developing a scenario development approach and the ... · developing a scenario development...
TRANSCRIPT
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
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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:
a. To assess the present situations of the study area
What are the expected development goals in Surabaya city and the areaespecially?
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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.
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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.
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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.
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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).
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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.
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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.
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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.
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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).
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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)
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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).
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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):
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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.
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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.
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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.
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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.
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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.
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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.
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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)
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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.
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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.
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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.
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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.
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
42
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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.
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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:
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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.
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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:
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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.
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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:
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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.
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
52
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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)
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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.
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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.
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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.
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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)
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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:
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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.
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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 )
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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
Suitability analysis
3 Proximity to public facilitiescriterion
Proximity to public facilitiescriterion
Suitability analysis
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
Suitability 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
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:
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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)
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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.
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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.
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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.
±
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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
(the closer the better)v 0.6 v 0.8
3 Proximity to river
(the farther the better)v 0.7 v 0.4
4 Proximity to local road
(the closer the better)v 0.6 v 0.6
5 Proximity to collector road
(the closer the better)v 0.6 v 0.8
6 Proximity to secondary arterial road
(the closer the better)v 0.6 v 0.8
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.
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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.
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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,
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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.
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
92
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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.
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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:
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL, BENOWO, AND
SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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,
BENOWO, AND SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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.
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL,
BENOWO, AND SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
103
10 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
10.1 Objectives Revisited Summary of Findings
a. To assess the present situations of the study area
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
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL,
BENOWO, AND SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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).
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL,
BENOWO, AND SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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.
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL,
BENOWO, AND SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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.
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL,
BENOWO, AND SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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.
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL,
BENOWO, AND SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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.
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL,
BENOWO, AND SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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,
DEVELOPING A SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS: THE CASE OF PAKAL,
BENOWO, AND SAMBIKEREP DISTRICTS OF SURABAYA CITY
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