Advancing Inclusive Design in Indonesian Cities

SDP-UCL and UCA-Kota Kita
Overseas Practice Engagement 2020/2021
Advancing inclusive design and planning

in Indonesian cities through a process of
remote knowledge co-production
Learning from (and contributing to) Indonesian Organizations of
People with Disabilities and low-income neighbourhoods in
Banjarmasin and Solo.
Terms of Reference
SDP-UCL and UCA-Kota Kita
Overseas Practice Engagement 2020/2021
Advancing inclusive design and planning

in Indonesian cities through a process of
remote knowledge co-production
Learning from (and contributing to) Indonesian Organizations of
People with Disabilities and low-income neighbourhoods in
Terms of Reference
Advancing inclusive design and planning in Indonesian cities through a process of remote knowledge co-production.
Coordination
University College London

Dr. Ignacia Ossul Vermehren
Nicola Dillon
Julian Walker
Kota Kita
Ahmad Rifai
Nina Asterina
Hasanatun Nisa Thamrin
Bima Pratama Putra
Fuad Jamil
Bisma Setiyadi
Kesuma Anugerah Yanti
Universitas Sebelas Maret, Surakarta

Dr. Paramita Rahayu
Chrisna Trie Hadi Permana, Ph.D
Isti Andini, MT
Universitas Lambung Mangkurat, Banjarmasin

Arief Budiman, PhD
Eviani Damastuti, M.Pd
Dr. Irwan Yudha Hadinata
Global Disability Innovation Hub

Mikaela Patrick
Design by;
Bima Pratama Putra
Fildzah Husna Amalina
February 2021
How to cite this document: Ossul-Vermehren, I., Nisa Thamrin, H., Asterina N.,, Rahayu, P. & Dillon,
N. (2021). Terms of Reference SDP-UCL/UCA-Kota Kita: Advancing inclusive design and planning in
Indonesian cities through a process of remote knowledge co-production. University College London.
This term of reference has been developed collaboratively between University College London, Kota
Kita, Universitas Sebelas Maret (Surakarta), Universitas Lambung Mangkurat (Banjarmasin) and
Global Disability Innovation Hub for the engagement between students from the Urban Citizenship
Academy (Kota Kita, Indonesia) and students from the MSc Social Development Practice (University
College London, UK). This was developed in February 2021. For more information contact ignacia.
ossul@ucl.ac.uk
Advancing inclusive design and planning in Indonesian cities through a process of remote knowledge co-production. 3
Advancing inclusive design and
planning in Indonesian cities
through a process of remote
knowledge co-production.
Learning from (and contributing to) Indonesian
Organisations of People with Disabilities and low-income
neighbourhoods in Banjarmasin and Solo. The engagement
aims to foster learning between students from the MSc
Social Development Practice and Urban Citizenship Academy
about disability and inclusive public space in Indonesian
cities.
4 Advancing inclusive design and planning in Indonesian cities through a process of remote knowledge co-production.
Acronyms
AT : Assistive Technology
BPS : Badan Pusat Statistik, National Statistic Bureau
DPO : Disabled People’s Organisation
DPU : The Bartlett Development Planning Unit - UCL
GDI : Global Disability Innovation Hub
Gerkatin : Association of People with Hearing Impairment/ Gerakan
untuk Kesejahteraan Tuna Rungu Indonesia
HWDI : Indonesian Association of Women with Disabilities / Himpunan
Wanita Disabilitas Indonesia
Kecamatan : Subdistrict, an administrative unit under City / Municipality
Kelurahan : Neighbourhood, an administrative unit under sub district /
kecamatan
NPC : National Paralympic Committee
OPD : Organisation of People with Disability / Organisasi Penyandang
Disabilitas
OPE : Overseas Practice Engagement
Pertuni : Association of People with Visual Impairment / Persatuan
Tunanetra Indonesia
PPDI : Indonesian Association of Persons with Disabilities /
Persatuan Penyandang Disabilitas Indonesia
RT : Rukun Tetangga, a lowest administrative unit of an Indonesian
neighbourhood
RW : Rukun Warga, a territorial and administrative ordering system
above RT level
SDP : MSc Social Development Practice
UCA : Urban Citizenship Academy
UCL : University College London
ULM : Universitas Lambung Mangkurat, Banjarmasin
UNS : Universitas Sebelas Maret, Surakarta
Key Terms
Organisation DPOs are representative groups organized by persons with

of People with disabilities to ensure the fulfilment and protection of rights of
Disabilities(OPD) persons with disabilities.
orDisabledPeople
Organisations There are various models of DPOs in Indonesia. There are umbrella
(DPO) organizations that include various types of disabilities called
PPDI and HWDI. There are also DPOs associated with a specific
impairment such Gerkatin (Association of People with Hearing
Impairment) and Pertuni (Association of People with Visual
Impairment). These DPOs are formally registered and structured
at regional and national levels with membership across the
country. Other models include DPOs which are established locally
and focus on addressing the needs of persons with disabilities
in the city, although the board and membership may include
persons with and without disabilities.
People with The World Health Organization “understands disability as a

disabilities dynamic integration between health conditions, contextual
ordisabledpeople factors, both personal and environmental, promoted as the bio-
psychosocial model” (World Report on Disability World Health
Organization, 2011, p.4).
The term disabled people is used in the UK. The social model
refers to ‘disabled people’ because this term respects the fact
that ‘people’ (put first) are ‘disabled’ by society.
People with disabilities (used internationally, including Indonesia

and by the United Nations) is trying to make a distinction
between the ‘person’ and the ‘disability’. Puts ‘people’ (first ) to
indicate that they are ‘disabled’ by society.
In the engagement we are using disabled people or people with

disabilities. However, is important to keep in mind that Indonesia
uses Persons with Disabilities.
We encourage to avoid using the acronym “PWD” in

conversational language and as much as possible in written form
(to not refer to people with an acronym).
Inclusive and Infrastructure that is accessible to everyone. For the purpose of

accessible our work, we say that inclusive infrastructure promotes access,
environmentsand opportunity, participation and equity in society.
infrastructure
Inclusive design Is more than technical standards for accessibility, it is about
creating equity in the built environment which helps ensure
people can access and participate in society and opportunities
such as work and education.
Assistive The World Health Organisation defines assistive technologies

Technology (AT) (AT) as the “the umbrella term covering the systems and services
related to the delivery of assistive products and services”,
which are products that “maintain or improve an individual’s
functioning and independence, thereby promoting their well-
being”. Examples of Assistive Products (AP) can be hearing aids,
wheelchairs, communication aids, spectacles, prostheses, pill
organizers and memory aids.
Table of Content
A. Partnership 09
B. Overseas Practice Engagement 2021 10

B. 1 Introduction 10
B. 2 Overall aim 11
B. 3 Specific aims 12
B. 4 Research Design: Participants and possible methods by aim 14
B. 5 Ethics and COVID-19 considerations 15
B. 6 Analysis and validation of findings 15
C. Group work 17
C. 1 Group outputs 17
C. 2 Group coordination 19
C. 3 Group work time 20
D. Case studies 21
D. 1 Group allocation 21
D. 2 Sites and 24
D. 3 OPDs 32
E. Context 34
E. 1 General Context of Indonesia’s Development 34
E. 2 Indonesian Urban Governance 35
E. 3 Useful words in Bahasa Indonesian 38
E. 4 Disability: Definitions and tensions about doing research 39
E. 5 Participation and Social Change 42
E. 6 Disability Inclusive design and infrastructure’ 43
E. 7 Kota Kita’s work on Inclusive Planning and Design 44
E. 8 UCL-Kota KIta: AT2030 action-research (2019-2021) 45
E. 9 Engagement Year 1 (May 2020) 52
F. Overview of module units 54

G. For readings and resources 57
A. Partnership
MSc Social Development Practice (SDP): The planning within the context of challenging
Bartlett Development Planning Unit (DPU) rapid urbanization and emphasizes the
at University College London (UCL) is a contribution of culture and collaborative
department concerned with promoting approach to innovative urban and regional
sustainable forms of development, planning and policy in responding to the
understanding rapid urbanisation and global environmental challenge.
encouraging innovation in the policy,
planning and management responses to Universitas Lambung Mangkurat
the economic, social and environmental (ULM): ULM is a public university located
development of cities and regions, especially in Banjarmasin and Banjarbaru, South
in Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Middle Kalimantan, Indonesia. Having vision as
East. a leading and competitive university in
the field of wetland environment, ULM has
The Social Development in Practice module 11 faculties. In this overseas engagement
is practice-based and is concerned with program, students from multi-disciplinary
exploring through practice the ways in majors, including Faculty of Engineering
which a socially sensitive approach can be (Architecture Department) and Faculty of
integrated to promote inclusive development. Education (Special Needs Education and
Sociology and Anthropology Education) will
Kota Kita is a non-profit organization based be joining the process. It will be led by the
in the Indonesian city of Solo with expertise International Office of ULM.
in urban planning and citizen participation
in the design and development of cities. Kota
Kita provides education, facilitates citizen The Global Disability Innovation Hub was
participation and collective action, born out of the legacy of the London 2012
and work with governments to build bridges Paralympic Games and launched by Mayor of
between officials and their constituencies. London Sadiq Khan in September 2016. Based
at UCL on Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park,
Urban Citizenship Academy (UCA): The GDI Hub is formed of an Academic Research
UCA program is an initiative by Kota Kita to Centre and a Community Interest Company
engage a new generation of young leaders (a non-profit, mission-led organisation). Its
and support them in solving pressing urban mission is to build a movement for disability
problems. This program provides a platform innovation for a fairer world; changing how
for transmitting Kota Kita’s approach and we think about disability through co-design,
methodologies to youth in cities across collaboration, and innovation. It provides a
Indonesia. The training develops young platform for the talents of disabled people
people’s capacity to analyse problems, to and the expertise of practitioners, academics
understand that these are not inevitable, and local communities. Over the next ten
and to see that they can play an active role in years, the GDI Hub aims to become the
addressing them to create a better future. leading place to research, study, practice and
share disability innovation, globally. GDI Hub
Universitas Sebelas Maret (UNS), CIC is the accountable body for the AT2030
Surakarta. Surakarta. Urban and programme.
Regional Planning Program, Faculty of
Engineering is a program that focuses on
promoting sustainable urban settlement
B. Overseas Practice Engagement 2021
B.1 Introduction
For the second year the MSc Social The nature of this year’s OPE means that
Development Practice (SDP), University the interrogation of the role of technology
College London (UCL) will collaborate with and what/where is ‘the field’, will be at the
Kota Kita through the Urban Citizenship centre of the engagement. The final aim is to
Academy (UCA), an initiative led by Kota embark on a meaningful learning experience,
Kita to engage a new generation of young which is ethical and productive for partners
leaders and support them in solving pressing and communities, and which provides
urban problems. This is part of a 4-year SDP and UCA students with analytical
collaboration between UCL and Kota Kita and practical skills to engage in remote
to advance social justice and inclusive collaborations and participatory action-
planning in Indonesia cities. research.
This year, UCA has invited students from The engagement builds on the work that
Universitas Sebelas Maret (Surakarta) Julian Walker and Ignacia Ossul Vermehren
and Universitas Lambung Mangkurat have been doing with Kota Kita on the
(Banjarmasin). The Overseas Practice action-research project “AT2030: Community
Engagement (OPE) aims to foster learning led Solutions,” led by Global Disability
between students from UCL and UCA Innovation Hub (GDI). The research focuses
about disability and inclusive planning in on how disabled and older people in informal
Indonesian cities. settlements in Banjarmasin (Indonesia)
are able to achieve their aspirations, and
The Overseas Practice Engagement (OPE) will the role that assistive technologies plays in
be online, and it will focus on the notion of their strategies to do so. The project is in its
‘remote knowledge co-production’1. Students second and final phase, and the SDP-UCA
will work directly with Kota Kita, members engagement will support Kota Kita to expand
of Disabled People’s Organization (DPOs or beyond the two current neighbourhoods
OPDs) and low-income communities in the in Banjarmasin and add four new
cities of Solo and Banjarmasin. The OPE’s neighbourhoods in Solo, looking particularly
knowledge co-production strategy is twofold; at the implementation of assistive
collaboration with overseas partners through technologies in some of the communities
digital platforms; and the development of a (see “AT2030 Research project”).
methodology to co-produce knowledge with
participants using digital and non-digital
methods.
1In the module we are exploring/developing together a notion of ‘remote knowledge co-production’. This was trig-
gered by the nature of this year’s engagement which will be online due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, we think
it is an opportunity to think about how “doing fieldwork” is changing (i.e. less international travel, more control to
local partners, more access to technology etc) and what are the implications of collaborating and doing research
remotely, particularly between partners from the global North and the global South. For this engagement, we expect
students to reflect critically on what are the ethical, analytical and logistical implications of doing collaborative and
participatory work remotely.
The engagement has a specific pedagogical,
research and advocacy agenda:
In terms of pedagogy, it aims to foster

translocal learning2 between SDP students, UCA
students, disabled and non-disabled residents
of informal settlements in Banjarmasin and
Solo, Disabled People Organisations and activist
actors involved in the process.
In terms of research, it aims to generate new,
relevant and inclusive data on the experience

of disabled people, through the development of
participatory methodologies, that can inform
inclusive planning proposals and initiatives in
Indonesian cities.
In terms of advocacy, it aims to support Kota

Kita’s work on social justice and inclusive
planning in Indonesian cities, helping to raise
Research question:
awareness between communities and other What is the role of
urban stakeholders about the importance of
inclusive and participatory planning with and inclusive design and
for disabled people, as well as facilitating a planning in supporting
space for disabled people as agents of change.
disabled people and
older residents achieve
B.2 Overall Aim
their aspirations
Enable collective and collaborative of inclusive public
learning about disabled and older people’s
aspirations for “Inclusive Public Space” and space and community
“Community Engagement and Participation”. participation in Solo
The two aspirations were defined through a
series of participatory activities conducted
during phase 1 of AT2030 research
project in Pelambuan and Kelayan Barat
neighbourhoods in Banjarmasin (2019-2020)
(see “Banjarmasin Analysis”, 2020).
The engagement explores the following

research question:
What is the role of inclusive design and planning
in supporting disabled people and older residents
achieve their aspirations of inclusive public
space and community participation in Solo and
Banjarmasin?
2Comes from the idea of learning across ‘different

localities’ and multiple ‘communities’from different
countries, education, class, race, gender, disability etc.
Difference here is treated as a resource for learning
instead of a factor that highlights the differences or
incomparability of communities.
B.3 Specific Aim
Aim 1: OPDs 1.1 How do OPDs define or understand ‘accessible and inclusive
environments’, and public space in specific?
Through one particular
Organisation of People with 1.2 What are the main barriers identified by OPDs for achieving
Disabilities (OPDs), the aim is accessible and inclusive environments/public space?
to understand how OPDs define
‘accessible and inclusive 1.3 What could be the main solutions identified by OPDs for
environment’ and their views achieving accessible and inclusive public space? Have they
on the current barriers and been part of any inclusive design initiatives? What initiatives
initiatives to advance inclusive they are aware of to promote inclusive public space (and what
planning in Solo or they think of them)? What they and their networks are currently
Banjarmasin. doing on this issue?
1.4 In the OPD experience, how does public space foster

community participation? (currently and in the future, any
examples, good practice?)
1.5 How can AT facilitate accessibility and inclusivity in public

space?
Aim 2: Neighbourhood 2.1 How do residents define or understand ‘accessible and inclusive
environments’ and public space in specific?
Through a specific site, the
2.2 Which are the main ‘public spaces’ used by the
aim is to understand the
community? What are the characteristics of these spaces, who uses
everyday use of public space
the space, for what? How is the place experienced by different
by disabled and non-disabled
residents? (disabled/non-disabled: women, men: young, older
dwellers in a low-income residents; working, studying, leisure activities)
community and how does it
foster community 2.3 How does the existing public space foster (or limit) community
participation. participation?
2.3. What are the key barriers that disabled (and non-disabled)
dwellers experience in the use of public space? Are there any
differences between users?
2.4. Are there any on-going initiatives or practices that support

more inclusive spaces and participation of disabled residents in
the community? Have they been part of any inclusive design
initiatives? What initiatives they are aware of to promote inclusive
public space (and what they think of them)?
2.5 How can AT facilitate accessibility and inclusivity in public

space?
Aim 3: Policy Landscape 3.1 What legislation, policy, regulation and guidance currently
exists to protect the rights of disabled people in the built
Within the current policy environment in SoloBanjarmasin?
landscape in Indonesia, what
are possible spaces to 3.2 What is the current awareness, understanding, acceptance
advance inclusive planning and application of inclusive design in built environment
and design for low-income policy, planning, design and construction among key
disabled and older residents stakeholders in Solo/Banjarmasin?
in Banjarmasin or Solo?
3.3 In which ways could practices in the site and/or OPDs be

enhanced, enabled and/or supported by current policies,
programs? Are there any on-going initiatives on inclusive
design specifically for informal residents?
3.4 What role can assistive technology have in achieving

inclusive public space?
Aim 4: Identify entry Interrogate the linkages between the three aims, you may want
points for inclusive to include questions for specific stakeholders that examine
planning. these linkages in addition to your own analysis of how they
relate.
The aim is to link the scales
and examine what are the Considering on-going community-based initiatives, OPDs
possible spaces for initiatives and existing policy landscapes, what are the entry
advancing inclusive points for change?
planning.
For example, you may want to explore:
• How does the information from the communities confirm/
unsettle
• How the perspectives
does of the OPDs?
the information from the communities
• Do theconfirm/unsettle
national policies and initiatives reach
the perspectives the OPDs?
of the local cases?
How are they seen by residents and OPDs?
• Do the national policies and initiatives reach the local
• How do the perspectives of OPDs, residents and key
cases? How are they seen by residents and OPDs?
stakeholders help explain the reality of accessible and inclusive
•
publicHow doin
space the
theperspectives of OPDs, residents
specific neighbourhoods and cityand key How
wide?
stakeholders
do these perspectiveshelp explain the reality of accessible and
differ?
• How doinclusive public space
the aspirations in the specific
of “Inclusive neighbourhhoods
Public Space” and
and cityEngagement
“Community wide? How do andthese perspectives
Participation” relatediffer?
in the
specific cases you have explored?
B.4 Research Design: Participants and possible methods by aim
Aims Entry points/ Possible methods

Participants
Aim 1: Through one Each group will be paired • Online interviews with
particular Organisation with one Organisation of leaders and members of
of People with People with Disabilities. OPDs
Disabilities (OPDs), the • Online survey
aim is to understand • OPDs website, social
how OPDs define media
‘accessible and
inclusive environment’
and their views on the
current barriers and
initiatives to advance
inclusive planning in
Solo or Banjarmasin.
Aim 2: Through a Each group will be allocated • Online interviews with RT

specific site, the aim is one site (low-income leaders and community
to understand the neighbourhood) dwellers.
everyday use of public • Possible visit to site,
space by disabled and depending on
non-disabled dwellers in communities and national
a low-income regulations.
community and how • Use of maps, Google earth,
does it foster secondary data, Kota Kita’s
community data.
participation. • Online survey or other one
to one methods
• Existing AT2030 data on
aspirations
Aim 3: Within the Groups by city should • Online interviews with key
current policy landscape coordinate interviews with stakeholders
in Indonesia, what are key stakeholders. • Review of policy
possible spaces to documents
advance inclusive Coordinate one webinar per • Secondary data and desk-
planning and design for city about inclusive based research
low-income disabled infrastructure.
and older residents in
Banjarmasin and Solo?
B.5 Ethics and COVID-19 considerations
No face-to-face can occur solely for the purpose of this engagement. All data gathering needs
to be under the ethical guidelines of the module and the organisations involved. This in-
cludes consent, use of images and risk assessment.
B.6 Analysis and validation of findings
For the analysis, it is recommendable that you do not leave all for the end, but analyse as
you go. Go through your data and start looking at it all together. Your material will not be only
the interviews and maps you produce, but also the policy documents, maps, websites, social
media of organisations, academic papers and any other material that you have engaged with
and gathered.
Also, by doing it as you go, you will be able to clarify issues (with the same interviewees or
with others stakeholders), as well as triangulate information (check the same fact from dif-
ferent sources. For example ask the same question to different stakeholders) and explore if
there are any differences, contradictions etc.
Clarifying and validating findings

The events (i.e. webinars and final presentation) will be a moment for you to validate the
findings with your participants and stakeholders. You can incorporate their feedback in your
final outputs. It is also worth checking during interviews if what you have understood and/or
your assumptions are correct or not. You can also check that your line of thinking as a group
is correct on a second interview. For example, “Last time that we spoke we understood this ….
Is that what you meant?” or “Policy maker x told us that there is this initiative x available for
disabled dwellers, have you heard of it, is something that has reached your community?”.
For you final output (particularly for the visual output for OPDs) is important that you check
with the OPDs that your findings are useful and in line with the advocacy messages of the
OPD.
Analysis
Step 1: Analyse the data by aim

1. Put together all the material of one aim together (e.g. Aim 1. OPD)
2. Keeping in mind the main research question, read all the material at once.
3. Write down any patterns that emerge. You can either have main themes identify prior
to the analysis (i.e. Main components of inclusive and accessible environments) and
others that will emerge from your data. Cluster them together – using post-it, highlight-
ing with the same colour etc. Name each one of these clusters, these are your key emerg-
ing themes or issues.
4. Identify differences or contradictions in that set of data. Also, consider if the issue
you are examining is different for different social relations. For example, in aim 2, how is
public space experienced by different residents? (disabled/non-disabled: women, men:
young, older residents; working, studying, leisure activities). Can you see any patterns?
For example, younger disabled women tend to use the mosque more than any other
space. Older men tend to not go outside.
5. Go back to the main research question and the specific aim. How can you answer it
with the information you have?
6. Write down tentative answers, findings.
7. Write down any questions you may have from your data that needs clarification. E.g.
“Check if this is correct”, “Ask RT leader for this.”
Do this for the first 3 aims.
Step 2: Analyse all the data together to find relationships between the different
data sets (patterns, contradictions, differences, gaps). (Aim 4)
For example:
- How do the perspectives of OPDs, residents and key stakeholders help explain the
reality of accessible and inclusive public space in the specific neighbourhoods and city
wide? How do these perspectives differ?
- Considering on-going community-based initiatives, OPDs initiatives and existing policy
landscapes, what are the entry points for change?
Step 3: Incorporate the literature
You should be approaching the on-going research through the analytical concepts that
you are reading and learning (don’t leave this to the end). oYou should be reading and
processing this information during the teaching lessons and when you are preparing for
the engagement.
1. Analytical terms: Actively check how your data relate to the literature on disability,
inclusive public space, participation and citizenship. How does the literature help you
organise your findings? For example, use categories that have been used to define inclu-
sive environments to present your findings. How does the literature help you explain your
findings?
2. Context facts and policies: What does the literature on inclusive planning in Indone-
sia say? How does your findings support or contradict what others have found in similar
contexts? Where does your research position in relation to this? Add context facts from
the country, settlement, disability etc. Adding context data will enhance your research
and position it in a specific context.
3. Methodology: Incorporate literature on methods to explain how and why you did what
you did, as well as the limitations of your research.
C. Group Work
The engagement between SDP and UCA students has two parts:
1. Learning and preparation (February 26th – April 22nd): Online sessions on research
design and development of the group’s research strategy
2. Engagement (April 26th to May 6th): Production of data through online interviews and
online events.
C.1 Group Outputs
Each group will be asked to carry out the following tasks and outputs.
Preparation: February to April 2021
Output Description
1 Ethics and risk Identify and develop ethics consideration and risk
assessment assessment. As an exercise, students will fill in the UCL
ethics form, however ethical considerations need to be
Submit Friday 19th considered beyond the information contained in the form
March and more as an integral part of conducting research.
2 Research plan The research plan will outline your potential participants,
methods, sites and timings. Include a sample of questions
for each research aim. You will need to justify your research
Submit Friday 26th strategy and identify potential risks and mitigation strategy.
March
3 Remote knowledge co- Plan the logistical, ethical and analytical implications of
production guideline working remotely with partners. The guideline will include
(part 1) principles for working together, roles and main tasks
considering the online nature of the work, as well as the
Submit Friday 26th specific ethical considerations the group will consider while
March doing their research.
4 Group presentation Each group will do a 15-minute presentation of their specific

case studies and research plan. This will include a policy
analysis using secondary data and a literature review which
Present on 23rd April shows the specific issues around inclusive planning and
design faced by disabled and older people in informal
settlements in Banjarmasin or Solo. The idea of the
presentation is to get feedback from members of staff, as
well as peers, with the final aim of improving the research
plan before starting the engagement.
5 Research Diary Forum SDP students will keep a ‘Research Diary’ which will include
your personal reflections about being or becoming a social
development practitioner. Although the writing will be
personal, we will ask students to share general thoughts with
Only SDP students the rest of the class. Each unit will have a question to
stimulate your writing. The research diary will be a great
Every week resource for doing ‘Coursework 3b: Personal reflection’.
A number of students will be asked to post in the Moodle

forum each week.
Practice Engagement (April 26th – May 8th 2021)
Work collectively to refine research plan and develop participatory research activities.
Implement participatory research strategy and document reflections and findings in
relation to grassroots practices to promote social justice and inclusive planning.
During the engagement the following outputs will be developed collectively between SDP
and UCA students:
Output Description
6 Webinar Webinar with key stakeholders. This will be organised by

students across groups. We are hoping to have one webinar per
city with key stakeholder during the second week of the
Week of 3rd - 7th May engagement. The aim is to discuss inclusive planning and
design, in which residents and OPDs can use it as a platform
for advocacy and advancing their claims.
1 webinar per city (2 groups organise Banjarmasin and 4 groups

organise Solo).
7 Audiovisual output for The idea is that the video or poster can be used by OPDs to
advocacy for OPD show the findings and/or for advocacy purposes, to defend or
extend inclusive design and planning processes and
outcomes in Solo, Banjarmasin or Indonesia.
May 2021 The output will be co-produced with the OPDS and/or
community. Is important that your output is useful and in line
with the advocacy messages of the OPD.
This output can be the same poster that UCA students have to
do or it can be a different output.
1 visual output per group.
8 Blog post Each group will be asked to prepare a blog post to be

published on DPU and/or Kota Kita’s website during and/or
May 2021 after the engagement (May 2021). This will be a short reflective
piece about your experience doing collaborative remote
research, methodology used or key learnings.
Post-Practice Engagement (April 26th – May 8th 2021)

Collation and analysis of information gathered, capturing main findings in relation to
grassroots practices and the conditions to promote social justice and inclusive planning in
Carry out an evaluation about how activities were implemented, examining the limitations
and contributions of the action learning engagement.
Production of final presentation and report that captures the main findings of the engage-
ment.
Production of personal reflection examining the lessons learned and critical aspects of the
practice of participatory research.
Output Description
9 Group presentation The presentation will include the case studies, methodology,
key findings and a reflection about the process of
Thursday 20th & Friday collaborating remotely. Each group will get feedback from
21st May members of staff and peers which will help you to finisale the
report.
10 Final remote Building on the guideline developed prior to the engagement,

knowledge co- the group will develop guidelines that are both practical (“how
production guideline to”), which will include the methods used and reflections, as
(part 2) well as the experience of doing remote collaborative remote
research on disability.
Tuesday May 25 th
11 Poster This might be the same output for the OPDs (see output 7).
Kota Kita will provide specific guidelines for UCA students.
Only UCA students
12 Report Each group (SDP students) will do a report which includes the
case study, methodology and key findings. The specific
Only SDp students guidelines for the report will be in the Module Outline.
Tuesday May 25th
13 Personal Reflection Each student (SDP students) will do a personal reflection

based on the engagement. The specific guidelines for the
Only SDP students report will be in the Module Outline.
Thursday May 27th
C.2 Group Coordination
Each group is responsible for its own organisation, including the division of labour and re-
porting. In order to address the TOR, each group should allocate responsibility to particular
group members for pulling together information and analysing specific elements of a given
site / community. It is up to you to decide which elements will be most useful. You will also
need to allocate responsibility for audio-visual / media documentation
Each group is responsible for creating a schedule of work, remembering that the portfolio of
expected outputs is a collective responsibility.
Clear roles: Allocate a role(s) to each member of their group based on interest and skills. En-
sure that key group functions are covered such as:
A reading management system to ensure that the set of background or contextual readings
is shared and as widely read as possible.
A facilitation system within your group. This system should provide a means of chairing or fa-
cilitating meetings and general group co-ordination. You may wish to nominate one member
of the group as a facilitator and/or team leader, or you may wish to nominate a small com-
mittee or set up a rotating system.
Ground rules: We encourage each group to establish a set of ground rules, establishing the
group’s style of working and the expectations of group members’ behaviour, interaction, and
communication. Define principles of your style of working as a group.
What happens when there is conflict? Things don’t go as expected?
How are you going to give feedback to each other?
How are you going to support each other’s work and collaborate?
Communication strategy: Each group should identify a communication and work strategy.
How is the group going to communicate? Are there any rules on how you communicate? E.g.
WhatsApp, Slack, Email thread?
Share resources: Each group will have a Google drive with key information for the group. You
can continue using this or any other platform.
Work together: Miro, Google Doc, Zoom/teams for meetings.
C.3 Group work Coordination
The following times have been set aside for groups to work together (SDP-UCA), this is the
minimum time that group members should be available, however as a group you can decide
other times depending on your tasks and internal coordination.
During the 5 sessions between Friday February 26th and Friday February 26 March, each group
will have time to work together from 10am to 11:30am (UK Time), after the teaching session.
During the remote engagement during April 26th – May 8th: All students are asked to be avail-
able every day in these two weeks (including Saturdays). UCA students will have some exter-
nal commitments from their universities, but they must be available at least 2 hours each
day. A detailed engagement schedule will be released in April.
A minimum of 2 hours a day have been decided for each group during the engagement:
- 4:00-5:00pm Indonesia time (10:00 -11:00am UK for Solo and 9:00-10:00am UK for
Banjarmasin)
- 8:00-9:00pm Indonesia time (2:00-3:00pm UK for Solo and 1:00-2:00pm UK for Ban-
jarmasin)
In addition to any work related to data collection and research which will be accommodated
depending on the group and specific research activities.
After the engagement: On Monday 10th May there is group work 12:30pm to 2pm UK time.
SDP students and UCA students are expected to coordinate their own times to deliver their
outputs to their own organisations (i.e. SDP coursework and UCA posters).
D. Case Studies
D.1 Group allocation
SDP and UCA students will be divided into six different groups, each working in a different
neighbourhood and paired with a DPO.
Group 1: Pelambuan (Banjarmasin, Indonesia) and PPDI Banjarmasin
UCL students UCA students (Universitas Lambung

Mangkurat)
UCL students UCA students (Universitas Lambung
Mangkurat)
1 Mojun Sun Japanese 8 Ahmad Rizky Special Education
Rolanda
1 Mojun Sun Japanese 8 Ahmad Rizky Special Education
Rolanda
2 Menglin Sociology 9 Farah Dhafiya Special Education
Yang
2 Menglin Sociology 9 Farah Dhafiya Special Education
Yang
3 Chang Chao Economics 10
Hargita Saputri Architect
Mei Vita
3 Chang Chao Economics 10 Hargita Saputri Architect
Mei Vita
4 Jianglei Bai Music Performance & Intellectual Property 11 Kristy Adelia Architect
Gayatri
4 Jianglei Bai Music Performance & Intellectual Property 11 Kristy Adelia Architect
Gayatri
5 Yu Wei International Relations 12 Naufal Sociology and
Muhammad Azca Anthropology (Education)
5 Yu Wei International Relations 12 Naufal Sociology and
Muhammad Azca Anthropology (Education)
6 Haoyang Mathematics with Finance Disabled People’s Organisation (DPO) - PPDI
Zhang
6 Haoyang Mathematics with Finance Disabled People’s Organisation (DPO) - PPDI
Zhang
7 Ritwika Deb Computer Science and Strategic • Slamet Triadi (Head of PPDI Banjarmasin)
Marketing and Communications • Ahmad (Secretary
7 Ritwika Deb Computer Science and Strategic • Slamet Triadiof(Head
PPDI Banjarmasin,
of PPDI Banjarmasin)
Marketing and Communications (live in Pelambuan)
• Ahmad (Secretary of PPDI Banjarmasin,
(live in Pelambuan)
Group 2: Kelayan Barat (Banjarmasin, Indonesia) and HWDI
South Kalimantan Province
UCL students UCA students (Universitas Lambung Mangkurat)
UCL students UCA students (Universitas Lambung Mangkurat)
1 Yun Gu Cultural industry management 8 Fitria Nazmi Special Education
and China Studies
1 Yun Gu Cultural industry management 8 Fitria Nazmi Special Education
and China Studies
2 Shuqi Fang History 9 Gusti Muhammad Architect
Irsyad Maulana
2 Shuqi Fang History 9 Gusti Muhammad Architect
Irsyad Maulana
3 Anyu Liu Economics 10 Muhammad Firdauz Special Education
Nuzula
3 Anyu Liu Economics 10 Muhammad Firdauz Special Education
Nuzula
4 Manjin Wei Accounting and Finance 11 Orchidea Annaysa Sociology and Anthropology
Azizah (Education)
4 Manjin Wei Accounting and Finance 11 Orchidea Annaysa Sociology and Anthropology
Azizah (Education)
5 Adina Sociology 12 Rika Febriyantina Architect
Kaztayeva
5 Adina Sociology 12 Rika Febriyantina Architect
Kaztayeva
6 Yaozhi Xu International Studies with Disabled People’s Organisation (DPO) - HWDI
6 Yaozhi Xu
German
International Studies with • Masni (Head
Disabled of HWDI
People’s South Kalimantan
Organisation Province, (live
(DPO) - HWDI
in Kelayan Barat)
7 Quynh
German
Sociology
• Masni (Head of HWDI South Kalimantan Province, (live
• Barniah in (Head ofBarat)
Kelayan HWDI Banjarmasin)
Nguyen
7 Quynh Sociology • Barniah (Head of HWDI Banjarmasin)
Nguyen
Group 3: Pajang (Solo, Indonesia) and Pertuni Solo City
UCL students UCA students (Universitas Sebelas

Maret)
1 Andriyana Saputro Education Aga Prasetya Urban and Regional

8
Amanda Planning
2 Kechun Xu Economics 9 Tyas Felicia Special Education
3 Zhiwen Li Economics Urban and Regional

10 Rahma Putri
Planning
4 Liyuan Zhang Media Communication and Urban and Regional

11 Ridho Adam
Cultural Studies Planning
5 Leona Liao Business Administration
Disabled People’s Organisation (DPO) - Pertuni

6 Gabriel Ho Lam Law
• Pak Sukiman (Head of Organization)
• Pak Purwanto (Member of Pertuni)
7 Riham Kowatly Architecture and
Sociology
Group 4: Banjarsari (Solo, Indonesia) and PPRBM Solo

Maret)
1 Boyuan Zhang English 8 Apin Fitri Amalina Urban and Regional

Planning
2 Suzanne Kimuyu International Management with Business 9 Zalfaa Azalia Pursita

Studies Special Education
3 Yangyu Fan Human Behaviour and Environmental 10 Almadea Cherish Urban and Regional
Sciences Anissa Planning
4 Lingqian Zhu Economics 11 Arzaq Tauqida Urban and Regional

Planning
5 Ruiyi Yang Social Work

Disabled People’s Organisation (DPO) - PPRBM
• Pak Kristian
6 Chenkun Yue Economics
• Pak Maman
7 Shruthi History
Manivannan
Group 5: Sangkrah (Solo, Indonesia) and SIGAB

Maret)
1 Xinrou Zhu Advertising Urban and Regional

8 Dicky Prayoga
Planning
2 Linsen Li Economics 9 Hafidz Zulaila Special Education
3 Huishu Liu Business Management with Accounting Almira Nur Aryani Urban and Regional
and Finance 10 Putri Planning
4 Dzifa Social work Kiki Fadhilah Urban and Regional

Agbodah 11 Pratama Planning
5 Runjun Zuo Business Management Disabled People’s Organisation (DPO) -

SIGAB
6 Junfei Wang Accounting • Ibu Purwanti
7 Karin Communications Sciences

Ballasch and CSR & Sustainability
Group 6: Gilingan (Solo, Indonesia) and Gerkatin Solo
UCL students UCA students (Universitas Sebelas Maret)
1 Emily Liu English Literature Urban and Regional

8 Bayu Laksono Jati
Planning
2 Di Hu Broadcasting and TV 9 Amich Kemala Putri Special Education
3 Rachel Cobbinah Modern Languages and Nuzula Firdha Urban and Regional
10
Business Sa'adati Planning
4 Xinran Zhu Economics Urban and Regional

11 Celine Sola Gracia Planning
5 Ran Shang Accounting and Finance Urban and Regional

12 Ricca Padyansari
Planning
6 Yuan Meng International Relations

and Public Policy Disabled People’s Organisation (DPO) -
Gerkatin
7 Meerim Accounting, Analysis and • Ghalih / Bima
Osmonalieva Audit
D.2 Sites
Cities
1. Banjarmasin City
Banjarmasin is the capital of South Kalimantan Province, Indonesia. The city covers an area
of 98.46 km2 with 692,793 registered residents as of 2017. With a population density of 7,036
per km2, Banjarmasin is the most populous city on Kalimantan island. The city is nicknamed
‘The City of a Thousand Rivers’ as it sits on a delta where Barito and Martapura rivers merge.
For decades, Banjarmasin has been a hub for coal, timber, and rubber shipments for domes-
tic and international trade.
In the past, transportation routes and economic activities in Banjarmasin concentrated on
the riverside. Over time, development moved inland and canoes were slowly replaced by cars
and motorbikes. With roads as the city’s primary access, riverside areas no longer serve as
the frontline of daily activities and instead have grown to be the backyard of settlements. As a
result, the quality of rivers in the city has declined, as reflected by narrower river flows, silted
rivers, and decreasing riverbank areas due to buildings and land parking.
Banjarmasin city has five sub-districts (kecamatan), including South Banjarmasin, East Ban-
jarmasin, West Banjarmasin, Central Banjarmasin, and North Banjarmasin. The total number
of urban villages is 52 kelurahan, consisting of 116 RWs (unified block) and 1,569 RTs (blocks).
In 2020, the total population of Banjarmasin is 715,703 inhabitants, with the highest popu-
lation located in North Banjarmasin. However, the densest sub-district in the city is Central
Banjarmasin with a density of 14,470 population per km2, higher than the city’s average of
7,269 population per km2.
Based on statistical data in 2019, the total number of poor people living in Banjarmasin is
29,648 inhabitants, an 1.20% increase from its 2018 figure at 29,240 inhabitants. Meanwhile,
the Human Development Index (HDI) of Banjarmasin was recorded at 70.91 in 2020, which is
below the national average of 71.94.
2. Surakarta City
Surakarta — popularly known as Solo — is one of the major cities in Central Java alongside
the province’s capital city of Semarang. The area has been settled for over five centuries, and
was previously part of the Mataram Kingdom, the strongest kingdom on Java since the 16th
century. With the slogan of “Solo, the spirit of Java,” the city prides itself on maintaining its
Javanese cultural heritage.
Solo has a total area of 44,02 km2, consisting of five subdistricts (kecamatan), 54 neigh-
bourhoods (kelurahan), 626 unified blocks (RW), and 2,784 blocks (RT). Located 65 km from
northeast of Yogyakarta and 100 km southeast of Semarang, the city has become a regional
hub of Central Java province, connecting the main cities of Java island such as Semarang,
Yogyakarta, Surabaya, and Jakarta.
This strategic position also enables Solo to be a trading and business centre for Central Java.
Solo city’s economy is supported by the trade, tourism services sector (hotels, restaurants,
culture, and performances), and the education sector.
In 2019, Solo reported a total population of 572,560 people, with 281,956 males and 290,604
females. The highest population is in the Banjarsari sub-district with 31.50% of the city popu-
lation, while the lowest is in the Serengan sub-district with 9.68% of the city population. The
city’s population density is 13,000.91 persons/km2, with Pasar Kliwon as the densest sub-dis-
trict at 18.010 persons/km2; the lowest density area is the Jebres sub-district.
Neigborhoods
1. Pelambuan (Banjarmasin)
Pelambuan is located in the west area of Banjarmasin with a total population of 12.854 people
(Statistics of Banjarmasin, 2018) with 51.4% male, and 49.6% female. The population density
in the neighbourhood is around 14,458.49 persons/km2 with a total of 1,813 households. There
are 4 RWs (unified block) and 72 RTs (blocks) that spreaded structurally in the area. Based on
Kota Kita’s research on disability in Banjarmasin (2018), Pelambuan neighbourhood has the
highest concentrations of persons with disabilities (252 persons out of 3,897 persons with
disabilities). Due to the absence of safe pedestrian infrastructure, combined with heavy truck
access from and to the port, many residents, especially disabled people are left vulnerable.
In fact, as an industrial area, 12% of disability in Pelambuan is caused by traffic accidents
and work hazards - and those affected continue residing in the neighborhood because of the
existing social support system.
Barito River Housing
2. Kelayan Barat (Banjarmasin)
Kelayan Barat is located in the south part of Banjarmasin. The population in Kelayan Barat
reached 6,763 people in 2018 with gender balance amongst male and female around 50%.
The population density in the neighbourhood is around 23,320.69 persons/km2. Meanwhile,
the number of households registered to the government is 1,769 households spread in 15
RTs (blocks) and 1 RW (unified block). Kota Kita’s research on disability in Banjarmasin also
demonstrated that Kelayan Barat as a densely populated area has a high concentration of
persons with disabilities due to its close proximity to various public facilities and residential
areas.
Riverbank housing Community Firestation
3. Pajang (Solo)
Kelurahan Pajang is a neighborhood that is directly adjacent to Sukoharjo Regency, one of the
outer neighborhoods of Solo City in the south. Kelurahan Pajang is currently in the process of
area expansion (will be divided), since this neighborhood is one of the largest and the most
dense neighborhoods in Solo. The total area is 1.55km2, the largest neighborhood in Lawey-
an district. The total population in 2019 is 25.103 inhabitants, spread in 88 RTs (blocks) and
16 RW (unified block). The percentage of population density in the neighbourhood is around
24.48%, the highest population in Laweyan district.
In 2016, while Kota Kita conducted persons with disabilities mapping in Solo, Pajang is the
third largest number of people with disabilities in the city (98 persons), most of them are
visual impairments. The agglomeration of persons with visual impairment lived in Pajang is
due to the location of Panti Bhakti Candrasa, a home of rehabilitation center for persons with
visual impairment in Central Java. The type of disability often limits the options of occupa-
tion, evenmore prototyping their occupation options. In Pajang, we can find lots of massage
therapists that are owned by persons with visual impairment, as massage therapist is a com-
mon occupation option prototyped in Indonesia for persons with visual impairment.
Pajang
Massage parlors Community Clean water services
4. Banjarsari (Solo)
Kelurahan Banjarsari is a neighborhood that is directly adjacent to Karanganyar Regency and
also serves as one of Solo’s gateway to coastal Java and cities such as Semarang. It is an area
of growing industrial and residential development in the cities. Banjarsari is one of the new
neighborhoods in Solo that was expanded in 2017. At the beginning this neighborhood was part
of the Kadipiro neighborhood, as one of largest neighborhoods in the city. In 2017 Kadiporo was
divided into three neighborhoods, one of them is Banjarsari neighborhood. The population of
Banjarsari after becoming a neighborhood is 18.866 inhabitants, with a total area of 2.33 km2.
The boundaries of this neighborhood in the northern area is Karanganyar Regency, southern
area is adjacent to Joglo neighborhood, western area is adjacent to Kadipiro neighborhood, and
the eastpart by Mojosongo neighborhood. Banjarsari consists of 103 RT and 22 RW.
Based on data collection on persons with disabilities conducted by Kota Kita in 2016,
Banjarsari (Kadipiro at that time) is one of the largest number of people with disabilities
in the city (in total 123 persons). Persons with physical disabilities often live in Banjarsari,
since a settlement area dedicated to persons with physical disabilities located in this
neighborhood, called Perumahan Penca (Penyandang Cacat3/Persons with disabilities) in
RT 02/RW 24. Special housing for people with disabilities is located in this neighborhood (at
RT02/RW24) and also Banjarsari has the largest public cemetery in the city, called Bonoloyo
Banjarsari
Public cemetery Special housing for people with disabilities
3In Indonesia, the term disability before the existence of Law No. 8/2016 on People with Disabilities is still referred to
as ‘cacat’ which connotation is a bit negative then ‘penyandang disabilitas (people with disabilities), or ‘difabel’.
5. Sangkrah (Solo)
Kelurahan Sangkrah is one of the oldest neighborhoods and located near to the palace. Most
areas of Sangkrah are located along the railways and rivers, and also one of the slum areas
in the city. Bengawan Solo and Kali Pepe river are two main rivers passing this area, therefore
flooding and lack of decent sanitation are two of the main problems in this neighborhood.
Population density is the root of the problem that affects access to sanitation and clean
water, within an area of 0.42 km2 and a population of 12.817 inhabitants, this area classified
as dense areas in the city. Sangkrah is bordered by the Pepe River on the north side, Benga-
wan Solo River on the east side, Jl. Untung Suropati in the South, and urban roads on the west
side.
There are several public infrastructures such as sub-district offices, city stations, public
health care, and community halls. Aiming to address the sanitation problems, some public
toilets and communal septic tanks built in this area, besides pump house and sluice built to
overcome the seasonal flooding from the Pepe and Bengawan Solo river. This neighborhood
is also popular as kampung lukis (painting neighborhood) due to many of its residents work
as cloth painting artists. Moreover, two community-owned dance studios can be found in this
neighborhood.
Sangkrah
Kelurahan office Local train station
6. Gilingan (Solo)
Kelurahan Gilingan is located in the heart of Solo City and becomes a city hub since the main
rail station, Solo Balapan and the city’s bus terminal is located in this neighborhood. How-
ever, there are some slum areas scattered along the river banks and rail tracks found in this
neighborhood. The total area is 1.27 km2 with total population 20.222 inhabitants, this neigh-
borhood bordered by Anyar river on the north, Pepe river on the west and on the south border
with rail tracks and on the east border with Tegalharjo neighborhood.
Regarding the public facilities, beside the transportation facilities mentioned earlier, in this
neighborhood also located some public education including Senior High School 1 and 2, pub-
lic park which also integrate with Batik Solo Trans, as the main bus public transportation in
Solo.
Gilingan
Tirtonadi Bus Station Pepe River
D.3 OPDs
3. Pertuni
1. PPDI (Indonesian Association of Per- Pertuni or the Indonesian Blind People Asso-
sons with Disabilities) ciation is a national-level blind community
PPDI or Persatuan Penyandang Disabilitas organization founded on January 26, 1966, in
Indonesia is an umbrella organization and Solo. In 1971, Pertuni Central Board moved to
consists of various disability social organiza- Jakarta. Pertuni aims to “Create conducive
tions in Indonesia which was established on conditions for blind people to live their lives
11th March 1987. The vision of this institution as intelligent, independent and productive
is to realize the full participation and equal individuals and citizens without discrimi-
opportunity of persons with disabilities in nation in all aspects of life and livelihoods.”
all aspects of life. PPDI functions as a co- Pertuni has had Regional Executive Boards
ordinating and advocacy institution for its (DPD in 34 Provinces and Branch Manage-
members, while for the government PPCI is a ment Boards (DPC) in 221 Regencies / Cities
partner in the preparation of various poli- throughout Indonesia.
cies and programs relating to persons with
disabilities. PPDI has a network of almost all In Solo, Pertuni’s chairman is Mr. Sukiman,
provinces in Indonesia and is a member of who has joined Pertuni since 1993. In Solo,
Disabled People International. Since 2005, Pertuni carries out various activities and
PPDI and its network organizations have ac- programs for its members, including Mobility
tively encouraged and provided the concept Orientation (MO), braille reading and writing
of academic texts for the CRPD ratification training, economic strengthening training
process. In Banjarmasin, PPWD was estab- through home industry training, massage
lished in 1997. training, religious activities, savings, and
loans for members and other entrepreneurial
activities.
2. HWDI (Indonesian Association of Wom-

en with Disabilities)
HWDI or Himpunan Wanita Disabilitas In- 4. PPRBM
donesia is an umbrella organization with a PPRBM or Community Based Rehabilitation
vision to collect, advocate, and empower the Center - Development and Training Center is
women of disability and jointly fight for their an NGO based in Solo city as a rehabilitation
rights as women with disabilities in Indone- center for people with disabilities. Currently,
sia. HWDI was first established in 1997, while PPRBM has collaborated with seven cities/
in the South Kalimantan Province, it was regencies in Central Java to provide rehabil-
established in 2004. Later, the HWDI estab- itation for disabilities by providing commu-
lished in the City of Banjarmasin in 2007. nity-based empowerment/capacity-building
for disabilities. The Cities / Regencies that To achieve equal and inclusive life for diffable
collaborated with PPRBM are Solo City, Ka- SIGAB :
ranganyar Regency, Sragen Regency, Boyolali - Research diffability issues
Regency, Wonogiri Regency, Klaten Regency - Updating data of diffable
and Grobogan Regency. Through the activ- - Campaign and public education
ities carried out, PPRBM wants to realize - Policy advocacy
equal rights and opportunities in all fields for - Collective action
people with disabilities to create an inclusive
society.
6. Gerkatin
5. SIGAB Gerkatin (Gerakan untuk Kesejahteraan Tuna
Sasana Integrasi & Advokasi Difabel (SIGAB) Rungu Indonesia) is deaf disability orga-
is a non-governmental organization that is nization in Indonesia which was founded
independent, non-profit, and non-partisan. on February 23, 1981. Gerkatin is an official
SIGAB was established in Yogyakarta on May member of Indonesian Council of Social Wel-
5, 2003. The organization has great aspira- fare (DNIKS) and World Federation of the Deaf
tion to defend and fight for the rights of the (WFD). As a movement, Gerkatin fights to de-
diffable throughout Indonesia to achieve fend the rights of deaf people as fully equal
equal and inclusive life. citizens like everyone else and also empower
deaf people to achieve social welfare.
SIGAB was founded because up today the
life of difabel people are still marginalized, Strategies :
either structurally and culturally. The rights - Capacity building in organizational skill
of diffable citizens such as the right to ed- - Public advocacy
ucation, employment, health, social secu- - Strengthens life-skill capacity for deaf
rity, legal protection, access to information people
and communication up to the use of public
facilities were never received properly. As an Gerkatin is a nation-wide organization which
organization that is consistently against all has a number of branches in many cities
kind of discrimination, SIGAB refuse the use throughout Indonesia (including Solo). This
of the term of people with disabilities be- organization is entirely managed by disabled
cause in Indonesian culture the term is very people with hearing impairment.
degrading human dignity and anti-equality.
SIGAB decides to use the word “difabel” from
english term “diffable” (differently abled)
that is considered more fair and respecting
human dignity.
E. Context
E.1 General Context of Indonesia’s Development
1. Economy
Indonesia is the largest economy in Southeast Asia, and the 16th largest economy in the
World, with a GDP per capita of USD$3,4004. The country is classified as a lower middle-in-
come country by the World Bank and its economy has seen a slowdown in growth since 2012,
mostly due to the end of the commodities export boom5. During the global financial crisis,
Indonesia outperformed its regional neighbours and joined China and India as the only G20
members posting growth. Indonesia’s annual budget deficit is capped at 3% of GDP, and the
Government of Indonesia lowered its debt-to-GDP ratio from a peak of 100% shortly after the
Asian financial crisis in 1999 to 34% today. In May 2017 Standard & Poor’s became the last
major ratings agency to upgrade Indonesia’s sovereign credit rating to investment grade.
Despite this story of recent economic growth, Indonesia’s reality remains marked by poverty6,
inequality7, unemployment, inadequate infrastructure, corruption, complex regulatory frame-
works, and unequal resource distribution across the countries’ diverse regions. Responding
to these challenges, President Joko Widodo – elected in 2014, and re-elected in 2019 – has
sought progressive reforms and placed a significant emphasis on infrastructure develop-
ment in the hope of generating significant economic investment in the country’s future.
When President Joko Widodo was first elected, he announced a US$350 billion infrastructure
plan that promised to remove existing bottlenecks and improve access to infrastructure out-
side of the main island of Java. This year, his government announced an even more ambitious
plan for 2020 to 2024. More than US$400 billion will be spent across hundreds of projects.
Twenty-five new airports are in the pipeline, as are power plants, waste-to-energy facilities
and lots of mass transit projects. The plans also include developing the groundwork for a new
capital city.
Riverbank housing Reclamation project
4World Bank website (2017), http://data.worldbank.org/country/indonesia

5Responding to this vulnerability, Indonesia has made efforts to reduce its reliance on raw commodity exports and
stimulate a domestic manufacturing industry. Under the leadership of Joko Widodo, the Indonesian government has
implemented a programme of structural reforms aimed at delivering long-term economic growth. This programme
involves significant infrastructural investment, part-financed by the scrapping of domestic fuel subsidies, and ac-
tive courting of the private investment sector (evidenced by increased deregulation and the offer of fiscal incentives).
6In 2014, 11% of the population were estimated to live below the poverty line. This represented a 16 percentage point
reduction from 1999 figure of 27% (WB, 2017)
7Indonesia’s Gini Coefficient in September 2017, stood at 0.391
2. Demographics
Indonesia is the World’s fourth most populous country and the most populous Muslim-ma-
jority country. It has an estimated population of nearly 263 million people and is urbanising
rapidly. In 1990, urban dwellers comprised 31% of the total populace; by 2010 this figure had
risen to 50%. This pattern shows little sign of abating, with figures set to rise to 57% in 2020
and 63% in 2030 (UN-Habitat, 2013). Overlaying this story of urbanisation, is one of popula-
tion growth, leading to a youthful population profile (see 2016 figures below).
The country has a majority Muslim population (87.2%), with 7% Protestant, 2.9% Roman Cath-
olic, 1.7% Hindu 0.9% Buddhist and Confucian, and 0.4% unspecified (2010 est.). The official
language is Bahasa Indonesia which is a modified form of Malay English, Dutch, and local
dialects, of which the most widely spoken is Javanese. More than 700 languages are currently
used in Indonesia.
3. Governance and Administration

President Joko Widodo, as leader of the Indonesia Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P).was
elected in 2014 and re-elected in 2019. He is both Chief of State and Head of Government. The
Cabinet is appointed by the president. The president and vice president are directly elected by
absolute majority popular vote for a 5-year term (with incumbent actors eligible to run for a
second term).
Following on from the end of Suharto’s three-decade long Premiership, in 1999 a large-scale
decentralisation programme began in Indonesia. Today, the bottom levels of the governance
structure representatives are locally elected on a regular basis; whilst leaders at higher levels
(e.g. regency) are appointed either by the President directly or by their Governor representa-
tive at the provincial level. In the case of Yogyakarta, the existence of a parallel feudal system
(Sultanate) adds a further level of complexity to the governance landscape – understanding
this issue is a key challenge of the field trip project.
E.2 Indonesian Urban Governance

By Hasanatun Nisa Thamrin (Kota Kita)
In Indonesia, the relationship between the central and local governments is regulated
through the Law No. 32/2004 on Local Government. This law governs the division of authority
between the central and local governments as autonomous regions. The central government
regulates foreign policy, defense, security, monetary, justice, and religious affairs. Meanwhile,
according to the law, the local government carries out the government under its authority
except for the central government’s rules mentioned earlier.
Administration Structure
In governmental affairs administration, local governments (provincial, city, or regency) carry
the broader possible autonomy under their authority based on autonomy and co-administra-
tion principles. The authority of the city government is local scale, including city’s planning
and development, planning and utilization of spatial planning, provision of public facilities
and infrastructures for the city’s scale, provision of health and education, implementation of
public order, overcoming the social problems, employment and workforce, small and medium
enterprises, environmental affairs, land services, population and civil registration services,
general government administration services, investment administration services, and other
compulsory affairs mandated by laws and regulations8. Regarding the government structure,
the city government is at the second layer under the provincial government, which clearly
shown in this chart below:
Kampungs are deÞned

by the neighborhood
character and vary in
size (RT-RW). Kampung
merepresentasikan karakter
kawasan dan beragam
dari sisi luasan (RT-RW).
8This local government authorities based on Law No 32/2004 on Local Government
The diagram shows the administrative structure of Indonesia from the central government
to the lowest level of administrations in the block level. As a country Indonesia is divided into
provinces (34 provinces in total), each province consists of cities (kota) and regencies (kabu-
paten) in the second level of administration. Under the city and regency there are sub-district
(kecamatan) in the third level which consists of urban villages (kelurahan) and rural villages
(desa). Urban village lead by the head of kelurahan called Lurah which directly appointed by
the mayor to lead the neighborhood, while in the rural village (desa) the village head elections
are conducted democratically through general elections at the village level, with the inaugu-
ration of the elected of village head conducted by the head of regency called Bupati.
Banjarmasin and Solo is categorized as a city which has a sub-district (kecamatan), urban
village (kelurahan), RW (unified block) and RT (block) administratively.
Development Planning System

In term of planning and development system, this process governed by the Law 25/20049 on
the National Development Planning System in Indonesia. This law regulates how the plan-
ning and development works in Indonesia including long term, medium and annual planning
systems by involving the government and community from the smallest scale government
(neighborhood scale) to the national level. This national planning system regulates an inte-
grated local national planning mechanism started from the neighbourhood (kelurahan) level
which allows for a bottom-up process in principle.
In Indonesia, the participatory planning process is called Musrenbang, combining the words
for musyawarah (a community consensus-building meeting), perencanaan (planning, but
also understood as budgeting) and pembangunan (development). Musrenbang enables the
local government to better engage citizens and discuss community aspirations and priorities
in a formal forum. This then has the potential to be developed into programs or activities. If
implemented successfully, Musrenbang can empower citizens and strengthen the capacity of
civil society and local governments. It aims to heighten government accountability, transpar-
ency and promote active citizenship. Though most cities follow a similar fundamental partic-
ipatory approach, the exact enactment of participatory planning and budgeting has evolved
into different practices of Musrenbang in each city. They have different dynamics in terms of
implementation, innovation, community engagement, execution of development programs
and more. For example, the growth of technology has enabled some cities to create an on-
line Musrenbang. Some cities also build a different type of engagement to accommodate
demands for participatory spaces in local development processes. This has allowed cities to
develop their own mechanisms for enabling participation in the budgeting for or financing of
urban projects10.
9For detail information about the Law 25/2004 please visit this link https://www.bappenas.go.id/files/pendanaan/
regulasi/uu-25-2004.pdf (In Bahasa Indonesia)
10 Indonesian Law on Budgeting process regulates through Law No 17/2003 and Law No. 33/2004
E.3 Useful words in Bahasa-Indonesia
Indonesian English Context
Introducing yourself:
more friendly, daily conversation with
Aku [name] I’m [name]
friends
more polite, formal, use to talk with older
Saya [name] I’m [name]
people
Nama saya [name] My name is [name]
I’m from [country]
Aku berasal dari [country]
Hello!
Selamat pagi Good morning (up to 11am)
Selamat siang Good afternoon (11am-3pm)
Good afternoon (3pm-
Selamat sore dusk)
Selamat malam Good evening

Apa kabar? How are you?
Kabar saya baik! I’m fine!
people sometimes use it occasionally,
Alhamdulillah Praise to God
related to one’s condition
Good bye!
Sampai jumpa lagi Good bye, see you soon
Sampai jumpa Bye
Solving misunderstanding
Maaf Sorry
Saya minta maaf I am sorry
Tidak apa-apa No problem, It’s okay
Saya tidak tahu I don’t know
Saya tidak mengerti I don’t understand
Disability terms
Penyandang disabilitas - People with disabilities
Difabel - Different abilities
Organisasi Penyandang Disabilitas - Organisation of People with disabilities
Disabilitas fisik - Physical disability
Disabilitas netra - Visual disability
Disabilitas intelektual - Intellectual disability
Disabilitas mental - Mental disability
Disabilitas wicara - Speech impairment
Disabilitas rungu - Hearing impairment
Tuli - Persons with hearing impairment, some people with hearing impairment prefer to be called tuli
as it represent their culture
Bahasa isyarat - Sign language
JBI (Juru Bahasa Isyarat) - Sign language interpreter
E.4 Disability: Definitions and tensions about doing research
By Ignacia Ossul-Vermehren (University College London)
1. Definition and models of disability • A social model view would understand

Disability is widely manifested: according environmental, institutional social
to the World Health Organisation, 15% of the and political factors which prevent
global population has a disability, account- participation of disabled people as key
ing for one of the largest ‘minority groups’ in sources of struggle, and campaign con-
the world11. cerns.
However, there is no one accepted definition • Rise of disability movement – social
of disability and the definitions depend on model – ‘nothing about us without us’.
the theoretical underpinning. Success of the social model as a cam-
The models of disability have shifted from paigning tool, influencing legal rights
a medical model (in which the problem was and significant cultural shifts
solely with the individual) to the social model Critiqued for underplaying the very real role
(the problem is society), and now to the of impairments on the lives of disabled peo-
bio-psychosocial (it does not disregard the ple (e.g. dealing with pain, and the need for
biological aspect of a disability – e.g. pain – rehabilitation or assistive technology).
as well as the environment/society in which
people live in).
3. Bio-psychosocial model/ human rights
1. ‘Medical model’ which equated disabili- model (1990s – present) has been presented
ty with the physical/ medical limitations as a way of integrating the physical, embod-
associated with disabled people’s bodies. ied aspects of disability with
2. ‘Social model’ (1970’s to the present) societal factors14.
Argues that disability is caused not by peo • Critique to the social model: It ignores
ple’s impairments, but rather by discrimi- the very real role of impairments on the
nation, and society’s failure to accommo lives of disabled people (e.g. pain and
date these impairments and the specific the need for rehab or AT)
needs associated with them12 (Barnes,
• Integration of factors to explain dis-
2000). As expressed by Finkelstein (1980),
ability: The World Report15 “understands
therefore, “(…) disability is the outcome
disability as dynamic integration
of an oppressive relationship between
between health conditions, contextual
people with impairments and the rest of
factors, both personal and environmen-
society”13 (p.47).
tal, promoted as the bio-psychosocial
• With a focus on understanding the environ- model” (p.4)
mental and societal factors which create • Increasing emphasis on “mainstream-
barriers which ‘disable’ people with ‘impair- ing” disability service provision with-
ments’ - used rather than ‘disabilities’ in public services to facilitate social
• From this perspective impairments merely inclusion
represent a difference of diversity in the
human condition.
11
World Health Organization (2011). World Report on Disability 2011. Retrieved from World Health Organization: www.who.int/
disabilities/world_report/2011/report.pdf.
12
Barnes, Colin, 2000, “A Working Social Model? Disability, Work and Disability Politics in the 21st Century”, Critical Social Poli-
cy, Vol 20 No 4, Sage, London, 441 – 457
14
Shakespeare, T. (2014). Disability rights and wrongs revisited (Second Edition). https://doi.org/10.1080/15017419.2014.
967808
15
World Health Organization (2011). World Report on Disability 2011. World Health Organization. Retrieved from: https://
www.who.int/disabilities/world_report/2011/report.pdf
Our engagement will move away from the can reinforce prejudice, this is assumptions
medical model of disability and will be more of what people can do, who they are, what
towards the social model, in which is so- defines them etc. and can lead to discrimi-
ciety (environmental and political factors) nation.
which disabled/enable people with ‘impair-
ments’. Thus, the problem is not inherently The Washington Group Set of Questions16
in the individual, but is a societal problem. identifies prevalence of functional difficul-
The social model has been a strong political ties by identifying six domains. This can help
tool, specially in the UK (Campaign: ‘Nothing us talk about different types of disabilities.
about us without us’) to advocate for societal The domains are the following; difficulty
changes, influencing legal rights and signifi- seeing, hearing, moving (walking, climbing),
cant cultural shifts. remembering or concentrating, self-caring
and communicating. We use these distinc-
The disability definition used in the World tions in the AT2030 research project.
Report (2011) uses the bio-psychosocial mod-
Do you have difficulty seeing, even if
el approach and it understands disability as
wearing glasses?
a “(…) dynamic integration between health
conditions, contextual factors, both personal Do you have difficulty hearing, even if
and environmental, promoted as the bio-psy- using a hearing aid?
chosocial model model” (p.4). Do you have difficulty walking or climbing
steps?
2. Disability and language Do you have difficulty remembering or
The term disabled people (used in the UK) concentrating?
or people with disabilities (used in the US
Do you have difficulty (with self-care such
and United Nations). Both terms are trying
as) washing all over or dressing?
to make a distinction between the ‘person’
and the ‘disability’. The social model refers to Using your usual language, do you have
‘disabled people’ because this term respects difficulty communicating, (for example
the fact that ‘people’ (put first) are ‘disabled’ understanding or being understood by
by society. others)?
In the engagement we are using disabled 3. Tensions when doing research on

people or people with disabilities. However, disability
is important to keep in mind that Indonesia
uses Persons with Disabilities. Prevalence vs Voice:
• Prevalence refers to the number of people
We encourage students to avoid using the – used in quantitative studies (e.g. How
acronym “PWD” in conversational language many people have a certain disability).
and as much as possible in written form (to
• Voice refers to how people are experienc-
not refer to people with an acronym).
ing being disabled. Less research has
been done on this front.
In every country there are terms used to
make reference to disability or a specific
Participation vs tokenism:
disability that are pejorative (there is also a
How to make sure that people are not invited
strong system of beliefs connected to them).
to participate only because they are disabled.
Even when these words are used commonly
Just to “fill in one category” - tokenism – (e.g.
by people - how do we move away from these
“we need one disabled person, one woman
terms?
and one young person on the board”). But in-
The use of words is important because how
stead having full participation as a disabled
people are labelled becomes how they are
person and regardless of being disabled.
‘defined’. In other words, is important as it
16
https://www.washingtongroup-disability.com/
Mainstreaming vs targeted approaches: Avoid language or attitudes that are
• Mainstreaming refers to including dis- patronising.
ability as an issue in every sector or ap- Avoid “othering” . Do not use “they” when
proach, even when iswhen it is not about speaking or writing to refer to a disabled
disability (e.g. In transport, education, person. Instead use the name, the posi-
housing programmes). tion (e.g. Chair lady), ‘disabled people/
• Targeted means to focus on people with people with disabilities”, by impairment
disability for a specific intervention. “visually impaired” or “has a hearing
• Both are needed. impairment”.
Intersectionality vs ‘additionality’: Use the Washington Group distinction to
- Intersectionality is a framework to under- talk about different types of impairment.
stand how aspects of a person’s social and Avoid the acronym PWD (people with dis-
political identities combine to create differ- abilities) while speaking and in writing
ent modes of discrimination and privilege. form.
These intersecting and overlapping social Remember that disability is a complex
identities may be both empowering and op- and diverse issue;
pressing. i.e. a black women have a different
experience than a white woman and that of a Is a continuum (not everyone has the
black man. E.g. disabled pregnant woman is same grade of disability)
suggested in the hospital to have an abortion Is temporal (everyone might at one
(which wouldn’t be suggested to a disabled point have an impairment)
man or an abled bodied women). Is hugely diverse (different impair-
- Additionality: refers to the aggregation of a ments means that the experience
person’s identities.E.g. Women get paid less, between disabled people can be com-
disabled people are less likely to get a job. pletely different)
Disabled + woman is a double disadvantage. People have multiple identities and
Heterogeneity vs homogeneity being disabled might not be the most
- Heterogeneity (Capture difference) how do defining identity
we deal with this? But at the same time how There are political hierarchies between
do we capture disabled people as a collective types of disability which are contextu-
political force? al, historical, socio-economical and/or
- Inclusive design approaches to planning cultural (e.g. blindness vs other types
and urban development aim to capture of impairments).
differences and diversity in communities
and identify solutions that mediate different 5. Assistive technologies
needs and aspirations. This is different to The World Health defines assistive technolo-
universal design which often aims to find gies (AT) as the “the umbrella term covering
a universal ‘one size fits all’ solution to a the systems and services related to the deliv-
design problem. ery of assistive products and services”, which
are products that “maintain or improve an
4. Important to remember when working individual’s functioning and independence,
on disability during the engagement thereby promoting their well-being”. Exam-
ples of Assistive Products (AP) can be hear-
We want to talk about disability in a ing aids, wheelchairs, communication aids,
positive light, what individuals and spectacles, prostheses, pill organizers and
communities are doing and how we can memory aids.
support these initiatives and the advoca-
cy efforts of OPDs. It is estimated that by 2050 two billion peo-
ple would benefit from Assistive Technology,
yet 90% will not have access.
E.5 Participation and Social Change
By Ignacia Ossul-Vermehren (University College London)
One of the aims of the AT2030 research Even when people are participating, how do
project is to strengthen the voice of disabled you know that those choices are made freely
people and their communities. We aim to do and from a broad spectrum of options? Adap-
this by creating a reflecting environment, in tive preferences –is the idea that people
which we discuss the life outcome of resi-
dents, bringing a citizenship perspective and Paulo Freire18, argues that the only way in
using a participatory approach. which more vulnerable groups are going
to become conscious of their realities is
What do we understand by voice? Is the capacity through a process of conscientization. Be-
of an individual or community to influence coming more aware of the conditions of life
and participate in spheres that affect their and how they are produced.
life. We are working on the base that we be-
lieve that the urban poor can and should be
part of processes that affect their lives. Critical knowledge production. How do we do
it?
However, how do we do this? Many times, Methods: The types of methods we
low-income dwellers are not included – be- use can allow for more critical reflection
cause they are not considered relevant than others. Methods that open,
actors, they don’t have the information, time, flexible, challenge power relations.
resources or capacity to participate. And Process: The process needs to in-
when they are included, the conditions and clude spaces for reflection (individual and
terms of the inclusion can be problematic. collective), as a way of includ-
- Only to “Invited spaces” ing interrogating not just “what partici-
- By quotas. pants say”, but “what do they think about
what was said”, “what is the importance
Participation as Tyranny17 refers to the use of the research / of spaces of dialogue / of
of participation as a rhetoric from govern- coming together with different people”.
ment, development agencies etc. in which
is stated the need for community groups to
participate – but doesn’t mean that they are
actually participating (and thus changing
power relations).
17
Cooke, B., & Kothari, U. (Eds.). (2001). Participation: The new tyranny?. Zed books.
18
Freire, P. (1996). Pedagogy of the oppressed (revised). New York: Continuum.
E.6 Disability Inclusive design and infrastructure19
By Mikaela Patrick (Researcher at Global Disability Innovation Hub)
The investigation of inclusive infrastructure It should also take into account the princi-
is the subject of another part of the AT2030 ples of inclusive design, embracing diversity
programme, led by the Global Disability Inno- and acknowledging that designing for people
vation Hub. A series of case studies are being who experience the least equity in the built
developed to generate evidence on accessi- environment, such as people with disabili-
bility and inclusive design in lower-and-mid- ties, has the potential to benefit all of us.
dle-income countries with the aim of creating
a framework for enabling and inclusive envi- Why do inclusive design and inclusive
ronments. These case studies are taking place infrastructure matter?
in collaboration with local partners in Mongo- We have a different experience of the built
lia, India, Indonesia, Kenya and Sierra Leone environment, and this experience changes
and the Indonesia case study is also being across our life course or based on circum-
conducted in partnership with Kota Kita. stances. There are many ways in which peo-
ple face barriers to access and experiencing
What is inclusive design? the places they live such as because of their
Can help all human beings experience the gender, age, race, religion, socio-economic
world around them in a fair and equal way by status or disability. This is why inclusive
creating safe and accessible environments design benefits everyone.
for all members of the community. The people that experience that most inequi-
ty in the built environment, such as Disabled
Inclusive design is a mindset, a methodology people have the most intimate understand-
that embraces diversity to create a world that ing of how to overcome those barriers and
is more intuitive, elegant and usable for all are therefore best placed to consider how to
of us. make environments more inclusive. Disabled
people also experience inequity across mul-
This means inclusive design is more than tiple domains, such as women with disabil-
technical standards for accessibility, it is ities experiencing great exclusion or disad-
about creating equity in the built environ- vantage than men.
ment which helps ensure people can access This is why inclusive design should always
and participate in society and opportunities be a participatory process.
such as work and education.
Why in particular are we looking at
Simply put, this means putting people first, inclusive design within the context of
and making sure that people’s needs, with all infrastructure?
our differences and diversity are at the centre Infrastructure investment across the global
of decision-making around how we shape the south is huge, and there is a statistic that
world we live in. says that 60% of infrastructure we will have
in 2050 has not been built yet.
What do we mean by inclusive Unequal access to infrastructure is a topic
infrastructure? that is frequently discussed with figures
Inclusive infrastructure is infrastructure that quoted such as 2.2 billion people lacking
is accessible to everyone. access to safe drinking water but these
For the purpose of our work, we say that figures are not disaggregated by gender, age,
inclusive infrastructure promotes access, op- disability so we lack the vital and specific
portunity, participation and equity in society. information we need to make sure we create
19
This is also available as a video done by Mikaela Patrick for Unit 4 (29th January, 2021)
equity when creating access to those infra- • People also experience social and cultur-
structures. al barriers such as varying attitudes and
We’re currently working on a research project understandings of disability and many
exploring what inclusive design looks like disabled people experience stigma.
in the Global south working in 6 cities in 6 • Inclusive design should not just promote
countries. physical access but make environments
We think it’s important to build a picture more welcoming and comfortable, ad-
of what good inclusive design looks like in dressing these barriers.
different geographic, cultural and climatic • Thirdly, knowledge gaps such as a percep-
contexts and how inclusive design can be tion that accessibility means adding a
delivered within resource constraints. ramp to building and not much more are a
big issue.
Some of the barriers to implementing dis-
• And things like a lack of education and
ability inclusive design and infrastructure
training on accessibility and inclusive
include:
design in the built environment profession
• Economic ones: mean there is a lack of technical expertise
• Where there is a perception that in- where it’s needed.
clusive design is expensive, but when • Lastly, implementation barriers include
planned from the outset and holistically things like a lack of effective mechanisms
integrated in planning and procurement to ensure compliance with laws and stan-
processes, this doesn’t need to be the dards on accessibility.
case.
• Additionally, where resources are con-
strained accessibility features can be
cut from project budget
E.7 Kota Kita’s work on Inclusive Planning and Design

By Nina Asterina and Hasanatun Nisa Thamrin (Kota Kita)
Kota Kita has been working on disability teers, who are equipped with mobile survey
issues since 2016, by conducting a participa- application to gather vital socio-econom-
tory data collection survey that investigated ic and demographic data at the smallest
the experiences of persons with disabilities administrative division level – referred to
(PwDs) in the city of Solo. This project was in Indonesia as “rukun tetangga” (RT). The
collaborated between UNESCO and Kota Kita persons with disabilities responded to a spe-
in partnership with the government of Solo. cially designed questionnaire transmitting
Following our collaboration with UNESCO and the information into a citywide dataset. We
strengthening our focus on disability issues, managed to mapping of various key determi-
in 2018 a city-wide participatory data collec- nants of exclusion and inclusion, such as the
tion for disability inclusive city profile was concentrations of persons with disabilities
implemented in Banjarmasin, South Borneo. throughout the city and in relation to the lo-
A neighborhood-level mapping conducted by cation of various vital public institutions for
the project led to the enrichment and stan- education and healthcare. It produced unique
dardization of the participatory data collec- datasets in being able to provide fine-grain
tion methodology, and the development of a information about the city residents with
disability- inclusive city profile. disabilities, and the degree of their inclusion
in different aspects of life- to finally influ-
The initiative goes beyond mapping and ence policy and more inclusive public service
identifies constraints and opportunities for delivery.
disability inclusion. We worked with volun-
Following up our Disability-Inclusive City Profile in Banjarmasin, we have been working to
raise public awareness of inclusive planning and build the community’s capacity through
a citizen-driven process. Working with city officials, academics, practitioners, as well as
persons with disabilities, we develop accessible three-wheeled rides and safe school zones
for inclusive schools in Banjarmasin. This project received a Transformative Urban Mobility
Initiative (TUMI) Global Urban Mobility Challenge 2019 award, and supported by the Deutsche
Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH (GIZ) and Asian Development Bank
(ADB).
Continuing our commitment to strengthening inclusive planning, together with the Devel-
opment Planning Unit, University College London (DPU-UCL), Leonard Cheshire, Sierra Leone
Urban Research Centre (SLURC), we conducted the AT2030 research, which is led by Global
Disability Innovation Hub. The AT2030 research aims to support persons with disabilities and
older people in accessing better life outcomes through increasing the relevance and uptake
of assistive technologies.
E.8 UCL-Kota KIta: AT2030 action-research (2019-2021)
The AT2030 programme, led by the Global To understand: existing enabling factors
Disability Innovation Hub (GDI Hub), focuses for people with disabilities in informal
on “Life Changing Assistive Technology for settlements, and; the role of informal
All”. AT2030 will test ‘what works’ to improve markets and community-based systems
access to assistive technology (AT) and will of support in developing and delivering
invest £20m to support solutions to scale. ATs;
With a focus on innovative products, new To advance methodology on how we
service models, and global capacity support, assess ATs and their application.
the programme will reach 9 million people di-
rectly and 6 million more indirectly to enable The project works through a process of
a lifetime of potential through life-changing knowledge co-production and is divided in
assistive technology. two broad phases:
DPU’s project: Phase 1 (2019-2020): Mapping selected aspira-

DPU’s sub programme focuses on how tions of people with and without disabilities
disabled and older people in informal set- in the partner communities, and the existing
tlements in Banjarmasin (Indonesia) and community-led responses that support the
Freetown (Sierra Leone) are able to achieve attainment of these. A key output of Phase
their aspirations, and the role that Assistive one of the project was for the research par-
Technologies play in their strategies to do so. ticipants to identify and agree shared aspi-
Our overarching research question is “How rations for life outcomes that they want to
can collective, and community-led respons- focus on as the purpose of the AT co-produc-
es, enable disabled people to access better tion activities in Phase 2.
life outcomes, through increasing the rele-
vance and uptake of AT?” Participants from each community agreed
one collective aspiration that was mostly
The aims of our research are to: widely shared across disabled people, AT us-
Explore spaces for co-production of AT ers and non-disabled community members
between innovators at different scales, and one aspiration that might be specific
including people with disabilities and to a particular group of disabled people but
residents of informal settlements; which would be most transformative for the
lives of this specific group.
Phase 2 (2020-21): From September 2020 we aim to build on Phase 1 by test relevant AT co-pro-
duction approaches and developing and triail of AT interventions to respond to some of the
aspirations agreed by our community research participants at the end of Phase 1.
Findings AT2030 project: Community Aspirations (October 2020)

In Phase 1 (2019) research participants identified and agreed shared aspirations for life
outcomes that they would like to focus on as the purpose of the AT co-production activities in
Phase 2.
Participants from each community agreed one collective aspiration that was mostly widely
shared across disabled people, AT users and non-disabled community members and one
aspiration that might be specific to a particular group of disabled people, but which would be
most transformative for the lives of this specific group.
Figure 1 below shows the eight aspirations chosen in total across the four communities
across Sierra leone and Indonesia. The diagram shows the aspirations divided by ‘Collective
Aspirations’ (Affordable Housing; Healthy Living Conditions; Community Participation; and
Inclusive Public Space) and the ‘Most Transformative Aspirations’ (Affordable and Accessible
Healthcare; inclusive Mobility; Inclusive Healthcare; and Participation and Solidarity).
Figure 1: Collective and most transformational aspirations Banjarmasin (Indonesia) and Freetown (Sierra Leone).
Main spirations selected by disabled and non-disabled participants in research activi-

ties during Phase 1 (2019). In teal the aspirations selected in Freetown, Sierra Leone and
in yellow the aspirations selected in Banjarmasin, Indonesia.
Figures: The AT2030 research
program discussing and identifying
the collective aspiration of two
communities in Banjarmasin
Banjarmasin
ASPIRATION 1
“Regular Community Engagement” (Collective Aspiration, Pelambuan)
Participants defined community engagement as community-led activities that gather

a group of people and has a function in delivering a service. During the shadowing in-
terviews, the aspiration was discussed in relation to economic activities (developing a
craft together), leisure and sport (neighbourhood gym classes), health related activities
(health rounds), and more generally caring for each other (funerals) and doing activities
together to improve the area. Community engagement is closely link to the Indonesian
concept of ‘gotong-royong’ (mutual cooperation in Banja).
In the shadowing interview, INP/NDF3 summarises the aspiration as:

“Having social activities such as providing health service for elderlies regularly, communal work
for cleaning the neighbourhood, religious activities, women group, youth group, any kind of activ-
ities for collective benefit.” – (INP/NDF3)
The findings show that “Community Engagement” is particularly meaningful as most

of the participants in the research are not involved in community activities. Commu-
nity engagement plays two roles for residents in Pelambuan; i) the delivery of state
programmes and collective activities through paid and un-paid work from community
members, and ii) to improve social cohesion and solidarity amongst residents. It was
possible to identify at least 10 on-going initiatives in the neighbourhood. Most of these
initiatives are a way of delivering state programmes through community members, and
only a few of them are independent, either led by a resident for the benefit of the com-
munity or by one resident as an individual initiative. Residents aim for the improve-
ment of the activities by targeting the state (applying to more funding, equipment and
space), and only a few residents said that the initiatives could be improved by being
self-reliant (e.g. self-funded etc).
ASPIRATION 2
“Inclusive Public Space” (Collective Aspiration, Kelayan Barat)
“Inclusive Public Space” or “wadah sabarataan” in Banjarneese was defined collectively

as an open space for multiple types of activities (youth activities, sport, children play,
family recreation, and fire station), as well as for a diverse group of people (‘accessible
for older people and disabled people, safe for children, and can be used for gathering
community’). Residents discuss public space in the neighbourhood as well as in the
city.
Younger participants reflected the need to be able to socialise with other peers, while
older people focused on the accessibility to the area:
“For someone having difficulties, like for disabled people, that they can also access it. For exam-
ple, someone having difficulties to walk, they can go there rather than watching television all day
long. They want to go outside, they can go there.” INK/DiF21
Participants defined it as an open space for multiple types of activities, as well as for
a diverse group of people (younger, older, disabled). This is particularly important, as
Kelayan Barat is one of the densest neighbourhoods in the city and lacks any public
space. Through photography, residents captured the outside of the Kelurahan office,
shops and streets as the main spaces used for activities. These spaces are not ade-
quate for the activities the community would like to engage in, as they do not offer
enough space, are not accessible, and are in some cases dangerous because of traffic
or being prone to fire.
Residents have not organised collectively to access more and/or better public space.
Currently the spaces used are informal areas, not designed for public use. Most of the
public spaces that residents currently use, are informal spaces, such as streets or
shops, and are thus self-managed, rather than seeking institutional support. There
does not seem to be a collective strategy to access more or better public space. The
use of public space does not make a claim to an entitlement or make new claims, but
instead shows the use of what is available in the neighbourhood. Having better public
space is of particular interest to younger and older people, who feel they would benefit
most from having space for gatherings and developing activities.
The main barriers identified in accessing inclusive public space are: lack of available
space in the neighbourhood; lack of safety of current spaces where children play; and
difficulties of mobility and transport options for disabled people and older residents in
accessing current public spaces.
ASPIRATION 3
“Inclusive Health Service” (Most Transformational, Pelambuan)
Healthcare was discussed in the focus groups and participatory photography mostly as
community based health care (e.g. community health tasks in the community, collect
sputum for tuberculosis) –Health care formal system, only came up when asked by
facilitators, as participants were discussing more about their individual health and
what they could do (exercise, diet, community activities). However, when asked individ-
ually during the individual interviews and during the ‘Barriers/Enablers and Resources’
participants discuss health service mostly in relation to the institutional infrastructure
(i.e. health centre). Good health is seen as the pre-condition for work, education, and
being able to participate in the community.
Group definition during ‘Barriers and Resources Workshop’ in Pelambuan,

“An inclusive health services has to provide what the community need, for example the numbers
of doctors, providing effective medicine maybe not the generic one, the medicine given is have to
be prescribed accordingly, information circulation of procedure on BPJS, affordable health ser-
vices, good quality of examination, the equal treatment for each patient, be it a BPJS or non-BPJS,
be it disabled or not.” INP/ATF23.
Participants stated that there is a close connection between ‘Community Engagement’
and ‘Inclusive Health”, as they see the involvement of the community as a key way of
delivering programmes, such as heath in the community. The individual interviews
with participants from Pelambuan show that most residents use community health
centres as the main strategy to access health services, thus relying on institution-
al support. Most of the strategies seek institutional support as most residents go to
community health centres when they need medical attention, or when it is more seri-
ous, to a hospital. However, due to the quality of the health centre (i.e. distance, type of
medicine, waiting time) some of the residents avoid going or seek alternative options,
such as buying prescriptions on the informal market or asking a family member to give
medical support.
All the strategies mentioned are individual (not organised with other members of the
community nor aim to address the issues of the collective) but they do rely on the
support of others, such as family members taking them to the community centre or
giving financial support to pay for treatment. All of strategies used to access health are
survival strategies and none of them challenge the existing health system, either by
claiming entitlements that should be available or making new claims around health
access. However, there is an awareness that some participants showed, about patients’
rights (equal treatment, access to free health with national insurance, access to effec-
tive medicine, access to good treatment) that have not been delivered. Unfortunately,
for most residents, the strategy is to disengage with the system (by avoiding going to
hospital) instead of addressing it.
Everyone in Pelambuan is affected by the closure of the closest community health cen-
tre and by the more structural conditions in which the health system operates (under-
staffed, increased cost of health insurance, extremely busy). All of these are presented
in the barriers section. However, findings show how this barrier has a specific impact
on disabled and older residents, in the following ways:
· Access: Either because of mobility issues, or, as in one case, the lack of sign language
interpreter, thus relying heavily on a carer or family member to access the system.
· Negligence: Patients’ rights and entitlement to free health care tend to be ignored or
dismissed.
· Access to AT: Limited but accessed through the state programme. Residents agree that
they need to collect better information about the need for AT in the neighbourhood.
ASPIRATION 4
“Participation and Social Solidarity” (Most Transformational, Kelayan Barat)
Social solidarity was defined by participants as way of living together in a community,

to have awareness of other people’s needs and help those facing difficulties, for exam-
ple in cases of financial issues, health issues, and funeral. They explained that building
social solidarity means that everyone is matter. It can help those who need information
on assistive technology, getting healthcare service, funeral service, wedding, fire, or
anything happens in society. In Banjarnese, it is called Samuak Saliur, or feeling empa-
thy and togetherness as one community to empower collective action.
Participant’s definition during “Barriers and Resources Workshop”:
“Social solidarity is the way we live as society, helping those in need. It’s about having aware-
ness and care for those who are struggling financially, having health issues. In terms of data
collection, the community help while the RT leader coordinate it. It’s also about contribution from
community, organising the funeral services, helping our neighbours who have difficulties, how
we live as community, having discussion, community participation, collective activities in many
ways.” -INK/NDF1
Participants defined it as a way of living together in a community, to have awareness of

other people’s needs and help those facing difficulties, for example in cases of financial
issues, health issues, and funerals. The aspiration aims to create a wider awareness of
those who are most vulnerable and might need more help. This directly impacts dis-
abled people and older residents, and similar to Pelambuan’s aspiration of ‘Community
Engagement”, it aims to increase social engagement and participation from commu-
nity members. The most used strategy is the support that participants give to family
members and friends, in which disabled people and older residents are the ones that
benefit the most. Participants still argue that there should be more support from neigh-
bour to neighbour (different from support from relatives). Hence, most strategies are
based on self-reliance. Only one or two people have stronger support networks outside
of the family group – which accounts for most of the other strategies listed in
Some of these strategies are supported by NGOs (sewing training) and by government
programmes (Paralympic Committee, Disabled Women’s Association). As most of the
strategies are based on family support, they tend to be individual rather than a collec-
tive strategy of systematic support. Family support is a strategy that aims at survival.
However, the strategies link to state-led programmes and NGOs tend to support resi-
dents to claim entitlements, associated to the right to be educated, work, and partici-
pate in urban life.
Residents identify the current community activities that are taking place, including
health rounds (as in Pelambuan), waste bank collection (community-led recycling
initiative, led by women) and community-run firefighter stations. The main barriers to
having more social solidarity are: lack of community awareness (wanting to participate,
care about others, lack of information); lack of financial support, information about
activities and human resources to manage activities; and access for disabled people
and distance to public space.
The four aspirations identified in Banjarmasin point to a similar priority, that of

increasing community engagement, especially for disabled people and older residents.
The findings show that the aspiration of community participation is important for disabled
and older people in the following ways:
Inclusive public space: Socialising needs to happen in a space, and there is a need
for accessible space.
Participation and belonging: Importance of socialising with non-disabled residents,
in a space that is physically accessible and that is inclusive (people feel part of).
The findings show that residents who participate in neighbourhood activities in
crease their sense of belonging.
Disabled residents delivering programmes: The findings show that in some cases,
disabled people play a key role implementing some of the activities, such as the
cleaning of the mosque and neighbourhood, the Children and Elderly Health Ser
vices, and Women Disabled Committee.
Community engagement and participation plays a central role in delivering re-
sources, programmes and support in the neighbourhoods studied. Many of the state
programmes are delivered through community-based initiatives, and thus partic
ipating in those is a key way to access the benefits. Examples of this can be found
in the monthly Children and Elderly Health Services and Sasirangan training, both
benefiting disabled and non-disabled women, and older people, directly.
Representation of disabled people’s needs and prioritising them in the neighbour-
hood’s agenda: Most of the participants were not used to voicing their opinions in
a public forum and acknowledge that participating in community activities and
research plays a central role as a means to access resources, and as an end in itself.
The findings show a bidirectional relationship between access to AP and achieving disabled
and older people’s aspiration of inclusive community engagement:
AP facilitates community engagement: Helps people attend and participate in com
munity activities, and access medical appointments.
Community engagement helps provide AP: Allows access to resources, state sup-
port, and access to community-based organization, which helps prioritize needs,
advocate for/with disabled people AT users.
Social networks as a key enabler: Although AP plays a key role, the findings show
that in many cases it is family members, carers and other members who provide
support instead of an AP – i.e. taking people to the hospital, helping communicate
etc.
E. 9 Engagement Year 1 (May 2020)
May 2020 was the first edition of the engage- to enable collective learning about the role of
ment between SDP and Kota Kita. The aim of diverse practices associated to one of four entry
the collaboration was to do a participatory points to promote inclusive citizenship in Banjar-
scope study about grassroots practices and masin. Four entry points: dignified/adequate
in four informal settlements in Banjarmasin, housing; resilience; security of tenure and
to explore how they relate to the promotion of economic empowerment
inclusive citizenship [see TOR Year 1 here].
Key learning questions for the engagement:
Due to the global pandemic, the field trip What are some existing examples of diverse
scheduled for May 1-16th 2020 was can- practices around the entry point of engagement
celled last minute. Instead, the engagement relevant to the promotion of inclusive citizenship
included a series of online activities [see in Banjarmasin? What are the key challenges
schedule here]. To develop a participatory and opportunities of these practices to advance
action research proposal collaboratively be- inclusive citizenship? In which ways could they be
tween students of the MSc in Social Develop- enhanced, enabled and/or supported to advance
ment Practice and participants of the Urban inclusive citizenship in Banjarmasin?
Citizenship Academy.
Working groups were asked to draw on meth-

ods such as participatory video, photography
and/or digital mapping. The core objective was
Outputs of engagement:
MSc in Social Development Practice Students: Each group submitted a 5,000 words research pro-
posal with appendices which included a poster produced by the Urban Citizenship Academy
students and other documents that the group found useful to support the implementation of
the research project. [See final reports here].
Urban Citizenship Academy: Each group submitted a poster containing key elements of the
research proposal (i.e. research need, research questions, methodology and impact pathway),
communicated in an accessible way, making use of visual and diagrammatic representa-
tions [see group poster here]
F. Overview of Module Units
Online teaching and learning activities for each Teaching Unit will be made available in-
crementally on Moodle and Google drive (for UCA students) as the Module progresses. This
outline provides a general schedule with key dates, for specific information about each unit
please refer to the Module Outline.
Term 2
Unit 6 Research Design 1: Introduction to the Terms of Reference
26th Asynchronous material released on Moodle and Google Drive on Mon-

February day 22nd February
Live session Friday 26th February 9:00-10:00am and group work 10:00-
11:30am UK time
https://ucl.zoom.us/j/96924397182?pwd=OWFlOTdYVEVOTk1CSnpGZjl-
POE4zZz09
Unit 7 Research Design 2: Analytical concepts and research design
5th Asynchronous material released on Moodle and Google Drive on Friday

March 26th February
Live session Friday 5th March 9:00-10:00am and group work 10:00-
11:30am UK time
POE4zZz09
Dissertation workshop 2:30-3:30pm (SDP students)
Unit 8 Research Design 3: Participatory Methods

March 5th March
11:30am UK time
POE4zZz09
Unit 9 Research Design 4: Research ethics, positionality and reflexivity

March 12th March
11:30am UK time
POE4zZz09
Submission of ethics and risk assessment forms
Unit 10 ResearchDesign5:Groupwork:Remoteknowledgeco-productionguideline
and research plan
26th
March Live session Friday 26th March 9:00-10:00am UK time and group work
10:00-11:30am UK time
Group tutorials 1: 10:00am – 11:30pm (15 minutes per group)
POE4zZz09
Submission of ‘remote knowledge co-production guideline’ and re-

search plan
Term 3 (Provisional)
Unit 11 | 20th April

Preparation 1: Refine research plan and research activities
Live session Tuesday 20st April 9:00-9:30am and group work 9:30-11:00am UK time
Group tutorials 2: 9:30am – 11:00am (15 minutes per group)
Unit 12 | 23rd April

Preparation 2: Group presentations
Live session Friday 23rd April 9:00-11:00am UK time
Unit 13
Remote engagement during April 26th – May 8th: You must be available these 2 weeks (in-
cluding Saturdays). A detailed engagement schedule will be released late March.
Minimum group work (2 hours a day):
4:00-5:00pm Indonesia (10:00 -11:00am UK for Solo and 9:00-10:00am UK for Banjarmasin)
8:00-9:00pm Indonesia (2:00-3:00pm UK for Solo and 1:00-2:00pm for Banjarmasin)
The work related to data collection and research which will be accommodated depending
on the group and specific research activities.
Unit 14
Communicating findings
Asynchronous material released on Moodle and Google drive on Sunday 9th May
Live session Monday 10th May 12pm UK time and group work 12:30pm to 2pm UK time-
Group tutorials 3: 12:30pm – 2pm (15 minutes per group)
Unit 15
Final Presentation
Live session Thursday 20th May & Friday 21st May 9:00-10:30am UK time (TBC)
Submission of SDP Group Report May 25th at 11:45am
Submission of SDP Personal Reflection May 27th at 11:45am
G. For readings and resources

Module Outline: You will find the reading list and content of each unit
Moodle (only for UCL students): You will find the readings and content of each unit
Google drive of the engagement: You will find a folder for each teaching session, readings
and useful resources, and a case study package.
Kota Kita’s website: www.kotakita.org
2021

Advancing Inclusive Design in Indonesian Cities

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Advancing Inclusive Design in Indonesian Cities

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SDP-UCL and UCA-Kota Kita

Overseas Practice Engagement 2020/2021

Advancing inclusive design and planning

Advancing inclusive design and planning

University College London

Universitas Sebelas Maret, Surakarta

Universitas Lambung Mangkurat, Banjarmasin

Global Disability Innovation Hub

Organisation DPOs are representative groups organized by persons with

People with The World Health Organization “understands disability as a

People with disabilities (used internationally, including Indonesia

In the engagement we are using disabled people or people with

We encourage to avoid using the acronym “PWD” in

Inclusive and Infrastructure that is accessible to everyone. For the purpose of

Assistive The World Health Organisation defines assistive technologies

B. Overseas Practice Engagement 2021 10

F. Overview of module units 54

In terms of pedagogy, it aims to foster

relevant and inclusive data on the experience

In terms of advocacy, it aims to support Kota

The engagement explores the following

2Comes from the idea of learning across ‘different

1.4 In the OPD experience, how does public space foster

1.5 How can AT facilitate accessibility and inclusivity in public

2.4. Are there any on-going initiatives or practices that support

2.5 How can AT facilitate accessibility and inclusivity in public

3.3 In which ways could practices in the site and/or OPDs be

3.4 What role can assistive technology have in achieving

Aims Entry points/ Possible methods

Aim 2: Through a Each group will be allocated • Online interviews with RT

B.6 Analysis and validation of findings

Clarifying and validating findings

Step 1: Analyse the data by aim

Do this for the first 3 aims.

Step 3: Incorporate the literature

C.1 Group Outputs

4 Group presentation Each group will do a 15-minute presentation of their specific

A number of students will be asked to post in the Moodle

6 Webinar Webinar with key stakeholders. This will be organised by

1 webinar per city (2 groups organise Banjarmasin and 4 groups

1 visual output per group.

8 Blog post Each group will be asked to prepare a blog post to be

Post-Practice Engagement (April 26th – May 8th 2021)

10 Final remote Building on the guideline developed prior to the engagement,

Tuesday May 25th

13 Personal Reflection Each student (SDP students) will do a personal reflection

Thursday May 27th

C.2 Group Coordination

Work together: Miro, Google Doc, Zoom/teams for meetings.

C.3 Group work Coordination

Group 1: Pelambuan (Banjarmasin, Indonesia) and PPDI Banjarmasin

UCL students UCA students (Universitas Lambung

UCL students UCA students (Universitas Sebelas

1 Andriyana Saputro Education Aga Prasetya Urban and Regional

2 Kechun Xu Economics 9 Tyas Felicia Special Education

3 Zhiwen Li Economics Urban and Regional

4 Liyuan Zhang Media Communication and Urban and Regional

5 Leona Liao Business Administration

Disabled People’s Organisation (DPO) - Pertuni

Group 4: Banjarsari (Solo, Indonesia) and PPRBM Solo

UCL students UCA students (Universitas Sebelas

1 Boyuan Zhang English 8 Apin Fitri Amalina Urban and Regional

2 Suzanne Kimuyu International Management with Business 9 Zalfaa Azalia Pursita