PGIS for Tiered Participatory Development Planning

Abstract

Location information is a critical factor in prioritising development planning. However, the use of maps in the planning process within Indonesian local governments is limited. In development forums such as Musrenbang, a tiered participatory planning process that operates from the village to the national level, information is often presented in tabular form without visual support. This approach lacks the visualisation, aggregation, and synchronisation necessary for effective public deliberation. Therefore, it is necessary to design a spatial-based participatory planning system to enhance tiered participatory planning through improved visualisation. A Participatory GIS (PGIS) for Musrenbang was designed to facilitate community aspirations, enable collaborative discussions, and support tiered planning processes. The PGIS was developed based on inputs collected through interviews, observations, and surveys with Musrenbang participants in Karanganyar District, Central Java, Indonesia. Testing with 50 users indicated that integrating spatial data in Musrenbang increased location awareness, supported knowledge transfer, enhanced collaboration and accommodated the creation of aspiration maps. The PGIS developed in this study contributes a foundational system for participatory spatial planning, establishing a scalable platform suitable for tiered development planning. Implementing development planning forums in other jurisdictions, as well as at provincial and national levels, requires central government regulations. The more comprehensive the coverage of PGIS, the more complex the database design, visualisation methods, and interaction models will need to be, necessitating further study.

Introduction

This paper investigates the gap in geo-visualisation methods that support planning activities within a tiered participatory model. A unique aspect of this model is that the results of lower-level aspirations are managed, aggregated and aligned at higher levels in a subsequent process. This uniqueness has led to the development of geospatial aggregation visualisation methods in this study, using Musrenbang—the Indonesian Development Planning Forum—as a case study. Musrenbang facilitates the alignment between community aspirations and government thematic plans across various planning stages. This study focuses on alignment at the local stages in Karanganyar Regency, where Musrenbang adheres to national regulations (Law 25/2004). The regulation states that Musrenbang is implemented in a multi-tiered manner. Consequently, this study also addresses the need for visual information that can adapt to variations in scale across different planning levels involving public participation.

Public involvement in planning activities is fundamental for achieving shared objectives. The concept of public participation in planning processes has evolved significantly since the publication of Arnstein's classic Ladder of Citizen Participation (Arnstein, 1969). Public engagement in the planning process plays a significant role in understanding public requirements and achieving development goals (Obermeyer, 1998). The role of the public has become increasingly important, particularly in the field of spatial planning. Recognising the value of public participation in planning has laid the foundation for numerous studies focused on specific information, knowledge, and tools to bolster participatory planning efforts (Geertman, 2006). Geographic Information System (GIS) has emerged as a widely embraced tool for enhancing participation, such as fulfilling survey requirements (Aditya, Sugianto et al., 2020; Álvarez Larrain and McCall, 2019). GIS services have been upgraded for more advanced implementation according to development needs. GIS technology has become increasingly accessible and has expanded its scope beyond individual requirements to foster collaborative discussions (Aditya, 2010; Akbar, Flacke et al., 2020a; Yu and Cai, 2009). There have been transitions from small-group GIS applications, such as local planning support systems (PSS) (Geertman, 2006), to the hosting of crowdsourced data originating from public participation (Karadimitriou, Magnani et al., 2022).

PSS emerged as early as the 2000s (Geertman, 2002) and primarily aimed to assist planners in developing land use plans. Later, it garnered attention for various application domains, such as disaster risk mitigation (Sutanta, Rajabifard et al., 2013; Wigati, Sopha et al., 2023), environmental protection (Kuller, Farrelly et al., 2022), geodesign (Kapoor and Bansal, 2023), and smart cities (Pettit, Bakelmun et al., 2018). This evolution was necessary, as the early stages were hindered by several factors that limited its global use, including organisational attitudes towards adopting new technology, availability and quality of data, fitness-for-use of the system, and hardware and software limitations (Vonk, Geertman et al., 2005). The development of the Internet and Web 2.0 led to the adoption of web-based participation models (Kahila-Tani, Broberg et al., 2016; Zhang, Geertman et al., 2019). Furthermore, since 2010, a similar concept has emerged, termed geodesign (Ervin, 2016; Goodchild, 2010). This concept is similar to PSS and Participatory GIS (PGIS) in utilising geospatial information and GIS to address land use and environmental planning (Li and Milburn, 2016; Wissen Hayek, von Wirth et al., 2016).

Using GIS as a tool for participatory activities, PGIS began to emerge in neighbourhood planning involving the community (Geertman, 2002). At the local planning level, public participation using GIS was then developed online using the Internet (Kingston, 2007). Since then, web-based PGIS has continued to grow, from spatial planning applications (Hessel et al., 2009) and land use planning (Sharma, Saini et al., 2023) to public policy development (Ganapati, 2011). The system continues to evolve by employing increasingly diverse criteria (Boroushaki and Malczewski, 2010) and customising more features to facilitate specific collaboration (McCall and Dunn, 2012). GIS-supported collaborations have been widely adopted because they have proven effective in helping people understand and communicate (Hansen, Schrøder et al., 2011). Approximately 31 multi-platform geo-collaboration tools have been developed (Palomino, Muellerklein et al., 2017).

The evolving needs have led PGIS to accommodate different planning methodologies, particularly single and multilevel planning processes. Multiple studies have proposed PGIS development for single-level land development planning (Chambers, 2006; Cho, Onisimo et al., 2023; Obermeyer, 1998; Rall, Hansen et al., 2019). These efforts primarily focused on single-level land development planning. Conversely, other studies have explored multilevel planning using PGIS in the context of marine spatial planning (Lagabrielle, Lombard et al., 2018), emphasizing on multi-scale interfaces. PGIS has employed this method to gather data on local knowledge through public participation (Munyaka, Chenal et al., 2023). Developing PGIS-based methodologies for multilevel planning presents an ongoing challenge. Specific tiered planning methods require two-way data synchronisation, which is currently unavailable in existing methods. Two-way data synchronisation, referred to as "conflict" (Christmann, Ibert et al., 2020), should be acknowledged and accommodated as a regular aspect of the social innovation process. The question of how GIS can effectively facilitate synchronisation within tiered collaborative planning models remains a subject of inquiry.

The efficiency of PGIS needs to be enhanced. Apart from data availability and quality, other challenges include data heterogeneity and ease of use (Aditya, Gunawan et al., 2017). Innovations have been explored to develop diverse strategies for boosting efficiency and transparency (Hersperger, Thurnheer-Wittenwiler et al., 2022), for example, by improving interoperability (Malinverni, Naticchia et al., 2022). Applications for specific devices, such as map tables, were evaluated and developed by Aguilar, Calisto et al. (2021). Meanwhile, Jing, Zhu et al. (2019) identified the necessity for a lightweight GIS design to facilitate efficient collaborative activities. The potential for enhancing GIS efficiency has expanded with increased data availability and the public's familiarity with information technology. GIS has increasingly become a tool for individuals with less technical expertise.

Utilising readily available data and harnessing public familiarity with information technology could be key to achieving efficiency in PGIS. Adopting appropriate GIS methods can significantly enhance the efficiency of participatory planning endeavours (Akbar, Flacke et al., 2020b). Several studies have identified potential uses of available geospatial information to support participatory planning activities. Incorporating participants' spatial awareness adds depth to discussions and can mitigate misunderstandings during collaboration. In collaborative tasks and knowledge construction processes, the decision-making process is closely tied to location (Maceachren and Brewer, 2004). GIS technology is pivotal in facilitating exploration, analysis, synthesis, and presentation within collaborative activities (MacEachren, Pike et al., 2006). These results have led to exploring the potential of leveraging geographic information to increase participatory planning efforts.

The potential of GIS for participatory mapping activities has also been studied in Indonesia (Aditya, 2010; Akbar, Flacke et al., 2020b; Mustofa, Aditya et al., 2018). Public aspirations framed in terms of location factors are essential in guiding decisions within tiered collaborative planning processes. However, although site factors are crucial, they can only be applied to a particular collaborative planning model with adjustments (Maceachren and Brewer, 2004).

This paper begins by introducing the topic and reviewing relevant previous works. It then describes the materials and methods used in the research. The following sections elaborate on the data identification and desktop analysis process and the survey's findings. The final sections discuss the PGIS platform development and conclude with final insights.

Materials and Methods

Qualitative and quantitative methods were employed to design a system for visualising aggregated geospatial information, beginning with data collection through literature reviews and surveys. The collected data were then identified and analysed to form the basis for developing a specific PGIS for tiered development planning. The results include business processes, actors, content, user needs, weaknesses of the old system regarding public participation levels and issues related to the visualisation of information needs for development planning. These results were used as a foundation for the design and development of PGIS, which was subsequently tested with actual participants in Musrenbang. Figure 1 represents the study’s experimental framework. Firstly, we discussed the data collection, and data identification and analysis. This was followed by a discussion of the design, development and testing process of CoPGIS.

Figure 1. Research flowchart

Study area

Karanganyar Regency (Figure 2) is located in Central Java, Indonesia. It consists of urban villages and hamlets, and adequately represents the Musrenbang process, although its geographical character cannot represent the varied characteristics of 514 Indonesian local governments. The content of spatial planning in Karanganyar Regency already reflects the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), highlighting issues of environmental protection and climate change.

Figure 2. The study sites were in three neighbouring villages—Jati, Papahan, and Cangakan—in Jaten, Tasikmadu, and Karanganyar in Karanganyar Regency, Indonesia. (Source: OSM Contributors & Karanganyar Regency)

Data collection

Data were collected through questionnaires, observations and interviews. During the series of Musrenbang activities spanning from February to March 2022, the questionnaire was distributed to a cohort of 100 respondents representing various levels, from the village to regency Musrenbang levels in the study area. This respondent group encompassed community leaders, village authorities, and sub-district delegates. The questionnaire comprised fifty-five questions categorised into seven sections: technological literacy, substance representativeness, submission method, submission content, submission time and updates, collaborative methods, and information required.

Observations were conducted during the 2023 fiscal year. Field observations took place from February to March 2022, encompassing three village-level Musrenbang activities (Musrenbangkel), three district-level Musrenbang activities (Musrenbangcam) and one regency-level Musrenbang activity (Musrenbangkab). These observations focused on the participants' perspectives, in line with previous observations made by Akbar, Flacke et al. (2020a).

In addition to observations, interviews were conducted to gain insights into the activities of the Musrenbang supervisors and to capture the concerns of the organisers. Interviews were carried out with Musrenbangkel organisers, Musrenbangcam committees, heads of the economic sector, infrastructure, and socio-cultural affairs, as well as the secretary of the Development Planning Agency. These interviews were unstructured and recorded on-site without formal interview equipment.

Data analysis

The data from the questionnaire were quantitatively assessed using the Guttman scale (Guttman, 1944) to gather information from a more intuitive participant perspective. The scale is designed in a multilevel manner to measure levels of understanding, agreement, or complexity, allowing for the identification of a clear progression of responses from the most basic to the most complex. The focal points of these observations included evaluating performance and work patterns witnessed during the Musrenbang. Measuring the level of participation was also an essential outcome of the observation using the Ladder of Citizen Participation (Arnstein, 1969).

This measurement method was chosen instead of more recent methods because it categorises the level of public participation quantitatively. Although it is an old-classic method, the Ladder of Citizen Participation remains relevant to this case study and can be used to identify the status of various aspects of the Musrenbang. The purpose of this identification process, as previously conducted by Munyaka, Chenal et al. (2023), was to gather data about stages, users, activities, levels of participation, and needs. The interviews also explored the visibility of the developed information system when implemented in local government.

System development

The findings of the identification were used to determine how the system configures the visual parameters and how the interaction capabilities visualise information aggregation. This was achieved by matching the character of the activities and information needs with common types of geovisualisation (Kraak, 2003), whether using point distribution maps, proportional symbol maps, choropleths, spider maps, flow maps or heat maps, as done with a tool called Geovisto (Nielsen and Molich, 1990). This visualisation combined open spatial data sourced from government databases and open-source data from a global platform, including street-level imagery from OpenStreetMap, to support planning activities. This study proposes the novelty of a user-friendly aggregation visualisation, and focuses on developing the user interface.

System testing

To demonstrate whether the system is user-friendly, a summative usability test was conducted using the System Usability Scale method (Brooke, 1996), a formative usability test was performed using the Concurrent Think Aloud method (Alhadreti and Mayhew, 2018), and a hybrid summative/formative test was conducted using Heuristic Evaluation (Hynek, Kachlík et al., 2021). This basic design discovery phase was essential in guiding the development of aggregated geovisualisation in collaborative GIS for tiered planning.

Data Identification and Analysis from Desktop Study

This process aimed to comprehensively understand the underlying concepts, prerequisites and execution of Musrenbang. It was conducted through a desk study and interviews with Musrenbang participants and organisers. The results provide an overview of the Musrenbang business workflow, the roles of different participants and their respective activities. The results obtained through the identification process serve as a guiding framework for the design of collaborative GIS.

Development planning stages

The development planning stages are governed by Law 25/2004 (Guidelines for the Implementation of Development Planning) and detailed by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) Regulation 86/2017. Before implementation, the planning stage consists of two main phases: planning and budgeting. The Planning stage involves gathering community aspirations through a series of Musrenbang forums, as presented in Figure 3.

Figure 3. The Musrenbang implementation flow (Source: Modified from Karanganyar)

The process begins with the village-level Musrenbang (1), and progresses to the district-level Musrenbang (2), the regency-level Synchronisation Forum (3) and finally the regency-level Musrenbang (4). The results of these community aspiration forums form the basis for the Budgeting stage. Public aspirations are crucial in determining general policies (5, 6), which are then translated into a budget plan (7, 8, 9, 10). This budget plan is ratified as an official development plan regulation (11, 12), guiding the implementation (13) of the development.

The Musrenbang represents a tiered approach to development planning, characterised by a clear hierarchical structure between planning levels (Gaber, 2019). Each level of the Musrenbang forum has specific topics for deliberation, ensuring that discussions and decision-making are finalised at each stage (Figure 4). Consequently, the material advanced to the subsequent level reflects the consensus achieved at the preceding forum. This structured progression ensures that the development planning process is systematic and that each decision results from thorough consideration and agreement at each tier.

Figure 4. Tiered development planning hierarchy and collaboration groups

Participants and Activities

The thirteen stages of development planning outlined in Figure 3 were classified into five stages of collaboration groups. The synchronised outcomes from one collaboration group were relayed to the subsequent collaboration group. The first collaboration is Musrenbangkel, organised by the village government and attended by the public, the village head and community elders. Discussions revolve around public aspirations and assessments of village conditions, along with community reports and proposals. Public aspirations (bottom-up submissions) are synchronised with village programmes, considered top-down submissions. These village programmes encompass state thematic programmes, regency plans, district plans, and village plans. The results of this synchronisation in the Musrenbangkel are bifurcated into two parts by national standards for development planning as per MHA Regulation 86/2017. The first part is presented as bottom-up proposals at the district-level Musrenbangcam. The other is transformed into village work plans to receive funding from the Village Income and Expenditure Budget (APBDes).

The second stage is the Musrenbangcam, hosted by the district government. In Musrenbangcam, submissions from villages and public aspirations (bottom-up submissions) are synchronised with district government programmes (regarded as top-down submissions). At this stage, all proposals are categorised by work sector following national standard guidelines and submitted as bottom-up proposals based on their respective sectors. The third collaboration group is Musrenbangkab, organised by the regency government. This forum addresses the proposals submitted by stakeholders at the district level (bottom-up) and synchronises them with district government programmesprograms (top-down). Musrenbangkab participants consist of the district chief and agency heads. Here, participants deliberate on priority budget plans and transform them into the Regency Plans Formulation.

Musrenbang Assessment

Participation levels

The level of participation was assessed using the eight levels of Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen Participation (Arnstein, 1969). This study identified the level of participation and determined the areas of improvement at each stage of the Musrenbang. Arnstein’s ladder is a straightforward and pertinent method for evaluating participation levels at each Musrenbang stage. Figure 5 provides an overview of the participation levels at each stage in the development planning activities, identifying the areas of improvement. The level of participation in the Musrenbangkel was at the level of 'Consultation-Placement-Partnership.' The fact that participants knew each other and were willing to listen, facilitated the discussions. Participants could agree or disagree with the proposals presented in the Musrenbang. However, as also observed by Akbar, Flacke et al. (2020a), the village elite and community figures continued to exhibit dominance.

Figure 5. Musrenbang participation rate with Arnstein citizen participation ladder indicator

The Musrenbangcam is responsible for synchronising submissions from villages, the regency council, and district programmes. While participants were able to express their views, final decisions were typically made by key individuals recognised for their wisdom and expertise. This method stemmed from the practical constraints of dealing with a large number of proposals in a limited time and capacity. Valuable time was consumed by speeches from influential figures. The level of participation in these circumstances can be best described as "informing." Nonetheless, village representatives were granted the opportunity to prioritise each contribution, enabling the selection of the most critical issues. The level of participation in the Musrenbangcam could be characterised as "informing-consultation-placation."

During the Musrenbangkab sessions, district submissions were presented to the relevant units. The time allocated during the Musrenbangkab was primarily used to outline each agency’s programmes and budget requirements. Although time was set aside for discussion, it was severely limited, allowing for the consideration of only the most pressing issues. While suggestions from the lower levels were recorded, the final decisions still rested on the key figures of each agency. These decisions took compliance with regulations and financial capacity into account. There is no guarantee that the suggestions made in this forum will be implemented. Given these circumstances, the appropriate level of participation for Musrenbangkab can be characterised as "information-consultation-placement."

Selected public aspirations have advanced to the Musrenbangkab stage, providing the foundation for shaping budget policies before budget formulation. The Regency Council serves as a public representative, while the Mayor represents the government. At this stage, the level of participation is elevated, categorised explicitly as "partnership-delegated power." This elevated participation level results from both parties wielding considerable influence and standing on equal ground. Each has substantial prerogatives in determining development budget priorities.

User needs assessment

Interviews, observations and the distribution of questionnaires were used to assess users' needs. The interviews were conducted with Musrenbang organisers, including the head of the village planning section and district community development officials. At the district level, interviews were carried out with the heads of infrastructure, economy, and socio-cultural affairs, as well as the secretary of the development planning agency. Observations were made on the activities of Musrenbang for the 2023 fiscal year. Both interviews and observations focused on the needs of the organisers, which resulted in the following challenges: 1) lack of focus on substantive issues due to technical concerns; 2) difficulty in understanding hierarchy of the national budgeting standards.

Questionnaires were distributed to 100 Musrenbang participants. Fifty-five questions in seven groups were administered using Google Forms. The details show that 78% of the respondents were comfortable using information technology. Only 44% of respondents indicated an adequate understanding of the content presented to them, while 97% indicated that location-based knowledge could aid their understanding. Seventy-one percent preferred that aspirations be submitted collectively by computer administrators.

Of the respondents, 65% wanted to use smartphones, and 71% opted for the digital method. Around 80% of respondents expressed a desire to attach more information to their submissions to highlight the importance of their aspirations. Ninety percent of respondents indicated that they would like to be able to submit proposals throughout the year. In the section on the information needed, 89% of respondents stated that annotations, clipboards, and panel folders were required to help explain proposals at the next stage of Musrenbang.

Development of PGIS Platform

System architecture design

In response to the challenges identified in the previous section, the system architecture was designed using the visual enable framework developed by Maceachren and Brewer (2004). We adapted an inventory of challenges against this framework, taking into account, the problem context, selection of the main collaboration tasks (including activities, exploration, analysis, synthesis, and presentation), the perspective of potential users, the desired spatiotemporal collaboration model, observed interactions, and potential discussion media. Consequently, the design of PGIS prioritised two primary services. First, it provides technical efficiency, simplifying access, submission, organisation, management, and information retrieval processes. Second, it offers user-friendly features designed to meet the diverse needs of tiered planning activities. The system architecture was presented in a layered format, comprising elements representing users, services available in the interface, accommodated activity options, back-end databases, and relationships with external portals, as shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6. PGIS architecture for Musrenbang system

The architecture illustrates the critical role of the user interface, which acts as a bridge between users and the system, a concept created by Pignatelli, Torabi Moghadam et al. (2023). Three main panels in the main window serve distinct functions, including an interactive proposal submission panel for facilitating users in submitting aspirations and proposals. Information panels are used to review information and set priorities. The organisation panel is used to manage the efficiency of the system. Through these panels, users can explore locations on the map, access street-level imagery, perform measurements, mark locations, make modifications, compare data, and review information. The system records the information in the database and retrieves data from other sources.

Use Case Scenario

The architectural design accommodates two distinct participant groups: administrators and users. System administrators are responsible for the general organisation of the system, while planning and budget administrators oversee development planning activities. Furthermore, administrators are authorised to manage user accounts by adding, verifying, modifying, or reducing them when necessary. The user base for Musrenbang activities comprises diverse participants, including the public, village facilitators, district, and regency officers. Public users are allowed to submit their aspirations every day of the year. During the Musrenbangkel, users from village officers verify, select, and forward the proposal. Facilitators then categorise these submissions into their respective work areas in the aspiration submission form in accordance with national budget planning standards. Users from district officers are responsible for verifying, prioritising, adjusting and forwarding village aspirations during the Musrenbangcam. During the Musrenbangkab, the aspirations of the districts are verified, formulated, and stored in the system according to their respective areas of work.

The system was designed to facilitate public aspirations throughout the year. Therefore, the system administrator maintains continuous control over system operations. They play a significant role in ensuring the system functions smoothly, managing system settings, conducting updates, performing maintenance, and upholding security measures. On the other hand, planning activities, overseen by an administrator, are scheduled annually, starting with Musrenbangkel, moving to Musrenbangcam and concluding with Musrenbangkab. The planning administrator, who serves as the event organiser, assumes various responsibilities, such as activity scheduling, user identification, collaboration and model organisation. Others include moderation and operation of collaborative planning activities during ongoing maintenance. While budget administrators mainly organise budgeting forums outside of the discussion, they also play a supportive role during this phase by observing and assisting system administrators.

After establishing a clear understanding of users and their respective tasks, the next step was to create a comprehensive map of these activities. The mapping process is a critical guide for developing the PGIS for Musrenbang, ensuring it aligns with the intended functionality. The previously outlined user information and task details can be effectively used to generate scenarios that define how the system should operate and how different activities should be integrated. Each user has one main activity, but officials may have up to three roles. Meanwhile, two dynamic products, Aspiration Maps and Lists, allow for editing, reviewing, and submitting proposed additions. Editing activities occur exclusively during Musrenbang, while verification can be conducted throughout the planning process by relevant regulations.

Following the system architecture reviewed in the previous section, the explanation was structured into information, interactive proposals and organisation panels. The information panel was subdivided into two pages: the first was dedicated to presenting non-spatial data and infographics, while the second focused on information maps showcasing spatial data. A visual representation of the infographics and spatial information in the system is shown in Figure 7. The menu on the right-hand side offers a range of information options, covering every aspect, from fundamental details and street information to spatial planning and relevant locations such as health centres, police stations or terminals.

Figure 7. (a) visual of the infographics, (b) aggregation of hotspot information combined with street information, (c) village information, (d) aggregation of key location information

The interactive submission panel within the system architecture was incorporated through the proposal page, presenting a more complex design than other pages. This complexity arose from the need to cater to a wide range of user requirements. Users who visit the proposal page have a list of submitted suggestions. Officer-level users can click on the Edit menu to modify, delete, or review proposals on this list. Conversely, public users are directed to the Add Proposals subpage. The Edit and Add Proposals pages share a similar layout, featuring sections consisting of a map and a proposal description form. A visual representation of the suggested list page, showing menus for submission, geospatial data layers and edit forms, is depicted in Figure 8. The suggestion page incorporates a map panel enabling users to explore specific locations and allowing user-specified coordinates to be directly linked to street-level imagery.

Figure 8. (a) proposal list page, (b) the submission form, (c) map layers on the submission and edit form, (d) verification by measuring the distance, and (e) review using street-level imagery

System Usability Test

To demonstrate the usability of the designed aggregation geovisualisation, the PGIS for Musrenbang or tiered participatory spatial planning forum was tested using three methods: the System Usability Scale (SUS), Concurrent Think-Aloud (CTA), and Heuristic Evaluation (HE). The SUS test questionnaire was distributed to 50 respondents (using 30 computers and 20 smartphones) who were Musrenbang actors from the village level to the regency level and representatives from government agencies. The test results indicated that the GIS received a SUS score of 70.9. Figure 9 illustrates that this score is interpreted into four categories (Sauro, 2018): Grade, Adjective, Acceptable, and Net Promoter Score (NPS).

Figure 9. Interpretation of the PGIS usability scale using model from Sauro (2018).

The grade ranges from A, indicating excellent usability, to F, indicating poor performance. This system received a C grade, almost reaching grade B, signifying that the system's performance is above average. The performance was measured in six grades or levels: worst imaginable, poor, okay, good, excellent and best. A score of 70.9 falls within the “good” category. The acceptability category has three levels: not acceptable, marginal, and acceptable. The tested system achieved a satisfactory score. In the NPS category, SUS values below 53 are classified as marginal, while values above 85.14 are classified as promoted. The system is in the passive category but close to the promoted grade.

Of the 50 respondents, 30 participated in the system usability test using the CTA method. This qualitative test was conducted using the same-time, same-place method in the office of the Regency Planning Agency. The respondents provided their opinions directly after trying the 12 prepared scenarios. The feedback was then categorised according to similar meanings. Of all the comments made by respondents, only 11.4% were negative, comprising 5.6% effectiveness issues, 3.9% efficiency issues and 1.9% satisfaction issues. Requests for additional spatial information deemed necessary for development planning dominated respondents' input.

The HE method was tested with three respondents, as shown in Table 1. The first respondent (R1) is a data and information analyst from the local government, the second respondent (R2) is a geospatial infrastructure expert from the central government, and the third respondent (R3) is a geomatics expert from academia. The respondents were asked to rate ten heuristic principles (Nielsen and Molich, 1990) after trying the system online, namely H1: visibility of system status, H2: match between system and real world, H3: user control and freedom, H4: consistency and standards, H5: error prevention, H6: recognition rather than recall, H7: flexibility and efficiency of use, H8: aesthetic and minimalist design, H9: helps users detect, diagnose, and recover from errors and H10: help and documentation. Each category is divided into five levels of severity, namely:

0 = disagree that it is a usability problem at all

1 = cosmetic problem only, to be fixed when time is available

2 = minor usability problem; fix should be a low priority

3 = major usability problem, important to fix, high priority

4 = usability catastrophe, fix before product release

Table 1. Severity levels of the heuristic principles evaluation

Respondent	H1	H2	H3	H4	H5	H6	H7	H8	H9	H10
R1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	2
R2	0	0	0	0	0	2	0	1	0	3
R3	0	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	1
Average Severity	0	0.33	0	0	0.33	0.67	0	0.33	0.33	2

The average severity in each category was calculated by dividing the sum of severity levels by the number of respondents. The lowest average severity was zero in categories H1, H3, H4 and H7. Meanwhile, the highest severity obtained from testing was 2 in category H10. Although this result is positive, respondent 2 assigned a severity score of 3 for category H10. He suggested that the help link created should be placed on a separate page to provide guidelines to users. Minor usability issues were also found in H10 and H6. Although further improvements are needed, the overall results of the HE test conclude that this system is viable for use.

The SUS test results indicated that the system is close to grade B, with a good adjective level, acceptable level and passive level of NPS. HE testing indicated that the PGIS has no serious usability problems. HE testing also suggested improvements in the Help & Documentation section. The CTA test also highlighted requests for additional information, as this was considered important for Musrenbang.

However, the implementation of PGIS does pose certain challenges, such as the need for skilled human resources, relevant regulations and ongoing maintenance, stiil a similar situation to what was found by Sutanta, Rajabifard et al. (2013). Additionally, PGIS requires a fast internet connection and robust security measures. Table 2 presents details of the advantages and cons, sorted from easiest to hardest to achieve.

Table 2. Advantages and drawbacks of implementing PGIS

Advantages

Drawbacks

Cost savings in organising meetings and travel.    Facilitates understanding of the Musrenbang substance.    Reduces processing time.    Harmonises development planning, especially in border areas, as location information is visualised.    Minimises misdirection of development plans, leading to budget efficiency.    Increases public satisfaction and trust.

Procurement of hardware and software.    Maintenance costs, licence fees, and software updates.    It takes longer to prepare the Musrenbang due to the inclusion of more detailed information.    The Musrenbang requires more time as a new element (geospatial data) is included.    The need for training, habituation, and changing old habits.    The benefits are intangible and can only be realised after a few years.

Despite these advantages and drawbacks, the developed PGIS has proven usable, serving as a tool to support Musrenbang activities in facilitating public participation, aiding decision-making, and managing data. In technical aspects, it helps reduce tedious activities and associated burdens. Moreover, PGIS has the potential to improve budget efficiency by minimising misguided development projects and mitigating sectoral egos. Adopting the PGIS method and system in the Musrenbang requires a legal framework beyond the local government's jurisdiction. This could be a Ministry of Home Affairs regulation or a Presidential Regulation. Only after the supporting policy and regulatory aspects are in place can the implementation be expanded. This includes technical sophistication, providing large-scale geospatial data and training local government staff.

Conclusion

The results identified critical areas for improvement in public participation and the quality of collaboration. These findings highlight the importance of visualisation in supporting roles such as mastery of material and location information, shaping discussion formats and bridging gaps between participants. All of these factors affect participation levels and the quality of collaboration, with significant implications for system design. They highlight the need to visualise important information and create an ecosystem that promotes equity. The following section describes the design concept of this system.

Participatory GIS focusing on geovisualising information aggregation was proposed to facilitate tiered participatory planning, excluding political and socio-economic aspects. The present study was conducted to understand the technical requirements for implementing the Musrenbang business processes and the levels of participation. The PGIS was developed to facilitate the process of proposing and accessing necessary information through the geovisualisation of data aggregation. This helped design the spatial-based visual information system architecture for the specific needs of Musrenbang activities at the regency or city level. In this context, the area coverage is relatively small, has a limited number of users, and only provides simple geospatial analysis.

The system was able to facilitate tiered-level spatial planning across multiple development sectors. Novice users adapted to the map-based planning tool relatively quickly. This represents a significant shift from the traditional paper-based method of Musrenbang, where plans were proposed in tabular forms. The development proposals were aggregated from the village level to the district level and finally to the regency level. The geovisualisation method generated in the system could serve as the first step in developing a PGIS for tiered participatory planning activities similar to those of Musrenbang. Nonetheless, the PGIS needs to be enhanced to address current limitations, such as enlarging the capacity to serve more participants, assessing submission quality to assist novice users, adding more geospatial functionalities and increasing capacity to accommodate larger geospatial datasets.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, E.D.A., T.A., and H.S.; methodology, E.D.A., T.A., and HS; software, E.D.A.; investigation, E.D.A.; resources, H.S.; data curation, E.D.A.; writing—original draft preparation, E.D.A., and HS; writing—review and editing, E.D.A., T.A., and HS.; supervision, T.A., and HS. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Ethics Declaration

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of the paper.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express their gratitude to Universitas Gadjah Mada for supporting this research through a Final Project Recognition Grant. We also extend our thanks to the Government of Karanganyar Regency in Central Java, Indonesia, for providing the necessary facilities and access to conduct this research. Additionally, we appreciate the organisers and participants of the Karanganyar Regency Musrenbang for the 2023 fiscal year for their involvement and for responding to this research.

References

•  Aditya,  T. (2010). "Usability Issues in Applying Participatory Mapping for Neighborhood Infrastructure Planning". Transactions in GIS, 14, 119-147. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9671.2010.01206.x.
•  Aditya,  T.,  Gunawan,  I., et al. (2017). "Collaborative Mapping of Detailed Geospatial Data for Disaster and Climate Resilience in Indonesia". Jakarta: The World Bank and GFDRR.
•  Aditya,  T.,  Sugianto,  A., et al. (2020). "Channelling Participation into Useful Representation: Combining Digital Survey App and Collaborative Mapping for National Slum-Upgrading Programme". Applied Geomatics, 12(2), 133-148. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12518-019-00284-5.
•  Aguilar,  R.,  Calisto,  L., et al. (2021). "Ogito, an Open Geospatial Interactive Tool to Support Collaborative Spatial Planning with a Maptable". Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 86, 101591. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2020.101591.
•  Akbar,  A.,  Flacke,  J., et al. (2020a). "Knowing My Village from the Sky: A Collaborative Spatial Learning Framework to Integrate Spatial Knowledge of Stakeholders in Achieving Sustainable Development Goals". ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 9(9), 515. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi9090515.
•  Akbar,  A.,  Flacke,  J., et al. (2020b). "Participatory Planning Practice in Rural Indonesia: A Sustainable Development Goals-Based Evaluation". Community Development, 51(3), 243-260. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2020.1765822.
•  Alhadreti,  O. and  Mayhew,  P. (2018). "Rethinking Thinking Aloud: A Comparison of Three Think-Aloud Protocols". Proceedings of Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 1-12.doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173618.
•  Álvarez Larrain,  A. and  McCall , M. K. (2019). "Participatory Mapping and Participatory Gis for Historical and Archaeological Landscape Studies: A Critical Review". Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 26(2), 643-678. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-018-9385-z.
•  Arnstein , S. R. (1969). "A Ladder of Citizen Participation". Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216-224. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225.
•  Boroushaki,  S. and  Malczewski,  J. (2010). "Participatorygls: A Web-Based Collaborative Gis and Multicriteria Decision Analysis". Urisa Journal, 22(1), 23.
•  Brooke,  J. (1996). "Sus-a Quick and Dirty Usability Scale". Usability evaluation in industry, 189(194), 4-7.
•  Chambers,  R. (2006). "Participatory Mapping and Geographic Information Systems: Whose Map? Who Is Empowered and Who Disempowered? Who Gains and Who Loses?". The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 25(1), 1-11. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1681-4835.2006.tb00163.x.
•  Cho ,  M. A.,  Onisimo, M., et al. (2023). "Using Participatory Gis and Collaborative Management Approaches to Enhance Local Actors’ Participation in Rangeland Management: The Case of Vulindlela, South Africa". Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 66(6), 1189-1208. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2021.2017269.
•  Christmann , G. B.,  Ibert,  O., et al. (2020). "Innovations in Spatial Planning as a Social Process – Phases, Actors, Conflicts". European Planning Studies, 28(3), 496-520. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2019.1639399.
•  Ervin , S. M. (2016). "Technology in Geodesign". Landscape and Urban Planning, 156, 12-16. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.09.010.
•  Gaber,  J. (2019). "Building “a Ladder of Citizen Participation”". Journal of the American Planning Association, 85(3), 188-201. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2019.1612267.
•  Ganapati,  S. (2011). "Uses of Public Participation Geographic Information Systems Applications in E‐Government". Public Administration Review, 71(3), 425-434. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02226.x.
•  Geertman,  S. (2002). "Participatory Planning and Gis: A Pss to Bridge the Gap". Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 29(1), 21-35. doi: https://doi.org/10.1068/b2760.
•  Geertman,  S. (2006). "Potentials for Planning Support: A Planning-Conceptual Approach". Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 33(6), 863-880. doi: https://doi.org/10.1068/b31129.
•  Goodchild , M. F. (2010). "Towards Geodesign: Repurposing Cartography and Gis?". Cartographic Perspectives, (66), 7-22. doi: https://doi.org/10.14714/cp66.93.
•  Guttman,  L. (1944). "A Basis for Scaling Qualitative Data". American sociological review, 9(2), 139-150. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/2086306.
•  Hansen , H. S.,  Schrøder,  L., et al. (2011). "Towards Spatially Enabled E-Governance–a Case Study on Sdi Implementation". International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research, 6, 73-96. doi: https://doi.org/10.2902/1725-0463.2011.06.art4.
•  Hersperger , A. M.,  Thurnheer-Wittenwiler,  C., et al. (2022). "Digitalization in Land-Use Planning: Effects of Digital Plan Data on Efficiency, Transparency and Innovation". European Planning Studies, 30(12), 2537-2553. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2021.2016640.
•  Hynek,  J.,  Kachlík,  J., et al. (2021). "Geovisto: A Toolkit for Generic Geospatial Data Visualization". Proceedings of VISIGRAPP (3: IVAPP), 101-111.doi: https://doi.org/10.5220/0010260401010111.
•  Jing,  C.,  Zhu,  Y., et al. (2019). "A Lightweight Collaborative Gis Data Editing Approach to Support Urban Planning". Sustainability, 11(16), 4437.
•  Kahila-Tani,  M.,  Broberg,  A., et al. (2016). "Let the Citizens Map—Public Participation Gis as a Planning Support System in the Helsinki Master Plan Process". Planning Practice & Research, 31(2), 195-214. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2015.1104203.
•  Kapoor,  N. and  Bansal , V. K. (2023). "Planning at Site-Level in Hill Regions Using Geodesign-Based Approach". International Review for Spatial Planning and Sustainable Development, 11(4), 1-18. doi: https://doi.org/10.14246/irspsd.11.4_1.
•  Karadimitriou,  N.,  Magnani,  G., et al. (2022). "Designing an Incubator of Public Spaces Platform: Applying Cybernetic Principles to the Co-Creation of Spaces". Land Use Policy, 119, 106187. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106187.
•  Kingston,  R. (2007). "Public Participation in Local Policy Decision-Making: The Role of Web-Based Mapping". The Cartographic Journal, 44(2), 138-144. doi: https://doi.org/10.1179/000870407X213459.
•  Kraak,  M.-J. (2003). "Geovisualization Illustrated". ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 57(5), 390-399. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-2716(02)00167-3.
•  Kuller,  M.,  Farrelly,  M., et al. (2022). "Planning Support Systems for Strategic Implementation of Nature-Based Solutions in the Global South: Current Role and Future Potential in Indonesia". Cities, 126, 103693. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.103693.
•  Lagabrielle,  E.,  Lombard , A. T., et al. (2018). "Multi-Scale Multi-Level Marine Spatial Planning: A Novel Methodological Approach Applied in South Africa". PLoS One, 13(7), e0192582. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192582.
•  Li, W. and  Milburn,  L.-A. (2016). "The Evolution of Geodesign as a Design and Planning Tool". Landscape and Urban Planning, 156, 5-8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.09.009.
•  Maceachren , A. M. and  Brewer,  I. (2004). "Developing a Conceptual Framework for Visually-Enabled Geocollaboration". International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 18(1), 1-34. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13658810310001596094.
•  MacEachren , A. M.,  Pike,  W., et al. (2006). "Building a Geocollaboratory: Supporting Human–Environment Regional Observatory (Hero) Collaborative Science Activities". Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 30(2), 201-225. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2005.10.005.
•  Malinverni , E. S.,  Naticchia,  B., et al. (2022). "A Semantic Graph Database for the Interoperability of 3d Gis Data". Applied Geomatics, 14(1), 53-66. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12518-020-00334-3.
•  McCall , M. K. and  Dunn , C. E. (2012). "Geo-Information Tools for Participatory Spatial Planning: Fulfilling the Criteria for ‘Good’ Governance?". Geoforum, 43(1), 81-94. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.07.007.
•  Munyaka ,  J.-C. B.,  Chenal, J., et al. (2023). "Multi-Level Participatory Gis Framework to Assess Mobility Needs and Transport Barriers in Rural Areas: A Case Study of Rural Mumias East, a Sub-County of Kakamega, Kenya". Sustainability, 15(12), 9344.
•  Mustofa,  F.,  Aditya,  T., et al. (2018). "Evaluation of Participatory Mapping to Develop Parcel-Based Maps for Village-Based Land Registration Purpose". International Journal of Geoinformatics, 14(2), 45-55.
•  Nielsen,  J. and  Molich,  R. (1990). "Heuristic Evaluation of User Interfaces". Proceedings of Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, 249-256.doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/97243.97281.
•  Obermeyer , N. J. (1998). "The Evolution of Public Participation Gis". Cartography and Geographic Information Systems, 25(2), 65-66. doi: https://doi.org/10.1559/152304098782594599.
•  Palomino,  J.,  Muellerklein , O. C., et al. (2017). "A Review of the Emergent Ecosystem of Collaborative Geospatial Tools for Addressing Environmental Challenges". Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 65, 79-92. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2017.05.003.
•  Pettit,  C.,  Bakelmun,  A., et al. (2018). "Planning Support Systems for Smart Cities". City, Culture and Society, 12, 13-24. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccs.2017.10.002.
•  Pignatelli,  M.,  Torabi Moghadam,  S., et al. (2023). "Spatial Decision Support System for Low-Carbon sustainable cities Development: An Interactive Storytelling Dashboard for the City of Turin". Sustainable Cities and Society, 89, 104310. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.104310.
•  Rall,  E.,  Hansen,  R., et al. (2019). "The Added Value of Public Participation Gis (Ppgis) for Urban Green Infrastructure Planning". Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 40, 264-274. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.06.016.
•  Sauro,  J. (2018). "Ways to Interpret a Sus Score". Measuring U.
•  Sharma,  S.,  Saini,  A., et al. (2023). "Land Use Planning Practices in India: A Systematic Review". International Review for Spatial Planning and Sustainable Development, 11(3), 1-19. doi: https://doi.org/10.14246/irspsd.11.3_1.
•  Sutanta,  H.,  Rajabifard,  A., et al. (2013). "Disaster Risk Reduction Using Acceptable Risk Measures for Spatial Planning". Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 56(6), 761-785. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2012.702314.
•  Vonk,  G.,  Geertman,  S., et al. (2005). "Bottlenecks Blocking Widespread Usage of Planning Support Systems". Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 37(5), 909-924. doi: https://doi.org/10.1068/a3712.
•  Wigati , S. S.,  Sopha , B. M., et al. (2023). "Geographic Information System Based Suitable Temporary Shelter Location for Mount Merapi Eruption". Sustainability, 15(3), 2073. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032073.
•  Wissen Hayek, U ,  von Wirth, T., et al. (2016). "Organizing and Facilitating Geodesign Processes: Integrating Tools into Collaborative Design Processes for Urban Transformation". Landscape and Urban Planning, 156, 59-70. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.05.015.
•  Yu, B. and  Cai,  G. (2009). "Facilitating Participatory Decision-Making in Local Communities through Map-Based Online Discussion". Paper presented at the Proceedings of the fourth international conference on Communities and technologies, University Park, PA, USA. Association for Computing Machinery doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/1556460.1556492.
•  Zhang,  L.,  Geertman,  S., et al. (2019). "The Usefulness of a Web-Based Participatory Planning Support System in Wuhan, China". Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 74, 208-217. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2018.11.006.