommarito, M. (2013). Interactions between organizations and networks in common-pool resource governance. Environmental Science and Policy, 25, 138–146. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2012.08.004
  4. Agrawal, A., & Chhatre, A. (2006). Explaining success on the commons: Community forest governance in the Indian Himalaya. World Development, 34(1), 149–166. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.07.013
  5. Akbar, R. J., & Prabatmodjo, H. (2013). Implementasi partisipasi masyarakat dalam menanggapi implementasi PNPM mandiri perkotaan. Jurnal Perencanaan Wilayah Dan Kota, 3(1), 54–66.
  6. Badan Informasi Geospasial (BIG). (2017). Geospasial untuk negeri. Retrieved from
  7. Badan Pengelola Sarana Penyediaan Air Minum dan Sanitasi (BPSPAMS). (2017). Persoalan keberlanjutan desa-desa PAMSIMAS. Retrieved from
  8. Badan Perencanaan dan Pembangunan Nasional (BAPPENAS). (2003). Pembangunan air minum dan penyehatan lingkungan berbasis masyarakat. Jakarta.
  9. Bakker, K. (2008). The ambiguity of community: Debating alternatives to private-sector provision of urban water supply. Water Alternatives, 1(2), 236–252.
  10. Bisung, E., Elliott, S. J., Schuster-Wallace, C. J., Karanja, D. M., & Bernard, A. (2014). Social capital, collective action and access to water in rural Kenya. Social Science and Medicine, 119, 147–154. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.07.060
  11. Creswell, J. W. (2010). Research Design. Pendekatan Kualitatif, Kuantitatif dan Mixed. (S. Z. Qudsi, Ed.) (Ketiga). Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar. (Original work published 1997).
  12. Dickin, S., Bisung, E., & Savadogo, K. (2017). Geoforum sanitation and the commons: The role of collective action in sanitation use. Geoforum, 86, 118–126. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.09.009
  13. Ducrot, R. (2017). When good practices by water committees are not relevant: Sustainability of small water infrastructures in semi-arid Mozambique. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 102, 59–69. doi: 10.1016/j.pce.2016.08.004
  14. Fisher, B., Kulindwa, K., Mwanyoka, I., Turner, R. K., & Burgess, N. D. (2010). Common pool resource management and PES: Lessons and constraints for water PES in Tanzania. Ecological Economics, 69(6), 1253–1261. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.008
  15. Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162(June), 1243–1248. doi: 10.1126/science.162.3859.1243
  16. Himpunan Penduduk Pemakai Air Minum (HIPPAM). (2016). Profil HIPPAM mandiri Arjowinangun. Malang: HIPPAM Mandiri Arjowinangun.
  17. Hope, R. (2015). Is community water management the community’s choice? Implications for water and development policy in Africa. Water Policy, 17(4), 664–678. doi: 10.2166/wp.2014.170
  18. Kimbrough, E. O., & Vostroknutov, A. (2015). The social and ecological determinants of common pool resource sustainability. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 72, 38–53. doi: 10.1016/j.jeem.2015.04.004
  19. Lejano, R. P., & Fernandez de Castro, F. (2014). Norm, network, and commons: The invisible hand of community. Environmental Science and Policy, 36, 73–85. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2013.07.012
  20. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from
  21. Ostrom, E. (2000). Collective action and the evolution of social norms. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(3), 137–158. doi: 10.1080/19390459.2014.935173
  22. Ricks, J. I. (2016). Building participatory organizations for common pool resource management: Water user group promotion in Indonesia. World Development, 77, 34–47. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.08.014
  23. Schlager, E. (2004). Common-pool resource theory. In R. F. Durant, J. Fiorino, Daniel, & R. O’Leary (Eds.), Environmental Governance Reconsidered. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
  24. Schouten, T., & Moriarty, P. (2003). Community water, community management: From system to service in rural areas. London.
  25. Soetomo, S. (2014). Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, dan R & D. Bandung: Alfabeta.
  26. United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF). (2010). Sustainability of Water Supply Infrastructures: A Good Practice from Guro District in Central Mozambique. Mozambique.
  27. Zuka, S. (2013). Myths and realities in community management of common pool resources in Malawi: Social stratification as a negative side-effect of social capital. Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research, 5(4), 227–239. doi: 10.1080/19390459.2013.826466