The Conflict of New Yogyakarta Airport Development

21 May 1998 marked the new beginning for Indonesia, known as The Reformation, following the resignation of President Soeharto after ruling the country for 32 years. Since then, Indonesia has embarked on a decentralization program that shifts the central to sub-national decision-making functions. However, 20 years later, Indonesia still experiences inconsistency in managing this democratic approach, especially involving the public. Firstly, the long period of centralization during the Soeharto's era has left and ignored the local governments to equip the capacity to plan and produce public goods (Nasution, 2016). Secondly, the local authorities tend to shape the region based on their perceptions and interest, which exploit the resources unsustainable to maximize the local income, ignoring the citizens' social economy and political condition (Firman, 2010).

This essay will capture the phenomenon above in the form of the community engagement process in the recent project of New Yogyakarta International Airport (NYIA), located in the south-western part of Yogyakarta Province or known as Yogyakarta Special Region (DIY). One of the main concerns in this project is how the land clearing procedure was conducted. The different interests of each landlord led to conflicts as the land was a job provider for some farming tenants. The opposition to the project was considered vital as it took six years, 2012 to 2018, to finish this land clearing procedure.

The essay will start with the basic concept of conflict. It will then explore the case study context, followed by how the project of NYIA conducted its public participation in the land clearing procedure. The essay will also assess this agrarian conflict through the stakeholders' perspectives, community engagement type, and power relations. Furthermore, there will be a conclusion or lesson learned about why engaging local communities is essential in every planning process.

Planning, governance, and community engagement

Conflict is inevitable in life as humans need to interact with others to fulfil their needs. As long as every person has different interests and perspectives,ssdecision-making process of city planning, conflict often occurs among the actors. It is a part of governance processes to intervene the nature andspecificticgovernance process

Planning is defined as the process of governance to intervene the nature and to achieve certain goals of urban outcomes (UN-Habitat, 2009), in which the governance is the management of collective affairs gathered from formal government agencies and other actors, including businesses and citizens (Healey, 1997a). A ' tDuring these complex processes to decide what to do, ideally there are interactions and discussions between actors such as government bodies, organizations, communities, and even individuals (Queensland Government, 2017). alignsaHowever, the process to define one agreement sometimes meets a dead end which refers to the definition of conflict, a perception that others have different value and interest (Pruitt, 2007).

sblockage regulations such as land use and ownership(Healey, 1997b)Consistent with Firman (2010) study, tthe personal interest of the local leaders. Furthermore, the concept of 'the king can do no wrong' in governance that inherits the old system of feudalism (Suhartono, 1999) might exacerbate the adverse impact of neoliberalism. Another impact that should be underlined is that the development might ignore the needs of the directly impacted communities and force them to be marginalized and deprived (Marcuse, 2009).

New Yogyakarta International Airport and its surroundings

DIY differs from the others as it has been awarded as a special region due to the historical context in helping Indonesia defend its independence against the Dutch. Based on the Special Laws (UUK)[1], the leader of this region will always be the Sultan and his descendants that hold the position of a governor. DIY consists of five city/regency: Yogyakarta city, Sleman, Bantul, Gunung Kidul, and Kulon Progo (Figure 1). These regions are widely known as the cheapest City in Indonesia due to their small minimum wages and cheap living costs. However, this remarkable region also has a high gap in economic distribution as most of the gross domestic product came only from Sleman, Yogyakarta city, and Bantul (Edita, 2019). Therefore, the NYIA is placed in Kulon Progo to overcome this economic gap (Regional Secretary of DIY, 2017).

Figure 1 The administration area of DIY (adapted from Dikpora, 2022)

NYIA was one of the top master plan projects (MP3EI)[2] for accelerating and expanding Indonesia's economic development that aims to attract investment, increase connectivity, and enhance the tourism industry of DIY as the second most popular destination after Bali (Coordinating Ministry for Economic Affairs, 2011). Furthermore, another reason behind the project was that the previous airport (Adisucipto) originally belonged to the National Army and could not be expanded to accommodate the increasing projected tourists in the upcoming years and limited surrounding land (Angkasa Pura, 2017). The new airport plan will have a capacity of 14 million passengers per year and 35 aeroplane parks. Currently, the new airport has been built and operated normally after six years of land conflicts inside the planned-650-hectare land airport in the village of Palihan, Sindutan, Glagah, Jangkaran, and Kebonrejo.

Stakeholders involved

In the process of the NYIA governance, there are some involvements of the stakeholders who have interests and influences (Table 1). Stakeholders can be defined as a person or group of people interested in or being affected by the ongoing issues (Glenorchy City Council, 2017). The involved actors in NYIA development are divided into three categories: the government, private, and public.

In implementing MP3EI, improving regulations and permits at the regional and national levels is key to success. The project of NYIA is the responsibility of the Ministry of Transportation, and the local governments and agencies must support it. Therefore, the government's players are the ones who hold the critical paperwork in this project. It is similar to Roitman (2016) study as the government has the most substantial role in implementing policies and programs.

The project of NYIA also does not rely on the government but also on an international investor. An international investor, GVK (an Indian conglomerate), signed the MoU to deliver a funding injection to build the airport with Indonesia's state-owned business in the related sector, Angkasa Pura. According to Healey (1997a), both actors will be considered the private stakeholders because they are engaged in providing substantial subsidies for the development.

Lastly, the public stakeholders are defined as a wide range of actors from international and/or local NGOs to the grassroots level of the community (Roitman, 2016). During the implementation of NYIA, some groups formed, such as the opposers and the supporter of the proposed development. Furthermore, there was also a legal aid institution similar to NGO, which provides legal assistance.

Table 1 The identified stakeholders in the NYIA development

Sector	Stakeholder	Role and interest
Government	Ministry of Transportation	The actor has the responsibility to decide the final location of the airport. The Ministry Regulation Number 836 on 2014 commands the local government to adjust and update the land use regulation (Coordinating Ministry for Economic Affairs, 2011; Sopanuddin, 2016).
	Provincial Government of DIY, Governor or Sultan	The Governor of DIY is the one who has the right to issue The Land Use Permit (IPL). On the other hand, as a Sultan, he also would like to declare and maximize the Sultanate Ground[3] as the new airport (Kurniadi, 2020; Sopanuddin, 2016).
	Municipal Government of Kulon Progo	This government stakeholder has the responsibility to design the land use and together with the higher government to form an appraisal team to measure the land (Marsudi et al., 2019; Sopanuddin, 2016)
	District Government of Temon and Village Leaders	This government facilitate the meeting between the higher government and the public. It also delivers the message and announcement to the public (Marsudi et al., 2019).
Private	Angkasa Pura	It is a state-owned company that aims to govern and plan every airport in Indonesia. Together with Provincial Government, Angkasa Pura also has responsibilities to design, evaluate, and conduct public participation (Azizah, 2018; Marsudi et al., 2019).
	GVK	An Indian investor plans to fund $500 million to the development of NYIA (Marsudi et al., 2019).
Public	Wahana Tri Tunggal (WTT), PWPP-KP[4]	A group of people (mostly consist of farmers from five affected villages) that opposed to the NYIA project. Later on, as some of the members chose to change side, they formed a new community, PWPP-KP in 2017 (Marsudi et al., 2019; Sopanuddin, 2016).
	LBH Yogyakarta	An institution that had interest to help WTT to assess and watch the development of NYIA from the law legal perspective (Sopanuddin, 2016).
	The supporters	The locals who support the NYIA with some conditions (Sopanuddin, 2016).

Type of community engagement

2012 to early 2014

According to Sopanuddin (2016), the local citizens started to feel insecure in 2012 as the issue of building a new airport had been growing more pronounced in the mass media. Of 11,000 citizens of five villages, 8,400 people opposed the airport (Marsudi et al., 2019). Furthermore, most people rejected the airport issue because they feared losing jobs and lands as farmers. Therefore, some of them decided to form a community, namely Wahana Tri Tunggal (WTT) (Marsudi et al., 2019). On 12 Sept 2012, some local stakeholders met the Bupati[5] Kulon Progo to verify the issue, but there was no clear answer. The Sultan also did not want to pronounce the final location of the airport to avoid an extreme increase in the land price, which might exacerbate the land clearing procedure (Marsudi et al., 2019). As the unclear issue became a hot topic and sensitive, WTT asked for assistance from LBH Yogyakarta and attached rejection banners along the Daendels National Street.

In 2013, there were some published reports on a feasibility study in the coastal area of Kulon Progo by local universities and institutions. A study by Marsudi et al. (2019) shows that these activities gave hope to the locals that the airport development might be canceled. However, the study also noted that an airport appraisal team from Angkasa Pura, accompanied by the local government, suddenly conducted a land measurement and benchmarks in January 2014 without prior notice. The arrival of that team triggered the anger of the WTT, which led to a massive blockade on Daendels Street and demonstrations in the village council buildings. On the other hand, Marsudi et al. (2019) also noted that the village leader gave no comment and responded that the benchmarking was the order from the provincial government.

2014 – 2019

Nine months later, the government of Yogyakarta announced the final development proposal of a new international airport that would be built in Temon, Kulon Progo. According to Azizah (2018), that process is a part of informing through mass media and press conferences. Figure 2 illustrates the timeline plan to conduct the community engagement by the Government of Yogyakarta accompanied by the lower governments. The early screening was formal presentations and field trips from the government to each affected village council building. This stage was followed by the public consultations in which, among 2546 invited citizens, there were 396 who did not attend (Marsudi et al., 2019). The first consultation aimed to capture all the citizens' perspectives and feedback toward the airport project, while the second one presented the government's responses to critiques and comments from the first consultation (Azizah, 2018). During those events, the private and government agreed to fulfill the people's requests: high land compensation, relocation houses, and airport jobs provision (Edita, 2019; Marsudi et al., 2019; Sopanuddin, 2016).

Figure 2 The timeline plan for public participation in NYIA (Azizah, 2018)

During the building process of NYIA, Angkasa Pura and the local government held 15 training programs for corporate social responsibility (CSR). Table 2 shows that the programs were held from 11 July 2018 to 25 May 2019, dominated by General English training classes. However, Az-Zahra and Sigit (2019) survey depicts that most former farmers still experience hard times adapting and looking for airport jobs. Some of them complained that the relocation houses provided by the private stakeholders are tiny and do not support cattle farming activity. Furthermore, the compensation money was hugely reduced as most of them failed to try a new business or rent farming land due to unclear job provisions from the airport for the locals.

Table 2 The training classes provided by the private for the empowerment of the locals (Susanto, 2020)

Events	Total number of participants, receipts	Time range
4x General English class	40/session	11 Jul – 7 Dec 2018
How to fix air conditioner		8 Oct – 10 Nov 2018
Welding class		10 Dec 2018 – 11 Jan 2019
Electricity class
Stone and wood crafting class		12 Nov – 17 Dec 2018
Financial aids for students	238	6 – 24 Aug 2018
PAUD teaching class	17	10 – 31 August 2018
Disability empowerment class		15 Aug – 12 Oct 2018
Elders empowerment class		15 Aug – 12 Oct 2018
Cattle farming class		1 Oct – 14 Dec 2018
Agribusiness development class		1 Oct – 30 Nov 2018
Fishermen empowerment class		3 Sept – 31 Oct 2018
Entrepreneurship class		2 Jan – 29 Mar 2019
Tourism industry class		5 Mar – 27 Apr 2019
Airport supporting system class		12 Mar – 25 May 2019

Blank spaces = no data

Based on these findings, the public participation conducted by the government and the private is 'consult'. It is a method that acknowledges the public perspectives to provide alternative decisions (IAP2, 2014). The government listened and agreed to deliver the public requests (compensation, relocation, and job provision). However, this participation couldn't be defined as 'involve' as there was still no effort from the private and government to ensure that the aspirations were well reflected in the final decision (Figure 3).

Figure 3 The public participation spectrum (IAP2, 2014)

Power relations

Elite perspectives

In the UUK, it is stated that the Government of DIY, led by the Governor (Sultan), can decide whatever regulations that support the culture preservation. For example, the Sultan's servant can be defined as someone identified as a government officer, including local leaders and the military[6]. As administration leaders in DIY are considered Sultan's servants, they have the right to use the Sultanate Ground as a gift for their loyalty[7]. In the case of NYIA, the village government only acted as announcers from the higher-level government (province and municipality) instead of giving responses to the mass demonstration in September 2014 or representing the opposition perspectives back to the higher hierarchy (Marsudi et al., 2019; Sopanuddin, 2016). Furthermore, there was an indication of media control as Arifin and Basuki (2018) found that the local news only emphasized the positive impacts of NYIA without covering the essential opposition's views such as land deprivation and farmers criminalization. According to Ife (2016), such events show the true control of key institutions from certain elite groups as a 'power over' to dominate the least powerful entity.

On the other hand, these elites were also able to perpetuate the project behind the public scene as Susanto (2020) found that the final decision on the airport was made in early 2014. However, the locals started late to know the formal announcement was delivered in September 2014. This decision made by the Ministry of Transport and the Provincial government can be considered a 'hidden power' due to the exclusion of other less powerful groups (Gaventa, 2006).

In 2016, the hot issue of NYIA became so sensitive as the WTT experienced the 'power over' from the police and surrounding neighbors (Marsudi et al., 2019; Sopanuddin, 2016). The police and the appraisal team from Angkasa Pura, and PLN[8] officers insisted on measuring the remaining land and cutting the electricity. Heavy equipment such as bulldozers also existed to clear the farming crops. Both sides' anger peaked as crying, beating, and changed words worsened the day. Such a thing had entered a new stage of the conflict, escalation, described as angry statements and heavy contentious tactics posing dangerous threats to a conflict (Table 3) (Pruitt, 2007).

Table 3 The different perspectives that caused a conflict escalation

Stakeholders	What they think
WTT	The members wanted to stay as farmers. They believe that their farming lands have always belonged to them since their grandparents held the land ownership certification. They never agreed on Rijkblad[9] and the consignment process (Marsudi et al., 2019).
Angkasa Pura, PLN, and Police	Following the consignment[10] decision from the Governor, these stakeholders believed that the WTT must take the compensation money through the consignment process to process the development soon (Marsudi et al., 2019).
Surrounding neighbors	As they supported the NYIA, the neighbors helped with the land clearing procedure (Sopanuddin, 2016).

 

Market centrality

According to the land-use plan of Kulon Progo, the land in Temon was mainly planned to stay as an agricultural area. This plan was supported by the massive production of crops from the affected villages (Figure 4). Those conditions, including the proof of land ownership, were why the attorney picked the WTT as the winning side and canceled the IPL on 23 June 2015 (Sopanuddin, 2016). However, as this decision was revoked by the Supreme Court a week later, the NYIA stood still. Such acts indicate market centrality with the neoliberalism principle as the airport development is outside the trajectory plan of the local authority (Minnery, 2007), which led to a reducing the blockade through changing the land use plan (Healey, 1997b).

Figure 4 The total production of farming crops in five affected villages (Indonesian Statistics, 2015 adapted from Pratama & Yahsyi, 2016)

Effort to empower

To balance the elite power, Ife (2016) emphasizes empowerment by allying with other powerful elite. The WTT sought legal assistance from LBH Yogyakarta. This community felt that they never were invited to join the public participation as they rejected the proposal (Edita, 2019). With this new partnership, WTT analyzed the problem and formed strong arguments for collective action delivered in streets, council buildings, and courts (Figure 5). It was successful as it canceled the IPL. This synergy among both actors is considered 'power with' as they acted together in solidarity (Ife, 2016).

Figure 5 a) A well-known poster during the conflict time, b) the community was discussing a strategy, and c) a mosque was converted to be the main gathering post, the banner said "mosque is for praying, not for an airport!"

Formed communities

A community is a group of people who identify themselves due to their similarities or having something in common (Gallent & Ciaffi, 2014). There are two types of community: community-based on location and community-based on identity. A community based on location or socio-spatial community is a group of people due to their close residential proximity. In the case of NYIA, the people who opposed the project formed a community, namely Wahana Tri Tunggal (WTT) (Sopanuddin, 2016). The community members were primarily farmers (the landlord and farm cultivators[11]) from Palihan and Glagah, as NYIA affected more land and people in both villages. There is also a small number of people from the rest of the three villages. Therefore, WTT can be considered a socio-spatial community. Typically, this community is only an accident of residency that lacks deeper motivation, and the bond is not strong (Bell & Newby, 1976; Delanty, 2003 from Gallent & Ciaffi, 2014).

However, WTT had a strong bond considering that they ever had a thriving social action. With the help of Legal Aid Institute Yogyakarta (LBH)[12] and massive protests, the community won the court on 23 Jun 2015. The Location Permit (IPL)[13] issued by the Governor was revoked. This collaboration of WTT and LBH Yogyakarta to protest, raise the aspirations, and win the court is the reactive action toward the NYIA development. Those reactive activities are one of the community action drivers characterized by protest and lobbying as the initial response (Gallent & Ciaffi, 2014).

On the other hand, these involved communities' thinking has evolved using the internet and social media. The winning story was heard across the country and inspired the other communities through Kamisan[14]. For example, the Kamisan in Bandung[15] brought the winning story of WTT to inspire the slum community of Tamansari to fight against the housing development which would take their land. They posted about their own story, but they also shared the struggle of the other communities experiencing the same issues (Figure 6). They did so to raise their issues and show support one to another. Such activities prove that people could find a stronger connection with clear goals through online platforms rather than offline, although it diminishes the spatial fixity (Gallent & Ciaffi, 2014).

Figure 6 a) Through a social media account, the NYIA opposers showed support for Tamansari, Bandung, and b) vice versa

The essential rationale for a better community engagement

Empowerment

Empowerment is defined as acts to increase the power of the less-fortunate community (Ife, 2016). As the farming land would be converted to concrete, the farmers would be disadvantaged as that process would disrupt their social capital. Farming is not merely a plant-harvest cycle but a hereditary job from generation to generation which connects people to people in the form of gotong royong[16] to create collective welfare (Sopanuddin, 2016; Szreter & Woolcock, 2004). It is considered normal to question the airport proposal that would take their social capital. In the case of NYIA, the locals did not aim to gain more power, but they wanted to be empowered with information about the airport. Based on Martin (2007), those methods are considered social activism as the citizens had no power or significant influence to challenge the decisions. Furthermore, he also notes that the characteristic of future-oriented activism is seeking changing relationships as the exclamation point, such as greater equality and worker participation in the decision process. The public participation of NYIA met this characteristic as, finally, they looked forward and demanded job provisions in the airport (Sopanuddin, 2016).

Transparency

In order to achieve an inclusive city in 2030, community engagement is an essential tool as it provides a common understanding between actors that brings accountability and transparency. Although hundreds of people initially opposed NYIA, the conducted public participation successfully reduced the number of opposers to approximately 30 people in 2017 (Marsudi et al., 2019). This act was because the actors started to understand one another perspectives through negotiation. Therefore, it is essential to provide transparency and conduct public participation as early as possible to minimize the conflict between actors.

Social justice and inclusivity

WTT experienced a shrinking number of the members due to changing sides in 2016 – 2017 due to criminalization[17] and intimidation (forced house demolishment, electricity cut, and polluted wells by their neighbours) in the name of nationalism[18] (Marsudi et al., 2019). Most of the remaining members who formed a new community, namely PWPP-KP were considered land cultivators by the Governor[19]. In the feudal system, these people are called kawula or the lowest level in social status (Suhartono, 1999). Furthermore, they can also be considered victims of how The Sultan took over a land-based on historical and informal relations (Kurniadi, 2020). Even after the finish of the airport project, most of the public who live in relocation houses still cannot adapt to the changes (Az-Zahra & Sigit, 2019). Those conditions are defined by Marcuse (2009) as the deprived, which the definition is as follows,

'… those who directly oppressed, the homeless, the hungry, the imprisoned, the persecuted on gender, religious, and racial grounds… those superficially integrated into the system and sharing in its material benefits, but constrained in their opportunities for creative activity, oppressed in their relationship… unfulfilled in their lives' hopes.'

In every project development, an initiative must come initially from the grassroots community that understands the demand and surrounding conditions (Wakely, 2020). Therefore, a good community engagement will deliver both traits in 'collaborate' and 'empower' ways as it triggers the deprived community to formulate solutions or implement policies (IAP2, 2014).

Conclusion

The NYIA project is one of the grand plans of Indonesia in Kulon Progo, DIY, to maximize economic investment.  The engagement process of the project focused on the land clearing procedure that was considered slow and complex, and it took six years with a lot of tensions and conflicts. While the opposition formed a community, namely WTT and kept rejecting the project by having social movement and blocking the road, the public supporters demanded some requests such as high compensation, relocation houses, and job provisions. This study finds that each stakeholder has a different perspective and unequal power distribution. Although the government took aspirations, the spectrum of public participation was still considered 'inform' because the government and private did not ensure to fulfil the received feedback.

Based on how the NYIA conducted its community involvement, we can conclude that it lacked community empowerment, late transparency, and lack of inclusiveness, especially from the disadvantaged group. Therefore, community engagement is a critical element in planning because it empowers the people. In NYIA, lack of empowerment led to a massive social protest of the WTT, which other communities had empowered against the development. Secondly, it creates mistrust or trust in the government. The study showed that late undetailed transparency triggered the people to request a high land compensation. Lastly, it is an opportunity to enforce inclusivity and social justice. Learning from NYIA, excluding the deprived led to an unsustainable community as they will be marginalized from the airport due to their improvisational skills.

References

Angkasa Pura. (2017). Catatan CEO [CEO's Note]. Babat Alas Nawung Kridha, Babak Baru Bandara Yogyakarta [The New Stage of Yogyakarta Airport], 9. https://ap1.co.id/contents/file/439-ANGKASA_PURA_MAGAZINE_EDISI_JANUARI-FEBRUARI_2017.pdf

Arifin, K. A., & Basuki, U. (2018). Media dan NYIA: Analisis Wacana Kritis Pembangunan Bandara Baru Yogyakarta dalam Media Lokal [Media and NYIA: Critical Analysis on NYIA from the Perspective of Local Mass Media]. Jurnal Komunikasi, 13(1), 69-80. https://doi.org/10.20885/komunikasi.vol13.iss1.art5

Az-Zahra, Y. F., & Sigit, A. A. (2019). Analisis Dampak Sosial Ekonomi Pembangunan Bandara New Yogyakarta International Airport terhadap Kehidupan Masyarakat di Kecamatan Temon, Kabupaten Kulonprogo, Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta [Socio-Economic Impacts of NYIA for the Livelihood of Temon, Kulon Progo, DIY]. Undergraduate Theses, Faculty of Geography, Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta. http://eprints.ums.ac.id/73280/

Azizah, N. (2018). Dampak Sosial Ekonomi Pembebasan Lahan Pembangunan Bandar Udara Yogyakarta [The Socio Economic Impact of the Land Clearing Procedure of Yogyakarta International Airport]. Politika Jurnal Ilmu Politik, 8(2), 76-91. https://doi.org/10.14710/politika.8.2.2017.76-91

Coordinating Ministry for Economic Affairs. (2011). Masterplan Acceleration and Expansion of Indonesia Economic Development 2011-2025. Ministry of National Development Planning/National Development Agency. https://www.aseanbriefing.com/userfiles/resources-pdfs/Indonesia/FDI/ASEAN_Indonesia_Master%20Plan%20Acceleration%20and%20Expansion%20of%20Indonesia%20Economic%20Development%202011-2025.pdf

Dikpora. (2022). Data Satuan Pendidikan DIY [The Data of Educational Institutions]. Dinas Pendidikan Pemuda dan Olahraga. Retrieved 5 June 2022 from https://dikpora.jogjaprov.go.id/web/

Edita, E. P. (2019). Aerotropolis: At What Cost, to Whom? Master Thesis Series in Environmental Studies and Sustainability Science, Lund University, 32. https://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/search/publication/8980037

Firman, T. (2010). Multi local-government under Indonesia's decentralization reform: The case of Kartamantul (The Greater Yogyakarta). Habitat International, 34(4), 400-405. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2009.11.005

Gallent, N., & Ciaffi, D. (2014). Community action and planning. In N. Gallent & D. Ciaffi (Eds.), Community action and planning: Contexts, drivers and outcomes (1 ed., pp. 1-16). Bristol University Press,. https://doi.org/10.1332/policypress/9781447315162.003.0001

Gaventa, J. (2006). Finding the Spaces for Change: A Power Analysis. IDS Bulletin, 37, 23-33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1759-5436.2006.tb00320.x

Glenorchy City Council. (2017). Community Engagement Procedure. Community Planning and Inclusion Glenorchy City.

Healey, P. (1997a). Planning and Governance. In P. Healey (Ed.), Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies (pp. 205-242). Macmillan Education UK. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-25538-2_7

Healey, P. (1997b). Traditions of Planning Thought. In P. Healey (Ed.), Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies (pp. 7-30). Macmillan Education UK. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-25538-2_1

IAP2. (2014). Public Participation Spectrum. International Association for Public Participation Federation. https://iap2.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/IAP2_Public_Participation_Spectrum.pdf

Ife, J. (2016). Chapter 3 Foundation of community development: ecological and social justice perspectives. In Community Development in an Uncertain World: Vision, Analysis and Practice (2 ed., pp. 44-73). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316342855

Kurniadi, B. D. (2020). Defending the Sultan's Land: Yogyakarta, Control over Land and Aristocratic Power in Post Autocratic Indonesia. Open Access Theses, The Australian National Univeristy. https://doi.org/10.25911/5e3a934e0d160

Marcuse, P. (2009). From critical urban theory to the right to the city, City: analysis of urban trends, culture, theory, policy, action. City, 13(2-3), 185-197. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604810902982177

Marsudi, Rosalina, K. E., & Sunarso. (2019). Resolusi Konflik Agraria Pada Pembangunan New Yogyakarta International Airport (NYIA) dalam Perspektif Hak dan Kewajiban Negara [Agrarian Conflict Resolution on NYIA from the Perspective of Citizen's Right and Obligation]. Master Theses, Faculty of Social Science, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta. https://eprints.uny.ac.id/66284/

Martin, B. (2007). Activism, Social and Political. Encyclopedia of Activism and Social Justice. https://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/07Anderson.pdf

Minnery, J. (2007). Stars and their Supporting Cast: State, Market and Community as Actors in Urban Governance. Urban Policy and Research, 25(3), 325-345. https://doi.org/10.1080/08111140701540745

Nasution, A. (2016). Government Decentralization Program in Indonesia. ADBI Working Paper, 601. https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/201116/adbi-wp601.pdf

Paryanto. (2016). Dinamika Politik Keistimewaan di Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta Pasca UU Nomor 13 Tahun 2012 [The Political Dynamics of DIY on the Regulation Number 13 of 2012]. Master Theses, Faculty of Social Science, Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta. http://repository.umy.ac.id/bitstream/handle/123456789/8823/Tesis%20Paryanto%20-%20Politik%20Keistimewaan%20DIY%20-LENGKAP%20%281%29.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Pratama, A. B., & Yahsyi, A. (2016). Para Penantang Sultan dari Kulon Progo [The Sultan Opposers from Kulon Progo]. CNN Indonesia. https://www.cnnindonesia.com/nasional/20160830195456-20-154975/para-penantang-sultan-dari-kulon-progo

Pruitt, D. G. (2007). Social Conflict: Some Basic Principles. Journal of Dispute Resolution, 1(8). https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jdr/vol2007/iss1/8

Queensland Government. (2017). Community engagement toolkit for planning. Department of Infrastructure Local Government and Planning.

Regional Secretary of DIY. (2017). Forum Tematik: Bandara Baru, Mewujudkan DIY sebagai Daerah Tujuan Wisata dan Budaya Kelas Dunia [Thematic Forum: NYIA, Achieving DIY as World-Class Tourist and Culture Destination]. Asisten Perekonomian dan Pembangunan Setda DIY. http://bappeda.jogjaprov.go.id/download/download/379

Roitman, S. (2016). Top-Down and Bottom-Up Strategies for Housing and Poverty Alleviation in Indonesia: The PNPM Programme in Yogyakarta. In S. Attia (Ed.), Dynamics and Resilience of Informal Areas (pp. 188-210). Springer International Publishing Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29948-8_11

Sopanuddin, A. (2016). Konflik Lahan Pertanian dalam Pembangunan Bandara International di Kulon Progo [Farming Land Conflict inside the Project of International Airport in Kulon Progo]. Undergraduate Theses, Faculty of Social Science, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta. https://eprints.uny.ac.id/41367/

Suhartono. (1999). Feudal Heritage: Source of Corruption, Collusion, and Nepotism. Humaniora, 11, 15-20. https://doi.org/10.22146/jh.672

Susanto, H. (2020). Analisis Dampak Sosial Ekonomi dalam Pembangunan Yogyakarta International Airport di Kulon Progo [Socio-Economic Impacts of NYIA, Kulon Progo]. Majalah Ilmiah Bijak, 17(1). https://ojs.stiami.ac.id/index.php/bijak/article/download/820/460

Szreter, S., & Woolcock, M. (2004). Health by association? Social capital, social theory, and the political economy of public health. International Journal of Epidemiology, 33(4), 650-667. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyh013

UN-Habitat. (2009). Planning Sustainable Cities, Global Report on Human Settlements. Earthscan. https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/download-manager-files/Global%20Report%20on%20Human%20Settlements%202009%20Planning%20Sustainable%20Cities.pdf

Wakely, P. (2020). Partnership: a strategic paradigm for the production & management of affordable housing & sustainable urban development. International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development, 12(1), 119-125. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463138.2019.1647016

---

[1] Special Laws is Regulation Number 13 of 2012 known as Undang Undang Keistimewaan (UUK).

[2] Master Percepatan dan Perluasan Pembangunan Ekonomi Indonesia (MP3EI).

[3] Sultanate Ground is defined as land which belongs to the Sultan.

[4] Paguyuban Warga Penolak Penggusuran Bandara Kulon Progo (PWPP-KP).

[5] The Lordman or leader of municipality.

[6] The Sultan’s servant is divided into two groups. One of them is Keprajan, the Sultan’s servant from government bodies. Through the UUK, Paryanto (2016) indicates a conflict of interest.

[7] Not only receiving monthly salary, a local leader affiliated with Sultan will received a land called as bengkok. This land should be returned after finishing the job.

[8] Perusahaan Listrik Negara (PLN) is a state-owned company that has a responsibly on house electrification.

[9] It is an old regulation that states ‘every land that has no ownership proof belongs to the king’.

[10] It is a mechanism where the money of land compensation for the opposed is entrusted to the court.

[11] It is also known as buruh tani and kawula, a farmer who has no land ownership and farm for the land owner.

[12] Lembaga Bantuan Hukum (LBH).

[13] Izin Penetapan Lokasi (IPL).

[14] Kamis means Thursday. It is a human and land right activism which exist in almost every city in Indonesia. This event was initially to ask the government every Thursday to look for the missing people, inspired by the mothers of Plaza de Mayo, Argentina.

[15] It is the capital city of West Java Province, more than 300 km from DIY.

[16] Generally, it is a culture of the citizens of DIY to help other people in a collective (together) way such as planting, harvesting, and selling the rice.

[17] Due to the social protest in September 2014, some of the farmers were jailed (Sopanuddin, 2016).

[18] The development of NYIA is based on Regulation Number 2 of 2012, the land clearing is for the national importance (Azizah, 2018).

[19] These land cultivators have no land ownerships. They fear the NYIA will take the farmland as their main job provisions. Furthermore, they will only get a little compensation in the consignment process (Marsudi et al., 2019).