*Ake Wihadanto  -  Universitas Terbuka, Indonesia
Baba Barus scopus  -  Program Studi Ilmu Tanah dan Sumber Daya Lahan, Institut Pertanian Bogor
Noer Azam Achsani scopus  -  Program Studi Ilmu Ekonomi, Fakultas Ekonomi dan Manajemen, Institut Pertanian Bogor
Deddy S. Bratakusumah  -  Kementrian Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional/Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional (Bappenas) Republik Indonesia
Received: 17 Jul 2017; Published: 31 Oct 2017.
Open Access
Citation Format:

This research is purported to understand and map people’s preferences on rearrangement plan of the area. General description of people’s preferences is resulted by using qualitative descriptive analysis on data gained from interview and FGD. Furthermore, by employing Participatory Prospective Analysis (PPA) the people’s preferences has represented through the following key variables, those are transparency, people’s bargaining position, tenurial (ownership) system, communication, land value, institution/organization, location’s economic value, and level of conflict potential. Based on those variables, the future’s scenarios are constructed as follows: (1) Status quo; (2) Negative; (3) Positive; and (4) Progressive.  The way to anticipate the first two scenarios are to close or impede any room or possibilities of the scenarios’ emergence. Meanwhile, for the last two scenarios, the anticipation way is to promote or enhance the scenarios’ emergence, maintaining sustainability of the scenarios, as well as avoiding any ways that can reverse the scenarios’ direction. Both ways of anticipation should be carried out through transparency, communication, and institution.

Keywords: Preference analysis; Participatory Proscpective Analysis; Land readjustment

Article Metrics:

  1. Agrawal, P. 1999. Urban Land Consolidation: A Review of Policy and Procedures in Indonesia and other Asia Countries. GeoJournal, 49, 311-322.
  2. Archer, R. W. 1994. Urban land consolidation for metropolitan Jakarta expansion, 1990–2010. Habitat International, 18(4), 37–52.
  3. Bourgeois, R., F. Jesus. 2004. Participatory prospective analysis: Exploring and anticipating challenges with stakeholders. The United Nation: CAPSA Monograph No. 46.
  4. Brown, K., E. Tompkins, W.N. Adger. 2001. Trade-off Analysis for Participatory Coastal Zone Decision-making. Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK: Overseas Development Group, in collaboration with the Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, Univ. of East Anglia.
  5. Çete, M. 2010. Turkish Land Readjustment: Good Practice in Urban Development. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 136(4), 373–380.
  6. Çete, Mehmet. 2010. Turkish Land Readjustment: Good Practice in Urban Development. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 136(4). doi: 10.1061
  7. Cornwall, A., R. Jewkes. 1995. What is participatory research? Soc. Sci. Med. 41 (12): 1667-1676.
  8. Damai, Abdullah Aman. 2012. Sistem perencanaan tata ruang wilayah pesisir: studi kasus teluk Lampung [disertasi]. Bogor (ID): Institut Pertanian Bogor.
  9. Fauzi, Akhmad. 2017 Juli. Analisis variabel keberlanjutan: Micmac. Draf buku analisis keberlanjutan. Siap terbit.
  10. Firman, T. 2004. Major issues in Indonesia’s urban land development. Land Use Policy, 21(4), 347–355.
  11. Home, R. 2007. Land readjustment as a method of development land assembly: A comparative overview. Town Planning Review,78(4), 459–483.
  12. Hong, Y.-H., & Needham, B. (Eds.). (2007). Analyzing land readjustment: economics, law, and collective action. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
  13. Larsson, G. 1997. Land readjustment: A tool for urban development. Habitat International, 21(2), 141–152.
  14. Li, L.-H., & Li, X. 2007 . Land Readjustment: An Innovative Urban Experiment in China. Urban Studies, 44(1), 81–98.
  15. Liu, Y., Yang, R., & Li, Y. 2013. Potential of land consolidation of hollowed villages under different urbanization scenarios in China.Journal of Geographical Sciences, 23(3), 503–512.
  16. Mitchell, D., Clarke, M., & Baxter, J. (2008). Evaluating land administration projects in developing countries. Land Use Policy,25(4), 464–473.
  17. Mittal, J. 2014. Self-financing land and urban development via land readjustment and value capture. Habitat International, 44, 314–323.
  18. Mittal, J., & Kashyap, A. (2015). Real estate market led land development strategies for regional economic corridors – A tale of two mega projects. Habitat International, 47, 205–217.
  19. Mukhija, V. 2002. An analytical framework for urban upgrading: property rights, property values and physical attributes. Habitat International, 26(4), 553–570.
  20. Munoz-Gielen, D. 2012. Urban governance, property rights, land readjustment and public value capturing. European Urban and Regional Studies, 21(1), 60–78.
  21. Sorensen, A. 1999. Land Readjustment, Urban Planning and Urban Sprawl in the Tokyo Metropolitan Area. Urban Studies, 36(13), 2333–2360.
  22. Sorensen, A. 2000. Conflict, consensus or consent: implications of Japanese land readjustment practice for developing countries. Habitat International, 24(1), 51–73.
  23. Sorensen, A. 2004. The Making of Urban Japan: Cities and Planning from Edo to the Twenty First Century (Nissan Institute Routledge Japanese Studies Series). London: Taylor & Francis.
  24. Supriatna, A., van der Molen, P., Andri, S., & Paul, V. D. M. 2013. Land Readjustment As A Spatial Planning Tool For Kampung Upgrading (1st ed.). United States: LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing.
  25. Turk, S. S. 2005. Land readjustment: an examination of its application in Turkey. Cities, 22(1), 29–42.
  26. Turk, S. S. 2007. An analysis on the efficient applicability of the land readjustment (LR) method in Turkey. Habitat International, 31(1), 53–64.
  27. Turk, S. S. 2008. An Examination for Efficient Applicability of the Land Readjustment Method at the International Context. Journal of Planning Literature, 22(3), 229–242.
  28. Turk, S. S., & Altes, W. K. K. 2011. Potential Application of Land Readjustment Method in Urban Renewal: Analysis for Turkey.Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 137(1), 7–19.
  29. Türk, Sevkiye Şence, & Altes, Willem K Korthals. 2009. Applicability of Land Readjustment Method in Urban Renewal: An Examination of Three Cases in Turkey FIG Working Week 2009.
  30. Türk, Sevkiye Şence. 2008. An Examination for Efficient Applicability of the Land Readjustment Method at the International Context. Journal of Planning Literature, 22(3), 229-242. doi: 10.1177/0885412207310283
  31. Vitanen, K.. The Finnish Urban Land Readjustment Procedure in an International Context.
  32. Wihadanto, Ake, Barus, Baba, Achsani, Noer Azam, Bratakusumah, Deddy S. 2017. Analisis karekteristik dan penilaian tingkat kekumuhan permukiman Kampung Braga Bandung. Jurnal Perencanaan Pembangunan Wilayah dan Perdesaan Volume 2 Nomor 2 2017. siap terbit.
  33. William. 1983. Land readjustment: a different approach to financing urbanization. (W. A. Doebele, Ed.). United States: Lexington Books.
  34. Yau, Y. 2009. A study on the acceptability of land readjustment for urban regeneration in Hong Kong. Urbani Izziv, 20(2), 105–114.
  35. Yilmaz, A., Çağdaş, V., & Demir, H. 2015. An evaluation framework for land readjustment practices. Land Use Policy, 44, 153–168.

Last update: 2021-01-28 04:29:03

No citation recorded.

Last update: 2021-01-28 04:29:05

No citation recorded.