The practice of village branding and marginalisation in Mojokerto, Indonesia

The background of this research is the phenomenon of villages that fail in branding and developing a positive image that causes marginalisation and stigma. The two research locations are the Sumberglagah ‘Leprosy Village’ in Tangjungkenongo and the ‘Duck Village’ in Modopuro. This study intended to answer two questions: how does it apply the place branding concept in the village scope? And more specifically, how do the village elites respond to these stigmas and discriminatory treatment the villagers receive? We used qualitative methods through interviews and questionnaires to answer these questions. This study found that the Tanjungkenongo village is known as the “Leprosy Village,” and one of the Sub-Villages in Sumberglagah is called the “Beggar Village.” On the other hand, the Modopuro village is known as the “Duck Village,” and Sememi’s Sub-Village is known as the “Chicken Intestine Waste Village.” As a response, the Tanjungkenongo Village elites tend to accept these outsiders’ perceptions towards their village. Meanwhile, the Modopuro Village Elites were divided into two groups. The elites who own related industries (duck farming, poultry slaughter, chicken intestine chips) feel comfortable with this image. In contrast, the elites who have no direct interest in the industries directly reject those outsiders’ views.


INTRODUCTION
The stigma that continues to grow in the Village community can worsen the Village branding, which is exposed to social labels due to bad stigma. Goffman classified stigma into three categories. First, stigma due to dislike of body parts, such as abnormalities or disabilities that are physically visible. Second, the refusal arises because of an abnormal personality, illness, and unusual habits, so they receive unpleasant treatment or are not respected by local residents-for example, people with mental retardation, prisoners, drug addicts, and corruptors. Third, stigma is based on ethnicity, race, nation, and belief (Goffman, 1963). Stigma is a social process or individual experience indicated by exclusion, reproach and devaluation due to negative social assumptions about individuals and groups due to health problems (Hidayati, 2015).
In Indonesia, several studies on village branding focus more on aspects of positive perception, such as the perspective of building the image of a tourist village (Michandani & Arida, 2019;Wahyuningsih & Pradana, 2021;Hidayatullah et al., 2021). At the same time, the theoretical unit of analysis of place branding is dominantly used in elaborating the city's identity, differences, and unique values of the town (Lang et al., 2020;Diana, 2017;Zulkarnaen & Bachri, 2017;Wandari, 2014). As explained above, it should be noted that much of the literature on developing villages discusses the positive aspects of tourist villages and the concept of place branding in urban areas. Meanwhile, few village-wide studies highlight the negative stigma of the village and discriminatory behaviour in rural communities. This is why this research in two villages in Mojokerto Regency is essential to fill in the gaps regarding place branding at the village level. Through the study gap argument, few studies within the Village scope highlight negative stigma and discriminatory behaviour in Village communities. Responding to this situation, this article uses two questions to answer the marginalisation of Village branding and discriminatory behaviour towards Village residents due to a bad image. The first question is how to implement the concept of place branding in the scope of the Village, which is the research location, and the second question is how the Village elite responds to the Village stigma and discriminatory treatment received by the Village residents. To answer these two questions, this article examines two villages, namely Tanjungkenongo Village, Pacet District, and Modopuro Village, Mojosari district. The two villages are located in one regency, namely Mojokerto Regency in East Java Province (Table 1).
Based on the observation of problems in the first Village, Tanjungkenongo Village consists of 6 Sub-Villages, namely Tanjungsari, Tanjunganom, Sumberjejer, Sumberglagah, Balongkenongo, and Glinsem. Sub-Village Sumberglagah is known by the nickname "Leprosy Village" because the majority of the people who live there are Persons Cured of Leprosy (PCL). In addition, all the residents are immigrants from other areas. The former lepers occupy 51,050 m 2 of land belonging to the East Java Provincial Social Service (Anggoro & Qomaruddin, 2019). In this sub-village, the Sumberglagah Hospital used to be the largest leprosy treatment centre in East Java (Shobibah, 2014). Stigma as a "Leprosy Village" and discrimination against people with leprosy and their descendants are still the main problems in Tanjungkenongo Village to this day. In fact, leprosy is not a deadly disease and not very contagious. Discrimination occurs because of the impression of leprosy, which is considered disgusting, for example, swollen body parts or severed fingers or toes (Aulya, 2016).
Then the second Village, namely Modopuro Village, has four Sub-Villages: Gedang, Bangsri, Sememi, and Modopuro. Modoporo Village is known as the Duck Village because most of the Village residents are duck farmers. This area is known as a local duck producer. The ducks that are widely cultivated are Mojosari ducks (Haryo, 2015). As a village whose main income comes from livestock, Modopuro faces environmental problems, namely the stench that comes from duck farming, waste from the poultry slaughterhouse industry, and the management of chicken intestine waste. This environmental problem is shown by the river in the area, which looks dirty and emits an unpleasant odour due to being polluted with garbage and waste. In fact, the Ledeng River functions as an irrigation channel located in the Sememi Sub-Village (Syafii, 2020). People outside the village initially knew Modopuro Village as the 'Duck Village.' However, currently, there is a stigma that Modopuro Village is a 'Waste Village' because of its polluted environment and littered with cottage industries belonging to the Village residents.
Based on the village branding problem description and the stigma of the two villages studied, this article uses the hexagon model brand theory (Simon Anholt) to elaborate on the 'Leprosy Village' brand from Tanjungkenongo village and the 'Duck Village' brand from Modopuro village. Anholt's concept of place branding was initiated in his book entitled "Brand New Justice," published in 2003. According to Anholt (2007) the concept is related to implementing an identity that is usually used by a product to become the identity of a place desired by interest actors and become an added value for communities' perceptions (Luthfi & Widyaningrat, 2018). Village identity is built from local Village values so that local wisdom remains a strong characteristic for the village. Anholt's theory is relevant to be used to elaborate on the locality value and brand value of a village. According to Anholt in Lang et al., (2020), a place can compete globally if it can find a superior value consisting of six elements. The six components are presence, place, potential, people, pulse, and prerequisites, used as the unit of analysis of place branding theory in both research locations.
This article seeks to find novelty from similar studies that have been carried out previously. There are several previous studies on Village branding in Indonesia. One of them was carried out by Apriliyati & Syahida (2019) and aimed to reveal a public relations strategy to form a village branding for Kungkuk Tourism in Batu City. The research uncovers strategies for collaboration with external parties to assist with information content using new media and collaboration with local residents in managing tourist villages. Meanwhile, the obstacles encountered were the minimal use of new media for Kungkuk Tourism Village and the limited innovation of Kungkuk Tourism management in Batu City. In another study, Asriandhini (2021) looked into the implementation of the hexagon brand model by Simon Anholt for Melung Tourism Village. The research aims to find brand value based on public perception. From the research, it was found that the brand value of Melung Tourism Village is the result of plantation processing such as robusta coffee, beautiful natural environment, friendliness of villagers, and various traditional values that are still maintained. Then, Aryanti (2015) researched Kauman Village, which wanted to maintain its branding as an Islamic Village. This study examines the use of Islamic ideology, especially the teachings for women about the practice of wearing the hijab as an Islamic Village identity. Ariyanti found that women in Kauman Village participated in the Islamic organisation Aisyiyah and revealed the organisation's efforts to maintain the identity of the Islamic Village through recommendations for wearing the hijab to strengthen the branding of Kauman as an Islamic Village.
Meanwhile, there is also a literature review from other Asian countries. For example, Raju et al., (2021) researched cases in India, particularly Uttar Pradesh. In that area, there is a stigma, especially in the village where many people suffer from leprosy. This study discusses the community's actions against the stigma of leprosy and the effectiveness of the program initiated by the Village to reduce discrimination against people with leprosy. Several indicators used to measure program effectiveness are interaction with family members, the village community, work environment, ease of accessing public services, and accessibility to public facilities. Another study from Africa conducted by Sottie & Darkey (2019) studied the marginalisation of Persons Cured of Leprosy (PCL) in Village Ho, Republic of Ghana. The study found that most PCLs remained in the Ho Village (also known as Leprosy Village) area after recovering from leprosy. This situation is caused by several factors, such as stigma (including self-stigma), isolation, and neglect due to religious and socio-cultural beliefs. This fact shows that the PCL reintegration process requires leprosy education to eliminate stigma and discrimination. In addition, a comprehensive outreach program on leprosy should target community leaders.
Based on the results of several previous studies, the authors found several gaps that previous studies had not revealed. First, on the aspect of empirical novelty. This article describes the marginalisation of the village image, which is different from the majority of Village branding studies in Indonesia, which mostly only discuss the positive side (e.g. tourism villages in Kungkung Village, Batu City (Apriliyati & Syahida, 2019) and Melung Village, Banyumas Regency (Asriandhini, 2021). Second, is the aspect of novelty. This article uses Anholt's place branding concept analysis unit to elaborate on the case of villages, not cities. Third, on the method aspect, this article uses a qualitative method, so there are differences with the study (Raju et al., 2021) in Uttar Pradesh, India. Meanwhile, the difference between this study and the research in Village Ho in Ghana (Sottie & Darkey, 2019) is a different data collection method.

METHODOLOGY
Research methods include approaches, strategies, and data collection and analysis. This article uses qualitative methods to answer the two research questions described in the previous section. This research focuses on implementing the concept of place branding within the Village's scope and the Village elite's response to the stigma that tends to lead to the marginalisation of Village branding. For example, Tanjungkenongo Village, attached with the stigma of 'Leprosy Village' and Moduporo Village, known as 'Duck Village' because of its dirty environment, promotes the stigma of Waste Village.' According to Bungin (2007), the qualitative approach views meaning as an inseparable part of one's experience in social life with other people. The influence of empiricism on the qualitative approach lies in how the qualitative approach attempts to solve the mystery of meaning based on the researcher's experience and the object of his study.
Meanwhile, the research strategy used is to choose two villages that are easily accessible (both villages are located in Mojokerto). This research strategy is following the strategy required by Taylor et al., (2015). The first requirement is that the location must be relevant to the research's substance. In the research location, there are substantive and theoretical problems that are open to research. The second requirement is that the location has a person who acts as a 'gatekeeper,' that is, the research location has sufficient subjects and informants to assist the implementation of the research. The third requirement is that the research location is easy and frequently visited. The fourth requirement is that researchers are welcomed in that location better than others. The fifth requirement is that there is an interesting problem to study in the research location and according to its relevance to the research theme, namely the implementation of place branding at the Village level (Taylor et al., 2015).
This article uses primary and secondary data. Primary data collection methods are divided into in-depth interviews and filling out questionnaires to informants (Susilo, 2022). Furthermore, data from interviews with Village elites were analysed to reveal the real answers and the opinions of local community leaders. The informant comes from the village elite, who must have credibility in providing information. Thus, Branda was called a key informant because he mastered the problems of the village community and was directly involved in village decision-making. Meanwhile, the main criteria for key informants are community leaders who have lived for a long time in the two villages that became the research locations. Then, various data from key informants can be confirmed and clarified with the results of a questionnaire in the form of interviews from residents outside the village. The questionnaire was filled out by 60 informants who frequently visited Tanjungkenongo and Modopuro Villages. Respondents selected based on certain criteria lived a maximum of two kilometres (2 km) from the village under study. Table 2 shows the profile data of the informants. This article also uses secondary data sourced from books, journals, newspapers, and internet media, such as local media sites covering Tanjungkenongo and Modopuro Village. Furthermore, the data analysis stage in this study begins by examining all the data collected from interviews and questionnaires, reducing or selecting data so that their relevance can be understood. Data reduction includes processing raw data in interview transcription, coding, and categorization. This study uses two stages of the coding process, namely initial coding and focused coding (Charmaz, 2006). The results of interviews and questionnaires are used to deepen the analysis so that it can describe the implementation of village branding in accordance with the demands of various dimensions in place branding theory. All data analysis processes are carried out using the Interactive Analysis technique from Miles & Huberman (1994). The data analysis process consists of three streams of activities that occur simultaneously: data reduction, data presentation, and drawing conclusions or verification (Rijali, 2019).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The situation in the village is very different from the city (Susilo,et al, 2020). Usually, a village is very difficult to find a unique identity that can make it famous in the wider community. The ups and downs in the village autonomy policy have resulted in limited political and economic resources. So, sometimes villages fail to form an image for their progress. The community is still difficult to identify the position of a program made by the Village Government as a strategy to popularise the village or to reveal that the village has its own local wisdom characteristics, such as demography, geography, or local wisdom. Identity and characteristics that can differentiate a village from other villages are important factors in developing a village image or 'Village Branding.' In this study, the six components of the Hexagonal Place Branding theory from Anholt (2007) serve to elaborate the image of Tanjungkenongo Village and Modopuro Village. The components studied consist of presence (the existence of village status and its image), place (physical condition of Tanjungkenongo and Modopuro villages), potential (potential of each village), people (communities in Tanjungkenongo and Modopuro villages), pulse (lifestyle and community culture in both villages), and prerequisites (perceptions of outsiders about accommodation and facilities in Tanjungkenongo and Modopuro villages).
The implementation of Anholt's hexagon is used to measure various perceptions that arise, especially from the general public towards a village (Figure 1). Perception appears based on the subject's experience of the object and the relationship of the conclusions to the message information. The perception process builds meaning and sensory internalisation related to individual impressions and memories of reality or objects (Rakhmat, 2003). People's views on the image of a village usually get a direct response from the village elite. The results showed that some village elites denied the stigma and bad views of outsiders towards their village. On the other hand, some village elites justify the stigma. For them, stigma can be a criticism of the Village Government apparatus. According to Susilo et al., (2021), the elite at the village level is divided into two, namely the traditional elite consisting of the village head and other village officials and the informal elite based on the influence gained from the recognition and trust of the community. This study involved the village elite as key informants. The key informants were ten people, consisting of five informants, from Tangjungkenongo Village and Modopuro Village each. Then, interview data from key informants were combined with interview data and questionnaires from the general public. To select informants from the outside community, researchers set a condition. These residents do not live in the village under study. The author selects key informants who occupy positions in the Village Government and community leaders who have lived in the villages studied for a long time. Meanwhile, for groups of informants who come from outside the community, the data processing results are in the form of interview transcripts and filling out questionnaires in the form of descriptive statistics. The main purpose of using statistical data is to complement the results of interviews with informants from the general public. The author uses two questionnaires to measure two different issues, namely at the Village and Sub-Village levels. For example, Tanjungkenongo Village and Sumberglagah Sub-Village, as well as Modopuro Village and Sememi Sub-Village.  The Tanjungkenongo Village of Mojokerto, The Leprosy Village Tanjungkenongo Village is located in Pacet District, Mojokerto Regency. The location of the village is in the highlands with a fairly large and fertile rice field area. In Mojokerto Regency, there are shelter locations for people with leprosy and Persons Cured of Leprosy (PCL). The location is known as the 'Leprosy Village' located in Tanjungkenongo Village. Of the six sub-villages in Tanjungkenongo Village, only one sub-village is inhabited by PCLs and people with leprosy, namely Sumberglagah Sub-Village. People with leprosy who live in Sub-Village Sumberglagah come from Mojokerto and many other areas. One of the causes of people migrating to Sumberglagah is that in the Sub-Village, there is a special health service facility for people with leprosy, namely the Sumberglagah Hospital. According to Arianti & Suwanda (2020), the Sumberglagah community are people who used to suffer from leprosy and managed to recover but are physically imperfect or disabled. The PCLs started a new life away from their families on a 51,050 m 2 plot belonging to the East Java Provincial Social Service.
According to the explanation of the village head, the location where PCL residents live is only in one of the sub-villages. However, the stigma of Leprosy Village is already attached to five other subvillages (Glinsem, Sumberjejer, Tanjungsari, Tanjunganom, and Balonganom). In fact, the stigma is also widespread. It affects the image of Tanjungkenongo Village (Results of an interview with the head of Tanjungkenongo Village). Besides being known as the 'Leprosy Village,' Sumberglagah Village is synonymous with the 'Beggars Village.' This stigma is given because most of the residents of Sumberglagah Village work as beggars or motorcycle taxi drivers who shuttle beggars. The informants reasoned that their physical disability due to leprosy made it difficult to get a job. Thus, the more severe the disability suffered by leprosy sufferers, the more money they get from begging (Interview with a teacher at SDN Tanjungkenongo). The Leprosy Village and the Beggar Village image have even received direct attention from the Central Government. The Minister of Social Affairs, Tri Rismaharini, visited Sumberglagah Sub-Village on January 2, 2020. She assisted in the form of basic necessities, supplements, and medicines to 142 leprosy sufferers. In addition, the Minister of Social Affairs also provides business assistance in the form of various PCL capital goods (bangsaonline.com). According to the head of the Sub-Village, the Minister of Social Affairs gave an important message, namely not to let the people of Sumberglagah wander the streets as beggars. Furthermore, the Ministry of Social Affairs will create a program to empower PCL residents to work in the Sumberglagah Sub-Village environment (Results of an interview with the Sumberglagah Sub-Village head).
The stigma of the Beggar Village and the growing discrimination against the people of the Sumberglagah Sub-Village have made the village's image even more marginalised. Residents also filed various complaints, such as difficulty finding a life partner, their children and grandchildren being ashamed of their parents as PCL, difficulties in getting jobs in the industrial world, and limited access to public facilities. This discriminatory behaviour causes residents who have had leprosy to experience physical pain and mental burden, mental illness, and loss of self-confidence (Shobibah, 2014). One of the informants, a head of the RT in Sumberglagah Sub-Village, revealed that ostracism is still happening to residents today. Another form of discrimination is the difficulty of finding schools for children from the Sumberglagah Sub-Village. The government established a special school for children from the PCL family to overcome this problem, namely a public elementary school (SDN Tanjungkenongo 2). The informant also added that the residents of Sumberglagah Sub-Village who sell food outside their village usually have difficulty finding buyers. It is also difficult for Village residents to find decent jobs (Results of an interview with the Head of RT Sub-Village Sumberglagah on June 25, 2021). The responses of the village elites regarding the Leprosy Village and beggars seem to be in line with the results of the external perception questionnaire about Tanjungkenongo Village and Sumberglagah Sub-Village (Table 3). In preparing the questionnaire, researchers took six indicators in Anholt's place branding theory: presence, potential, pulse, population, and prerequisites (Anholt, 2007). The author obtained data from interviews with 30 visitor informants in Tanjungkenongo Village and Sumberglagah Sub-Village. The average results of each indicator in Tanjungkenongo Village are presence (3.2), place (4.3), potential (3.6), people (4.25), pulse (3.75), and prerequisites (4.2). The village branding indicator data shows that respondents are quite familiar with Tanjungkenongo Village (Presence 3.2). The environmental conditions of Tanjungkenongo Village are kept clean (Place 4.3). This village is also quite potential for business and tourism (Potential 3.6). The residents of Tanjungkenongo Village are also friendly and can receive visiting guests well (People 4.25). Tanjungkenongo village is also quite interesting to visit (Pulse 3.5). This village is also unique because of the nickname Leprosy Village (Pulse 4). The facilities, roads, and comfort for visitors to Tanjungkenongo Village are also very good (Prerequisites 4.2). The average total value of visitors' perceptions of Tanjungkenongo Village based on the six dimensions of place branding is at a good level (3.98). Furthermore, the average place branding indicators (Table 4) for Sumberglagah Sub-Village are presence (2.3), place (3.7), potential (2.6), people (2.65), pulse (3.7), and prerequisites (3.36). The measurement of village branding indicator data shows that respondents know the Sumberglagah Sub-Village because it is a problem area or PCL isolation (Presence 2,3). Environmental conditions are considered quite good in terms of cleanliness and beauty (Place 3.7). The location of Sumberglagah Sub-Village is not good for business and tourism (Potential 2.6); Sumberglagah residents are less friendly to visitors (People 2.7). Visitors feel unsafe meeting residents for fear of contracting leprosy (People 2.6). The very high value on the Sumberglagah Sub-Village indicator is a unique place, namely the nickname of Leprosy Village (Pulse 4.2). Sumberglagah sub-village has public facilities, good transportation, and many places to buy basic needs (3,8). Even so, most respondents did not want to visit for a long time or live in Sumberglagah Sub-Village because this area has many residents from the PCL group (2,4). The average total value of visitors' perceptions of Sumberglagah Sub-Village based on the six dimensions of place branding is at a poor level (3.14).

Figure 2. Place Branding of Tanjungkenongo and Sumberglagah
Source: Research Data (2021) The establishment of the Sumberglagah Sub-Village was because the leprosy patients treated at the Sumberglagah Leprosy Hospital did not want to return to their respective families (Al-Hamzah & Prasetyo, 2020). Finally, they settled in the area west of the hospital until now. From the table 4 and Figure 2, it can be seen that the image of the leprosy village is more dominant in Sumberglagah Sub-Village than Tanjungkenongo Village. This proves that the Sumberglagah Sub-Village is more uniquely known (a leprosy village and a beggar village) than Tanjungkenongo Village. This data also shows that the people of Sumberglagah Sub-Village tend to be introverted or less friendly when interacting with visitors from outside the village. The head of the Sumberglagah Sub-Village explained that psychologically, the residents had a strong character because they were ostracised from their respective regions of origin. They gathered at Sumberglagah and made a group full of bitterness. He added that although physically, the residents were not healthy, the residents of Sumberglagah were easily involved in various central and village government programs. The majority of former leprosy sufferers live in Sumberglagah Barat with 682 people or 253 households. On the other hand, in Sumberglagah Timur, there are no PCL residents, and the population is quite small, or 47 households.

The Modopuro Village in Mojokerto, The "Duck Village"
Modopuro Village is known as the Duck Village. This nickname is symbolised by the identity of two duck statues at the entrance or main road of the village. These statues are clues in finding the location of Modopuro Village, which is located in the Mojosari sub-district, Mojokerto Regency. According to the archives, the population of Modopuro Village is 5,982 people consisting of 2,981 men and 3,001 women. As, Duck Village, the number of residents who work as duck breeders are 1,023 residents. Villagers who raise ducks are divided into several groups, some of which have hatcheries, nurseries, and fattening clinics of adult ducks. The image as a duck village is getting stronger because, based on data from the Mojokerto Regency Agriculture Service, the Mojosari sub-district has the largest duck livestock, which is 94,000 heads (about 53% produced by Modopuro Village) out of a total of 315,234 duck populations in Mojokerto Regency (Irawati et al., 2021).
Apart from duck farming, there are other types of businesses occupied by the villagers, such as duck eggs, poultry slaughter, and chicken intestine processing. According to the village head, the residents' jobs are divided into breeders and services (chicken intestine chips production) into four sub-villages. In the Gedang sub-village, most people's livelihoods are in animal husbandry (75% of farmers), and the rest are farmers and private employees. The majority of the residents of the Modopuro sub-village work in the field of labour services for intestinal chips. So, only a small part of the total population works as ranchers and farmers. In the Bangsri sub-village, the majority (75%) of the villagers work as labourers for making intestine chips and slaughtering poultry. Finally, the Sememi Sub-Village is the smallest area. Almost 90% of the villagers are doing home chicken intestine chips (Interview with the Head of Modopuro Village). The phenomenon of the booming home industry for processing chicken intestines was positively welcomed by the head of the Bangsri Sub-Village. He believes that the intestine chips business absorbs many workforces for women to work on intestinal contractions and make intestinal chips. Thus, the majority have money. For example, this is evident; hawkers always sell well in the Modopuro area (Interview with the Head of Bangsri Sub-Village).
As explained above, village elites (Village Heads and Bangsri Sub-Village heads) have a positive impression on the Duck Village branding and the development of the intestine chips home industry. However, there are also village elites who have a negative perception of the image of Duck Village and the cottage industry of intestine chips. One of them is the Head of the Modopuro Sub-Village, who feels uncomfortable with the nickname Duck Village. He explained that people from outside the village who visited Modopuro must have been disturbed by the smell of duck droppings. Air pollution due to the smell of duck droppings is sometimes quite severe, especially in the area around the duck coop during the rainy season. He added that the industrial waste of chicken intestine chips dumped directly into the river channel also pollutes people's wells, kills plants on agricultural land, and pollutes rivers due to intestinal waste, which emits a foul odour (Interview with the Head of Sub-Village Modopuro). Related to this problem, the Village Secretary also feels uncomfortable with this condition. However, the Village Government cannot simply close the chicken intestine chips industry because the income of the majority of villagers depends on the industry. In addition to the smell of duck droppings that disturbs all residents, intestinal washing waste also causes itching. The washing waste is in the form of fat and is white (Figure 3). Many plants are stunted or even die when exposed to intestinal waste (Results of an interview with the Modopuro Sub-Village Secretary). To complete the debate between the village elite and the reality of the image of Duck Village and the stigma of the Waste Village due to the stench of the chicken intestine chips industry, the author collects other perspectives from people outside the village. Additional data in the form of a questionnaire was distributed to thirty outsiders. The purpose of distributing this questionnaire is to measure people's perceptions from outside the village. The questionnaire contains six place branding indicators. The average results of each indicator in Modopuro Village are presence (2.7), place (3.3), potential (4.2), people (3.85), pulse (4.05), and prerequisites (3.53). Respondents are quite familiar with Modopuro Duck Village (Presence 2.7). The environmental condition of Modopuro Village is quite dirty (Place 3.3). Modopuro Village has a high potential for business (Potential 4.2). Villagers are friendly and safe to meet other residents from Tanjungkenongo Village (People 3.85). Modopuro Village is interesting to visit for business activities (Pulse 4) and is a unique village because of the nickname Duck Village (Pulse 4.1). Respondents have a very good perception of facilities, road access, and ease of shopping for necessities (Prerequisites 3.9). Still, they feel less comfortable living the village (2.8). Thus, the average total value of visitor perceptions of Modopuro Village based on the six dimensions of place branding is at a good level (3.66) ( Table 5). Presentation of perception data (Table 6) is the average result of the six place branding indicators of Sememi Sub-Village, namely presence (2.6), place (2.6), potential (4.2), people (3.85), pulse (3, 95), and prerequisites (3,33). A complete description of the six dimensions of place branding is as follows. The respondents are very familiar with Sememi Sub-Village, especially after the viral news of Ledeng River pollution (Presence 3.8). Bad environmental conditions due to river pollution and bad smells (Place 2). Sememi Sub-Village has good business potential (Potential 4.2). The residents of Sememi Sub-Village are friendly, and visitors feel safe to interact with residents (People 3.8). Sememi Sub-Village is quite a unique place, namely the centre for the production of intestinal chips (Pulse 3.8) and interesting to visit for business activities (Pulse 3.9). Sememi Sub-Village has public facilities, good transportation, and many options to buy basic needs (3.95). However, most respondents are less interested in longterm visits or staying in Sememi Sub-Village because of unpleasant odours and environmental pollution due to intestinal waste (2.7). Thus, the average total value of visitors' perceptions of the Sememi Sub-Village based on the six dimensions of place branding is fairly high (3,53).  Modopuro Village is located in the lowlands and is traversed by two major rivers, namely the Sadar River and the Ledeng River, as the main water source for irrigation of agricultural land (Cahyani et al., 2021). Sememi Sub-Village is the area most severely affected by chicken intestine waste and duck slaughter. The Ledeng River flows in Sememi Sub-Village but is covered with the garbage thought to have come from the intestine processing site and household waste. There are 14 small and medium enterprises (SMEs) slaughtering ducks and processing intestines that produce white waste and emit a pungent odour in Sememi Sub-Village (factualnews.co). The interview results with the head of the neighbourhood association (RT) Sememi revealed that the current condition of the Ledeng River is very dirty due to the waste. The impact of the Ledeng River pollution is that the residents' well water is polluted with fat waste (ex-intestinal washing). Water from the Ledeng River that flows into the rice fields also causes crop failure or causes many plants to die. Several villagers also complained to the businessmen about cutting duck and intestine chips. Finally, the entrepreneurs made a sewage tank, but only temporarily. Suppose there are no more residents who complain. In that case, the waste will be disposed of again into the Ledeng River (Results of an interview with the Chairman of Neighbourhood Unit (RT) in Sememi Sub-Village).
The image of Duck Village and the stigma of the Waste Village has become the hallmark of Modopuro Village (Figure 4). The threat of environmental pollution is increasingly real for the health of villagers. Based on data from the Modopuro Health Center UPT health service facility in 2020, 909 out of 1,968 houses have not been categorized as healthy (Hermiyanti & Sari, 2021). The village head responded positively to the problem. He felt that the unpleasant odour in his territory was natural. According to him, waste is inevitable because most of the population has duck coops and processing of intestines from various duck and chicken slaughterhouses from Modopuro and other areas. Meanwhile, regarding the polluted Ledeng River, the Village Head offered a solution, namely regular cleaning and a fine for disposing of poultry intestine waste in the river of IDR 500,000 or SGD 500. Waste problems in rivers usually occur during the dry season. Because the water discharge is small, the garbage accumulates and cannot be washed away with the river's flow. The village head also added that he doesn't mind the image of the polluted environment. The important thing is that the villagers have income from the poultry slaughter industry and chicken intestine chips (an interview with the head of Modopuro Village). Furthermore, the results of questionnaires from people outside the village also strengthen the stigma of the Waste Village, which has a characteristic odour. Although this area has high business potential, the dirty environmental conditions make people outside the village feel uncomfortable living in Modopuro Village.

CONCLUSION
The study shows the branding of Tanjungkenongo village, and the Sumberglagah sub-village is Leprosy Village. In addition, the Sumberglagah Sub-Village is known as a leprosy area and a Beggar Village. This stigma and branding marginalisation resulted in discriminatory treatment of the residents of Tanjungkenongo Village and Sumberglagah Sub-Village. Forms of this marginalisation and discriminatory treatment were the exclusion from school, difficulty finding a partner, difficulty finding work, and inability to sell food because buyers from outside the community would feel disgusted with the seller from Sub-Village Sumberglagah. The Tanjungkenongo Village Elite admits that there is a stigma of Leprosy Village for their area.
However, the image of the Leprosy Village, which should only be attached to the Sumberglagah Sub-Village because Persons Cured of Leprosy (PCL) and their descendants live in the Sub-Village expanded to the scope of the Tanjungkenongo Village image. In comparison, Anholt's place branding analysis results show that Tanjungkenongo Village and Sumberglagah Sub-Village have a unique nickname, namely Leprosy Village. Furthermore, Sumberglagah Sub-Village is considered less safe and comfortable when people from outside the village visited because the residents tend to be closed or less friendly.
On the other hand, Modopuro Village and Sememi Sub-Village are synonymous with the nickname Duck Village. In its development, this village and sub-village were also known as the Waste Village after the viral news about water pollution from the Ledeng River (Sememi Sub-Village) due to the chicken intestine chips home industry. Moreover, the results of laboratory tests from the Mojokerto Regency Environmental Service stated that the water quality of the Ledeng River was below the quality standard due to household waste and home industry processing chicken intestines (news.detik.com). However, the elite's response to the village was divided. This study found that village elites who had duck slaughtering and chicken intestine processing businesses tended to support the nickname Duck Village and refute people's perception outside the village about the Waste Village due to the unpleasant odour caused by environmental pollution.
In contrast, village elites who are not entrepreneurs in the slaughterhouse industry or chicken intestine chips think that the pollution of the chicken intestine chips home industry is dangerous for the villagers and worsen the village's image. The informant also disagreed with the nickname Duck Village for Modopuro Village because this image would encourage people to set up a duck farming business to increase the number of duck cages that emit a bad smell and are dirty. Then, as a comparison, the results of the place branding analysis from Anholt explained that Modopuro Village and Sememi Sub-Village have very good potential for business activities, although they are not unique. Unfortunately, both of these areas have environmental conditions that are less clean and uncomfortable to be a place to visit or a place to live.
This study applies the hexagonal place branding theory at the village level (Anholt, 2007). The village branding analysis looks at the response of the village elite and the community outside the village based on six place blending components: village status, village physical aspects, village potential, villagers, accommodation and public facilities belonging to the village, and village local culture. Every village studied is proven to have experienced branding marginalisation. It is not easy to change the stigma, especially if the relevant parties consist of village elites and the community does not have a strong will to change the bad image of the village. Another theoretical implication is that the cases of Tanjungkenongo and Modopuro were found to be relevant to Goffman's (1963) theory, namely the concept of stigma, which refers to attributes that greatly worsen a person's image. The stigma associated with disability in a person's body is identical to the PCL situation in the Tanjungkenongo and Sumberglagah cases. Meanwhile, the stigma associated with geographical conditions is identical to the cases in Modopuro and Sememi.