DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ... · developing a scenario development approach and the alternative land use scenarios: the case of pakal, benowo, and sambikerep

DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE

ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL,

BENOWO, AND SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY

Vitriani

September, 2010

DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE

LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND SAMBIKEREP

DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY

by

Vitriani

Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Geo-information Science and Earth Observation (ITC), University

of Twente, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Geo-

information Science and Earth Observation in Urban Planning and Management Programme and for

the degree of Master in Institut Teknologi Bandung in Development Planning and Infrastructure

Management.

Thesis Assessment Board

Chairman : Prof. Dr. Ir. M.F.A.M. Van Maarseveen

External Examiner : Dr. M.J.C. Weir

Supervisor : Dr. J. Flacke

Supervisor

1. Drs. E. J. M. Dopheide (ITC)

2. Dr. J. Flacke (ITC)

3. Dr. I. Syabri (ITB)

Faculty of Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation

(ITC)

University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands

School of Architecture, Planning and Policy Development

Bandung Institute of Technology (ITB), Bandung, Indonesia

Disclaimer

This document describes work undertaken as part of a programme of study at the International

Institute for Geo-information Science and Earth Observation. All views and opinions expressed

therein remain the sole responsibility of the author, and do not necessarily represent those of the

institute.

DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND

SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY

i

Abstract

In planning purposes, planners need to collect information and approach to make choice ofalternative about the future. Scenario development study is one approach which can help planner tounfold possible future development, if certain action / policy applied. Scenario is important in landuse planning because it can provide a picture of future alternative states of land use with andwithout certain land use policy, illustrate how alternative policy can achieve its target, help policymaker to think about the issue should be addressed in land use plan based on existing trend, and thepossible future trend, and also refer to the function of scenarios for other stakeholders not only thepolicy maker.

Pakal, Benowo, and Sambikerep Districts, three districts in the western part of Surabaya city, whichhave strong potential development, because of their strategic location, and strong policy direction todevelop these areas into settlement area, and planned major infrastructure development, areselected to applied scenario study in this research. The study area faces the problem of stagnantdevelopment. So, alternative possible approach to develop scenario and defining alternative landuse scenario for the study area were studied in this research.

The study use three kind of approach for scenario development, including participatory scenariodevelopment, modelling scenario using CommunityViz planning support system, and scenarioevaluation.

This study resulted in a proposed approach for scenario development, which then applied forscenario development process. Scenario development process results in two kind of land usescenario, namely “Balance housing development scenario” and “Build out Housing developmentscenario” which categorized into policy driven scenario, with 20 years timeline. The scenarios werebuilt by involving important stakeholders from the study area, to get better understanding aboutlocal issues, and better buy-in of the scenario results. Both scenarios use different assumption ofpopulation as driving force. These two scenarios were then quantified and evaluated to get betterinsight about their possible future result and their efficiency to achieve development planningobjectives.

Positive respond and feedbacks were got from stakeholders about their enthusiasm towards theprocess of scenario development and its results, which provide optimism about the applicability ofscenario development approach in supporting planning process.

Keywords: Land Use Scenario Development, Stakeholder participation, scenario quantification,scenario evaluation



ii

Acknowledgements

Alhamdulillahirrabbil’alamin… praise to ALLAH, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful, Whom

granted my ability and willing to start and complete my thesis and study on ITC.

I would like to acknowledge my lovely husband “Hendra Kustono”, who put up everything during my

absence, for his enormous supports, prayers, love, and care during my study here, and to help my

dream comes true. I dedicate my thesis to my lovely daughter “Shavira Fathma Hanifah”, the one

who sacrifice more during my leave, to make her proud of me. The Great gratitude also goes to my

parents (Mama&Bapak, Ibu&Bapak) and also my little sisters for their support, and prayers during

my study.

I want to give my special gratitude to my Supervisor Dr. Johannes Flacke and Drs. E. J. M. Emile

Dopheide , for their support and patience, and knowledge they gave to me during thesis completion.

All of their support and patience for un-experienced person like me has great meaning for me.

Moreover, my appreciation also goes to Dr. I. Syabri, my supervisor from ITB, for his support.

My acknowledge also goes to all UPM staff, who gave me a lot of new things to learn; even having

opportunity to study on ITC is one biggest achievement of my life.

Special thanks are also dedicated to all of my stakeholders for their supports and help to make this

research possible. Especially Mr. Wisnu Wibowo, Mr. Amiril and Ms. Emma, from Surabaya Local

Government, Mr. Benny Prabantanoe from Petra Christian University, and Mr. Putu Rudi from

Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember.

Finally, my special gratitude for my Double Degree mates ITB-ITC 2008, and UPM class who have

been really great friends, and made my ITC life colourful. Last but not least, my special thanks also go

to all Indonesian friends, especially my roommates and Frieta, who make my life here enjoyable and

feel like home.

Vitriani

Enschede, September 2010



iii

Table of contents

1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background and Justification................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Research Problem.................................................................................................................. 1

1.3 Research Objective ................................................................................................................ 2

1.4 Research Question................................................................................................................. 2

1.5 Conceptual Framework.......................................................................................................... 3

1.6 Research Design..................................................................................................................... 5

1.7 Thesis Structure ..................................................................................................................... 6

2 CONCEPT OF SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT......................................................................................... 7

2.1 Scenario Definitions ............................................................................................................... 7

2.2 Elements of Scenario ............................................................................................................. 8

2.3 Criteria of Good Scenario....................................................................................................... 8

2.4 Typology of the Scenario ..................................................................................................... 11

2.5 Scenario Development ........................................................................................................ 12

2.6 Actor/Stakeholder Involvements......................................................................................... 15

2.7 Modelling ............................................................................................................................. 16

2.8 Planning Support System..................................................................................................... 17

2.9 Conclusion............................................................................................................................ 17

3 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................ 19

3.1 Literature Review and Document Analysis.......................................................................... 19

3.2 Collection of Primary and Secondary Data.......................................................................... 19

3.3 Analysis and Data Interpretation......................................................................................... 20

4 STUDY AREA AND PRESENT CONDITIONS ..................................................................................... 23

4.1 General Description of the Study Area................................................................................ 23

4.1.1 Benowo............................................................................................................................ 24

4.1.2 Pakal ................................................................................................................................ 24

4.1.3 Sambikerep...................................................................................................................... 24

4.2 Land Use Planning System in the Study Area ...................................................................... 24

4.2.1 The goal, vision and mission of spatial planning ............................................................. 24

4.2.2 Land use planning system ............................................................................................... 24

4.2.3 Land Use Plan of the Study Area ..................................................................................... 26

4.2.4 Physical Condition of the Study Area .............................................................................. 26

4.2.5 Non Physical Condition of the Study Area ...................................................................... 27

4.2.6 Stakeholders Perception towards the Development of the study Area......................... 28

5 DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH................................................................ 29

5.1 Criteria of Selecting Suitable Approach ............................................................................... 29

5.2 Discussion towards approaches for scenario development................................................ 30

5.3 Establishing Structure Approach for Scenario Development .............................................. 36

5.3.1 Approach Development .................................................................................................. 36

6 QUALITATIVE SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT PROCESS ...................................................................... 43



iv

6.1 Selecting Stakeholders ......................................................................................................... 43

6.2 Defining Scenario Specification ........................................................................................... 44

6.3 Qualitative Scenario Development...................................................................................... 45

6.3.1 Identifying issues as critical elements of Scenario .......................................................... 46

6.3.2 Condensation of Elements .............................................................................................. 48

6.3.3 Impact Matrix .................................................................................................................. 48

6.3.4 Identifying Policies........................................................................................................... 49

6.3.5 Driving Forces and Possibility of their development....................................................... 49

6.3.6 Future State of the Study Area........................................................................................ 50

6.3.7 Qualitative scenario......................................................................................................... 50

7 QUALITATIVE SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT RESULTS ....................................................................... 53

7.1 Selecting Stakeholders ......................................................................................................... 53

7.2 Scenario Specification .......................................................................................................... 54

7.3 Issues as Critical elements of Scenario ................................................................................ 55

7.4 Element Condensation......................................................................................................... 58

7.5 Impact Matrix....................................................................................................................... 59

7.6 Policy Identification ............................................................................................................. 60

7.7 Scenario Driving Forces........................................................................................................ 61

7.8 Future State of the Study area............................................................................................. 69

7.9 Qualitative Scenario............................................................................................................. 69

7.10 Reflections of Qualitative Scenario Development Process ................................................. 73

8 SCENARIO QUANTIFICATION ......................................................................................................... 75

8.1 Land Demand ....................................................................................................................... 80

8.2 Land Supply .......................................................................................................................... 82

8.3 Suitability ............................................................................................................................. 85

8.4 Land allocation..................................................................................................................... 87

8.5 Discussion............................................................................................................................. 89

8.6 Reflection of Scenario Quantification process .................................................................... 91

9 EVALUATION.................................................................................................................................. 93

9.1 Scenario Evaluation through Stakeholder Communication ................................................ 93

9.1.1 Result of Stakeholder Communication and Reflection ................................................... 94

9.2 Scenario Modelling Outcome Evaluation ............................................................................ 96

9.2.1 Evaluation Results............................................................................................................ 97

9.2.2 Discussion and Reflection.............................................................................................. 102

10 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION................................................................................ 103

10.1 Objectives Revisited Summary of Findings ........................................................................ 103

10.2 Research Adjustment......................................................................................................... 106

10.3 Further Data Requirements ............................................................................................... 107

10.4 Future Consideration of the Scenario Development approach......................................... 107

10.5 Approach and Model relevance and Used......................................................................... 108

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................ 109

APPENDIX 1 ......................................................................................................................................... 111



v

List of figures

Figure 1.1. Conceptual Framework 4

Figure 2.1. A generic scenario development process by Jager et al (2007) ......................................... 14

Figure 3.1. Research Methodology ....................................................................................................... 22

Figure 4.1. Study Area Orientation ....................................................................................................... 23

Figure 4.2. Existing Land Use of the study area in 2009 ....................................................................... 27

Figure 5.1. Derived methodological approach...................................................................................... 39

Figure 6.1. Preparation Works of Scenario Development .................................................................... 44

Figure 6.2. Simplified Process of Scenario Development ..................................................................... 46

Figure 6.3. Discussions and Stakeholders involved............................................................................... 48

Figure 6.4. Qualitative Scenario formulation process .......................................................................... 51

Figure 7.1. Impact Matrix ...................................................................................................................... 59

Figure 7.2. System Graph of Land Use Development elements, “strong element shaded in grey” .... 60

Figure 7.3. System Graph of relevant elements and their driving forces............................................. 64

Figure 8.1. Modelling Process ............................................................................................................... 78

Figure 8.2. Available undeveloped land Map and Zoning Map ............................................................ 83

Figure 8.3. Land Supply for Balance Housing development Scenario................................................... 84

Figure 8.4. Land Supply for build Out Housing development Scenario ................................................ 85

Figure 8.5. Land Suitability Maps .......................................................................................................... 87

Figure 8.6. Land Allocation Maps.......................................................................................................... 88

Figure 9.1. Scenario Evaluation Process................................................................................................ 97



vi

List of tables

Table 4.1. Population ............................................................................................................................ 28

Table 7.1. list of Stakeholders according to review results .................................................................. 53

Table 7.2. List of Stakeholders .............................................................................................................. 54

Table 7.3. List of issues based on Stakeholder perspectives ................................................................ 56

Table 7.4.List of critical issues and their indications............................................................................. 56

Table 7.5.Set of condensed elements ................................................................................................... 58

Table 7.6.List of Policies ........................................................................................................................ 60

Table 7.7.List of Driving Forces and their Current State ....................................................................... 61

Table 7.8.Driving Forces classification .................................................................................................. 63

Table 7.9.Relevant elements and their driving forces .......................................................................... 63

Table 7.10.Future Development possibilities of each driving forces.................................................... 66

Table 7.11.Future state of land use based on stakeholder expectations ............................................. 69

Table 7.12.Qualitative Scenario ............................................................................................................ 71

Table 8.1.Translation of Qualitative scenario for modelling................................................................. 76

Table 8.2.Input Data.............................................................................................................................. 79

Table 8.3. Assumptions/value used in modelling process .................................................................... 79

Table 8.4. Criteria for Modelling process .............................................................................................. 80

Table 8.5. Housing Demand .................................................................................................................. 81

Table 8.6. Table of Land Supply............................................................................................................. 84

Table 8.7. Criteria and Weighing for Land Suitability analysis .............................................................. 86

Table 8.8. Balance Housing Development Scenario.............................................................................. 90

Table 8.9. Build out housing development scenario............................................................................. 90

Table 9.1. Objective and Spatial Criteria for Scenario Evaluation ........................................................ 98

Table 9.2. Goal Achievement Matrix................................................................................................... 101



1

1 INTRODUCTION

Planning is a process in determining appropriate future action through a sequence of choices

(Ludin, 2006 after Davidoff and Reiner, 1962). Dealing with the future, the planner may face

uncertain conditions. When making choices or decisions under uncertain conditions, planners

need to collect comprehensive information to analyze its relationship and making conclusions

about the area under investigation.

Scenario in land use planning becomes important part to determine the future conditions, and to

find likely the best plan that embodies all land use issues such as present and future land supply,

land demand, and trend of future land use. “Scenario describes as image of the future or

alternative future that are neither predictions nor forecast, but an alternative image of how the

future might unfold” (Alcamo, 2001 after Nakicenovic et al., 2000). Scenario is important in

planning because it can provide a picture of future alternative states of land use with and

without certain land use policy, illustrate how alternative policy can achieve its target, help

policy maker to think about the issue should be addressed in land use plan based on existing

trend, and the possible future trend, and also refer to the function of scenarios for other

stakeholders not only the policy maker.

This chapter describes the introduction of the research, consisting of the research background

and justification, the research problem, the research objectives, the research questions, the

research conceptual framework, and the thesis structure.

1.1 Background and Justification

In urban context, complexities become the main issue in land use planning. Urban area is a

complex, dynamic system with innumerable factors continuously altering its form, (Foot, 1981).

Dealing with this, urban model and scenario usually used for planning process. They are used for

simulating the behaviour occurring in urban area, with relation to allocation and interaction of

land use activities. There are some factors considered for scenario making, including land use

policy, stakeholder involvements, physical and non physical land use, and also land use conflict

might be faced in urban area.

In the case of Surabaya, an emerging growth city in Indonesia, appropriate scenarios for land use

planning is still in ongoing discussion even in the review of existing land use plan. The existing

Surabaya land use plan (RTRW) is following a comprehensive plan approach, while the more

detailed plan (RDTR) is following a structured plan approach. It results in some development

problems in some area (districts), such as stagnant developments and inconsistency in planning.

The use of planning support system and collaborative planning to develop structured approach

in developing and evaluating alternative land use scenario is necessary to accommodate land use

planning process and development problems in this area.

1.2 Research Problem

Pakal, Benowo and Sambikerep districts, Western part of Surabaya City, have some good

potency for development, because they are situated on the border area, adjacent to Gresik



2

Municipality, where the emerging industrial location situated there. They also have good

opportunity to be the area for residential development. Surabaya local government policy

directs the residential development to the eastern and western part of the city because of

limited land availability in the city centre. Moreover, some major infrastructure development,

such as road, sport centre, and port; also exist and being planned in this area. Some locations in

this area also have Location permits for residential and industrial developments. These factors

are considered as the important drivers of the development of the study area.

Even though, some problems also exist in this area, such as the problem of low speed

development compared to other regions in Surabaya, and even stagnant condition, which results

in the existence of large undeveloped area. The appropriate development scenario for this area

is still on going discussion.

Dealing with that situation, the appropriate structured approach to develop land use scenario

and the alternative possible scenarios of land use plan are needed. They are used for guiding the

process of developing land use scenario, identifying the future impacts of certain land use policy,

for supporting the collaborative planning process, and finally giving the recommendation for

future land use plan, and achieving the development goal of the area.

This study is going to explore the structured approach of scenario development and also to

develop the alternative scenario for future land use by involving stakeholders, especially in the

area of Pakal, Benowo, and Sambikerep Districts in Surabaya, in order to accommodate the

development goal of the city and stakeholder expectations.

1.3 Research Objective

This research walks on two legs of main objective including developing and evaluating the

structured approach for scenario development and alternative land use scenarios. This general

objective is broken down into three specific objectives, which are:

a. To assess the present situations of the study area

b. To explore the scenario development approaches and to develop a suitable scenario

development approach for the study area

c. To apply the developed approach for defining the alternative land use scenarios on the

study area

d. To model the alternative land use scenarios on the study area

e. To evaluate the approach in scenario development process, and the possible results of

alternative land use scenario

1.4 Research Question

Research objectives are going to be achieved by answering some research questions, so that

the objectives are broken down into some research questions:


What are the expected development goals in Surabaya city and the areaespecially?



3

Who are the important stakeholders interested in the development of the studyarea?

How are the physical and non physical conditions of the study area?

b. To explore the scenario development approaches and to develop a suitable scenario

development approach for the study area

What are the existing structured approaches for developing land use scenario?

What are the advantages and disadvantages of each approach?

What kind of structured approach should be used for developing land use scenario

on the study area?

c. To apply the developed approach for defining the alternative land use scenarios on the

study area

What kind of factors, policies, and stakeholders should be considered for

developing land use scenario of the area?

How is the process of scenario development based on the proposed approach for

the study area?

What kind of alternative land use scenarios proposed in the study area?

d. To apply the alternative land use scenarios on the study area

What kind of modelling is used for applying alternative land use scenario?

How are the processes of modelling alternative land use scenarios?

How will the possible results of land use scenario in the future land use?

e. To evaluate the approach in scenario development process, and the possible results of

alternative land use scenario application on the study area

What factors should be considered to evaluate the process of scenario

development?

How are stakeholder impressions towards proposed scenario development

process?

What factors should be considered to evaluate the alternative land use scenario

results?

What are the advantage and disadvantages of each land use scenario for the study

area?

What recommendations should be given for future land use plan in terms of

scenario development approach and alternative land use scenario?

1.5 Conceptual Framework

Conceptual framework is closely related to the sequence of research objectives, starting from

what actually the problems occur in the study area, by considering present conditions, and

ended by the alternative solution for coping with the problem. The conceptual framework

becomes the guidance for defining the methodology of research in more technical way.



4

Figure 1.1. Conceptual Framework

Figure 1.1. illustrates, the study consists of five components: present conditions of study

area; existing scenario development approaches and scenario development approach for

the study area, developing alternative land use scenarios for the study area; application of

alternative land use scenarios; and evaluation of scenario development approach and

possible alternative scenario results. These five components correspond to the fives

objectives set previously. Assessing present situations entails the study of existing

document planning of the study area, stakeholder interview, and physical non physical

condition of the study area. Exploring the scenario development approaches will be

conducted by literature review then compared to the present conditions of the study area,

to determine a likely suitable approach for scenario development in the study area.

Scenario development approach component is divided into two main parts including

existing theories about scenario development approaches and developing a suitable

approach for the study area. The Developing alternative scenarios follows the previously

developed approach, and study area conditions. Application of alternative land use

scenario includes scenario quantification or modelling. At last, evaluation deals with the

process of scenario development based on approach used, and the results of alternative

scenario itself.

Present situations of Study Area Scenario Development Approaches

Developing Land Use Scenario for the Study Area

Modelling Alternative land use scenarios

Evaluation of Approach Used in Scenario

Development Process & Scenario Results

A Scenario Development Approach for the Study Area



5

The forward and backward arrows between components indicate the integration of each

component. The evaluation will be based on the results developing scenario process, and results

of land use scenario applications. On the other hands, the evaluation results give input in terms

of advantage and disadvantage of the scenario development process and each alternatives

scenario. It is useful for consideration on the next scenario planning process.

1.6 Research Design

This study is categorized into qualitative and quantitative research. Qualitative methods are

used in the scenario development process, and the evaluation process. Therefore, quantitative

methods are used in the modelling of developed scenario and evaluation scenario modelling

results. There are four general phases of operational plan for this study, including: 1)

Document Analysis; 2) Collection of Primary and Secondary data; 3) Analysis and

Interpretation of data; 4) Presentation of Result and further recommendation. These four

general phases are broken down into more detail and technical steps in the research

methodology.

Literature Review and Document analysis , This was conducted in order to get the picture of

general understanding about the land use scenario development process, what are the

scenario requirements, how are the scenario development processes, and who are the actors

involved in this processes. Modelling environment of land use scenario was also searched in

terms of likely suitable software for modelling the developed land use scenario, and its

processes. Moreover, analysis of relevant policies and planning documents are important for

getting better understanding about the development goals and planning direction of the study

area.

Collection of Primary and Secondary Data, primary data was collected by means of direct and

indirect discussions and interviews to the actors of land use planning in Surabaya city, mainly

the planners from Surabaya Planning Boards; academicians; and also some developers as the

actors of land development in the study area. Secondary data includes the spatial and non

spatial data. The spatial data includes maps while the non spatial data includes demographic

data, planning documents, and governmental reports.

Analysis and Data Interpretation, The Secondary data are useful for assessing present

conditions of the study area, including the physical and non physical condition of the study

area, and modelling land use scenario, while the planning documents are used for

understanding what are the vision, objectives and directions of land use planning and

development of the study area. The primary data are used for developing the land use

scenario of the study area based on stakeholder perspectives. These processes are the main

parts of this study, which are structured into some technical steps, including: 1) Assessing

present conditions of the study area; 2) Exploring scenario development approaches and

developing suitable approach for the study area; 3) Developing Land Use Scenario for the

Study Area; 4) Applying Alternative Land use Scenario; 5) Evaluation.



6

Presentation of Result and Further recommendations, Research findings are presented into

some chapters in this study, the concluding remarks and recommendations are also made.

1.7 Thesis Structure

Chapter 2 provides the literature review relevant to the concept of scenario developments,

stakeholder involvements, and drivers of Land Use change which are used as main

consideration in scenario development process. Chapter 3 provides detailed description of

methodology to achieve research objectives, and detailed approach to answer research

questions. Chapter 4 discusses the study area and its present conditions, including general

condition of the study area, land use planning system of the study area, physical and non

physical condition of the study area, and the stakeholders involve in the study area

developments. Chapter 5 discusses about the scenario development approach. Chapter 6

discusses about Qualitative Scenario Development Process. Chapter 7. discusses Qualitative

Scenario Development Results. Chapter 8 discusses about Scenario Quantification and

Modelling. Chapter 9 discusses Evaluation of Scenario, and at last the Chapter 10 concludes

the results of the study, and recommendation.



7

2 CONCEPT OF SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT

2.1 Scenario Definitions

Now days, the term of scenario is widely used in many contexts, ranging from political decision

making, business planning, environmental assessment, and also land use planning process. Some

studies are conducted in term of scenario based planning, such as Alcamo ( 2001) used scenario

based activities for international environmental assessments; IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change) uses scenario for environmental studies such as emission scenario, global sea level

rise scenario, global warming scenario etc.. Furthermore, some studies are also conducted in terms

of scenario based land use planning e.g. Ludin & Yakub ( 2006) and Pettit and Pullar (2003).

The terms of Scenario have some definitions which still have some mainstream about the future

state. IPCC describes the scenario as images of the future, or alternatives future that are neither

predictions nor forecasts, but an alternative image of the future might unfold (Alcamo 2001 after

Nakicenovic et al., 2000). UNEP (2000) in Jager et al.,(2007) describes scenario as descriptions of

journeys to possible futures, reflecting assumptions about how current trends will unfold, how

critical uncertainties will play out and what new factors will come into play. Scenario does not

predict, rather paint pictures of possible futures, and explore the differing outcomes that might

result if basic assumptions are changed (Jager et al., 2007). it can be concluded that a scenario is not

a prediction of what the future will be, it is a description about how the future might unfold, which

explore the possible, not just the probable, and challenge their users to think beyond conventional

wisdom (Jager et al., 2007)

Scenario is different from forecast or prediction. Forecast or prediction approach is used if the

development of a phenomenon is governed by a strong momentum or an important built-in

inertness, but when there exists a great uncertainties about the future, or general feelings of

dissatisfaction with the present situation and tendencies, the scenario approach is more suitable

(Schoute et al., 1995).

Land-development scenarios are composed images of an area's land-use patterns that would result

from particular land-use plans, policies, and regulations if they were actually adopted and

implemented at a certain point of time (Xiang & Clarke, 2003). Scenario studies have strong

relationship to stakeholders, and provide the means by which decision makers can anticipate coming

change and prepare for it in a responsive and timely manner (Mahmoud et al., 2009).

Moreover, Xiang and Clarke (2003) set scenario to perform two interrelated functions of bridging

and cognitive stretching, which connects two streams future-oriented activities: modelling and

planning. The bridging function of a scenario permits and encourages communication between

people in modelling and planning, while the stretching function presents the causal relationships

between the alternatives chosen and their consequences spatially and temporally (Xiang and Clarke,

2003).



8

2.2 Elements of Scenario

There are five elements of land development scenario such as stated by Xiang & Clarke (2003),

including alternatives, consequences, causations, time-frame, and geographical footprints.

Alternatives deal with the range of potential choices of land use plans, policies, and regulations.

Consequences are the immediate and cumulative effects in terms of physical, ecological,

economical, and social matters. Causal bond between alternatives and consequences is integrated

by causations. Time frame is the periods of time between implementation of the alternatives and

the unfolding, either full or partial, or their consequences. While geographical footprint relates to

the place oriented blueprints of alternatives, and the anticipated marks of their ramifications on the

geography of an area.

Moreover, Alcamo (2001) divides scenario into five principle elements including step-wise changes,

driving forces, base year, time horizon and time steps, and storyline. The principal elements are

usually used in environmental studies. (1) The descriptions of step wise changes is the main

elements of a scenario which portray the step wise changes in the future state of society and

environment. These changes can be expressed in the form of diagram, table or even narrative set.

(2) Driving forces are the main factors or determinants that influence the step wise changes

described in a scenario. Values for these driving forces must be assumed by the scenario developers,

or taken from other studies. (3) The base year is the beginning year of the scenario. For quantitative

scenario the base year is usually the most recent year in which adequate data are available to

describe the starting point of the scenarios. (4) Time horizon and time steps describes the most

distant future year covered by a scenario. The number of time steps between the base year and time

horizon of the scenarios are usually kept to a minimum because of the large analytical effort needed

to describe each year. (5) Storyline is a narrative description of the scenario highlighting its main

feature and the relationships between the driving force and the main features. It can be developed

for each scenario study, or the existing scenario storyline also can be used.

2.3 Criteria of Good Scenario

Xiang and Clarke (2003) describes that good scenario sets should meet some credential

requirements to fulfil bridging and stretching function, likely contributing in decision making process,

including:

1. Plausible and Surprising

The plausibility and surprises are the defining quality of a good scenario. There are some

ingredients explaining the plausibility and surprise of the scenario, including plausible

unexpectedness, diversity in perspectives, consistency, and comprehensiveness. In the

plausibility sides, the coherence guarantees are a fundamental requirement, the causal

relationship between an alternative and its consequences are maintained within a scenario and

ensured the drivers are identified, represented, and processed without violating the logic of

modelling approaches used.



9

In terms of diversity of perspectives, the scenario should confront the users, such as

stakeholders, the general publics, planners, and policymakers, with a diversity of viewpoints

(Xiang and Clarke, 2003 after Schoemaker, 1991 and Schwartz, 1996).

Consistency is a perception or judgment by the users about the relationships among the

scenarios (Xiang and Clarke, 2003 after Becker, 1983; Bunn and Salo, 1993; and Schoemaker,

1993, 1995). A set of scenario is consistent when none of its component scenarios intuitively

conflicts with another or with the environment. According to Schoemaker (1993) in Xiang and

Clarke (2003), there are three types of consistency, including: trend consistency among the trend

the scenario represent; outcome consistency among the end state and the scenario present; and

stakeholder consistency between the roles the stakeholders dislike to take in reality and their

assumed roles in the scenario.

The comprehensiveness can be seen from the quality of scenario coherence, depending upon

understanding of the land development drivers. The drivers are the interactions among all

agents that shape the future state of land development of the region and the force behind them.

The agents involve ranging from the market to government and to various interest groups. Their

interactions drive land use dynamics and prescribe the magnitude and directions of land use

change. The comprehensiveness sometimes should be supported by the large number of

information loaded, result in ineffectiveness. The pursuit of comprehensiveness should be

sensitive to and balanced with considerations of information load (Xiang and Clarke, 2003). An

effective scenario composition requires, and a good scenario set contains, only as much

information and analysis as is necessary to explore the range of alternative future.

2. Informational Vividness

Informational vividness is instrumental to the efficacy of the scenario set. A good scenario set

should therefore use only vivid information in its composition and should present the

information in a vivid way (Xiang and Clarke, 2003). The informational vividness is contributed by

some factors (Xiang and Clarke, 2003 after Nisbett and Ross, 1980) including: (1) Emotionally

interesting, (2) Imagery provoking, (3) Proximate in sensory, spatial and temporal.

The scenario set is emotionally interesting, to users, when it is relevant to their needs, desires,

motives, and values. It should therefore connect directly with the key issue that are important

and urgent enough “to keep the stakeholders, general public, policy maker, and planners awake

at night” (Xiang and Clarke, 2003 after Schwartz, 1996). Strategically a good scenario set has a

clear policy orientation and can be readily incorporated even directly transformed, into land

management strategies, land use plans, and policy decisions. Therefore besides policy

orientation a set scenario should have a people focus and personal “taste”. It places the

scenarists and the users in a high stake environment in which they feel obligated to pay more

attentions to every scenario in the set (Xiang and Clarke, 2003).

A leading factor that contributes to the informational “imaginability” is “concreteness” meaning

the degree of detail and specificity in the composition and presentation of the scenario set



10

(Xiang and Clarke, 2003 after Nisbett and Ross, 1980). Xiang and Clarke (2003) state that to make

the scenario set concrete and therefore imaginary provoking, the highly descriptive scenario

title, compelling narrative lines and a movie like series, showing not only the end state but also

the dynamic process connecting the present with the future. One compelling method to ensure

an appropriate level of concreteness is to involve the scenario users in the scenario process, at

least to the degree of “buy in” is achieved in the results. Therefore, the user involvement in

scenario development process is important to get likely concrete scenario sets.

Moreover, information is vivid if its content is close in space and or time to the users (Xiang and

Clarke, 2003 after Nisbett and Ross, 1980). A good scenario comprises information content that

is spatially and temporally proximate to the users, and presents the information directly. The

geographic scope of the study area automatically sets the level of spatial proximity, the larger

the study area the lower the spatial proximity of the scenario set. The level of temporal

proximity is determined politically by plan-making and review cycles, and technically by data

availability (Xiang and Clarke, 2003)

3. Ergonomic Design

A scenario set should be designed ergonomically, so that it interacts the users both effectively

and safely. This requirement deals with the stretching function of scenario set. The ergonomic

design can be approached by some considerations, including (1) the theme of a scenario set, (2)

the size of a scenario set, (3)the time frame of a scenario set .(Xiang and Clarke, 2003 )

The themes of the scenario are the topics around which scenarios are composed. The themes

might be either based on the tactical issues experienced or broadly defined at a strategic level

such as policy etc. A single theme scenario set is arranged sequentially regarding the gradations

of difference along a single thematic dimension, it also can be arranged over a thematic

dimension according to the acceptability of these dimensions to the scenario users and or

scenarist. Therefore, a multiple themed scenario set is composed along a unique thematic

dimension emphasizing a specific pathway into the future, and each scenario are radically

different from one another dimensionally (Xiang and Clarke, 2003).

The size of the scenario set represents the number of scenarios in a scenario set. There is no rule

on it, but a range of two to seven scenarios is considered generally acceptable (Xiang and Clarke,

2003) because this range regarded as the definitely within the cognitive limit of human

comprehensions. Therefore, the ultimate arbiter on the size and the themes of a scenario set is

the effectiveness of its stretching function- whether or not the number of scenarios and their

thematic dimensions adequately represent the zone of range of fundamental different future, no

matter how large the likelihood may be (Xiang and Clarke, 2003 after Schoemaker, 1993).

Moreover, Alcamo (2001) indicates that the set of scenario can be directed by the driving forces.

The recommended number of baseline scenario depends on their time horizon and the degree

to which they diverge within this time horizon.



11

The timeframe of a scenario is closely related to the stretching functions of a scenario. Becker

(1983) in Xiang and Clarke (2003), state that there are three major stretching strategies that

scenarist use in scenario design, including anticipatory, exploratory and a hybrid of both. The

anticipatory strategies are designed by stretching people views from the present state all the

way to some points in the future directly. Under the exploratory strategies, the scenarios are

designed on sequentially arrangement that stretch people views incrementally. Moreover, a

hybrid between both is also usually used by scenarists on designing the scenario. However, the

scenarist often advise that the users should not take the time frames within which the scenarios

are formulated too precisely nor to seriously. Wilson (2000) states that the hesitation among

scenarist to connect a precise timeline with the scenarios is that attaching a specific schedule is

like assigning probability of a scenario set converted into forecast.

4. Trade of Among Credential

Even the previous credential elements of the scenario are the requirements used for defining an

ideal scenario, but sometimes their intertwining ingredients are oriented towards different even

opposite directions. An ideal combination of the three credentials, their ingredients reach the

highest level possible, is not simply attainable (Xiang and Clarke, 2003). So, instead of an ideal

combination among three credentials, a good scenario set should possess a balance combination

that is achieved through a series of trade off among the credentials and their ingredients.

2.4 Typology of the Scenario

Alcamo (2001) categorizes the scenario into three types, which are qualitative vs quantitative,

exploratory vs. anticipatory, and baseline vs. policy scenario. Qualitative scenario describes possible

future in the form of words and visual symbols rather than numerical estimates. The shape can be

narrative text, so called storyline, diagrams, phases or outlines. The qualitative scenario has

advantage to represent the views of several different stakeholders and expert at the same time

while the lack of numerical data is the bid advantage to accommodate the need of analyzing

numerical data. On the other hands, the quantitative scenarios provide needed of numerical

information in the form of tables and graphs. The advantage of quantitative scenario is that the

assumptions of scenarists about the world are written down in the form of model equation, and

coefficients. The disadvantages of quantitative scenarios are the tendency that by showing exact

numbers is taken as a sign that scenarists know more about the future than the actually do.

Moreover, they depend on results of computer modelling, containing many implicit assumptions

about the future.

Exploratory (descriptive) scenarios are the scenario set begin in the present and explore trends into

the future. Exploratory are much more commonly used because of its forward progression and less

speculation needed about the future. In contrast, the anticipatory (prescriptive or normative)

scenarios start with a prescribed vision of the future, and work backward in time to visualize how the

future could emerge.



12

The baseline scenarios (reference or benchmark) are the presentation of future state of society and

environment in which certain policy either don’t exist or don’t have a discernable influence. Their

purposes are to evaluate consequences of current policies or no new policy interventions, to take

into account the uncertainty of driving forces, and to take into account the uncertainty of area

conditions. In contrast, the policy scenarios give a default future view, and depict the future effects

of certain land use policy. They have purposes to identify specific policies that attain certain goals

and norms, to examine the impacts of certain policies, and to take into account the future

uncertainty of area conditions and society driving forces.

Moreover, Borjeson et al., (2006) adjust a scenario typology into three categories which are

predictive (i.e. forecasts and what-if), explorative (i.e. external and strategic) and normative scenario

(i.e. preserving and transforming), while each category has different considered aspects, including

quantitative/qualitative; time frame; system structure; and focus on internal or external factors.

These three categories are based on three principal questions which users want to pose about the

future in the scenario, including what will happen?, what can happen?, and how can a specific target

be reached?.

Similar to the previous categorizations of scenario, Mahmoud et al., (2009) characterize the scenario

set into exploratory scenario which describes the future according to known process of change and

extrapolations from the past; and anticipatory scenario based on different desired or feared vision of

the future that may be achievable or avoidable if certain actions take place. The future trend-based

scenario is following the exploratory scenario, while policy responsive scenario follows anticipatory

approach.

In more details, Liu et al (2008) divides scenario into seven types, including strategic scenarios,

exploratory scenarios, anticipatory scenarios, future trend based scenarios, policy responsive

scenarios, expert judgment-driven scenarios, and citizen driven scenarios. Strategic scenarios are

aims at identifying inconsistency in the approaches used by different disciplines to describe

components of complex systems. Future trend based scenarios are exploratory in nature, based on

extrapolations of trends, projections, and patterns. Policy oriented scenarios are anticipatory

approach, while the scenarios are constructed based on desired policy as the targeted future

outcome. Expert judgment-driven scenarios are model of future conditions by means of scientific

knowledge derived from decisions, rules, objectives and criteria established by experts. At last,

citizen driven scenarios are stakeholders’ involvement in defining the assumptions about the future

that are to be incorporated into scenarios.

2.5 Scenario Development

The scenario development is a complex process, involving researcher and stakeholder interactions

and judgments, while The larger the scale of the study in scenario development activities, the higher

the number of parties involved in the process compounding redundancy and incompatibility

(Mahmoud et al., 2009).



13

There are several scenario development approaches initiated by some literatures. Pesonen et al.,

(1998) propose a scenario development approaches used in LCA (Life Cycle Assessment) studies of

SETAC-Europe including what-if scenario and cornerstone scenario. What if approach enable

researchers who familiar with the decision problem to set the hypothesis on the basis of existing

data, and the cornerstone approach offers the guideline in the field of study and typically serves as a

base for further research. The LCA scenario development is commonly used in decision making

process for business environments. The future group of scenario development proposed three steps

of scenario development, including 1) Preparation: the definition of scenario space and its key

driving force though to be important to the future; 2) Development: defining the key measure and

probable events which shape the scenario in several ways; 3) Reporting and utilization:

documentation of scenario in a simple set of charts and narratives, describing the future presented

by each scenario.

Alcamo (2001) initiates SAS (Story and Simulation) approach to scenario development for policy

exercise in the developing world water scenario. The main parts of SAS scenario development

approach are 1) the development of qualitative “storyline” by a group of stakeholders and experts,

2) the use of models to quantify the storylines, 3) the use of iterative process to develop scenarios,

involving scenario writers, experts, global modellers, and stakeholders, 4) the stakeholder

involvements in the development process, and 5) the communication of scenario results by using a

variety means.

In terms of collaborative planning and community engagement in planning, Wynsberghe et al.,

(2003) propose the use of collaborative workshops for defining value-thinking approach for scenario

development, where community and experts are brought together to create archetypes that feed

into the design of alternative scenarios in planning process. This approach including some steps: 1)

outline the specific public policy problem; 2) interview relevant stakeholders; 3) list concerned

problem informed by stakeholders; 4) Role play of stakeholders to understand issues and underlying

objectives; 5) define the objective hierarchy; 6) develop a set of objectives and alternatives;

7)develop indicators for objectives; 8) characterize a compact set of alternatives; 9) determine

information needed to compare alternatives; 10)explore the key tradeoffs driving the choices

between alternatives; 11) consider the key issues should be communicated to stakeholders and

decision makers.

Borjeson (2006) identifies tasks in scenario development, into 1) generating of the ideas and data

gathering; 2) integrating parts combined into wholes; and 3) checking the consistency of scenarios.

First task is used for generating and collecting ideas, knowledge and view regarding some part of the

future. This part can involve expert, and stakeholder ideas for defining the next steps. Second task

mainly includes modelling techniques, which are usually conducted in mathematical models. The

focus of this step is on projecting some kind of development with more or less explicit constraints.

The third task is useful for ensuring consistency between or within scenarios.

Furthermore, Mahmoud et al., (2009) propose a formal scenario development framework for use in

environmental studies, by defining an iterative process with five progressive phases, including: 1)



14

scenario definition; 2) scenario construction; 3) scenario analysis; 4) scenario assessment; and 5) risk

management. These phases may involve both scientists (scenario developers and modellers) and

stakeholders. The formal approach advantages are that the adoption of stakeholders defined

scenarios and science based scenario; and the progressive iterative approach that can be refined

with time through monitoring and post audit, by linking this process to planning strategies.

Jager et al., (2007) in Geo Resource Book Training Module 6 about “Scenario Development and

Analysis” propose a generic scenario development process which shown by figure 2.1 including three

main steps:

a. Clarifying the purpose and structure of the scenario exercise

b. Laying the foundation for the scenario

c. Developing and testing the scenario

Figure 2.1. A generic scenario development process by Jager et al (2007)

The following step of “a generic scenario development “process is the communication and outreach

of scenario developed, dealing with the assessment and evaluation of scenario.

However, in more technical way, Stillwell et al., (1999) advocate spatial scenario planning approach

in which “scenario planning focuses upon map representations developed through the employment

of analytical ‘what-if’ functions and spatial modelling usually undertaken in a GIS. It is closely

connected to the view that planning should offer inspired visions of the future, based upon likely or

preferred scenarios which are either founded upon existing planning policy or used to formulate

planning policy”. Scenario planning also regarded as the reaction of the previous planning

approaches, which more procedural and instrumental orientations (Stillwell et al., 1999).



15

From above discussion, scenario planning becomes important part of planning process, because it

can give some visions of the future, so that the stakeholders involves in planning, including also

community participations, can give better choice about what they prefer more, in terms of their

future goals. Pettit et al., (2002), construct the conceptual framework of the scenario planning based

on scenario planning approaches stated by Stillwell et al., (1999), starting from defining the land use

problems, and goals in regional and local urban contexts. Policies, social economic, and physical –

environment condition are investigated, to determine the scenarios. Evaluation of each scenario are

needed for define the best scenario for planning. Following the whole planning process, the review is

needed based on implementation results of the selected plans, whether it can accommodate the

previous land use problems and goals.

2.6 Actor/Stakeholder Involvements

The scenario development is an integrated process, which is not only based on scenarist and

modeller ideas, but also involving stakeholders. Liu, et al (2008) defined stakeholder is an individual

or group who has an interest in the process and/ or outcome of a specific project and can potentially

benefit from that project. Furthermore, IEA (2007) defines the stakeholders in environmental matter

as an individual or group whose interests are affected by environmental problems or whose

decisions have environmental effects; who have information, resources or expertise required for

policy formulation and strategy implementation; or who control key mechanisms for policy and

strategy formulation and implementation.

The development of scenario is a complex process and inherently involves substantial researcher-

stakeholder interaction and or expert judgments (Liu et al, 2008), so in some cases continuously

involving stakeholders throughout the entire process might be important and desirable. It is useful

to have some feedback among all phases of scenario developments. Scenario analysis also has often

linked with participatory approach as local actors/stakeholders usually have considerable local

knowledge for providing information on “how the region works” (Walz et al, 2006).

Every scenario approach has to some main actors; Alcamo (2001) proposed the SAS approach to

scenario development, involving some main actors including:

1) The scenario team, coordinating the exercise

The team includes representative of the organization responsible for the scenario, and

experts outside the institution. It is suggested that, the scenario team should have about

three to six members.

2) The Scenario panel, providing creative input and ensure that a wide range of views are

represented in the scenario. The scenario panel consists of stakeholders in the scenario

process and expert, it should also include individual or organizations having special interest

in the outcome of the scenario.

3) The modelling team which quantifying the scenario

Stakeholder participations in decision making process, in this context especially in scenario

development, can be distinguished according to different level of involvements (Volkery et al, 2008):



16

Stakeholders can simply receive information at the end of the process

Stakeholders can comment and provide information on drafts before decisions are taken

Stakeholder can contribute to the design of to be design of the process and the structuring

of the analysis.

Stakeholder co-decides on the design of the process, the analysis and the recommendations

on possible actions.

Stakeholders are fully responsible for the design of the process, the analysis and the

recommendations on possible actions.

The information generation from the stakeholders can be both formally and non-formally.

Formalized methods can be gathered through detailed questionnaires, information matrices or

standardized discussions. Therefore, the non-formalized format can be open interviews, or open

space workshops. A strong degree of formalization does not imply that stakeholders are on passive

positions (Volkery et al, 2008). It is also stated that, the timing of the stakeholders involvements is

highly context dependent, depending on the uncertainty or the potentially laden with conflict of the

problem.

Furthermore, it is also important to consider the user of the scenario in the scenario development

process. The users of the scenario include people who develop scenarios, use existing scenario and

receive information about scenario results. The choice of scenario types for certain studies is depend

primarily on user perspectives on the study area and the goal they want to achieve. By emphasizing

the user’s perspectives, it is argued that the choice of scenario category is not only dealing with the

character of the studied system, but also the user’s world view, perceptions, and aims of the study

(Borjeson, et al, 2006).

2.7 Modelling

Model is a simplified representation or description of a system or complex entity, especially one

designed to facilitate calculations and predictions (Liu, 2008 after Makins, 1995). As the complexity

of the system in the real world, the model is used for simplifying the complex systems, so they can

be understood and managed. Model is also important when dealing with the social systems that are

often concern in urban analysis and urban planning.

A good model represents the real world in a simplified valid and adequate way, so it must be simple

enough for understanding and using in decision making (Liu, 2008). It also should be re-applicable to

the real world (Liu, 2008 after Chorley, 1964).

Now days, GIS approaches are used as tools in modelling the complex system such as urban and

environment problems. In urban context, with the shift of urban modelling from into bottom up such

as those using diffusion limited aggregation and cellular automata technique, shows the

considerable mutual benefit of urban modelling and GIS (Batty et al., 1999)

An example of the use of model in urban land use scenario planning, such as approach advocated by

Stillwell et al (1999) that The spatial scenario planning approach builds upon the strengths of the



17

rationalist approach, based on rational thought and action, and incorporates map representations

developed through the employment of analytical `what-if ‘ functions and spatial modelling usually

undertaken in a geographical information system (GIS).

2.8 Planning Support System

A Planning Support System (PSS) is a combination of planning-related theory, data, information,

knowledge, methods and instruments that take the form of an integrated framework with a shared

graphical user interface (Geertman and Stillwell 2003). Batty (2007) defines PSS as any collective set

of tools that inform most stages of the technical planning process, which includes problem

identification, analysis, and generation of alternative plans, evaluation, choice, and implementation.

Furthermore, it can be conclude that PSS is a set of computer based- geo information instrument,

used for supporting planning process, starting from the problem identification and possibility of its

solution. PSS regards as being capable of improving the handling of knowledge and information in

planning processes, a function that provides huge assistance to those involved in handling the ever-

increasing complexity of planning tasks (Gertman and Stillwell, 1999)

There are some PSS tools developed recently, such as DRAM EMPAL; TRANUS; What if?; CUF, CUF II,

and CURB; and URBANSIM. Moreover, another GIS based tools for supporting community planning

decision is CommunityViz, developed by Orton Family foundation. CommunityViz is advanced yet

easy-to-use GIS software designed to help people visualize, analyze, and communicate about the

future of their communities, and as decision-support tool, CommunityViz “shows” the implications

of different plans and choices. (www.orton.org), so it can be used for modelling scenario planning.

2.9 Conclusion

Scenario studies are broader used now days, ranging from dramatic performance to the business

and political planning process. Scenario is not either prediction or forecast, but emphasizing more on

how the future state might unfold, and how are the results of the future if the assumptions are

changed, or certain policies are intervened.

The scenario consists of some elements, which build the scenario as the future state, including time

frame (step wise change, base year and time horizon); alternatives; causations/driving forces;

consequences; storylines; and geographical footprints.

Good scenario is considered can bridge and stretch the gaps between planning and modelling; and

between the alternative chosen and its consequences in the future. For this purpose, ideally a good

scenario should be plausible and surprising, vivid, and has ergonomic design.

There are some scenario typologies discussed on the literature. However, it is concluded that in

general the scenario typology can be divided into exploratory, anticipatory, and baseline/normative.

Based on aspect considered the scenario can be divided into qualitative and quantitative approach. A

set of scenario can consist of one type of scenario or more, e.g. a set of scenario can be either



18

exploratory or anticipatory, or combination of both types, according to what is the main purpose of

the scenario development.

The scenario development is a complex process which follows some steps either sequential or

iterative/progressive, and involving some actors. The actors involve in scenario development mainly

are scientist/expert; stakeholders i.e. decision maker, certain group interested in scenario

development; and modeller. Some approaches are proposed and used on some scenario

development in global, regional and local scale. Most of them are used for environmental and

planning scenario development. Each approach has both advantages and disadvantages. The

preferences of choosing certain approach are depend on the scenarist preferences, applicability,

purpose, advantages and disadvantages consideration of each approach.



19

3 METHODOLOGY

This chapter discusses the methodological approaches used for answering the research

questions. Land Use scenario development of Pakal, Benowo, and Sambikerep Districts in

Surabaya Barat Indonesia are used as the case study. Qualitative and quantitative methods are

used. Data collections are conducted by Literatures/ documents review, stakeholder interviews

and questionnaire survey, and secondary data collections. Data Analysis used some methods for

answering all the research questions.

3.1 Literature Review and Document Analysis

Literature review aims to get the pictures of general understanding about the land use scenario

development process, what are the scenario requirements, how are the scenario development

processes, and who are the actors involved in this processes. Literature included some journal

papers, and book chapters about scenario developments approaches in global environment

scenario development and land use scenario development.

Furthermore, the modelling environment of land use scenario was also searched in terms of

likely suitable software for modelling the developed land use scenario, and its processes. The

review about planning decision support system and CommunityViz software are conducted,

including also the data required and elements used for modelling the scenarios.

All of the information is used for getting relevant approach for the study area, and fulfilling two

relevant area of this research: scenario development and scenario modelling. Therefore analysis

was conducted by reviewing the relevant policies and planning document of the study area, for

getting better understanding about the land use development goals and directions, and

identifying the stakeholders involved/interested in the development of the study area.

3.2 Collection of Primary and Secondary Data

The primary data was collected by means of discussions and interviews to the actors of land use

planning in Surabaya city, mainly the planners from Surabaya Planning Boards; academicians;

developers as the actors of land development in the study area, and other relevant actors.

Secondary data includes the spatial and non spatial data. Spatial data includes maps while non

spatial data includes demographic data, planning documents, and governmental reports.

The initial direct interview was conducted by the author to the three planners of Surabaya

Planning Boards about their expectation of the future developments of the study area, and some

development drivers of the study area. The information about the planning direction and

infrastructure planned for the study area also revealed. Moreover, questionnaire to real estate

developers as the main actors of land development of the study area was also conducted to get

better understanding about their vision and plan for future development of the study area.

Another primary data were collected later, including interview for evaluation of scenario

development to planners and academicians. The results of scenario modelling are also sent to



20

the mentioned stakeholders for getting evaluation remarks of the scenario developed, and their

preferences towards scenario for the study area. In addition to the previous process, continuous

distance discussion was also done to get better attachment to stakeholders.

The secondary data was collected, including spatial data such as maps, and non spatial data such

as land use planning documents, demographic data, and some government reports. Those data

were used for determining the present situations of the study area, and understanding the

planning vision, goal, and directions of the study area. They were important for the scenario

development process. The Maps and demographic data are important for building the scenario

modelling on the later phases.

3.3 Analysis and Data Interpretation

The Secondary data are useful for assessing present conditions of the study area, including the

physical and non physical condition of the study area, and for modelling process of land use

scenario, while the planning documents are used for understanding what are the vision, goals

and directions of land use planning and development of the study area. The primary data are

used for developing the land use scenario of the study area by involving some important

stakeholder views about the study area. These processes are the main parts of this study, which

are structured into some technical steps, including: 1) Assessing present conditions of the study

area; 2) Exploring scenario development approaches and developing suitable approach for the

study area; 3) Developing qualitative Land Use Scenario for the Study Area; 4) modelling land use

scenario; 5) Evaluation.

1) Assessing present conditions of the study area

Existing land use planning and strategy were studied to find out the goal of development,

the policy direction of land use plan, and also to identify land use conflict and possible future

conflicts in the area.

Identifying the stakeholders involving in the land use planning and land development of the

area is also necessary. This can give the picturing stakeholder perspectives and expectations

to the study area development especially in the future land use that can accommodate their

needs and goals. The interview section will be conducted for this stage.

Demographic trend forecast are useful for the demand analysis. Examples of demographic

data to examine include population, households, housing, etc. The purpose of this task is to

examine demographic trend in order to understand how the Region has developed from the

non-physical perspective and to develop population projection. During this process, various

projections developed by the city board will be reviewed and analyzed. These projections

will then be translated into land use demands.



21

2) Exploring scenario development approaches and developing suitable approach for the

study area

Literature review was conducted on the previous phase to find out the existing structured

approach on developing land use scenario. The comparison results among each approach

was used for determining the possible structured approach of scenario development in the

study area, by considering the advantage and disadvantage of each approach and the study

area conditions.

3) Developing Qualitative Land Use Scenario for the Study Area

Scenario development followed the sequences of scenario development approach resulted

from the previous stage, by considering the present situations of the study area, and also

stakeholders expectations. During this process, the formal discussion, and interview results

were used for defining the likely good scenarios for the study area.

4) Modelling Qualitative Land use Scenario

The “CommunityViz” planning scenario is firstly chosen for modelling proposed land use

scenario, because of its flexibility to customized user needs, in terms of data availability,

resolutions, and also alternative developments scenarios.

The modelling results were visualized into maps illustrating the possible development will

take place for each scenario, and giving clearer pictures for evaluation process.

5) Evaluation

The evaluation involves both the scenario development approach used in scenario

development process and the results of the alternative scenarios. The evaluation process

will be done through quantitative assessment using Goal Achievement Matrix (GAM). The

qualitative evaluation also will be conducted by considering the review from stakeholder

expectations towards land use scenarios. These evaluations will be used for defining the

appropriate land use alternative scenario for the study area.

The evaluation of both process of scenario development using proposed approach and the

alternative land use scenarios will be used to assess the advantage and disadvantages of

them, to define the possible implications, and to determine how each scenario approaches

the development goals of the area. The results of the evaluation process is also necessary for

giving the input for scenario development process, and alternative scenario either for the

next study or the land use planning development process.



22

Figure 3.1. Research Methodology

Detail Methodology used by this research to answer research question is illustrated by table of

research methodology in appendix 1

Evaluation of Scenario Development approach used

& Land Use scenario results

Development Planning Goal

Land Use Problems

Land Suttability

Land Supply

Land Demand

Planning Policies

& Strategy

Physical/Non

Physical data

Stakeholders Literature Review

Stakeholders

Expectations

Interview

Study Area Conditions

Developing a

scenario

development

approach for the

study area

A Scenario Development Approach

For the study area

Developing Alternative Land Use Scenario

Land Use Scenario Modelling

& results visualization



23

4 STUDY AREA AND PRESENT CONDITIONS

4.1 General Description of the Study Area

Surabaya is located between 070

12’-07021’ S Latitude and 112

036’- 112

054’ E Longitude. The

northern and eastern parts are bordered by Madura Strait, while the southern part is bordered

by Sidoarjo Municipality, and the western part is Gresik Municipality. Surabaya, the second

biggest city in Indonesia, is the capital city of East Java Province.

Surabaya is a rapid dynamic city, which has important roles as the centre of governmental

activities, trade, services, education, and also as the gate of transportation in which connects the

eastern part of Indonesia with western part of Indonesia. Administratively, Surabaya region is

divided into 31 kecamatan (districts), 163 kelurahan (sub districts), for planning requirements, it

is divided into three development units, including Surabaya Tengah, Surabaya Barat, and

Surabaya Timur. Total area is about 326, 37 Km2 with total population 2.600.632 people in 2001,

and the average density of population is about 7.968 people/Km2, centered especially on

Surabaya Pusat and Surabaya Selatan (Bappeko, 2004).

The study area consists of three districts in western part of Surabaya, including Pakal, Benowo

and Sambikerep. These three districts were selected because they are situated in border area

between Surabaya city and Gresik municipality, which facing relatively stagnant development

problem. There is also policy direction of Surabaya city to develop this area as settlement which

not only serves housing demand of the city but also surrounding area. Some major infrastructure

also planned to be developed in this area. The orientation location of the study area is illustrated

in the circled area of figure 4.1. below.

Figure 4.1. Study Area Orientation



24

4.1.1 Benowo

Benowo is situated on the western part of Surabaya, covering total area of 25,02 Km2. it consists of

five sub districts (kelurahan), including Kandangan, Klakah Rejo, Sememi, Romokalisari, and Tambak

Osowilangun. Total population in 2009 is about 45.058 people.

4.1.2 Pakal

Kecamatan Pakal (district) is situated on the western part of Surabaya especially on the border area

between Surabaya City and Gresik Municipality, covers total area about 18,89 Km2. this area is

divided into 4 sub districts (kelurahan) including Babat Jerawat, Pakal, Benowo, Sumberrejo,

Tambakdono. Pakal is the division of Benowo district .Its total population in 2009 is reached 40.243

people.

4.1.3 Sambikerep

Kecamatan Sambikerep (district) covers area about 14,08 Km2. Sambikerep district consists of four

sub districts (kelurahan), including Sambikerep, Made, Beringin, and Lontar. Total population is

53.131 people in 2009.

4.2 Land Use Planning System in the Study Area

4.2.1 The goal, vision and mission of spatial planning

The vision of existing Surabaya spatial planning, based on Surabaya Local Government decree No.

3/2007 is “leading Surabaya as comfortable, capable, cultured and justice city of services. Therefore,

the goal of spatial planning of Surabaya City :

a. To implement the sustainable and environmentally friendly spatial utilization according to

carrying capacity of environment and national and regional development policies.

b. To implement the spatial utilization of protected area, build able area and special area.

c. To realize the integration between the use of natural resources and non natural resources by

taking into account supply of human resources.

d. To achieve qualified spatial utilization for:

Achieving intelligent, noble and prosperous life

Achieving integration on the use of natural and non natural resources by taking into account

the supply of human resources

Realizing the efficient, effective, and appropriate use of resources for human quality

improvement

Protecting spatial function and preventing the negative impacts towards environment

Achieving balance and conductive environment for investment

4.2.2 Land use planning system

There are three kinds of land use plans:

1. Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah (RTRW), is the strategic plan for spatial implementation and

utilization of city by regarding spatial pattern and structure, as the translation of Provincial

spatial plan.



25

2. Rencana detil Tata Ruang Kota (RDTRK) is a translation of RTRW into spatial utilization plan by

setting the functional region into allocation blocks, and mapped into planning map of 1: 5000

scale or more

3. Rencana Teknik Tata Ruang Kota (RTRK) is a translation of RDTRK includes geometric plan of

spatial utilization, on the planning map of 1: 1000 scale or more.

The higher the level of land use planning, the more general the planning of the area, and the bigger

the area. RTRW is used for regulating the whole city, while the RDTRK and RTRK is used for

regulating the parts of the city. Land use plans, should integrate each other. RTRK should refer to the

RDTRK and RDTRK should refer to RTRW, therefore the integration among plans can be achieved.

Surabaya Spatial Plan follows comprehensive plan format, and based on first review of RTRW 2013,

it is suggested for changing into structured plan. The changing format intends to make its uses to be

easier implementation operationally. The changing format is based on the aspiration of some

stakeholders involved in the planning process and review.

For planning purposes, Surabaya is divided into 12 development units (Unit Pengembangan = UP),

while each UP has RDTRK. Each UP consists of some function as protected area, build able area,

growth and activity center. For detail translation of planning, each UP are divided into Districts units

(Unit Distrik = UD), which has RTRK as their technical planning system. Surabaya divided into 120

Unit Districts. UPs are set based on characteristic, condition, and potency of the area. UP consists of

2-4 kecamatan, and the border of each UP following the administrative boundary. However, each UD

is not set based on administrative boundary of district (Kecamatan), but more emphasized on their

characteristics and potencies, and sometimes following the physical boundary such as river or road.

So that UD consists of 1-2 sub district (Kelurahan), covering area of 250-400 ha (2,5 – 4 Km2).

Benowo and Pakal are situated on UP XI Tambak Oso Wilangun, and UP XII Sambikerep.

According to organization system of Surabaya Local Government, Badan perencanaan Pembangunan

Kota (BAPPEKO), as a planning board, responsible for planning duties. BAPPEKO coordinating with

other boards design RTRW, RTRK, and RDTRK.. Methodological approaches used in spatial plan

arrangement are the parallel sequences of some steps :

1. Goal Definition

2. inventory of Existing conditions, problems, and recommendations

3. involvement of stakeholder aspiration

4. defining format of spatial plan

5. review of plan materials

Goal of spatial plan is resultant of the goal of Surabaya Development, from different point of views

of local government, neighbouring government, society, and other stakeholders. The objects of

inventory include physical aspect, land use, settlement, transportation, facility, utility, urban

heritage, tourism, environment, socio-demographic, economy, development management, law and

organization. Stakeholder involves in the planning process of Surabaya including society both from

formal and informal sectors, academicians, bureaucrats, and military. Defining format of spatial plan

aims to get the innovation in the format of spatial plan which more implemented and following the



26

dynamicity of the area. At last review of existing spatial plan also important as the evaluation of its

consistency with the existing conditions, including review of land use plan, demographic plan, and

spatial structure.

4.2.3 Land Use Plan of the Study Area

Pakal and Benowo are situated on the RDTRK of UP XI Tambak Oso Wilangun and UP XII Sambikerep,

and RTRK of UD Pakal and UD Benowo. Based on UP Tambak Oso Wilangun and UD Benowo, land

use in Benowo is directed into low dense development, as settlement, public services, Commercials,

Industry and warehouse, Stadion (Surabaya Sport Center), Final Waste disposal, and green open

space. Furthermore, the function of space in Pakal based on spatial plan are directed into

settlements, Sport center (SSC), and Green open space.

The objectives of development outlined on RDTRK Tambakosowilangun and Sambikerep is ”realizing

urban fringe settlement area, by integrated economic development on the base of agriculture and

ecotourism”. This objectives is driven by the increasing demand of settlement in Surabaya city which

can not be accommodate in the city center especially, and also influenced by the increasing housing

demand influencing by surrounding area, such as emerging industrial development in Gresik

Municipality, and function of Surabaya as main city in “Gerbangkeratsusila” constellation..

4.2.4 Physical Condition of the Study Area

Physically, topographic condition of the study area is situated on relatively flat area with slope of 0-

2%. Existing land uses of Pakal and Benowo, and Sambikerep districts based on existing land use map

2009 of Bappeko Surabaya:

Settlement : 6,6 Km2

Agriculture : 3,03 Km2

Open space : 16, 5 Km2

Fishpond : 25,8 Km2

Commercial and services : 0,5 Km2

Industry : 1,1 Km2

Bare land : 4,40 Km2



27

Source: Bappeko Surabaya, 2009

Figure 4.2. Existing Land Use of the study area in 2009

Majority of land use is undeveloped area. Based on RTRW 2013 this area is directed into settlement

area, because of the increasing demand of housing in Surabaya and the limited land availability in

the city centre. Some major infrastructure also planned in this area such as Surabaya Sport Centre

(SSC), Planned Western outer ring road, and Surabaya Barat Hospital. Furthermore, some location

permits for real estate development also exists in this area, along with the policy of Surabaya local

government to direct housing development to the western part of Surabaya.

However, the study area experiences the development stagnancy. This condition results in existence

of large undeveloped/vacant area. One the reason is that because of the limited accessibility to this

area. Dealing with this condition, government try to develop this area by developing some

infrastructure and accessibility network to this area, as stimulant for the development.

4.2.5 Non Physical Condition of the Study Area

In term of economic condition, basic sector of Pakal, Benowo, and Sabikerep in 2001 is agriculture. It

can be shown by higher Location Quotient (LQ) values for these areas are mainly in agriculture and

fisheries.



28

Demographically, this area experienced lower population density than other area in Surabaya.

Population increase rapidly every year, with the growth rate of 2,39 % per year between 2005-2009

(BPS, 2009). This condition is along with the increasing number of population to this area because of

housing need. The number of population each year is shown by the table 4.1..

Table 4.1. Population

Area Total Population

Average

Growth

District (Km2) 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 (% /year)

Pakal 18,89 35.695 36.987 37.878 39.403 40.243 2,95

Sambikerep 14,08 49.269 50.770 52.020 53.066 53.133 1,86

Benowo 25,02 41.050 42.042 43.450 44.944 45.080 3,44

Total 57, 99 126.014 129.799 133.348 137.413 138.456 2,39

Density 2.173 2.238 2.299 2.366 2.387

Source: BPS ( 2009)

4.2.6 Stakeholders Perception towards the Development of the study Area

There are some important actors and stakeholders having important role in development of the

study area. Based on the existing condition and planning process in Surabaya, some important

stakeholders and actors in development of this area are:

Surabaya Local Government

Expert and academician

Developers

Society

Investors

Based on initial interview results toward planner of Surabaya Local Government on their expectation

towards the study area development, it can be conclude that the equity of development distribution

and economic growth become the major concern of this area development, so that some

development stimulant are planned and develop in this area. Furthermore, the equal distribution of

population also becomes the consideration of the planner and government to direct housing

development in this area. However, the environmental issue is also considered, because of the

existence of Final waste disposal, and its function as conservation area and green open space.

Furthermore, the direction of the area development should regarding the spatial plan regulation.

However, the interview results conducted to developers and community in the study area reveal

about their expectation to the study area development. Developers as private sector are more

concerning the development of the study area for increasing their profit. They expected the

government provide more facilities and accessibilities to this area for increasing the bargaining value

of their products. They also tend to develop their location permit area for housing and commercial

development. Furthermore, local society expects that this area shall be developed into commercial

area like the other parts of Surabaya, and improving the accessibility to this area. This improvement

is expected to increase their economic condition, as the increasing job opportunity, and reducing

isolation to this area.



29

5 DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH

This chapter discusses the results of the analysis towards the existing scenario development on the

literatures, to answer the objectives 2 of explore the scenario development approaches and to

develop a suitable scenario development approach for the study area. it also discuss the analytical

methods for answering each research questions, and further establish the structured approach for

land use scenario development based on existing approach and existing condition of the study

area.

5.1 Criteria of Selecting Suitable Approach

Before defining a suitable approach will be used on this scenario development study, it is

important to determine the criteria for selecting suitable good scenario. As the limitation of

discussion on comparison among scenario development approaches, this study tries to

determine the criteria used for selecting approach. There is no clear explanation about what are

the criteria for approach selections stated on the literature. Therefore, the criteria are selected

based on the explicitly stated criteria of approach selection on some literature. Some criteria are

also selected based on author impression towards common elements on most scenario

development approaches. These criteria are also used for comparing the existing approach with

the current situation of the study area, so that the likely suitable approach can be built for the

study area.

The criteria for approach selection defined in this study include:

a. Stakeholder/actor involvement during scenario development process

Stakeholder involvement is one of the main elements of the scenario development process.

As scenario development is a complex process expected to accommodate some

perspectives, and policies, stakeholder involvement is very important in scenario

development process. Some approaches are emphasizing more on the stakeholder

involvement during the process, while others only involving them on little steps of scenario

development. Furthermore, this study is closely related to land use planning process,

commonly emphasizing more on participation, so the stakeholder involvement is considered

to be important criteria for approach selection.

b. Approach used (Qualitative/Quantitative)

Scenario approach usually uses qualitative or quantitative and combination of both during

the development process. The use of quantitative or qualitative approach on the existing

scenario development approach is important to be considered on approach selection,

because it deals with the goal of scenario will be developed on the scenario exercise. On the

other words, while we want to develop narrative scenario we should select the scenario

development approach which use qualitative approach during the process.

c. Time and Cost

Time and cost become the important criteria discuss explicitly on the literature to define the

scenario development approach. Time and cost factor usually become the disadvantage of



30

most scenario development approach, because most scenario development approaches are

time and cost consuming. The scenario development follows a lot of steps, discussions, and

actor involvements that spend a lot of time and cost for the whole process. Therefore, time

and cost factors should be considered during approach selection based on the availability of

time and cost for scenario development.

d. Step determination

Step determination means the clearness or unclearness of the steps especially on the

process of scenario development. It also represents the logical order of the steps and sub

steps on scenario developments. The more detail and clear the steps of scenario

development proposed by approaches, the easier the user to follow the steps. It means also,

the more logic and understandable the steps proposed by approaches. The clearer the steps

and logical order of the scenario development means the more the probability of the

approached to be selected.

e. Applicability

The applicability represents the practical used of the approach, in term of scope and field of

study. Some approaches are applicable for global scenario developments, while some

approaches are also applicable for regional and local scenario. In terms of fields, some

approaches are used for environmental scenario developments, whereas some approaches

are also applicable for land use and regional planning fields. This criterion becomes

important consideration to select certain approach, whether it can be applied for the study

area scope and the purpose of scenario development.

f. Iterative/progressive step

The iterative/progressive step is important consideration on scenario development, because

it can give better results of scenario. Therefore, iterative process needs longer time meaning

the bigger cost needed. However, in term of results it will generate the likely best scenario

because of the re-processing and discussion process until the best result is gained. The

iterative process proposed by scenario development approaches considered as advantage

and surplus value of approaches, so that it can be used as considered criterion for approach

selection. Even though the selection of approach and steps going to follow also depend

primarily on other criteria discussed before.

5.2 Discussion towards approaches for scenario development

There are some approaches studied during the literature review section. Each approach has

advantages and disadvantages dealing with its process.

a. A scenario development approaches used in LCA (Life Cycle Assessment) studies of SETAC-

Europe (Pesonen et al, 1998)

The advantages of this approach are the use of two scenario development approaches

during the process, what if scenario approach and cornerstone scenario approach. Each

approach have different emphasize, what if approach emphasizes more on the



31

quantification (quantitative approach) of each scenario developed based on some

alternative scenarios and their impact towards the study area. Therefore, the cornerstone

approach emphasize more on the qualitative information of the study area, by giving the

potential directions of future development or at least give some alternatives paths of

development in the study area that are certainly not possible. It usually serves as a basis for

further specific research. By combining these two approaches, the likely good scenario can

be defined, because the cornerstone approach gives a basis view of a scenario in general

level, then the what if approach translate it into more specific scenarios by quantifying their

impacts and consequences.

The disadvantages of this approach are, this approach is commonly used in the business

environment rather than in environmental and land use scenario developments. It is also not

really emphasized on the stakeholders and public participations during the process.

Furthermore, the scenario development process is ended up by documenting the scenario,

without considering the evaluation of the existing policies and present situation regarding

the consequences of each scenario, and what kind of strategic action should be taken in

order to anticipate the future state based on scenario illustrations.

b. The SAS (Story and Simulation) approach to scenario development (Alcamo, 2001)

The advantages of SAS approach are the use of combination in both qualitative and

quantitative approaches. Qualitative approach is used during the scenario storylines

developments, which become interesting and understandable way to express many

massages about future state of developments. While quantitative approach is used during

model calculation, providing the need for numerical information about field changes and

their driving forces. The calculation also completes the scenario storylines by helping to

maintain their consistency (Alcamo, 2001).

Furthermore, this SAS approach emphasizes more on the stakeholders and experts

involvements during the process. The actors involves during the process includes the

scenario team, the scenario panel, and the modelling team. These teams consist of decision

makers (representatives from decision making institutions) and experts e.g individuals with

either special environment or scenario development expertise. The more representatives of

different interest the better, but the larger the group the more unwisely the discussions

(Alcamo, 2001). The stakeholders and experts involve during the scenario development

process, starting from proposing the scenario goals until the review of scenario developed.

Furthermore, the iterative approach of review and revision of scenario involving

stakeholders and experts enhances the credibility and legitimacy of developed scenarios.

In contrast, the disadvantages of SAS approach are that it’s costly because it requires the

organization of many meetings, and multiple cycles of storyline writings, quantifications, and

reviews. Further, it also time consuming because it needs multiple cycles and storyline

writing quantifications and scenario reviews. Furthermore, as model is an important



32

component of this approach for storyline quantifications, but good models are not always

available and even personnel shortages for running the model.

c. The use of collaborative workshops for defining value-thinking approach for scenario

development (Wynsberghe et al., 2003)

The collaborative workshops bring together local experts to create archetypes used into the

design of alternative scenario. This approach is only involving experts through brainstorm

workshop for designing archetypes. The product of archetype will be used for computer

modelling through alternative scenario as the public discussion tools about the possible

alternative scenario development of the area. This approach is more saving time, because it

only needs a five days brainstorm workshop for defining the archetypes, based on the

experience of Scenario development project for George Basin Future Project. The workshop

was started by brainstorming story about the project and the environment of the study area,

hoped the participant can get clear understanding about what they should do based on their

expertise.

The drawbacks of this approach are the difficulties to manage the large number of

participants and facilitate their ideas, coming from different expertise. It needs a good

capability of moderator to facilitate the process. The brainstorming story also sometimes

rejected by the experts who have different idea, because they feel that the brainstorm story

disturbs their way of thinking on their expertise. The experiences of Scenario development

project for George Basin Future Project show some challenges during the process. It is

challenging to select identify and recruit the appropriate participant for the workshop; to

identify and include the facilitator with appropriate skills from the earliest stages; and to

scope and prioritize the vast range of possible “broadening” directions during the workshop

because of different expertise (Wynsberghe et al., 2003).

The approach is only defining the archetypes for scenario development that is useful for the

consideration and input for scenario modelling process on the later stages. Therefore, the

analysis is emphasized more on the qualitative approach in defining the scenario archetype.

The quantitative approaches are conducted in modelling process on the later stages based

on the archetype resulted from the collaborative workshop approach.

d. Tasks in scenario development (Borjeson, 2006)

The task in scenario development by Borjeson (2006) only give the general elements of

scenario development process, without giving specific sequence steps of scenario

developments. The involvement of stakeholder and experts is also emphasized during the

process.

e. A formal scenario development framework for use in environmental studies (Mahmoud et

al., 2009)

The Formal scenario development approach for use in environmental studies describes the

scenario development as an iterative process with five progressive phases including 1)



33

scenario definition, 2) scenario construction, 3) scenario analysis, 4) scenario assessment, 5)

and risk management. Iterative and progressive phases during this process mean the

continuously involving stakeholders throughout the entire process might be important and

desirable. The stakeholder involvement is useful to have some feedback among all phases of

scenario development. Scenario definition and assessment require cooperation between

scientist and stakeholders, scenario construction and analysis are primarily scientific effort of

researchers, and risk management is mainly the responsibility of stakeholders (Mahmoud et

al., 2009).

The adoption of formal scenario, are depends primarily on the scenario scale, the larger the

scenario scale, the greater the necessity for formalized system of data storage, models,

visualization tools, and structured decision paths in addressing specific points of concerns.

Furthermore, the involvement of actors on each phase can depend on the scale of the issue,

resource availability, and willingness to invest in such a structured investigation (Mahmoud

et al., 2009). A formal stakeholder involvement is sometimes difficult to implement in all the

phases, because of the previously mentioned factors. People tends to involve in the certain

activities which relevant to their objectives. Furthermore, the varying personalities, positions

and view points of participants is play an important role during all phases, and may

determine whether a formal approach is adopted at all. This approach is also time-

consuming because of its iterative and progressive phases.

f. A generic scenario development process (Jager et al., 2007) in Geo Resource Book Training

Module 6 about “Scenario Development and Analysis”

A generic scenario development approach presents step by step process of scenario

development. This approach has three ways of thinking: 1) policy relevant, 2) intended to be

comprehensive enough to allow scenario team to incorporate a broad range of arising

issues, 3) presented as participation, stakeholder driven process (Jager et al., 2007).

This approach can be applied for global, national, regional and even local level. The

applicability is because of its detail steps in scenario development process, and the similar

steps has been used on some scenario development exercises, such as Long term Global

Scenario of IPCC, Medium term regional and global scenarios-The UNEP GEO-3 scenario, and

Short tem country scenarios-Mont Fleur (Jager et al., 2007). As the participatory is the driven

process of this approach, the identification and selection of stakeholders are important in

the first step of the process. The stakeholders can be policy maker, experts and other

stakeholders interested in the scenario development.

Furthermore, this approach combines both qualitative and quantitative approach. The

quantitative approach applied on the first two steps of scenario exercise makes the scenario

more understandable, interesting and represent the complexity of interest, even though it

doesn’t provide numerical information. Whereas, the quantitative approach used on the last

step of exercise give model based perspectives, with numerical information, and can identify

assumptions. However, quantitative approach is not transparent, and difficult to reflect the



34

changes on social and environmental system studied. The combination of two approaches

gives added value towards the scenario exercise; because they are complement each other.

Furthermore, the process can be formalized by using workshop or can be non formal way,

based on the stakeholders information about their views and the scenarist develop and

model this into scenario.

The disadvantage of this approach is, because of its detail steps, that this exercise become

time consuming because of parallel process of scenario development should be followed.

DEV

ELO

PIN

GA

SCEN

AR

IOD

EVEL

OP

MEN

TA

PP

RO

AC

HA

ND

THE

ALT

ERN

ATI

VE

LAN

DU

SESC

ENA

RIO

S:TH

EC

ASE

OF

PA

KA

L,B

ENO

WO

,AN

DSA

MB

IKER

EPD

ISTR

ICTS

OF

SUR

AB

AYA

CIT

Y

35

No

Fact

ors

Stak

eh

old

er

invo

lve

me

nt

Ap

pro

ach

use

dTi

me

/Co

stSt

ep

sd

ete

rmin

atio

nA

pp

licab

ility

Ite

rati

vest

ep

s

Ap

pro

ach

es

1A

sce

nar

io

de

velo

pm

en

t

app

roac

he

so

fLC

A(L

ife

Cyc

leA

sse

ssm

en

t)

No

te

mp

has

ize

dQ

ual

itat

ive

and

qu

anti

tati

ve

Co

nsu

min

gU

ncl

ear

Bu

sin

ess

No

2Th

eSA

S(S

tory

and

Sim

ula

tio

n)

app

roac

h

Emp

has

ize

dQ

ual

itat

ive

and

qu

anti

tati

ve

Co

nsu

min

gC

lear

Envi

ron

me

nt

(Glo

bal

,an

d

regi

on

alsc

ale

)

Ye

s

3W

ork

sho

ps

for

de

fin

ing

valu

e-t

hin

kin

g

app

roac

h

Emp

has

ize

dQ

ual

itat

ive

Savi

ng

Cle

arEn

viro

nm

en

t,la

nd

use

(re

gio

nal

and

Loca

l

scal

e)

No

4Ta

sks

insc

en

ario

de

velo

pm

en

tb

ase

do

n

Bo

rje

son

(20

06

)

Emp

has

ize

dge

ne

ral

No

tcl

ear

Un

cle

arge

ne

ral

No

5A

form

alsc

en

ario

de

velo

pm

en

t

fram

ew

ork

Emp

has

ize

dQ

ual

itat

ive

and

Qu

anti

tati

ve

con

sum

ing

Cle

arEn

viro

nm

en

t

(glo

bal

,an

dre

gio

nal

and

loca

lsca

le)

Ye

s

6A

gen

eri

csc

en

ario

de

velo

pm

en

tp

roce

ss

Emp

has

ize

dQ

ual

itat

ive

and

Qu

anti

tati

ve

con

sum

ing

Cle

arEn

viro

nm

en

t,la

nd

use

(Glo

bal

,re

gio

nal

,

loca

l)

Ye

s

Tab

le5

.1.C

om

par

iso

no

fSc

enar

ioD

evel

op

men

tap

pro

ach

es



36

5.3 Establishing Structure Approach for Scenario Development

This section discusses about the development structure approach for scenario development

according to previous discussion about the existing scenario development approach, and existing

condition of the study area.

5.3.1 Approach Development

While there are many different approaches used for scenario development, most involve

common of steps. Recognizing the benefits and drawbacks of each approach and the trend of

study area are important for developing a likely best approach for scenario development of the

study area. Below explanations discuss about the situation of the study area and consideration

of selecting certain approach, and the methodological approach derived.

The study area is part of Surabaya City, including two districts Pakal and Benowo. Scenario

should be developed in a local scale. However, it still considers the external factors and driving

forces from the higher scale, especially on the city scale. The influence of Surabaya city

development and even the higher level can not be ignored during the scenario development for

the study area. It is because of its existence as part of Surabaya City development and the

integration of development policies among level, e.g. the district policies should integrate with

the city policies, and more.

Initial primary data on the expectation of stakeholders interested in the study area

development, including decision maker (Surabaya Local government) and private developers,

reveals that the driving forces of study area development mainly influences by Surabaya local

government policies. The equity of development distribution and economic growth become

major concerns of the study area development, followed by the effort for distributing the

population equally. Furthermore, the interview results and document analysis indicate that the

development plans for the study area are part of city development plans, such as infrastructure

planning, land use planning, and demographic planning.

There are some actors involve both on the development of the study area and the land use

planning process. Surabaya local government as the major actors and decision maker of

developments makes the policy of development and land use plans. It also defines the vision,

goal and strategy for the development of the city. Expert and academician also play an

important role during the development process. Developers as the actors of land development

of the area, who play an important role on the city development mainly on the development of

built up area. Planning process also indicates that society and investor expectations are taken

into account during the planning process.

Based on study area condition mentioned above, the important factors should be taken into

account during the scenario development process for the study area is stakeholders/actors



37

involvements, and policy considerations. These two factors determine the first step on

identifying the scope, purpose and structure of the scenario. Furthermore, policy also

determines the vision, and goal of the development of the study area particularly and the city

generally.

According to the criteria for approach selection including stakeholders/actors involvement,

approach used, time and cost, step determination, applicability, and Iterative/progressive steps;

advantage and disadvantage of each approach are summarized on table 2. Most of approaches

studied are emphasized more on the stakeholders/experts participation during the process.

Thinking about the scope of the scenario, the approach should be focus on the local level, i.e city

level, even the higher level scope of the scenario also should be consider as integrated process.

The combination of qualitative and quantitative approach is regarded as likely the best approach

for scenario development. They can give better illustration on the narrative way and flexible way

to accommodate different stakeholder views, and also give better numerical quantification

through modelling to complement the illustration/storyline of the scenario. The iteration

process also needed even not for the whole process of scenario development, for getting better

scenario formulation.

There are three approaches taken into account in the methodological approach will be

developed if considering the criteria of approach selection, including a SAS approach, a formal

scenario development framework, and a generic scenario development process. These three

approaches can accommodate the initial needs of scenario development approach for the study

area. These three approach are accommodate the criteria of approach selections, including

emphasize on stakeholders involvements, use qualitative and quantitative approach, have clear

and detail of step to follow, applicable for the study area, and follow the iterative process.

However, these three approaches still have drawbacks in terms of time and cost criteria. To

anticipate this disadvantage the modification of process will be done, by constructing the more

effective steps to follow. So, a unique approach for scenario development should be built based

on the study area characteristics, combined with the selected approaches.

A formal scenario development approach and SAS approach are good approaches in terms of

their iterative and progressive phases during the process, even though they are time consuming.

A generic scenario development approach gives more detail stages in scenario developments.

The stakeholder involvements can be either formalized or non-formalized through open

discussion during scenario development. The SAS approach has good division of actor

involvement, by dividing them into scenario team, scenario panel and modelling team. In this

case, because of time and stakeholder limitation to formalized the discussion and divide the

actors into some groups, the stakeholders only divided into two which are experts and decision

maker group, while the author itself has roles as researcher, facilitator during discussion, and

modeller.



38

The methodological approach is modified from the steps proposed by three approaches. The

complete steps of each scenario development approach are attached on appendixes. Most of

the steps are following a generic scenario development approach, because of its very clear steps

determinations.

SAS approach used iterative process during the whole process, but regarding the limitation of

time the study only use it for evaluation process. The iterative approach is used for scenario

evaluation, by consulting the result of scenario quantification to the stakeholders for better

scenario results. The consultation results are used for evaluating the storyline and select the

likely better scenario for the study area. Furthermore, the SAS also include the construction of

zero order draft before driving forces definition. This process need more time for some revision.

So, the methodological approach for this study does not include this step. There is no zero order

draft, but directly jump to the scenario storylines. The complete methodological approach is

shown by the below figure.



39

Figure 5.1. Derived methodological approach

The methodological framework are divided into five main steps : 1) identifying the purpose and

structure of the scenario; 2) identifying scenario elements; 3) identifying scenario foundations; 4)

scenario quantification; 5) scenario evaluation. The four first steps are mainly the scenario

Scope of the

Scenario

Defining the

Stakeholders

Determining the

Policies Considered

on the scenario

Identification Scenario Elements

Themes Targets Indicators Timeline

Identification of Driving Forces and

assumptions about their developments

Defining Scenario Framework

Defining Scenario Narratives

(Current State& Trend, End Picture, Timeline, Name of Scenario)

Quantification of Scenario

(Modelling)

Evaluation

(Communication and feed back)

Global, and city

driving forces of

land use and

developments

(consideration)

1

2

3

4

Present

situation



40

development process, while the evaluation process is identified as separated step, as part of

research. However, the evaluation process still important as part of the whole scenario

development process.

1) Identifying the purpose and structure of the scenario includes three main steps: identifying

scope of the scenario, identifying stakeholders, and potential policies considered during the

scenario exercise.

This stage needs careful thinking as the early stage significantly determines the quality of

scenario exercise. the clear view about the scenario should be revealed, including the issue

which the scenario want to address, goal of scenario exercise, the certain policies and vision as

scenario consideration, and the relevant stakeholders involved during the scenario exercise.

2) Identification of scenario elements includes themes, targets, indicators, and timeline of the

scenario.

The story of present situation and future goal want to achieve are important for providing

background for scenario themes. In theme identification, it is important also to think about the

broader range of future possibilities, either near or long term.

Specific target, related to the policy and theme of the scenario, should be indicate including also

constrain should be avoided.

The indicators are used for characterizing the system of interest. They are important for

enhancing and elaborating the scenario narratives and provide measures by which to partially

evaluate the scenarios against key criteria (Jager et al., 2007).

Based on the target and policies the timeline of the scenario can be defined, because such a

target and policies might indicate the time when the target and goal want to be real. This

timeline can be used for the initial timeline of the scenario exercise.

3) Identification of scenario foundation consist of identification of driving force and assumption

about their developments, defining global and city development driving force as considerations,

defining scenario framework, and at last constructing scenario storyline.

The driving force of the development considered in the scenario exercise comes from either

global or local level. Global driving forces often influence the situation at the local level.

Specifically, the drivers at global level are adopted into local driving forces for giving the

foundation of the scenario exercise. The assumption about the possibility of the development of

each driving force also should be determined, whether they are increase or decrease. This

assumption of development can be used for defining the possibility of certain driving force is

regarded or not during the scenario exercise. On the other words, the higher the influence of

the driving forces towards future development, the bigger the possibility of the driving forces to

be included during scenario exercise.



41

A scenario framework can be defined by combining the critical uncertainties of each driver.

Critical uncertainty is a driver that is especially important in determining how the future evolves

but whose future development is highly unpredictable (Jager et al., 2007). The drivers with high

importance and high uncertainty are used for defining scenario framework. Later on, the critical

uncertainties are combined for defining the scenario framework. Select the combinations which

cover the goal, policies, and issue want to address on the scenario exercise.

At last, the scenario storylines are defines clearly by elaborating the clear narratives about

current state, end picture, timeline of the scenario.

4) The quantification of scenario is done by modelling the scenario based on parameter and criteria

developed on the scenario storyline. The modelling is conducted by using modelling software i.e

CommunityViz.

5) Last but not least is evaluation of scenario. this part are separated from the process of scenario

development because it is mainly part of research, but still some part s are used as the

communication tools and getting feedback towards the scenario developed by using expert or

stakeholder evaluation.



42



43

6 QUALITATIVE SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

Scenario development on this research uses integration of qualitative and quantitative approach, and

stakeholder participations. Participatory approach gives possibility to stakeholders from a variety of

background brings together in the specific goal of common view on the possible future of the area.

Whereas, qualitative technique helps to encourage discussion, exchange of thought and identify

conflicts among stakeholders (Patel et al., 2005).

Within this research, stakeholder involvements were emphasized during scenario development process.

In dept qualitative interview and group discussion with relevant stakeholders were used. The next

sections focus on the preparatory works of scenario development, including selecting stakeholders and

defining scenario specification; followed by brief description of stakeholder group discussion in scenario

development process. During this process, there are 3 main questions should be answered: 1) why are

the exercise being done?; 2)who should be involved?; 3) what are the key elements required to

structure the process? (Jager et al., 2007).

There are two main steps were done in this process:

1. Preparation

- Stakeholders selection

- Defining Scenario Specification

2. Qualitative scenario development

The specification of each process are explained on the next sections

6.1 Selecting Stakeholders

As complex process of scenario development, stakeholder involvement is important. Stakeholder is an

individual or group who has an interest in the process and/ or outcome of a specific project and can

potentially benefit from that project (Liu et al, 2008). Furthermore, IEA (2007) defines stakeholders in

environmental matter as an individual or group whose interests are affected by environmental problems

or whose decisions have environmental effects; who have information, resources or expertise required

for policy formulation and strategy implementation; or who control key mechanisms for policy and

strategy formulation and implementation. Furthermore, creation of local scenario is depending upon the

knowledge of parties who those familiar with the immediate situation and concerned and affected by

decision making in that area (Patel et al., 2005). So, local stakeholders with different institutional

background and knowledge need to be included.

The first preparation step of scenario development is selecting stakeholder. Stakeholder selection was

conducted based on literature review and document planning review. From those reviews, the

stakeholders commonly involve during scenario development and land use planning process can be

identified.



44

By Comparing stakeholders involve from both literature and planning document review, and discussion

with a local planner; some stakeholders can be identified. Some factors were considered in choosing

stakeholders, including time, easiness to access, and representation. Time should be considered first

when selecting stakeholders, because it related to the allocation time during field work and research.

Easiness to access the stakeholders is also important, because in reality, there are some important

stakeholders should be included in the process, but it is difficult for getting access and meet them.

Representation means that selected stakeholders should come from various institutional background

and knowledge, so that their perspectives can be canvassed for more relevant scenario, which

represents many interests. The roles of selected stakeholders during scenario development process

were also defined.

6.2 Defining Scenario Specification

Jager et al., (2007), define scenario specification as the nature and scope o of the scenario. This

research used terms of “scenario specification”, because it includes specific basic matters of scenario

systems. Scenario specification includes main problem or issue want to be addressed in the scenario,

goal of scenario exercise, scenario typology and timeline of scenario set. Scenario specification was

defined based on informal discussion with Surabaya planners during preparation works, as the initial

idea before formal discussion scenario development process was done.

Figure 6.1. Preparation Works of Scenario Development

Literature Review Document Planning

Review

List of Stakeholders

involve in scenarioList of Stakeholders involve

in Land Use Planning

Analysis and Discussion

(Time, easiness to access,

representation)

List of Stakeholders

Planner perceptions

Scenario Specifications

(Major issue, Goal, timeline)

Involving stakholders

Researcher responsibility

Notes:



45

6.3 Qualitative Scenario Development

Generally, scenario development process following steps of built methodological approach. But, during

field work, some steps are simplified, due to limited time, and stakeholder understand ability.

As mentioned before, scenario development integrates stakeholder involvement, qualitative scenario

exercise and numerical modelling. Numerical modelling will be explained separately on the next chapter

of scenario quantification/Modelling land use scenario.

Based on built methodological approach there are five main steps during scenario development,

including : 1) identifying the purpose and structure of the scenario; 2) identifying scenario elements; 3)

identifying scenario foundations; 4) scenario quantification; 5) scenario evaluation. However, the first

three steps are simplified to make it more realistic and applicable.

The first step of “identifying the purpose and structure of scenario” was conducted previously at the

beginning of the process. This process only involved researcher and three planners. Stakeholders and

scenario specification was concluded based on discussion results.

The second step of identification scenario elements; consisting of identifying present situation, themes,

targets, and indicators; was simplified into defining set of relevant elements for scenario. Terms of

“relevant elements” resembles Walz et al., (2007) to simplify the themes, target and indicators of

scenario. The third step of identifying scenario foundation was simplified into identification of driving

forces and defining qualitative scenario. Both two steps involved stakeholders during the process.

Whereas, the next step of scenario parameterization and quantification are purely researcher works,

explained on the specific part of scenario quantification and modelling.

The simplified step is shown by figure 6.2.



46

Figure 6.2. Simplified Process of Scenario Development

6.3.1 Identifying issues as critical elements of Scenario

Critical elements of scenario are identified based on land use planning issue both emerging and

indicated on the study area. Elements identified based on direct meeting and discussion with

stakeholders.

Stakeholders

perspectives

(Local knowledge)

Critical element and issues

considered on scenario

Set of Relevant elements

Qualitative Scenario

Impact Matrix, and System Graph of

Elements

Driving Forces , and their

development possibilities

Document planning

review

Policy Considered

Parameterization/Scenario

Quantification

Future State

(Stakeholder expectation)

Involving stakholders

Researcher responsibility

Notes:



47

Technically, direct discussion was conducted with all seven stakeholders except real estate developers

during field work. Planners and academicians were gathered in formal discussion, while private land use

planning consultant and representative of society group were interviewed separately.

Before starting to identify elements, the stakeholders were introduced to the example of scenario

exercise and how will the process going on, what kind of scenario developed, and what is the

visualization of each developed scenario; to give better understanding of stakeholders towards scenario

development. This process resembles the brainstorming process in collaborative workshops for defining

value-thinking approach for scenario development ( Wynsberghe et al., 2003).

Formal discussion with planners and academicians was conducted within 5 days effectively, and

followed by informal consultations. In formal discussion, the identified issue/element as the results of

initial interview with real estate developers, private land use consultant, and representative of society

group. During formal discussion relevant elements of scenario and driving forces of land use

development of the study area were identified.



48

Figure 6.3. Discussions and Stakeholders involved

6.3.2 Condensation of Elements

The emerging issues of study area identified on the previous step are then condensed into more

simplified elements for scenario consideration. The condensation process was conducted through

formal discussion with planners and academicians, by aggregation of elements and by eliminating single

elements as agreed.

6.3.3 Impact Matrix

The aggregated critical elements then selected into set of relevant elements, which have interrelation

among them. Symmetrical impact Matrix is used during the selections, so that the impact of one

Discussion with real

estate developers

(initail discussion)

Discussion with land use

planning consultant

Discussion with

representative of

society group

List of critical

elements/issuesDiscussion with

Surabaya Planners

Discussion with

experts/academicians

List of relevant

Policies

Brainstorming

Process

Informal discussion

Formal discussion

Notes:



49

element on any other could be estimated within the matrix in a rating score (Walz, et al., 2007). During

this process only academicians were involved, with objectivity reason.

The stakeholders from academicians were asked to assess only direct impacts of one element on

another, and ignoring their indirect impacts. A four level rating scale was used : “0”= no or very little

impact; “1”= medium impact; “2”= high impact; “3”= very high impact. The filled matrices of two

participants were then combined and get average ranking of it. The impact matrix indicates “impact

strength” and “involvement” (Walz, et al, 2007 after Scholz and Tieje, 2002). Sum of row=”active sum”,

while sum of column = “passive sum”. The “impact strength” is calculated by dividing active sum by

passive sum. It identifies the element that has strong impacts on other elements, and prone to external

impacting. If the ratio is >1, the element has an active role in the system, while the ratio is <1, the

element is strongly influenced by other elements (Walz, et al., 2007). The “involvement” is the

multiplication result of active and passive sum, and shows how strong is the inter link between element

and system.

The Impact matrix calculation resulted in the most relevant elements for scenario, which then were

drawn into system graph. The system graph shows the interrelationship among element on the system,

which shows by the connecting arrows. Connecting arrows were only drawn for strong relationship, for

the score of 2,5 or more, and also for simplifying the system graph.

6.3.4 Identifying Policies

Instead of determining relevant elements for land use scenario of the study area, it is important also to

determine relevant policy. Because policy also has vital role in determining future land use direction of

the study area. The possible policy should be considered in the scenario was discussed with both

academicians and planners.

6.3.5 Driving Forces and Possibility of their development

Driving forces of land use development are identified based on literature review and land use of study

area condition. Firstly, researcher reviewed some literatures about global driving forces commonly used

in scenario developments. Then during formal meeting, especially on the brainstorming session these

examples of global driving forces were explained to the discussion members. On the other words, Global

driving forces are used as consideration and give better understanding to stakeholders in determining

local driving forces of land use development.

Local Driving Forces of development in the study area are then identified. The driving forces consider

more on existing driving forces of development, and also possible future driving forces in the future.

Instead of driving forces of development, development thresholds were also identified, as

consideration. The identified thresholds are then analyzed, whether it will have big impact on the future

or not.



50

The identified driving forces were then classified into two class based on controllability of their future

possibility, including controllable and uncontrollable drivers, Borjeson et al., (2006) characterizes them

into internal and external factors. Controllable means that the driving forces are developed inside the

system, and can be controlled by system manager (local government, society etc), while uncontrollable

means that the drivers are naturally given in the system, and system manager has limited and even no

intervention towards the drivers. This controllable and uncontrollable classification of each driving force

is important for scenario quantification process.

The relevant elements of land use development in the study area are then correlated to the derived

driving forces, based on consultation results to academicians. System Graph of main elements of land

use development in the study area, and their driving forces was also drawn to give better understanding

of their interrelationships.

Discussion about driving forces continued with the current state (in 2009) of each driving forces and

their possibility of future state in the next twenty year (2029). The current state identified based on

current condition of each driving forces, whereas future states identified based on planner and

researcher perceptions about the future of driving forces and also the statement in the planning

document.

6.3.6 Future State of the Study Area

Future states of the study area are also identified based on perception and expectation of stakeholders.

Interview or informal discussion was conducted to all stakeholders to explore their expectation and

“dream” about the future state of the study area. The future state based on stakeholders expectation

can give end vision framework of quantitative scenario, and give direction how should scenario ended.

6.3.7 Qualitative scenario

As mentioned previously, to get a coherent set of the most relevant set for the scenarios, some

elements should be aggregated. Based on relevant elements, a system graph was developed displaying

interrelation among elements. The formulation process of defining qualitative scenario is illustrated by

figure 6.4



51

Figure 6.4. Qualitative Scenario formulation process

The last part of developing qualitative scenario is defining specification of qualitative scenario. Based on

above figure, qualitative scenario was developed by formal and informal discussion with planners and

academicians. Qualitative scenario considers major issue want to address, goal of scenario exercise set

of relevant elements and their driving forces, and also see the streams of future state based on

stakeholder expectations. Stakeholders were also asked about what kind of questions they want to get

answers from this scenario exercise about future land use. As exploratory scenario exercise, the

questions were directed to “what…if” or “how….if” type of questions. After defining scenario

frameworks, in depth discussion was also conducted to define the name of the scenario set.

Formal

Discussion

Interview

(Informal Discussion)

Relevant Elements Driving Forces

Current States

Future States

Stakeholder

expectations

(Future State of The

study area)

Qualitative scenario

What if and how

if questions

Stream of Future

State



52



53

7 QUALITATIVE SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT RESULTS

7.1 Selecting Stakeholders

Considering three factors of time, easiness to access, and representation; and discussion with a

Surabaya Planner and, seven key persons are chosen. They are three Surabaya planners as local

government representatives, two experts from academician, one representative from society group,

and one private land use planning consultant. Furthermore, the idea of four real estate developers

in the study area was also canvassed, for better input in scenario development. The selected

stakeholders come from different institutional background and knowledge. Only three respondents

have background in planning, while others have different background knowledge such as

architecture, civil engineering, and economics. The roles of each stakeholder on the scenario

development were also identified.

During the process only planners, experts, who involved actively during scenario development

process. Others were only giving some inputs for scenario development, including their elements of

scenario and their expectations about future state of the study area.

Table 7.1. list of Stakeholders according to review results

No Stakeholders

(Literature Review)

Stakeholders

(Land use planning Process in Surabaya)

1 ► Representatives of the institutions► Selected experts► Individual/group interested in

scenario development(Alcamo, 2001)

2 ► Policy makers► Individual/group who will make use

of scenario► Experts(Jager et al., 2007)

3 ► Representative of local government► Different stakeholder groups (e.g.

tourism , agriculture, developers, etc)► The general public(Walz et al., 2007)

► Surabaya Local Government► Expert and academician► Real Estate Developers► Society group► Industrial Investors

(RTRW Surabaya 2013)



54

Table 7.2. List of Stakeholders

No

Stakeholder Role

1 (3) Surabaya Planners

2 (2) experts

1. Give initial perspectives about the major issue of thestudy area

2. Involve in the whole process (Formal Discussion) ofqualitative scenario development

3 (1) society group

4 (1) private land use planconsultant

5 (4) real estate developers

Provides ideas of current issues emerge in the study area

and initial expectation towards the future land use of the

study area (informal discussion)

7.2 Scenario Specification

Based on initial discussion with planners during field work, relatively stagnant development

becomes the main problem in the study area. Stagnant means the study area experienced slower

velocity of development if compared to other area in Surabaya. It results in large undeveloped land

in the study area. Government proposed and conducted some attempts to deal with this condition.

Some of which are development of major infrastructures and road networks, and also land use

policy direction for housing development in the study area. The major threat of this area are

emerging land speculation by private land developers stimulated by major infrastructure

development and land use policy directions. Furthermore, it will impact on agriculture land

availability for the area, and environmental balance because of intensive land development.

The scenario development and analysis has goal for picturing future state of land use, if government

attempts for improving stagnant development are realized. The scenario should consider identified

elements of land use development in the study area, their driving forces.

Policy driven scenario are developed, because the developed scenarios consider more in land use

policies (mainly RTRW, RDTRK, and RTRK) and their future land use effects. Exploratory scenario

type is also chosen because the scenario set started with the present situation and trend of land use

issues in the study area, and explore the trend into the future.

The time horizon of the scenario set is from 2009 to 2029 (twenty year). Timeline of twenty year is

selected because it relates to the timeline of land use policy in the study area, either RTRW or

RDTRK. Furthermore, based on RTRW Surabaya 2013, short term - mid term planning timeline is

more preferable for planning in the district level, because it can follow the dynamicity of urban area.



55

7.3 Issues as Critical elements of Scenario

Discussion with different stakeholders indicated different points of views. Discussion started with

interview related to the emerging issue in the study area, and ended with relevant elements list

based on stakeholder perspectives. Firstly, interview and informal conducted towards real estate

developers, society representative, and private land use consultant. Results of initial discussion then

were used as input in the formal discussion with planners and academicians.

List of critical issues/elements according to stakeholder perspective are listed on the below table.

The indication of critical issue/elements for land was also identified instead of the critical issues

itself.

DEV

ELO

PIN

GA

SCEN

AR

IOD

EVEL

OP

MEN

TA

PP

RO

AC

HA

ND

THE

ALT

ERN

ATI

VE

LAN

DU

SESC

ENA

RIO

S:TH

EC

ASE

OF

PA

KA

L,B

ENO

WO

,AN

DSA

MB

IKER

EPD

ISTR

ICTS

OF

SUR

AB

AYA

CIT

Y

56

Tab

le7

.3.L

ist

of

issu

esb

ased

on

Stak

eho

lder

per

spec

tive

s

No

Issu

e

Re

alEs

tate

De

velo

pe

r

1Lo

wA

cce

ssib

ility

2La

cko

fin

fras

tru

ctu

re

3M

ajo

rIn

fras

tru

ctu

re

de

velo

pm

en

t

Tab

le7

.4.L

ist

of

crit

ical

issu

esan

dth

eir

ind

icat

ion

s

No

Issu

e

Pla

nn

ers

/Go

vern

me

nt

Exp

ert

s/A

cad

em

icia

ns

Soci

ety

gro

up

rep

rese

nta

tive

Pri

vate

Lan

du

seC

on

sult

ant

1St

agn

ant

de

velo

pm

en

tSe

ttle

me

nt

are

aLo

wac

cess

ibili

tyFo

rce

sfr

om

lan

dd

eve

lop

ers

2N

ew

sett

lem

en

tar

ea

Po

ten

tial

for

Agr

icu

ltu

reIn

fras

tru

ctu

red

eve

lop

me

nt

Infr

astr

uct

ure

de

velo

pm

en

t

3Lo

wac

cess

ibili

tyLa

nd

Spe

cula

tio

nb

yla

nd

de

velo

pe

rs

Lan

dsp

ecu

lati

on

Po

licy

dir

ect

ion

4La

cko

fin

fras

tru

ctu

reLo

wA

cce

ssib

ility

5Fl

oo

dp

lain

are

aSt

agn

ant

de

velo

pm

en

t

6M

ajo

rIn

fras

tru

ctu

re

de

velo

pm

en

t

Top

ogr

aph

ical

con

dit

ion

7U

rban

Spra

wlin

g

8In

fras

tru

ctu

red

eve

lop

me

nt

DEV

ELO

PIN

GA

SCEN

AR

IOD

EVEL

OP

MEN

TA

PP

RO

AC

HA

ND

THE

ALT

ERN

ATI

VE

LAN

DU

SESC

ENA

RIO

S:TH

EC

ASE

OF

PA

KA

L,B

ENO

WO

,AN

DSA

MB

IKER

EPD

ISTR

ICTS

OF

SUR

AB

AYA

CIT

Y

57

No

Issu

eIn

dic

atio

n

1St

agn

ant

de

velo

pm

en

tLa

nd

use

of

stu

dy

are

ais

do

min

ate

db

yu

nd

eve

lop

ed

are

a,su

chas

fish

po

nd

,gre

en

op

en

spac

ean

dp

add

yfi

eld

2N

ew

Sett

lem

en

tar

ea

Eme

rgin

gh

ou

sin

gd

eve

lop

me

nt

by

real

est

ate

de

velo

pe

rs,

em

erg

ing

lan

dac

qu

isit

ion

by

real

est

ate

de

velo

pe

rs,

larg

ear

ea

hav

elo

cati

on

pe

rmit

for

ho

usi

ng

de

velo

pm

en

t

3Lo

wac

cess

ibili

tyLi

mit

ed

road

ne

two

rkco

nn

ect

ed

the

stu

dy

are

aw

ith

the

city

cen

ter,

and

cap

acit

yo

fe

xist

ing

road

ne

two

rkd

oe

s

no

tm

ee

ttr

affi

clo

ad

4M

ajo

rin

fras

tru

ctu

red

eve

lop

me

nt

De

velo

pm

en

to

fSu

rab

aya

Spo

rtce

nte

r,d

eve

lop

me

nt

of

Maj

or

ou

ter

and

inn

er

rin

gro

ad,T

elu

kLa

mo

ng

Po

rt

5La

cko

fIn

fras

tru

ctu

reLa

cko

fu

tilit

yn

etw

ork

such

asw

ate

r,an

de

lect

rici

ty.C

apac

ity

of

exi

stin

gd

rain

age

syst

em

isin

suff

icie

nt

6P

ote

nti

alfo

rA

gric

ult

ure

Slo

pe

isb

etw

ee

n0

-15

%w

hic

hp

ote

nti

alfo

rag

ricu

ltu

re.

Go

od

qu

alit

yo

fA

gric

ult

ure

pro

du

cts

(Sa

mb

ike

rep

dis

tric

t),e

spe

cial

lyfo

rd

ryla

nd

farm

ing

pro

du

cts,

incr

eas

ing

de

man

do

fag

ricu

ltu

rep

rod

uct

fro

msu

rro

un

din

gar

ea

7La

nd

Spe

cula

tio

nLa

nd

de

velo

pe

rste

nd

tob

uy

lan

dfr

om

pe

op

lean

dla

nd

pri

cein

cre

ase

sign

ific

antl

y.

8P

olic

yd

ire

ctio

nR

TRW

dir

ect

sd

eve

lop

me

nt

toth

eu

rban

frin

ge,e

spe

cial

lyw

est

war

dan

de

astw

ard

.

9To

po

grap

hic

alco

nd

itio

nSl

op

eb

etw

ee

n0

-15

%is

suit

able

for

sett

lem

en

td

eve

lop

me

nt

10

Urb

ansp

raw

ling

Eme

rgin

gn

ew

sett

lem

en

tar

ea

inth

est

ud

yar

ea,

alo

ng

wit

hin

cre

asin

gd

em

and

of

sett

lem

en

t

11

Flo

od

pro

ne

are

aSo

me

are

asin

Be

no

wo

and

Pak

alar

efl

atar

ea

and

pro

ne

tote

mp

ora

ryfl

oo

din

g,fr

om

hig

he

rsu

rro

un

din

gar

ea

12

Forc

es

fro

mla

nd

de

velo

pe

rEm

erg

ing

lan

do

wn

ers

hip

con

vers

ion

fro

mp

op

ula

tio

nto

lan

dd

eve

lop

ers



58

These twelve critical land use issues of the study area are then formulated to be the relevant elements

should be considered on the scenario exercise, through formal discussion with planners and

academician.

7.4 Element Condensation

The twelve critical elements were simplified through condensation process, and eight elements were

defined.

Table 7.5.Set of condensed elements

No Elements Aggregation

1 Stagnant Development

2 Housing development Aggregated from new settlement area and urban sprawling

3 Accessibility

4 Infrastructure development

5 Policy direction

6 Agriculture

7 Environment Aggregated from topographical condition and flood prone issue

8 Land Developer role Aggregated from land speculation and forces from land

developers



59

7.5 Impact Matrix

Elements

Impacts

Stagna

nt

dev’t

Housin

g dev’t

access Infra

dev’t

policy Agricult’

r

Environ’

t

Land

dev’r

roles

Active

Sum

Impact

Strength

Stagnant

dev’tX 1,5 2,5 2 2 1 1 2 12 0,96

Housing dev’t 2 X 2,5 2,5 2,5 1,5 2,5 3 16 1,03

Access 2 2,5 X 3 2,5 1 1 3 15 1,03

Infra dev’t 2 2,5 2,5 X 3 1 2 2,5 15,5 1,03

Policy 2 2 2 2 X 2 2 2 14 0,82

Agricult’r 1 2,5 1 1,5 2,5 X 3 2,5 14 1,33

Environ’t 1 2 2 2 2 2,5 X 2,5 14 1,04

Land dev’r

roles2,5 2,5 2 2 2,5 1,5 2 X 15,5 0,89

Passive Sum12,5 15,5 14,5 15 17 10,5 13,5 17,5

Involvement150 248 217,5 232,5 238 147 189 271,25

Figure 7.1. Impact Matrix

Impact matrix above determines the characteristics qualities of each element. Rows indicate elements

of system, while columns indicate impacts of each element. The direct impact is only considered for

each element, ignoring indirect impact. The higher the score, the high the impact produced.

The impact matrix results in five element which has strong role in determining the land use system of

the area, including 1)housing development; 2) accessibility; 3) infrastructure development; 4) agriculture

potency; 5) environmental condition. These five elements are considered to have strong impacts on

other elements and also prone to external impacting. Their impact strength values are also >1, mean

that these elements have an active role towards the systems, in this case are land use of the study area.

The derived system graph among elements also can be drawn based on their interrelation. The

interrelation arrow are only drawn for the score of 2,5 or more to simplify the graph, and show the

strong interrelationship.



60

Figure 7.2. System Graph of Land Use Development elements, “strong element shaded in grey”

Based on impact matrix results, five derived elements were then consulted to the planners of Surabaya,

for ensuring that these elements are really play a vital role in determining land use of the study area.

7.6 Policy Identification

Planners and academician indicated that future land use should consider land use planning policies, and

some structure plan resulted from previous study.

Table 7.6.List of Policies

No Policies

1 RTRW The strategic plan for spatial implementation and

utilization of city by regarding spatial pattern and

structure, as the translation of Provincial spatial plan.

2 RDTRK A translation of RTRW into spatial utilization plan by

setting the functional region into allocation blocks, and

mapped into planning map of 1: 5000 scale or more

3 RTRK A translation of RDTRK includes geometric plan of spatial

utilization, on the planning map of 1: 1000 scale or more

Stagnant development

Land Developer role

Housing

developement

accessibility

Infrastructure

development

Policy direction

Agriculture potency

Environmental

condition



61

7.7 Scenario Driving Forces

Global driving forces identified based on literature review are:

a. Demographic

► Population growth► Urbanization

b. Economy Rapid economic growth of the city Industrial development Increasing land price

c. Environmento Environmental degradationo Reducing green open spaceo Rapid land use change

d. Organization Public participation Good governance Coordination among agents

Global driving forces are used as consideration and give better understanding to stakeholders in

determining local driving forces of land use development.

Local Driving Forces of development in the study area are identified based on formal discussion with

Surabaya Planners. The driving forces consider more on existing driving forces of development, and

also possible future driving forces in the future. Based on discussion, there are thirteen identified

possible driving forces of future land use development of the study area.

Table 7.7.List of Driving Forces and their Current State

No Driving Forces Current State

1 Road Network Development Development of western outer ring road and western inner

ring road, planned to be finished on 2012

2 Surabaya Sport Center (SSC)

Development

Surabaya Sport center located on Pakal district serves sport

activities regionally, integrated with commercial and

recreational area, planned to be finished on 2011

3 Teluk Lamong Port development Planned Teluk lamong port is extension of existing Tanjung

Perak Port, located on the coastal area of Benowo district,

planned to be started on 2011

4 Population Growth Population as the main drivers of land use changes. Even

though population growth of the study area are between 1-3%

per year, but emerging urbanization to Surabaya city has great

impact on population growth of the study area



62

5 Increasing housing demand Surabaya face backlog of housing demand ± 500.000 housing

until next 20 years. Part of it is hoped can be served by the

study area.

As the current state, new housing development are emerging

on the study area

6 Land use Policy direction RDTRK UP Sambikerep 2029 (covering Pakal and Sambikerep

Districts) directs development of the area into “ settlement

area based on urban agriculture, agro industry and eco

tourism”

RDTRK UP Tambakosowilangung 2017 (covering Benowo

district) directs development of the area into “waterfront city

and commercial area”.

7 Developer role in land development In the study area emerges the development of formal housing

developed by real estate (private) developers. Moreover, large

area have location permits for housing development

8 Availability of undeveloped land Undeveloped area dominates about 60% of total area,

attracting people mainly private developers to invest there.

9 Demand of agriculture products Sambikerep has good potency for dry land agriculture, such as

fruits, and vegetables.

Increasing demands of its agriculture products come from

other area, because of their good quality.

10 Topographical Condition Relatively flat area, slope 0-15%, which has potency for

housing and agriculture

12 Development of Surabaya barat

Hospital

Hospital has been developed and planned to be used in 2011

13 Tambak Osowilangun bus terminal Exsisting Tambak Osowilangun Bus terminal as main gate of

Surabaya. Connecting Surabaya to other cities along northern

coast of Java, and planned to be optimally use in the future

According to table 7.8, the driving forces can be classified into two class based on controllability of

their future possibility, including controllable and uncontrollable drivers. Controllable means that

the driving forces are developed inside the system, and can be controlled by system manager (local

government, society etc), while uncontrollable means that the drivers are naturally given in the

system, and system manager has limited and even no intervention towards the drivers. This

controllable and uncontrollable classification of each driving force is important for scenario

quantification process.



63

Table 7.8.Driving Forces classification

No Driving Forces Classification

1 Road Network Development controllable Physical development can be

controlled

2 Surabaya Sport Center (SSC) Development controllable Physical development can be

controlled

3 Teluk Lamong Port development controllable Physical development can be

controlled

4 Population Growth Uncontrollable Policy of population control comes

from national level, and only limited

intervention can be done

5 Increasing housing demand uncontrollable Related to uncertain population

growth

6 Land use Policy direction controllable Based on government policy

7 Developer role in land development controllable Policy can regulate land development

process

8 Availability of undeveloped land controllable Can be controlled by regulation

9 Demand of agriculture products uncontrollable Uncertain, based of people willingness

to pay

10 Topographical Condition uncontrollable Naturally given

12 Development of Surabaya Barat Hospital controllable Physical development can be

controlled

13 Tambak Osowilangun bus terminal controllable Physical development can be

controlled

Elements of land use development in the study area, are then correlated to the derived driving

forces, based on consultation results to academicians.

Table 7.9.Relevant elements and their driving forces

No Elements Driving Forces

1 Accessibility Road Network development (Western outer andinner ring road)

Teluk Lamong Port Development Tambak Osowilangun Bus Terminal

2 Agriculture potency Demand of agriculture product Availability of undeveloped land Topographical condition

3 Infrastructure development SSC development Teluk Lamong Port development Surabaya Barat Hospital



64

4 Housing development Population Growth Housing demand Developer role in land development Land Use Policy Availability of undeveloped land

5 Environment Land use policy Topographical condition

Threshold of development

Existing Final Disposal

Flood plain area

These two thresholds of development do not have big influence towards development, because

government has applied some efforts to minimize their impacts, so that two thresholds can be

ignored in scenario development process.

System Graph of relevant elements of land use development in the study area, and their driving

forces

Figure 7.3. System Graph of relevant elements and their driving forces

As the stakeholders and policy emphasized more in housing development and attempts to develop

the study area, main driving forces are then selected from above relationship system graph.

Discussion resulted in population as main driving forces in the system, because population growth

Government attempts and Policy direction

Stagnant development

Housing developement

Population Growth

Housing demand

Land Developer Role

Land Use Policy

Available land

Accessibility

Road Network Development

Teluk Lamong PortDevelopment

Tambak Osowilangun BusTerminal

Infrastructure development:

SSC Developemnt

Teluk Lamong PortDevelopment

Surabaya Barat Hospital

Agriculture potency

Demand of AgricultureProducts

Topographical Condition

Environmental condition

Topographical Condition

Land use policy



65

can drives almost all components in the system. For example, it can drive housing demand, the need

of infrastructure provision, the need of agricultural product, and even indirectly influencing

environmental condition. Another consideration is that, planning document of the study area in

both city and detail level also consider population to determine future development, and state

possible density in the study area.

Discussion about driving forces continued with the current state (in 2009) of each driving forces and

their possibility of future state in the next twenty year (2029). The current state identified based on

current condition of each driving forces, whereas future states identified based on planner and

researcher perceptions about the future of driving forces and also the statement in the planning

document.

DEV

ELO

PIN

GA

SCEN

AR

IOD

EVEL

OP

MEN

TA

PP

RO

AC

HA

ND

THE

ALT

ERN

ATI

VE

LAN

DU

SESC

ENA

RIO

S:TH

EC

ASE

OF

PA

KA

L,B

ENO

WO

,AN

DSA

MB

IKER

EPD

ISTR

ICTS

OF

SUR

AB

AYA

CIT

Y

66

Tab

le7

.10

.Fu

ture

Dev

elo

pm

ent

po

ssib

iliti

eso

fea

chd

rivi

ng

forc

es

No

Dri

vin

gFo

rce

sC

urr

ent

stat

e(2

00

9)

Futu

rest

ate

(20

29

)

1R

oad

Ne

two

rk

De

velo

pm

en

t

Exis

tin

gro

adn

etw

ork

islim

ite

d,

esp

eci

ally

con

ne

ctio

n

be

twe

en

Pak

alan

dSa

mb

ike

rep

Dis

tric

tsw

ith

city

cen

ter

We

ste

rno

ute

ran

din

ne

rri

ng

road

and

imp

rove

me

nt

of

road

cap

acit

y

esp

eci

ally

inJl

.Se

me

mi,

Jala

nB

en

ow

o,

and

acce

ssto

SSC

hav

eb

ee

n

com

ple

ted

(RD

TRK

Sam

bik

ere

p2

02

9)

2Su

rab

aya

Spo

rt

Ce

nte

r(S

SC)

De

velo

pm

en

t

Still

inD

eve

lop

me

nt

pro

cess

.P

lan

ne

dto

be

com

ple

ted

in2

01

1.

ith

asb

ee

nst

imu

late

lan

dac

qu

isit

ion

by

pri

vate

de

velo

pe

rsin

the

surr

ou

nd

ing

are

a

SSC

has

be

en

de

velo

pe

din

toce

nte

ro

fre

gio

nal

spo

rtac

tivi

tie

s,

com

ple

ted

by

com

me

rcia

lan

dp

ub

licfa

cilit

ies.

The

are

asu

rro

un

din

gh

as

be

en

de

velo

pe

din

toh

ou

sin

gan

dco

mm

erc

iala

rea

(esp

eci

ally

alo

ng

road

corr

ido

r)

(Pla

nn

er

pe

rce

pti

on

and

RD

TRK

Tam

bak

oso

wila

ngu

n2

01

7)

3Te

luk

Lam

on

g

Po

rt

de

velo

pm

en

t

Pla

nn

ing

Pro

cess

Stim

ula

ted

eve

lop

me

nt

of

ind

ust

rial

de

velo

pm

en

tsu

rro

un

din

ge

xist

ing

ind

ust

iala

rea

inth

en

ort

he

rnp

art

of

Be

no

wo

Dis

tric

ts

(Pla

nn

er

pe

rce

pti

on

)

4P

op

ula

tio

n

Gro

wth

Po

pu

lati

on

de

nsi

tyis

abo

ut

2.3

04

po

p/K

m2

P

op

ula

tio

nd

en

sity

bas

ed

on

tre

nd

ori

en

ted

(Pro

ject

ion

Po

pu

lati

on

bas

ed

on

Cu

rre

nt

tre

nd

)

P

op

ula

tio

nd

en

sity

Bas

ed

on

targ

et

ori

en

ted

10

.50

0p

op

/Km

2

(RD

TRSa

mb

iker

epan

dTa

mb

ako

sow

ilan

gun

)

5In

cre

asin

g

ho

usi

ng

de

man

d

Ho

usi

ng

De

man

d

Wit

has

sum

pti

on

:fa

mily

me

mb

er

is5

pe

op

le(K

ep

Me

n

PU

37

8/K

PTS

/19

87

)

Ho

usi

ng

de

man

d:

Tr

en

do

rie

nte

d1

4.6

73

Un

it*

Ta

rge

tO

rie

nte

d9

3.3

15

Un

it*

(an

alys

isb

ase

do

nP

op

ula

tio

nG

row

than

das

sum

ing

fam

ilysi

ze=5

pe

op

le)

6La

nd

use

Po

licy

RD

TRK

Sam

bik

ere

p(P

akal

&Sa

mb

ike

rep

Dis

tric

t)

Pak

alan

dSa

mb

ike

rep

Dis

tric

tsas

Ne

wSe

ttle

me

nt

are

ain

tegr

ate

d

DEV

ELO

PIN

GA

SCEN

AR

IOD

EVEL

OP

MEN

TA

PP

RO

AC

HA

ND

THE

ALT

ERN

ATI

VE

LAN

DU

SESC

ENA

RIO

S:TH

EC

ASE

OF

PA

KA

L,B

ENO

WO

,AN

DSA

MB

IKER

EPD

ISTR

ICTS

OF

SUR

AB

AYA

CIT

Y

67

dir

ect

ion

20

29

R

DTR

KTa

mb

akO

soW

ilan

gun

(Be

no

wo

Dis

tict

)2

01

7

wit

hag

ricu

ltu

re(U

rban

Farm

ing)

(RD

TRK

Sam

bik

ere

p2

02

9)

B

en

ow

oD

istr

ict

asW

ate

rfro

nt

city

,w

ith

com

me

rcia

l,se

ttle

me

nt

and

ind

ust

rial

de

velo

pm

en

t.(R

DTR

Tam

bak

oso

wila

ngu

n2

01

7)

7D

eve

lop

er

role

inla

nd

de

velo

pm

en

t

Ab

ou

t8

0%

of

lan

dis

ow

ne

db

yso

cie

tyan

dla

nd

de

velo

pe

rs

Ass

um

eth

atab

ou

t6

0%

of

ho

usi

ng

de

velo

pm

en

tis

con

du

cte

db

yp

riva

te

de

velo

pe

rs

(Pla

nn

er

pe

rce

pti

on

)

8A

vaila

bili

tyo

f

un

de

velo

pe

d

lan

d

Ab

ou

t6

0%

of

the

are

ais

still

un

de

velo

pe

d.

Incl

ud

ing

fish

po

nd

,gre

en

op

en

spac

e,a

nd

agri

cult

ure

lan

d)

At

leas

t2

0-3

0%

of

un

de

velo

pe

dla

nd

isp

rese

rve

din

togr

ee

no

pe

nsp

ace

and

con

serv

atio

nar

ea

(Pla

nn

er

pe

rce

pti

on

)

9D

em

and

of

agri

cult

ure

pro

du

cts

Pak

alan

dSa

mb

ike

rep

Dis

tric

tp

rod

uce

dry

lan

d

agri

cult

ure

pro

du

cts,

such

asfr

uit

and

vege

tab

les.

De

man

do

fit

sp

rod

uct

sco

me

sfr

om

Sura

bay

aci

tyit

self

and

oth

er

are

as.D

em

and

incr

eas

es

day

by

day

Agr

icu

ltu

rela

nd

cove

rsab

ou

t3

0%

of

tota

lare

ain

Pak

al

and

Sam

bik

ere

pd

istr

icts

.,w

ith

abso

rbab

ou

t2

,7%

of

tota

lem

plo

yme

nt

In

cre

asin

gd

em

and

of

agri

cult

ure

pro

du

cts

and

,ag

ricu

ltu

rein

ten

sifi

cati

on

,as

sum

ed

de

cre

asin

gag

ricu

ltu

rela

nd

,an

dd

ecr

eas

ing

em

plo

yme

nt

inag

ricu

ltu

re

A

ssu

me

dth

atag

ricu

ltu

rela

nd

de

cre

ase

dan

de

ven

lost

be

cau

seo

fin

cre

asin

gla

nd

de

man

dfo

rd

eve

lop

me

nt,

and

pe

op

leb

eh

avio

ur

tose

llth

eir

lan

dfo

rd

eve

lop

me

nt

(pla

nn

er

pe

rce

pti

on

)

10

Top

ogr

aph

ical

Co

nd

itio

n

Re

lati

vely

flat

are

a,an

dso

me

are

ais

flo

od

pro

ne

are

a.

som

ear

ea

inP

akal

and

Be

no

wo

dis

tric

tsis

swam

py

and

use

das

fish

po

nd

and

salt

po

nd

Swam

py

are

aas

sum

ed

can

be

chan

ged

into

de

velo

pe

dar

ea

(Pla

nn

er

pe

rce

pti

on

)

11

Sura

bay

aB

arat

Ith

asb

ee

nb

uilt

and

pla

nn

ed

tob

eo

pe

rate

din

20

11

He

alth

serv

ice

cen

tre

for

Sura

bay

aB

arat

and

surr

ou

nd

ing

are

a

DEV

ELO

PIN

GA

SCEN

AR

IOD

EVEL

OP

MEN

TA

PP

RO

AC

HA

ND

THE

ALT

ERN

ATI

VE

LAN

DU

SESC

ENA

RIO

S:TH

EC

ASE

OF

PA

KA

L,B

ENO

WO

,AN

DSA

MB

IKER

EPD

ISTR

ICTS

OF

SUR

AB

AYA

CIT

Y

68

Ho

spit

al(R

DTR

Tam

bak

oso

wila

gun

20

17

)

12

Tam

bak

Oso

Wila

ngu

nB

us

Term

inal

As

Sura

bay

aga

te,

con

ne

cte

dSu

rab

aya

too

the

rci

tie

sin

the

no

rth

ern

coas

to

fJa

va.

Eve

nth

ogh

,to

day

itis

no

t

op

tim

ally

use

d

Op

tim

ally

use

das

tran

spo

rtat

ion

gate

of

Sura

bay

aB

arat

,al

on

gw

ith

incr

eas

ing

road

ne

two

rkp

erf

orm

ance

.

(RD

TRTa

mb

ako

sow

ilagu

n2

01

7)



69

7.8 Future State of the Study area

For giving better framework or scenario stream, expected future state of the study area are

identified. Future state can be drawn from the expectation of stakeholders towards future land use

of the study area. Different stakeholders identified different perceptions and expectations.

Table 7.11.Future state of land use based on stakeholder expectations

No Stakeholders Stakeholder Expectations

1 Planners (Local

Government)

New satisfy settlement area has good accessibility towards road and

other infrastructure, and considering environmental aspects.

Development of commercial area along road corridor, More strict land

use regulation and control.

2 Academicians Urban farming concept, new settlement area with low density, good

infrastructure provision and accessibility, and more green open space

3 Real Estate developers New emerging settlement area, commercial and service development,

have good accessibility to road and infrastructure, easier process in land

development permit process.

4 Private Consultant New settlement area developed by real estate developers, considering

environmental aspects, and urban farming

5 Society Group

representative

Good accessibility and better infrastructure provision, agriculture as

part of urban environment.

According to list of stakeholder expectation, it can be concluded that there are two main streams of

future development in the study area. The first stream is identified by planners, academician, private

consultant, and community group, expecting new settlement area, good accessibility and

infrastructure improvement, and either preserving agriculture land, and more green open space for

balancing environmental condition. The second stream is identified by real estate developers,

expecting emerging new settlement, and commercial area with good accessibility and infrastructure

provision, and ignoring preservation of agriculture land

7.9 Qualitative Scenario

Five relevant elements of scenario are identified through previous process, which are accessibility,

housing development, infrastructure development, agriculture potency, and environmental aspects.

Based on scenario specification, the goal of this scenario development is for picturing future state of

land use in the study area if attempts of government in improving stagnant development can be

realized. Government emphasizes more in housing development and attempts which stimulate

development of the area.

Two streams of expectations delivered the scenario formulation into two kinds of questions want to

be answered by the end of scenario exercise, including:



70

a. “How would future land use of the study area if emerging housing development continued along

with intensive developer role in housing development, and physical infrastructure development,

while agriculture potency is ignored”

b. “How would future land use of the study area if housing development is along with physical

infrastructure development, part of agriculture land preserved as urban farming and consider

more in environmental aspects”.

According to in depth discussion with stakeholders from academicians, two scenario sets were

defined to meet the expectation about future state of land use, namely “built out housing

development” and “balance housing development”. Qualitative scenario specification is illustrated in

the table 7.12.

DEV

ELO

PIN

GA

SCEN

AR

IOD

EVEL

OP

MEN

TA

PP

RO

AC

HA

ND

THE

ALT

ERN

ATI

VE

LAN

DU

SESC

ENA

RIO

S:TH

EC

ASE

OF

PA

KA

L,B

ENO

WO

,AN

DSA

MB

IKER

EPD

ISTR

ICTS

OF

SUR

AB

AYA

CIT

Y

71

Tab

le7

.12

.Qu

alit

ativ

eSc

enar

io

No

Elem

ents

Dri

vin

gFo

rces

Scen

ario

Bu

iltO

ut

ho

usi

ng

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Bal

ance

Ho

usi

ng

Dev

elo

pm

ent

1A

cce

ssib

ility

R

oad

Ne

two

rkd

eve

lop

me

nt

(We

ste

rno

ute

ran

din

ne

rri

ng

road

)

Telu

kLa

mo

ng

Po

rtD

eve

lop

me

nt

Ta

mb

akO

sow

ilan

gun

Bu

sTe

rmin

al

A

cce

ssib

ility

incr

eas

ed

alo

ng

wit

hro

adn

etw

ork

de

velo

pm

en

t,p

ort

de

velo

pm

en

tan

do

pti

mal

use

of

bu

ste

rmin

al

De

velo

pm

en

to

fco

mm

erc

ial

are

aal

on

gro

adco

rrid

ors

D

eve

lop

me

nt

of

ind

ust

rial

are

ain

the

surr

ou

nd

ing

exi

stin

gin

du

stri

alar

ea

(20

09

)e

spe

cial

lycl

ose

top

ort

A

cce

ssib

ility

incr

eas

ed

alo

ng

wit

hro

adn

etw

ork

de

velo

pm

en

t,p

ort

de

velo

pm

en

tan

do

pti

mal

use

of

bu

ste

rmin

al

De

velo

pm

en

to

fco

mm

erc

ial

are

ain

alo

ng

road

corr

ido

rs

De

velo

pm

en

to

fin

du

stri

alar

ea

inth

esu

rro

un

din

ge

xist

ing

ind

ust

rial

are

a(2

00

9)

esp

eci

ally

clo

seto

po

rt

2A

gric

ult

ure

po

ten

cy

De

man

do

fag

ricu

ltu

rep

rod

uct

A

vaila

bili

tyo

fu

nd

eve

lop

ed

lan

d

Top

ogr

aph

ical

con

dit

ion

In

cre

asin

gd

em

and

of

agri

cult

ure

pro

du

ct,

bu

tin

ten

sive

agri

cult

ure

lan

dco

nve

rsio

n

De

cre

ase

and

eve

nlo

sto

fag

ricu

ltu

rela

nd

P

oss

ibili

tyo

fco

nve

rsio

nal

lava

ilab

lela

nd

wh

ich

issu

itab

lefo

rd

eve

lop

me

nt

into

de

velo

pe

dar

ea,

incl

ud

ing

agri

cult

ure

lan

d

In

cre

asin

gd

em

and

of

agri

cult

ure

pro

du

ct,

bu

tin

ten

sive

agri

cult

ure

lan

dco

nve

rsio

n

De

cre

asin

gag

ricu

ltu

rela

nd

P

rese

rve

atle

ast

20

%o

fag

ricu

ltu

rela

nd

for

urb

anfa

rmin

g

3In

fras

tru

ctu

re

de

velo

pm

en

t

SS

Cd

eve

lop

me

nt

Te

luk

Lam

on

gP

ort

de

velo

pm

en

t

Sura

bay

aB

arat

Ho

spit

al

In

ten

sive

De

velo

pm

en

to

fh

ou

sin

gan

dco

mm

erc

ial

are

asu

rro

un

din

gm

ajo

rin

fras

tru

ctu

re

D

eve

lop

me

nt

of

ho

usi

ng

and

com

me

rcia

lar

ea

surr

ou

nd

ing

maj

or

infr

astr

uct

ure

4H

ou

sin

gd

eve

lop

me

nt

P

op

ula

tio

nG

row

th

Ho

usi

ng

de

man

d

De

velo

pe

rro

lein

lan

dd

eve

lop

me

nt

La

nd

Use

Po

licy

A

vaila

bili

tyo

fu

nd

eve

lop

ed

lan

d

Fo

llow

ing

targ

et

ori

en

ted

of

po

pu

lati

on

gro

wth

H

ou

sin

gd

em

and

follo

win

gta

rge

to

rie

nte

dp

op

ula

tio

ngr

ow

th

Inte

nsi

vero

leo

fp

riva

ted

eve

lop

er

inh

ou

sin

gd

eve

lop

me

nt

P

oss

ibili

tyto

con

vert

all

suit

able

lan

dfo

rh

ou

sin

g

De

velo

pm

en

to

fsm

all

tom

ed

ium

Fo

llow

ing

tre

nd

ori

en

ted

of

po

pu

lati

on

gro

wth

H

ou

sin

gd

eve

lop

me

nt

follo

win

gtr

en

do

rie

nte

do

fp

op

ula

tio

ngr

ow

th

Po

ssib

ility

toco

nve

rt7

0%

of

suit

able

lan

dfo

rh

ou

sin

g

De

velo

pm

en

to

fsm

allt

ob

igh

ou

sin

g

DEV

ELO

PIN

GA

SCEN

AR

IOD

EVEL

OP

MEN

TA

PP

RO

AC

HA

ND

THE

ALT

ERN

ATI

VE

LAN

DU

SESC

ENA

RIO

S:TH

EC

ASE

OF

PA

KA

L,B

ENO

WO

,AN

DSA

MB

IKER

EPD

ISTR

ICTS

OF

SUR

AB

AYA

CIT

Y

72

ho

usi

ng

5En

viro

nm

en

t

Lan

du

sep

olic

y

Top

ogr

aph

ical

con

dit

ion

P

oss

ibili

tyo

fco

nve

rsio

no

fsw

amp

yar

ea

into

de

velo

pe

dar

ea

P

rese

rve

25

%o

fla

nd

asgr

ee

no

pe

nsp

ace

P

oss

ibili

tyo

fco

nve

rsio

no

fsw

amp

yar

ea

into

de

velo

pe

dar

ea

P

rese

rve

atle

ast

30

%o

fla

nd

asgr

ee

no

pe

nsp

ace



73

7.10 Reflections of Qualitative Scenario Development Process

Walz et al (2007) emphasized more in the process of scenario development rather than its

outcomes, the use of participatory and deliberation during the formal process is important.

Scenario development process also can facilitate social learning for involved parties. Social

learning is the process in which stakeholders are able to learn together, and manage together

in order to reach more informed and relevant outcomes, and relates to the process of

“learning by doing’ (Moestert, 2003).

Reflection of can be explore from participant perspectives, process itself, and also the benefits

and drawbacks of the process.

1. Reflections on the formal discussion

By the end of formal discussion some open questions were asked to stakeholder. It aims to

identify stakeholder impressions and opinions towards scenario development process.

They also encouraged giving free comments about discussion process. The feedback from

stakeholders helps researcher to the applicability of methods developed, and the process

of scenario development itself.

According to participant answers and comments, most of stakeholders are interested in

the process of scenario development. The process is relatively easy to follow; even there

were also difficulties to grab all of the process, because participants have very limited and

even have no experience in land use scenario development process. However, they regard

that the process give them new perspectives about how to develop scenario, and

hopefully can be useful for giving different planning process views instead of commonly

used planning process in that area.

Planners’ comment also gives impression that they enthusiast with scenario development

process. They asked why they don’t involve also in modelling scenario exercise. They think

that it would be better if they also can involve in it even is not in the whole process, hoped

will support their works as planner.

The participants also suggest involving more stakeholders during the formal discussion,

not only planners and academicians but also society attach to the study area, and other

parties which has important roles in area development. It would be better to

accommodate more ideas from more people for development plan.

2. Reflections on scenario development process

In terms of process, some concluding remarks can be taken. The researcher role as

facilitator is very important to get better understanding about the whole process, because

actually scenario development process which introduced is very strange for them at the

beginning. That’s why the brainstorming process, as the initial step before formal

discussion, is very important. The use of example of developed scenario development

process and illustration scenario elements, driving forces, scenario narratives, and even

the picture as result of scenario quantifications is very useful to give basic insight about



74

the process. Actually, brainstorm process is likely the most difficult steps to do, because

stakeholders have very limited experience in scenario development.

In the first step of introducing developed methodological frameworks based on literature

review to participants, it showed that participants confused by the process and terms of

developing theme, target and indicators. They thought that it is too theoretical to be

understood. So, changes and adaptation of the process was conducted to ease and

simplify the process.

During the process, participants also have good participation for giving their ideas. All

participants actively participate during discussion. The deliberation process is relatively

manageable because it only consists of few people in a relatively small group.



75

8 SCENARIO QUANTIFICATION

Scenario Quantification is one process in scenario development to make scenario narrative

quantifiable, by using some criteria, and modelling activities for approaching scenario narratives. The

purpose of scenario quantification is to enhance and elaborate scenario narratives with quantitative

information.

Scenario narratives, explained by table 7.10 were translated into some approaching criteria and

assumption in order to get easier way in quantification. The quantification of scenario narratives

depends primarily on available data, so because of data limitation, only some parts of scenario

narratives can be quantified. While for modelling the rest, more data are needed. Scenario

quantification in this research is also limited only in housing development part, and not all scenario

narratives were quantified. Translation of scenario narratives into some approaching criteria and or

assumption is illustrated by table 8.1.

For scenario quantification, It is best to use models that are as simple as possible without being

simplistic, transparent, and rely on available data, and compared across widely differing

circumstances (Jager et al., 2007). Quantification can provide a measure of the magnitude of

qualitative scenario which important for policy response.

In term of quantification future land use scenario, there are some aspects should be considered in

the modelling process, such as future demand, available land supply, driving forces which determine

demand, and suitability for certain development to represent common people desirability. In this

case, future demand represented by number of additional housing unit needed in the future to

accommodate possible population growth. Land supply represents available land for development in

the future. Available means land which has possibility to be developed and assigned to certain

development based on certain land use policy. Driving forces is factors which drive future demand

such as population growth in this case. At last, suitability is level of how suitable certain land for

development by considering criteria as people preferences.

DEV

ELO

PIN

GA

SCEN

AR

IOD

EVEL

OP

MEN

TA

PP

RO

AC

HA

ND

THE

ALT

ERN

ATI

VE

LAN

DU

SESC

ENA

RIO

S:TH

EC

ASE

OF

PA

KA

L,B

ENO

WO

,AN

DSA

MB

IKER

EPD

ISTR

ICTS

OF

SUR

AB

AYA

CIT

Y

76

Tab

le8

.1.T

ran

slat

ion

of

Qu

alit

ativ

esc

enar

iofo

rm

od

ellin

g

Bu

iltO

ut

ho

usi

ng

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Bal

ance

Ho

usi

ng

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Nar

rati

ves

Nar

rati

vetr

ansl

atio

nfo

rq

uan

tifi

cati

on

Nar

rati

ves

Nar

rati

vetr

ansl

atio

nfo

rq

uan

tifi

cati

on

A

cce

ssib

ility

incr

eas

ed

alo

ng

wit

hro

adn

etw

ork

de

velo

pm

en

t,p

ort

de

velo

pm

en

tan

do

pti

mal

use

of

bu

ste

rmin

al

De

velo

pm

en

to

fco

mm

erc

ial

are

aal

on

gro

adco

rrid

ors

D

eve

lop

me

nt

of

ind

ust

rial

are

ain

the

surr

ou

nd

ing

exi

stin

gin

du

stri

alar

ea

(20

09

)e

spe

cial

lycl

ose

top

ort

D

eve

lop

me

nt

Pro

xim

ity

toro

adan

db

us

term

inal

/fac

iliti

es

N

ot

be

ing

qu

anti

fie

d

N

ot

be

ing

qu

anti

fie

d

A

cce

ssib

ility

incr

eas

ed

alo

ng

wit

hro

adn

etw

ork

de

velo

pm

en

t,p

ort

de

velo

pm

en

tan

do

pti

mal

use

of

bu

ste

rmin

al

De

velo

pm

en

to

fco

mm

erc

ial

are

ain

alo

ng

road

corr

ido

rs

De

velo

pm

en

to

fin

du

stri

alar

ea

inth

esu

rro

un

din

ge

xist

ing

ind

ust

rial

are

a(2

00

9)

esp

eci

ally

clo

seto

po

rt

D

eve

lop

me

nt

pro

xim

ity

toro

adan

db

us

term

inal

/fac

iliti

es

N

ot

be

ing

qu

anti

fie

d

N

ot

be

ing

qu

anti

fie

d

In

cre

asin

gd

em

and

of

agri

cult

ure

pro

du

ct,

bu

tin

ten

sive

agri

cult

ure

lan

dco

nve

rsio

n

De

cre

ase

and

eve

nlo

sto

fag

ricu

ltu

rela

nd

P

oss

ibili

tyo

fco

nve

rsio

nal

lav

aila

ble

lan

dw

hic

his

suit

able

for

de

velo

pm

en

tin

tod

eve

lop

ed

are

a,in

clu

din

gag

ricu

ltu

rela

nd

Po

ssib

ility

of

con

vers

ion

all

agri

cult

ure

lan

din

toh

ou

sin

g

In

cre

asin

gd

em

and

of

agri

cult

ure

pro

du

ct,

bu

tin

ten

sive

agri

cult

ure

lan

dco

nve

rsio

n

De

cre

asin

gag

ricu

ltu

rela

nd

P

rese

rve

atle

ast

20

%o

fag

ricu

ltu

rela

nd

for

urb

anfa

rmin

g

The

less

de

velo

pm

en

to

verl

apto

agri

cult

ure

are

ath

eb

ett

er,

ino

rde

rto

pre

serv

eag

ricu

ltu

rela

nd

In

ten

sive

De

velo

pm

en

to

fh

ou

sin

gan

dco

mm

erc

ial

are

asu

rro

un

din

gm

ajo

rin

fras

tru

ctu

re

D

eve

lop

me

nt

pro

xim

ity

tom

ajo

rin

fras

tru

ctu

re(e

.g.

spo

rtce

nte

r,b

us

term

inal

,etc

)

D

eve

lop

me

nt

of

ho

usi

ng

and

com

me

rcia

lar

ea

surr

ou

nd

ing

maj

or

infr

astr

uct

ure

D

eve

lop

me

nt

pro

xim

ity

tom

ajo

rin

fras

tru

ctu

re

Fo

llow

ing

targ

et

ori

en

ted

of

po

pu

lati

on

gro

wth

H

ou

sin

gd

em

and

follo

win

gta

rge

to

rie

nte

dp

op

ula

tio

ngr

ow

th

In

ten

sive

role

of

pri

vate

de

velo

pe

r

P

op

ula

tio

np

roje

ctio

nu

nti

l2

02

9b

ase

do

nta

rge

to

rie

nte

d

Ho

usi

ng

de

man

dca

lcu

late

db

yd

ivid

ing

incr

eas

ing

po

pu

lati

on

wit

hin

20

year

san

dfa

mily

size

A

llar

ea

wit

hlo

cati

on

pe

rmit

for

Fo

llow

ing

tre

nd

ori

en

ted

of

po

pu

lati

on

gro

wth

H

ou

sin

gd

eve

lop

me

nt

follo

win

gtr

en

do

rie

nte

do

fp

op

ula

tio

ngr

ow

th

Po

ssib

ility

toco

nve

rt7

0%

of

P

op

ula

tio

np

roje

ctio

nu

nti

l2

02

9b

ase

do

ncu

rre

nt

tre

nd

gro

wth

H

ou

sin

gd

em

and

calc

ula

ted

by

div

idin

gin

cre

asin

gp

op

ula

tio

nw

ith

in2

0ye

ars

and

fam

ilysi

ze

Bu

ildin

gco

vera

geo

f7

0%

DEV

ELO

PIN

GA

SCEN

AR

IOD

EVEL

OP

MEN

TA

PP

RO

AC

HA

ND

THE

ALT

ERN

ATI

VE

LAN

DU

SESC

ENA

RIO

S:TH

EC

ASE

OF

PA

KA

L,B

ENO

WO

,AN

DSA

MB

IKER

EPD

ISTR

ICTS

OF

SUR

AB

AYA

CIT

Y

77

inh

ou

sin

gd

eve

lop

me

nt

P

oss

ibili

tyto

con

vert

all

suit

able

lan

dfo

rh

ou

sin

g

De

velo

pm

en

to

fsm

all

tom

ed

ium

ho

usi

ng

ho

usi

ng

isse

tin

tod

eve

lop

able

lan

dfo

rh

ou

sin

g

All

un

de

velo

pe

dzo

ne

das

sett

lem

en

tis

de

velo

pab

lela

nd

h

ou

sin

gsi

ze:

15

0m

2(b

ase

do

nd

eta

illa

nd

use

pla

n)

suit

able

lan

dfo

rh

ou

sin

g

De

velo

pm

en

to

fsm

all

tob

igh

ou

sin

g

ho

usi

ng

size

:1

50

m2

(bas

ed

on

de

tail

lan

du

sep

lan

)

P

oss

ibili

tyo

fco

nve

rsio

no

fsw

amp

yar

ea

into

de

velo

pe

dar

ea

P

rese

rve

25

%o

fla

nd

asgr

ee

no

pe

nsp

ace

A

llsw

amp

yar

ea

zon

ed

asse

ttle

me

nt

isd

eve

lop

able

lan

d

Bu

ildin

gco

vera

geo

f7

5%

P

oss

ibili

tyo

fco

nve

rsio

no

fsw

amp

yar

ea

into

de

velo

pe

dar

ea

P

rese

rve

atle

ast

30

%o

fla

nd

asgr

ee

no

pe

nsp

ace

A

llsw

amp

yar

ea

zon

ed

asse

ttle

me

nt

isd

eve

lop

able

lan

d

Bu

ildin

gco

vera

geo

f7

0%

P

rese

rvin

ggr

ee

nsp

ace

by

em

ph

asiz

ing

crit

eri

ao

fd

eve

lop

me

nt:

-th

efa

rth

er

fro

mri

ver

ban

kth

eb

ett

er

-th

efa

rth

er

fro

mfi

nal

was

ted

isp

osa

lbu

ffe

rth

eb

ett

er



78

For modelling process, CommunityViz planning support system is used as modelling tool in this

research. There are four main steps in the modelling scenarios in this research, including defining

land demand, land supply, land suitability and land allocation. The modelling steps are shown by

figure 8.1 below.

Figure 8.1. Modelling Process

According to diagram above, modelling process is started by calculating the possible driving forces

growth in 2029, based on different scenario assumptions. Number of population in 2029 was

calculated by certain projection method explained in the next session. Land demand was then

calculated by considering additional population growth until 2029. Land supply was calculated

towards possible developable land based on land use zoning regulation. Land suitability was defined

based on some criteria desirably used for selecting development criteria. The difference between

land supply and land suitability is that, land supply considers more in certain policy to determine

developable area, while land suitability considers criteria which come from people desirability

towards developable area. These three input including land supply, land demand and land suitability

were then used for modelling allocation. Land demand would be assigned to the available

developable land (supply) based on level of desirability (suitability).

Assumptions and criteria were used during modelling process. Scenarios within the analysis have the

same map layers, design, formulas, and assumption used, but differences map features within

layers, indicator value and assumption value. Modelling process in CommunityViz needs inputs of

both spatial and non spatial data.

Land Demand Land Supply Land Suittability

Land Allocation

Driving Force

(Population )



79

Table 8.2.Input Data

No Scenario Spatial Data Non spatial data

1 Built out

housing

development

2 Balance

housing

development

Existing land use 2009:Bareland, Settlement,agriculture land, open space,facilities, commercial,industry,

Zoning map Flood plain area Existing & planned road Proposed infrastructure

Populationdata 2004-2009

Planningdocument

Table 8.3. Assumptions/value used in modelling process

Assumption/value

N

o

Scenario Driving

Force

Land

Demand

Land Supply Land

Suitability

Land Allocation

1 Built out

housing

developme

nt

Population

grows

following

target

oriented

(105p/ha)

in 2029

(RTRW

2013)

2 Balance

housing

developme

nt

Population

grows

following

trend

growth

Based on

assumption

of

population

growth to

determine

additional

housing unit

needed in

2029

*Based on

Zoning Map of

RDTRK

Tambakosowila

ngun and RDTRK

Sambikerep

Singlehousingdevelopment

Small tomedium sizeof housing(150m2)

BuildingCoverage of75% and 70%

Family size : 5people

Based on

assigned

criteria and

weighing

value of

each criteria

Minimum setbackamong feature 3m

*Based on Zoning

Map of RDTRK

Tambakosowilangun

and RDTRK

Sambikerep

Assigned based onprobability order ofallocation

In modelling process, criteria are needed to approach specification of scenario narratives, so that

scenario quantification matches to qualitative scenario. Criteria used to approach qualitative

scenario are explained by table 8.4



80

Table 8.4. Criteria for Modelling process

Approach used For Numerical Modelling Modelling StepNo

Built Out Housing Development

Criteria

Balance Housing Development

Criteria

1 Proximity to Road criterion Proximity to public facilities

criterion

Distance to existing (2009)road and planned roadcriterion

Proximity to public facilitiescriterion

Suitability analysis

2 All agriculture land can beconverted

Overlap to agriculture landcriterion


3 Proximity to public facilitiescriterion

Proximity to public facilitiescriterion


4 Number of population basedon target oriented

Number of housing demand Land supply for housing

development Desirability for housing

development Housing size (small-medium)

Number of population basedon trend oriented

Number of housing demand Land Supply for housing

development Desirability for housing

development Housing size (small to

medium)

Demand analysis

Demand analysis Supply analysis


Supply analysis and allocationanalysis

5 Building Coverage of 75% Proximity to river banks and

final waste disposal buffer

Overlap to floodplain area

Building Coverage of 70% Proximity to river banks and

final waste disposal buffer

Overlap to floodplain area

Allocation analysis Suitability analysis


8.1 Land Demand

Future land demand was determined based on assumption about scenario driving force. Population

growth is the main driving force of scenario. Balance housing development assumes that population

will grow following current trend, while Built out housing development assume that population will

grow based on target oriented population growth of city plan.

Population is projected until 2029 for both scenarios, based on population data of 2004-2009.

Balance housing development scenario used linear regression method for population projection.

Before choosing suitable projection method, some methods were tested, including linear projection,

exponential, and linear regression projection method. Population data of 2004-2009 were used to

test the methods. The projections were conducted towards population within the same range of

year 2004 -2009, then population projections based on different projection methods were compared

to the real population data. A projection method which results in smallest deviation compared to

real population number was then selected. Linear regression projection method was chosen based

on mentioned consideration. Linear regression projection calculation used equation:



81

P = a+bX (8.1)

Where:

P = Projected Population

X = differentiation between year based year and year n

Furthermore, population projection for Built out housing development is done by multiplying target

population density in 2029(105 p/ha) to area of study area.

Land demand considered in the modelling is, only demand towards housing development. Demand

was calculated based on additional population growth in until 2029. Equation used for demand

calculation:

Projected Population 2029 – Population 2009

Housing demand =

Family size

Demand calculation used assumption of five people for family size for both scenarios. This family size

is based on regulation (Kep. Men PU No. 378 /KPTS/1987) which commonly used on planning

purposes. Number of housing needed in 2029 was got by dividing number of population addition

from 2009 to 2029, and divided by family size, which shown by table 8.5 below:

Table 8.5. Housing Demand

Administration

Population

2009 Pop 2029 Housing Demand (Units)

Trend Target Trend Target

Kecamatan Pakal

Kelurahan Babat Jerawat 17395 27391 39313 1999 4384

Kelurahan Benowo 8138 12814 22792 935 2931

Kelurahan Pakal 6437 10136 51610 740 9035

Kelurahan Sumber Rejo 6115 9629 47320 703 8241

Kelurahan Tambak Dono 2158 3398 34413 248 6451

Sub Total 40243 63368 195448 4625 31042

Kecamatan Sambikerep

Kelurahan Bringin 4133 5733 19533 320 3080

Kelurahan Lontar 24708 34271 50039 1913 5066

Kelurahan Made 7134 9895 40459 552 6665

Kelurahan Sambikerep 17158 23799 37819 1328 4132

Sub Total 53133 73698 147850 4113 18943

(8.2)

(8.3)

(8.4)



82

Kecamatan Benowo

Kelurahan Romokalisari 2217 3676 81353 292 15827

Kelurahan Tambakosowilangun 3470 5754 88541 457 17014

kelurahan Sememi 22250 36896 47963 2929 5143

Kelurahan Kandangan 12818 21256 33784 1688 4193

Kelurahan Klakahrejo 4325 7172 10092 569 1153

Sub Total 45080 74754 261733 5935 43330

Total 138456 211821 605031 14673 93315

Based on table above total housing needed for built out scenario is six times more than housing

needed in Balance scenario. Total additional number of housing needed in 2029 would be used for

the allocation step.

8.2 Land Supply

Land supply calculation is used to estimate the amount and location of future development for an

area. Build out analysis on CommunityViz was used to do the operation. Performing a build out

analysis is the step to identify the holding capacity of land in terms of buildings and/or floor space

(CommunityViz tutorial, 2009).

Inputs used for calculating land supply are available undeveloped land map in the study area, zoning

map, and design of building for housing based on city planning regulation, including minimum

housing size, building coverage, distance between buildings and other objects. Undeveloped land

map consists of four features including bare land, green open space, agriculture land, and fishponds.

There is no constraint for development, because the restricted area for development has been

covered by zoning map. Furthermore, only the area which has zoning as settlement was considered

for supply calculation.



83

Figure 8.2. Available undeveloped land Map and Zoning Map

Based on detail plan of the study area (RDTRK Sambikerep and RDTRK Tambakosowilangun) the

proportion of housing type should be built is small housing : medium housing : big housing = 6 : 3 : 1.

Even though, because of data limitation in zoning map which does not explain about the proportion

of each planning block, so this research uses assumption that only small to medium housing will be

built in the study area, with minimal area of building footprint is 150m2, with minimum separation

distance between building and other features is 3m. Horizontal housing unit with single housing

development is considered in the study area. This assumption is based on technical building design

for small to medium housing stated on RDTRK Tambakosowilangun 2017 and RDTRK Sambikerep

2029.

To accomplish the scenario narratives about requirement of open space, each scenario use different

building coverage assumption. Build out scenario used building coverage of 75%, while balance

scenario used building coverage of 70%. Building coverage means percentage of land covered by

buildings. Build out analysis of CommunityViz outputs are numeric building and spatial building.

Random building pattern was used in this analysis, it is applicable in the suburban area development

(CommunityViz tutorial, 2009), as study area is situated on the suburban area of Surabaya city.

Numeric building means number of housing units can be built in the study area, based on existing

capacity and zoning regulation. Spatial building means location distribution of building can be built in

the study area. Both numeric and spatial building represents theoretical maximum, which does not

imply the actual building will be built.



84

Table 8.6. Table of Land Supply

No Scenario Numeric building units

1 Built out housing development 96. 338

2 Balance housing development 89.899

Figure 8.3. Land Supply for Balance Housing development Scenario



85

Figure 8.4. Land Supply for build Out Housing development Scenario

8.3 Suitability

Desirability is represented by land suitability for housing. Land suitability determines which locations

are best suited for housing development. Suitability wizard of CommunityViz was used to analyze

land suitability for housing. Inputs used for the analysis are map of available undeveloped land,

suitability criteria for housing development, and weighing criteria. Criteria and weighing used in the

suitability analysis are shown by table 8.7.

±



86

Table 8.7. Criteria and Weighing for Land Suitability analysis

ScenarioNo Criteria

Balance weight Build out weight

1 Proximity to existing settlement

(the closer the better)v 0.6 v 0.6

2 Proximity to public facilities


3 Proximity to river

(the farther the better)v 0.7 v 0.4

4 Proximity to local road


5 Proximity to collector road


6 Proximity to secondary arterial road


7 Proximity to final waste disposal

(the farther the better)v 0.7 v 0.4

8 Overlap to floodplain area

(the less overlap the better)v 0.7 v 0.4

9 Overlap to agriculture land

(the less overlap the better)v 0.8 - -

These criteria were defined based on the scenario elements and parameter to approach those

qualitative scenario elements. Both scenarios use the same criteria except overlap to agriculture

land criterion. This criterion is only used by balance housing development scenario, because the

scenario emphasizes more on preserving agriculture potency. Criteria weighing were defined based

on researcher assumption, which then consulted to a planner stakeholder.



87

Figure 8.5. Land Suitability Maps

8.4 Land allocation

Land allocation analysis was done by allocating demand for housing developing among available

location, according to desirability (land suitability) and capacity (supply) of the area. Allocation

analysis used Allocator wizard of CommunityViz for modelling process.

Allocator wizard placed the building according to desirability and capacity of land use, until all the

demanded buildings are placed. Inputs needed for allocation are suitability score of the area,

capacity of each area, and number of building demand. There are two kinds of allocation methods

available, which are strict order and probability order. Strict order means each feature id filled to

capacity in descending order of scores, while probability based order means that score determines

the probability that a unit of demand is allocated to particular feature. Exponential Probability based

order is selected to allocate land demand where feature with higher scores have a much greater

probability of being used than those with lower score. Probability order is selected, because this

method is more realistic rather than strict order. In probability order, suitability scores are translated

into probability of feature being filled, where the higher the suitability value, the higher the

probability of feature being filled. On the other hands, strict order is only consider the suitability

value itself. In the case of land demand is very small compared to land supply, only the higher

suitable area will be filled, and the lower suitable area will be ignored or empty. This method is not

used as in reality sometimes people not really consider the most suitable places for living, but more

factors which are not included in this suitability analysis will be considered such as land price.

The principle of probability-based (also called "random") allocation is that the probability that an

available building location in a particular polygon is used is proportional to the relative desirability

score of that polygon (CommunityViz Tutorial, 2009). The proportionality can either be linear or



88

exponential. In the linear model, desirability scores are used exactly as they appear in the

desirability attribute. In the exponential model, desirability scores are re-scaled, as follows:

The highest desirability score is divided into 10 to create a scaling factor.

Each desirability score is multiplied by the scaling factor. This creates scaled desirability

scores with a maximum value of 10.

The scaled scores are exponentiated: that is, e is raised to the power given by the scaled

score to give the final result.

Result of allocation analysis is shown by figure 8.6.

Figure 8.6. Land Allocation Maps

For balance scenario, all demand of 14.673 housing units in 2029 was allocated. Most of demand

allocated on the southern part of study area (Sambikerep district), the rest allocated in the middle

parts, and smaller number allocated on the northern part. Some areas in the northern part are still

unallocated, meaning that there is no allocation there.

For build out housing development, all demand of 93.315 housing units was also allocated. Differ

from allocation in balance housing development scenario; most of study area is allocated evenly.

The allocation took place in almost the whole study area. Only small area in the northern part is not

allocated.



89

8.5 Discussion

Housing demand based on population projection in 2029, shown that for both scenario, total

housing needed for built out housing development scenario (93.315 units) is six times more than

housing needed in Balance housing development scenario (14.673 units). Calculation of housing

demand were done by considering administrative boundary (per sub district / kelurahan), but during

modelling process only total number of housing unit is considered. It is assumed that people can

choose housing location not only based on administrative boundary, but more on their desirable

location based on suitability criteria.

Land supply was calculated based on available undeveloped land zoned as settlement use in zoning

map. Supply show theoretical maximum building can be built on certain land based on specified

building design. Both scenarios use same building design such as 150m2

for a housing size, single

family residential, with minimum separation distance to other features is 3m. Even though, both

scenarios use different building coverage which resulted in different capacity of land supply shown

by numeric building units, and distribution of spatial building units. Build out housing development

scenario has numeric building units of 96. 338, meaning that maximum number building possible to

be developed in the study area, with specific design mentioned before is 96.338 units. Furthermore,

balance housing development scenario has lower capacity of numeric building units, which are

89.899 units. The difference in capacity is because of different building coverage rule applied on

both scenarios. Build out housing development scenario uses rule of 75% of building coverage to

approach requirement of 25% open space according to scenario narratives. On the other hands,

balance housing development uses rule of 70% building coverage to approach requirement of

minimum 30% open space.

Desirability of housing location is determined based on land suitability. Some criteria are used to

approach scenario narratives, and important elements of each scenario. Both scenarios use eight

same criteria from total nine criteria used. The differences between both scenarios are that balance

housing development scenario considers criterion of overlap to agriculture land, the less overlap the

better. It considers more in preserving agriculture potency, while another scenario is ignoring this

criterion. Actually, Balance housing development scenario narrative specifies to preserve minimal

20% of agriculture land, but it is difficult to be modelled, because it is quite difficult to select which

20% of area should be omitted and restricted for development. So, its narrative is approached by

overlap to agriculture land criterion. Furthermore, both scenarios also use different criteria

weighing, which drive different results of suitability.

Land suitability results show that the highest suitable area (dark green colour) is situated on the

southern part of the study area (Sambikerep District), and the lowest suitable location is situated on

the northern right part of the study area (Benowo District). Build out housing development scenario

has larger suitable area (greenish color) rather than another scenario, because all criteria use almost

the same weighing. Even though, balance housing development scenario emphasize more on

preserving agriculture land and environmental aspect so that criteria of overlap to agriculture land,



90

proximity to river, and proximity to final waste disposal, overlap to floodplain area have higher

weighing than other criteria.

Demand of housing units were allocated on the available capacity of land supply according to

probability determined by suitability scores. Demand was allocated based on probability of feature

suitability score on descending order. Demand of balance housing development scenario allocated

mainly on the southern part of the study area, and small number in the northern part. The southern

part (Sambikerep District) has higher suitability score and also lower number of housing demand on

this scenario. On the other hands, build out housing development demand allocated almost on the

whole area. Difference among areas is that higher suitable areas have higher probability to be

allocated while lower suitability areas have lower probability to be allocated.

The probability allocation of demand to supply based on suitability score in both scenarios are

shown by table 8.8 and table 8.9.

Table 8.8. Balance Housing Development Scenario

No Suitability Score Numeric Building

(supply)

Demand Allocated Unallocated

supply

1 =<30 0 0 0

2 30< score =<50 17.851 45 17.806

3 50 < score =<70 35.209 1.218 33.991

4 70< score =<90 26.926 8.867 18.059

5 <90 9.913 4.543 5.370

89.899 14.673 75.226

Table 8.9. Build out housing development scenario

No Suitability Score Numeric Building

(supply)

Demand Allocated Unallocated

supply

1 =<30 0 0 0

2 30< score =<50 2.831 0 2.831

3 50 < score =<70 20.882 20.690 192

4 70< score =<90 58.545 58.545 0

5 <90 14.080 14.080 0

Total 96.338 93.315 3.023

According to allocation results, in balance housing development scenario from total, only about 16%

of supply of possible building units will be allocated to fulfil demand. Meaning that about 84% of

supply of housing development is still available in the future after 2029, if the population growth is

following current trend, building design is the same and ignoring suitability score. If suitability score

is considered, by assuming desirability of housing development is towards medium to high suitable

area (suitability score more than 50), about 57.420 units will be available (about 64% of total

supply). For planning purposes, it can theoretically calculate number of population can be



91

accommodated based on available supply after 2029. By assuming the same family size and single

family housing, theoretically additional 287.100 people can be accommodated.

In contrast, build out housing development scenario allocation resulted in about 97% of supply were

allocated for housing demand. And the remaining 3% of supply is available after in the future. The

same as previous scenario, if considering suitability score of more than 50, only 192 units supply will

be available (about 0,2% of total supply). Meaning that smaller number of population can be

accommodated in the future with the same assumption and design. For planning purposes, some

adjustment supposed to be done towards existing planning such as population regulation or building

design.

8.6 Reflection of Scenario Quantification process

Scenario quantification through modelling supply, demand, and desirability for both scenarios is only

conducted towards housing development. Possible development of commercial area is not modelled

because of limited available economic data. Not all qualitative scenarios are modelled, for example it

is quite difficult to model the restriction of 20% of development in agriculture land, because of no

guidance which land should be preserved. It can be concluded that qualitative scenarios are able to

display higher degree of complexity in the system, compared to quantitative modelling. Quantitative

modelling is strictly bound to its limitation, especially in more data and efforts are required to model

more complex system. Furthermore, the more limited information or data is provided, the more

assumption is being used. For better result of quantification, the used of more complete data is

needed for example socio economic data, and dealing with un-modelled narrative scenario, more

discussion with stakeholders is needed for example to defined where restriction area should be

located, which can help to omit the location from modelling process.

Results of quantitative modelling in this research are more theoretical, such as supply and demand.

Theoretical means that they only follow theoretical calculation and method to get numerical value,

without considering some external factor that possibly have high influences towards the system,

such as economic growth of the city, land price, willingness to pay etc. on the other words, they only

depicting future land use in theoretical way, which consider only limited factors and criteria. so for

better result it is suggested to consider also other factors such as social economic.

In terms of modelling suitability, the weighing criteria are also based on some people perception

towards criteria importance, so level of objectivity and uncertainty should be considered towards

the results.



92



93

9 EVALUATION

Evaluation process was undertaken towards both scenario development processes by stakeholder

communication and modelling scenario result. Evaluation of scenario aims to evaluate the outcomes

of scenario development process, and the scenario itself against planning policy objectives. Scenario

evaluation towards scenario development process was conducted by reviewing the process of

scenario development based on involved stakeholder perspectives towards the process, and based

on criteria of good scenario. The second evaluation process was conducted towards outcomes of

scenario itself, by using Goal Achievement Matrix (GAM), where scenario modelling outcomes were

compared to planning policy objectives.

9.1 Scenario Evaluation through Stakeholder Communication

Scenario evaluation through stakeholder communication was undertaken by evaluating the process

of scenario development and communicating modelling/quantification results. For the evaluation

process, some open questions about scenario development process and scenario quantification

results were sent to stakeholders (planners and academicians) to get their feedbacks. The feedbacks

were hoped to illustrate stakeholder perceptions about the scenario development process which

they followed, and their perception about their likely initial preference of towards both scenarios.

The outlined of open question sent to stakeholders for evaluating scenario including:

1. What is their impression towards scenario development process they followed?

2. are there some difficulties during the process

3. Are they have better understanding towards all process, and can recognize the aims of each

process they followed?

4. What are their suggestions about scenario development process?

5. How is their impression towards participatory approach during scenario development process?

6. Does the proposed process can be adopted for planning purposes for the study area?

7. How is their impression about scenario results?

8. Which scenario do they prefer more between both scenarios, and more relevant to the study

area?

These mentioned questions are defined by approaching credential criteria of good scenario (Xiang

and Clarke, 2003). Good scenario should be (1) plausible unexpected, diversity in perspectives,

consistent, and comprehensive; (2) emotionally interesting, Imagery provoking, (3) Proximate in

sensory, spatial and temporal; have ergonomic design. The first four questions are related to the first

criteria of good scenario process; question 5,6, and 7 are going to check the second criteria of good

scenario, and question 8 relates to the third criteria of good scenario process.

The evaluation was done by online, set of above question was sent via email to five stakeholders,

including three planners and two academicians. Unfortunately, only three of them including two

planners and an academician give feedbacks. The feedbacks were sent through email, and further

discussions to clarify the results were conducted via messenger. Even though, only three of



94

stakeholders gave feedbacks in evaluation, this results is regarded as sufficiently represent the

stakeholders, as both stakeholder groups were represented.

9.1.1 Result of Stakeholder Communication and Reflection

Feedbacks from stakeholders both from planners and academicians depict their idea, suggestions

and impression towards scenario development process and scenario result.

Answer of first question about their first impression towards scenario development process reveals

that they feel interested towards the participation and deliberation process they follow during the

process. They feel that they can express their idea based on their individual concern about the

important issue and element emerging in the study area. Even during the process, not all of their

idea considered as the important issue should be consider because of deliberation process to

accommodate all stakeholder ideas.

It is revealed that at the first time terms of scenario development process which considers element

and driving forces was quite difficult for them. Because for the planning purposes they only use

some alternatives of development without considering the element and driving forces of each

alternative, for example alternative of road improvement planning is only consider existing available

road, and planned road, without considering the probability of population growth which improve

travel demand. Furthermore, if they consider population growth as driving forces, it is very rare to

simulate them in different alternative, so alternative is only qualitative terms.

They also followed the process actively and understand most of the process and aims behind each

process. it can be identified that after developing qualitative scenario development process one of

stakeholder from planner make his own simple framework of logical story behind the process, and

he shared his idea to other stakeholders. Most of them reacted positively.

Stakeholders also give good impression towards participatory approach used during scenario

development process. Participatory approach usually uses on the planning process in Surabaya city,

even it only give small contribution on the step of gathering society idea about planning, while most

planning processes are done by government and academician. They give positive response towards

participatory approach during the process, and give suggestion to involve more stakeholders to get

more detail and better idea from various stakeholders. The academician also give comment that it

would be better if the discussion about scenario modelling result can be undertaken within the same

format of formal discussion as qualitative scenario development process, so they could get better

clarification about the modelling process and results since only map result and small description

were sent to them. This issue is difficult to maintain, because of limited time and opportunity to do

the fieldwork for this research, so that the communication can only be undertaken by online

discussion.

Another positive comments from planners is that optimistically the proposed process can be

adopted for the planning process of the study area by some simplification needed, so it becomes

understandable even for stakeholders who has no idea about planning. Furthermore, formal



95

discussion and participation are also common for planning process in the study area, even not the

whole planning process following participatory approach. Planners also think that the proposed

process can be used as a role model for scenario development, which can be adopted for planning

purposes in the study area.

They also feel that qualitative scenarios resulted from the process is quite concrete and relevant to

the study area. They know better about the situation and policy in the study area, which are adopted

in the scenarios. The scenarios are developed based on important issues emerging in the study area,

and use assumption which outlined in the land use planning policy. But there is still setback, such as

not all stakeholders usually involved in the planning process of study area are involved during this

research.

In term of scenario modelling results, stakeholders think that the results make sense. Planners

surprised with result of housing distribution in Balance Housing Development Scenario where

housing mainly will distribute in the southern part of the study area. Actually, it is make sense

because more infrastructure, and currently more existing housing development. Then, this situation

let them thinking another way to make more attractions in the northern part of the study area.

Towards the results of Build out housing development, four of five stakeholders agree that this

scenario is more relevant for the study area, as they think about fast growing trend of population

and housing demand in the whole Surabaya city. The fast growing trend of housing demand in

Surabaya city is more relevant to Build Out Housing development scenario results. Then, they think

whether the existing and proposed public facilities can accommodate demand in the future.

Academicians also think about the possibility of commercial growth in the study area, where there is

more opportunity of commercial development. It will create consequences of changing in zoning

plan for commercials, because of increasing demand of commercial development.

The academician also suggested considering more in environmental aspect for development in the

northern part of the study area, especially global warming factor. Currently, the coastal area of the

study area is impacted by temporary coastal flooding (Rob). So in the future, they suggested it would

be better to consider this effect especially for development in the coastal area.

As reflection, so far stakeholders give positive response towards the process and result of scenario

development. The important thing is, In term of social learning process, the simplified scenario

development process can be used as role model of scenario development for the area, because

people can learn new things as well as doing the process, discuss their ideas, and agree about final

results. Even some drawbacks are also experienced in this process, including limited time and

relatively small number of participants. The situation would be more interesting if more people

participated and more ideas framed, and more time allocated.



96

9.2 Scenario Modelling Outcome Evaluation

Scenario evaluation of both scenarios was conducted by using core policy objectives. Core policy

objectives are outlined in the city and detail plan of the study area. These objectives are used to

evaluate the efficiency of each scenario to measure how well the scenarios satisfy planning policy

objectives. Planning objectives of the study area are translated into umbrella objectives used for

scenario evaluation. Spatial criteria of each umbrella objectives are then defined to make

measurable umbrella objectives for evaluation. These spatial criteria are indicative of some core

objectives outlined on the document planning of the study area.

Goal Achievement Matrix (GAM) is method used to measure the efficiency of each scenario in terms

of land use scenario evaluation. GAM is more appropriate method for evaluating land use scenario,

because it reflects summary measure of spatial conflicts between result from scenarios and

desirable land uses defined by planning policy (Pettit and Pullar, 2004). GAM evaluation procedure

enables a comparative analysis between scenarios, and lends itself to highlighting the inefficiencies

inherent within scenarios.

Umbrella objectives have been formulated from the core planning policy objectives. Each of

umbrella objectives is made to be quantifiable represented by spatial criteria. Each spatial criterion

is assigned by relative weighting of important derived from feedback obtained through stakeholder

consultation. The spatial criteria are created from GIS data layer analysis.

GAM analysis resulting efficiency index values of each scenario, the lower the value the more

efficient the scenario. Moreover, the lower efficiency index value, the lower the land use conflict

within the area. The efficiency index (i) value depends primarily on Conflict Measure Matrix (CMM)

and relative criteria weighting. The calculation uses equation below:

100

,

,

xCMMwi

so

so (9.1)

Where: i = efficiency index

w = relative weighing from stakeholder consultation

CMM = Conflict Measure Matrix

Conflict Measure Matrix is the proportional area of land use conflict between spatial criteria for

umbrella objectives and future allocated urban land formulated in the scenario (Pettit and Pullar,

2003).

A

BACMM

(9.2)

Where: A = total future allocated urban land use

B = Spatial Criteria as the representation of an umbrella objectives.

BA = intersection of future allocated urban land use with the spatial

criteria

BA represents conflict between spatial criteria and future allocated urban land use. The total

efficiency indices (I) of each land use scenario are calculated by using equation below:



97

0

1,

osos iI (9.3)

Where: o= objectives

S= Scenario

0= number of objectives.

Scenario evaluation process is shown by figure 9.1

Figure 9.1. Scenario Evaluation Process

9.2.1 Evaluation Results

According to planning policy documents, either city or detail spatial plan (RTRW and RDTRK),

development objectives of the study area is:

”realizing urban fringe settlement area, by integrated economic development on the base of

agriculture and ecotourism”

There are some strategies promoted by Surabaya Government to achieve development goal of the

study area. There are 4 main land use development strategies in order to achieve development

objective, outlined in planning documents (RDTRK Sambikerep and Tambakosowilangun 2029):

1. Housing development to satisfy housing demand along with population growth and city

growth

2. Preserving green open space for urban area, and agriculture land for balancing micro season,

water catchments area, and urban farming development.

3. Protecting conservation area, such as riverbanks, coastal area, and reservoir banks

4. Infrastructure provision including road network, sport center, water supply, public transport,

and other public facilities to stimulate development

Core Planning Objectives

Spatial Criteria of

Umbrella objectives

Translation of Objectives

Into Umbrella Objectives

Efficiency Index

value Calculation

Scenario

Comparison

Future allocated land use

(per scenario)

Relative Weighing

importance of umbrella

objectives



98

Four main strategies are then translated into four umbrella objectives to get easier spatial criteria

for scenario evaluation. Four umbrella objectives translated from land use development strategies of

the study area including:

1. Preserve agriculture land

2. Preserve green space

3. Infrastructure and service provision

4. Stimulate development surrounding major infrastructure.

These umbrella objectives were defined both according to main concern of each land use

development strategy and simplification of strategy into measurable spatial elements.

Four main umbrella objectives were then give guidance to determine spatial criteria used for

measuring them. Spatial criteria are quantifiable representation of umbrella objectives to measure

efficiency of each scenario (Pettit and Pullar, 2004). The consideration used for defining spatial

criteria is not only depending on umbrella objectives, but also availability of spatial data layer. The

spatial criteria is created from spatial GIS data layer, and assigned with relative weight of

importance. Weight of important is obtained from stakeholder consultation and interview. Two

stakeholders, a planner and an academician, were involved to determine the importance of umbrella

objectives and weighing. Umbrella objectives and their spatial criteria are shown by table 9.1.

Table 9.1. Objective and Spatial Criteria for Scenario Evaluation

NO Umbrella objective Spatial Criteria Weight

1 Preserve agriculture land Overlap to agriculture land0,7

2 Preserve green space proximity to green space

Overlap to river bank

0,8

0,8

3 Infrastructure and service provision Proximity to road (buffer500m)

Accessibility to publictransport (buffer 400m)

Overlap with water supplyservice provision

0,75

0,75

0,75

4 Stimulate development surrounding

major infrastructure

Housing developmentsurrounding SSC

Housing developmentsurrounding new proposedroad

Housing developmentsurrounding Bus Terminal

0,8

0,8

0,8

Conflict Measure Matrix (CMM) value was calculated by spatial overlay and other GIS operations,

between spatial criteria and future allocated urban land use. For example, the umbrella objective of

preserve agriculture land has spatial criteria of overlap to agriculture land. The CMM value of this

objective was calculated using equation (2) by intersecting existing agriculture land with future

allocated urban land use for both scenarios, and then total overlap area is divided by total allocated

land use per scenario. It shows the proportion of land use conflict area. In the same way, the spatial

criteria of proximity to feature such as green open space, area of conflict is calculated by making



99

buffer surrounding feature with certain distance such as 50m from existing green space. It means

that the housing development within buffer area will cause green space destruction.

In contrast, relating to service provision, the conflicting area is the area outside the buffer of

infrastructure service area. It means that the area outside the buffer of service area is the area will

not be served by certain infrastructure or facilities. The buffer distance of 400m from public

transport use the assumption of acceptable walking distance within ten minute to public transport

(Murray, 2003), while buffer area of 500m distance to major road is based on detail plan of study

area about maximum distance to major road for housing. Moreover, the umbrella objective of

stimulate housing development surrounding major infrastructure use 1km buffer distance based on

discussion result to stakeholders. The conflicting area for this umbrella objective is future

undeveloped area per scenario within 1km buffer from major infrastructure which is zoned for

housing development.

The efficiency value was calculated using equation 1, by multiplying relative weight of objective with

the CMM value. Efficiency scores (i) represent the percentage land use conflict within the study area,

towards total allocated future urban land use per scenario, considering relative weight of

importance. The lower the efficiency index score, the least land use conflict occurs (by assigning

relative weight) within the scenario. The result of efficiency calculation per scenario using Goal

Achievement Matrix is shown by table 9.2.

DEV

ELO

PIN

GA

SCEN

AR

IOD

EVEL

OP

MEN

TA

PP

RO

AC

HA

ND

THE

ALT

ERN

ATI

VE

LAN

DU

SESC

ENA

RIO

S:TH

EC

ASE

OF

PA

KA

L,B

ENO

WO

,AN

DSA

MB

IKER

EPD

ISTR

ICTS

OF

SUR

AB

AYA

CIT

Y

101

Tab

le9

.2.G

oal

Ach

ieve

men

tM

atri

x

CM

MEf

fici

en

cySc

ore

(%)

No

Ob

ject

ive

Spat

ialc

rite

ria

Re

lati

ve

we

igh

t

Bal

ance

Sce

nar

io

Bu

ildo

ut

sece

nar

io

Bal

ance

Sce

nar

io

Bu

ild

ou

t

sece

nar

io

1P

rese

rve

agri

cult

ure

lan

dO

verl

apto

agri

cult

ure

lan

d0

,70

,04

0,1

80

,03

0,1

3

2P

rese

rved

gree

nsp

ace

pro

xim

ity

togr

een

spac

e0

,80

,14

0,1

30

,11

0,1

1

Ove

rlap

toR

iver

ban

k0

,80

,03

0,0

50

,03

0,0

4

3In

fras

tru

ctu

reSe

rvic

eP

rovi

son

road

infr

astr

uct

ure

0,7

50

,07

0,1

00

,05

0,0

7

acce

ssib

ility

top

ub

lictr

ansp

ort

atio

n0

,75

0,7

40

,76

0,5

60

,57

wat

ersu

pp

lysy

stem

0,7

50

,00

0,0

00

,00

0,0

0

4

Stim

ula

ted

evel

op

men

t

surr

ou

nd

ing

Ho

usi

ng

dev

elo

pm

ent

surr

ou

nd

ing

SSC

0,8

0,0

10

,00

0,0

10

,00

Maj

or

infr

astr

uct

ure

Ho

usi

ng

Dev

elo

pm

ent

surr

ou

nd

ing

New

Ro

ad0

,80

,05

0,0

00

,04

0,0

0

Ho

usi

ng

Dev

elo

pm

ent

surr

ou

nd

ing

Bu

s

term

inal

(1km

)0

,80

,35

0,0

00

,28

0,0

0

Tota

l1

,43

1,2

21

,10

0,9

2

DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL,


102

9.2.2 Discussion and Reflection

GAM calculation result depicts the efficiency index value for each umbrella objective and the total

efficiency index value for each scenario. According to the result, Build out housing development

scenario with total index value of 0,92 is more efficient scenario if compared to balance housing

development with total index value of 1,10. Build out housing development perform better on the

objective of stimulate housing development surrounding major infrastructures, but less on the

objectives of preserved agriculture land. Moreover, both scenarios perform almost the same level

for the objective of infrastructure service provision, and preserve green space.

However, there is a problem should be considered in the study area respect to the accessibility to

public transportation. More than 50% of the study area is not within a distance of coverage area of

public transportation. It means that about 50% of the study area will not be sufficiently serviced by

the respective existing and planned public transportation. The planned water supply service will

sufficiently serve the study area for both scenarios.

In terms of preserving agriculture land objective, balance housing development performs better than

build out housing development scenario, because there is a restriction for development in the

agriculture land in this scenario. On the other hands, build out housing development scenario

performs better for objective of stimulating development surrounding infrastructure. The efficiency

index is 0, meaning that there is no conflict land use in this scenario. Whole area which is zoned as

settlement within the buffer of 1km surrounding major infrastructure will develop to accommodate

higher housing demand for build out scenario. Especially for balance housing development scenario,

there will be about 28% of the area within 1km buffer from Tambakosowilangun Bus terminal zoned

as settlement is undeveloped. It relates to the accumulated housing development in the southern

part of the study area, while bus terminal is situated on the northern part of the study area.

It is interesting that even more future land allocated in the build out housing development scenario

rather than balance housing development scenario, but it performs more efficient results. It means

that the total allocated future land is not directly correlated to the efficiency results. Because they

depend on how can scenario achieve the objectives, and what kind of spatial criteria used to

represent the objectives.

Furthermore, Goal Achievement Matrix method is useful method to evaluate scenario, because it is

not only giving the efficiency of each scenario, but also depicting efficiency of scenario towards each

objectives. Its advantages are very useful in planning process, because by knowing the inefficiency of

the scenario towards certain objectives, the future policy planning adjustment can be taken to

anticipate the possibility of the land use conflict in the future.



103

10 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

10.1 Objectives Revisited Summary of Findings


Present situation of the study area was analyzed assessing physical and non physical conditions

(socio economic), including also land use policy direction of the study area. Physically, the

majority of study area condition is still undeveloped, about 60% of land use consists of bare

land, fishpond, agriculture land, and open space. Issue of lack of accessibility becomes the

most considered factor causing stagnant development in the study area. Agriculture as the

basic sector of economy, and relatively low population growth are important non physical

factor in the study area.

Land use policy directs function of the study area as settlement, and open space, which

contribute to serve Surabaya city especially, and surrounding area generally. Development of

major infrastructure also outlined as development stimulant of the study area.

Interview results towards stakeholders involved in the development of the study area, also

revealed that increasing accessibility to the area is become their main expectation towards

future development of the study area.

b. To explore the scenario development approaches and to develop a suitable scenariodevelopment approach for the study area

Scenario development approach were chosen and developed based on literature review

Criteria used to choose scenario development approach are: stakeholder involvement,

flexibility of approach used (qualitative and or quantitative), time and cost, understandable

steps, applicability and iteration process. Considering mentioned criteria, some approaches

were chosen, including SAS approach, formal scenario development framework, and a generic

scenario development process. These three approaches are used to be the guidance for

developing scenario development approach of the study area. Developed approach consists of

six main steps, including: 1) identifying purpose and structure of scenario; 2) identifying

scenario elements; 3) identifying scenario foundation; 4) Scenario Quantification; and 5)

Scenario Evaluation. First four steps are qualitative scenario development, which becomes the

main step of developing land use scenario. Scenario quantification and evaluation steps are

used to give better understanding of qualitative land use scenario.

c. To apply the developed approach for defining the alternative land use scenarios on thestudy area

To make sure the understandability of developed approach for qualitative scenario

development, stakeholder consultation was done. Stakeholders suggested simplification in

some steps. The simplified approach was then produced, including two main steps of

preparation and qualitative scenario development approach. Preparation step includes

stakeholder selection, and defining scenario specification. Qualitative scenario development



104

consists of issues and critical elements identification, impact matrix assessment, defining

relevant elements, defining driving forces, exploring future state based on stakeholder

expectation, and then constructing scenario narratives.

The whole process of qualitative scenario development involved stakeholders through formal

discussion. Stakeholders were selected based on availability of time, easiness to access, and

representation. Five stakeholders, three planners and two academicians, were involved during

formal discussion. Formal discussion used to approach collaborative planning approach usually

used in planning making process. Formal discussion and collaborative planning aim to get more

relevant scenario result, by involving local knowledge, and to create stakeholders’ “buy-in”

towards scenario developed.

There are five main elements/ issues of study, based on stakeholder deliberation process,

considered for land use scenario development, including housing development, infrastructure

development, agriculture potency, accessibility, and environment. These five elements were

translated into two land use scenarios, namely “Balance housing development scenario”, and

“Build out Housing Development Scenario”. These two scenarios are policy driven scenario

which use population as driving forces, and twenty years as scenario timeline. Different

assumptions towards driving forces were used based on policy statements, in which balance

scenario uses assumption of population growth following current trend, and build out scenario

uses target oriented population density (105p/ha).

Balance housing development scenario emphasizes more in preserving agriculture land by

maintaining at least 20% of agriculture land, providing 30% of open space, and environmental

aspect such as prohibit development in food prone area, river banks, and surrounding final

waste disposal.

Build out housing development scenario emphasizes more in allocating all available land for

development and providing 25% of open space.

d. To model the alternative land use scenarios on the study area

Modelling land use scenarios was done by quantifying scenario narratives. Quantification of

supply, demand, suitability, and allocation approach were used to translate scenario narratives

into quantifiable thing by using CommunityViz planning support system. Assumption about

population as driving force of scenarios was used to determine future housing demand in

2029. Land use zoning regulation and existing undeveloped land determines future land supply

for development. Defined criteria for selecting suitable location of housing development were

used to calculate suitability level of each land unit. Allocation was done by allocating future

housing demand on available land supply, according to suitability level.

Future housing demand for Balance Housing development scenario is lower than demand of

Build out housing development scenario, because population grows slowly if following current

trend (about 2%/year).



105

Number of housing supply in Build out housing development is higher than that of Balance

Housing development scenario. Because of different assumptions are used to determine

building coverage in both scenarios. Build out housing development scenario uses 75% of

building coverage assumption to translate scenario narratives of 25% of available undeveloped

land as open space. While Balance Housing development scenario uses 70% of building

coverage to approach scenario narratives of 30% area as open space.

Suitability analysis for both scenarios uses almost the same criteria. The differences are one

criteria of development overlap to agriculture land is only use for Balance Housing

development scenario, and also different criteria weighing for both scenarios. Both criteria and

relative weighing were developed based on discussion results to stakeholders (planners).

Moreover, criteria were also developed for approaching scenario narratives, such as proximity

criteria to translate scenario narratives of development surrounding certain feature. Suitable

land for housing development in Build out housing development scenario is larger than that of

Balance Housing development scenario, because more strict weighing criteria assigned in

Balance Housing development scenario, especially for criteria related to environment. Most of

southern part of the study area has higher suitability value than northern parts; because some

development constraints exist in the northern part, such as final waste disposal, and some

environmental constrain such as flood plain, and riverbanks.

Allocation results revealed that, in Balance housing development scenario about 16% of supply

are allocated to fulfil demand until 2029, while build out housing development scenario

allocation resulted in about 97% of supply were allocated for housing demand. It means that

about 84% of supply will be available after 2029 for Balance housing development scenario,

and only 3% for Build out housing development scenario. The allocation results also revealed

that most of southern parts of the study area will be developed, while the northern part will

not fully be developed. Especially for Build out housing development scenario, which following

City land use plan rules of targeted oriented population density (105p/Ha), the housing

development will be distributed quite equally between southern and northern part. The

results can be used as consideration in planning purposes, such as to make more attraction in

the northern part of the study area in case of following current trend, or population growth

regulation.

e. To evaluate the approach in scenario development process, and the possible results ofalternative land use scenario application on the study area

Evaluation was done for both scenario development process, and scenario modelling results.

Evaluation towards scenario development results was based on stakeholders (2 planners and 1

academician) perceptions on scenario development process which they followed. Spatial

conflict of scenario modelling results was evaluated using Goal Achievement Matrix method

(Pettit and Pullar, 2004). GAM method uses umbrella objectives of land use planning policy

and spatial criteria to reveal the efficiency of each scenario.



106

In general, stakeholders were interested in following the process of scenario development.

Even though some problem were also found out, especially to understand better about terms

of scenario approach, elements and driving forces of scenario. Participatory approach used

during the process was also interesting and not really difficult to be followed, because this

approach is commonly used in the planning process in Surabaya, even only in small part of the

whole planning process. Stakeholders also feel that the simplified framework approach is more

understandable rather than an approach firstly introduce to them based on literature review

results. Even though, they also suggest in making more simplification especially in the process

of defining the most important element should be consider in the scenario, for more its

applicability as during planning process stakeholders from society group with limited planning

knowledge are usually involved. They also suggest being involved more stakeholders during

scenario development process, to give better results and level of scenario “buy in”.

The Goal Achievement Matrix (GAM) evaluation revealed that, in general Build out housing

development scenario with total index value of 0,92 is more efficient scenario if compared to

balance housing development with total index value of 1,10. Specifically, more than 50% of the

study area is not within a distance of coverage area of public transportation. It means that

about 50% of the study area will not be sufficiently serviced by the respective existing and

planned public transportation in both scenarios. Moreover, Build out housing development

perform better on the objective of stimulate housing development surrounding major

infrastructures, but less on the objectives of preserved agriculture land.

The interesting finding is that the total allocated future land is not directly correlated to the

efficiency results, it can be seen from the results, in which even more future land allocated in

the build out housing development scenario rather than balance housing development

scenario, but it performs more efficient results. It means that GAM method is not only giving

the efficiency of each scenario, but also depicting efficiency of scenario towards each

objective.

10.2 Research Adjustment

At the first stage of the study the aims were to develop approach for land use scenario development

based on existing explored approaches in the literature, to apply the proposed approach, and to

evaluate it. Along the process, some adjustments were done.

Participatory approach was added during scenario development process, by involving stakeholders

including planners and academicians in formal discussion. Some planned stakeholders can not be

involved during the formal discussion process because of time limitation and difficulty to access,

such as developers, and society leader. Their idea and expectation were only accommodated and

considered during formal discussion of scenario development process, without their attending in the

process. As limited knowledge of stakeholders in the study area towards scenario development,

some simplifications towards scenario development process framework resulted from literature

review were conducted, to adjust the applicability of the process in the study area.



107

During modelling scenario process, only future housing development was modeled, not all land use

elements were modeled. Development of industrial area and commercial area are not modeled,

because of limited availability of economic data such as employment, regional domestic product, etc

to determine future demand of commercial and industrial.

10.3 Further Data Requirements

Scenario quantification and modelling process is very depending on availability of data the more

complete the data, the closer the model to represent the reality. The data should be considered is

not only spatial data, but also social economic data. In order to get better modelling results of land

use scenario in further work, more data will be needed. Modelling future housing development in

micro level, data in parcel level are needed such as parcel map, zoning regulation per parcel map,

population per parcel, land price, building coverage regulation per parcel, and survey result about

willingness to pay and live of people towards land, etc. Furthermore, to model all element of land

use scenario, especially in development of commercial and industrial area, economic data such as

employment, economic growth rate are needed.

Evaluation through Goal Achievement Matrix (GAM) method is also depending primarily on

availability of spatial data. Evaluation on this research was very limited because of data availability.

The more complete the spatial data, the more achievement of umbrella objectives can be tested,

and the better the evaluation results. In this research more data of planned infrastructure such as

drainage, sewer, and facility are needed. For the applicability of the higher level of study area,

meaning that the more general the policy objectives, it needs more attempts to translate objectives

into umbrella objectives, meaning that more spatial data also needed.

10.4 Future Consideration of the Scenario Development approach

This research is revealed that participation approach is the important thing should be considered in

scenario development process. Participatory is very important during the step of qualitative scenario

development part, because by participating more actors means that more idea can be

accommodated on the scenario. As limited time, participation was only can be done towards formal

discussion and some informal interview, to some stakeholders. To get better scenario results which

represent wider stakeholder expectations and more scenario “buy-in”, more stakeholders should be

involved during the formal discussion process. Society groups, investors, developers, NGO’s, etc

should also be involved.

There is also suggestion from stakeholders which is not incorporated yet in this research, about

element should be considered in the scenario. As the study area is situated on the coastal area, and

the symptom of climate change effect are identified in the study area, such as temporary coastal

flooding, should be considered in further research.

In term of scenario quantification, modelling process should be done towards all land use elements

such as industrial and commercial development, because housing development is also closely

related to the increasing demand of commercial and job. More socioeconomic data will be needed

to get better results of modelling.



108

10.5 Approach and Model relevance and Used

Providing successful implementation in three districts (Sambikerep, Pakal, Benowo), however,

provides optimism for application in the larger level of study area, such as city level. The reason is

that most of stakeholder involve in the process in mainly actors which involved in the planning

process of city level, which also have more capability to recognize the land use issues in city level.

Furthermore, the proposed scenario development approach provides steps and concept in terms of

emerging issue in the certain study area, based on stakeholder perspectives, it means that this

approach is also applicable in every level of study area, the difference is only on the issue should be

considered in the scenario, and stakeholder involved, as different area has different problem, and

stakeholder interest. The problem may be comes out only during deliberation process to

accommodate stakeholders interest, but the use of Impact Matrix will help stakeholder to define the

most important element/issue in the study area.

The results of scenario development study optimistically can be used to provide information for

formal planning purposes. Scenario development study gives insight about the most important issue

emerging in the study area, which very useful as consideration in planning. Scenario study resulted

possibility of future demand, supply, suitability, and possible place where demand will be allocated.

These results can be used as consideration for making formal planning either land use plan, or other

technical plans. For example, suitability and allocation results can be used to be guidance for making

zoning plan for certain land use. Qualitative scenario also can be applied in making strategy of

development planning, while quantitative scenario and scenario evaluation results can be used to

give better understanding/predict possible results and impact of different strategies in development

planning. Furthermore, results of this study revealed that scenario study result also can be applied

for evaluating existing planning policy or alternatives. In this research, policy about population

growth, housing development, and infrastructure planning were tested by simulating them into

scenario. The results can be used to determine the achievement of each alternative, and impact of

each policy, to give insight which alternative is probably better for the future.

Generally, the steps of scenario development is also easy to be followed, as positive feedback was

received from stakeholders, so optimistically the proposed approach can be applied also in other

study area, maybe with little simplification, because of different stakeholders knowledge in different

study area.

The modelling process by using CommunityViz planning support system is also easy to understand,

as CommunityViz provides logical frameworks and wizard of how the system work. Some

assumptions are also can be applied to simulate the scenario within the wizards.



109

REFERENCES

Alcamo, J., 2001, Scenario tools for International Environmental Assessments, Expert’s Corner

Report, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen.

Bappeko, 2008, Profil Kabupaten/Kota : Surabaya

Bappeko, 2007, Review Rencana Tata Ruang wilayah Kota Surabaya 2013, Surabaya

Bappeko, 2009, Rencana Detail Tata Ruang Kota Surabaya, 2009, Surabaya

Batty, M., Xie, Y., Sun, Z., 1999, Modelling Urban Dinamics through GIS-Based Cellular Automata,

Computer Environmental and Urban Science 23, Elsevier Science Ltd, pp 205-233

Batty, M., 2007, Planning Support Systems : Progress, Prediction, and Speculations on the shape of

things to come, http://eprints .ucl.ac.uk/15175/1/15175/pdf, accessed 8 February 2010

Borjeson, L., Hojer, M., Dreborg, K.H., Ekvall, T., Finnveden, G., 2006, Scenario Types and Tecniques :

towards a user’s guide, Futures 38 (2006), Elsevier Ltd., pp. 723-739

BPS, 2009, Kecamatan Dalam Angka 2009, Surabaya

Foot, D., 1981, Operational Urban Models an introductory, Methuen, New york

Geertman, S., Stillwell, J., 2003, Planning Support Systems in practice, Springer-Verlag Berlin,

Heidelberg-New York

IEA, 2007, Training manual on integrated environmental assessment and reporting, Module 2:

National IEA process and Organization, UNEP, IISD

Jager, J., Rothman, D., Anastasi, C., Kartha, S., Van Notten, P., 2007, Training Module 6 : Scenario

Development and Analysis, GEO reseource Book, IISD.

Klosterman, R.E., 2001, What if ? Planning Support System, ESRI

Ludin, A.N.M., Yaakup, A., 2006, Scenario-based Spatial Modelling for Land Use Planning and

Evaluation, Conference: Map Malaysia 2006, Selangor

Mahmoud, M., Liu, Y., Hartmann, H., Stewart, S., Wagener, T., Semmens, D., Stewart, R., Gupta, H.,

Dominguez, D., Dominguez, F., Hulse, d., Letcher, R., Rashleigh, B., Smith, C., Street, R., Ticehurst, J.,

Twery, M., Van Delden, H., waldick, R., White, D., Winter, L., 2009, A Formal Framework for Scenario

Development in Support of Environmental Decision- Making, Environmental Modelling & Software

24 (2009), Elsevier Ltd., pp 798-808

Pesonen, H.L., Ekwall, T., fleischer, G., Huppes, G., Jahn, C., Klos, Z.S., Rebitzer, G., Sonnemann, G.W.,

Tintinelli, A., Weidema. Bo. P., Wenzel, H., 1998, Framework for Scenario Development in LCA,



110

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.120.5355, acessed : 06 February 2010

21:10 PM.

Moestert E., 2003, Public Participation and the European Water Framework Directive: a framework

for analysis, Inception Report of the HarmoniCOP project: RBA-Center, TU-Delft, delft

Murray, A.T., 2003, A Coverage Model for Improving Public Transit System Accessibility and

Expanding Access, Annals of Operation Research 123, Kluwer Publisher, the Netherlands, pp. 143-

156

Patel, M., Kok, K., Rothman, D.S., 2007, Participatory Scenario Construction in Land Use Analysis: An

insight into the experiences created by stakeholder involvement in the Northern Mediteranian, Land

Use Policy 24 (2007), Elsevier Ltd. pp 546-561

Pettit, C., Pullar, D., Stimson, R., 2002, An Integrated Multi Scaled Decission Support Framework

Used in the Formulation and Evaluation of Land Use Planning Scenarios for the Growth of Hervey

Bay, www.iemss.org, accessed: 28 January 2010

Pettit, C., Pullar, D., 2004, A Way Forward for Land Use Planning to achieve Policy Goals Using Spatial

Modelling Scenario, Planning and Design 2004 vol 31, pp 213-233

Schoute, J F. Th., Finke, P. A., Veeneklaas, F.R., Wolfert, H. P., 1995, Scenario Studies for the Rural

Environment, Kluwer Academic Publishing, The Netherlands.

Stillwell, J., Geertman, S., Openshaw, S., 1999, Geographical Information and Planning, Springer-

Verlag Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 3-29.

Volkery, A., Riberio, T., Henrichs, T., Hoogeveen, Y., 2008, Your Vision or My Model? Lesson from

Participatory Land Use Scenario Development on a European Scale, Syst Pract Action Res 21,

Springer Science+business Media, LLC, pp 459-477

Walz, A., Lardeli, C., behrendt, H., Gret-regame, A., Lundstrom, C., Kytzia, S., Bebi, P., 2007,

Participatory scenario analysis for integrated regional modelling, Landscape and Urban Planning 81

(2007), Elsevier B.V., pp. 114-151

Wynsberge, R.V., Moore, J., Tansey, J., Carmichael, J., 2003, Towards Community Engagement: six

steps to expert learning for future scenario development, Futures 32 (2003), elsevier Science Ltd, pp.

203-219

Xiang, W.N., Clarke, K.C., 2003, The Use of Scenarios in Land Use Planning, Environment and Planning

B : Planning and Design (2003), vol 30, Pion Publication, Great Britain, pp. 885-909

DEV

ELO

PIN

GA

SCEN

AR

IOD

EVEL

OP

MEN

TA

PP

RO

AC

HA

ND

THE

ALT

ERN

ATI

VE

LAN

DU

SESC

ENA

RIO

S:TH

EC

ASE

OF

PA

KA

L,B

ENO

WO

,AN

DSA

MB

IKER

EPD

ISTR

ICTS

OF

SUR

AB

AYA

CIT

Y

111

AP

PEN

DIX

1

No

Re

sear

chQ

ue

stio

nM

eth

od

Dat

aR

eq

uir

ed

Sou

rce

11

.1.

Wh

atar

eth

eex

pec

ted

dev

elo

pm

ent

goal

s

inSu

rab

aya

city

and

the

area

esp

ecia

lly?

Do

cum

ent

revi

ew,

Stru

ctu

red

stak

eho

lder

Inte

rvie

ws

No

min

ald

ata

on

exp

ect

atio

ns

of

gove

rnm

en

tan

dst

ake

ho

lde

rsto

war

ds

the

de

velo

pm

en

to

fth

est

ud

yar

ea;

and

pla

nn

ing

po

licy

dir

ect

ion

s

Pla

nn

ing

do

cum

en

tso

fSu

rab

aya

Loca

l

Go

vern

me

nt,

stak

eh

old

er

inte

rvie

w

1.2

.W

ho

are

the

imp

ort

ant

stak

eho

lder

s

inte

rest

edin

the

dev

elo

pm

ent

of

the

stu

dy

area

?

Do

cum

ent

Rev

iew

No

min

ald

ata

on

the

stak

eh

old

ers

invo

lve

d/i

nte

rest

ed

inth

ep

lan

nin

gp

roce

ss

and

de

velo

pm

en

to

fth

est

ud

yar

ea

Pla

nn

ing

do

cum

en

ts,g

ove

rnm

en

tal

rep

ort

so

fSu

rab

aya

Loca

lGo

vern

me

nt

1.3

.H

ow

are

the

pre

sen

ttr

end

of

stu

dy

area

,

inte

rms

of

ph

ysic

al,n

on

ph

ysic

alco

nd

itio

n

Seco

nd

ary

dat

a

colle

ctio

ns,

Do

cum

en

t

revi

ew

and

Dat

aan

alys

is,

Pro

ject

ion

Dat

ao

fd

em

ogr

aph

ictr

en

d,e

nvi

ron

me

nta

l

dat

a(s

lop

e,f

loo

dp

lain

),b

uilt

up

en

viro

nm

en

tald

ata

(In

fras

tru

ctu

re,r

oad

ne

two

rks)

,an

dEx

isti

ng

Lan

du

se

1.4

.H

ow

are

the

lan

dsu

itab

ility

and

lan

d

dem

and

of

the

area

for

the

dev

elo

pm

ent?

Seco

nd

ary

dat

aco

llect

ion

,

GIS

anal

ysis

,do

cum

en

t

revi

ew

,de

man

d

calc

ula

tio

n

Dat

ao

fP

rese

nt

tre

nd

s(e

nvi

ron

me

nta

l,b

uilt

en

viro

nm

en

tald

ata;

exi

stin

gla

nd

use

;la

nd

use

pla

n;

de

mo

grap

hic

tre

nd

)

Sura

bay

aP

lan

nin

gB

oar

d

22

.1W

hat

are

the

exis

tin

gst

ruct

ure

d

app

roac

hes

for

dev

elo

pin

gla

nd

use

scen

ario

?

Lite

ratu

rere

vie

wLi

tera

ture

s,in

form

atio

nab

ou

tst

ruct

ure

d

app

roac

he

sfo

rsc

en

ario

de

velo

pm

en

ts,

ele

me

nt

of

sce

nar

io,a

nd

req

uir

em

en

to

f

goo

dsc

en

ario

2.2

Wh

atki

nd

of

stru

ctu

red

app

roac

hsh

ou

ld

be

use

dfo

rd

evel

op

ing

lan

du

sesc

enar

ioo

n

the

stu

dy

area

?

Lite

ratu

rere

vie

wLi

tera

ture

s,co

mp

aris

on

of

app

roac

he

sin

sce

nar

iod

eve

lop

me

nt

Jou

rnal

s,A

rtic

les,

Bo

oks

33

.1W

hat

kin

do

ffa

cto

rs,

po

licie

s,an

d

stak

eho

lder

ssh

ou

ldb

eco

nsi

der

edfo

r

Do

cum

en

tre

vie

w,

lite

ratu

rere

vie

w,

Dat

ao

fst

ake

ho

lde

re

xpe

ctat

ion

s,d

ata

of

fact

ors

and

po

licie

sco

nsi

de

red

bas

ed

on

Sura

bay

aP

lan

nin

gB

oar

d,S

take

ho

lde

r

inte

rvie

w

Re

seac

hM

eth

od

olo

gy

DEV

ELO

PIN

GA

SCEN

AR

IOD

EVEL

OP

MEN

TA

PP

RO

AC

HA

ND

THE

ALT

ERN

ATI

VE

LAN

DU

SESC

ENA

RIO

S:TH

EC

ASE

OF

PA

KA

L,B

ENO

WO

,AN

DSA

MB

IKER

EPD

ISTR

ICTS

OF

SUR

AB

AYA

CIT

Y

112

dev

elo

pin

gla

nd

use

scen

ario

of

the

area

?st

ruct

ure

d-s

take

ho

lde

r

inte

rvie

w

lite

ratu

res

and

stak

eh

old

ers

vie

ws.

3.2

Ho

wis

the

pro

cess

of

scen

ario

dev

elo

pm

ent

bas

edo

nth

ep

rop

ose

dap

pro

ach

for

the

stu

dy

area

?

Stru

ctu

red

stak

eh

old

er

inte

rvie

ws

and

dis

cuss

ion

s,lit

era

ture

revi

ew

Co

nce

ptu

alM

od

el,

Info

rmat

ion

on

pre

sen

t

situ

atio

no

fth

est

ud

yar

ea

De

rive

d,a

nal

yze

dd

ata

3.3

Wh

atki

nd

of

alte

rnat

ive

lan

du

sesc

enar

ios

pro

po

sed

inth

est

ud

yar

ea?

Stru

ctu

red

stak

eh

old

er

inte

rvie

ws

and

dis

cuss

ion

s

Info

rmat

ion

on

po

licie

s,th

em

es,

ind

icat

ors

,

tim

elin

e,t

arge

tan

dn

arra

tive

so

fth

e

sce

nar

io

Stak

eh

old

er

inte

rvie

wan

dd

iscu

ssio

n

44

.1W

hat

kin

do

fm

od

elin

gis

use

dfo

rap

ply

ing

alte

rnat

ive

lan

du

sesc

enar

io?

Lite

ratu

rere

vie

wLi

tera

ture

s,d

ata

avai

lab

ility

Jou

rnal

,bo

oks

,art

icle

s

4.2

Ho

war

eth

ep

roce

sses

of

mo

del

ing

alte

rnat

ive

lan

du

sesc

enar

ios?

Lite

ratu

rere

vie

w,d

ata

anal

ysis

and

inte

rpre

tati

on

Sce

nar

ioN

arra

tive

s,La

nd

suit

abili

ty,L

and

De

man

d.

Jou

rnal

,bo

oks

,art

icle

s,an

alyz

ed

dat

a

4.3

Ho

ww

illth

ep

oss

ible

resu

lts

of

lan

du

se

scen

ario

inth

efu

ture

lan

du

se?

dat

aan

alys

isan

d

inte

rpre

tati

on

,re

sult

s

anal

ysis

Sce

nar

iore

sult

sm

apA

nal

yze

dd

ata

55

.1W

hat

fact

ors

sho

uld

be

con

sid

ered

to

eval

uat

eth

ep

roce

sso

fsc

enar

io

dev

elo

pm

ent?

Lite

ratu

rere

vie

w,e

xpe

rt

dis

cuss

ion

Lite

ratu

res

Jou

rnal

,bo

oks

,art

icle

s

5.2

Wh

atar

eth

ead

van

tage

and

dis

adva

nta

ge

of

the

pro

po

sed

scen

ario

dev

elo

pm

ent

app

roac

h?

Stak

eh

old

er

Eval

uat

ion

,

Re

sult

anal

ysis

De

velo

pm

en

tgo

als,

stak

eh

old

er

exp

ect

atio

ns,

Info

rmat

ion

on

fact

ors

con

sid

ere

din

sce

nar

iod

eve

lop

me

nts

Pla

nn

ing

do

cum

en

tsfr

om

Sura

bay

a

Pla

nn

ing

Bo

ard

,sta

keh

old

ers

dis

cuss

ion

,

and

anal

yze

dd

ata

5.3

Wh

atfa

cto

rssh

ou

ldb

eco

nsi

der

edto

eval

uat

eth

eal

tern

ativ

ela

nd

use

scen

ario

resu

lts?

Lite

ratu

rere

vie

w,e

xpe

rt

dis

cuss

ion

Lite

ratu

res

Jou

rnal

,bo

oks

,art

icle

s

DEV

ELO

PIN

GA

SCEN

AR

IOD

EVEL

OP

MEN

TA

PP

RO

AC

HA

ND

THE

ALT

ERN

ATI

VE

LAN

DU

SESC

ENA

RIO

S:TH

EC

ASE

OF

PA

KA

L,B

ENO

WO

,AN

DSA

MB

IKER

EPD

ISTR

ICTS

OF

SUR

AB

AYA

CIT

Y

113

5.4

Wh

atar

eth

ead

van

tage

and

dis

adva

nta

ges

of

each

lan

du

sesc

enar

iofo

rth

est

ud

yar

ea?

Stak

eh

old

er

Eval

uat

ion

,

Re

sult

anal

ysis

De

velo

pm

en

tgo

als,

stak

eh

old

er

exp

ect

atio

ns,

Pla

nn

ing

po

licie

s,sc

en

ario

resu

lts

Pla

nn

ing

do

cum

en

tsfr

om

Sura

bay

a

Pla

nn

ing

Bo

ard

,sta

keh

old

ers

dis

cuss

ion

,

and

anal

yze

dd

ata

5.5

Wh

atre

com

men

dat

ion

ssh

ou

ldb

egi

ven

for

futu

rela

nd

use

pla

nin

term

so

fsc

enar

io

dev

elo

pm

ent

app

roac

han

dal

tern

ativ

ela

nd

use

scen

ario

?

Re

sult

anal

ysis

Eval

uat

ion

resu

lts

An

alyz

ed

dat

a

Documents

DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ... · developing a scenario development approach and the alternative land use scenarios: the case of pakal, benowo, and sambikerep