A DSR Methodology for Conceptual Solution Development of Public Open Space Governance

Gabriel Hoh Teck Ling, Pau Chung Leng, Noradila Rusli, Wai Shin Ho


Considering the importance of the 11th Sustainable Development Goal on sustainable cities and communities and the New Urban Agenda, it is imperative to address one of today’s crucial urban planning challenges, which concerns overexploitation, mismanagement, and quality issues related to public parks and state-owned public open space (POS). Selecting an appropriate methodological framework to formulate a solution to cope with the encountered challenges is necessary; however, finding a suitable one is difficult as there is a lack of research, particularly on the step-by-step development of a conceptual countermeasure (solution). Against this background, we adopted the revised design science research (DSR) framework and its procedural methodology to formulate a conceptual solution, represented as an artifact, within the institutional-social-ecological context of Sabah, Malaysia. The data obtained for the development and validation of the solution were secondary, based on a review via content analysis of prior studies. The proposed conceptual artifact (self-governing collective action) based on the root causes (i.e. property rights and transaction costs issues) from the ‘why’ analysis was then validated via the institutional analysis and development (IAD) framework using its social-ecological system (SES) criteria. The main contribution of this study is to showcase the application and relevancy of the DSR framework for urban and environmental planning research through a problem-solution analysis by demonstrating the process of how the artifact was systematically constructed, validated and standardised. It was found that the proposed conceptual solution can be considered valid and appropriate to address the local governance issues of POS. 

Abstrak. Mempertimbangkan pentingnya Tujuan Pembangunan Berkelanjutan ke-11 tentang Kota dan Komunitas yang Berkelanjutan dan Agenda Perkotaan Baru, penting untuk mengatasi salah satu tantangan perencanaan kota yang krusial saat ini terkait dengan permasalahan eksploitasi yang berlebihan, salah kelola, dan kualitas taman maupun ruang terbuka milik publik/negara (POS). Mencari kerangka metodologi yang tepat untuk mengatasi tantangan tersebut dirasakan perlu, tetapi menemukan yang cocok masih sulit karena kurangnya penelitian, terutama tahapan dan langkah mengembangkan konsep tindakan penanggulangan. Dengan latar belakang ini, dalam konteks kelembagaan-sosial-ekologis Sabah, Malaysia, kami mengadopsi kerangka kerja Penelitian Ilmu Desain (DSR) yang telah direvisi dan metodologi proseduralnya untuk merumuskan solusi konseptual yang direpresentasikan sebagai artefak. Data yang diperoleh untuk pengembangan dan validasi solusi adalah data sekunder, berdasarkan tinjauan melalui analisis konten dari studi sebelumnya. Artefak konseptual yang diusulkan (tindakan kolektif yang mengatur diri sendiri) berdasarkan akar penyebab (yaitu, masalah hak milik dan biaya transaksi) dari analisis 'mengapa'yang  kemudian divalidasi melalui kerangka Analisis dan Pengembangan Kelembagaan (IAD) dengan menggunakan kriteria social-ecological system (SES). Kontribusi utama studi ini adalah penerapan dan relevansi kerangka DSR dalam penelitian perencanaan kota dan lingkungan melalui analisis solusi masalah, dengan menunjukkan proses bagaimana artefak dibangun, divalidasi, dan distandarisasi secara sistematis. Akhirnya, artikel ini menunjukkan bahwa solusi konseptual yang diusulkan dianggap valid dan sesuai untuk mengatasi masalah tata kelola lokal POS. 

Kata kunci. Ruang terbuka publik, design science research, sistem tata-kelola mandiri, ekonomi kelembagaan baru, solusi konseptual.



public open space; revised design science research; self-governing system; new institutional economics; conceptual solution

Full Text:



Barzel, Y. (1997) Economic Analysis of Property Rights. Cambridge University Press.

Buchanan, J.M. (1965) An Economic Theory of Clubs. Economica 32(125), 1-14.

Carmona, M., C. de Magalhães, and I. Hammond (Eds.). (2008) Public Space: The Management Dimension. Routledge.

Carstensen, A.K., and J. Bernhard (2019) Design Science Research – A Powerful Tool for Improving Methods in Engineering Education Research. European Journal of Engineering Education 44(1-2), 85-102.

Chen, C.Y., and C. Webster (2006) Privatising the Governance and Management of Existing Urban Neighbourhoods. Property Management 24(2), 98–115. https://doi.org/10.1108/0263747 0610657998

Coase, R.H. (1960) The Problem of Social Cost. In Classic Papers in Natural Resource Economics (pp. 87-137). Palgrave Macmillan, London.

Colding, J., S. Barthel, P. Bendt, R. Snep, W. Van der Knaap, and H. Ernstson (2013) Urban Green Commons: Insights on Urban Common Property Systems. Global Environmental Change 23(5), 1039-1051.

Foster, S.R. (2011) Collective Action and The Urban Commons. Notre Dame L. Rev. 87, 57.

Foster, S.R., and C. Iaione (2015) The City as A Commons. Yale L. & Pol'y Rev. 34, 281.

Geerts, G.L. (2011) A Design Science Research Methodology and Its Application to Accounting Information Systems Research. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 12(2), 142-151.

Hanid, M.B. (2014) Design Science Research as An Approach to Develop Conceptual Solutions for Improving Cost Management in Construction (doctoral dissertation, University of Salford).

Hanna, S., C. Folke, and K.-G. Maler (1996) Rights to Nature: Ecological, Economic, Cultural, and Political Principles of Institutions for the Environment. Island Press.

Hardin, G. (1968) The Tragedy of The Commons. Science 162(3859), 1243-1248.

Hevner, A.R. (2007) A Three Cycle View of Design Science Research. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 19(2), 4.

Kuechler, W., and V. Vaishnavi (2007, May) Design [Science] Research in IS: A Work in Progress. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology (DESRIST 2007) (pp. 1-17).

Liker, J.K. (2004) The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles from the World's Greatest Manufacturer. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Ling, G.H.T. (2017) Institutional Property Rights of Residential Public Open Space in Sabah, Malaysia. PhD Thesis. Faculty of Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.

Ling, G.H.T. (2019) Ostrom’s Collective-Action in Neighbourhood Public Open Space: Evidence from Sabah, Malaysia. Institutions and Economies, 103-134.

Ling, G.H.T., and P.C. Leng (2018) Ten Steps Qualitative Modelling: Development And Validation of Conceptual Institutional-Social-Ecological Model of Public Open Space (POS) Governance and Quality. Resources 7(4), 62.

Ling, G.H.T., C.S. Ho, K.Y. Tsau, and C.T. Cheng (2019a) Interrelationships between Public Open Space, Common Pool Resources, Publicness Levels and Commons Dilemmas: A Different Perspective in Urban Planning. International Journal of Built Environment and Sustainability. 6(2), 13-21.

Ling, G.H.T., H. Siong, A. Mohd, and T. Fan (2016) Do Institutions Matter in Neighbourhood Commons Governance? A Two-Stage Relationship Between Diverse Property-Rights Structure and Residential Public Open Space (POS) Quality: Kota Kinabalu and Penampang, Sabah, Malaysia. International Journal of the Commons 10(1).

Ling, G.H.T., P.C. Leng, and C.S. Ho (2019b) Effects of Diverse Property Rights on Rural Neighbourhood Public Open Space (POS) Governance: Evidence from Sabah, Malaysia. Economies 7(2), 61.

Lukka, K. (2003) The Constructive Research Approach. Case Study Research in Logistics. Publications of the Turku School of Economics and Business Administration, Series B, 1(2003), 83-101.

March, S.T., and G.F. Smith (1995) Design and Natural Science Research on Information Technology. Decision Support Systems 15(4), 251-266.

Musole, M. (2009) Property Rights, Transaction Costs and Institutional Change: Conceptual Framework and Literature Review. Progress in Planning 71(2), 43-85.

Nelson, R.H. (2004) The Private Neighborhood. Regulation 27, 40.

North, D.C. (1990) Institutions. Journal of Economic Perspectives 5(1), 97-112.

Olson, M. (1965) The Theory of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

Ostrom, E. (1990) Governing The Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press.

Ostrom, E. (2011) Background on The Institutional Analysis and Development Framework. Policy Studies Journal 39(1), 7-27.

Peffers, K., T. Tuunanen, M.A. Rothenberger, and S. Chatterjee (2007) A Design Science Research Methodology for Information Systems Research. Journal of Management Information Systems 24(3), 45-77.

Robson, B.J., D.P. Hamilton, I.T. Webster, and T. Chan (2008) Ten Steps Applied to Development and Evaluation of Process-Based Biogeochemical Models of Estuaries. Environmental Modelling & Software 23(4), 369-384.

Sondalini, M. (2009) Understanding How to Use The 5-Whys for Root Cause Analysis. [Online] Retrieved from http://www.lifetime-reliability.com/tutorials/lean-managementmethods/How _to_Use_the_5-Whys_for_Root_Cause_ Analysis.pdf

Stamatiadis, N., A. Kirk, D. Hartman, and J. Pigman (2010) Practical Solution Concepts for Planning and Designing Roadways. Journal of Transportation Engineering 136(4), 291-297.

Van Laerhoven, F. (2010) Governing Community Forests and the Challenge of Solving Two-Level Collective Action Dilemmas–A Large-N Perspective. Global Environmental Change 20(3), 539-546.

Venable, J. (2006) A Framework for Design Science Research Activities. In Emerging Trends and Challenges in Information Technology Management: Proceedings of the 2006 Information Resource Management Association Conference (pp. 184-187). Idea Group Publishing.

Webster, C. (2007). Property Rights, Public Space and Urban Design. Town Planning Review 78(1), 81-101.

Webster, C.J., and L.W.C. Lai (2003) Property Rights, Planning and Markets: Managing Spontaneous Cities. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Williamson, O.E. (1993) Opportunism and Its Critics. Managerial and Decision Economics 14(2), 97-107.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5614%2Fjpwk.2021.32.1.2

© 2020 Institut Teknologi Bandung