Created By: 1. Laura O'Brien 2. Meg Gilchrist 3. Hannah Wilkes 4. Sebit Pal Rambang 5. Nurlina Yustiningrum 6. Ainina Zahra 7. Sandy Afwan International Field Course: Exploring Development Complexities — in collaboration with The University of Queensland's School of Geography Planning and Environmental Management. July, 2015. Notoyudan, Yogyakarta, Indonesia.

1. NOTOYUDAN
Sanitation Issues

2. Location and Context
0 5 10 20 M

3. Overview of Sanitation issues
in Notoyudan

4. Current Community Process

5. Ideal Community Process

7. Stakeholders
Through identifying the issues four key stakeholder
emerged.
1. Community
2. Non Government Organization
3. Government
4. Academic Field

8. Core Strategic Issues
Through identifying the complex range of issues within the
previous theme map, two core strategic issues arose.
1. Availability of and use of space
2. Stakeholder Relations
These issues were identified within the community as
catalyst for secondary issues.

9. Availability of and use of space
In regards to this strategic issue, the critical concerns and
potential constraints as identified within the community
are regarding:
 An extremely dense settlement
 A lack of communal waste management areas
 The inability of the settlement to expand due to river
boarders.
 Concerns issues of proximity and smell

10. Stakeholder Relations
In regards to this strategic issue, the critical concerns and
potential constraints as identified within the community are
regarding:
 Open and transparency channels of communication
 Inadequacies of previous academic relations
 Lack of ongoing involvement in the planning process
 Lack of participatory and collaborative planning with the
Notoyudan community
 Failure of stakeholders to fulfill their roles

11. Methods and Analysis

12. Qualitative Methods
To gain an understanding of the communities issues in regards
to sanitation in Notoyudan, qualitative methods were
implemented given the nature of the subject matter.
The following methods were chosen for the Notoyudan case
given the sanitation issue:
 Informal discussion
 Informal interview
 Formal presentations (Government agencies, Arkom,
Kalijawi)

13. Combating potential methodology
problems
Given the sensitivity and ethical considerations of qualitative analysis the
following procedures were implemented to minimize potential issues:
 Identifying the questions prior to entering the field
 Cultural sensitivity, appropriate behavior and questions
 Allowing the flow of conversation to be driven by the community members
 Preventing a loss of meaning by conducting interviews in the communities first language
 Extra care taken when transcribing
 Ensuring equal power dynamics and a conversational approach so as not to make the
community a subject, but an active participator. The ideal situation for Notoyudan was a
situation where no one was the teacher and no one was the student.
(Scheyvens, 2003)

14. Informal discussion and
interview
Prior to arriving in Notoyudan, an initial and flexible
methodology acted as a guideline for research. In response to
the workshops the following process was implemented:
1. The decision to utilize informal interviews and discussion
based on the need to facilitate open and equal
communication
2. Developed a set of key questions to act as a guideline to
keep conversation on track
3. Enacted open discussion and where necessary referred to
guiding questions
4. Establish follow up questions to clarify and ensure correct
interpretation

15. Formal Presentations
Formal presentations from organizations and the
government were used as a tool to clarify concerns and
gain greater perspective on key issues. This tool is critical
in regards to:
 Gaining a complete picture of the case and its
associated issues
 Understanding the power relations between
stakeholders
 Understanding the perspectives on the existing state of
stakeholder relations

16. Analysis Tools
To gain an understanding of the communities issues in
regards to sanitation in Notoyudan, qualitative analysis
tools to allow for breakdown of key issues and information
from community interviews.
The most effective analysis tools were identified as:
 Stakeholder analysis
 SWOT analysis

17. Stakeholder Analysis

18. SWOT Analysis
 Willingness of community leaders
 Openness to help leaders of the
community
 Resilience and adaptability
 Existing draining system
 Capacity of leaders to drive
change
 Environmental and health benefits
if waste was to be treated
 Increased awareness of health
and sanitation issues
 Place-based and appropriate
technology that works for the
communication
 Government requirements
surrounding proposals of
sanitation upgrades
 Sense of security in government
action
 Sense of security surrounding
funding
 Very dense
 Lack of knowledge around
sanitation benefits
 Not all community members
‘are on board’
 Existing belief that current system
is adequate – no blockages
 Drainage system – solid waste
and water not separated
 Currently no treatment of raw
sewerage
Strengths Weaknesses
Opportunities Threats

19. Ethics of Data Collection
 Ethics information and forms were distributed to all
respondents and participants.
 The forms were used to inform the respondents that
their participation was voluntary and have the right to
veto any information.
 Ethics forms were distributed prior to the interview
where possible, and if not, were distributed immediately
after.

20. Dimensions of the issues

21. Major Dimensions
From our issues identification and analysis tools, a range of
inter connected dimensions of influence were identified. These
dimensions scale across multiple issues and are highly
responsive to each other.
The dimensions with the greatest impact within Notoyudan
were identified as:
 Environmental (river condition and influences on health)
 Technology (determining a suitable solution with the
identified constraints)
 Governance (communication, stakeholder relations,
imbalance of power)

22. Environmental Dimensions
Built Environment:
 Housing density, proximity and condition
 Existing infrastructure and constraints on potential infrastructure
 Condition of existing communal and household waste facilities
Natural Environment:
 Slope of the land utilized for effective drainage
 Constraints of the river boundary
 River health is derogated by poor waste management and treatment
Both aspects of the environmental dimension has significant impacts on the
outcomes for human health

23. Technological Dimensions
The technological dimensions influencing Notoyudan is the
manner in which outcomes fit within and respond to strategic
issues of space and stakeholder relations.
 Having suitable sanitation technology that can be
implemented within the built environment dimensions
 Implementation of the technology will occur at a significant
monetary cost, likely to have an impact on stakeholder
relationships depending on funding source
 Need for appropriate and manageable technology as
responsibility will be given to the community for maintenance
and operation
 The technology must have durability

24. Governance Dimensions
An underlying theme throughout all investigations has been
that of a connection to the issue of governance dimensions.
These include:
 A lack of clarity on defining good sanitation
 A lack of communication, co-ordination and collaboration
between the community, government departments and
NGO’s
 Issues of flexibility regarding differences in conditions within
kampung
 Top down approaches

25. Recommendations

26. Key Findings
Based on the analysis tools undertaken within the
communities the following findings have formed the basis
of the recommendations.
1. The analysis and identification of the issues within
Notoyudan is highly community driven, and should
remain as such.
2. Much of the planning power as a result flexibility is
held by the City government. The community would
desire the continuation of the facilitation role of the
NGO, however seeks a more participatory approach
by the government

27. 3. The government currently contracts out all
development with various issues of contractor
responsibility and failed outcomes. The community
seeks to ensure quality and control, and community
based labour.
4. Regardless of preferences, the responsibility for
evaluation and management of development falls to
community. The community seeks a sense of
ownership. Additionally, there is need for increased
government evaluation and follow up.

28. Recommendations of key strategic issues
Option 1: Adapt installation to space Option 2. Make space for installation
Make a communal large lavatory by buying
more land and removing housing
Pro
• no land needs to be
resume
• more community support
Pro
• Government
willing to fund
this type
Con
• Might not be in
government
standard
• Might need self
funding
• Self mapping
location
Con
• Some people will
lose their land
Use small treatment technology with current
infrastructure
(Filtration or Bio Septic)
Poor quality
communal toilets
by river
Bio-Septic
Filtration
system

29. Effective Project Cycle

30. Planning Action Pyramid
CAPACITY BUILDING, CRITICAL THOUGHT AND
EMPOWERMENT
ACTION
‘barriers & solutions’
IMPLEMTENTATION
‘strong community involvement’
APPLICATION
EVALUATION &
ONGOING
MANAGEMENT

31. Thank you for welcoming us into your community.
It has been an honor to learn with you.