|UFDC Home||myUFDC Home | Help|
This item has the following downloads:
1 THE VILLAGE LANDSCAPE THROUGH A LENS : UNDERSTANDING CULTURAL LANDSCAPES OF BALI INDONESIA By JOCELYN MARIE WIDMER A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE RE QUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2010
2 2010 Jocelyn Marie Widmer
3 For all those who have taught me to remember the pleasure of working, the improvement of talent and the j oy of o rigi nating
4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My time at the University of Florida has been nurtured by a number of people whom I owe special thanks. My advisory committee has dedicated an immense amount of time toward developing my deficiencies and building on my strengths. As my advisor and mentor, Christopher Silver has so graciously pushed me in new directions in his own particular way that is both professional and personal. In sharing his affection for the Indonesian culture over the past few years, he has helped focus and refine my interests in international development with greater purpose and clarity than what I came to life in a place that he has so kindly shared along the way. As the Director of the 2009 Bali Field School, I owe a special thanks to his coordination of the program that made this study possible. Bill Tilson has pivoted around the world with me in our provocative discussions of cultural landscapes and has guided me t oward greater clarity in understanding the challenges that landscapes face in many different cultural contexts. contribution of my research. In doing so, she has committed me to facing the challenges that persist for those who engage participation. Collectively, I would like to thank my committee for their commitment to interdisciplinarily questioning development pressures on cultural landscapes, and thereby supporting my inte rdisciplinary exploration through both coursework and research approach. This interdisciplinary approach has been greatly supported by my exchanges with many faculty members within the College of Design, Construction, and Planning. I owe a special thank Preservation Institute: Nantucket. My involvement with PI:N has challenged my
5 approach to studying cultural landscapes in a different context and at a different scale. I truly appre future. In addition to the many faculty whom I have had the pleasure of working with among the five academic units of the College, I would also like to thank those faculty in the Tr opical Conservation and Development Certificate program and the Masters in Public Health program who have devoted countless hours to advising me toward fully understanding what it means to be a student of international development. I owe a special thanks t o the 2009 Bali Field School participants who collectively made this research study possible. To the University of Florida student participants, Sarah Andrews, Cristina Barrone, Stephanie Grey, Meredith Leigh, Matthew Meyer, Hannah Plate, and Logan Temple ton, thank you for your month long commitment to this project and embracing the participatory research approach that is not always clear at its onset. I would also like to thank the contributing faculty and students from Udayana University in Denpasar, Ba li who enthusiastically engaged in the project and provided a critical linguistic and cultural link between the US students and the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students. The Sekolah Menengah Pertama students in Ubud surpassed my expectations in terms of thei r enthusiasm, interest, and overall dedication to the landscape film process. My heart felt thanks to this group of thirteen and fourteen year olds who shared their culture and committed their creativity toward the success of this research. In addition t o these three groups responsible for the landscape film project, I would also like to individually thank Ridwan Sutriadi for his ability to tune into the cultural rhythm of the project and ensure that all of the project logistics were properly
6 accounted fo r. Many thanks to Arya Adiartha of Udayana University for his charismatic leadership style that served to facilitate the project from its beginning to end. Finally, I extend my appreciation to Sarah Andrews for the many hours we spent thinking about the development pressures in Ubud through her undergraduate capstone project and for the maps she contributed to this dissertation, which she adapted for my use. Lastly, my sincere gratitude is extended to my many friends and family members who have supporte d and encouraged me in this journey. Thank you to Michele Hughes for keeping me grounded and at heart a Texan throughout the latter part of this process. Many thanks to Kathy Barrie for her day to day cheer that she has provided; and without her kitchen table, this dissertation would remain a blinking cursor on page one. Finally, my deepest thanks to my family, whose support I lean on, whose competition I thrive on, and whose perspective will always remind me from where I come.
7 TABLE OF CONTENTS pa ge ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................ ................................ ............................... 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 11 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 12 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 14 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 16 Cultural Landscape Conservation and Development through Partic ipatory Processes: Research Statement ................................ ................................ ........ 16 Cultural Landscapes ................................ ................................ ............................... 21 Assumptions ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 22 Western Ideology Derived From Preservation Movement ................................ 22 Cultural and Natural Values ................................ ................................ .............. 24 Current Trends in Developm ent ................................ ................................ ....... 24 Participation and Development ................................ ................................ ......... 27 Bali, Indonesia ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 29 Bali and Development ................................ ................................ ...................... 30 The Balinese Landscape ................................ ................................ .................. 32 The Relationship between Participation and Context ................................ ............. 33 Methods ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 35 Participatory Video as a Development Technique ................................ ............ 36 Participation by a Particular Gr oup ................................ ................................ ... 37 Project Sequence ................................ ................................ ............................. 39 Outcomes ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 40 Implications for Research ................................ ................................ ....................... 41 2 CONTEXTUALIZATION ................................ ................................ .......................... 45 A Framework for Participation ................................ ................................ ................. 45 The Application of Participation in Development ................................ .............. 46 Participation Applied as a Process ................................ ................................ ... 47 Situating Participation in Context ................................ ................................ ...... 49 Applying Participation as a Spatial Investigation ................................ .............. 50 Toward a Spatially Situated Participatory Process ................................ ........... 52 Introduction to Bali as the Research Context ................................ .......................... 54 Relevant History of Bali ................................ ................................ ........................... 59 Contributing Hi story of Tourism in Bali ................................ ............................. 60 The Rice Culture of Bali ................................ ................................ .................... 62 Balinese Culture ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 63
8 Cultural Assimilation and Additive Approach ................................ .................... 64 Image Making Process ................................ ................................ ..................... 65 Tourism in Bali ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 68 Tourism in Ubud ................................ ................................ ............................... 72 Enduring Host Mentality ................................ ................................ ................... 74 Land Tenure in Ubud ................................ ................................ .............................. 75 History of Traditional Land Tenure in Ubud ................................ ...................... 77 The Onset of Colonial Taxation ................................ ................................ ........ 79 Conte mporary Pressures on Land Uses ................................ .......................... 80 The Current Land Crisis in Bali ................................ ................................ ......... 81 Locally Articulated Pressures on Land Use ................................ ...................... 82 A Spatially Oriented Society ................................ ................................ ................... 84 From Local to UNESCO ................................ ................................ ................... 85 Culture as Agent, Land scape as Medium ................................ ......................... 86 The Landscape Experience ................................ ................................ .................... 87 Different Readings and Interpretations of the Landscape ................................ 88 Landscape Change as the only Constant ................................ ......................... 89 Evolution of Landscape Narrative through Experiences ................................ ......... 89 Traditional Documentary Film Making Methods ................................ ............... 90 Participatory Video ................................ ................................ ........................... 91 Capturing Forces of Impact on Continuing Cultur al Landscapes ............................ 93 Coupling Participation with an Emerging Technology ................................ ...... 93 Building a Narrative ................................ ................................ .......................... 94 3 METHODS ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 97 General Research Approach ................................ ................................ .................. 98 ................................ ................... 99 Organizational Structure for Developing Landscape Films ................................ ... 101 Groups Involved in the Bali Field School Project ................................ ............ 102 Community Youth ................................ ................................ ........................... 102 Ubud Community Members ................................ ................................ ............ 103 Project Facilitators ................................ ................................ .......................... 104 Project Coordinators ................................ ................................ ....................... 105 Assimilation of Project Coordination, Facilitation and Participation ................ 105 Identified Challenges to Participation ................................ ............................. 107 Study Context ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 109 Definitions of Scale in a Spatially Orien ted Society ................................ ........ 109 Diversity of Scales ................................ ................................ .......................... 110 Landscape Focus throughout Project Sequence ................................ ............ 113 Project Materials and Project Deliverables ................................ ........................... 114 Project Sequence ................................ ................................ ........................... 115 Resulting Collection of Landscape Fi lms ................................ ........................ 116 Introduction to Research Methods ................................ ................................ ........ 116 Method I: Participant Observations ................................ ............................... 117 Method II: Development and Delivery of Follow Up Questions ...................... 118 Discussion following screening of landscape films ................................ ... 119
9 Follow up discussion with US students ................................ .................... 119 Follow up discussion with Sekolah Menengah Pertama students ............ 120 Method III: Emergent Themes (Retrospective) ................................ .............. 121 Data Processing ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 121 4 OUTCOMES ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 129 Emergent Themes ................................ ................................ ................................ 129 Tracing Video Content Back Through Storyboards ................................ ........ 130 Relationships to Broader Themes at Different Sca les ................................ .... 131 Sophisticated Understanding of Local Pressures Connected to Global Trends ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 133 Visibility and Communication among the Bro ader Community ....................... 135 Evolution of Ownership in the Product ................................ ........................... 136 Articulation of a Particular Voice ................................ ................................ ..... 137 Analysis of Follow Up Discussions ................................ ................................ ....... 138 Follow Up Discussion with Attendees of the Film Screening .......................... 140 Follow Up Discussion with US Students ................................ ......................... 148 Follow Up Discussion with Sekolah Menengah Pertama Students ................ 155 Interpretation s ................................ ................................ ................................ 163 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 164 Participation by an Identified Group ................................ ............................... 165 T ime ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 166 Challenges with Replication ................................ ................................ ........... 168 Additional Considerations for Undertaking Participatory Research ....................... 169 Role of the Researcher ................................ ................................ ................... 169 The Related Disciplines ................................ ................................ .................. 170 5 IMPLICATIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 180 Diversifying Participation ................................ ................................ ....................... 181 Relevance of Scale in Articulating Development Pressures ................................ 185 Communication Competency and Scale ................................ ............................... 187 Using Frames to Communicate Scale ................................ ................................ .. 189 Framing the Project sequence tow ard Collaboration ................................ ............ 191 Culture and Development ................................ ................................ ..................... 196 Aligning Culture and Planning ................................ ................................ ............... 199 Connective Powers of Planning and Culture ................................ .................. 200 Challenges of Mainstreamed Participation ................................ ..................... 201 Dissemination Opp ortunities ................................ ................................ ................. 202 Final Thoughts ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 203 APPENDIX A DETAILED EXPLANATION OF BALI FIELD SCHOOL PROJECT SEQUENCE .. 207 (1) Community Map ................................ ................................ .............................. 207
10 (2) Story Mapping ................................ ................................ ................................ 207 (3) Places I Like, Places I Dislike ................................ ................................ ......... 208 (4) Identification of Landscape Themes ................................ ............................... 209 (5) Constructing the Narrative ................................ ................................ .............. 210 (6) Storyboarding ................................ ................................ ................................ 211 (7) Film Production ................................ ................................ .............................. 211 B QUESTION PROMPTS FOR FOLLOW UP DISCUSSION WITH RESIDENTS OF U BUD (AFTER FILM SCREENED) ................................ ................................ 221 C QUESTION PROMPTS FOR FOLLOW UP DISCUSSION WITH US STUDENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 223 D QUESTION PROMPTS FOR FOLLOW UP DISCUSSION WITH SEKOLAH MENENGAH PERTAMA STUDENTS ................................ ................................ ... 224 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 226 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 234
11 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 1 Timetable of Project Activities ................................ ................................ ........... 123 3 2 Directing Content through Use of Examples ................................ ..................... 124 3 3 Summary of Project Structure and Sequence ................................ ................... 124 A 1 Pairing of Groups Based on Student Proximity ................................ ................. 213 A 2 Landscape Film Themes ................................ ................................ .................. 214
12 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1 1 Organizational Structure of Participating Groups in the Execution of the Bali Field School Project. ................................ ................................ ........................... 43 1 2 Organizational Structure of Participating Groups in the Follow Up Discussions of the Bali Field School Project. ................................ ...................... 43 1 3 Context ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 44 2 1 Rice Terraced L andscap es of Ubud ................................ ................................ ... 96 3 1 Group Involvement with Stages of the Bali Field School Project. ..................... 125 3 2 Map of Ubud and Surrounding Villages ................................ ............................ 126 3 3 Comprehensive Conceptu al Summary of Research Method ............................ 127 3 4 Conceptual Summary of Research Method I (Participant Observations). ......... 127 3 5 Conceptual Summary of Research Method II (Follow Up Discussions). ........... 128 3 6 Conceptual Sum mary of Research Method III (Re trospection). ........................ 128 4 1 Content from Nasi Goreng Group ................................ ................................ ..... 172 4 2 Screen Capture from Cycles Film ................................ ................................ ..... 173 4 3 Screen Capture from Cycles Film ................................ ................................ ..... 174 4 4 Screen Capture from Duckman Film ................................ ................................ 175 4 5 Screen Capture from Harvest Film ................................ ................................ ... 176 4 6 Screen Capture from Harvest Film ................................ ................................ ... 177 4 7 Harvest Production Team ................................ ................................ ................. 178 4 8 Screen Capture from Duckman Film ................................ ................................ 179 A 1 Map of Ubud and Surrounding Villages with Sekolah Menengah Pertama ................................ ................................ .............. 215 A 2 Refined Map of Ubud and Surrounding Villages ................................ ............... 216 A 3 T ypical Lead by Example Approach ................................ ................................ 217
13 A 4 Community Map wit h Narrative Vignettes Activity and Places I Like, Places I Dislike Activity ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 218 A 5 Example of Guiding the Narrative Development Activity ................................ .. 219 A 6 Example of Guid ing the Storyboarding Activity ................................ ................. 220
14 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy THE VILLAGE LANDSCAPE THROUGH A LENS: UNDERSTANDING CULTURAL LANDSCAPES OF BALI, INDONESIA By Jocelyn Marie Widmer December 2010 Chair: Christopher Silver Major: Design, Construction and Planning Contemporary development pressures in Bali Indonesia can be attributed to factors associated with the growth of tourism, increased population densities, and the emergence of a middle class. Yet t he highly engineered and ordered landscapes of southern Ba li resonate with more practical challenges facing culturally significant landscapes throughout the developing world. Balinese culture thus serves as an appropriate entry point into understanding the dynamic relationship betw een a cultural heritage ingrain ed in the landscape for centuries and how this heritage reconciles the collision of internal values and external interests today. This study evaluates a spatially situated participatory process that us es digital video to create films about the village lan dscape of Ubud, Bali T he project sequence evaluated in this research was implemented during May 2009 as part of the Bali Field School The films capture ten different but related narratives of the sawah (rice terraced landscape) by using traditional com munity mapping methods that evolve d into narratives exploring the spatial and temporal significance of the sawah held by the group of community youth participants from Ubud Weaving the oral traditions that
15 these youth recall ed being passed down to them b y their elde rs with their contemporary uses of the sawah as a playground and meeting place, the films conclude by addressing the eminent threats that face the village landscape of Ubud in the future An analysis of the effectiveness of the participatory video technique is derived from observations made about participation throughout the sequence of a project, while also discerning how the project sequence encouraged participants to articulate their particular landscape perceptions (specifically about dev elopment pressures). This participatory process created a learning environment that enhanced understanding s of local pressures connected to global trends among the youth participants, as the project sequence situated the dialogue among a group of communit y members who are not typically involved in village development decisions. T his research argues that t he participatory video technique is an effective mechanism to explore concepts rel ated to development pressures at a certain scale (the village landsc ape), among a particular group of participants (the community youth). T he participatory process wa s instrumental in reframing the dialogue surrounding cultural and natural resources, these resources as systems, and then the threat o f development pressures on the village landscape that hold s significance to the
16 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Cultural Landscape Conservation and Development through Participatory Processes: Research Statement This dissertation examines and assesses a participat ory process that utilizes digital video to document perceptions of development pressures on the sawah landscapes surrounding Ubud, Bali (Thompson & Widmer, 2010) 1 The participatory process was part of a project sequence under the broader framework of the Bali Field School, an international service learning exchange program offered through the College of Design, Construction, and Planning at the University of Florida. The project spanned the course of twenty one days during May 2009 and involved collabora tion between undergraduate and graduate landscape architecture, planning, and social science students from the United States and undergraduate architecture students from Udayana University in Denpasar, Bali as project facilitators. The project facilitator s were under the coordination of University of Florida Department of Landscape Architecture Professor Kevin Thompson with assistance from University of Florida urban and regional planning doctoral students Jocelyn Widmer and Ridwan Sutriadi. Project parti cipants included twenty, thirteen and fourteen year old students under the coordination of Pak Dewa Nyoman Suprapta from Sekolah Menengah Pertama in Ubud, Bali. Figure 1 1 illustrates the organizational structure of the project coordinators, p roject facil itators, project participants, and resulting production teams that were part of 2 1 This research was shaped and informed by the project framework of the Bali Field School (2009), under the 2 From this point forward, project coordinators, project facilitators, project participants, and resulting production teams will be refer to according to the group configurations presented in Figure 1 1.
17 The activities in the project sequence leading up to the production of the landscape films was informed by activities that were spatially techniques (such as community mapping) and culturally oriented. The Bali Field School project sequence contained seven increments: (1) Community Map, (2) Story Mapping, (3) Identification of Landscape Themes, (4) Narrative Development, (5) Storyboarding, (6) Film Production, and (7) Film Screening. Through the project sequence, the sawah emerged as a common theme among the different groups, as it resonated with the community scene format where participants (1) introduce themselves; (2) describe the area in Ubud where they live in relationship to the surrounding landscape; (3) showcase their individual homes as well as introduce family members present; (4) introduce the overarching landscap Our Sawah paddy ; (5) further explore the Our Sawah from steps two (Story Mapping) and three (Identification of Landscape Themes) in the project sequence; (6) present the issues and concerns that participants identified Sawah subthemes; (7) and finally conclude the films by communicating the future of the sawah as a valuable natural and cultural resource. While the framework for the project sequence was pre determined, a post project evaluation of the sequence reveals how it was delivered and what activities are critical or fall by the way side as participants increasingly u nderstand the landscape filming process through the project sequence intervals that relate to place and culture. Three key questions form the basis of this evaluation: (1) How does participation work
18 throughout the sequence of a project aimed at producing films about landscape? (2) How does the project sequence encourage participants to articulate their particular landscape perceptions (specifically about development pressures)? (3) How do others not directly involved in the project sequence, but associa ted with the same landscape, respond to these perceptions? To answer these questions, this study evaluates the project sequence using participant observations, a series of follow up questions among groups directly and indirectly involved with the project sequence (see Figure 1 2) and a reflective period that occurred away from the project context. This critical reflection also explores the impacts of participation by a younger group than what is typically included in development projects ( Mitchell 2004 ; Warren 2005). This younger age group is important in evaluating the exchange between the project facilitators and the project participants, and also the unanticipated level of engagement between participants and others not included in the formal projec t structure. By involving the community youth, this project engaged a population not typically included in participatory processes. What is of particular importance about this group of participants is their ability to effectively collaborate with the pro ject facilitators and to engage the interest of their family and friends who became directly or indirectly associated with the production or content of the landscape films. Informal participation by family and friends significantly contributed to differen t increments in the project sequence and increased its visibility throughout Ubud as more individuals became aware of and engaged in the process. In the end, many people in Ubud beyond the participating community youth became
19 engaged for a brief period wi th the same development issues that the community youth did directly throughout the project sequence and the production of the landscape films. What this research reveals is that the group of a dolescent participants continues to question what the Dutch did in the 1900s, scholars and artists did in the 1930s, the New Order government did in the 1960s, and development experts today continue to that evolve with the times ? While both th e project sequence and the loose structure for each landscape film may have provided the foundation for these concerns, each team articulated its concerns related to the sawah through the lens of subthemes that resonated both with the project participants and the broader community audience who attended the public screening of the films. The need still exists to critically reflect on the increments of participatory methods that are both spatially situated and that use a particular technology, video. E nsuing questions are: How does participation work with regards to top down prescription versus bottom up facilitation? And how does the participatory process encourage participants to communicate their perception of scale of resources, scale of a system o f resources, and speculate on the scale of a hypothetical or unknown all of this about development from the vantage point of a particular group of participants assembled based on their age? While there is a contemporary trend to paint broad sweeping gener alizations and assumptions about participation, understanding processes that engage certain groups avoids the tendency to take on the sentiments of the most vocal group in a community, Popular agency exists in Ubud, and can be confused as the norm because of habit (as a result of ritual)
20 in defining individual actions. While routine may be important in reinforcing everyday cultural and social practices, this routine should not be mistak en in Ubud as a collective sentiment toward the resources and the forces that threaten these resources. Based on everyday encounters during the duration of this field research, r esidents of Ubud are highly interested and involved in communicating developme nt pressures that affect the main village structure and surrounding areas. However, it is important to by the tourism sector. Thus, what is revealed in both the film content and the commentary from the follow up discussions is that the material basis for identity cannot be ignored or even separated from the larger challenge of confronting these development pressures. The residents of Ubud are not unlike residents of t ourist centric communities throughout the developing world, who are & Mohan 2004 p. 17). How these different interests come to reconcile her itage in a place that has never been static is a challenge for a participatory process that only seeks to engage what in many cases becomes the offspring or the children of these & Mohan 2004 p. 13). In support of this, many families were involved in the various activities throughout the project sequence Th is support is not only characteristic of the Balinese, but throughout much of Indonesia where participation is commonplace among many different social classes of society (Beard 2005 ; Hadiz 2004 ). While Indonesia has a social tradition supportive of participation (Beard, 2005; Das, 2010; Devas, 2004; Hadiwinata, 2003 ) many other developing countries do not neces sarily follow the same
21 traditions (Botes & van Rensburg 2000). Thus, in Indonesia, it is difficult to separate participation from the cultural and social structures in which it is carried out since participation has become part of these cultural and soc ial structures ( Antlv 2003) Cultural Landscapes The idea of cultural landscapes has been popularized over the past twenty years to characterize place based identity entrenched in a specific natural setting. Officially recognizing cultural landscapes as a distinct category on the World Heritage List in 1992 formalized landscape as the relationship between a culture and its surrounding reas or properties uniquely representing the 2008). There continues to be a need to understand the nuanced relationships to the land (and sea) that are tangibly and intangibly manifested in their interconnectedne ss (Matthews & Selman 2006). The concept of cultural landscapes is an intricate, systemic und erstanding of many sub layers. Celebrating the patterns and processes at play in cultural landscapes, shaped at once by natural and cultural systems, shifts the focus away from a fragmented approach toward understanding the spatial organizations and land uses that are as much made possible by the human capacity to create, inhabit and maintain these a s the natural systems at work. Thus, by their very nature, cultu ral landscapes are not a model of stasis but a dy namic system in constant flux. This system produces layers of significance that call for ongoing interpretation in an effort to maintain cultural heritage. Often this interpretation is through the conscious and subconscious levels of community attachment. However, these layers of significance hold different meanings for di fferent members of a community. Cultural landscapes are a collection of shared expressions,
22 but not necessarily consistently held from one inhabitant to the next. Yet none of these layers is more or less significant than the others, and it is the totality of these that give meaning and ascribe significance to cultural landscapes (Groth & Bressi 1997 p. 143). The patterns and processes, community attachment, and collection of shared expressions cannot be understood at anything less than a systemic level. Assumptions Th e emphasis on patterns and processes of the landscape of ten shaped by an making analysis from a focus primarily on the historic features and materials to spatial organization, land patterns, and physical landscapes themselves; thus including the huma n capacity that 1996 p. 184). This view challenges the traditional approaches of preservation and acknowledges the concept of cultural landscape as a process revolving around the human relationship to the landscape. If we consider cultural landscapes in the way that Richard Longstreth does in his text Cultural Landscapes archaeological, architectural and historical significance are layers that support what is more fundamental to cultu ral landscapes: (Buggey & Mitchell 2008 p. 165). Western Ideology Derived From Preservation Movement The 1990s was a monumental decade for l andscapes, as this was the formidable beginning to recognizing the value in places associated with a group of people. This shift in preservation ideology was incremental, first from archeological resources and material culture analyses then toward ethno a rchaeology and finally to the idea of
23 cultural landscapes appropriately defined by broader human relationships to place. In looking at this ideological progression, we can see that th e concept of cultural landscape encompasses onships to the land (and sea) that are among others religious, artistic, spiritual, economic, and cultural and do not Buggey & Mitchell 2008 p. 165). Whether articulated or not, landscapes have alwa ys been perceived in terms of their connectedness. Landscapes cannot be defined solely on their economic uses, social ideals, or psychological values. It is the interconnectedness of the economic, social and psychological among other characteristics ascri bed to a landscape, that give it meaning. This newly articulated relatedness of landscapes was largely a result of momentum the preservation movement gained during the 1990s. Consideration of ldviews, cultural traditions, and natural resources as yet another realm of determinants of heritage values and particularly at the World Heritage level (Mason 2008 p. 184). Establishing itself i n the academic and professional aren as over the past two decades, the true value in this concept of cultural landscape lies in its ability to engage the people who live and wor k in these places Despite the formalization of cultural landscapes, there still is a tendency to consider the cult ural and natural heritage of a place in isolation of each other. This division between environmental and cultural & Campbell 2007 p. ntinuous and evolving interaction with their surrounding environment that shapes their way of life.
24 Cultural and Natural V alues There is a call to break free of Western preservation ideologies that separate natural and cultural resources, when in fact local heritage derives from the complete system (Mason 2008) In time, these resources assimilate into traditions and a local heritage emerges ( Sharma 2008 ) D evelopment strategies that recognize an existing system of cultural and natural valu es that while likely to be engrained in the problem, still In fact, culturally based development strategies that build upon the nuances of existing cultural and natural values form the basis for the most reli able and useful data to date in support of cultural diversity through development (Sen 2000). Current Trends in Development Institutional commitment to the United Nations Millennium Development Goals has set the tone and the metrics for development proj ects over the past d ecade. These commitments have built upon and consolidate d the outcomes of many world summits of the 1990s that focused on the environment, human rights, population, social development and gender ( Collier, 2007; Handelman 2006; Mowfor th & Munt 2003; Sachs 2005 ) Nearly a decade into the Millennium Development Goals, it is appropriate to question when and how these goals will be achieved. What cannot be measured or quantified through the Millennium Development Goals, but what is no less significant to development, is how cultural heritage weaves its way into the many themes that the world summits of the 1990s deemed important. The subtleties that come from develop projects vested in cultural heritage and the consensus among project p articipants to protect heritage in the context of development pressures is integral to the more visible themes of development, including the environment, human
25 rights, population, social development, and gender Furthermore, a spatial approach to studying and understanding heritage gets us closer to understanding the relationship of cultural and natural heritage in landscape s that face these development pressures The following excerpt provides a summary of the film produced by the Planting Group 3 which embraces this spatial approach to studying and understanding heritage, and what it means when development causes space to collapse in on the landscape with traditional cultural and natural significance. Rumah saya dikelilingi sawah yg luas tempat saya be rmain laying layang dan bersenang senang. Tetapi sekarang sudah di jadikan tempat bangunan dan proyek proyek. Ada juga untuk tempat art shop ada juga tempat perumahan. Saya berharap agar film pendek ini mengingatkan pada pentingnya peran sawah bagi lingk ungan kehidupan kita. My house is surrounded by the wide paddy field where I used to play kite and having fun there. However, the paddy field are replaced by buildings and building projects. Some of them are used as art shops or housing complexes. I h ope that this short film will remind us about the importance of the role of paddy field in our surrounding area. Member of The Planting Group While physical change to the landscape occurs in a local context, often the impetus of landscape change and development stems from much larger, or global forces at work. In turn, there is a general lack of clarity on how best to address these various and inter related development challenges. Ubud a foothill village in the southern portion of Bali, Indonesia, has never really resisted the global development forces instead assimilating change into the local traditions, infrastructure, and society. While this assi milation is characteristic of the Balinese, and local traditions in Bali absorb global pressures so that the distinction is blurred to the unknowing eye, at what point do local 3 The Planting Group was one of ten production teams assembled through the landscape filming process. Each group produced one landscape film that were then assembled together into the collection. The process and significance for doing so will be described throughout this dissertation.
26 traditions and customs become compromised, irrevocably changed, or even lost forever through this assimilation ? The tendency to deal simultaneously with global and local challeng es is in part a result of the common experiences of development at any societal level. Transparency, decentralization, and plurality of voice are imperative at any scale and often their absence stagnates development ( Beard 2008; Chambers, 2005; Mitchell 1994 ) Globally, development can be thwarted by the bureaucracy that promotes top down approaches This theme pervades at the national or regional level when those at the top of the top down approach are not transparent in their administration of power and resources Finally, it is difficult to reconcile development locally when decentralization of power does not support a plurality of participation. Development theorists make assumptions at both end s of the spectrum, but those more problematic are thos e at the local end, where the assumption is that place is static cultural values are cohesiv e and traditional ways of li f e prevail (Cooke & Kothari 2001) Underlying this all is the idea that p articipation is an authentic and collective behavior (Cooke & Kothari 2001) The broad sweeping premise is that local knowledge is homogeneous and participation by one group is a reflection of the extended community. Thus, d evelopment predicated on participation cannot be theoretically abstract and generally ap plied Moving beyond the assumption that participation will reflect the realities of what occurs in a community, participatory inquiry needs to address the cultural and natural systems in tandem by embedding into the intersections between private and pu blic livelihood activities [where] many negotiations about resource allo cation, sharing, compromising, conflict resolution and appropriate representation actually take place
27 (Cleaver 2004 p. 275) rant associational life in a community the responsibility lies with the researcher to integrate more diverse livelihoods and the inter meshing of cultures participation is not (Cleaver 2004 p. 275). While r ecent efforts by analysts to deconstruct participation to focus on the values of a particular group participating has yet to become the dominant trend in development globally, this particular participatory approach is not uncommon throughou t Indonesia (Beard 2005 ) and especially Bali where researchers have engaged strategically assembled groups for a number of decades. Traditions drawing on natural and cultural values specific to the Balinese have been used in anthropological and sociolog ical research that has been conducted on the island over the past eighty years. Therefore, Bali as the research context is embedded in the research However, one of the ensuing questions posed in retrospect is what about the process of making landscape f ilms was context specific to the village landscape of Ubud and what about the process could be generalized to comment on engaging participation of a particular group in any context? While this study cannot wholly answer this question, understanding partic ipation in the context of Indonesia suggests that Indonesia (and Bali more specifically) is a context that serves as an enabling environment because participation has evolved into a mainstreamed civic activity. Participation and Development Decentr alization, democratization, and good governance initiatives have created spaces and institutional arrangements for participatory development (Beard 2008) all of which are emerging as hallmarks of Indonesian society over the past decade. P articipatory de velopment is certainly not uncontroversial (Cooke and Kothari 2001), as
28 will be ex plored further in Chapter Two. P art of the controversy surrounding participation and development is that generalizing participation beyond the context it is embedded in doe s not have a theoretically sound system of metric s to draw such generalizations (Adcock & Collier, 2001 ; Nelson et al., 2009 ) It follows that p redicting outcomes in participatory development projects is often difficult due to the uniq ueness of developme nt contexts ( Das 2010 p. 1 ). Further compounding the relationship between participation and context is the dominance of knowledge, power, and voice in any participation setting (Healy, 2009). Th e spaces where participation occurs are not neutral; nor are the parties initiating the participatory process (usually outside parties) or the group of participants themselves. The theoretical underpinnings that have supported or denied the validity of p articipation in development are vast and complex. Such theories address issues of space or the physical context where participation occurs ( Zube et al. 1982 ), place or the social dimension given to the physical context ( Kaplan, 1987; Maton, 2008 ), behavi oral and attitudinal characteristics of participants ( Cleaver, 2004; Cornwall, 2004 ), and finally the relationship between the participants and the facilitators of participation ( Cambell & Vainio Mattila, 2003; A G i rami, 2009 ). All of these theories have been consulted and considered through both the development and the reflective stages of this research. 4 However, in considering the relationship between context and participation, it is also important to draw upon the realities of the context and the his tory 4 It is important to note that this is not an exhaustive list of participatory theories that have influenced the evaluation of a participatory process as will be revealed in Chapte rs Three and Four. However, Chapter Two will introduce a working framework for participation that is a summary of these theories to arrive at an approach to participation that is both spatially and context derived.
29 and current momentum behind participation in that context. Therefore in Indonesia, participation is not only critical to development, as much of the participatory theory and many participatory practitioners would argue today ( Beard, 2005; Das, 2010 ). I n Indonesia, there is no alternative to development that is not participatory (Devas 2004; Hadiwinata 2003). Participation has become legally mandated and must be a component of Indonesian development projects. I n p lacing participation in a context, a nd then acknowledging the history, culture, and current development pressures that exist in that context which may influence participation are important to declare in any research study that evaluates participation Admitting the relationship between part icipation and culture in the evaluation of a participation process demonstrates that the metrics of participation are still fluid, and the community of scholars and practitioners that explain the use and utility of participatory processes continue to grapp l e with the challenge of universalizing participation while also understanding what attributes of a specific context create an enabling environment for participation. (Beard, 2002; Booth, 2003). Bali auspi ces for participatory development while also possessing a unique set of development challenges that derive from its rich cultural heritage. Bali, Indonesia B ali lies eight degrees below the equator as one of the few significantly populated islands of the vast Indonesian archipelago, and one of thirty provinces. Bali is situated between the island of Java to the east (see Figure 1 3 ), and the island of Lombok to the west. Between the islands of Bali and Lombok runs the Wallace Li ne, which is the ecological boundary that separates Asian and Australian flora
30 and fauna, with Bali being the most easterly landscape supporting Asian flora and fauna before the landscape transitions into Australian flora and fauna on the island of Lombok. While the physical landscape of Bali marks the end of a gradient that begins in the most western portion of the archipelago, the cultural heritage of the island stands in stark contrast to the rest of the island nation. Balinese Hinduism serves as the f centrally located in the f oothills of Bali (see Figure 1 1 ) and is distinct in that the landscape is much more lush than the arid northern part of the island, and slightly cooler than the southern shores. With its distinct cultural traditions supported by a fertile landscape, Bali and its villages such as Ubud have lured researchers from many discipline s ov er the past century. S ome of the great ethnographic and anthropological research pioneers have selected Bali to execute studies related to social dynamics, familial lineage, artistic creation, and ceremonious culture (Lansing 1995). Gregory Bateson, Margaret Mead, Cliffo rd Geertz and more recently Steph en Lansing all have observed and interpreted Balinese heritage within their rigorous social research frameworks particularly utilizing film and other forms of cultural inquiry. Each assuming a more tra ditional removed from community activity these researchers have captured the cultural treatment of the Balinese landscape since the 1930s. Bali and Development External development forces have the tendency to divide the relationship between natural systems, thereby challenging the Balinese world view that has
31 been bound by the mountains and the sea for two thousand years. Exploring Bali in the contex t of varying scales from the island to the banjar / desa (neighborhood/village) level reveals the relationship between natural and cultural systems that give equal meaning to the cultural landscape of Bali. Throughout the island there are different iteration s of the cultural landscape of Bali, with various natural and cultural features aligning together to form unique landscapes. One such example is t he cultural landscape of Ubud which is articulated through the sawah or wet rice terraced landscapes that t he central foothill region of the island supports. The cultural landscape of south central quarter of Bali (which encompasses Ubud) is a landscape divided by traditional Balinese thinking into two primary categories: (1) wild forests and (2) land that h as been brought into human cultivation and ritual order (MacRae 1997 p. 84 ) The gorges that extend from the central mountainous region of the island create the boundaries for smaller ridges or flatter areas that have been given the form and function o f a terraced landscape surrounding Ubud. Through this extensive history of human settlement and land cultivation in the region, institutions are established and ritual processes initiated to maintain harmony betwee n the human and the 1997 p. 84). The extent of this south central portion of the island cannot be exact ly measured but over time has become a utilitarian product of human occupation, spatial orientation, function, and use that varies as communities adapt and evolve from external forces at work. In contemporary Ubud, the extent and meaning associated with the cultural landscape is a spatial and cultural construct (but no less systemic) that closely aligns with traditional distrib utions of land and meanings associated with the landscape.
32 The Balinese Landscape 1960s: The earth is represented by the well drained, gradually sloping, enclosed plain relie f formed by the basins of these intermountain rivers which creates a series of well defined natural amphitheatres eminently situated to traditional gravity feed irrigation techniques ( Geertz 19 63 p. 39) While the Balinese landscape may often serve as the backdrop for the cultural traditions, its primacy in these cultural traditions cannot be relegated. Artist Miguel such close touch with nature, creates such complete feeling of harmony between the 1946 p. 9). Today, the highly engineered and ordered landscapes of southern Bali (Lansing 1991) resonate with more practical and even mundane challenges facing culturally significa nt landscapes throughout the developing world. One issue of particular relevance to the island landscape today is the balance between development pressures brought on by the global narrative and cultural heritage management instrumental in maintaining the local narrative. The myth and mysticism of the Balinese landscapes are becoming increasingly juxtaposed with contemporary management practices, and the encroachment of tourism and development is the omnipresent threat to historically significant landscape s (Lansing 1991). Balinese culture thus serves as an appropriate entry point into understanding the dynamic relationship between a culture that has been inextricably tied to their landscape for centuries and how this heritage reconciles the collision of local and global today.
33 The Relationship between Participation and Context The relationship between participation and Bali as the research context will be established in Chapter Two The chapter begins by exploring the application of particip ation in development over the past eighty years. Doing so considers the evolving nature of participation, so that today participation can be understood within a development process. While development is context specific, so too become some of the charact eristics of participation when it is engaged in development processes. While Bali was the context this study was carried out in, it is also important to explore the history of Bali to best understand the relationship between participation and the context in which it was engaged for this study. The cultural heritage that informs this study considers Bali from the influences of the Majapahit Dynasty beginning with the fifteenth century when the Tide of Islam swept through what is now the Indonesian Archi pelago. At this time, a ristocrats from Java fled to Bali where the cultural traditions and belief systems remained relatively intact until the beginning of the twentieth century when the Dutch seized control of the island. What remains of the cultural tr aditions that evolved from the fifteenth to the early twentieth century is a heritage culture that not only has contributed to many of the rites and rituals that connect the natural world to the spiritual world through cultural traditions, but also that have contributed to the image of Bali as the garden island. Picturesque images of Bali that became particularly popular during the 1930s as internat ional tourism began to thrive do not effe ctively communicate the underpinnings of heritage A n intricate system determined first by its spatial orientation, and then by land use and land ownership that has ultimately resulted in these landscapes amassing great monetary value, while still
34 support ing the cultural value that is intrinsic to the people who live throughout southern Bali All of this at play justifies these rice terraced landscapes of southern Bali and particularly around the village of Ubud to be considered for their many tangible an d intangible values, or as a cultural landscape. This landscape means many things to many different people to those who have a monetary stake in its productivity, or to those who sell or lease their lands and instead run smaller shops on densely populated land close r experiences and interpretations of the landscap e. T hese interpretations are i mportant to this research as they question through a historical and cultural lens, can one particu lar group have a certain interpretation of their commonly held landscape, and can this interpretation hold meaning to those beyond who produced the meaning? The relationship between participation and the research context is important to establish why B ali, and even more specifically Ubud, was selected as the setting for the research; and then how participation by a group of community youth contributes to the rational for selecting Ubud as the research context all the while continuing to questioning conv entional assumptions about participation in a village setting. Doing so suggests how the project sequence that engage d community youth can b e used in alternative contexts. T he project sequence is firmly rooted in Balinese cultural heritag e and particular ly that of Ubud. While the participatory process does draw upon the context specific scale and development pressures in Ubud, the process does so by
35 using a series of techniques that are both culturally and spatially derived 5 to better understand developm ent. Methods The methods employed in this study are outlined in Chapter Three. 6 This research approach is committed to looking across disciplines and through careful empirical research without suggesting a template for participatory development strategie s. The disciplines that have been aligned for this study include landscape architecture and urban and regional planning, while also drawing from the theory and practice that participation and development has been derived. The research evaluates the proje ct sequence using participant observations made throughou t the sequence of the project and a series of questions delivered through three follow up discussions with (1) those community members of Ubud who screened the landscape films, (2) the US university students who functioned as facilitators for the project sequence, and the Sekola h Me nengah Pertama students who participated in the project. In addition to formally addressing how participation works throughout the project sequence, how the project sequen ce encourage s the articulation of development pressures, and how these sentiments are received by others who view the films; the 5 The series of techniques are a comb ination of spatially derived activities (community mapping exercises to orient project participants in the community the project was executed in) and culturally derived activities (storytelling as a way to communicate the significance that the village land scape holds to the community youth) 6 By way of introducing the research methods utilized in this study, it is important to disclose the Institutional Review Board (IRB) process and as well as my involvement in the research. The implications of my role as a participant observer are discussed in Chapter Three. P throughout this dissertation, but I have kept their identities anonymous wherever possible, instead referring to individuals as members of particular groups from the project rather than using names Project facilitators are identified by their affiliation with either university and project participants refers to the collection of twenty students from Sekolah Menengah Pertama. The IRB informed consent forms signed by each group of participants indicated that names would be withheld in this document. The names of smaller areas around Ubud, Bali are the real names of those communities.
36 research methods were also designed to consider participatory video more generally as a development technique, the group of com munity youth as project participants, and the trajectory of the project sequence and corresponding activities. Participatory Video as a Development Technique Participatory video is one among many participatory techniques that have the potential to engag e a variety of participants through an unscripted and candid response. Furthermore, participatory video is just one among many participatory techniques that have been implemented in development research to understand social and spatial phenomena occurring in an area While participatory video has been utilized in diverse locations since the 1970s when more widely used participatory methods began to emerge (including participatory rural appraisals, community mapping, participatory GIS, and participatory pub lic art projects) the application of the method has been contextually defined and seek s immediate, local change (Hall 1991). Since these projects have been undertaken in various contexts and are irregularly documented, it is difficult to identify trend s in the development of participatory video as a research method in development projects (Ferreira, 2006, p. 35), whereas other participatory methods are more frequently documented. Participatory community mapping activities have been prevalently used fo r decades in development work (Mikkelsen, 2005) especially in Bali (Warren, 2005 ); and more dimensional participatory mapping activities are also beginning to emerge, including GIS and artistic mediums (Abrams & Hall, 2009; Hopkins & Zapata, 2007). Furthe r limiting the methodological rigor of participatory video is the lack of a procedural structure that enables participatory video strategies across contexts (Shaw & Robertson 1997). While many argue that a flexible and context specific approach like par ticipatory video precludes standardization
37 35) it remains important to understand how the process works in a given context, given that the process of making films is really the mobilizing agent for larger conversations about content t he films explore. The very nature of participatory video is a fluid process used to address a broad range of issues spanning the social, cultural, ecological, economi c, and political realms of site specific contexts. Since participants discern and priori tize their own problem, participatory video is a method wherein people themselves come to understand the filming process and control the content of the video productions simultaneously 7 (Shaw & Robertson 1997). This approach provides groups with tools to articulate their experiences and intentions around community specific issues. In the case explored in this study, these experiences and intentions revolve around the village landscape of Ubud Films about landscape that utilize video as the participator y method hand over the camera, and a voice (Lunch & Lunch, 2006) to a specific group of contributors in tune with the demands and challenges that face the village landscape Participation by a Particular Group A particularly underutilized voice that doe s not often participate in the choices surrounding development is that of adolescents. Based on observations of this age group throughout the developed and developing world, adolescents share a keen sense of place based identity that is often not channel ed into development decisions. M ore general social mapping projects do regularly utilize different age groups ( including children ) and participatory video frequently targets the under represented voice of women in regions such as India and east Africa whe re they have been marginalized 7 In the case of the Bali Field School project sequence, the community youth partici pating in the filming process through directing and acting in the scenes but did not hold the camera (this was done by students from Udayana University). The community youth did control the content of the video production through the activities initiated in the project sequence.
38 members of society ( Lunch, 2007 ; Lunch & Lunch 2006; Satheesh, 1999 ). R arely however, does the target audience utilize video technology as a lens through which to capture place based identity. To better understand the dev elopment pressures in Bali at increments more closely approximating the rate of change in one village (Ubud), this research comments on engaging one group of participants (the community youth of Ubud) 8 who have a distinct attachment to the village landscap e 9 to communicate their perceived rate of change weaving the familiar practice of oral traditions and storytelling into the method. T he project sequence engages a group of community youth to understand what their community landscape means to them, alrea dy having been aware of what development pressures mean for the ecosystem and the tourism industry based on a review of the literature. Using the project sequence to produce a collection of participatory landscape films this research draws upon two separ ate traditions: the graphic and illustrative pedagogical traditions of landscape architectur e ( Halprin & Burns, 1974; Murphy, 2005 ) as well as the social mapping and participatory dynamics of planning ( Checkoway, 1994; Davidoff, 1965; P eattie 1987 ) Int egrating the theory and practice of these two interrelated disciplines allows participants to express development pressures spatially and temporally across a cultural landscape that holds particular importance to the group of community youth participating in the project. 8 The rationale for selecting a group of youth participants was at once practical and hypothetical. Practically speaking, school children in Bali have cultural enrichment activities incorporated into the daily curriculum. Stude nts take music, dance, and art lessons that are traditional to the Balinese culture. In the Sekolah Menengah Pertama five hours of each afternoon is devoted to these cultural activities. Consequently, the project working sessions were able to fit within this pre existing cultural structure. 9 Community youth hold a distinct attachment to the village landscape, as this is a communal place to recreate, as well as a common corridor to travel between destinations.
39 Project Sequence The Bali Field School project sequence is a method of delivery that is spatially situated within the context of the village landscape of Ubud. While the spatial component of the project was always integral to its de sign and execution, how this spatial component was delivered and subsequently understood by project facilitators and participants evolved within the project sequence as participants ada pted to more vividly communicating their understanding of development p ressures on the village landscape of Ubud. The project se quence evolved through a sequence of social mapping, narrative, and combination graphic and narrative activities that oriented participants spatially and temporally in the village landscape of Ubud Each increment in the project sequence took into account the general understanding of scale, while moving the process forward to ultimately communicate development pressures affecting this village landscape. Considering evolutionar il y the project sequen ce and at what moments the process evolved (and at what moments the process devolved), this study examines the project sequence which ultimately reveals themes related to the local cultural landscape through the collection of films produced. These themes were reinforced and given further explanation when they were explored with in a series of three follow up discussions that were held with the three distinct groups involved in the project The emergent themes and the reflection resulting from the follow up discussions shed significant insight into the nature of participation as it was designed and facilitated through the Bali Field School project sequence. While the project sequence was designed to considered participation from one particular group (commu nity youth), the research is capable of commenting on how this participation functioned by those
40 involved in the project (the participants) and those external to the project sequence (but still very committed to the cultural heritage and social structure o f Ubud). Outcomes Evaluation of the project sequence reveal s a number of themes that emerged from the project, including: the ability to trace video content back t hrough s toryboards ; the relationships established between broader themes related to develo pment at different scales relative to Bali; a sophisticated understanding of local pressures connected to global trends ; visibility and communication among the broader community ; evolution of ownership in the product ; and the articulation of a particular v oice through the development of the landscape filming process. These themes were identified by considering the film content in relation to the materials produced throughout the project sequence activities, as well as in comparison to the dialogue that the process and the product generated among three group s involved with the project: the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students, the US students, and the community members of Ubud who screened the films. This analysis also reveals limitations of the research proc ess, as well as the methodological limitations associated with engaging participation with an identified group and thus research replication beyond the project context (which includes the group of participants). Despite these limitations, there is credibl e reason to consider the broader impacts of this research as they derive from a participatory method that uses a specific technology (video) to engage the participatory process. Finally, this research identifies a series of implications for participation by a specific group within a community by suggesting the collaborative potential for participation toward further understanding and disseminating interpretation s of development pressures at a particular scale of la ndscape the village landscape.
41 I mplication s f or Research The implications for this research are tho roughly examined in Chapter Five by looking at how effectively communicating scale through a spatially influenced pro cess guided the participatory process toward three particular moments of collabora tion. This research reveals that to develop this capacity necessitates following a participatory trajectory by which the concepts of development pressures and community consciousness evolve simultaneously through the introduction of multiple scales and mu ltiple levels of participation. The implications suggest that the landscape filming process moves beyond participation to suggest that the process itself encouraged a degree of engagement as participation on behalf of the community youth advanced toward collaboration among production teams and between production teams and the project facilitators. This segue from traditional top down to an emerging bottom up phenomenon is significant to development activities that can validate participation for what it is, without generalizing the effects of participation beyond those groups that actually contributed. T he process became a collaborative exchange that evolved rather than a prescriptive set of activities that expected a final product of specific quality The implications for this collaborative exchange in understanding the importance of culture in development and then integrating cultural traditions into the p lanning process for development is important. By grounding the participatory approach in cu lture, differences between formal planning and local culture can be bridged (Young 2008). This is critical to understanding how participation can be integrated into development activities, given that participation works differently in varying cultures an d political contexts.
42 Ultimately, the project sequence presented a more explicit explanation of concepts related to development pressures at a certain scale, the village landscape, and these pressures were then articulated in terms of island wide and even global issues. The process never intended to initiated new development policy for the community of Ubud but it was instrumental in reframing the dialogue surrounding particular cultural and natural resources, these resources as systems, and then the perc eived threat of development press ures on the village landscape that hold s a particular significance to Ubud
43 Figure 1 1. Organizational Structure of Participating Groups in the Execution of the Bali Field School Project A) Project Coordinati on. B) Project Facilitation. C) Project Participation. D) Project Production. Figure 1 2. Organizational Structure of Participating Groups in the Follow Up Discussions of the Bali Field School Project. A) Community Members B) Project Facilitatio n (including only the US University Students) C) Project Participation (divided into two groups of ten students each)
44 Figure 1 3 Map of Bali, Indonesia. A) Map of the island with major cities and landforms. B) Ariel ima ge (Google Map s 2010) with r elative location of Ubud within the i c ontext [Map prepared with assistance from Andrews, Sarah 2010. Tukad Dawa Stream Course Enhancement. Modification of Landscape Architecture Capstone Project University of Flor ida, Gainesville, Florida.]
45 CHAPTER 2 CONTEXTUALIZATION A Framework f or Participation To attempt to understand participation beyond a specific context it is useful to consider participation today as a construct of many regenerative movements. Participatio n has been coupled with development theory and practice for more than eighty years (Hickey & Mohan, 2004). While the genesis of its critique is when most of the literature pins to its actual inception, participation has a much longer and dynamic history i n development theory and practice than what is represented in the literature (Hickey & Mohan, 2004). Participation morphed from an obligation of citizenship during the 1940s through the 1950s as colonialism waned in the developing world, to participatory citizenship as a means of challenging marginalization and subordination in the 1960s. The 1970s began a shift in thinking toward alternative development, as participation became a key objective of development projects and not just broad sweeping political objectives. As participation in development began to take hold in the 1980s and as social capital became a cornerstone of such development initiatives, participation began to emerge not only as an obligation of citizenship, but now it was increasingly se en as a right. Thus, beginning in the 1990s and continuing on today, participatory citizenship is beginning to take hold not only within the framework of development projects, but as a commonly held sentiment across the developing world. From the varied trajectories and agendas that participation has taken over the past eighty years, what stands to unify participation in development are the many moments of regeneration over this time period. Arguably we are amidst the latest moment of regeneration, as p articipation sits at the unsteady crossroads between a movement that
46 has moved from the margins to the mainstream in the past three decades and has undergone thorough scrutiny and has come to be referred to as the Tyranny critique. This movement has bee n led by Cooke and Kothari in their edited volume entitled Participation : The New Tyranny (2001) which widely criticizes many of the assumptions made about participation since the 1980s. Where the Tyranny critique leaves off, as does much of the litera ture critiquing participation, is by assuming that the practice of sense of the current situation of participation and development is to consider the many moments of regeneration. The Tyranny critique (Cooke and Kothari, 2001) marks one critical moment of regeneration for participation insofar as this moment recognizes that participation has moved from the margins to the mainstream of development theory and practice, as nearly all development projects since 2000 have incorporated participation into them (Chambers, 2005). Thus, when a movement advances from the margins to the mainstream, it is important to critique a practice that is broadly and widely applied, but als o to consider the advantages to this wide spread application. Such is the case with participation and development. In fact, one contemporary approach to participation is to ask if its mainstreaming can be a mark of success (Hickey & Mohan, 2004). The Application of Participation in Development In contemporary development theory and practice where participation is very much becoming the norm rather than the exception, participation has two main applications. The first approach situates participatio n within development as a specific form of intervention. The second application uses participation as an agent of social change. In considering these two competing approaches to development, it is important to consider where the misappropriation of parti cipation lies. In the former instance,
47 participation is used as a specific tool that indirectly intends to achieve the latter. In the latter, however, participation as a process is aligned with grander intentions of change that the participatory process is meant to excite. This research looks at the process within which the tools of participation can be used, rather than focusing exclusively on the participatory process as a tool, or as a terminal agent of change. In doing so, this research adapts to th participatory video process rather than running the participants through a process. The se tools of participation are especially characterized by trust, power, knowledge, communication, and agency. While participation literature points to the difficultly in identifying and applying the key features of best practices in participation; trust, power, knowledge, communication, and agency are difficult to investigate if implemented as kit ap (Reed, 2008 p. 2419 ). The end result is that the process within which participation is used as a tool can have more context specific implications rather than solely contributing to the ambiguous and controversial body of knowl edge about the tools of participation. Thus, the outcome of a participatory process can be far more sensitive to the manner in which it is conducted rather than the tools that are used (Reed, 2008). A theme running through contemporary participation lite 2008, p. 2421) which places an emphasis on matching the relevant and necessary tools to the desired intervention, with an approach that instead views participation as a pr ocess. Participation Applied as a Process A tension emerges between applying participation as a process and the research methods by wh ich that application is made. I n the project sequence evaluated in this
48 research, the changing dynamic of the particip atory process was able to acco mmodate and unleash participant s derided by the proponents of the Tyranny These same methods actually lend themselves to kee ping the participatory process fluid by giving participants who had previously not been engaged, a space to participate and contribute to transformative development. Maintaining the distinction between participation as a pre conceived end of project imple mentation and a means intending to initiate a participatory process can be accomplished by avoiding the tendencies of the ). Doing so will increase the likelihood that the participatory process is perceived to be both fair and valid by those inside and outside the process. This validity to insiders is especially important and a demarcation between the broad sweeping applica tion of participation as a tool an d participation as a process. This iterative and collaborative potential of participation as a process enables the process to remain in motion long after the prescribed outsiders are removed. In avoiding the tendencies to apply participation as a tool and in arresting the tensions that exist between the participation theories and the broader application of the participatory process, it is important to note that the application of participation as a practice is a slow and uncertain process (Botes & van Rensburg, 2000). In fact, considering the temporal dimension of participation in its application stands as the hallmark of participation as a process. It is these temporal dynamics of participation that are important in un derstanding the potential for transformation in development. However, as with the broader trajectory of participation in development theory and
49 practice, the application of the participatory process is not unilinear and cumulative, but marred with the pos sibility of stoppages and even reversals as its application strives toward transformative development (Cleaver, 2004). Anticipating the possibility and likelihood of these stoppages and reversals in its transformative direction, participatory methods must be adapted not only to the relevant stage in the participatory process, but also to the changing contexts in which the participatory process is applied. Situating Participation in Context These changing contexts in many contemporary societies are suppor t ing public involvement Who has both the right and capacity to be publically involved is often what the participatory process attempts to unveil. Popular agency is neither constant nor uniform, and is significantly influenced by knowledge and power. Th ose with knowledge larger group than actually exists. Children are among the many groups, including women, the elderly, the migratory, and the impoverished, who are noticea bly absent from popular agency in a developing context (Hill & Woodland, 2006). Yet if development is to be inclusive in its transformation including children in the participatory process (along with the many other groups who are often absent), is critic al. There are a great variety of rhythms that are set in motion in any given place for the different people linked to that place. Situating the participatory process to take a cross section of these rhythms, rather than a sketchy vignette lends itself to appreciating the different meanings associated with a particular context. Then to be honest about which cross section the research captures arrests the tendency to generalize, but also to document what is most likely a longer history of participation in a given context. Thus, considering how the temporal dynamic influences groups of
50 participants is critical to understanding their history, but also the overlapping temporalities among other groups not included in the participatory process but embedded in th e context in which the process plays out. Children by their very nature are part of the overlapping temporalities of their parents, siblings, extended family, and peers; and children are almost always organized and accessed via some overarching structure (usually school) ( Bernard, 2000; Patton, 2002) Furthermore, these overlapping temporalities may radiate from different origins. Place based identities, then, are not necessarily derivative of one context where the participatory process is embedded, yet may be shaped by forces originating from hone in and distinguish larger spatial areas, but no less influenced by an unbounded scale. While development practitioners comparatively so that some sort of replicability may be established for the application of the participatory process in development, individual and group dynamics are context specific rather than universally definable (Botes & van Rensburg, 2000). Because participatory processes grow out of a specific situation, their applicability and replication to another region is problematic, as they encounter various and complex problems (Botes & van Rensburg, 2000). O ne of the most significant of these complex problems lies in the fact that the locus of change that the participatory processes seek to engage are almost always context specific. Applying Participation as a Spatial Investigation One of the more widely ma de assumptions about participation is to elide the context in which the participatory process is embedded with the locus of change, all the while disengaging the spaces where both the process and the change is situated. A
51 number of authors are beginning t o identify the implications of a spatialized take on participation by understanding space equally as a social and theoretical construct as it is a lived experience (Botes & van Rensburg, 2000; Hickey & Mohan, 2004; Reed, 2008). Within the contemporary app roaches to participation, not only should the temporal and spatial be engaged in order to revitalize participation as a legitimate application within development, but how the participatory process represents and embodies the temporal and spatial realities stands to legitimize the participatory is dynamic and above all else, humanly constructed (Cornwall, 2004, p. 80). In spaces where the participatory process is embe dded, space is created by internal forces, or originating within the space, and externally, or imposed by those administering the participatory process. To not thoroughly consider these two forces at work is to deny the spatially situated nature of partic ipation. The internal forces at work in creating spaces are a complex web of the social and experiential. The local, then, is not a bounded entity, nor does it stand in binary opposition to larger global forces. Similarly, there is an overriding tenden cy to posit localities as sites of resistance to global forces and particularly to ignore the larger forces influencing place based identity (Hickey & Mohan, 2004). Doing so can ignore the material basis for identity, which is as legitimate as any histori cal and cultural b asis. Instead of seeing place ( ) there is a need to see them in more complex terms involving production and reproduction ace making. Nevertheless, the stratified and heterogeneous nature of communities is a delicate
52 obstacle in promoting participatory development. Strategies are needed within the participatory process to allow participants to articulate their own experienc es and own realities (Cornwall, 2004). However, the external forces often misappropriate the social and experiential by defined by those who are invited into them (Cornwall, 2004). Participants are invited into their very own spaces, which are re created and never neutral. Just as the spaces lose their neutrality, the ways in whic h participants are assembled by others, and how they perceive themselves to be constructed within any given space for participation, means they too are not neutral. These newly created (albeit embedded) spaces are filled with expectations, relationships a nd meanings that are imported from elsewhere, and ultimately impinge upon how that space comes to be experienced (Cornwall, 2004). The impetus on development practitioners and researchers who employ participation as a process must engage participation in such a way that it locate s spaces for participation in the places in which the social end experiential actually occur. In doing so, framing their possibilities with reference to actual political, social, cultural, and historical particularities rather th an idealized models of an imposed democratic process (Cornwall, 2004 p. 87 ). Toward a Spatially Situated Participatory Process Learning from the mistakes and misappropriations of participation from the past eighty years, and consulting the increas ingly mainstreamed account of participation through the Tyranny critique, it is necessary to alter the basis upon which participation is evaluated, and in doing so to change the line of inquiry regarding the application of
53 the participatory process towar d transformative development. The transition in these questions need s to be away from Are people participating ? to Why do people participate ? and then When does participation have an im pact, or segue or introduce different forms of engagement ? Developmen t practitioners and researchers need to reach beyond just increasing the incentives for participation to enable participants to influence or alter the questions that are asked and the outputs that are produced. Asking such questions and by whom raises t he best practices debate, when best practices in participation are just now beginning to emerge (Reed, 2008). Some of these best practices include altering the norms by which participation is evaluated. This evaluation includes incrementally checking in (or monitoring) the process and also ensuring that the evaluation is participatory itself. By shifting the evaluative framework away from outcomes of the process toward evaluating the process itself allows for reflective deliberation that can be implement ed incrementally and also be participatory. Through creating the space and time in the participatory process, reflective deliberation enables participants to develop more creative solutions and participation thus segues into collaboration (Reed, 2008). C ontemporary thinking about participation as a process encourages this reflective deliberation as a way to evaluate whether decisions emerging from the participatory process are perceived to be representative of the concurrent diversity and overlap that is inevitable among any assembled group. From here, contemporary thinking about participation needs to broaden its scope away from the participatory process solely employed t hrough projects and techniques to consider the possibilities of the process withstan ding the constructed research context to exist among the realities of a given context.
54 Through its eighty year history, participation has been called on to perform a wide range of functions which have almost always been matched to broader trends in devel opment theory at any given time. Because of the breadth of its history, it is natural to ask if participation can possibly re invent itself for yet another application. In fact what remains to be explored is not only the extent to which the concurrent ge neration of participatory approaches responds to the critiques raged against participatory development, but also can it reinvigorate itself as a legitimate and genuinely transformative approach to development (Hickey & Mohan, 2004)? What contemporary thin king about participation cannot do is to continue to juxtapose the alleged benefits of up, people centered, alternative approaches with top down, technocratic, blue torical juxtaposition has unveiled is that participation is an embedded practice, and the application of the participatory process in development often instigates the process so that it may become embedded in a particular context. When this embeddedness c ontinues, it can be argued that the application of the participatory process fosters an enabling environment for participation. Great strides remain to be taken in broadly reframing participation as a complex phenomenon situated in a context that is both socially and experientially constructed. In lending credibility to this complexity, participation can emerge as recognizing contexts that are constantly in transformation as well as potential arenas of transformation through development. Introduction to B ali as the Research Context Understanding why Bali is an ideal research location to explore development the Southeast Asian region. Lying geographically south of Chi na, east of India, and
55 north of Australia, Southeast Asia encompasses the melding of different ecological and cultural influences. From an ecological perspective, the Wallace Line runs through Southeast Asia separating the flora and fauna characteristic o f Asia from that of Oceania. The line runs through the Malay Archipelago, between Borneo and Sulawesi, and along the Lombok Straight, putting Bali in the most easterly manifestation of flora and fauna specific to Asia (Covarrubias 1946). With the rich n atural resource base and strategic position between the South China Sea and Indian and Pacific Oceans, the region has lured traders and merchants for centuries. Ten of the eleven Southeast iverse cultural influences derives from its influence by so many overseas connections has been shaped by the regional influences of n as a whole, Bali is one of the few places where religion coincides with internal harmony, a notion that will be discussed more fully later on. Although religious disparity compounded with long and intense periods of European and Asian colonization chara cterize much of the existing tensions in the region, the positive cultural influences of these outsiders distinguish the region. The cultural mlange of Southeast Asian art, architecture, music, theater, dance, literature and cuisine make it difficult to typify the region, but at the same time contribute to its rich cultural heritage that thrives today. has given way in the post colonial era to more regional control. Southeast Asi a is a mixture of developed countries (Singapore and Brunei), emerging developing countries (Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines and Thailand) and developing countries (Cambodia,
56 East Timor, Laos, Myanmar, and Vietnam). The most urbanized countries in the re gion are island nations (Singapore, Brunei, Malaysia), while those least urbanized are a part of mainland Asia (Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam). This illustrates the enormous pressure on and heightened importance of land uses in a region that has been densely po pulated for centuries. The island of Bali in many ways stands as a microcosm of the forces at work throughout the Southeast Asian region. In Bali, multiple religious beliefs co exist, the day to day is predicated on cultural expression, and the rich r esources defined by the historically from most other island cultures, and today from other Southeast Asians, is megacity culture. Rather, the Balinese remain devoted to their bound world view provinces), urban growth is xtents with a mounting tension between the traditional rural base and urbanization which is occurring and is at the heart of many cultural landscape preservation quandaries. Bali is part of an emerging developing country (Indonesia) with issues beyond me eting its own basic needs. Yet given that the knowledge system of the Balinese is so intricate, complex and unique, threats from the outside to this knowledge system are comparable to those on indigenous knowledge systems in general. This dualism was evi dent in the behaviors of the participants in the research project upon which this study is based. The group of community youth participants validated this binary as they arrived to meet with us on motorbikes and called those who were late on cell phones, but who also never faltered
57 in their daily offerings and who always had a sarong available to be appropriately covered to enter a temple. When asked by an Udayana faculty member who among them aspired to be a rice farmer, none raised their hand. The situ ation in Bali helps to make evident development pressures facing an ancient cultural heritage when this cultural heritage exists in an emerging developing world. Research is limited on how cultures deal with this dualism and because of its accessibility, Bali offers a way to explore this. The Balinese are not like the aboriginals of Australia or the native Americans of the U nited S tates who hold fast to their cultural heritage in a politically constructed space (Grenier 1998). The issue lies less at tho se two extremes and more looking at the potentially dislocative effects in an emerging developing nation whose nation The challenge becomes not whether there is diversity, but whether to resist the urge to unify at the expe nse of that diversity (Sen, 2000) Bali has been able to sustain its cultural diversity some sixty five years after Indonesia gained its independence in part because it is an autonomous island province. i s bound physical constraints measuring only 5,632 square kilometers has been particul arly challenging because there historically has been a strong commitment among the Balinese to remain on the island amids t migration phenomena that have been both voluntary and forced During the sixteenth century, the chief minister of Bali populated islands in the world at that time, a reput ation is was to maintain until the 1996 p.
58 over thirty seven person per kilometer and is almost four times th e populat ion density of Europe at this same time (Vickers 1996). In the past 500 years, the population of Bali increased ten fold and the challenges associated with accommodating this density have only been exacerbated. As of 2009 the population de nsity of Bali is an enormous six hundred and thirty people per square kilometer with a total island population exceeding three million (Publikasi Statistik, 2010) The small urban center of Ubud, where the study centered, is no exception to the t lies in the north central portion of the fertile rice growing landscapes that characterize southern Bali. Ubud has also become an extension of the tourist triangle from the Denpasar Sanur Kuta area. Originally defined by the confluences of two rivers t hought to be a place of magical and medicinal powers ( the Bahasa Bali word u b a d other inland villages in Bali (Lansing, 1995) Development literature typically treats t he village unit as a single, homogenous entity. Balinese village structure is spatially, politically, and socially much more complex, particularly in Ubud where development has led to one composite village of many banjar s The banjar is a delineation spe cific to Bali and translates most closely banjar controlled one desa or village which is considered the inhabited land, while the surrounding agricultural land, or sawah were governed by the subak (Geertz 1991). Tod ay, it is not uncommon for more than one banjar to occupy the same territory, which is the case in Ubud. The banjar s are highly respected and they often govern alongside the provincial authority. Thus, decisions for
59 the desa are often made by the banjar This research utilized this structure and production teams were created to closely approximate the banjar scale. As a result, there were marked differences among the videos produced by participants from banjar s the periphery. It is important to note that in a place such as Ubud where more than one banjar is present, and with historically documented tendencies for banjar ( Covarrubias 1946; McPhee 1947), studies that bring multiple banjar s together to consider conservation of shared resources such as the sawah add complexity to the process of discussing cultural viewpoints. Relevant History of Bali Over two millennia have crafted cultural and social characteristics of the island of Bali and its people into the mlange of values and traditions that it expresses today. The culture that has become quintessentially Bali does not credit one historical influence over another, but is instead an amalgamation of characteristics a ttributable to the Bali lies adjacent to the eastern end of Java, with an estimated population of 3,151,000 in 2005. Average population densities in Bali are higher than the average populati on density of Indonesia as a nation (Mitchell 1994). Urban expansion and tourism development ha ve encroached up agriculturally that was o nce rooted in rice cultivation given way to the economic incentives that accompany a tourism based economy. With tourism now the largest industry, including real estate opportunities associated with tourism development, Bali has become one of wealthiest regions (Baker 2002)
60 Contributing History of Tourism in Bali T was stymied through a series of wars with the Dutch colonial powers. While bleak images of a worl dwide influenza epidemic and the onset of the Great Depression illustrate the turn of the twentieth century, Bali at that time was personified ultimate tourist destination, culturally rich, with smiling people, an island of dances and temples to at tract the wealthy of the world ( Yamashita 2003 p. 28 ). The Dutch focused their colonial rule through development of infrastructure to support a population of about one million (Lansing 1995). The y built roads and irrigation dams, but put little effor t or resources into education, health, or economic opportunities for the Balinese (Lansing traditional Balinese rulers fostered an environment for a cultural, artistic, and r eligious 1995 p. 114). Lured by the cultural splendors of the island, Dutch boats brought in roughly one hundred tourists per month throughout the 1930s. This gave rise to the first Western articulation of a culture that was offe red up to tourists, a cultural package that was created at the expense of authenticity. of Indonesia struggled for independence. Independence was finally gained from the 1960s by using Japanese war reparations to fund tourism infrastructure projects (Lansing 1995). B eginning in 1971, with a World Bank funded master plan tied the island support, the projections of this master plan became a reality, and the economic ramifications of the modern Balinese tourism industry were finally realized. Villages
61 along the new an authentic reproduction of culture (Lansing 1995 p. true the same time, questions of authenticity and identity began to emerge at the village level. Balinese traditions maintain that there is an inherent link between the Inner World and the life of the village (Lansing 1995). Today, the spatial boundaries of the traditional village often align with the boundaries of the official village (Mitchell 1994). Development pressures, particularly ignited by tourism over the pa st century, are proving increasingly d etrimental at the village level. In addition to the tourist population, local populations continue to grow. Increased demands at the village level are not matched by appropriate infrastructure to manage these demands. Waste accumulation, deteriorating water quality and destruction of sacred and/or historical sites are only some of the threats brought on by developing Balinese villages. While the solutions to development are complex, fortunately, so too are the timel ess relationships between the Balinese and their landscapes. The Balinese believe in world renewal and have 1995 p. 117). Yet running in parallel to grand notions of world renewal is a very delicate concept the Balinese refer to as Desa Kala Patra 1994 p. space, time, and condition an elegant pronunciatio n that lies at the heart of interactions between the cultural and natural worlds (Mitchell 1994 p. 193).
62 The Rice Culture of Bali Generations of Balinese farmers have clearing forests, digging irrigation c anals, and te rracing hillsides in support of growing rice. T he growing areas, where it appears that some terraces have been under continuous cultivation for a 1995 p. 87). The elaborate irrigation system has been made possible by an equally historic cooperative system known as subak a Balinese invention that ties together rice cultivation with its water temple system (Lansing 1991) All farmers whose fields are supplied by the same water source belong to an individual subak There are more than 2,000 subak in Bali, with some villages having more than one, depending on local drainage patterns. These cooperatives have provided the organizational framework which h as made the Bali nese among the most efficient rice growers in the Indonesian archipelago (Geertz 1963) In part this can be attributed to the characteristically unique exchange between rice agriculture and the ecosystems that support such agricultural pr actices. Traditional rice paddies are unique in that they are able to produce large amounts of grain indefinitely, with no diminution in yield. By contrast, all other systems of irrigated agriculture are subject to gradual decline in productivity as a c onsequence of salinization and loss of soil fertility (Lansing 1995 p. 87). T o the Balinese, rice is more than a staple crop that has a proclivity to thrive 1995 p. 10). Rice is an integral part of th e ir culture. The rituals associated with planting, maintaining, irrigating, and harvesting rice on Bali have instilled rhythm to daily life for centuries In addition to these temporal rhythms, there are also spatial conventions that dominate the physical layout of the sawah Withi n each section of the rice fields, the corner nearest Mount
63 Agung contains an offering to Dewi Sri the goddess of rice, from whom the good fortune o f productive yields is sought. With rice production left up to Dewi Sri earthl y responsibilities of irrigation and planting are arranged through subak Historical evidence dates the subak system to around the eleventh century, and despite its age, the yield per acre has been continuously among the highest in the world (Geertz 1963) In Bali rice h as three names for the three stages of production and use : padi is growing rice, beras is harvested uncooked rice and nasi is cooked rice. This tripartite distinction closely aligns with the significance that the number three plays in Ba linese culture. Thus, rice assimilates into Balinese traditions at every stage of growth in the life of the rice plant first as an offering back to the gods, then its addition into ceremonies and festivities, and finally as the main form of sustenance fo Balinese Culture The Balinese organize their farming, village structure, and cultural traditions around the life of the community. Aside from a few government responsibilities, the majority of traditional responsibilities rest with the subak as well as the banjar with both of these traditional committees having been rooted in Balinese culture for centuries Between the subak and the banjar all aspects of community life, including agriculture practices, village festivals, marriage c eremonies and cremations, are derived from continuing cultural practices dating back to the eleventh century During the eleventh century, the island of Bali experienced the first of many waves of influx of Hindu and Javanese cultures individually, and the n later the assimilation of these two sets of traditions During the eleventh century, Airlangg a, a Balinese prince, moved to east Java in an attempt to unify the island With his marked success on Java,
64 Airlanggha sent his brother Anak Wungsu, to rule o ver the island of Bali. With two brothers presiding over the adjacent islands, there was a reciprocation of political and artistic ideas between the island cultures (Covarrubias 1946) However, when Islam arrived in Java during the fifteenth century, ma ny wealthy aristocratic artists, musicians and craftsmen fled to Bali to preserve their cultural traditions, as they were similarly practiced on Bali As Islam began to s pread throughout much of the Indonesian archipelago during the sixteenth century, the ruling Majapahit Empire began to collapse and a second mass exodus of the aristocracy, priest, artists, and artisans sought refuge in the cultural haven of Bali. traditions gave way to Islam, the Hindu dominated island of Bali flourished while maintaining its cultural autonomy. The ensuing centuries have thus been considered to be by many scholars as the Golden Age s cultural heritage (Covarrubias, 1946; Vickers 1996) Cultural Assimilatio n and Additive Approach Balinese culture is an accumulation of external influence and internal adaptation that spans the past two 1996 p. 39). In turn, each generation sees itself 1996 p. 39). This holds true even today as the Balinese absorb the evolving industry and image of tourism that has been present on th e island for the past one hundred years. Historically for the Balinese, when beliefs and rituals were not adequate in explaining a particular force at work, new layers of culture were created to explain such phenomena. Scholars devoted to the Balinese im age argue that the new layers of culture created since the onset of tourism early in the twentieth century have covered
65 Mowforth & Munt, 2003; Vickers 1996; Yamashita 2003 ). While the advent of tourism to Bali has coincided with an infatuation with the image of Bali (what it is or is not, what it was and what it will be), this image had been in production long before Dutch ships arrived with tourists from the Netherlands. With the exception of the Maja pahit Empire establishing a Balinese colony in 1343, the last four hundred years have been influential in defining the image of Balinese culture into how it is perceived today. Understanding the evolution of this image as a manifestation of Western constr uction oftentimes jars against the introspection of a (Covarrubias 1946). Image Making Process The pre colonial illustrations of Bali stand in contrast to the image that lure s tourists today. To sum up the pre colonial period of modern Bali in a series of vivid, yet seemingly a 1996 p 76). But with each moment of internal strife there was an equal moment of introspection and cultural refinement as the Balinese became more conscious of their culture. The tant 1996 p. 145). Yet, the image of pre colonial Bali was not overwhelmingly positive or exotic to Europeans living within the region or abroad. O nly on two occasions was the island of Bali cast in a positive light first in the sixteenth century as a civilized albeit exotic society and second during the nineteenth
66 (Vickers 1996 p. 23). Besides these few literary interludes from an otherwise Java centric Dutch occupation in the archipelago, the little that is written about Bali suggests a vague and hostile image of the island and its peopl e prior to colonization. The Balinese were considered much less culturally refined than other traditional populations throughout the archipelago. M ost of what is said and thought about Bali assumes a genesis with Dutch colonization and official Dutch occ upancy that dates from 1908. In reality, the mid 19 th century was characterized by the Dutch and the Balinese coexisting on the island, but allowing the landscape to mark their separation. For the Balinese in the central and southern rice growing, autono mous, village population was most dense, the division of the mountains created the illusion that the Dutch were not there (Vickers 1996). The Dutch intellects (and to some extent the military) congregated in the norther n port city of Singaraja. During the Dutch colonial era that would soon ensue, this amassed scholarly knowledge of Bali interestingly was Balinese nor anti 1996 p. 95). Yet by the turn of the twentieth century these scho lars gave in to imperial temptation, claiming to know more about Bali than the Balinese; and thereby granting these Dutch intellects the authority to put the finishing touches on Bali as a construct before the image was offered up to the world as a tourism destination (Yamashita 2003) What is important to note is that the savage image of Bali prior to colonization and then the rapidly transformed exotic image that began to lure European tourists in the twentieth century was in each case an extreme vie w taken at face value and rarely
67 (Covarrubias 1946 p. 41) for the past two thousand years, the early twentieth century image should serve as a warning to those studying the Balinese as a pivotal moment of cultural definition by external forces, as there had been few (if any) internal forces in the preceding hist ory of Bali that had abruptly changed the course of the culture. At the moment that the image became useful as a m arketing device, it was tidied up, fantasized, and romanticized from its early twentieth century construct. What is arguably more interesting however, is at the same moment when the image of Bali was determined to be important to outsiders, it was also dee med important that the Balinese have an understanding of their own self image and these two images were not to be in 1996 p. 38). The onset of tourism created a new role for the Balinese, that of host, and for the first time they were expected to be advocates of their own culture as a tourism product What is important to emphasize about the tourist image of Bali is that it was largely created and popularized by an educated, artistic, elite (and mostly American) population of the 1920s and 1930s. This cast of characters projected an image to the world that makin g process stands in contrast to images of islands (most notably the Pacific Islands) that were initially illustrated by navigation teams of cartographers, scientists, captains and crew. Despite being unconventional, the scholars and artists working in Bal during the 1920s and 1930s repeatedly argued in favor of between the people and their landscape Some eighty years later, while the authenticity of this
68 interconnectedness remains in question, the interconnectedness its elf largely informs my research. Tourism in Bali T ourism in Bali early in thwarted by a series of wars with the Dutch colonial powers that wreaked havoc on the ruling kingdoms Lured by the culture and traditions of the island, Dutch boats brought in roughly one hundred tourists per month in the 1930s. The Balinese image was perpetuated during the 1920s and 1930s mostly by American artists and scholars. Artists Walter Spies and Miguel Covarrubias, musi cian Colin McPhee, and anthropologists Margaret Mead, Gregory Bateson and later Clifford Geertz became part of a troupe of individuals, schooled and trained in the production of culture, who were instrumental in refining the image of Bali. The arrival o f these artists and scholars coincided with the 1931 Colonial Exposition in Paris where gamelan players and Balinese dancers from the banjar of Paliatan (near Ubud) displayed their unique music and dance. The promotion provided the artistic and academic e lite, coupled with the overwhelming popularity of the Balinese at the Colonial Exposition in 1931 lured great numbers of privileged tourists from Europe and the US prior to World War II (McPhee, 1947) World War II proved to be a tumultuous time for both the Balinese and these resident artists and scholar of the island. The artists and scholars suffered from poor health, personal strife, and ill fated excursions from the island during a time of war. For the Balinese, the Japanese occupation was at first a welcome reprieve from colonial Dutch rule, but their militaristic rule was no improvement over the Dutch. With independence from the Dutch finally secured won in 1949.
69 depressed after World War II as Bali and the rest of Indon esia struggled for independence. The history of Bali and its development as a tourist destination took an interesting turn of events when Sukarno assumed the role of President over the newly independent was Balinese so he had a particular s attempt to create a national 1998 p. 60). Suk arno saw the culture of Bali as part of the but at the same time (and arguably because of his Balinese 1996 p. potential trumped any hopes of gradual tourism development as the nationalist war reparations to fund tourism infrastructure projects (Lansing 1995; Silver 2007). Sukarno was very instrumental in the image making of Bali as he oscillated between cultural preservation and economic gain by promoting national tourism, exemplifying the culture as a national standard, and yet sti ll not isolating the island as a Special Region where traditional royal leadership could be maintained (Vickers 1996 p. 163). Had Bali become a Special Region in the 1950s like Yogyakarta and Aceh rather than its own province, the image and its developm ent would undoubtedly have succumbed to the tourist playground that Yogyakarta in central Java is today (Warren, 1993) President Suharto cashed in on the national identity that President Sukarno attempted to nurture by taking advantage of Bali a
70 coincided with the reinvigorated tourism boom on Bali. However, tourism in Bali during the 1960s and 1970s was not the economic windfall that the Indonesian government had anticipated. In reality, Bali was the last cheap stop for hippies (Vickers 1996 p. 186). However, it was the tendencies of this particular group of tourists from the 1960s and early 1970s that in part influenced the tourism master planning that followed. een asked since the late 1920s and these question s Vickers (1996) argues, contribute to the image making process whe re Bali is seen as a paradise (albeit on the verge of los s) From the educated elite of th e 1930s to the bargain of the 1960s and 1970s, the Indonesian government began to grapple with the idea of losing Bali to waves of tourism that would undoubtedly continue from the 1970s onward. The fragile image of Bali, coupled with tourism trends that began to draw distinct groups of visitors to the island influenced the tourism master planning that was created in the 1970s. A tourism circle, or mandala wisata began to develop in the southern part of the island to cater separately to the e lite, the exten d ed /artists, and the surfers (Mowforth and Munt, 2003) The Denpasar Sanur Kuta area (and to some extent Ubud) concentrated tourism and the necessary infrastructure so that the rest of the island was accessed by day trip excursion routes only (Wall, 1998) Physically locating tourists in the southern part of the island near the Ngurah Rai International Airport may have spatially segregat ed tourists from the day to day lives of villagers throughout the rest of the island (Wall, 1998) but it also created increased internal strife with the emergence
71 of a new middle class, or those Balinese who have access to the tourism market. overty in 1996 p. ourism, and thus the economy declined dramatically after the terrorist bombings of 2002 and 2005. Only since 2008 have tourism statistics exceeded what they were prior to the bombings. This can in part be attributed to the American government lifting its travel warnings in 2008, although the nearby Australian government continues to rate Bali at a four (out of five) level of danger. Bali today loosely adheres to the spatial planning of the 1970s, but what was not anticipated was that development would follow a linear trajectory along the day excursion routes planned so that the rice terraced landscape once commanding the view from outside of Denpasar to ward the mountains is now relegated as the backdrop to the tourism development. Similarly for many tourists today, the image of Bali stands apart and in the foreground of Indonesia as a county and even as a province within a developing nation. Vickers go es so far as to argue that the tourism industry has (Vickers 1996 p. 3 ). hundred years. While there is ongoing deb ate as to the legitimacy or authenticity of the image we are left with today, what remains without question is the ongoing importance of this in question is how to sustain not only this image but what underlies this image : the cultural and natural forces at work within this place. P ariwisata budaya or cultural tourism, is the official tourism policy of Bali. Since the early twentieth century, the aim of the Dutch and then the Indonesian government
72 ha s been to maintain the cultural integrity of Bali for the sake of tourism. The assumption has been that the landscape is more resilient than the culture. Even the World Bank experts who crafted the 1971 tourism master plan predicted that by 1983 the Bali 1996 p. 196). In severing the ties between nature and culture, the World Bank experts failed to consider the inherent link and (Covarrubias 1946 p. 9). Three decades ago when the World Bank was plan the Balinese economy was largely agriculture based. T oday, t ourism is n ow the largest single industry; and as a result, Bali is one of I regions, with approximately 80% of Bali's economy depending on tourism (Baker 2002). The Balinese have learned that a tourism based economy, much like their a griculturally based economy of the nineteenth and early twentieth century, is not immune to downfalls. The economy suffered significantly as a result of the terrorist bombings 2002 and 2005. The tourism industry is slowly recovering once again, especially in the of Ubud. Residents in Ubud are especially taking advantage of the reinstated demand for tourism development at the expense of the (MacRae, 20 03) Tourism in Ubud terraced landscapes of Ubud ( see Figure 2 1 ) offer a much more compelling setting than the banal white sand beaches that support
73 the tourism demands in southern Bali (Wall has not gone u naffected by those seeking the real and authentic B ali that Spies and his crew experienced in eighty years ago. Once just a stop for the day trip excursion 1998). As a destination, the demands change and the a ultural and environmental) must absorb the flux and arrest decay. U bud is doing so by loosely integrating its overall tourism scheme into the existing kaja kelod 10 arrangement of the area. Kaja Ubud is oriented toward the mountain and anchors the most sa cred end of the village, while the monkey forest lies at the k elod end toward the sea and that which is least sacred. Between these two orientations is bhuwah or the human world (Lansing along the kaja kelod or ientation, with no planning it will also develop kangin kauh or east and west. There seems to be a tendency for development density in Ubud, as residents understand the trade offs associated with their most finite resource: developing up will maintain th e sawah while develop out will destroy the sawah Yet with a national tourism policy championing culture (over the environment) this lack of consistency in resource management at the national level leaves little for the people of Ubud to draw from. As a foothill urban center, the topography dictates the extent of development in the area. While Ubud defies traditional notions of an island urban center in that it is not on the coast, this does not lessen its development potential Much of what character izes 10 In Indonesia, kaja is the sacred dire c tion toward Gunung Agung. Kelod is the impure direction toward the sea. Houses, temples, and entire villages are oriented along this axis. Since Gunung Agung is located in the eastern part of the island, in central and south ern Bali the kaja direction act ually points northeast (Wijaya, 2002)
74 lie just beyond the mandala wisata of the Denpasar Sanur Kuta area. Tourism planners from the 1970s assumed that excursion routes would be enough to satisf y this urge, but many of the same reasons that drew tourists to Ubud in the 1920s and 1930s likewise lure them today. Ubud is not the isolated enclave that is was for the artists and scholars eighty years ago, even as maintains its identity as a foothill urban center. Ubud lies near the center, a highly productive portion of the island uniquely characterized by its artistic and agricultural innovation. Enduring Host Mentality Covarrubias and many others who contributed to the image making of Bal i during the 1920s and 1930s prophesized a bleak future for the Balinese and their landscape With all that the image makers did to create Bali, what they failed to do was cred it the nal strife and external duress into the 1920s and 1930s and now beyond. An argument of this early 1946 p. 12 ), what they failed to recognize was the Balinese tendency to avoid conflict, instea d to absorb the point of contingency as a natural extension of their existing culture. Even today a generation tempted by information technology and material possessions does not compromise cultural identity in the face of these temptations. The communit y youth demonstrated a determination to share their world view, but to do so in a controlling, refined manner that since the 1930s By sharing their culture they also control its image. T he image of Bali today is in part due to this calculated command that is itself a hallmark of the Balinese culture.
75 The Dutch feared how the Balinese would play host to the first tourists a century ago. Today, the Balinese in Udud are not merely obedient h osts, but as evidence in the widespread commitment to the landscape filming process, are stewards and advocates of their own cultural heritage. Development literature warns researchers and practitioners of the challenges and burdens that can ensue when cu lture is used as a (Sen 2000). The Balinese recognize the development pressures facing their cultural heritage and its management, yet they also vocalize that international and national agendas are not yet an effective strategy to deal with their finely tuned world view. Tourism does pose a threat, but so too do the national recommendations from the Dutch and the Indonesians that have been put in place to manage tourism over the past century. For much of the past century, tourism planning on Bali has been consistent with the most innovative international practices. The (Yamashita 2003 p. 11). Land Tenure i n Ubud The southern portion of Bali has been c haracterized by rice terraced landscapes for centuries. This part of the island has had a long and conflicting tradition of intensive agricultural land use coupled with high population densities. The picturesque qualities e trumped the productive capabilities as land owners are able to make a better income by selling or even leasing their land, investing the proceeds and living on the interest, than by growing rice This is all compounded by the s oaring international real estate market 186) that has been a de facto step toward facilitating the systematic transfer of land from adat control to formal tenureship ( MacRae, 2003, p. 189 )
76 Loosely translated, adat is the customary l aw that governs how individuals interact with the land. Adat has evolved in rural communities throughout the Indonesian archipelago as a local response to the variability in the resultant supporting environments (Hirsh & Warren 1998). In its general app lication, adat is characteristic of (1967 1998) and his New Order government, Indonesia became as one critic notes, a ocal land and resource rights, and 2005 p. 68). Thus, as land uses change and customary land tenure gives way to market pressures, development remains a central Balinese concern g 2005 p. 68), Bali flourished under a traditional land tenure system, albeit complex, that was held relatively intact even after Dutch colonization in 1908. Varying to some degree across the island, the traditional tenure system in Bali is an intricate agreement between the visible and invisible, the social and political, and the ecological and economic that is typical of the Balinese relationship with any systemic organization. To understand these relationships it is important to explore two intertwin ed narratives specific to the island of Bali. The first narrative tells the story of local forces that have shaped the land tenure system over the past one hundred years. The second narrative is the elaborate tale of the external or global forces that ha ve shaped the image of Bali during roughly this same 100 year time period. Aligning these two narratives reveals the surprising intersections when the narratives collide in contemporary Bali where both the local tenure system and the global process at wor k in Bali have contributed to the development pressures on the
77 Beginning with Dutch colonization in 1908, at each historically significant intersection of local and global forces at work thereafter, the image of Bali has been cast in relief against a fragile landscape. Deconstructing how this image of Bali was created and how this landscape has come to be conceived as fragile is best understood by layering the economic, ecological, social, and religious functions protected an d promoted by the adat tenure system with the economic, ecological, social, and religious meanings associated with this landscape. In Ubud, this progression toward land as capital derives precisely from the function of and meaning toward the same cultural landscape. The composite footprint of Ubud today approximates the ritual and political geography of the nineteenth century kingdom of Sukawati. Characterized by diverse ecosystems and control over most of an irrigation watershed, the last traditional ru ler of this kingdom capitalized on the landscape to create a land tenure system that has History of Traditional Land Tenure in Ubud Balinese village structure is spatially, politi cally, and socially much more complex than any homogenous generalization, particularly in Ubud where development has led to one composite village of many banjar s Thus, it is important to understand the administrative divisions of land and power at a loca l scale in Bali. As previously noted, the banjar The banjar is the primary secular social unit, whereas desa is the primary spatial and ritual unit (commonly, but somewhat misleadingly community to the local landscape through collective responsibility to local deities (MacRae 1997). In the case of Bali, the village or desa level is not necessarily a natural unit of analysis, even though it is the accepted unit under the Indonesian
78 governance system. Treating it as such is done at the expense of recognizing modes of organization beyond and between villages that are especially characteristic of southern Bali. Spatially, the desa are bounded laterally (north and south or kaja kelod ) by the untamed space of the parallel river gorges and in the uphill downhill direction by a neutral zone of cultivated land. Historically, land in Bali was understood to be the property of the gods. Worldly tenure was never achieved outright. Often the exchange of labor and obligation to kings and local authorities who acted as brokers for the gods could grant one access to land (MacRae 2003). Locals could occupy and use land on what may best be understood as a leasehold basis that is hierarchical nevertheless. In general, productive land is privately owned, a right established initially by clearing and cultivation, later by capture and redistribution by local rulers, and currently by sale and purchase (MacRae 1997). Originally, land was made available to farmers for their subsistence in exchange for certain services to the puri 11 not for a portion of the crop yield. This mimicked a system of forced labor. Similarly, residential land was occupied subject to ri tual obligations to the gods via the desa Traditional land tenure in Bali is not consistent throughout the island. The foothill village of Ubud has an interesting history of land tenure and subsequent development, beginning with the charismatic late nineteenth century ruler Cokora Sukawati. Through warfare, diplomacy and the exercise of personal charm, Cokora Sukawati steered the development of Ubud from the status of a small and peripheral village to the center of a vast strip of land from the sea t o the lower edge of the mountain plateau (MacRae 11 Puri refers to princely houses with zones of political control, which were thought to be a direct connection to the Balinese gods (Geertz, 1991)
79 1997). The death of Cokora Sukawati in 1919 marked the end of an extraordinary era rs in size, to absorption into a vast colonial empire which brought it in contact with even wider forces of influence and processes of change (Warren 1993 p. 67). The Onset of Colonial Taxation The Dutch took control of Bali in 1908 to further consolidat e their imperial hold on what is today the Indonesian archipelago. Ruling alongside the Balinese kingdoms for the most part, Cokora Sukawati was able to continue his tenancy/sharecropping arrangements with regards to land, as land continued to be granted to farmers in exchange for various services to Cokora Sukawati and the puri A direct consequence of this system of labor management was that farmers during his rule did not establish any rights to the land they were working. As a result today, few peopl e own land in Ubud ( Hendriatiningsih et al., 2009) prosp erity of Ubud during his reign wa s grounded in his ability to mobilize labor as well as control the resources, which included the productive, human, and ritual resources so integral to the culture of Ubud (MacRae 2003). W hat distinguishes Ubud today remains characterized by the abundance and geographical expanse of land held directly under the puri ; the subsequent sense of loyalty to Puri Ubud throughout this area and the landlessness of many Ubud residents coupled with their distaste for manual labor yet their talent for ritual and cultural production (MacRae 1997; Vickers 1996). y imposed their rule, particularly with the customary land tenure system established in 1922 when a colonial taxation system was introduced. This system was especially
80 burdensome on landowners in Ubud who were forced to pay in Dutch currency. This create d a hardship even on those few who held land privately, and as a result land bega tenancy/sharecropping arrangement did work to prote ct those farmers in compliance because the puri se rved as a collective buffer against the direct affects of taxation to individual farmers (MacRae 2003). Nevertheless, the people of Ubud lived in constant fear of taxation, especially with the onset of The Great Depression when the world wide demand for crops particularly rice declined. D uring this time possession of a land title was more of a liability than a subsistence asset (Hendriatiningsih et al. 2009). Thus, an increasing amount of land was given back to the puri so that its landholding grew und T he death of Cokora Sukawati spurred many attempts by his predecessors trying to hold fast to the momentum he had established locally. At the same time U bud was developing from an external momentum fueled by intern ational tourism Contemporary Pressures on Land Uses The contemporary pressures on land use in Ubud are a product of these global and local forces working against each other This process began in the 1960s with the institutional intervention by the natio nal government as yet another layer injecting its by Jakarta the waning agriculturally based economy of southern Bali did little to support upholding customary land tenure arran gements (Geertz 1963). As the 1950s progressed, there were several steep rises in the price of rice, yet productive agricultural land was the only guarantee of food and income. Furthermore, the population of Bali (and especially Ubud) had increased, alth ough average landholdings were a fraction of what they had
81 the twentieth century. As a result, the Balinese placed immense pressure on the provincial and national governm ents for a more equitable distribution of land. By 1960, the national government was persuaded to initiate a program of land distribution, or Landreform as it was commonly known. Landreform was designed to reduce all large landholdings to a scale enabling landholders to support their families while transferring legal title of the surplus to those, sharecroppers or tenants, who actually worked the land (Hendriatiningsih et al. 2009). L ike many of the national initiatives, this system was mar ked by corruption and a lack of transparency. As a result, many of the largest landowners were able to circumvent the system, thereby re taining a high percentage in some cases all of their original landholdings. It is believed that approximately 75% of t rue landholdings in Ubud were reported under Landreform (Basiago 1995). While t he allowable limit was seven hectare of sawah (irrigated fields) and 9 hectare of tegal (dry fields), the majority of sawah plots range from .2 to .4 hectare which is just suf ficient to feed a small family (Hendriatiningsih et al. 2009). This system ensured that most farmers had access to land of their own, but never achieved real equality of landholdings. Landreform only ion continued to rise and tourism began to replace agriculture as the most lucrative production sector. The Current Land Crisis in Bali The current land crisis in Bali can be attributed to confounding factors associated with the growth of tourism, i ncreased population densities, and the emergence of a middle class The 1980s was characterized by the development of tourism in conjunction with a growing resident expatriate community. Since then, this growth and
82 development has had both direct and ind irect effects on land use, land value, and land tenure in Ubud. The growth of the tourism sector led to a shift of both land and labor from agriculture subsistence to tourism based commerce (MacRae 2003). In turn, this created a demand for street fronta ge land to enable restaurants and shops to have the most direct access to tourists along main thoroughfares. W hile dominant land uses have transformed over the past century, so too have relative valuations of different categories of land been drastically transformed. Not only is this evident in the street frontage property, but also the market for secluded residential sites along sloping river gorges traditionally undesirable land for agriculture. Landowners now stand to make a profit from land strategic ally located, rather than historically productive lands. Despite efforts at the national level over the past fifty years, a unified land tenure shifting to decen tralized governance, land tenure remains characterized by its centrality. This is attributed to continuing effects of Landreform and subsequent national laws where the State has jurisdiction over lands traditionally belonging to the puri (Basiago 1995). Not only does this pose an imminent threat to the security of these lands, but also to the sustainability of a Balinese culture linked to these lands. Locally Articulated Pressures o n Land Use T he history of land tenure in Ubud brings into focus the deve lopment pressures Ubud currently faces and those internal and external influences that have given rise to such pressures. Nevertheless, the current collision of global and local has been anticipated. The traditional land tenure system and the external fo rces that have transformed Ubud into a tourism commodity collide as more of the sawah is consumed by the expanding tourism footprint. What this collision unexpectedly reveals is the
83 potential layering of the global and local narratives of land tenure in U bud the scalar increments that coincide, and the moments of community identification that emanate from these concurrences. In the case of Ubud, the layers of significance tell a unique story of land ownership, use, value, and meaning that have shaped th e rice terraced landscapes of southern Bali over the past century t hrough two distinct narratives, one global and one local The history of land tenure in Ubud almost precisely overlaps the changing function and meaning associated with the landscape over this same period in history. In t he local narrative the Balinese believe that l and is ultimately the property of the gods. The global narrative tells a tale of a highly engineered and cultivated landscape. T his narrative d epicts local access to the pro ductive lands, which is a highly engineered and ordered landscape, with spatial organization supporting the complex irrigation system. the productive (and later monetary) yields from this landscape do not belong to those wh o cultivate the land. Instead, this privilege is held by the puri of Ubud, who still today own most of the productive land in the composite later by systems of colonial taxation and national reform). Yet no matter how productive or financially viable these landscapes are, they are ultimately determined to be the property of the gods. Even today as these landscapes diminish and worldly good fortune is bestowed upon those who sell land outright to foreign investors 12 the Balinese harbor a cultural and spiritual obligation to keep this system in motion. W hile 12 Recent changes to the 1960 Landreform have modified the extent to which foreigners can own land in owned land or enter into long changes permit foreign individuals to purchase one residence (Simangunsong, 2008).
84 there is no set scale at which this development can be offset interests lie in maintaining the cu ltural and natural heritage rooted in these landscapes. A Spatially Oriented Society Today, Ubud is not unique in that it has become a global village, where people, ideas and money from all over the world come together as outside forces meet a local vill age community. The development of this global village has for over a century been economy is based upon the infiltration of foreign currency through tourism and handicraft exports (MacRae 1997). However, the global Ubud and the local Ubud are not mere inversions of each other. C ultural influences s cale so that scale 2005 p. 58). Rather, scale is at once inheri ted, influenced and informed by all of the competing forces to whom this scale matters. In critically considering a place such as Ubud where these competing forces have been at work for over a century, it is tempting to dichotomize the local and global sc and global circulation, local resistance and global structures of capitalism, and local today (Tsing 2005 p. 58). Yet in the end, Ubud is one place, albeit influen ced by many players and events that have crafted the composite village into its contemporary disposition. H ow the residents of Ubud reconcile this layered history in the face of development pressures that threaten s its cultural and natural heritage will narrate the tale of how this landscape fares. There is an inherent difficulty in spatially dealing with cultural lan dscapes in the developing world. Among traditional cultures, s pace is valued because of its tangible
85 and intangible heritage heritage may delimit the boundaries of a cultural landscape the intangible heritage deconstructs the limits of place A s with the case of Bali and many other cult ures that possess a distinct world view, scale considers both the tangible and intangible characteristics of its heritage. It is the people who have a human relationship to this landscape that become anchored to it by their religious, artistic, spiritual, cultural, productive or ecological connection s ( Buggey & Mitchell narratives that instruct the people from generation to generation in knowing and living ( Buggey & Mitchell 2008 p. 169). To spatially define these landscapes when not familiar with the narrative is to deconstruct the tangible and intangible heritage associated with this place. From Local to UNESCO ion of cultural landscapes insists that we increasingly seek out the universal value in a place as a prerequisite for significance. At a place like Bali. But witho ut looking toward the universal applicability of this research, from this type of research (Mowforth & Munt 2003 p. 302). Understanding the interconnectedness of nat ure and culture at different scales we gain access to more diverse world views, cultural traditions, and natural resources that shape a more comprehensive approach to heritage values and management objectives ( Buggey & Mitchell 2008). The Balinese are no exception. The reality is that cultural landscapes are an increasingly popular destination type for tourists who travel to the developing
86 world. This reality is supported by the increasing number of cultural landscapes being nominated to the World Herit age List each year since 1992. Culture as Agent, Landscape as Medium While cultural landscapes have gained institutional notoriety since the 1990s, the concept goes back much further to early twentieth century cultural geographer Carl Sauer. Sauer is gi ven credit fo as he was one of the first to consider the relationship between human beings and their environments, arguing that (Riesenweber 200 8 p. generally thought of as the impact of human activity on a natural environment. Such the impact o 2008 p. 23). We see this concept of area is 2008 p. 24). Today, nature and culture are no longer considered in such dichotomous terms, but rather as involved in a systemic relationship that exists within the cultural landscape. In t his sense, landscape has moved away from being just a tract of land, to existing as an idea. Landscape as an idea means accepting the ambiguity that exists between and among its many layered meanings. It is through these layers of landscape meaning as wa 2008 p. 26), and are thus able to understand different landscape interpretations nested within a given society and culture.
87 Different la ndscape experiences will influence different interpretations of the landscape. Recognizing w hat influences this difference i s part of getting at th e complete narrative of place. Variance among these interpretations may include interpretations that are sta tic, interpretations that are steeped in history and tradition, or interpretations that are evolving, as we discovered to be the case with the interpretations of the community youth in Ubud. The Landscape Experience F undamental to landscape experience fo r any relevant group is how these experiences are communicated and by whom stories of place are told? Thus, the value in communicating the meaning and significance of such landscapes is that this process serves to frame attitudes and guide local actions. Whose interpretation of the memories and meaning of place and what influences these interpretations are questions that guide this research The human connection to the landscape creates a human experience, and it is through this experience that is told t hat narrates stories of place. However, whose story is told rarely comes into question, but we cast this into relief as we consider community youth as participants in documenting the village landscape of Ubud All too often we treat place as a static enti ty, where one set of cultural values exists and they are cohesively believed across the breadth of community members. Furthermore, and of particular relevance to this research is the assumption that traditional ways of life have not adapted to global pres sures, when in fact in Bali, as part of an emerging developing nation, assumptions about local scales and global scales collide and elide. As such, the knowledge held at the local level about history, culture, and the environment is not necessarily homogen eous Because this knowledge is so varied and diverse, it thus cannot be assumed that participation by people at a local
88 increment is a collective or authentic behavior representative of the entire community. The tendency to generalize or conflate the nu ances of scale, community composition, values, and behaviors can be refuted by considering the different methods traditionally used to communicate meaning s of landscape and place. Different Readings and Interpretations of the Landscape Reading the landsc ape is the initial step toward understanding how landscape experiences differ among different groups It is through this process of reading the landscape that reveal s deeper meaning of the places people inhabit However, it is the vantage point from whic h such landscapes are read that is critical and thereby serves as an entry point into this research. There are internal readings of the landscape that have been passed down from generation to generation by esteemed elders through oral traditions and there are less formal readings that surface on the periphery of these narratives that challenge and/or contribute to the authenticity of such landscape stories. Then there are the external colonial readings that compound the majesty of place with the realities of power and control as have occurred in Bali From these stories emanate stories of struggle, destruction, and loss in periods of post colonization from those who suffer from struggle, who lament the destruction, or who chronicle the los s. These post colonial stories suggest that landscape narratives can be an internal and external articulation, where by both vantage points are relative. Nevertheless, reading the landscape clues and piec ing together the narrative is a give and take between those most i ntimately familiar with its details and those spatially trained to analyze and synthesize these details. It is the resulting narrative that will realize the potential of place while also capturing the heritage of its evolutionary past. The question becom es, then, how will this narrative be communicated? The tension that exists between internal
89 and external stories of place cannot be reconciled in one comprehensive narrative, instead, participatory methods provide the best avenue by which to interpret var ying landscape experiences Landscape Change as the only Constant Pre Socratic Greek philosopher (Ridley 2009 p. 251). For the landscape, change is inevitable and is perhaps the only constant when co nsidering landscapes through time and across space Landscapes are not static and are always in a state of flux, but how we embrace, anticipate and ultimately manage the natural progression of landscape change w hile keeping the threats at bay is not as ev ident as the fact that landscape change is a constant. Further compounding challenges associated with managing landscape change is the fact that ons of landscape change necessitates a participatory process that encourages temporal and spatial scales to become the metrics for the tangible and intangible changes pe ople experience through time and across place (Potteiger and Purinton 1998). Evolution of Landscape Narrative through Experiences Landscape narratives are how we come to understand the tangible and intangible changes to the landscape. Just as the land scape experience has evolved to accommodate tourists, different agricultural practices, or greater or less density depending on rural to urban migration, so too have the methods for telling stories. Traditional methods in the evolution of landscape narrat ives have been documentary and dimensionally flat in nature, whereby such methods as social mapping or
90 documentary film making have focused on production. Emerging technologies are becoming increasingly participatory and process oriented, thus giving the l andscape experience more dimension. Traditional Documentary Film Making Methods Traditional documentary methods have been owned almost exclusively by the discipline of visual and cultural anthropology. Historically, d ocumentary filmmaking assumed man y different forms that portray ed lives, but documentary films have always remain ed the authored products of the filmmaker (Hall 1992) In documentary film making, the subjects rarely have any say if they have a say at all i n how they will be represented. Instead the films are centered around a single or select point of view, interpreted and presented by an individual filmmaker. Furthermore, d ocumentary films are often expected to meet stringent aesthetic standards and are us ually made with a large audience in mind ( Ferriera, 2006; Hall 1992). Additional characteristics of documentary films include that a director or filmmaker shoots and produced the film; scripts are typically written by the filmmaker, who also decides on t he film content; audiences are not usually determined and are instead intended for a critical (interested) mass, who then are not necessarily targeted with the intention of producing actual feedback on the film; and finally documentary films are most often product oriented, where the process of filming is only committed to a terminal objective the film itself. In contrast, the participatory vide o process is less concerned with appearance than with content, and the films are usually made with particula r audiences and objectives in mind Participatory video enables the subjects to make their own film in which they can shape issues according to their own sense of
91 what is important, and contro l how they will be represented. Lands cape films are one method of participatory video that is focused on guiding or facilitating a process that is centered around a contributing voice pre determined to be significance to the process and the context in which the process is implemented. Partici patory Video Participatory video is an avenue for participants to rapidly learn how to use video equipment through games and activities This process is largely encouraged through the use of facilitators who help participating groups identify and analyze important issues in their community through a project sequence Historically, participatory video has placed particular emphasis on process, frequently at the expense of product. Yet p articipatory video has been executed by different individuals who usua lly adapt the method to their p articular needs and situations. As a result, the literature on participatory video technology is sparse and growing increasingly date d Nevertheless, participatory video has become more widely used with the increasing acces sibility and affordability of digital video equipment ( Ferriera 2006 ) There are generally eight different approaches to participatory video. The landscape filming process in this research integrates five of these eight approaches into the project sequen ce : (1) celebrating achievements and oral histories, (2) exploration and raising awareness, (3) developing group identity, (4) exploring an issue, and (5) getting a message across (Shaw & Robertson 1997). In addition to the social and cultural characteri stics of the method logistically, digital video allows for computerized editing, making editing simpler, more flexible and less linear which was supported throughout the project sequence leading up to the landscape films Furthe rmore, the affordability of digital video technologies allows for the
92 production of high quality sound and images, as well as immediate editing using software available on the average computer (Burnett 1991). In editing digital video in general, sequenc es can be exchanged and copied without loss, sound and picture can easily be separated and exchanged and copied without quality degradation, and subtitles can be easily added without a great deal of editing expertise by those whom participate in the video process ( Ferriera, 2006, p. 33 4 ). More specific to participatory video, participants always have full editorial control and thus the message and meaning of the films is theirs The overall process produces short videos and messages that are directed an d filmed by participants. This footage is then shared with the wider community at a screening. These screenings may happen once, as in the case of the project in Bali or may be more incremental throughout the project process. Finally, participatory vid of the video content by those who view the content, as well as those who produce it (Shaw & Robertson 1997 p. 67). Participatory video also facilitates exchange and learning as a re sult of participation in the actual process. While digital video is not as analytical as other forms of media or as objective as other documentary techniques, it: creates vivid, strong, and often lasting impressions. It conveys a powerful sense of intim acy and of immediacy. It forces us to make comparisons and to question values that we may previously have taken for granted or considered as unchallengeable. It often asks us to consider who and what we are, and why we do what we do. It encourages us to examine more (Hall 1991 p. 188). Thus, to make video effective, it has to be placed in the context from which the project sequence is derived. P articipatory video can be a powe rful means of documenting local Participatory
93 video also plays a significant role in community heritage preservation and conservatio n in its documentary capacity ( Lunch & Lunch 2006 ) In such instances, facilitators as well as community members must learn how to use the medium to clearly articulate a set of problems while at the same time deepening their collective understanding around the issue. Capturing Forces of Impact on Continuing Cultural Landscapes The forces of impact are tangibly and intangibly manifested and neither is any more or less important, yet traditional participatory approaches fall short insofar as they capture only the tangible, as these generally hold meaning to a popular mass in a community setting. Because the idea of landscape not only serves as a backdrop setting for stories, but it itself a changing, eventful figure, processes that engage the stories of landscape and incorporate the character of landscape are necessary to capture the changing nature of these places through time and across space. This study evaluates t he project sequence leading up to the landscape films that couple s video technology with very deliberate participation strategies to build a narra tive that is reflective of how the community youth perceive the forces of impact on a cultural landscape that very much is in continual use in their daily lives. Coupling Participation with an Emerging Technology t, the natural area is the medium, and the 2008 p. 24), then for participatory video we 13 13 The Medium is the Massage but has been widely quoted as The Medium is the Message since he first published the book in 1967 (although the first used the phrase in Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man published in 1965 )
94 1965), whereby video as a medium received credit for communicating the message of the landscape narrative, but it is really the process, or agent that acts through and by the medium that holds real significance. Furthermore, quoted title suggests that it is not the technology itself that matters in the case of participatory video, but who creates that message and subsequently what we do with that message that holds meaning. Video technology can be easily integrated into a participatory process because it is acc essible and immediate, as well as easily recognizable to potential participants. Participatory video validates the different vantage points from which the experience of place is communicated, as well as the authority of this narrative based on different l andscape experiences. Building a Narrative Landscape narratives become both a story with content as well as the telling of this story, or the expression of those whose story is being told (Potteiger & Purinton 1998). Yet if these narratives are communic ated by a group other than what is the norm f or oral traditions in a culture, what do others make of this particular story? While the project sequence does disrupt oral traditions by invoking a group other than village elders, so too does the project sequ ence present an alternative method by which to communicate the narrative. There is a tendency to think of narrative s primarily as a temporal art and landscape as something visual, spatial, an unchanging background and therefore non narrative (Potteig er & Purinton 1998 p. 7). However, narratives combine two dimensions, one a temporal sequence of events and the other a nonchronological configuration that organizes n arratives into spatial patterns (Potteiger & Purinton 1998 p. 7). Narratives are a lready implicit to landscapes, inscribed by natural processes and
95 cultural practices. Constantly in process of being made and unmade, landscapes become open narratives without the closure and clear plot structure of conventional stories (Potteiger & Pur inton 1998 p. 19). Therefore, understanding narratives on this level requires more than reading a historic inventory or visual survey; it involves special attention to methods and enough time to engage the rhythms and dimension of a place Using partic ipatory video to document the village landscape of Ubud suggest s a method to build new narratives about the village landscape that weaves traditional conventions of Balinese cultural heritage with what threatens this heritage. Furthermore, these narrative s are assimilated by a method that engages participation and a particular technology to work in tandem through a process that is spatially and culturally situated.
96 Figure 2 1. Image of the sawah surrounding Ubud, Bali. Image representative of rice terra ced landscapes of Ubud. [Image taken by Jocelyn Widmer on May 16, 2009]
97 CHAPTER 3 METHODS This research evaluates the process of building a narrative about cultural landscapes by engaging a group of participants in the Bali Field School project sequenc e While the film product is the deliverable of the project sequence the process itself needs to be considered since it infl uenced and created the product the landscape films At different stages, the project sequence produced hand drafted community map s, narrative accounts, storyboards, and films. The data analysis phase will explore the content developed at these different increments in the project sequence in an attempt to validate the overall process that went into creating the collection of landsca pe films This chapter will introduce t he progression of the project sequence in conjunction with those materials that were instrumental in guiding the research process. 14 The materials vary from more didactic introductions to abstract concepts of land scape, but then give way to more graphic and narrative materials that were instrumental in evolving an understanding of landscape at a particular scale the village landscape. T his chapter will also explore the deliverables that resulted from the process b y way of introducing some of the emergent themes that can be interpreted from the process of making landscape films With these emergent themes, it will also be important to understand what we learned about the process from talking directly with three dif ferent groups involved: a voluntary assembly of people from the community of Ubud who screened the films, the US students who worked as project facilitators throughout the process, and Sekolah Menengah Pertama students who were the project participants. 14 A thorough explanation of the Bali Field School project sequence can be found in Appendix A.
98 This triage of participant insight s unveil s some shared views of these different groups, but also the discrepancies in interpretations of what the process meant between and among those involved in the study This collection of internal and external observ ations reveal what it means to solicit the participation of one particular group in a community to articulate development pressures on a landscape that they all share, yet which holds very different meanings to different groups of people within Ubud. General Research Approach Paulo Freire 15 and his early twentieth century predecessors considered participatory action lear ning a conduit for the researcher, it has evolved into a method that allows the participants themselves to address specific issues (S illitoe et al. 2002; Stringer 2007). Because of this, outcomes are difficult to predict, and thus, causation is hard to pin down This study addresses the process of facilitated participation using video in local communities facing pressures associated with development. This study seeks to answer h ow the process of facilitated participation using video encourages a landscape perception that is locally situated and culturally informed among a particular group in a community. The research questions will address three specific issues within the context of this study: (1) How does participation work throughout the sequence of a project aimed at producing films about landscape ? (2) H ow does the project sequence encourage participants to articulate their p articular landscape perception s (specifically about development pressures) ? (3) H ow do others not directly involved in the project sequence, but associated with the same landscape, respond to these perceptions? 15 Paulo Freire was an educator in the early to mid twentieth century who firs t promoted the idea of learning as an act of culture and freedom (Sillitoe et al., 2002). Participatory action research, where the development in pa rticipatory learning techniques
99 The se research questions are derived from t he 2009 Bali Field School project sequence that produced a collection of landscape films in the Balinese village of Ubud. T he 2009 Bali Field School is a program r un through the University of Florida and draws upon field school participants The Bali Field School is an International Service Learning Exchange (ISLE) program through Desig n, Construction, and Planning that explore s the integration of international ex periences, service learning, and knowledge exchange. The program draws from faculty research involvement in international development and planning, especially through the School of Landscape Architecture and Urban and Regional Planning. Within the struc ture of ISLE, the international component is intended to offer students experiences outside of their own familiar contexts. The ISLE program is designed to provide US students with an underst anding of a variety of contexts within both the cultural and lan dscape realm, that might resonate in their future careers as landscape architects and planners. At its core, this approach is intended to throw cultural biases into relief as students explore context specific issues and challenges that necessitate solutio ns that are equally context specific. The service learning component expands upon traditional classroom learning in the disciplines of land scape architecture and planning to incorporate how and why ideas have real, applicable, and integrated relevance. In doing so, some of the deficiencies that exist in a studio environment can be compensated for through field experience. An intended consequence of the service learning component of ISLE is that the thinking and effort devoted to exploring these ideas might have some benefit to the communities that program participants work with.
100 Finally, the exchange is based on collaboration between students and faculty The program recognizes the importance of sharing ideas and exchanging world views. Thus, the exc hange under the ISLE stru cture occurs on multiple levels (formally and informally) between students, faculty, and community members. The pedagogy of the 2009 Bali Field School program was designed in a four part sequence that culminate s with the producti on of landscape films The program structure included (1) regional and methodological contextualization through a series of preparatory seminars (2) a t rial run of the project sequence through a workshop setting with students from the University of Flori da and Udayana University, (3) implementation of the landscape film sequence within an identified village in Bali, and (4) dissemination of the landscape films through a community wide film screening that wa s intended to increase awareness of some of the d evelopment pressures that are identified in the films. The research undertaken for this di ssertation derives from observations made as a participant in the four part sequence of the Bali Field School. This research follows the trajectory of the landscap e filming process by reflecting on the project sequence leading up to the production of the landscape films the participatory exchanges that were fostered by this process, and then how this process was interpreted by those who viewed the landscape films but who did not participate directly in the activities associated with the project sequence It is necessary to begin with an explanation of the organizing structure and project sequence for developing the landscape films including who was involved in t he process, the basic landscape focus of the project, and how project coordination,
101 facilitation, and participation were implemented. The distinction between the Bali Field School and this dissertation research is that the former ceases with the public sc reening of the film, Our Sawah This research follows up on the production of the landscape films through three distinct follow up discussions based on the process of creating the landscape films The data processing and analysis phase for this dissertat ion, then, couples the collection of landscape films and the themes that emerged from the follow up discussions to understand the implications of the participatory process used to produce the landscape films Organizationa l Structure for Developing Landscape Films The organizational structure for developing the collection of landscape films revolved around project participants and project location. While decisions about the context in which the landscape films would be pro duced ultimately affected who participate d it is important to outline the general characteristics of the participant groups. There are two primary characteristics of interest in the groups who came together to participate in the landscape filming process : (1) inclusion of community reception of their interpretations and values associated with the village landscape. Juxtaposing these two characteristics of interest poses a more incremental understanding of group participation than what the literature typically assumes. T he project coordinat ion and facilitation groups (an external group structure ) evolved to work within the framework set forth by these different inte rnal group dynamics, as well as to understand how these dynamics ultimately affected how the landscape films were received by community members of Ubud.
102 Groups Involved in the Bali Field School Project The broad study population consisted of two groups o f contributors: (1) community youth ages thirteen to fourteen years from the Sekolah Menengah Pertama in Ubud and (2) Ubud community members. A third group involved in the project was student facilitators who facilitated the responses from the two groups of local contributors. The Bali Field School participants from the University of Florida and the Udayana U niversity students made up the facilitation team. Community Youth Rural to urban migration is a common trend in the developing worl d. Cities enti ce many individuals to abandon the more traditional rural lifestyles. The urban appeal is no exception to traditional rural communities in Bali, Indonesia as more and more individuals seek an improved quality of life than what their traditional rural live lihoods can support and sustain. Among those most eager to seek opportunities in urban environments are younger generations who search for employment in both the formal and informal sectors of the economy in urban areas. As young people face these decisi ons, their perception of the place in which they live may play into this decision to leave. What individuals understand about their home environment can be a window into the complex and variegated cultural landscapes of a community Twenty community you th ages thirteen to fourteen years old from the Sekolah Menengah Pertama in Ubud agreed to participate in producing the landscape films T his group of participants were still in school (therefore easily organized), thus making these students available and accessible to contribute to the p roject from a single sampling source ( Bernard, 2000; Patton, 2002) S tudents at this age were likely to be i ncreasingly aware of the opportunities, choices, and technologies that lay available to
103 them in the future and in places other than Ubud, yet were also representative of the local values, customs, and traditions associated with the communities residing in Ubud and surrounding villages It is important to note that this age group was selected also based on its his torically under represented status in community decisions and act ions in the developing world. T here is insufficient evidence that this age group of contributors have been included in participatory development activities. 16 While many project implications point toward more inclusionary sample populations including youth and women only recently have participatory projects begun to explore different combinations of contributors (and these have primarily been women) (Hickey & Mohan 2004 ) Ubud Community Members Balinese customary institutions overlap and interact in complex ways that ultimately form basic units of local social organization (Geertz 1991). Local institutions eadership 1991 p. 213). T he Indonesian state relies heavily upon participatory structures for carrying out its rural development program and promotes a national ideology celebrating the continuity of values of consensus, mutual assistance, and self help (Geertz 1991). The exaggerated stereotype of the homogenous and unchanging village community conveys an unrealistic portrait of the possibilities as well as the limitations of village institutions in a changing soc ial and economic environment. Balinese villages are neither 16 The community youth were asked during the follow up discussion whether they had ever participated in a similar project, and the answer was overwhelmingly no from all twenty community youth.
104 economically stratified and organizationally de 1991 p. 214). The major customar y corporate institutions at the village level in Bali are the (1) customary village (2) hamlet (3) irrigation association (4) voluntary work group (5) temple congregation and (6) patrilinear descent group. a] clos (Covarubias 1946 p. 12). Ubud community members continue to be a voluntary amalgam of the se different traditional customs and institutions. Today, the harmony and cooperatio n is not just an agreement among the adult members of society, but as observed by Covarrubias (Covarubias 1946 p. 11) the pride that the youth part icipants also members of this unified organism, were willing to share. Project Facilitators Two groups of university students facilitated the participatory process. The Bali Field School participants were a mix of undergraduate landscape architecture a nd graduate urban and regional planning students. The US students were supported by three faculty members and thirteen undergraduate students from Ud ay ana University in Denpasar (Bali), Indonesia (approximately one and o ne of the major universities in Bali ). Udayana students were pursuing undergraduate degrees in architecture 17 and the concept of landscape was not as familiar to them as it was for the US students 17 Udyana Univers ity has ne ither a program in Landscape Architecture n or in Urban and Regional Planning. However, the faculty expertise at Udyana University allows these disciplines to be introduced in a basic way into the Architecture curriculum at the undergraduate level.
105 Project Coordinators The project was coordinated and l ed by a Landscape Architecture faculty member from the University of Florida and supported by two doctoral research assistants from ne o f the two research assistants, was an Indonesia n, so his familiarity with culture and language augmented the logistics of the pr oject. The project coordination team initiated the project sequence as it was communicated and implemented in a cascading effect beginning with the project coordinators and e ventually disseminated to the participating community youth. Assimilation of Project Coordination, Facilitation and Participation The project ran throughout the month of May 2009, with a total of twelve working days (s ee Table 3 1) The structure of the program was based on a cascade of information flow from the faculty and two graduate assistants to the US students who then communicated with the Udayana University students, who in turn communicated to the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students (see Figure 3 1) This cascade effect was two fold in purpose. First this strategy for information dissemination was intended to draw on the research expertise and experience of the faculty advisor and graduate assistants, while at the same time making sure the info rmation was appropriately communicated from group to group. The second purpose of this information cascade was to address language barriers and translation opportunities into the communication structure without isolating groups that had language barriers. This arrangement fostered a seamless environment where English and Bahasa Indonesia were constantly in chorus (and each group was able to hone their language skills at the same time). The overriding effect of communication between the project coordinati on team to the
106 project facilitators and finally to the project participants was intended to resemble a cascade. The cascade began with the project coordination team working with the US students activities were communicated and often simulated (especially when working graphically in the afternoons). Amidst these working sessions with the US students a day long introductory workshop with the Udayana students was held in the exact location where the project would occur. Th e project sequence was presented in approximately the same format as the project would proceed. The project working sessions became a repetition of the process done with the facilitators (first with the US students and then wit h the US students and the Udayana students). What is interesting to note is that the US students never seemed to grasp this cascade effect. They were waiting to take control of the project, despite the fact that the project was never supposed to be contr olled from the top down. More specifically, morning working sessions were held with the faculty advisor, the two graduate assistants and the US students These sessions introduced the premise of the project in the local and regional context of Bali, Indo nesia. The y also explored the methods employed by the project, including participatory research, participation and community development, and participatory video as an avenue of documenting landscape legacy. By contextualizing the project, the project in crements came to life in terms of their geographic and cultural relevance to the heritage of the area, and also through its relevance to the pressures threatening this heritage in the face of development. The morning working sessions created a dynamic whe re the faculty
107 advisor and the two graduate assistants wer e the facilitators and the US students were the participants. Afternoon sessions saw these roles shift when the US students became the project facilitators (along with the Udayana University student s), and information from the morning working sessions was disseminated as a series of activities to bring the project sequence into fruition. While some interaction did occur among the entire group of facilit ators and project participants, most of the int eraction occurred in smaller facilitator participant groups or production teams These groups were comprised of one University of Florida student, one Udayana University student, and two Sekolah Menengah Pertama students. The Sekolah Menengah Pertama st udents were grouped in pairs based on the proximity of their houses which will be explained under the Community Map section to follow There were a total of ten production teams each contributing to the production of one of the ten landscape films Ide ntified Challenges to Participation There are always c hallenges associated with participation. Fundamentally, it is throughout the course of a project that is participatory i n nature. In general, participation is time consuming and potentially costly for participants. Participants can become apathetic to the process or lack commitment when the project evidences little apparent value. It is also important to consider the aut hentic or genuine nature of participants, as the outcomes can potentially influence (directly or indirectly) the social and political dynamics in a community. I n the case of the Bali Field School project identified participants and their parents had the choice (through the I nstitutional R eview
108 B oard process 18 ) of whether or not to participate. It is also important to consider the level of commitment of other project contributors, in this case the University students, and the effect that their level of com mitment had on the impact of the project. In this case, it was difficult to sustain their engagement in the project at all times. While there was a remarkable level of participation among all three groups of participants ( US students Udayana University s tudents, and Sekolah Menengah Pertama students ), the project was marked by challenges to the level of participation at different moments throughout the project cycle. It is important to note that attrition levels remained relatively low among all three gr oups. The only group that changed composition during the process was the students from Udayana University. A few students dropped out of the process after the initial workshop because of the time commitment, but numbers remained consistent for all other groups. Language also served as a challenge to participation for the Udayana University students. Given the structure of the program, their role as facilitator and mediator between the US students and the community youth (and program coordinators) requ ired substantial energy over and above executing the project. The Udayana University students carried a significant role in the process because the US students did not have the language capabilities to communicate seamlessly with the community youth contr ibutors. This issue was further compounded by individual personalities. A few of the Udayana University students were gregarious, and as a result, the program 18 The Institutional Review Board (IRB) is an independent committee in place at the University of Florida to approve and monitor research involving human subjects. The IRB approved this research involving the community youth participants from Sekolah Menengah P ertama under the condition that their parents grant consent for their involvement. Informed consent forms were handed out to each potential commenced on
109 coordinators along with the US students tended to depend on these students even more throughout the process. As a result, their absence or tardiness, due to the considerable commute required of all Udayana University students from Denpasar to Ubud significantly delay ed ivities and progress in several instances Study Context T he Bali Field School project was carried out in Ubud, Bali (see Figure 3 2 ). Ubud was selected based on the documented cultural heritage of the area, access to identified project participants necessary to produce the landscape films and logistical challe nges associated with working with Udayana University students away from their main campus. Even with the commuting challenges, Ubud was selected as the study site because of its rich cultural and artistic traditions dating back centuries and then more rec ently revived during the 1930s internati ona l recognition Bali acquired. Ubud has also been an important destination to the tourism industry since the 1970s its location in the south central foothills of diverse natural features. T he village is bisected by several stream courses running from north to south. T he close proximity of Ubud to the surrounding villages gives the illusion that the area is one village at the pedest rian scaled experience, when in fact Ubud is surrounded by many smaller villages, including Nyuh Kuning, Peliatan and Penestanan (among others) each contributing to the traditional art culture of the Ubud area, as well as maintaining landscapes that simul taneously support urban development and rice paddies. Definitions of Scale in a Spatially Oriented Society This study uses s cale as a way to organize the conceptual framework for understanding and communicating culture and development in the context of U bud
110 Most large scale planning projects to accommodate landscape change at the urban or regional scale has been initiated by external, international agencies (albeit executed at the national level), such as the tourism master plan that took shape in the 1 970s (Silver, 2007) However, t he Balinese are adept at working at the detail of the garden scale. The project sequence utilizes language and activities geared toward understanding landscape change that lies between these two extremes (regional and detai l), and this research study reflects on how spatially situating the project activities at this middle ground scale frames further conversations about scales that radiate from this middle ground or village scale 19 Thus, the project sequence builds upon act ivities at the middle ground scale, or that scale of landscape that can best be understood spatially at the village level (Bali Field School, 2009) Furthermore, the change that is occurring to the landscape at the middle ground or village scale is influe ncing and impacting the traditional way of life throughout Bali, and particularly Ubud. C hange that occurs at this attachment to that place ( Silverman & Ruggles, 2007 ) Diversity of Scales anchored by the village landscape scale Further complicating the issue of scale is at what scale different resources are perceived to exist and at what scale they are changing The dominant resource of interest in this research is the sawah rice fields, or existing as patches amidst what is becoming a corridor of urban development in and around Ubud. In its absolute term, the sawah as a resource is approached as a constant. However, 19 More detail on the relationship between broader development themes at different scales will be discussed in Chapter 4.
111 the sawah exists as a product of a system that is both cultural and natural. According to Balinese tradition, the scale of this system can be deemed as infinite, an exchange between the physical and the spiritual world, or more fini tely defined according to the kaja kelod north south orientation toward the mountains and the sea, which will be described in the following section. In either instance, systemic perceptions of the sawah affect the scale of the resource and those determin ing factors that play into keeping the system in motion. Finally, there is a third scale that is even more abstract than the potentially infinite scale of the sawah system as it exists between the spiritual and the natural world for the Balinese, and that is the scale and rate of development, which is communicated in hypothetical or future terms. H ow to move between scales of resources by way of communication and language was an important component of the project sequence that influenced the execution of project activities. Early on, the p roject coordination team and project fa cilitators worked together to created a spatial language that would offer some consistenc y as between the multiple scales affecting the sawah By doing so, a graphic standard was created to represent and communicate scale in two dimensions which drew heavily from contemporary landscape architecture studio graphic conventions. 20 Not only were these graphic conventions used to illustra te places as anchor points (such as forests, rice paddies, temples communal areas, homes, and schools) but also captured transects and boundaries to show how people moved through and used spaces 20 These graphic conventions include plan and sec tions, where landscape spaces and features are depicted in a conventional set of symbols and styles currently taught in US based landscape architecture studios (Davis & Walker, 2000; Reid, 2002).
112 Recognizing the different scales that radiate beyond (reg ional or island scale) and within (detail scale) the village landscape of Ubud, the project sequence incorporated activities that approach the idea of landscape as working at multiple levels. T hree increments of scale were communicated to introduce this ge neral concept of landscape as could be interpreted as a spatially relevant division of the Balinese ordering system: (1) foreground, (2) middle ground, and (3) background. L andscape is universally understood as an idea at the small or garden scale, or the foreground Landscape scale can also be considered at the middle ground, or local scale. Activities in the project sequence draw upon this scale, as it most closely aligns with t he village of Ubud as a whole. F inally much more broadly the idea of la ndscape can be regional with co nsideration toward whole natural and social systems that affect the relationship between humans and place. At this background or regional scale, the landscape might grapple with issues that affect the island of Bali, Indones ia or Southeast Asia more generally In these spatial divisions, it is importan t to recognize that landscapes and human habitation and settlement patterns within these landscapes are different between cultures and reflect different world views. This wa s an idea that activities in the project sequence were especially sensitive to The sequence of project activities were strategically introduced so that they aligned with growing understanding of landscape and scale Observations noted thr oughout the project sequence reveal that p articipants understanding of landscape and scale evolved with the continued use of these same terms and concepts As a result, the project sequence was greatly
113 influenced by and evolved from the ebb and flow of t he concept of landscape as it was culturally explained and made relevant to the community youth Landscape Focus throughout Project Sequence T he project sequence was derived from the aforementioned landscape focus at the village scale of Ubud. A gener al introduction to the project was made by weaving the proceeding project activities to the concept of landscape and stories of place. This was a particularly challenging component of the project sequence since the group of community youth were observed t o be generally unfamiliar with the term and concept of landscape This was further compounded by the fact that the project facilitators from Udayana University were architecture students. To prepare participants to work with the concept of landscape pro duction teams exchanged stories of where each individual came from at the neighborhood level. Banjar is the social and spatial equivalent to western notions of neighborhood; so using a term consistently recognized between groups, this particular activity was able to engage the scale of interest to the project while also beginning to articulate stories at this relevant scale. T he concept of landscape is difficult to explain to a group of thirteen and fourteen year olds, but especially in a setting when the vernacular is a highly layered, assembled, and engineered landscape. This was a concept that we had to continually define and re define as our understanding began to align with that of the participants. The Balinese also have a unique, highly ordered spa tial sense that revolves around the concept of kaja kelod which are cardinal points equivalent of north and south, with north facing Mount Agung and south facing toward the sea. To the Balinese, Bali is the entire world. They are one of the rare island peoples in the world who turn their eyes not outward to the oceans, but upwards to the mountain tops (Covarrubias 1946).
114 Initial challenges to spatial orientation arose because the Balinese are very detail oriented, and the kaja kelod scheme is most acce ssible at the foreground level, or that within the walls of the family home. Getting participants to think of space beyond those walls was challenging Also getting them to move beyond the level of detail that is characteristic of the Balinese aesthetic tradition was a challenge. Initial project activities used these more intimate scales as a starting point to establish spatial boundaries and scales within landscapes that were familiar to the participants. A village mapping exercise was the first activi ty in the process of broadening notion of space Project Materials and Project Deliverables The project sequence maneuvered between activities that were designed to influence the resulting content and activities that guided the resulting co ntent through examples. The project made use of four different categories of examples related to the landscape focus to guide the pro cess and thus the content of the landscape films : (1) graphic, (2) narrative (3) template and (4) technology These fo ur categories of examples are illustrated in the seven stages of the project sequence described in more detail in Appendix A (see Table 3 2 ). At each of these four stages, the facilitation team provided a specific example to demonstrate the increment in t he project sequence that the participants would then execute. Community mapping was demonstrated with a graphic example; narrative development was explained through a narrative example ; the storyboarding exercise was conveyed through a template example; a nd finally preparations for filming were made through a technological demonstration using Flip video cameras that were used in the field. This method posed a great challenge in creating a process that encouraged creativity and individual expression while also prescribing direction throughout the process. This prescribed direction came mainly in
115 the form of assigning themes to each of the ten production teams so that each of the ten landscape documentaries explored a particular theme relevant to the histor y, function, meaning, or sustainability of the wet rice terraced landscape in Ubud. It is also important to note that the process an d subsequent use of examples had to be adaptive throughout the project sequence to accommodate emerging definition s of land scape as landscape became better understood by project participants. Project Sequence The project approach built incrementally upon a basic orientation toward and context ualization in Bali, including the accumulating influences of culture, the environmen t, history, religion, politics, social structures, and tourism. The project sequence was grounded in Bali as a cultural landscape, with the focus being the rice terraced landscapes of southern Bali at the village scale, or in an urban setting. The projec t approached the village landscape as an amalgamation of these forces ( culture, the environment, history, religion, politics, social structures, and tourism ) that are especially expressed in the village scale community heritage. The collection of land scape films derive from a project sequence that initiated a series of activities meant to orient participants toward the village landscape in Ubud, what that landscape means to the particular group of participants, and then what they perceive as threatenin g the integrity of that landscape What is important about the project sequence is the progression of activities so that each subsequent activity would build upon the product from the previous activity. While the process adapted and evolved, the structure or framework fo r the process existed from the onset so that participants could have confidence in the project facilitators, as well as understand that the project was always working toward some specific goal or in this case making films
116 The project seq uence involved seven activities (see Table 3 3 ) : (1) Community Map; (2) Story Mapping; (3) Places I Like, Places I Dislike; (4) Identification of Landscape Themes; (5) Constructing the Narrative; (6) Storyboarding; and (7) Film Production. Resulting Co llection of Landscape Films The project sequence produced a collection of ten stand alone landscape films. The ten individual films were assembled into one file with credits rolling at the end of the last film. In the sense of product deliverables, then, the se ten landscape films are the significant yield from the process. It is important to note that this project sequence produced a number of different sets of material, including ten story maps, ten narratives and ten storyboards. This material was dig itally documented after the process was completed and has been used in the analysis and interpretation of the project sequence Introduction to Research Methods The project sequence leading up to and including the making of the landscape films is what t his study aims to evaluate. The lengthy discussion about project context and cultural landscapes in Bali (and Ubud specifically) preceding the introduction of these research methods is necessary based on one subsequence question that surfaces in the proje ct implications: What about the process of making landscape films was context specific to the village landscape of Ubud and what about the process could be generalized to comment on engaging participation of a particular group in any context ? While the p roject findings do not reveal a simple answer to this question, the multiple points of data collected are in response to the fact that the participatory process was fluid and dynamic and cannot be fairly summari zed on a single scale from one point in time P a rticipant observations; follow up discussions, and reflections that key into the
117 specific stages of the project sequence were employed to better understand the participatory process at different increments as it was situated in a pa rticular context (se e Figure 3 3 ) T he presentation of the research methods that follow will identify at what stage(s) in the Bali Field School project sequence the method was used and what each method intended to identify about the project sequence, participation, and devel opment pressures on the village landscape of Ubud. Method I: Participant Observations Participant observations were made throughout course of project. 21 These observations were made at four particular stages in the Bali Field School program development and project execution : (1) program strategy and development (with the US university students) (2) program orientation (with the US and Udayana University students) (3) program initiation (with the facilitation and participation groups) and (4) project operation (with the ten production teams) It is important to note that while the participant observations were made as systematic observations categorized by group within each stage in the project, the participant observations that are most revealing in examining how the participatory process worked are those taken from stage four, project operation (or the seven step project seq uence outlined in Appendix A). Examining the project sequence incrementally throughout the seven step process as it was unfoldin g, the participant observations align stages in the process with the cale in the project sequence activities; 21 It is important to make the point that the researcher w as involved in the day to day operations of the Bali Field School project as part of the project coordination. As a result, the observations made about the t sequence entailed and the degree to which the project sequence was executed based on its original intent.
118 p ressures on the village l andscape of Ubud; and the development in the facilitation project activities to taking control of the content development in the project activities leading up to and includin g the landscape films (see Figure 3 4 ) Method II: Development and Delivery of Follow Up Questions This research utilizes the collection of landscape films derived from the project sequence to engage three distinct conversations about the process and the content of the films. While the collection of landscape films do stand alone as a product from the project sequence it is important to understand how the content of these films is interpreted by those who directly participated in the process (the communi ty youth and the US students), and by those who screened the final collection of films but were not directly involved in the process of producing the films. Three sets of questions were developed to specifically target three different (US university project facilitators and the Sekolah Menengah Pertama participants) or reactions to the project sequence (those who attended the film screening). These three sets of questions evolved from questions that were prepared in advance of the pro each of the three groups were done so in a nticipating the process, but the questions were adapted based on how the project sequence actually unfolded. The most significant change to the qu estions, then, were made to the set delivered to those residents of Ubud who attended the film screening. The film content established the line of inqui ry therefore the questions probed the content of the film (as it was about development pr essures in Ub ud see Figure 3 5 ) rather than impose the issue of development pressures in Ubud. Questions developed and delivered to US university
119 student project facilitators remained similar to the set of ques tions originally proposed These questions inquired abo ut their perceptions of the project sequence as project facilitators (see Figure 3 5 ). The q uestions to the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students were also similar to the original set of questions proposed, and addressed the project sequence in relation to t h eir level of engagement with the project activities, their awareness of ownership and creativity in the material produced throughout the project sequence and their comfort and willingness to share their village as the project sequence moved to filming (se e Figure 3 5 ). Discussion f ollowing s creening of l andscape f ilms An informal discussion was held immediately following the film screening with those who voluntarily showed up to view the films. It is important to note that those who engaged in this conve rsation did not participate directly in the process of creating the landscape films although almost all of them were aware of the process. This discussion was led by University of Florida research assistant Ridwan Sutriadi in Bahasa Indonesia. A pre dete rmined set of questions was delivered and a translation of the ensuing dialogue was recorded in Bahasa Indonesia and later translated into English. A list of these questions can be found in the Appendix B Follow u p d iscussion with US students A second discussion was held with the US students led by Jocelyn Widmer and Kevin Thompson, upon the completion of their involvement in the process. Again, a pre determined set of questions was delivered in English and notes were taken of the dialogue that emerge d. The setting was informal and all of the US students who took part in the project contributed to the discussion. A list of these question s can be found in the Appendix C
120 Follow u p d iscussion with Sekolah Menengah Pertama s tudents A third and final discussion took place with the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students four days after the public screening of the films. The Sekolah Menengah Pertama students were divided into two groups of ten students each so that each group had one representative from each production team. The first group for the debriefing sessions with the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students consisted of eight participants (out of ten), whereas the second debriefing session consisted of nine participants (out of the original ten). The ses sions were each moderated in Bahasa Indonesia by the same student from Udayana University. The same pre determined set of questions was delivered orally in Bahasa Indonesia to each group by Arya Adiartha a student from Udayana University who was instrume ntal in the facilitation process. The questions were divided up into topics, so that the students would thoroughly discuss questions under each topical area, which would then be translated and transcribed before the subsequent topic and questions would be introduced. The moderator delivered a topic with five to six subsequent questions, and took notes as the participants gave their feedback. The moderator then translate d the notes from each set of questions after each set of questions was asked (see Appe ndix D for a list of question sets). He would speak to the whole group, so that the students could hear how he was translating the information back to me, and they would often fill in details in English. Both sets of answers from the two different debrie fing sessions were consistent and answers from each set of questions asked by the moderator followed almost immediately after the question was answered if students did not interrupt the moderator to answer already. Participation in each of these two conve rsations were equally distributed among the ten Sekolah Menengah Pertama students so that they each contributed to the discussion.
121 Method III: Emergent Themes (Retrospective) While the participant observations and the follow up questions address the p roject sequence leading up to and including creating and screening the landscape films the third method looks at the project seq uence in reverse (see Figure 3 6 ) and away from the context where the project was executed This third retrospective method c ouples the participant observations made throughout the project sequence with the materials produced by the activities in the project sequence. Working backwards to the beginning of the process is a way to triangulate the findings from the partici pant obs ervations to see where specifically in the film content these themes of lan dscape, scale, and development pressures surface Data Processing The four sets of identified data ( content from landscape films and commentary from the three follow up discussion ) were interpreted alongside notes and observations made throughout the entire process. Data processing included looking at the material that went into developing each film. This included comparisons between the narrative, the storyboard, and the transcr ipt of the film for each of the ten production teams. Following an initial organization of the physical material from the process, the film content was also considered in terms of the ten individual subthemes and their exploration of development pressures at the village landscape scale. Beyond the films, the documented commentary from each of the three follow up discussions was considered topically, as the line of inquiry for each set of questions delivered to the three distinct groups contained similar t opics. Not only were these discussions considered individually and in relation to the other two conversations, but the commentary was also considered in terms of the project sequence to understand how
122 three different perspectives interpreted the process t hat culminates in the landscape films While there are significant and distinct deliverables that stand alone from the process, this research is primarily interested in looking at the landscape films in the context of the process and the follow up discus sions. In doing so, the analysis phase interprets the four sets of data (landscape films and commentary from the three follow up discussions) for emergent themes within each discussion as it relates to the process, as well as where themes among the three discussions converge and diverge as a commentary on the process as a whole. The analysis becomes more than just a description of the process, but a commentary on the themes that emerged from looking at a number of internal and external points of reference throughout the process and also upon the processes immediate conclusion. Thus, making sense of the emergent them es has been a two fold process. The first step in the process was to understand what about the process of creating landscape films remains con textually specific to the village landscape of Ubud and perhaps more g enerally to the island of Bali. The second step was to consider where and how the process contribute s generalizations about engaging a particular group of participants who comment on de velopment pressures at a scale that most approximates the village in which they live. Ultimately there is a continuous tension between these two in participatory research, and the analysis phase suggests where participatory research that is both spatially and socially situated is adept at contributing to this ongoing debate.
123 Table 3 1. Timetable of Project Activities Date Activity 9 May 2009 Workshop with students and faculty from University of Florida and Udayana University 13 May 2009 Introductory w orking session with students from University of Florida, Udayana University and SMP (Project introductions, community map, story mapping) 14 May 2009 Working session with students from University of Florida, Udayana University and SMP (Story mapping con tinued; Places I Like, Places I Dislike) 15 May 2009 IRB collection from SMP students 18 May 2009 Working session with students from University of Florida, Udayana University and SMP (Narrative development, clarified where SMP students lived on the map) 19 May 2009 Working session with students from University of Florida, Udayana University and SMP (refine narrative, move toward storyboarding, film activity) 20 May 2009 Working session with students from University of Florida, Udayana University and SMP (filming) 22 May 2009 Working session with students from Udayana University and SMP (view film edits, create invitations to film screening) 24 May 2009 Film screening at SMP. Follow up discussion with members from Ubud. Follow up discussion with student s from University of Florida 27 May 2009 Follow up discussion with students from SMP
124 Table 3 2. Directing Content through Use of Examples Lead by Example (out of 4) Project sequence Sequence in Delivery Community Map 1 Graphic Story Mapping 2 Gra phic / Narrative Places I Like / Dislike 3 Identification and Generation of Themes* 4 Narrative Narrative Development 5 Template Storyboarding 6 Technological Film Production 7 *This was a collective activity with no example. Because the sawah was community map, a list of twelve subthemes culturally and naturally significant and related to the sawah was generated by the project coordinators. Each group then selected a subtheme and were able to negotiate trades with one anot her until everyone was satisfied with their subtheme. Table 3 3 Summary of Project Structure and Sequence Activity Duration (days) Parties Involved Preliminary Contextualization 3 U.F. Students Facilitator Workshop 1 U.F. / Udayana Students Intr oduction to SMP Students Community Map Story Mapping Places I Like, Places I Dislike 1 U.F. / Udayana / SMP Students Theme Generation U.F. / Udayana / SMP Students Narrative Development 1 U.F. / Udayana / SMP Students Storyboard Development 1 U.F. / Udayana / SMP Students Technological Introduction U.F. / Udayana / SMP Students Filming 1 U.F. / Udayana / SMP Students Footage Edits / Assembly 1 Udayana Students Review of Footage Edits 1 U.F. / Udayana / SMP Students Film Screening 1 U.F. / Udayana / SMP / Community Follow Up Discussion Community Members from Ubud Follow Up Discussion U.F. Students Follow Up Discussion SMP Students
125 Figure 3 1. Group Involvement as it relates to the Stages of the Bali Field School Proj ect.
126 Figure 3 2 Map of Ubud and Surrounding Villages [Map c ourtesy of Andrews, Sarah 2010. Content adapted from Tukad Dawa Stream Course Enhancement. Landscape Architecture Capstone Project. University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.]
127 Figure 3 3 Comprehensive C onceptual Summary of Research M ethod Research Method I) Participant Observations; Research Method II) Follow Up Discussions; Research Method III) Retrospection Figure 3 4 C onceptual Summary of Research M ethod I (Participant Observat ions).
128 Figure 3 5 Conceptual Summary of Research Method I I (Follow Up Discussions). Figure 3 6 Conceptual Summary of Research Method I II ( Retrospection ).
129 CHAPTER 4 OUTCOMES The outcomes presented in this chapter are derived from the assimilatio n of information collected by participant observations throughout the project sequence; follow up discussions between two groups involved in the project sequence (US university students and Sekolah Menengah Pertama students) and one group not directly in vo lved in the project sequence ( but that viewed the landscape films at a public screening ); and reflection on the project away from the research context. The outcomes from this study are a derivative of the entire experience, and cannot be separated by the three methods used to evaluate the participatory process involved with creating the landscape films. What follows is a discussion on the emergent themes that come from looking at the project sequence, the content produced from the project sequence, and pa rticipation by the community youth mediated the relationship between the project sequence and resulting content. Emergent Themes Content analysis was not an originally proposed point of data collection because there were so many unknowns in the project s equence Yet in retrospect, it turned out to be a point of validity supporting the project sequence In looking at the project sequence alongside some of the content that was produced during certain moments of the project sequence the content is support ive of the overall intention of the project sequence This phase of analysis considered the video content as it related back to the storyboards, the relationship between the development pressures on the village landscape and other contributing scales that are anchored around the village landscape scale, a sophisticated understanding of development pressures and their relationship to
130 global trends, specifically related to the economic potential of the sawah In addition to this content specific analysis, t he process also created visibility among the people of Ubud, as well as ultimately reflecting the voice of one particular group in the community. The themes that emerged from this stage in the analysis are supported with images, screen captures from the f ilms, as well as some of the other graphic material that the project sequence produced. In looking at all three of these sets of information, the incremental project sequence can be valued beyond producing a collection of landscape films but for the soci al and spatial relationships that were observed as a result of the process. Tracing Video Content Back Through Storyboards The storyboards had two main purposes in the project sequence First, they serve d as a transition between the narrative developm ent and the filming by getting the participants to think of their narrative in terms of scenes with supporting dialogue. E ach frame of the storyboard was intended to translate roughly into one scene (the image drawn in the box) with dialogue that would su pport that scene (written below the image). If this process was carried out consistently then the collection of scenes depicted individually in boxes on the storyboard would sequentially follow the individual scenes filmed. In this case, the editing tea m could then use the storyboards as a guide to stitch the individual scenes together with little organizational trouble, which was the second objective of the storyboards Thus, the storyboards were an integral tool not only in developing the narrative in to the filmed product, but also in assembling the filmed product so that it became one complete film (albeit composed of multiple scenes). Approximately one afternoon working session was devoted to developing the storyboards. Many of the groups chose to take them home when the working session
131 ended and the storyboards were still incomplete ( even though filming was to commence the following day). Despite the relatively shorter span of time devoted to developing the storyboards (in comparison to the time devoted to developing the narratives), the storyboards in all ten films almost exactly follow the trajectory of the film sequence in both dialogue and graphic form (see Figure 3 10 ). Because of this, the editing process was sufficiently expedited, especia lly because the translated English subtitles could be taken from the storyboard rather than transcribed and translated from the films themselves. Furthermore, the careful consideration that went into developing the narratives and further refinement in ter ms of scenes through the storyboarding process was upheld in the final films. The films logically told the stories that had gone through at least two stages of refinement. The storyboards were essentially the scripts for the films out in the field. Beca use there is such a close alignment of the storyboards and the scene sequence that transpires in the films, by considering the storyboards and the films as a refined extension of the narratives many of the relationships to broader themes at varying scales become evident in the film content. Relationships to Broader Themes at Different Scales The project sequence was grounded in the concept of landscape that was introduced at a middleground scale, or the village scale. While the project sequence carefull y adapted to the participants evolving understanding and expression of development pressures at this village landscape scale through the various project activities, the films clearly articulate issues at other scales Many of the films address development pressures that are global in scope and have ramifications beyond the sawah in Ubud. Yet in most instances, these global development pressures were still These themes include the inter relationship
132 between building d evelopment and the ecological ramifications not only on the immediate sawah number of different land use types. In one particular film commenting on the different uses that the sawah promises during the different seasonal rhythms, the participants express concern over the physical change in the landscape to accommodate an expanding development footprint. The dialogue from the screen capture translates as follows (see Figure 3 11 ecause the increase of the building development, that Cycles Film). The participants go on to pan out at a global scale to comment on what building development on the immediate landscape will do at a much larger scale but still what that means for these two in particular. The dialogue translates into the following (see Figure 3 12 ): Yes, I agree. ( Cycles Film). With similar concern for the increased building development on the sawah the Duckman Film extends beyond what the imposition of buildings on the sawah does to the different (and at time s competing) interests in the sawah From one scene in the Duckman Film, the dialogue translates into the following (see Figure 3 13 padi fields have turned into buildings, despite the fact that many people need it. It is also a habitat for m Duckman Film). Interestingly, the Duckman Film introduces the sawah as having both economic and ecological importance based on the integral role that ducks play in maintaining the ecosystem balance of the sawah once it has been flooded afte r harvest, as well as the well known dish served up at one of
133 Babek Gouling (fried duck). Thus, this film in particular comments on the ecological and economic pressures that many residents of Ubud face with the expanding build ing footprint onto the sawah and even more, what this means then, is a strong ten sion between the many systems, both tangible and intangible, in flux all supported by the sawah Sophisticated Understanding of Local Pressures Connected to Global Trends While the films never really comment on how to strike a balance between these different systems at play on the village landscape, what the films do is further explore the tension among these systems in terms of the local pressures which are inevitably connected to global trends on the island of Bali. Many of the films articulate a sophisticated understanding of the inner relationship among tourism and the sawah a tenuous relationship nevertheless, since Miguel Covarrubias first wrote about it in the 1940s. The Harvest Film comments on the direct relationship between the sawah and the local tourism industry in dialogue that translates into the following (see Figure 3 14 ): ( Harvest Film). More specifically, yet still looking at the connecti on between local development pressures on the sawah and how these pressures are connected to more global trends, the films frequently cast the rice farmer as one who has suffered dramatically since rice no longer is exported from Bali. Many of the films a rticulate an economic understanding of the harvest gains and yields that the sawah historically provided for farmers, as well as the fact that rice farming has become a much less lucrative form of employment
134 today than historically it has been in Ubud. On e particular scene in the Harvest Film depicts the harsh realities that befall a rice farmer today in the translated dialogue that follows (see Figure 3 15 the problem. The outcome is not equa Harvest Film). Interestingly, what also comes out of this economic interest in the sawah is the overwhelming tension that exists for many people of Ubud who rely on tourism for their economic livelihood. So while the films recognize t he loss of a more traditional form of employment in the rice farmer, they also recognize the need to accommodate the tourism industry amidst the development that is encroaching onto the sawah in Ubud. Yet in addition to commenting on the tenuous flux at the systemic level when considering the development pressures that the sawah faces, the participants were also able to consider some of the traditional forms of employment that are in many cases unfamiliar to them as their parents own art shops or restaur ants or are a part of the growing expatriate community in Ubud. The Harvest Film in particular considers the plight of what may seem like a constant in the landscape to the unknowing eye, that the Balinese rice farmer and traditional farming practices are oftentimes being outsourced to migrants from Java seeking employment (MacRae 2003). T he landscape films champion ed many of the unassuming (albeit more traditional) forms of culture in Ubud that are also affected by the development pressures on the villa ge landscape in Ubud. By casting these roles of the rice farmer and the duckman (to name just a few) in the films, the participants made visible what is characteristically an unspectacular source of employment to their generation.
135 Visibility and Com munication among the Broader Community T he films make visible and start a dialogue about many issues, events, people, rice terraced landscape T he documentaries also made the development pressures visible to those curious onlookers who were not directly involved in the project, yet who interacted with the project participants on a daily basis. From taxi drivers who frequently transported the production teams around Ubud, to the Sekolah Menengah Pertama teachers, to the heads of local banjar s this project was highly visible in Ubud throughout its duration. It is also important to note that the delivery activities were rarely completed within the time allotted for the aft ernoon working sessions. Yet the more invested in the process the participants became, the more motivated they were to devote additional time to developing the narratives and storyboards so much to the point that they began to ask if they could by taking the work home with them. Initially, this was met with hesitation, as the project sequence activities were cumulative, and there was little time built into the schedule to re create any of the work if participants left it at home from working on it the nig ht before. After careful consideration, the project coordinators allowed the participants to take the working material home under the provision that they return with it the next day. Not only did students return with the work, but it was completed with t he utmost attention to detail. Interestingly, during this interlude in the formal project sequence the participants were working without the rest of their production teams (the University of Florida and Udayana University student). Yet the work that the y returned with communicated a clear understanding of the project sequence as well as why completion of a particular activity was imperative to beginning
136 the next activity in the project sequence Not only did this individual time commitment to the proje ct bring visibility to it outside of the working sessions, but upon further inquiry, the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students reported that they openly communicated with their families and friends about the project when they were working on it outside of the afternoon working sessions, and in fact, oftentimes the participants claimed that they solicited the help of siblings and parents in completing the activities. Thus, not only did the project become visible away from the afternoon working session environme nt, but the participants openly communicated the project objectives as their understanding increasingly evolved throughout the project sequence As a result of this communication, the level of comfort and enthusiasm that emerged from the participants with the subject matter of the films (development pressures) also ignited a sense of ownership in what they were producing throughout this evolution. Evolution of Ownership in the Product Both the US students as well as the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students commented in the follow up discussion on the fact that they did not like to share their work with other groups. The inspiration for creativity and innovation as it relates to group individualism will be discussed in the following section, but it is impor tant to mention the sense of ownership that the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students began to show as their understanding of the process increased. This increased understanding in the process became evident as the participants took work home with them follow ing the afternoon working sessions and completed the activities without the assistance of the University of Florida or Udayana University students communicating any sort of direction. Their independence and the quality of work that emanated from this time away from the project facilitators is indicative of their increased understanding in the
137 process as well as the commitment and ownership they began to take toward the products. Many of the groups added an additional activity to the project sequence as pa rt of their pre production development developing scripts Nearly all of the groups translated the dialogue written on the storyboards into typed scripts that they then practiced to the point of memorization. One group in particular articulated their se nse of ownership in their work by placing the copyright symbol following the title of their film (see Figure 3 16 ). This sense of ownership served to sustain the overall engagement of the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students throughout the entire project seq uence which at times was held on their days off, as well as during the weekends. As a testament to this sustained engagement, there was one hundred percent attendance of the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students at the film screening, which was held on a Sun day. While it can be argued that initial interest in the process may have sustained their involvement up to a point, as the participants increasingly understood where the process was headed and subsequently increasingly took ownership in the project seque nce the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students became more deliberate and calculated in how they chose to take advantage of the opportunity to voice their particular concerns over the development of their village sawah Articulation of a Particular Voice T his project captures ten different but related narratives of the sawah by a group of down to them by their elders, with their contemporary uses of the sawah as a playgroun d and meeting place It does so with a cautious eye toward the future and their perception of the eminent threats that face the characteristic landscapes of southern Bali as development pressures loom. The project sequence
138 dialogue am ong a particular group of community members who are not typically involved in village development decisions, but who nevertheless have a story to tell. Subsequently the films cast into relief whose interpretation of the memories and meaning of a place is valued and what influences these interpretations It is the landscape films However, whose story is told with regards to landscape experience rarely comes into question Yet the project sequence gives this particular landscape interpretation primacy as we consider ed community youth as participants in a community project documenting the cultural landscape of southern Bali whereas typically it is the elders who pass down oral t raditions in Balinese culture. The tendency to generalize or conflate the nuances of scale, community composition, and landscape values can be challenged by considering methods used to communicate the meaning of landscape and place by different groups The project sequence leading up to the collection of landscape films gets at a more deconstructed identified by one group who has a distinct attachment to this landscape. N ow that these concerns have been voiced, as evidence in the translated dialogue in the Duckman Film (see Figure 3 17 Duckman Film), the questions emerge on how this voice will be perceived by others with equ al but different attachments to the landscape. Analysis of Follow Up Discussions Analysis of the data consisted of critical reflections of the process based on external observations on behalf of the researcher as well as thematic mapping by abstracting m eaning from the follow up discussion commentary. Observations were
139 made systematically and consistently across activities; however, regardless of how systematic these observations were, they do not reveal why participants engaged in the behaviors that the observations were coupled with commentary from three follow up discussions with three different groups who were involved in the landscape filming process. Analyzing both external and interna l observations independently begins to describe what exists among the relationships established through the participatory process, but considering these two vantage points together begins to explain these relationships. This process was done simultaneousl y by seeking synthesis and understanding differences between the external observations and the three different follow up discussions. While the external observations are important to understanding the emerging dynamics between the different groups invo lved in the process as well as among the groups themselves, the internal observations made about the process by three groups integral to the process are important to understanding why the films turned out the way that they did, and more importantly, what c an be learned from such a process. By better understanding the process from both those involved as well as those internally connected to development pressures in Ubud, more valid comments can be made about the project sequence and how effective it is at c ertain moments, as well as how generalizable the findings are to contexts other than Ubud, Bali, or Indonesia. These internal observations were gathered from three instrumental groups in the process: (1) those who attended the film screening and stayed after to discuss the films, (2) the US students who served in a facilitation role throughout the process, and the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students as the project participants with the greatest
140 time commitment to the process. These three vantage points ta rget different levels of involvement and understanding of the process. Those who participated in the follow up discussion after the film screening were the least involved in the actual process but were arguably more familiar with the development pressures from a cultural and political point of view. As a result, the dialogue generated in that discussion can be characterized as reactive to the film content in terms of having the political, and social realms. In contrast, the US students were most familiar with the intent of the process but were least familiar with the existing conditions in Ubud. As a result, their responses can be characterized by elements of knowns and unknow ns with relation to the process and Ubud more generally. Finally, the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students generated a dialogue that was most revealing about the project sequence as they were the group most involved. The two sets of responses gathered from the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students reveal a great deal about the process, while often contradicting comments made by the participants in the follow up discussion and the US students What the follow up discussion with the Sekolah Menengah Pertama reve als that the other two do not is what components of the project sequence may be generalized to understand the application of landscape films in contexts other than Ubu d. Follow Up Discussion with Attendees of the Film Screening 22 The follow up discussion held with those who attended the film screening took the subject matter of the film as a starting point for the conversation. The starting point was 22 Questions asked and transcript of the dialogue transcribed and translated by Ridwan Sutriadi on May 24, 2009. All quotations in this section are from the follow up discussion.
141 that the films clearly articulated some concerns about development pressures on the village landscape of U bud. The validity of the method and those voicing the concerns came into question through the follow up discussion, but what originally surfaced was a reiteration of those development pressures by those who attended the film screening and were thus not di rectly involved in the process of producing the videos. While the development pressures articulated in this follow up discussion aligned with how the project coordinators understood the development pressures in Ubud prior to the project, the follow up dis cussion stressed the tension that lies in these pressures, primarily the tension between the economic incentives to develop in Ubud versus the cultural heritage that may be compromised as a result. One member of the discussion noted that among the people of Ubud who are economically stable, it is expected that they In other words there is an expectation for development in Ubud. As a result, these same people, if they own t he paddy fields, rush to sel l them Interestingly, the sale of this economically viable yet culturally important landscape is not a problem only for the people of Ubud anymore. meaning the l ucrative exchange of valuable land for the sake of traditional practices is not specific to Bali. Furthermore, many people in Bali no longer want to farm the land, urba only a tension between the local people of Ubud and an international interest in what is seen as valuable real estate, but also a tension wholly Balinese, who themselves pri de their provincial autonomy A s one member of the discussion reminds others they [the
142 films nor the follow up discussion specifically delineate how to alleviate this ten sion between development and cultural heritage, there was a consensus that the solution lie at the provincial level. This positive movement that the follow up discussion motivated was also detected in the general feeling toward the Sekolah Menengah Per tama the process with students from the University of Florida and Udayana University. Those who attended the film screening saw the process as a potential way to enhance d a situation where the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students could have written the film dialogue in English, thereby eliminating the need for English translations and subtitles. Only using English, rather than Bahasa Indonesia, would contribute a different avenue by which they could imp rove their English. That is, if would be optimal is the language learning process could be synchronized with the project sequence so that both are happening concurrently. While there was positive approval of the Sekolah Men engah Pertama students participation in the project, there was a detailed critique of how the process did not align with t he oral tradition norm in Bali. It was also noted that the process could be improved to better help kids articula te development press ures if it were institutionalized toward a more sustainable model to reach more children through an increased breadth of participation. While those who participated in the follow up discussion agreed that change is necessary with regards to the current de velopment trajectory in Ubud, the methods by which this change is articulated needs to reflect the original values of the
143 people articulating the change, which included attention to cultural and religious traditions. More specifically, those who attended the follow up discussion clearly explained what role the community youth of Ubud play in articulating this change and believed the project sequence was flawed by incorporating this role of the community youth. First it is important to communicate how tho se who attended the film screening and follow up catch what is actually happening in t he current situation. The development of Ubud is age, those who attended the follow up discussion argue that the younger generations current problems of how to protect tradition and religion, need to learn from Tri hita karana 23 which holds very special value to the Balinese need to understand the different scale of threats that come from developing the sawah In doing so, the com munity youth need to understand not only the origin of rice, but they also need to understand the relationship between the rice, the paddy, and the importance of the continued existence of the paddy field. And even more broadly, the community youth also n eed to understand the realities of developing the sawah which 23 Tri hita karana comes from Sansekerta language that instructs the Balinese to maintain harmo ny and balance between human to God, human to human and human to e nvironment relationships (Lansing, 1995).
144 can be expressed in monetary terms. Although the films are deemed by the follow up discussion participants as an accurate depiction of the development pressures that are depicted in the films, the process stands to be improved on the basis that the films did not propose any solutions to these problems. Discussants also requested that the process leading to the product be done in a more natural way so that the films could be more than just sce narios. While the participants in the discussion found the scenarios effective in presenting some of the pressures associated with development in Ubud, the scenarios fell short for the follow up discussion participants in the fact that they present a one sided portrayal of development in Ubud. Those participating in the follow up discussion asked if the children understoo d globalization. While they explained that talking about globalization is okay, the films also needed to explore the pros and cons of g lobalization as it relates to Ubud, because it was explained that development is not always negative, but it can also have positive ramifications. While it was confirmed that the filming process gave the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students a chance to state opinion s it was not thought to be stated necessarily though a process of critical thinking that was entirely theirs. As some follow up discussion participants. To avoid thi s indoctrination, the follow up discussion participants wanted to explore how the scenarios in the film could be developed more freely. However, it is important to note that the follow up discussion participants were not arguing for the process to be enti rely controlled by the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students. Instead, they were concerned that what they viewed as a contrived project sequence since it was created and implemented by those external to Ubud. They
145 voiced concern over the legitimacy of the pr was no scene which shows education or the learning process from the adult generation to the younger generation of what has been going on in the surrounding areas in previous times This is the responsibility of the adult generations By leaving the elders out of the process, the group traditionally aligned with communicating oral traditions, the process lacked legitimacy to those participating in the follow up discussion. As a result, the follow up discussants stressed the careful bal ance that needs to be struck between not indoctrinating the community youth, but also recognizing that there is currently no formal education regarding development pressures from the government. Thus, the responsibility lies with the community elders inco rporate these development pressures into the oral tradition norms that are embedded in the cultural traditions of Ubud. This conversation about where the responsibility lies in communicating development pressures to the younger generations of Balinese children took the conversation toward where the project sequence was flawed in its contextualization within contemporary Bali. Foremost, it was argued that the films needed to highlight or demark the separation between entertainment and bad development p ractices. It was difficult for those viewing the films who were not part of the process to really understand how the children viewed development in Ubud because of the scripted nature of the dialogue. This project sequence needed to better allow the Seko lah Menengah Pertama perception look like ? While the follow up discussion participants agreed that the films do demonstrate that the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students can already recognize and voice environmental concerns,
146 the films fe ll short in their opinion in that they did not reveal the Sekolah Menengah Pertama a pplication of solutions. This is the perception that the participants of the follow up discussion are most interested in understanding, which was noticeably absent from the message was not effectively reached, the discussion participants argued. The message in the film should not just be for those in attendance at the film screening, but for all who are relevant to Bali. The discussion participants whole heartedly agreed th at the awareness articulated in the films should be understood by all of the younger O ne member of the discussion group credited the young generation as those who are the critical thinkers. To improve the project sequence the overwhelming consensus from those who participated in the follow up discussion was to institutionalize the process. It was the general consensus that the landscape films as an collection of activities were a useful and replicated at every level of education [in Indonesia] The participants in the follow up discussion agreed that the value in the landscape documentary process li es in the fact that the project sequence incorporate d existing cultural elements already taught in school, including Balinese language and culture. Yet the process should not only address development on the sawah but also current tensions at the national level, so and the relationship between the green revolution and the paddy field. The follow up discussion participants believed that the project sequence had room to accommodate some of
147 these national (and often historical) tensions associated with the sawah in Ubud, so that the students could learn about all of the problems associated with the paddy field and not just the development pressures. Interestingly, in doing so, there emerges a tension coming from existing institutions in a desire to institutionalize the project sequence To institutionalize the project sequence into the education system, the landscape films could become an on going program that itself could be sustainable a s a pedagogical tool. Yet to do so, the project sequence needs an organizational structure so that the program can be sustainable long after the university students leave Ubud. This suggestion came after the follow up discussion participants voiced conce rn over the lack of follow up, or monitoring and evaluation, from the film process. The discussion participants were very interested in what the proposed future direction of the project sequence was, but did not hold these expectations over either of the two universities. Instead, the follow up discussion participants felt that the responsibility of sustaining the process lies primarily with the school and the development of curriculum that incorporated the project sequence into the cultural activities th at occur in the power to educate and maintain the sustainability of this activity In passing this responsibility over to the school, the next step should be to formula te a plan to continue the program in the schools. The program could be easily integrated into the elective The follow up discussion participants agreed that everyone in attendance, and many people in Ubud m ore b roadly, understand the theoretical and political intent of development policy already in place in Ubud (and Bali at the provincial level). However, the application of these development policies and
148 their potential effectiveness and reach are not yet ful ly understood by the people of Ubud. Currently, there is great discrepancy throughout Bali between the development policies in theory and action. To those who participated in the follow up discussion, this discrepancy is ultimately a testament to the fa ct that development cannot be avoided in Ubud. Therefore, the inevitability of development in Ubud further justifies the implementation of a process that facilitates an understanding among the community youth about the importance of activities that addres s development in Ubud realistically, and a ctivities that have a viable and sustainable follow up strategy T he follow up discussion with those who attended the film screening revealed the importance of planning versus action in activities related to voicin g concerns about development pressures in Ubud. Planning and action should be sequential and not two different sets of activities running tangential to each other. To avoid the historical tendency of planning and action being divorced in Ubud the commun ity can no longer support activities that promise false hope through the guise of a certain process in this case the project sequence for the landscape films The follow up discussion stressed an overall sense of urgency to ensure such development related activities need to move beyond talking about development pressures and understanding how to turn these discussions into viable and applicable solutions to address development in Ubud. Follow Up Discussion with US S tudents The follow up discussion with the US students added a deeper understanding of how the community was engaged throughout the process, which was first explored by those who participated in the follow up discussion after the film screening. T he US students observations derived from their interactions with the Sekolah Menengah
149 Pertama students as well as their interactions with those parents who became involved in the process (ranging from logistics to taking part in the films ) Overall, the US students were surprised at how at ease the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students were with sharing their community with them. Through the filming process, t he US students observed that the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students grew increasingly comfort able with sharing their community as the project sequ ence encouraged an emerging leve l of creativity and innovation. S ubsequently the US students observed how decisions were made to apply this emerging creativity and innovation through the process activities. As a result, the US students were able to shed light on the value of each increment in the project sequence as a product of encouraging and negotiation creativity in the process so that the project sequence becomes embraced by the project participants. The US students note d that as the Sekolah Meneng ah Pertama students evolved their understanding of the project sequence their level of commitment increased. With this evolved understanding came more outgoing attempts to engage others in the process. The US students note d that the Sekolah Menengah Per tama students willingly approached different community members to ask that they participate in the films in roles that they had specifically cast for notable figures in the Ubud landscape. These include d farmers, the duckman, and their parents, among othe rs. Part of engaging those outside of the process required that the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students explain not only that they were from the village (as they had to obtain the trust of the individual whom they were trying to get to participate), but th ey also had to explain the process and the role that that person would play in the film. Similarly, the US students
150 had to go through this process with nearly every different activity in the project sequence all the while seeking the trust of the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students. By explaining the process to those community members whom the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students sought out as part of their films instilled a sense of confidence in their understanding of the process, because to explain the pro cess to someone not involved required them to frame it in a way that was understandable to the person whom they were talking to. In addition to this one way explanation, the students were able to participate in more of an on going dialogue with their pare nts throughout the process. Part of this can be attributed to the fact that their parents knew that they were involved took unfinished activities home with them after t he afternoon working sessions, so parents also gained awareness of the project through the different activities in the project sequence The US students note that the parents were really involved at the filming stage, arguably because they were aware of t he process throughout. In a few instances parents were cast in roles in the films, and also provided food, drinks, and transportation back and forth between sites where scenes for the films were shot. While the US students were surprised to find this l evel of involvement by the Sekolah Menengah Pertama involvement that had apparently been on going, unbeknownst to the US students prior to filming, actually helped establish a level of comfort an d rapport for the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students in having the US students follow them around their villages during filming.
151 The US students comment ed on the noticeable level of comfort that emerged as the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students took the US students through their village on the day of filming Arguably contributing to this level of comfort was the degree of focus that the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students exhibited toward the task at hand. In fact, the US students were surprised that the S ekolah Menengah Pertama students did not deviate from tasks throughout the entire project sequence but especially on the day that filming occurred. It is important to note that film ing day was the first time that the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students and the US students had worked together outside of the afternoon working session environment at Sekolah Menengah Pertama The US students note d that the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students shared their culture through the places where the different scenes were shot, overtly. This was characterized by the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students refraining from much dialogue with the US students especially about the places they were going. Yet despite the lack of dialogue, the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students seeme d very comfortable walking through their villages and the paddy fields with the US students What many of the US students speculated was whether the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students realized how very different the experience was for them as well as none of the US students much of the filming took place prior to the day of filming. In the process of this overt sharing of culture, the US students recognized that the Sekolah Menengah Pertama student s were not used to sharing their homes with others who came from outside of Ubud. Arguably the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students recognized that they were ultimately part of something bigger in terms of oral traditions and the norms associated
152 with commun icating culture, as the participants of the follow up discussion from the film screening acknowledged. Perhaps this overt expression is a result of the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students ultimately knowing their role in the hierarchy of oral traditions, an d while they were working in a capacity outside of their typical role within that hierarchy, they were still playing host to their culture. Interestingly, while the US students noticed that the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students oftentimes did not know wha t to make of the role of the US students the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students Ubud on the day of filming. The US students noticed that the Sekolah Menengah Pertama stud ents were polite to the point of being subservient to tourists. The Sekolah Menengah Pertama students also comment ed on some of the ambiguity that the day of filming brought about, not in terms of the ambiguity between the Sekolah Menengah Pertama studen ts and the US students but between the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students and other people whom they interacted with in Ubud as a result of being with the US students As a result of this association, the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students noted that they had problems gainin g access to the Monkey Forest on the day of the filming and had to negotiate to get in, when locals usually get in for free. So what the filming had been noted to do, both from the perspectives of the US students and the Sekolah Menenga h Pertama students, was to bring about some ambiguity among roles not only introspectively, but also within the existing social and cultural norms in Ubud, as well as how others perceived these roles when they were grouped with outsiders. This aligns with the caricatures that often wove
153 their way into the films to the point of hyperbolizing certain roles and characters that are Thus, the level of creativity and innovation that emerged throughout the process c an arguably be attributed to an increased understanding in the project sequence that resulted in a greater comfort of sharing place. The US students noted that the more apparent the activities in the project sequence became toward transitioning the narrat ive into the films, the more deliberate the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students were in not only their creativity, but their commitment to fleshing out their ideas so that they most closely approximated what they had envisioned. Early on in the project sequ ence the US students noted that the majority of the graphics were drawn by the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students, although at the early stages in the project sequence they had a tendency to copy styles or examples provided by students from either the Univ ersity of Florida or Udayana University. Furthermore, while both groups of University students theoretically carried equal weight in the project sequence the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students tended to seek graphic approval from the US students over and above the Udayana University students However, the US students note that while the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students did tend to rely on examples (either graphic or narrative) to instigate their understanding of a certain activity, all of the supporting d ialogue was a product of the Sekolah Menengah Pertama collaboration between the pair in each production team. Thus, the s ituated dialogue that emerges in the film as a result of its evolution in the project sequence transformed from casually sha ring place (where oftentimes students from the University of Florida and Udayana University were contributing a good portion of the graphics) to being hard
154 lined in sequential scene form that would ultimately turn into d ialogue. The US students attribute this transition to the stories communicated in the films to becoming their story of place, only facilitated with the help of the two groups of university students. This begs the question of how were decisions made among the production teams, b ut more specifically between the two Sekolah Menengah Pertama students within each production team. Although the US students note d that top down approval was sought from them, and it was also noted that at times it was difficult to get the Sekolah Menenga h Pertama students started on an activity in the project sequence the US students were not particularly necessary once the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students became engaged in an activity. This also casts into relief the role of the US students in the enti re project sequence particularly with respect to their understanding of that role as it changed, evolved, and diminished throughout the project sequence In questioning their own role in the process, the US students also questioned if the decisions made by the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students within the different activities in the project sequence were made on the basis of working toward the filming stage, or if these decisions were more short sighted and pertained only to the activity at hand. While th e US students were not able to conclusively agree on how short sighted or cumulative decisions made by the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students were, what was more apparent to them was the cumulative value that each increment in the project sequence amassed. The US students question ed whether the decisions made by the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students at the storyboard stage were made based on the fact that filming would proceed that process. However, it should be noted that the storyboards in
155 and of th emselves (with the help of additional typed scripts that the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students tended to bring along for the filming of each scene ) the storyboards were still remained a successful segue from developing the narrative to filming individual scenes. Because the US students could not gauge the short sighted versus cumulative nature of decisions made throughout the project sequence the US students remarked that each activity in and of itself had value to the project sequence This was particu larly noted by the US students insofar as the material that the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students came back with when they took work home overnight indicated that they understood what it needed to resemble in order to move onto the next step. More broadly the US students remained unsure not only of their role in the project sequence but also the intent of the process. As a result, the interpretation from the US students as they were situated in the communication cascade, did not always align with what the process was supposed to resemble. In following up with the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students on some of these discrepancies, it can generally be concluded that the lack of understanding among the US students did not hinder how the project sequence was administered nor the content for each activity that the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students produced. Follow Up Discussion with Sekolah Menengah Pertama Students 24 The Sekolah Menengah Pertama students add another layer to the insight s gleaned from the previous two follow up discussions. It is important to note that the questions guiding the follow up discussion with the Sekolah Menengah Pertama 24 Questions asked and dialogue translated by Arya Adiartha to Jocelyn Widmer. Notes were transcribed by Jocelyn Widmer on May 27, 2009. All quotations from this section are taken from the notes transcribed by Joc elyn Widmer during the follow up discussion with the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students.
156 students were developed after the follow up discussion with those who attended the film screening and the US students to investigate some of the points of contention between direct observations and the responses voiced in the follow up discussions. The follow up discussion with the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students was primarily interested in their commentary on how decisions were made and what inspired their creativity in what was deemed by the people who participated in the discussion following the film screening as an indoctrinated process of scenarios but also (and perhaps more proactively) is what they would hope to explore further now that the process framed their ability to comment on development pressures in Ubud. In general, the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students all agreed that they enjoyed the process, especially those parts where they were able to draw and be creative. Both groups communicated that there were parts of the process that were confusing to them, but it seems as if those times were quickly balanced out by activities that they enjoyed. The narrative development phase of the process was agree d upon by both groups as the most confusing part of the process for the participants. While the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students agreed that the phases in the project sequence that might have been unclear to them at the time of the activity made better s ense to them once they finally saw all of the films together. It is important to note that the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students did not view the entire collection of films until the public screening. Not only did the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students en joy showing off their individual films, but they enjoyed how many of the stories were created and produced in the other films. What came through in talking about the film content in its entirety with the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students is that they appr eciated the
157 freedom to create some scenes in the films that were drastically out of context to emphasize their point. While this may be one of the arguments that the participants in the follow up discussion after the film screening expressed; for the Seko lah Menengah Pertama students, the ability to cast roles in their films to exaggerate some of the issues related to development and tourism in Ubud allowed them not only to incorporate some of the US students into the films (as tourists and developers), bu t it also gave them a village landscape. The Sekolah Menengah Pertama students did not see these roles as an exaggeration of reality in their films. However, where they did find fault with how some of the subthemes had to be explored was when scenes were drastically out of context or in the wrong season. For instance, the paddy planting and harvesting scenes were shot out of context because it was not the season to plan t or harvest rice in Ubud. The Sekolah Menengah Pertama students were not directly involved with coming up with the list of film subthemes. Had they been more directly involved with that process, the list of identified subthemes may not have had this iss ue of context. Inevitably the project sequence involved moments when decisions were made for the participants, and the process proceeded assuming that the participants would carry on with the effects of these decisions. It is thus noteworthy that the Sek olah Menengah Pertama students identified some of these moments where decisions were made for them and identified some of the cultural and contextual issues that arose as a result. Within each production team, the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students agr eed that decisions were either made based on the pair of Sekolah Menengah Pertama students negotiating with each other based on discussion, whereas other pairs played
158 Sekolah Menengah Pertama students leading the way and the o ther following along. This suggests the level of creativity and subsequent ownership that the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students felt toward the process and the resulting products. Among the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students, there was a noticeable intere st in cultural production, as noted by the US students throughout the process. In fact, many of the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students were part of a band. First looking into creativity between the University student exchange with the Sekolah Menengah Per tama students, the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students noted that they relied on the Udayana University students mostly for translation, but not necessarily for idea generation. Furthermore, the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students noted that while students fr om both the University of Florida and Udayana University offered ideas, they recognized that it was ultimately up to the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students whether they took these ideas and developed them. One area where the Sekolah Menengah Pertama studen ts agreed that they solicited the help of the university students was for ideas for film production; or more specifically, how to create scenes that were more dynamic than just the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students speaking their rehearsed lines. Between the groups of Sekolah Menengah Pertama students, most agreed that Thus, someone had to initiate the exchange before groups would freely share their ideas among the other Sekolah Menengah Pertama students. In general, the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students expressed that they did not even think to take ideas from other groups because they were so focused on making their films unique between the
159 pair of Sekolah Menengah Per tama students. Interestingly, the pairs of Sekolah Menengah Pertama students were assembled based on their proximity to living together. Many of the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students revealed that they would not have picked their partner had they been gi ven the choice, and many of the pairings were not that familiar with each other prior to the process but became so throughout the project sequence Thus, while the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students agreed that there was an equal sharing of the responsibil ities among the pairs, and despite their exclusivity of ideas between pairs, they all adamantly agreed that they would have liked to see more people involved in the process to spread the workload around. The Sekolah Menengah Pertama students wer e interested in seeing more people involved in the process. The students noted that while only a few of them participated in the process, many of their friends and family were aware of the process and the individual activities. Parents of the Sekolah Men engah Pertama students were aware of the process because of the informed consent they had to sign to allow their children to participate. The Sekolah Menengah Pertama students noted that their parents were expose their children to students from Sekolah Menengah Pertama students confirmed that they talked to their families throughout the process about the process to get a response about the film topics from others with more experience presumably those older generations who typically initiate the telling of oral histories. In addition to having more of their families involved, the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students also expressed interest in havin g their siblings and friends involved to create bigger groups to help with the workload of the activities.
160 While the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students noted that the process did overtly include others, mainly family and friends who helped out when the Se kolah Menengah Pertama students took work related to the process home, they argue that there were a number of different groups not involved in the process that should have been. The Sekolah Menengah Pertama students challenged the process and the content of the films because the subject of the film in many cases, the paddy farmer, was not formally involved in participating. A few groups, including the Duckman and Harvest films, did ask rice farmers who were working the paddy fields on the day of filming t o contribute, and in doing so were able to weave diverse perspectives beyond theirs into the films, which the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students believed contributed by better sharing their village through the film narratives. As noted by the US st udents the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students admitted that while they were happy to share their villages and homes with the US students on the day of filming, they were initially shy in the process of showing. As their comfort level grew in sharing signi ficant (and often private) spaces with the US students through the day that filming took place, many times the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students noted that they were the ones responsible for negotiating to get into the Monkey Forest, or who would initiate conversations with the paddy farmers of shop merchants who would later be included in the films. The Sekolah Menengah Pertama students noted that they became more comfortable sharing these places with the US students the more they were able to engage othe rs in Ubud in the process on the day of filming. By the end of the process, the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students agreed that they would have liked to have shared other important places outside of their village with the US
161 students a feeling they would no t have had prior to getting to know them throughout the project sequence As a result, there became an exchange between what was similar to the places that were shared in the films from Ubud and those places that the US students could draw comparisons to from their homes (primarily in Florida). Thus, this exchange of sharing places was framed through the narrative developed in the films, as a swapping of stories about places most intimate to both the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students and the US students The Sekolah Menengah Pertama students agreed that filming was the most important part of the process because it was a unique method to publicize material and to show this to others. They explored this idea further by claiming that more people would pre fer to watch a film than read a book or take in any other means of communicating issues that the films present. In addition to the films being a unique way to communicate some of the development pressures facing Ubud, the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students added that what contributed to this distinctiveness was the fact that they were also in the films. For the first time in many cases, this was also an opportunity for the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students to watch themselves in the films. The Sekolah Men engah Pertama students agree that the films would not have turned out the way that they did had they not completed some of the activities throughout the project sequence Thus, the product became an evolution of the process. The Sekolah Menengah Pertama students did not wholeheartedly embrace the films, however. They noted that there was room for improvement at distinct junctures in the process. While the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students joked that they thought
162 acting classes would have improved their performance in the films, and thus the film quality, acting classes were suggested because they Sekolah Menengah Pertama students thought that this would have helped them to look agreed upon that sound quality was poor in parts of the films, so they could not confirm that the films turned out exactly as they thought they would as a result of the poor sound quality. Regardless, the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students would have liked to have shown the films again in a bigger place, but only if the films were re edited so that the sound quality was improved and were shown again, the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students claimed they would be eager not only to show the films again, but also to explain the process and all of the hard work that went into making the films. And beyond showing the films in Ubud, the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students that the message on saving the sawah In general, the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students agreed that films could be improved with better organization, more time and if they were able to better explain the process to their families and friends This would be possible now with their recognizably increased understanding in issues and challenges associated with development pressures at the village landscape scale i n Ubud. As a result of this increased understanding, the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students reflected that they would have liked to have chosen more themes relevant to development pressures in Ubud that they were aware of. These include topics related to climate change, as well as topics that connected were more specific to Bali as an island. For instance, topics about resource
163 conservation, rising sea levels, the rainforest, culture, littering, beaches, mountains, pollution, traffic, globalization, and t he development easements around the temples. Broadly, these observations by the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students reflect their increasing understanding of the process, having now participated in it, and specific increments through the process where their unique perspective could have better Sekolah Menengah Pertama students expressed confidence in their creative potential to explore ideas that had subsequently emerged as a resu lt of participating in the landscape filming process. Interpretations I n interpreting the external and internal observations made throughout the process, i t is important to note that there can be many alternative logics to the sequence in explaining the matic similarities and differences (Richards 200 5 ). Yet what the three follow up discussion s reveal are three distinct perspectives on the project sequence leading up to the landscape films Embedded in these perspectives are feelings about sharing plac e, how place then comes to be shared, and what these different interpretations of the project sequence articulate about control of a process that was initiated by a group external to the community of Ubud. This is important as it reveals how (or even if) a process such as this can be initiated in places other than Bali. That is, how context specific did the project sequence have to become throughout the process to engage participation to the point that the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students were able to co mment on landscape change at the village landscape scale of Ubud? In answering this question it is important to consider how polluted the landscape narratives became as a result of the project sequence that was coordinated and
164 facilitated by groups outsid e of the village of Ubud. The follow up discussions reveal a certain tension in answering this question among the different groups contributing to the discussions. For those who attended the film screening, the project sequence was seen as disruptive to an oral traditions norm that are oriented around village elders disseminating stories of place in a top down approach. However, for the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students, this was a new opportunity for them, age having deferred their role in oral traditio ns until much later in life. So while the process progressed at a rate equal to their understanding of certain issues and concepts related to spatial change at a certain scale, the novelty of the experience could be argued as sustaining their involvement and commitment to the process. Finally, what should be gleaned from the questions posed to each follow up discussion group is not that the line of inquiry was aimed at legitimizing or authenticating the particular stories that were told, but in understand ing how different groups contribute different interpretations both in the project sequence and in what is made of the resulting product. Limitations This research poses practical and methodological limitations both in how the data is interpreted, as well as how generalizable the findings are toward future replications of the research in different contexts. From a practical standpoint, there were a number of logistical issues that could not be worked out prior to arriving in Bali in May 2009, but ins As a result, the activities associated with the project sequence had to be adapted to accommodate c learly evident until after activities had been planned. Thus, while t he framework for producing the landscape films was kept intact many of the details were subject to
165 change based on Sekolah Menengah Pertama availability on a daily basis In addition to these practical limitations of conducting the research in Ubud, there are also methodological limitations imposed by the participatory research approach. Participation by an Identified Group was designed to consider participation as it was applied through a specific process. Therefore, the totality of the explanation with regards to participation by a certain group within Ubud cannot be expanded beyond any group but the Sekolah Menengah Perta ma students. While the research intended to consider participation by only the community youth in Ubud, the project sequence was set up to not only engage one sample of community youth, but also sub groupings to further understand how the participatory pr ocess worked with regards to producing the landscape films However, the large group size required to create ten production teams and the subsequent complex demands necessary to coordinate so many people made it difficult to gauge levels of involvement wi thin the small group dynamics. Interestingly, the two groups affected by this large study population (the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students and the US students ) had competing interpretations of the number of people necessary to produce a collection of lan dscape films While the US students felt that the four member production teams were adequate, the Sekolah Menengah Pertama student repeatedly communicated that they would have liked to have more of their friends and family directly involved to share some of the workload. Balancing these two internal responses with my external observations, appropriateness of production group size was not necessarily something that was evident.
166 In participatory research, researchers acknowledge that they are firml y embedded into the project sequence, as was my involvement with the project sequence This is one limitation on the data analysis, as my interpretations of the data are a product of also having coordinated the project design and implementation in Ubud. While this research design specified four different sources of data (the landscape films and the three follow up discussions), the data was still collected from one point in time from each sou rce. In summary, participation generates a politicized response that is very much a product of the facilitation process, which was partly planned and coordinated by the researcher in this study. Finally, it is important to note that because of time constraints in the field, and the l andscape films function as a product of a participatory process, this research instigates (and investigates) action rather than implement action. As a result, the project analysis makes no attempt to assess its worth in terms of long term implementation i ndicators. Time The project coordination team and the Sekolah Menengah Pertama student participants both repeatedly referenced the limited amount of time available for the landscape film process. As a result, the highly structured nature of the project timeline, as well the limited availability of the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students led at certain moments throughout the project sequence This was a general consen sus that was articulated in the follow up discussions with the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students. Ideally students from the University of Florida and Udayana University would be positioned to more quickly facilitate their understanding, but it was difficu lt to budget
167 time toward this understanding having not had any prior experience working with the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students. It is also worth noting that the calculated nature of the project timeline, while essential to ensuring the project was cap able of producing the landscape films facilitate the process. However, the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students were quick to compensate by taking their work unfinished from various acti vities in the project sequence home with them each evening. While time limited the Sekolah Menengah Pertama consistently grasp where the project sequence was headed, they recognized that as a result of them not understanding th e progression toward making films, their ideas and creativity were not developed to its full potential. Had they been able to apply the level of creativity exhibited throughout the project sequence toward activities that they clearly understood the purpos e and intent of, the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students argued that they would have potentially explored other ideas that might have been more interesting or relevant to them as community youth. The Sekolah Menengah Pertama students felt that the limited t ime of the project sequence did not allow their creativity to naturally evolve, so at times the content created through each activity in the project sequence was forced. While the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students did express some dissatisfaction in their level of creativity as a product of them not always understanding the intent of the project sequence they did notice that their creativity increased the further they got into the process and understood the progression toward producing the landscape films
168 Challenges with Replication From the Sekolah Menengah Pertama limitations and their ability to engage their creativity to its fullest potential, it is worth noting the exceptional nature of this group of stude nts from Ubud. Their level of engagement and enthusiasm throughout the entire process was instrumental in gauging the success of the landscape films To replicate this research poses a number of challenges, beginning with the caliber of participants that we were able to collaborate with from the Sekolah Menengah Pertama Engaging the p articipation of a specific group is most often tied to the context in which the participation is engaged. As a result, the question arises if this process could be impleme nted elsewhere, with all other things being equal except the project context. & Collier 2001 p. 529). Context is highly applicable to understanding the phenomena produced by the landscape filming process in Ubud, but also in understanding how the process might compared across different regions of the world, as well as scaling the project u p & Collier 2001 p. 534), as is especially consistent in Indonesia. Among many participatory meth ods, there is a recurring tension between context specificity and universality of the method. As an emerging method, participatory video relies on context specificity, which many argue is one methodological constraint of the technology (Shaw & Robertson 1997). However, to root a method in context, and to subsequently attempt to validate the method, as the landscape filming process does in
169 this research, requires that the method establish equivalence among observations (Adcock & Collier 2001). Thus, by considering the participation of one identified group landscape by way of a participatory process, this research aims to echo these perceptions against other community me mbers of Ubud who share the same physical landscape, but who have arguably different experiences and perceptions based on (Adcock & Collier 2001) are very much wrapped up in the cultural heritage traditions of Bali and the Balinese landscape, as was the design of the participatory process itself; but by obtaining a balanced round of feedback based on the process and product of the landscape films this research stands to m ore appropriately engage participation that is situated in a method that is at once spatial, te chnological, and participatory. Additional Considerations for Undertaking Participatory Research The working framework for participation applied in this study s parks additional questions about participation that further help shape the research method. Questioning the role of the researcher and the researcher as part of a larger, interdisciplinary collection of disciplines committed to participatory development s trategies are explored in the following section. Role of the Researcher Researchers engaging in participatory development strategies are increasingly re inventing their role in the participatory process to arrive at a sequence of coordination, facilitat ion and collaboration that is ultimately supported at the local level (Stringer, 2007) If done properly, participatory processes should be culturally derived to sustain both the resources and identities linked to a place. S ituating development efforts in a
170 cultural context is not solely an exercise for outside experts, however. Questions of authenticity and legitimacy arise when development projects do not evolve organically around the existing cultural context in place. Furthermore, how to sustain a project that is the product of an outsider after the development team departs becomes a legitimate concern. To strive toward legitimacy and sustainability, it is important that the project recognizes the limitations of participation and does not extend th e findings beyond what is appropriate to the context and to the participants. Finally, d evelopment strategies that champion one local voice over others ( or even dissent) cannot fully articulate existing conditions as they really are (Sen, 1999) The Rel ated Disciplines As developing communities evolve to meet the challenges of the accelerated rate of change brought on by external forces, l andscape architects and planners are particularly equipped to facilitate this process. Trained to envision change sp atially, these disciplines in particular can comprehend and reach out to the very people who are part of the existing and historic conditions with the intent to improve upon their quality of life. Where these two disciplines have historically fallen short is in what they have traditionally assumed as constants. In their effort to consider nuanced variables specific to the built and natural environment, often the social variables that are associated with the physical landscape remain less explored. To mov e past descriptive research that explanatory studies that explore questions of why these socia l problems exist as they do. In moving from descriptive research to explanatory research there is a certain tension between context specificity and generalizing the research findings. This study
171 situated within the disciplines of landscape architecture a nd planning initiates a movement toward explanatory research through a specific participatory approach, while at the same time questioning if a participatory method drawing upon the cultural traditions of Bali, Indonesia, can be generalized to other contex ts.
172 Figure 4 1 Goreng Group on May 19, 2009. Screen capture taken from video footage filmed by the Nasi Goren g Group on May 20, 2009] (Bali Field School, 2009)
173 Figure 4 2 Screen Capture from Cycles Film footage filmed by the Cycles Group on May 20, 2 009] (Bali Field School, 2009)
174 Figure 4 3 Screen Capture from Cycles Film footage filmed by the Cycles Group on May 20, 2009] (Bali Field Sch ool, 2009)
175 Figure 4 4 Screen Capture from Duckman Film footage filmed by the Duckman Group on May 20, 2009] (Bali Field School, 2009)
176 Figure 4 5 capture taken from video footage filmed by the Harvest Group on May 20, 2009] (Bali Field School, 2009)
177 F igure 4 6 capture taken from video footage filmed by the Harvest Group on May 20, 2009] (Bali Field School, 2009 )
178 Figure 4 7 (Bali Field School, 2009)
179 Figure 4 8 icu lation [Screen capture taken from video footage filmed by the Duckman Group on May 20, 2009] (Bali Field School, 2009)
180 CHAPTER 5 IMPLICATIONS This dissertation poses much needed critical reflection of the increments of spatiall y situated participatory methods using an emerging technology. In working through this critical reflection, it becomes appropriate to begin to question when participation become s a collaborative process, and then how this might be significant to developme nt activities. All too often we stop prematurely in our line of inquiry, asking only if participation worked or did not work, when in fact this outcome oriented approach to participation fails to assess the impacts of the participatory process and what in fluences these impacts along the project sequence Participation is as much about the inherent nature of participants as it is about the enabling environment fostered by the participatory process. In addition to questioning the role of participants or th e value of participation, we need to move to question the role of the project facilitators, the quality of communication between facilitators and participants, and most importantly, the validity of participation amidst this process. When we can balance wh y people participate with their actual role as participants in research and/or practice, that seems to be the moment when participants embrace the process, and thus the process becomes a collaborative effort. At the intersection of where global and local meet on the community heritage landscape, as underrepresented groups gain more agency, and as development challenges are approached from top down and lateral forces coming together, precedent and other objective standards are not equipped to deal with thi s shift, and can in fact lead to impasse. The participatory approach coupled with the use of technology is an opportunity to modify traditional participatory community processes
1 81 (e.g. community mapping) Precedent and objective standards are not getting us closer to understanding the nuances of participation as they play out at multiple scales. P articipation works differently in varying cultures and political contexts, and the right to o r participate meaningfully (Mohan 2000). To develop this capacity necessitates following a participatory trajectory by which the concepts of development pressures and community consciousness evolve simultaneously through the introduction of multiple scal es and multiple levels of participation. The natural gravitation that participation excites toward collaboration when culture and development challenges are approached in tandem using technologies at appropriate scales allows the potentially connective po wers of culture (Young 2008) across time and space to integrate and manage development demands. Diversifying Participation As participation has become increasingly mainstreamed in dev elopment projects, there has been a move to increase public partici pation in decision making amidst the tension that exists between diversifying participation and the satisfaction of this growing numbers of diverse participants (Thompson et al. 2005). While the value of including diverse groups is a cornerstone of now w idely accepted community oriented approaches to development (Thompson et al. 2005), participation requires reciprocity between project facilitators and participants (Davis & Reid 1999). Participatory development seeks to understand the lives of the peop le participating by involving them in the development process and & Reid 1999 p. 757S). Nevertheless, bringing together certain groups of participants can create
182 et al. 2005 p. 54). Thus the challenge for participation to have meaningful and long lasting impacts is to make strong links between these two contexts the real wor ld and the facilitated environment. In the process of establishing the connection between the real world of project participants and the facilitated world that assembles participants together for the purpose of a project, it is important to arrest the tendency to make assumptions about the group of participants according to their perceived interests and positions. There is an overriding tendency in participatory development projects to divvy up interests and positions into clear, concise, and exclusive categories, thereby ignoring the naturally occurring overlap and/or diversity that may exist among an assembled group of participants ( or those who may be absent from the participatory process altogether ) While the group of community youth participants could be characterized as students attending the Sekolah Menengah Pertama, this was not the only way of characterizing this group, nor were all of the students at Sekolah Menengah Pertama involved in the project sequence. Religious beliefs and the locatio n of their homes in relationship to the heart of Ubud are just a few of the characteristics that further diversified the group of community youth that participated in the project. When we cast people in certain roles based on more exclusive categories, 25 w hether in our minds or in the way we frame the participatory process, we are not encouraging unbridled participation. This study examined the participatory process from the standpoint of one discrete group, adolescents. Adolescents offer a unique point of entry into understanding the impacts of participation through development projects. As a group, they are usually 25 For example, community youth as separate and distinct from other roles that might characterize individuals in the group.
183 already organized into some larger social structure. This most often is through school, as was the case of this project but it does not ne cessarily have to be ( Bernard, 2000; Patton, 2002) on the surface because the organizational system that brings them to the participatory process often requires them to do so. In t he case of youth participants in the landscape filming process, their participation could be deemed a requirement because their parents gave consent, which in a sense obliged them to the process under the structure of the afternoon cultural sessions at Sek olah Menengah Pertama But what sustained their involvement in the project so that participation did not grow stale? While this question cannot be answered outright based on the data collected for this study, any number of factors shed some light, includ ing the interest garnered by the activities of the project sequence and the lure of producing landscape films. I t must also be mentioned Covarrubias 1946 p. 11) in their cultural heritage, and it is intuitive for them to play host to disseminating its legacy. Because children are almost always organized into a group structure, it may be easy to assemble them under the framework of a participatory process ( Bernard, 2000; Patton, 2002) How ever, it is not as easy to assemble their interests and positions toward a particular issue. Beyond their common enrollment at Sekolah Menengah Pertama the participatory process and the landscape films both reveal the diversity that exists among this gro up of twenty community youth from Ubud and the surrounding villages. T his group reflected a continuum from living in rural to urban areas. As a result of their spatial proximity to Ubud, a whole host of other variables began to stratify
184 the group, from i ndependence from their parents, association with the sawah involvement in extracurricular activities, and many more. Thus, organizing otherwise unorganized groups of parti cipants lends itself to some of the cultural issues for parties & Wondolleck 2003 p. 44). As one should avoid homogenizing people when working with participatory groups and not Jonsson 2008 p. 133), it is equally important to not homogenizing places or time. Instead, facilitators should strive to appropriately navigate their insertion, involvement, and removal f rom these diverse places The process of producing these landscape films was dynamic and changing based on different circumstances related to context and the participants. Y et one of the main determinants of the participatory process was the participants increasing attempts to reveal their perceptions of development pressures amidst this changing context In the case of the landscape films individual and group motivations were Botes & Rensburg 2000 p. 52). Thus, it took going through the process that was locally informed in part by the preparat ion of the project coordinators and also continually informed by what the participants offered up each day. Participation emanated (a nd spatially informed context defined at a certain scale. While development literature and practice critically examines participation to understand its complexities based on a n increasingly diverse cross section of participants (Beard 2005; Silver 2007; Wollenberg
185 et al. 2005), scale warrants similar scrutiny to better understand development pressures that exist across spatial and temporal increments. Relevance of S c ale in Articulating Development Pressures Context is spatial and ideological, and is defined at a specific scale (Daniels & Walker 2001 p. 148). Scale does not adhere to an exact measurement, but becomes a utilitarian product of human occupation, functi on, and use that varies as a culture adapts and evolves from external forces at work. In the contemporary cultural landscape of Ubud, scale is a spatial and cultural construct that closely aligns with traditional distributions of land and meanings associa ted with the Ubud landscape. Add the elements of location o n to a historic community in which heritage is tied to the landscape, and this overlay creates new layer s of significance Worldviews that derive from this heritage are then a comprehensive set of values organized hierarchically that reflect cultural identity. C ontext becomes the organizing framework for understanding and reconciling cultural identities. The Balinese worldview is not static, but evolves as the context evolves under emergent cha llenges. In Bali, these challenges are not new, but have been absorbed into the Balinese world view, and have in many ways become a core element of the Balinese identity (Putnam & Wondolleck 2003). For instance, tourism and the economic livelihood that the tourism market provides for many residents of Ubud cannot necessarily be distinguished from their identity, but rather has been absorbed into the indigenous culture. While this cultural identity undoubtedly aligns in many ways with the development pre ssures facing Ubud, it is important to recognize that different actors will et al. 2004 p. 178).
186 Furthermore, the very resources (rice fields) under question have multiple and natural and cultural resources the traditional orientation toward these resources that is influenced by the social and political & Walker 2001 p. 151). Thus, to accommodate the real and probable change to these resources and systems of resources, it is necessa ry to understand at what scale these resources have meaning to particular groups involved in articulati ng the effects of this change on their cultural identity. In the developing world, landscape change is inevitable. However, the effects of landscape c hange are not necessarily universal, and will impose unique and distinct impacts at varying scales and across different groups affected by the change. Similarly, this change can be manifested tangibly, th rough the physical alteration of the landscape, or intangibly, through the ways that traditions, behaviors, or land uses need to be adjusted. In Bali, not only is scale a complex combination of the global, local, island, and national scales coming together but the scale of landscape change is at once aff ected by the global, local, island and national scales. If this change is going to affect the lives of the communities that inhabit these landscapes, then specific groups within the communities need to participate in the processes that considers and influ ences this change. Landscape change at the village scale is a reality in Ubud. Communicating scale in terms of resources (cultural and natural) and development pressures on these resources need s to align with the s cale of the dominant world view. Doing so enables development challenges and their solutions to resonate with those most integrated into the context.
187 Communication Competency and Scale There are three important characteristics of competence in communicating challenges associated with natural an d cultural resources: adaptability, appropriateness, and effectiveness (Daniels & Walker 2001). All three of these characteristics wove their way into the project sequence so that it was evolutionary rather than prescriptive in nature. T he project seq uence adapted scale. Not only was it important that the project facilitators adapt their articulation of landscape and sc ale (through the delivery and facilitation of activities in the project sequence) to align with the participants, but it was also necessary that this adaptation was a result of understanding how the participants were grappling with such contexts at differe nt moments throughout the project sequence To ensure that spatial change at the village landscape scale was not imposed on the participants, the project facilitation considered not only the ongoing dialogue among production teams, but also how this spati al change in Ubud was depicted in graphic, narrative, and digital forms. W hile narrative or text based forms created a leader/follower situation (as observed by the Sekolah Menengah Pertama student in their follow up discussion), activities that were imag e based (as observed in both the graphic and filming stages of the project sequence ) were more collaborative These three different forms used throughout the project sequence dynamics depending on whether the form was graphic, narrative, or digital. Secondly, the project sequence evolved so that communication of spatial change at the village landscape scale was appropriate to the group of project participants. In
188 this sense, the p roject sequence is unique to other participatory video projects in developing world contexts (Lunch and Lunch, 2006). This was especially invoked in the transition from traditional community mapping techniques that identified places project particip ants l iked and disliked toward developing a narrative about these spaces. Channeling this transition through the use of age appropriate and context specific subthemes related to the sawah enabled each group to individually explore spatial change through the len s of a particular topic. It is especially through these subthemes where both the tangible and intangible spatial change comes through. Finally, effectiveness is a tenet of communication competency as defined by Daniels and Walker (2001). While effectiv eness is the most subjective characteristic of competent communication, there are two hallmarks of the project that stand to support the effectiveness of communication throughout the project sequence As detailed in Chapter Three, the project sequence yie lds ten landscape films of equal quality where the content can be almost exactly traced to the storyboards, which became graphic translations from the narrative development, which are themselves and extension of the Places I Like / Places I Dislike activit y, (albeit through the lens of a particular subtheme). More substantially, however, is one of the points that was made in the follow up discussions with both the US students and the Sekolah Menengah Pertama student. It was in these sessions where the pro ject participants articulated that it was not the language barrier between Bahasa Indonesia and English that made communication a challenge, but it was going through the process that framed spatial change at the village landscape scale that ultimately gave the participants the space and language to articulate how they assess this landscape change within Ubud. Because we do not
189 landscape scale is undoubtedly a challenge (Dewulf et al. 2004 p. 185). This challenge is most effectively approached when communication between project facilitators and participants embraces the sources of this complexity to include differences and deeply held values and world views (Daniels & Walker 2001). The project facilitators and participants held different world views and understandings of spatial change in Ubud. But we cannot take for granted what others might or might now know, and must also be mindful of the hidden knowledge, or mo re specifically, that knowledge not communicated. The use of issue framing, then, becomes an effective means by which to communicate, and thus align what were originally divergent views of scale. Using Frames to Communicate Scale Framing is a process of communicating the world around us by shaping, focusing, and organizing this world (Gray 2003). Frames are not permanent and t hrough framing, participants produce meanings (Dewulf et al. 2004). Thus, f raming becomes a way of creating an interpretation o f the world around us. Throughout the project sequence and especially early in the process, certain terms were not especially meaningful was one of these terms that was not commonly understood by the project part icipants. Yet using frames in the project sequence necessitated the project participants to make sense of these unfamiliar terms through connecting them with more familiar frames. Through the give and take of the project sequence while the process was a lways moving forward, the pace at which participants grew to understand spatial change at the village landscape scale did not compromise the integrity of its meaning as a manifestation of their own identity. Thus,
190 framing the initial project sequence and then allowing the increments within this process to shape, focus, and organize the participants understanding and articulation of this spatial change in Ubud, the participants created an interpretation of what this change meant to them and how they envis ion ed its potential impacts. It is not necessarily what framing the project sequence accomplished that is their own meaning about spatial change at the village landscape scale. At the beginning of the project sequence the community mapping activities revealed that the participants were aware of their own place in the system, but it was through the project sequence that the participants increasingly became aware of their relationship to the whole a system that they discovered is not necessarily in equilibrium. Through this discovery, the group of community youth revealed their commitment to aligning with the ideological assumptions, values, and norms of their cu lture, as was articulated both in the concerns voiced in the film content, and also supported by the discussion that followed the film screening. Yet the participants also discovered that their identity as community youth has both strength and salience. Strength insofar as they took the project sequence and produced a collection of landscape films framing their views and concerns about spatial change at the village landscape scale; and salience insofar as community y outh with their identity grounded in th e village landscape have the unique ability to resonate with multiple generations. This interconnectedness of frames is what is important if the concerns articulated by the community youth are to gain momentum in further development discussions. The thr eat to these frames comes when the frames become disconnected in a larger framed context, where the frames no longer hold their
191 significance (Dewulf et al. 2004). Thus, scaling up is at once a challenge yet a necessity if the process is to be applied to broader contexts. As project coordinators and facilitators, we framed the issues relating to spatial change at the village landscape scale. Therefore, we produced certain meanings associated with scale, resources, systems, and development that had n ot been framed in that particular way for the participants before. Furthermore, we framed the issues as a way to guide and direct the project sequence without which it would not have proceeded along the trajectory that it took. Dealing with differences in fra ming the project sequence had to be done quickly while keeping the interaction in motion, as well as keeping an eye on where the interaction is headed (Dewulf et al. 2004). Certainly there were moments of friction, but the project sequence thrived, and thus moved forward when there were points of affinity. Language and communication, then, especially associated with spatial change at the village landscape scale very much played into this dynamic. Ultimately, when the words and objectives of the pr oject facilitators align ed with those of the project participants, communication segued into a dialogue and participation morphed into collaboration. Framing the Project sequence toward Collaboration Through the use of frames, the project sequence embr aced many different perspectives, thus allowing for varying interpretations of spatial change in Ubud. The frames allowed for varying interpretations to emerge, which fostered not only new interpretations, but variations within their new interpretation. What a collaborative process produces by way of framing is an opportunity to generate ideas, which given the chance, now has the occasion to surface and be explored. This was increasingly
192 expressed as narrati ves beca me more unique from the community maps to the storyboards. Interests that were wrapped up in the varying interpretations did not have to be cast aside. Varying perspectives, including varying knowledge levels, diverse values, and levels of passion and emotion are often assumed as const ants (Thompson et al. 2005 p. 176 ). Yet by being amenable to the potential of more diverse perspectives, more creative solutions are possible (Thompson et al., 2005, p. 177) In accepting diversity comes the challenge posed to different groups to res and to hold distinct and often opposing views (Gray 2003). Collaboration does not demand that participants set their self interests aside, nor does the success of collaboration hinge on anyone doing so. Instead, the participants ideas and interactions matter ed and gain ed validity through both the process and outcome of the collaborative exchange (Daniels & Walker 2001). Through an additive approach in the project sequence there was a progression toward collaboration. Partici pants moved beyond simply buying into the process because of what they understood the project sequence to be working toward (a film), to understanding their role as collaborators because they increasingly understood that the project sequence was adopting t heir language and their ideas as it moved forward. Thus, the communication cascade fostered an element of trust and transparency in the process. In w anting to keep the inquiry open to the possibility of embracing its own concepts, to be of practical use and to be acco untable to community members, this approach presents two challenges: (1) to let the conceptual categories emerge from the research process rather than from prior theories and (2) to bridge the gap between
193 researchers and participants in orde r to formulate a process useful not only to the project coordinators but also to commu nity members (Arora Jonsson 2008 ) Furthermore, to impose structure on the process might have meant that the process moved toward analyzing one main issue rather than t he evolutionary nature that was otherwise achieved through the project sequence Still, by reducing the level of abstraction in this transparent process, collaboration becomes an emerging and evolving phenomenon, while never fully predictable or manageabl e, it is nevertheless transparent (Daniels & Walker 2001). Collaboration cannot be forced, scheduled, or required; it must be nurtured, permitted, and promoted. This is always a challenge when research projects are expected to progress through a schedul e most often determined by the researcher. So o ne of the greatest challenges of collaboration then, is how we move from excelling based on our own experiences to collaborating in a group especially arresting the tendency of self interest and promotion. C ollaborative inquiry is a form of participatory research in which collaborative learning means constructing knowledge collectively as people work, inquire, and learn together based on a shared purpose (Arora Jonsson 2008; Daniels & Walker 2001). Collabo ration involves five key features critical to the collaborative process: (1) Stakeholders are interdependent, (2) solutions emerge by dealing constructively with differences, (3) joint ownership of decisions is involved, (4) stakeholders assume collective responsibility for the future direction of the domain, and (5) collaboration is an emergent property (Da niels & Walker 2001). In the instance this study, collaboration was less deterministic and linear, insofar as the project sequence was not necessaril y anticipating a certain quality in its expectations. Rather, it wa s the collaborative
194 processes that was important, as participants arrange d the system of relationships natural systems, cultural systems and social systems, so that each group of participa nts could begin to construct a collective meaning of these systems and their interconnectedness. Collaboration over and above participatory exchange evolved in the landscape filming process P articipation segued into collaboration at moments when ther e was an equal forwards and backwards communication cascade flowing from project coordinators, project facilitators, and project participants. The participatory process was marked by moments of collaboration (both internal to the group of participants and externally throughout Ubud ). In this sense, the project became a community effort. I often wonder ed why these community youth consistently showed up each day. Arguably one answer to this question lies in the fact that the community youth increasingly bo ught into their role as participants the more collaboration there was between the project coordinators, facilitators, and other participants and among other community members not involved in the project but still interested. By engaging so many in the pro ject sequence and through the follow up discussions, development pressures on the village landscape of Ubud were deconstructed among different groups. Furthermore, the use of problem definition throughout the project sequence and as articulated in the fil m content as a means to invert solutions to satisfy interests (as broad and diverse as these may be in Ubud) ultimately developed mutually acceptable solutions (Thompson et al. 2005). What is important is that the interests remain diverse without comprom ising the potential of mutually acceptable solutions. When this tenuous
195 balance is struck, collaborativ e processes can become conducive to articulating development pressures. Collaboration is conducive to articulatin g development pressures becaus e the collaborative process works to provide accurate information that helps to separate fact from personal values and attitudes (Thompson et al. 2005). This surfaced by having ten groups with similar interests and solutions create ten distinct landscape films through the lens of ten different subthemes. Formally addressing development issues across different groups does promote this enabling environment where collaboration and alliances begin to form, not only among the group of participants, but by way of the vis ibility that the process garnered throughout Ubud Therefore, to embrace the power of collaboration, we need to recognize that none of creativity, innovation, or participation is happening on the fringe of periphery of our current global trajec tory. Instead, all of these are mainstreaming themselves ( Hickey & Mohan 2004 ). The generative dialogue the who 2008 p. 92), a system absorbing th e continuing effect of history on it, rather than history that is incremental and distant. Community youth are uniquely pre dispositioned to make such a comment as they are most ingrained as products of the recent past, yet have their own unique interpret ation to contribute. All too often we are simply hoping to achieve some level of collaboration, or more specifically, collaboration at its basic level is often assumed to be achieved when a collection of people are working together. In fact, there are many informal surprises that can come from collaboration that give it depth and further significance to participatory processes Among these surprises is the moment when barriers between project
196 facilitato rs and participants break down so that we no long er are bound by structure and deliverables, but can connect and communicate with each other (Bergelin et al. 2008). In doing so, we do not assume what our interest are as researchers to be what we see occurring on the ground. Furthermore, there is a par ticular sense of empowerment that can come from a group, not just project facilitators or project participants, independently, but the collaborative group, in knowing that together they have effectively produced something based on the resources and the kno wledge that the group has collectively amassed. Among this amassed knowledge that is articulated in the collection of landscape films includes conversations about resource scarcity, historic and contemporary supply and demand of the rice produced from the sawah climate change, the provincial development regulations that run in parallel with the ritualistic determinants of land use, and the general resource give and take that is a result of the ss took the unique identities of the participants and allowed them to explore their own identities in relationship to this knowledge, as well as spatially in terms of what the village landscape once was, what it is now to them, and what it could become. Culture and Development When culture is used as a medium in a collaborative process, the process becomes much more dynamic and engaging for participants, and the process can become unbounded by the structure in which it is implemented. In fact, people can not & Walker 2001 p. 76). Collaboration becomes more than an effort to seek a recipe, but rather an inspiration for communities to develop their own framework for the issues that the process explores (Daniels and Walker 2001). When participatory processes are
197 meant to excite collaboration, moments of collaboration hinge on the participatory process adapting to the existing cultural and social settings (Mbakagu 2004). Culture for different groups participating includes many different dimensions, yet at the same time, identities are shaped differently by the overriding structure that culture offers in a community. The variable dimensions of culture include values, re asoning, directedness, and above all else, context (Daniels & Walker 2001). For the group of community youth participating in the landscape filming process, the cultural structure that wa s in place particularly within the co ntext of their school day allo wed them to devote a number of hours in the afternoon to exploring their cultural heritage through dance, music, theater, and art lessons. This formal structure is juxtaposed against the informal yet no less significant daily rituals and traditions that m ark the passage of each day for even contemporary Balinese. Formal holidays and festivals weave their way in, and daily life for any Balinese is influenced by culture in the context of Ubud. More generally, Ubud operates from approximately 8:00 am un til well after dark as a tourist destination T hese community youth carry out their day to day rituals amidst the cultural tourism structure that is imposed on the daily rhythm of Ubud. The culture in Ubud has absorbed the presence of tourists, and the d aily rituals and traditions are rarely interrupted, but certainly influenced as they are offered on display for the errant passer by. Thus, the context of Ubud cannot be separated or removed from the identities of the community youth, as their identities are embedded in the formal and informal cultural structure that ebbs and flows throughout different parts of the village. Culture in the case of the group of twenty community youth was also found to be influenced by religious beliefs and degrees of affl uence. Depending on these two
198 variables, the community youth experience d Ubud differently. The participatory process drew out these nuances and offered them up for their collaborative potential. While all of the community youth attended the same school and were more or less paired in such a way that they lived in close proximity to each other, many of the participants commented on how they did not know their partners very well prior to the project. Thus, the landscape films were that much more enriched by those groups that were comprised of pairs which were life long next door neighbors and had nearly identical daily experiences, as they were by those groups that paired together youth that lived very distinct lives from each other all within the context of Ubud. T and their varying degrees of engagement with Ubud as a cultural setting, the understanding and attachment participants had to other places on the island of Bali, the rest of the Indonesian archipelago, and then in a broader global context as the distant origin of the project facilitators was of immense interest to the participants. Scale then weaves its way into the cultural construction of multiple identities as they are anchored in a particular place and moment in time, yet as they perceive and conceptualize places and issues that the process found to orbit around their anchor point in Ubud. When we embrace pluralistic identities, even amidst what is deemed a fa irly constant group of community youth, we move beyond considering development pressures in a particular context as isolated and unique. Instead, we can connect these contexts, as contexts are not only becoming better linked to the rest of the world, but this global understanding of context is relevant to even the younger generations of societies (Wollenberg 2005). Culturally based development project get us closer to
199 understanding the impact of participation in a particular context at a particular momen t in time so that we can harness the potentially connective powers of culture at multiple scales to understand these pressures as locally situated, but still unbound. Locating, articulating, an d engaging cultural meaning has become a dominant issue in ou r time (Young 2008). The process of creating the landscape films served to do all three through the lens of development pressures. However, this was not a linear nor cumulative progression, but iterative through the project sequence as the community you th more precisely located, more exactly articulated, and more creatively engaged their culture in grappling with the spatial change at the village landscape scale. This spatial change was given both temporal and physical dimension as it was shaped by the identities of a particula r group of community youth who we re uniquely aligned with the uniquely Balinese cultural traditions of the past, but also who held a keen interest and understanding of contemporary technologies. How we bring these together ensures vast potential for managing spatial change at the village landscape scale T hose spatially trained in the built and natural environment are uniquely equipped to motivate. Aligning Culture and Planning Planners and landscape architects have the dis tinct advantage of conceptualizing space at varying scales. We need to forfeit our sole propriety of these skills so that the layers of analysis are amassed by the people embedded in the context and conceptualized by the same people who will be affected b y spatial change. In doing so, planning needs to align diverse viewpoints, ranging from perspectives of those who use community landscapes to views of those whose culture is shaped by these same landscapes. The landscape filming process allowed significa nt resources to be placed
200 pressure for development on these community landscapes is occurring (Thompson et al. 2005 p. 177). How this occurred was not necessarily prescr iptive and cannot necessarily be replicated in its entirety in a different context, but what it did do was draw on culture and especially culture that has been influenced by a historical trajectory that spans a continuum from ancient traditions to the infl uence of the recent past. In doing so, the importance of the historical component of culture adds value to planning strategies that intend to engage development pressures that cannot be disentangled from either history or culture. Engaging the historical component of culture not only connects that past with the present, but does so by way of creativity. Culture, then, may scales themselves, and also in terms of its p 2008 p. 80). Connective Powers of Planning and Culture What those allied through the built and natural environment need to explore is how culture has the power to connect and animate otherwise logically separate types of planning (Young 2008). The landscape filming process utilized participation to unveil some of the parallels that exist between urban and regional culture and the challenges facing urban and regional planning in Ubud and beyond (Young 2008). Th is parallel relationship that prevails between urban and regional planning and urban and regional culture is especially relevant in the context of Bali that celebrates provincial autonomy amidst an otherwise highly nationalized Indonesia. Through culture, the historical trajectory of even the sawah within Ubud is connected to wider patterns of history and culture not just in Bali or throughout Indonesia, but ultimately through a potentially
201 international dimension (Young 2008). While the landscape filmin g process engaged a particular group of participants to explore the potential ly connection between culture and planning, participatory planning strategies should be mindful of the omnipresent challenge of mainstream public involvement in issues related to development pressures. Challenges of Mainstreamed Participation Participation is becoming an increasingly mainstreamed phenomenon, especially in the context of Indonesia, where Indonesians deem participation not only as their right, but also as the ir civic responsibility and obligation (Mohan & Stokke 2000) This begs the question: How do we deal with increased public interest in issues related to or stemming from development pressures? And what does this mean for the future when oftentimes this increased public interest is not matched by an increased public understanding of the issues involved? The challenge lies in harnessing this public participation toward the benefit of the management process rather than as a hindrance to the process. The landscape filming process garnered widespread interest throughout Ubud as the participants grew increasingly visible. The project sequence had participants taking storyboards home, filming was often done in public open spaces, and family members and other community members were cast a s roles within the films. Today w e are dealing with the mainstreaming of participation and overall public involvement in development pressures within the context of outdated metaphors about communities and how they are histor ically perceived to flourish or decay (Robinson 2009). As part of a new paradigm for understanding development pressures on community landscapes, we need to re invent the metaphors that we have grown complacent in using so that they appropriately ma tch and transcend the many scales
202 we are forced to contend with today and in the future. When we level the playing field, allow everyone to weigh in, and then are systematically able to evaluate and monitor the former on the basis of the latter, maybe the n we have simultaneously universalized yet maintained the context specific advantages associated with participation. Participatory research requires reciprocity, after all (Davis & Reid 1999). It is this reciprocity that needs to be required not just am ong participants and facilitators, but also in theory and application of the participatory process so that it achieves reciprocity for the ultimate benefit of the community where the collaboration is taking place. Dissemination Opportunities There is an opportunity for reciprocity above and beyond the participation engaged through the landscape filming process. In fact, it is this reciprocity that in part moves the landscape filming process beyond participatory and toward collaboration. A hallmark of pa et al. 2005 p. 175). The process began to build a narrative about landscape change in Ubud yet it wa s the experience that will stay with the community youth and help sustain the legacy inquiry and we carry the lessons with us in our work, in the village, in academia, and in ev eryday life (Arora Jonsson 2008). The landscape films in the context in which the process took place, but extends beyond that. The process only instigated the learning, or more specifically, framed a set of issues related t o spatial change at the village landscape scale for a group of community youth embedded in this landscape. What they gleaned from the process can be carried with them and applied
203 to more deliberate dissemination tactics beyond what was possible through th e duration of the project. Final Thoughts Throughout the history of participatory development development experts have sought to empower the marginalized voice. In doing so, the argument has been made that researchers define the contexts, characteri ze development issues and target those who m are deem ed to be marginalized by these issues Yet w hat a survey of the history of participatory development suggests is that context exists long before being defined by researchers ; and participatory involveme nt in decisions about development are quite common and their onset does not require the presence of development experts However, engaging participation and evaluating participatory processes is one valid way of understandi ng the realities of a world wit h more fluidity that what is often perceived One reality is that power imbalances are often embedded in social and cultural contexts, an argument made in support of the Tyranny 2001) and confirmed by this evaluation of one p articipatory process. Thu s, it is valid to be critical of the participatory process evaluated in this study and to continue to question participation as a n authentic behavior Such questions are valid because the complexities of participation have not be en matched with the complexities o f context, with power being one example of this disparity Development discourse framed most recently by post modernists ( Cooke & Kothari, 2001; Escobar, 1995) attempts to standardize context while dismissing participat ion in development on the grounds that participation can not be generalized While this (2001) is accurate to analyze participatory development methods, this discourse does
204 not pro ve that participation is inherently wrong, nor does it offer any viable alternatives es participation on the grounds that context cannot be standardized, therefore making par ticipation impossible to generalize. This evaluation of one participatory strategy argues the converse. That is, because context cannot be standardized, participatory strategies should be situated in these complex and fluid context s (as they really exist ) to further understand the complexities of participatory development. W hile there continues to be a need to standardize participatory processes for development (so that monitoring and evaluation are possible) the same cannot be done to context. As Bal i grapples with the collision of local and global challenges so too do participatory theories and methods, but in the other direction. As development discourse continue s to strive toward some set of universal truths about participation, there remains a t ension between efforts to universalize participatory strategies and to situate these same strategies in a specific context informed by a unique cultural heritage. Yet in an attempt to generalize characteristics of this project to other contexts, there are moments from the project that should be cele brated in the same context in which they were generated ( one of those moments being empowerment among the community youth participants) The participatory process took the unique identities of the participants and allowed them to explore their own identities in relationship to this knowledge, as well as spatially in terms of what the village landscape once was, what it is to them now, and what it could become. The participatory video process that was informe was one way of both attracting and retaining participation so that more important
205 principles guiding development could be explored. While the process did not produce these guiding principles, it instigated a sense of i nclusiveness by engaging the community youth and then inviting others to take part in what the process produced. Context then, became an entry point for and the activities in the project sequence did expand upon the prevalent tension between local and global development challenges in Ubud. Drawing on a culture that has been so meticulously documented (like the Balinese) gives the researcher an e ntry point into the context so that the participatory process can be derived from this historical evidence. However, it is important to note that t here needs to be room in the process for inconsistencies in this history and as well as for how the recent past has influenced this history 26 Furthermore, t he re is v alue to participatory p rocesses being initiated and then evaluated by someone outside of the community context. C ivic engagement in development decisions may be kindled prior to any participatory process and long after the process ends. However, the value in initiating and the n evaluating a participatory process such as has been done through this research l i e s in organizing the process as a way of educating participants and providing the space for self reflection during and after the participatory process. An evaluation of thi s participatory process that utilized video in the village context of Ubud reveals that the project was not advocating a position on development, but was facilitating one way to engage a group of participants in conversations about development. What the p roject sequence could not ensure was that the momentum garnered by the initial project would continue toward creating a 26 One example of these inconsistencies comi ng through was in the concern over the use of adolescents to narrate stories typically done so by elders. Yet at the same time, the adolescents claimed that they had never been involved in anything similar to the landscape filming project.
206 development agenda aimed at safeguard ing cultural landscapes and the cultural and natural resources supported by these landscapes The p rocess may not have initiated new development policy for the pressures surrounding particular cultural and natural resources, these resources as systems, and then the propos ed threat of development pressures on these village landscapes that S triving toward some set of universal truths about participation, such as what Botes and Rensburg refer to as the & Rensburg 2000 p. 53) may disengage some of the dynamism and diversity that is inherent in context. People have a canny way of surprising us whether these are project facilitators from leading universities or participants f rom a composite village area in Bali. Whether I can say for certain these surprises will become certainties the I cannot. What the process did accomplish was to present a more explicit explanation of concepts rel ated to development pr essures at a certain scale to a certain group embedded in that scale. These pressures were then articulated in terms of island wide issues and more intimate tensions between maintaining cultural heritage while sustaining a way of life in an emerging develo ping country.
207 APPENDIX A DETAILED EXPLANATION OF BALI FIELD SCHOOL PROJECT SEQUENCE (1) Community Map This activity allowed the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students to locate where they lived on a map that was hand drawn on a large poster board (see Figur e 3 3 ). The boundaries of the map were determined by feedback from the Sekolah Menengah Pertama coordinator who estimated where the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students lived. This first mapping activity enabled us to understand where the students lived in relative proximity to each other and some key locations in Ubud (the school, the soccer field, and the monkey forest), but because the map was not drawn to scale and students significant clustering of students who claimed to live near each other, and placed their respective stickers as if they all lived on the same street. However, when this activity was conducted a second time with a larger, to scale map that included more d etail, as well as had greater extents ( see Figure A 1 ), with the help of the Sekolah Menengah Pertama coordinator, a more careful approximation of where students lived was mapped From this map, the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students were grouped in pairs with another student who lived closest to them based on the map ( see Table A 1 ). This information is more clearly articulated on a generated map of Ubud and surrounding areas (see Figure A 2 ) (2) Story Mapping The second activity of the project was intended to spatially orient project contributors to the landscape scale of importance to the project. The process was initiated by an example produced during a working session the day before by the US
208 students 27 Figure A 3 illustrates the US students Story Map that was brought to the afternoon working sessions to graphically facilitate the exercise among the production teams. The first tangible exercise toward producing the landscape documentaries and to begin to work spatially was to map participants teams explored the places where they lived, the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students began laying this information out on poster board s W hen the US students complete d this same exercise in a workshop setting, they began by establishing a boundary on the periphery of their poster board. In contras t, the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students worked from the most central point of their spatial orientation, outward. This is a testament to the Balinese inclination for detail. However, the original Story Maps became predominantly temporal, as they progressed through a typical day for the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students. An additional activity called Places I Like, Places I Dislike was integrated into the project sequence to reorient participants spatially (rather than temporally) and further refine the scale of interest. Inevitably there were stories attached to the places participants liked and disliked within the village landscape of Ubud. (3) Places I Like, Places I Dislike The Places I Like Places I Dislike activity created a clearer sense of the landscapes and places important to the Sekolah Menengah Pertama students and oriented these places in a two dimensional format. To get an initial sense of the village landscap e and to attempt to emotionally orient p articipants toward landscapes at this scale, each group began to graphically represent their village. It is interesting to note 27 All subseque nt content in the project sequence was introduced through a series of examples similar to this technique.
209 that contributors were natural so, boundaries were established to delineate perception of place and fears were expressed, as the Balinese approach unkempt or wild landscapes on the fringe or periphery with mystery and trepi dations. Among production teams, this was an important activity to reveal scale and emotional attachment at what was beginning to be defined and recognized as the village scale. T his activity also revealed some commonalities among the ten iterations of P laces I Like Places I Dislike so that we could start to align subsequent activities to these common interests. Recurrent places that were documented on the poster boards included the students homes, school, soccer field, market, and what eventually becam e the most recurrent attribute the sawah Thus, this activity inaugurated theme ideation which was eventually used more explicitly to direct the narrat ives of each of the individual landscape films. The temporal and spatial ultimately came together when the more conventional Story M apping activity (see Figure A 4 left) was combined with Places I Like, Places I Dislike (see Figure A 4 right) to start to graphically articulate a story relating these two concepts. In doing so, meaning and importance began to surface (as well as their clever use of illustrations and hand graphics). This activity began our efforts to celebrate the community youth as the important character s in these stories where their unique connection to the landscape supported and valida ted these stories. (4 ) Identification of Landscape Themes From the story mapping exercise, an overriding tendency for the community youth to align themselves with the sawah emerged. Unable to deny this connection, we determined that the overall theme for the collection of landscape documentaries would be Our Sawah From this broad theme we identifies ten culturally relevant and age
210 appropriate subthemes for each individual group to explore in the subsequent activities. The following is a list of s ubthemes: (1) Ducks/The Duckman, (2) Harvest, (3) Flying Kites, (4) Scarecrows, (5) Nasi Gorang (Fried Rice) (6) Offerings, (7) Planting, (8) Water Temples, (9) Cycles, and (10) People Working. Each group was able to choose their subtheme, and then extens ive negotiations went on as groups traded subthemes until everyone received a subtheme that they were excited about and understood its meaning as it related to the sawah The sub themes ran the gamut from landscape creation stories to eating and consum ing the produc tive yields of the landscape. A complete list and description of sub t hemes is included in Table A 2 Each team drew a theme and was given the opportunity to negotiate trades if they were not satisfied with their pick. While each of the te n themed landscape documentaries contained elements of both the local and global narratives of Bali, the collection of ten landscape documentaries presents a telling articulation of these themes as a continuum from human cultivation and ritual order and wh at this means in their world today. (5) Constructing the Narrative The expression of concepts within the subthemes occurred through the to their individual subtheme. Narratives for the i ndividual landscape documentaries were developed from a series of activities that were designed and delivered in sequence. The first activity after each group had identified a sub theme was narrative development This process was guided by an example tha t contained five main elements (see Figure A 5 ) : (1) through of sawah as it
211 s selected sub theme; (5) issues and concerns about the sustainability of the sawah in terms of the sub theme (as either an opportunity or threat); and (6) an optimistic departure from the sawah as it highlights the outstanding legacy of community heritage. Production teams then took the narratives and translated them graphically into a storyboard format, where each frame of the storyboard roughly approximated individual scenes in the films. (6) Storyboarding The interpretation of thes e narratives occurred through the production of storyboards. Through this activity, each group of contributors divided a poster board into a series of windows (a place to sketch the scene) with lines beneath each frame for who is speaking). In addition to transfer ring the narrative produced onto the storyboard, each group was encourage to refine the ir ideas and consider the envisioned duration of each scene (see Figure A 6 ) Groups also practiced speaking the dialogue includ ed with each scene so that they began to get a sense for how these scenes would transpire. Not only did the storyboards become the script for the filming stage, but they also were instrumental in the editing and assembly of each landscape film (7) Film Production The storyboarding activity segued into the production of ten short landscape documentaries varying in length from five to nine minutes. Filming was an intensive organizational and logistical feat where all ten groups were sent out into the vil lage of Ubud a nd surrounding villages with simple, standard definition Flip Ultra video camera provided to each group by the program. Each group navigated through their scenes and adhered remarkably well to the sequence of their storyboards to facilitate the film
212 editing process. It is important to recognize the technical elements of the program that were ultimately responsible for editing and assembling the collection of participatory landscape documentaries. Since video editing is a labor intensive pro cess, the facilitation teams stressed the importance of having clearly defined storyboards to guide the filming of each scene. Members of the facilitation team were charged with performing the simple edits referring back boar d documentation. The production teams contributed to the editing process by reviewing the rough cuts and guiding the editing teams in changes. Editing team also translated the films, adding lower third subtitles in English. The resulting product was on e final presentation ( 54 minutes) containing ten stand alone videos about Our Sawah and the respective subthemes narrating stories of place specific to the sawah
213 Table A 1 Pairing of Groups Based on Student Proximity Group (by Sub Theme Name) M ember 1 Member 2 (1) Cycles 3 10 (2) Duckman 5 19 (3) Water Temples 2 8 (4) Offerings 11 17 (5) People Working 1 12 (6) Harvest 13 14 (7) Plantings 15 16 (8) Playing Kite 6 18 (9) Scarecrows 7 20 (10) Nasi Goreng 4 9 Numbers for Member 1 and M ember 2 correspond to circled yellow numbers in Figure 3 5.
214 Table A 2 Landscape Film Themes Individual Theme Explanation of Theme Ducks / Duckman Ducks play a vital role in ecosystem regulation for the rice paddi es c ommunity responsible for guiding the ducks from one terrace to another; furthermore, tourists are always eage r to try duck, which is a common item on restaurant menus. H arvest The harvest process is a laborious one in Bali without much help from technolog y to assist the process; harvests occur twice a year. Kites The rice terraced landscapes are the ideal backdrop for kite flying, a favorite pastime of children of all ages in Bali; the art of making a kit e is being lost to commercially produced kites sold in local markets. Scarecrows Scarecrows have an omnipresence in the landscape and the Balinese have certain rituals and beliefs that watch. Nasi Gore ng (Fried Rice) The ultimate yield from the r ice terraced landscape is fried rice; there is an intricate process for creating and found on menus. Offerings I ntricate rice handicrafts are created on a daily basis to make offerings to the gods that watch over the fields and produce a productive harvest. Planting Planting is an elaborate process that involves transplanting seedlings from nurseries to the fields. Water Temples Water temples are one of the most iconic structures that dot the rice terraced landscapes in Bali. These temples are strategically placed in kaja kelod orientation to appease the rice goddess, Dewi Sri Cycles The padi cycles are determined primarily by the wet and dry season and the intense irrigation system on the island. Planti ng cycles also influence the recreational pursuits of local kids mud fights when the fields are flooded after harvest and flying kites when rice is growing. People Working The locals who work the picturesque rice fields stand in stark contrast to those wh o work in the tourism sector along the main roads in Ubud; this has created a division of classes with the emergence of a middle class.
215 Figure A 1 Map of Ubud and Surrounding Villages with Sekolah Menengah Pertama
216 Figure A 2 Refined Map of Ubud and Surrounding Villages. A) Sekolah Menengah by yellow circles. B) Number correspond to student pairs listed in Table 3 3. [Map courtesy of Andrews, Sarah 2010. Content adapted from Tukad Dawa Stream Course Enhancement. Landscape Architecture Capstone Project. University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.]
217 Figure A 3 Typical Lead by Example Approach. [Graphics produced by US students May 11, 2009. Ubud, Bali, Indonesia] (Bali Field School, 2009)
218 Figure A 4 Community M apping Activity. A) Community M ap with Narra tive Vignettes Activity (left). B) Places I Like, Places I Dislike Activity (right) [Map produced by students from Sekolah Menengah Pertama Facilitated by students from University of Florida and U dayana University May 13, 2009. Ubud, Bali, Indonesia] (Bali Field School, 2009)
219 Figure A 5 Example of Guiding the Narrative Development Activity [Content developed to be implemented in pr oject sequence on May 18, 2009] (Bali Field Scho ol, 2009)
220 Figure A 6 Example of Guiding the Storyboarding Activity [Content developed to be implemented in project sequence on May 19, 2009] (Bali Field School, 2009)
221 APPENDIX B QUESTION PROMPTS FOR FOLLOW UP DISCUSSION WITH RESIDENTS OF UBUD (AFTER FILM SCREENED) 28 1. How did you hear about the Film Festival? Bagaimanakah anda mendengar tentang acara film festival ini? 2. What motivated you to attend the Film Festival? Apa motivasi/dorongan anda untuk mendatangi acara film festival ini? 3. What did you anti cipate the films to be about? Apa yang anda ingin lebih ketahui dari isi film ini? 4. After watching the film, how would you summarize the theme of the films? Setelah anda menonton film ini, bagaimanakah anda dapat menyimpulkan tema/topik dari film film yang ditayangkan tadi? 5. What is important to you about the sawah ? Apakah yang penting menurut pendapat anda tentang keberadaan sawah ? 6. Has your understanding of your community changed since watching the films? Apakah pemahaman anda tentang lingkungan telah ber ubah setelah anda menyaksikan tayangan tadi? 7. Why has your understanding of your community changed since watching the films? Mengapa pemahaman anda menjadi berubah setelah anda menyaksikan tayangan ini? 8. s awah do you agree with these concerns? sawah di Ubud untuk masa mendatang, apakah anda menyetujui ide ini? 9. Having now seen the films, do you have new concerns about the ideas expressed in the fil ms? Setelah anda menyaksikan film ini? Apakah anda memiliki keprihatinan lainnya tentang ide ide yang ditayangkan dalam film film tadi? 10. Why are these concerns important to you and other people in your community? Mengapakah keprihatinan ini menjadi penting bagi anda dan masyarakat lainnya di tempat anda tinggal? 11. Do you think the concerns expressed in the films are issues that your community can manage by themselves? 28 Delivered orally in Bahasa Indonesia
222 Apakah menurut pendapat anda apakah keprihatinan di dalam film ini merupakan isyu yang dap at ditangani oleh masyarakat secara mandiri? 12. Would you be interested in following up with some of the issues addressed in the films? Apakah anda tertarik untuk mengikuti tindak lanjut dari isyu isyu yang dimunculkan di dalam film film tersebut? 13. If yes, h ow do you see this follow up happening? Apabila ada, bagaimanakah anda melihat tindak lanjut tersebut? 14. Would events like the Film Festival be helpful in raising community involvement and awareness to some of the concerns talked about today? Apakah acara seperti film festival seperti ini akan meningkatkan keterlibatan masyarakat dan kesadaran terhadap tema film yang diperbincangkan hari ini? 15. Do you know that the sawah with technical irrigation cannot be changed into other use of land, especially to the ur ban used? And, in terms of the new spatial plan guidance law (Law No. 26/2007), do you know that each regencies in Indonesia has to provide 30% of its land as a green space? Apakah anda mengetahui bahwa sawah irigasi teknis sebetulnya dilindungi oleh Kepu tusan Presiden untuk tidak dikonversikan kepada peruntukan lainnya?dan, apakah anda mengetahui bahwa tiap kabupaten harus melestarikan 30% lahannya untuk kawasan hijau (sesuai dengan Undang Undang No. 26/2007 tentang Penataan Ruang)?
223 APPENDIX C QUESTION PROMPTS FOR FOLLOW U P DISCUSSION WITH US STUDENTS 29 1. What were your preconceptions about the process going into it and how have those changed now that we have finished? 2. How do you think the contributors perceived your entrance and exit throughout the proces s? 3. Did you feel that the contributors wanted to share their place with you? 4. Can you comment on the length of the process in relation to the process sustaining itself? 5. How did you understand your changing role throughout the process, especially in the co ntext of us telling you that your role would change? 6. Could you get a sense of how decisions were made in your group throughout the process? 7. Did the contributors engage the community in the films? If so, who did they seem to approach? 8. Can you assess the level of creativity / innovation / artistic license taken on by the contributors? 9. Discuss the value of each increment of the process: Workshops Introduction (community mapping and story maps) Narrative development Storyboards Film exercise Filming 10. How c ritical were points of debriefing and reflection for you? 29 Delivered orally in English
224 APPENDIX D QUESTION PROMPTS FOR FOLLOW UP DISCUSSION WITH SEKOLAH MENENGAH PERTAMA STU DENTS 30 1. The Process What did you like about the project? Did you understand each part of the project? Communi ty Map and Story Mapping Narrative Development Storyboard Filming in the Circle (Favorite Famous Person) Filming The Film Festival Which part (from the above 6) was your favorite? Why? 2. Film Topics Sawah Would you have chosen a different topic to make your film about? What would these topics be? Are there other things besides the sawah that are important to you that we should have mad e films about? 3. The Negotiation Process How did you and your partner decide on what your film was going to be about? Did one person lead or was it more equal among you and your partner? ersity students for ideas (Uduyana or UF)? 4. Team Organization We assigned you teams. Would you have chosen your group differently had they not been assigned? Do you know why your partner was who it was? (based on living proximity) 5. Did you talk about the project with your family? What did they think of it? Did they want to be involved? Do you think your siblings have been involved? Do you wish more of your friends could have been involved in the project? Should we have included others i n the activities? Who would this be? 6. Sharing Places I Like How did you feel about showing your special places to us especially the US students ? 30 Delivered orally in Bahasa Indonesia; two concurrent sessions with same set of questions
225 Are there other places or cultural events you wish you had more time to share? Are there places that you wo uld not like to share with outsiders? 7. Working with University Students What did you think about working with the US students ? Was it difficult to communicate with them because they did not speak Bahasa Indonesia? Do you feel like you understood the US stu dents okay? If you did this project again, would you prefer to work with both groups of University students or one over the other? Have you ever been involved with projects with other University students before? Would you like to do more projects with Univ ersity students? Did you talk to the University students about what they learn in school? 8. Making the Films What did you like about making the films? Did they turn out the way you thought they would? Do you thin k that the films could they have been better or did you like them just the way they turned out? Would you like to make more films? What would these films be about? 9. The Film Festival What did you like about the film festival? e film festival? Did you invite your family? Friends? Would you like the films to be shown again? If so, where and when would be a good place and time to show the films again? 10. Follow Up If you were to have a DVD copy of the film, would you show it to your friends? Family? If you showed the film to your family or friends, would you talk about the process of making the film with others whom you show it to or would you just show the film? Would you like the film to be up on You Tube? Why? 11. In the Future Do you have any ideas for the future if you were going to participate in a similar project again?
226 LIST OF REFERENCES Abrams, J., & P. Hall. (2009). Else/where: Mapping new cartographi es of networks and territories Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Adcock, R. & Collier, D. (2001). Measurement v alidity: A shared standard for qualitati ve and quantitative research American Political Science Review 95 (3), 529 546. Antlv, H. (2003). Village government and ru ral development in Indonesia: T he new democratic framework. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies 39 193 214. Arora Jonsson, S (2008) Research sounds so big: Collaborative inquiry with women in Drevdagen, Sweden. In L. Fortmann (Ed ), Participatory research in conservation and rural livelihoods: D oing science together Oxford, UK: Wiley Blackwell. B aker, A (2002) Desperately seeking survival Time Magazine (Monday, Nov. 25, 2002). Ba li Field School. (2009). Project content, materials and deliverables. Produced 9 May 2009 27 May 2009. Ubud, Bali Province, Indonesia. Basiago, A. D. (1995) Sustainable development in Indonesia: A case study of an indigenous regime of environm ental law and policy International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 2 (3), 199 211. Beard, V. A. (2002 ) Covert planning for social transformation in Indonesia. Journal of Planning Education and Research 22 (1), 15 25. Beard, V. A. (2005) Individual determinants of participation in comm unity development in Indonesia. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 23 21 39. Beard, V. A (2008) Community driven d evelopment and elite capture: M icrocredit and communi ty board participation in Indonesia. I n V. Beard, F. Miraftab & C. Silver (Eds ), Planning and d ecentralization: Contested spaces for public action in the global south New York NY : Routledge. Bergelin Emretsson M., Halvarsson A.L., Halvarsson E., & Ryen A (2008) For peace comes dropping slow The forests and nature for us In L. Fortmann (Ed ), Participatory research in rural in conservation and rural livelihoods : Doing science togethe r Oxf ord, UK: Wiley Blackwell. Bernard, H. R. (2000) Social research methods: Qualitative and q uantitative a pproaches Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
227 Booth, A. (2003). Decentralisation and poverty alleviation in Indonesia. Environmental and Planning C: Government and Policy 21 181 202. Botes, L., & van Rensburg D (2000) Community participation in development : Nine plagues and twelve commandments Community Development Journal 35 (1), 41 58. Buggey, S., & Mitchell N (2008) Cu ltu ral landscapes: Venues for community based conservation In R. Longstreth (Ed ), Cultural l andscapes: Balancing nature and heritage in preservation practice Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Burnett, R. (1991). Video / Film: F rom c ommunication to community In N. Thede & A. Ambrosi (Eds ), Video the changing world Montreal: Black Bose Books. Cambell, L. M., & Vainio Mattila, A. (2003). Participatory development and community based conservation: Opportunities missed for less ons learned? Human Ecology 31 (3), 417 437. Chambers, R (2005) Ideas for d evelopment London UK : Earthscan. Checkoway, B. (1994). Paul Davidoff and advocacy planning in retrospect. Journal of the American Planning Association 60 (2), 139 143 Cleaver, F (2004) Broader p F rom tyranny to transformation In S. Hickey & G. Mohan (Eds ), Participation: From tyranny to transformation ? New York NY : Zed Books Collier, P (2007) The bottom billion Why the poorest countri es are failing and what can be done about it London UK : Oxford University Press. Cooke, B. & Kothari, U (2001) Participation: The new tyranny ? London UK : Zed Books. Cornwall, A (2004) Spaces for t ransformation? Reflections on issues of p ower and difference in participation in development In S. Hickey & G. Mohan (Eds ), Participation: From tyranny to transformation ? New York NY : Zed Books. Covarrubias, M (1946) Island of Bali Singapore: Berkeley Books Pte. Ltd. Daniels, S. E. & Walker G. B (2001) Working through environmental conflict : The collaborative learning approach London UK : Praeger Publishers Das, A. (2010). NGOs in participatory urban development: understanding their relevance from a comparison of India a nd Indonesia Unpublished paper presented at the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning 2010 Conference, Minneapolis, MN.
228 Davidoff, P. (1965). Advocacy and pluralism in planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 31 (4), 544 555. Davis, D. A., & Walker, T. D. (2000). Plan Graphics (5 th ed). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Davis, S. M. & Reid R (1999) Practicing participatory research in American I ndian communities American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 69 755S 759S. Devas, N., Amis, P., Grant, U., Mitlin, D., Nunan, F., & Rakodi, C. (2004). Urban governance, voice and poverty in the developing world. Sterling, VA: Earthscan Publications. de Vaus, D (2001) Research design in social research Thousand Oaks CA : Sage Publications. Dewulf, A. Craps M., & Dercon G (2004) How issues get framed and reframed when different communities meet : A multi level analysis of a collaborative soils conservation initiative in the Ecuadorian Andes. Journal of Commun ity and Applied Social Psychology 14 177 192. Escobar, A. (1995). Encountering development: The making and unmaking of the third world Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Ferreira, G. (2006). Participatory video for policy development in remote aboriginal communities Unpublished Dissertation: University of Guelph. Fleming, A. K., & Campbell I. L. (2007). Joinin g the m ainstream: A practical approach to safeguarding cultural heritage in a changing world (Based on s consultants at the World Bank) Geertz, C (1963) Agricultural i nvolution: The processes of ecological change in Indonesia Berkeley CA : University of California Press. Geertz, H (1991) State and s ociety in Bali: Historical, textual and ant hropological approaches Leiden: KITLV Press. Girami, A. (2009). Bridging the theory and practic e gap: Mediator power in practice. Conflict Resolution Quarterly 26 (4), 433 451. Gray, B (2003) Fra ming of environmental disputes In R. Lewicki, B. Gray, & M. Elliott (Eds ), Making sense of intractable environmental conflicts : Frames and c ases Washington DC : Island Press. Grenier, L (2008) Working with indigenous knowledge : A guide for researcher s Ottawa: International Development Res earch Centre.
229 Groth, P., & Bressi T. (1997) Understanding ordinary landscapes Ann Arbor, MI: Edwards Brothers, Inc. Hadiwinata, B. S. (2003). The politics of NGOs in Indonesia: Developing democracy and managing a movement. New York, NY: Routledge Curzon. Hadiz, V. R. (2004) Decentralization and d emocracy in Indonesia: A critique of neo institutionalist perspectives Development and Change 35 (4), 697 718 Hall, D. (1992) Video as a tool for change : The development of an international dialogu e and perspective on the use of video in this process In N. Thede & A. Ambrosi (Eds ), Video the changing world Montreal: Black Rose Books. Halprin, L., & Burns, J. (1974). Taking part: A workshop approach to collective creativity Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Handelman, H (2006) The challenge of third world development ( 4 th ed ) N J : Prentice Hall Press. Healy, S. (2008). Toward an epistemology of public participation. Journal of Environmental Management 90 (4), 1644 1654. Hendriatiningsi h, S., Hernandi, A., Budiartha, A., Kurdinanto S ., & Abdulharis R (2009) Comparative study of customary and formal land tenure system in Bali, Indonesia. In Surveyors key role in accelerated development Israel : Eilat Herr, K., & Anderson G. L (2005) The action research dissertation Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Hickey, S ., & Mohan G (2004) Towards participation as transformation : Critical themes and challenges In S. Hickey & G. Mohan (Eds.), Participation: From tyranny t o transformation ? New York NY : Zed Books Hill, J. Terry A., & Woodland, W. (2006) Sustainable d evelopment: National aspirations local implementation Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing Limi t ed. Hopkins, L. D., & M. A. Zapata (Eds) (2007). Engaging the future: Forecasts, scenarios, plans, and projects Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Kahane, A. (2008) Solving tough problems : An O pen way of talking, listening, and creating new r ealities San Francisco CA : Berrett Koehler. K aplan, S. (1987) Aesthetics, affect, and cognition: Environmental p reference from an evolutionary p erspective. Environment and Behavior 19 (3), 3 32. Lansing, S. J. (1991) Priests and p rogrammers: Technologies of power in the engineered landsc ape of Bali Princeton NJ : Princeton University Press.
230 Lansing, S. J. (1995) The Balinese Australia: Thompson Wadsworth. Lansing, S. J. (2006) Perfect order: Recognizing c omplexity in Bali Princeton NJ : Princeton University Press. Lunch, C ., & Lunch N (2006) Insights into participatory video: A handbook for the fiel d UK: Insight. Lunch, C (2007) The most significant change : Using participatory video for monitoring and evaluation Participatory Learning and Action 56 28 32. MacRae, G (1997) Global V illage or neo negara ? Acting global, thinking lo cal in a Balinese tourist town In T. Reuter (Ed.), Staying local in the global village: B ali in the twentieth century Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press. MacRae, G (2003) The value of land in Bali: L and tenure, lan d reform and commodification In T. Reuter (Ed.), Inequality, crisis and social change in Indonesia London: RoutledgeCurzon. Mason, R. (2008) Management for cultural landsca pe preservation : Insi ghts from Australia. In R. Longstreth (Ed.), Cultural l andscapes: Balancing nature and heritage in preservation practice Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Maton, K. I. (2008). Empowering community settings: Agents of individual devel opment, community betterment, and positive social change. American Journal of Community Psychology 41 (1 2), 4 21. Matthews, R., & Selman P (2006) Landscape as a focus for integ rating human and environmental processes Journal of Agricultural E conomics 57 (2), 199 212. Mbakogu, I. A. (2004) Is there really a relationship between culture and development ? Anthropologist 6 (1), 37 43. McLuhan, M (1965) Understanding the media: Extensions of m an New York NY : McGraw Hill Book Company McPhee, C (1947) A h ouse in Bali Singapore: Berkeley Books Pte. Ltd. Mikkelsen, Britha. (2005). Methods for development work and research: A new guide for practitioners (2 nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Mitchell, B. (1 994) Sustainable development at the village level in Bali, Indonesia Human Ecology 22 ( 2), 189 211. Mitchell, N., & Buggey S (2000) Protected landscapes and cultural landscapes : Taking A dvantage of diverse approaches The George Wright Forum 17 ( 1 ) 1 12.
231 Mohan, G. & Stokke, K. (2000) Participatory development and empowerment : The dangers of localism Third World Quarterly 21 (2) 247 268. Mowforth, M., & Munt I (2003) Tourism and s ustainability: Development and new tourism in t he third world ( 2 nd ed. ). London UK : Routledge. Murphy, M. D. (2005). Landscape architecture theory: An evolving body of through Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press Nelson, R. D., Folhes, M. T., & Finan, T. J. (2009). Mapping the road to d evelopment: A methodology for scaling up participation in policy processes. Development in Practice 19 (3), 386 395. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3 rd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Peattie, L. (19 87). Planning: Rethinking Ciudad Guayana Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press. Potteiger, M., & Purinton J (1998) Landscape n arratives: Design practices for telling stories Hoboken, N J : John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Putnam, L. L. & W ondolleck J. M (2003) I ntractability: Definitions, dimensions, and distinctions In R. Lewicki, B. Gray, & M. Elliott (Eds.), Making sense of intractable environmental conflicts: F rames and cases Washington DC : Island Press. Reed, M. S. (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental management : A literature review Biological Conservation 141 2417 2431. Reid, G. W. (2002). Landscape graphics: Plan, section, and perspective drawing of landscape spaces (revised ed.). New York, NY: W atson Guptill Publications Richards, L (2005) Handling qualitative data : A practical guid e London UK : Sage Publications. Ridley, M (2010) The rational optimist : How prosperity evolves New York, N Y : Harper Collins Publishing Company. Rie senweber, J (2008) Landscape preservation and cultural geography In R. Longstreth (Ed.), Cultural l andscapes: Balancing nature and heritage in preservation practice Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Robinson, K (2009) The e lemen t: How finding you passion changes everything London, UK : Penguin Books. Sachs, J (2005) The end of poverty : Economic possibilities for our time New York NY : Penguin Books.
232 Sen, A (1999) Development as f reedom New York NY : Random H ouse. Sen, A (2000) Culture and d evelopment. Tokyo: World Bank Meeting. Shaw, J., & Robertson C (1997) Participatory v ideo: A practical approach to using video creatively in group development work London UK : Routledge. Simangunsong, A. S. M. (2008). The extent of land ownership by foreigners in Indonesia Jakarta: Azmi and Associates. Sillitoe, P. Bicker A., & Pottier, J. (2002) Participating in d evelopment: Approaches to indigenous knowledge London UK : Routledge. Silver, C (2007) Tourism, cultural heritage, and human rights in Indonesia: The challenges of an emerging democratic society In H. Silverman & D.F. Ruggles ( Eds. ), Cultural heritage and human rights New York NY : Springer. Silverman, H., & Ruggles, F. (2007). Cultural heritage and human rights. In H. Silverman & D.F. Ruggles (Eds.), Cultural heritage and human rights New York, NY: Springer. Publikasi Statistik (2010 ). Statistik Indonesia : Statistical yearbook of Indonesia 2009 Jakarta, Indo nesia: Badan Pusat Statistic. Stringer, E. T. (2007) Action r esearch ( 3 rd ed. ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Thompson, J. R., Elmendorf, W. F., McDonough, M. H., & Burban L. L (2005) Participation and c onflict: L essons learned from com munity forestry Journal of Forestry 6 174 178. Thompson, K. R., & Widmer, J. M. (2010). Community landscape documentaries: Is digital video a more exacting method of storytelling? In G. J. Carsjens (Ed) Landscape legacy: Landscape architecture an d planning between art and science ( Conference Proceedings ). Maastricht, The Netherlands : The Council of Educators in Landscape Architecture Tsing, A. L. (2005) Friction: An ethnography of global connections Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. UNESCO World Heritage Committee. (2008) Operational guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention Paris: Intergovernmental Committee for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage Vickers, A (1996) B ali: A paradise created Singapore: Periplus Editions.
233 Wall, G (1998) Landscape resources, tourism and landscape change in Bali, Indonesia. In Greg Ringer ( Ed. ), Destinations: Cultural landscapes and tourism London UK : Routledge. Warren, C ( 1993 ) Adat and dinas: Balinese c o mmunities in the Indonesian s tate Oxford UK : Oxford University Press. Warren, C (2005) Community mapping, local planning and alternati ve land use strategies in Bali. Danish Journal of Geography 105 (1) 29 41. Watkins, K. E. (1991). Validity in action research Paper p resented to the American Education Research Association New York, NY Wijaya, M. (2002). Architecture of Bali: A source book of traditional and modern forms Editions Didier Millet: Singa pore. Wollenberg, E. Anderson J. & Lopez C (2005) Through all things different : Pluralism as a basis for cooperation in forests Bogor, Indonesia: National Library of Indonesia Cataloging in Publication Data. Yamashita, S (2003) Bali and b ey ond: Explorations in the anthropology of tourism New York NY : Berghahn Books. Young, G (2008) The culturization of planning Planning Theory 7 (1), 71 91. Zube, E. H., Sell, J. L., & Taylor, J. G. (1982). Landscape perception: Research applica tion and theory Landscape Planning 9 1 33.
234 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Jocelyn Widmer was born in Lewisville, Texas in 1982. She earned her Bachelor of Arts in art h istory and English from Southwestern University in Georgetown, Texas (2003). Upon completi ng her undergraduate work, she traveled to Gold Coast, Australia to complete post Baccalaureate study at Bond University. In August of 2004, Joce lyn rchi tecture, with a certificate in historic p reservation which she earned from Texas A & M University in May of 2007 Throughout her graduate work in College Station, Texas, Jocelyn also worked for the planning and landscape architecture firm TBG in both their Aust in and San Antonio offices. Jocelyn earned h er PhD from the College of Design, Construction and Planning at the University of Florida, with a certificate in Tropical Conservation and Development and a certificate in Public Heath. She will apply coursework taken at the end of her doctoral studies to research experience draws on her background in l ands cape a rchitecture and her interdisciplinary interest s in working with community groups in developing regions of the wor ld. Her research experience includes work in Australia, Pohnpei (Federated States of Micronesia), and Indonesia (Java and Bali).