Studi Komparasi Partisipasi Dalam Proses Perancangan Material Terbarukan

  • eka arifianty pusita telkom university

Abstract

The participation approach has long been recognized in sustainable design projects. Some recent material innovations strive for demonstrating community participation in their design process to achieve a sustainable outcome. However, the terminology of participation can be perceived and implemented differently for actors involved in the process. Responding to the diverse understanding of participation, this paper tries to examine the implementation of participation in the making of two well-known renewable materials innovations, namely Totomoxtle and Pinatex. The methodology used in this research is a comparative descriptive which is analyzed through literature and comparative studies by referring to the ladder of participation theory by Arnstein, the form of participation by White, and the participation in design by Lee. Based on the analysis, there are different levels of participation held by actors and also various forms of participation occur in the design process. Moreover, the comparative studies also show that the actors who occupy a similar level of participation do not directly comprise a similar form and function of participation. However, the diverse forms and levels of participation in sustainable innovation establish a different type of relation and space for interaction between designers and other actors involved.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1]. Wittmayer, J.M., Scha?pke, N., van Steenbergen, N. and Omann, I. 2014. Making sense of sustainability transitions locally: how action research contributes to addressing societal challenges. Critical Policy Studies. 8. 4:465-485 DOI:10.1080/19460171.2014.957336
[2]. Loorbach, D., Frantzeskaki, N., Avelino, F. 2017. Sustainability Transitions Research: Transforming Science and Practice for Societal Change. Annual Review of Environment and Resources.
[3]. Ekong, E.E. 2003. Introduction to rural sociology. Dove publishers, Akwa-Ibom, Nigeria
[4]. Ofuoku, A. U. 2011. Effect of community participation on sustainability of rural water projects in Delta Central agricultural zone of Delta State , Nigeria. 3. 7:130–136.
[5]. Burns, D., Heywood,F., Taylor,M.,Wilde,P., Wilson, M. 2004. Making community participation meaningful: a handbook for development and assesment. The Policy Press. Bristol.
[6]. World Bank. 2000.World development report 1999-2000:Enteringthe21 Century. World Bank. Washington D.C.
[7]. Alexiou, K., Zamenopoulos, T., Alevizou, G. 2013. Valuing Community-Led Design. AHRC Discussion Paper.
[8]. Arnstein, S. R. 1969. A Ladder of Citizen Participation: Journal of the American Planning Associatian, 35: 4, 216-224. DOI: 10.1080/01944366908977225
[9]. Haule, R. 2017. Assessment of factors affecting community participation towards water projects sustainability in Kinondoni municipal. Thesis. Master of Project Management. The open university of Tanzania. Darussalam.
[10]. Vardouli, T. 2015. Who designs? Technological Mediation in Participatory Design. pp.13-41. In Bihanic, D. (eds). Empowering Users through design. Interdisciplinary Studies and Combined Approaches for Technological Products and Services. Springer International Publishing. Switzerland. DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-13018-7_2
[11]. Mansuri, G., Rao, V. 2004. Community based and driven development: A Critical Review. The World Bank Research Observer. 19. 1:1 – 39.
[12]. Salinas, L., Thorpe, A., Prendiville, A. & Rhodes, S. 2018. Civic engagement as participation in designing for services. Service Design Proof of Concept. Proceedings of the ServDes.2018 Conference. Linköping: Linköping University Electronic Press
[13]. White, S. 1996. Depoliticising development: The uses and abuses of participation. Development in Practice, 6, 6-15. DOI: 10.1080/0961452961000157564
[14]. Purbaningrum, D.G. 2019. Tipologi kepentingan dalam partisipasi masyarakat pada pembangunan ruang publik terpasu ramah anak kenanga di kelurahan cideng jakarta pusat. Kajian Ilmu Sosial. 30.1:6-18.
[15]. Lee, Y. 2008. Design participation tactics: the challenges and new roles for designers in the co-design process. CoDesign. 4.1:31-50 , DOI: 10.1080/15710880701875613
[16] Lee, Y. 2007. Design Participation Tactics: Enabling People to Design their Built Environment. Thesis. Doctor of Philosophy. School of Design, Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Hong Kong.
[17]. Comerio, M.C. 1984. Community design: Idealism and entrepreneurship. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research.1. 4: 227-243
[18]. Lee, Y., Cassim, J. 2009. How the Inclusive Design Process Enables Social Inclusion. International Association of Societies of Design Research (IASDR).1-10
[19]. Hijosa, C. A.A. 2015. Pinatex: The design development of a new sustainable material. Thesis. Doctor of Philosophy. Royal College of Art. London.
[20]. Wahl, D.C., Baxter, S. 2008. The Designer's Role in Facilitating Sustainable Solutions. Design Issues. 24. 2:72-83. https://doi.org/10.1162/desi.2008.24.2.72
[21]. Blackburn, J., Chambers, R., Gaventa, J. 2018. Mainstreaming Participation in Development: Development Learning in a World of Poverty and Wealth. DOI: 10.4324/9781351324762-7.
Published
2021-12-31
How to Cite
PUSITA, eka arifianty. Studi Komparasi Partisipasi Dalam Proses Perancangan Material Terbarukan. JURNAL RUPA, [S.l.], v. 6, n. 2, dec. 2021. ISSN 2503-1066. Available at: <//journals.telkomuniversity.ac.id/rupa/article/view/3788>. Date accessed: 25 jan. 2022. doi: https://doi.org/10.25124/rupa.v6i2.3788.
Section
Review