UNDERSTANDING LAND FUNCTION IN A PLURAL SOCIETY1 Tunggul Yunianto (Staff of Directorate General of Treasury, Ministry of Finance)

1. Introduction In the (draft) Academic Paper of State Asset Management Act of 2006 it is stated that management of state asset should balance economic, social and environmental dimension. 2 Land is one component of state asset. Therefore, the management of it should also pay attention with the same degree to those dimension. Meanwhile, in many places, either in rural or urban area or in between them, we face many problems related to land use: environment degradation, the loss of biodiversity, land scarcity in urban area (for housing, office, business), land certification, accumulation of land holding etc. In short, in a very plural society, land utilizations always have economic, social and environmental dimensions. But the relations of the three sometimes go in mutually exclusive ways. Against that background, and with an assumption that land can be multifungtionally utilized, this paper aims at presenting a conceptual framework to understand the phenomenon of land use sensitive to aforementioned dimensions which in this paper is called multifunctional land use. In order to do this, the paper elaborates two approaches: objectivist approach presented in section two and realistconstructivist approach in section three. In the last three sections, I discuss multifunctionality in a more normative tone and the need of more democratic land use. As the second aim, this paper is intended to provoke discussion among policy-makers especially those of Directorate of State Asset Management on searching the more plurality-sensitive policy of land use.

2. Land and its Functions Multifunctionality refers to the combination of many activities and functions within one piece of land. Lagendjik and Wisserhof (1999) state that one can speak of multifunctional land use if at least one of the following four conditions are satiated: (1) intensification of land use (an increase in the efficiency of land use by a function); (2) interweaving of land use (the use of the same area for several functions); (3) using the third dimension of the land (the underground along with the surface area); (4) using the fourth dimension of land (the use of the same area by several functions within a certain time).
1
2

This is an English translation of Indonesia version to be published in Treasury magazine mid May 2006. It is convenient to use trichotomy economic-social-environment. Even so, I realize that the three are intertwined. There is no relation that is purely social, economical or environmental, let alone the mediation of technology among the three.

Concerning agricultural land, OECF (2001) stated that the key elements of multifunctionality are: i) the existence of multiple commodity and non-commodity outputs that are jointly produced by agriculture; and ii) the fact that some of the non-commodity outputs exhibit the characteristics of externalities or public goods, with the result that markets for these goods do not exist or function poorly. Taking the urban region as context, Rodenburg and Nijkamp (2002) maintain that there are many forces that affect the organization of land use in general. The most important are geographic, economic, demographic, political, and social forces. Rodenburg and Nijkamp devises a number of possible combinations between functions:

1. Residential housing - Work and business 2. Residential housing - Infrastructure 3. Residential housing - Amenities 4. Residential housing - Recreation and culture 5. Work and business - Infrastructure 6. Work and business - Amenities 7. Work and business - Recreation and culture 8. Infrastructure - Amenities 9. Infrastructure - Recreation and culture 10. Amenities - Recreation and culture
So much as in urban region, rural land uses also have many dimensions. In rural region the multifunctionality will include economic function (farming, livestock production, agrotourism, mining, etc.) ecological function (biodiversity, habitat of wild animal), and socio-cultural function (living, ritual). Some example below will illustrate the multifunctionality of land use. The first example concerns agricultural land. Agricultural land produces food. That is obvious. But, it turns out that a certain mode of production --such as organic farming-- does not only produce food but also other non-food products. An empirical observation conducted by Yunianto (2005) shows that a utilization of land with organic farming can produce, among others, biodiversity conservation, environmental protection, rural development (especially in term of farmers autonomy building) etc. The next examples concerns land utilization with buildings that have a certain design or structure. This kind of multifunctionality is often found in urban area. On Bandung Institute of Technology (ITB) complex there lays a building called Sasana Budaya Ganesa (also known as Sabuga). This building was built in such a way that can serve many purposes. Not only can academic purpose be served but also those of Bandung society. Many parties (including ITB itself) have used this building

for many purposes: art exhibition, festivals and sports event. In addition, the structure of the Sabuga complex also has an artistic form. Recreational purpose may be served by this fact. The last example. On Merdeka Street Bandung there is a land on which lays a Regional Police Department Office. From the view of Police Department, this land and building are no longer able to serve its purpose because of its relative small physical space size. For that reason the department intended to trade the building with third party who was interested to set up a shopping centre on it. Trade permit issued by Ministry of Finance-- was given. In its development, it turned out that some members of Bandung society consider the traded-building a historical heritage and therefore needs to be preserved. Trade was then postponed. The above examples show that a piece of land can serve many functions. In the first example multifunctionality is achieved since a number of social objectives are served. Agricultural land does not only function agronomically (produce food). It also functions economically, culturally, socially, and politically. Internal dynamic on farm level such as the use of organic inputs enable the farm produce many product. In the second example many interests are attached to the same land: police department, business interest, cultural interest. The same goes for the Sabuga. The utilization of a piece of land with a certain activity and/or building structure may produce various functions. The importance of those functions is obvious. There is not much to be disputed about it. Nevertheless, the discussion presented above, I will argue, unable to provide a complete picture of the phenomenon of multifunctionality. Moreover, the discussion thus far tends to take function as automatically stemmed from an object. This line of understanding treats qualities of an object as sufficient in and by themselves. It does not mean that this objectivist approach is wrong. Rather, that we need another understanding in order to be able to draw the picture of multifunctionality more completely. To meet this, the next section will present a realist-constructivist framework (Noe et.al 2005). While Noe et.al developed the framework in relation to (agricultural) multi-disciplinary research, this paper will shift its focus onto the realm of policy of land use in general.

3. Understanding Multifunctionality: A Realist-Constructivist Approach Multifunctionality implies the existence of many functions. But, how the functions come about and gain their existence? Indeed, internal characteristic of an object are important. As an example, the fact that organic farming avoids using synthetic input will determine the potential functions. That a building has a unique design can not be neglected in explaining its functions. However, the picture of

multifunctionality would not be complete if we unable to move beyond the aforementioned objectivist understanding. What else is needed, then? The answer is presented below. Function arises as a dynamic interplay of objects and observers. None of the elements is being determining party. Noe et al (2005) maintain that a precondition to the ontological existence of multifunctionality is the performing of multiple observations made publicly and communicatively available by way of selection. Therefore, in addition to internal characteristics, the presence of observers is needed to explain the phenomenon of multifunctionality. These observers, with their own perspectives, may ascribe values to those internal characteristics. The functions ascribed to the object will depend on the perspective formed. Expressed in Peircean semiotic terminology, an observation will always be an observation of immediate object, that is object framed in a perspective due to a reduction and construction made by observer and affected by interests and qualifications of the observer (Noe et al, 2005). We need to differentiate the immediate object from the dynamic object, i.e. a really efficient but not immediately present object (Peirce 1908 quoted in Noe et. al 2005). I will return to aforementioned examples to illustrate the relationships between those two objects. For a party, a piece of land in rural region functions as a producer of food (hence it is operated in linear ways, just like that of a factory: inputs enter one end and outputs together with the polluting waste come from the other end). For other parties, the land may also be seen as biodiversity conservation, farmers source of living, cultural amenity, rural development etc. Source of food, wild animal habitat, cultural amenity etc. are the descriptions of immediate object of land in relation to its ability to produce such functions. The land in itself is a dynamic object with surplus of possibilities (that can not be captured by one description). When one considers land X as N, he or she is not describing a dynamic object. So are many other parties who see land X as O, P, or Q. They are all describing immediate objects which refer to the same object, land X. The description of dynamic object through a single perspective will never produce a thorough description. In other word, each single description by itself is unable to reveal the surplus of possibility of a dynamical object. It is important to stress that, in Peirceans sense, there is no position from where we can observe the dynamic object as such; every perspective only adds to the number of immediate object that refers to dynamic object (Noe et.al, 2005). Epistemologically, we can never grab dynamic object as an entity; we only touch it as immediate object. Only with a second-order observation (observation of descriptions of immediate object made earlier) we may come to a more (but never really)

comprehensive understanding of a dynamic object. This contention, hence, entails multidisciplinary approach as a corollary in searching a better understanding of a dynamical object. Now, I am going to step a little bit farther to discuss, very briefly, some concept of actor-network theory (ANT)3 which is also helpful in grasping multifunctionality. ANT pictures science, technology, family, organization, economy, society in short, all social lifeas ordered networks of heterogeneous materials whose resistance has been overcome (Law, 1992). ANT sees the role, status and identity of an entity as a consequence of its position in an actor-network4. Translated into the language of ANT, immediate object is equivalent to actant within actor-networks. An actant is a semiotic definition of an actor, that is something that acts or to which activity is

granted by others (Latour, 1997).

Seen from ANTs perspective, status and function of land is, therefore, a consequence of its existence in a society (here, society is understood as actor-network). Modern society is not homogeneous. It is differentiated into a number of subsystems.5 Each subsystem has its own logic (Lash 1990).6 By equating subsystems with actor-networks, it can be argued that a piece of land may be ascribed different functions, depending on which actor-network the land lays. Is it on the hand of business community? Is it on the hand of NGOs? Government? Poor citizens? Poor farmers? Nature lovers? The function of land as conservation, for example, is a consequence of existence in world where the loss of biodiversity is considered as dangerous. Land is identified by some NGOs with the small farmers struggle in a society where their condition is so miserable. Historical building is ascribed a value by some members of society but not by other members. A piece of land in the city may be perceived as more valuable to be utilized for public park or public space by some citizens, while for others, the businessmen, it is more preferable to build a shopping mall upon it. For a developer a high land in northern Bandung is more promising in term of profit generated from luxury housing development, while for academic community at ITB, for example, it is nature conservation that is more important. For business community, building expensive apartments for small number of citizens
3

Actor network theory originates from the discipline of Science, Technology and Society. The scholars behind its early development are Bruno Latour, John Law, Michel Callon. But many other thinkers have also contributed to its development. 4 Actor network here is defined as Paassen (2004): ordered network of human and non-human entities. In ANT an actor may be either human or non-human. In principle, an actor can be anything provided it becomes a source of actions. 5 Luhmann (1992 quoted in Albertsen and Diken 2003) argues that ...we live in a horizontal society differentiated into a number of one-function autopoietic systems. Modern society is divided into an economic system, a judical system, a political system, an education system, a scientic system, a family system, an art system. Modern Society is a horizontally differentiated society. 6 Lash (1990) stated that ...we live today in a society containing a number of autonomous field: education, religion, culture, politics, a legal field, and an aesthetic field, all with their own logics...

is much more lucrative than building rumah susun murah for the poor. The list can be prolonged, of course. The diversity stated above may be understood that something, let us say a piece of land, which appears singular, in reality is not singular. This is not just a matter of different perspectives.7 This is not just that we have different images of the same object. More than that, these differences may mean that we have different lands at the same place (see footnote number 7). The reality related to a piece of land is not singular. There are many worlds on it. Ontologically, the function of an object is complex, multiple and in many cases not necessarily mutually inclusive. The later imply the potentiality to make it more mutually inclusive. Multifunctionality arises as a consequence of differentiation of perspectives (Noe et. al, 2005) of various actors belongs to a plural society. Each perspective attaches different values, beliefs, understandings, interests, and rationalities to a single piece of land. The narrations produced by those perspectives might be very different from each other even if they are derived from the same object. Each domain may construct the land according to their perspectives. Land can be considered multifunctional insofar as it is ready to be mobilized (as actant/immediate object) into different actornetworks. This also means that multifunctional land is land that can accommodate many interests.

4. Space Distribution What is the function of a piece of land? Determining the status and function of an object such as land is a very serious matter. Land use is not always multifunctional. Despite the plurality of our society, sometimes land use is organized around the fulfillment of only one dominant interest. Not all of those various perspectives can affect land use in such a way so that their interest be accommodated. Thus, for example, only those who have power (in term of resources) have had success in exerting the definition of land function. Other definitions, mostly of those who come from the most resourceless, must struggle to stay on the map of discussion. They are stepped aside and cannot affect the design of land use. And, I argue, uneven distribution of social influence over an arrangement of land use may result in social inequality. Therefore, it is imperative to ask these questions: whose interest is served by a certain land use arrangement?; what reality is going to dominate and to be subordinated?

On this differences some ANT thinkers argue that the problem is not that one perspective is more valid than the other. According to them, these differences need to be approach ontologically. Mol (2002) says that the description of a reality and the reality they are trying to describe are produced together. Therefore, difference should be understood ontologically. This means that difference is no longer a matter of different perspectives on a single object, but the enactment of different objects in the different sets of relations and contexts of practice.

Multifunctionality, I maintain, is a political matter. It concerns the distribution of space. The policy of land use has a potential ability to set limits to the conditions of object possibilities (Law, 2000). It can render a reality dominant while the other is subordinated. In conventional agriculture biodiversity and farmers autonomy, for example, are subordinated by productivity. Another example, for some, historical building does not have reality in their discourse; so is the conservation for the developer of luxurious housing in northern Bandung. Graham and Healey (1998) argue that many different notions, experiences, representations of space-time continually collide and resonate within individual places. Space and place may be constructed differently by different people through power struggles and conflicts of interest. The idea that spaces are socially constructed, and that many spaces may co-exist within the same physical space is an important one (Flyvbjerg and Richardson, 1998). In relation to land use policy, it is important to analyze the way strategies of inclusion and exclusion are channeled through that policy.

5. Conclusion: Appreciating Multifunctionality This section is intended to discuss the implication of constructivist approach to the policy of land use. Before we get there, I will first summarize what I have presented in the preceding section. Land use can be multifunctional, that is able to serve many social objectives. To comprehend the functions of an object, elaboration of its internal characteristics is a necessary condition. However, that is not enough. Function is not only determined by internal characteristics but also by the existence of observers who through signification processes attach values to those characteristics. Function appears as a dynamic interplay between object and observer. Observers belong to society. And as stated above, our society is politically and culturally plural. Arguably, the perspectives living in society are plural too. As a consequence, the functions attached to an object are varied. Nevertheless, not all interest can be served. Insofar as multifunctionality is taken as something desirable, the effort to realize it is a must. In other words, multifunctionality demands normative approach. By putting multifunctionality in a normative terrain, our focus of discussion will shift to the societal objectives associated with land use, be it in urban or rural region. If this is agreeable, then our discourse of land use is now burdened with a new task: appreciating multifunctionality. Land is limited resource. Even if we are able to change its quality, the supply of land is fixed by nature. We cannot increase the supply of land. Land should, therefore, be utilized optimally in economic perspective, without neglecting social and environmental dimension. In order to fully

appreciate multifunctionality, the understanding and meaning of land cannot be reduced into single perspective. Multifunctionality can only be approached by multidisciplinary processes. Multifunctionality as a way to mediate conflict of interest can be a fact when various functions are combined. As we know, conflict may arise between people who value different attributes of land. An understanding of land use therefore involves both an understanding of values of these individual attributes of land, and an awareness of the different standpoints from which land use may be considered (Mather, 1986). Multifunctional land is land that harmonizes many interests and perspectives. The value of land cannot be appreciated only in economic terminology.

6. Some Ideas to Discuss Below, I will present some ideas that, in my opinion, urge us to think about. First, to appreciate the multiple and dynamic lived worlds of a piece of land we need to maintain multiple perspectives of it. Learning to see a place from a multiple positions if such an exercise is possible- then becomes a means to better understand what the land as a totality is. A place may be experienced and represented differently by different people. Land has a property of, to borrow Bijkers (1987) term, interpretative flexibility. A single representation does not pay. Graham and Healey (1998) state that such depictions are necessarily power-laden acts which highlight certain parts while inevitably neglecting others. Policy makers have many opportunities in helping to frame communicative and interpretative processes through which collective meanings of land are negotiated and maintained, for the purpose of mediating multiple realities. Second, Design of a building may become one solution to mediate interests. The design process is crucial here. The questions that should be raised, among others, are: who involves in the design process? Whose interest is represented by a design? This discretion is needed especially if we consider an argument, furthered by King (1995), saying that given the ability of dominant interests to appropriate all architectural forms, there can be no such thing as an emancipating design. Only the process of design has such potential. It is in the design processes that object and subject and the relations between them be defined. The design processes have the opportunity to determine who has access and who does not to a place; who is included and who is excluded. Third, this notion may sound clich. If it is true that a piece of land is enacted differently by different actors, then issue of coordination is very crucial if we are to achieve coherency of strategy of land use which from the very beginning incorporates social, economic, and environmental considerations. Our society has relied on a two-track approach that separate promotional activities from control and

regulation activities of land use. Broadly devised, promotional activities belong to those who promote utilization of land for the sake of development, while control activities belong to those who perceive the undesirable effects or potential effects related utilization of land. Our institutions are set up in this way and the approach is embedded in our culture (Rip et.al 1995). The massage is clear: we need an institution which act as a bridge of promotional and control activities --a coordinating-institution for the purpose of making various functions mutual inclusive.

References
Chaniago, A.A. 2001. Gagalnya Pembangunan: Kajian Ekonomi Politik terhadap Akar Krisis Indonesia. LP3S. Jakarta. Flyvbjerg, B dan Richardson, T. 1998. In Search of The Dark Side of Planning. Oxford Brookes University. Graham, S and Patsy H. 2000. Relational Concept of Space and Place: Issues for Planning Theory and Practice. European Planning Studies, 7 (5) pp 623-646. King, R. 1995. Emancipating Space. New York. Guildford Press. Lagendijk, A. dan I. Wisserhof. 1999. Give Knowwledge to Space, Give Space to Knowledge. Part 1: Exploration of Knowledge Infrastructure for Multifunctional Land Use. RMNO Number 136. Lash, S.1990. Sociology of Postmodernism. London. Routledge. Latour, B. 1997. On Actor-Network Theory: A Few Clarification. CSI Paris. (amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/ nettime-l-9801/msg00019.html accessed October 28th 2004). Law, J. 1992. Notes on the Theory of the Actor Network: Ordering, Strategy and Heterogenity. Center for Science Studies, Lancaster University. Lancaster (http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/ sociology/papers/law-notes.pdf, accessed November 24th 2004). Law, J. 1999. Objects, Spaces and Others. Center for Science Studies, Lancaster University. Lancaster http:// www. comp. lancs.ac.uk/ sociology / papers/lawObjects-Spaces-Others.pdf, accessed November 24th 2004). Law, J and V. Singleton.2003. Object Lesson.Center for Science Studies, Lancaster University. Lancaster. http:// www. comp. lancs.ac.uk/ sociology / papers/lawSingleton-Objects-lessons.pdf, accessed 24 November 24th 2004). Mather, A.S. 1986. Land Use. Longman Group. Essex. Mol, A. 2001. The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice. Duke University Press. London.

Noe, E dan H Alroe. 2005a. The Challange of Management of Multidimensional Enterprises Analyzed from Logo-Poietic Perspective. Preprint online pada http://orgprints.org/00000324 (accessed, July 7th 2005). Noe, E.et.al. 2005b. A Semiotic Poly Ocular Framework for Multidisciplinary Research in Relation to Multifunctional Farming and Rural Development. Paper Presented on the XXI ESRSCongress in Hungary August 22-27 2005. OECD. 2001. Multifunctionality: Towards an Analytical Framework. Summary and Conclusion. (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/43/31/ 1894469.pdf, accessed May 15th 2005). Paassen, A.V. 2004. Bridging The Gap: Computer Model Enhanced Learning About Natural Resource Management in Burkina Faso. Wageningen Universiteit. Phd Thesis. Rip, A et.al. 1995. Managing Technology in Society: The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment. Pinter Publisher. London Rodenburg, C.A and P. Nijkamp. 2002. Multifunctional Land Use in the City. Research Memorandum. Faculty of Economics and Bussines Administration. Vrije Universiteit. Yunianto, T. 2005. Pertanian Multifungsional Sebagai Paradigma Baru Pembangunan Pertanian: Kasus Pertanian Organik. Development Studies Program ITB. Magister Thesis (unpublished).

10