Green Open Space Demand and Community Place Attachment in Batu, East Java

  • Amin Setyo Leksono
  • Dina Poewoningsih
  • Nur Wiwit Puji Mahastiti Ika


Green open space (GOS) in the urban and rural landscape supports a lot of ecosystem service such as oxygen production, soil and water protection, microclimate control, carbon store, biodiversity conservation and provides landscape beauty as in addition to the production of agricultural commodities. This study aims to describe the GOS demand and community place attachment in Batu City, East Java, Indonesia. The GOS demand was estimated using oxygen requirement of resident and nonresident. Community place attachment was analyzed using people’s perception. This study identified several treats for the existence of GOS, including population growth. Several strategies must be taken into account to sustain the GOS existence. Most people prefer several spots in Batu City must be planted with vegetation . Therefore, it is necessary to improve public participation in managing landscapes.


  1. Ahern J (1991) Planning for an extensive open space system: linking landscape structure and function. Landsc Urban Plan 21:131–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ardani C, Hanafi N, Pribadi T (2013) Area prediction of green open space to complete oxygen requirement in Palangkaraya. J Hutan Tropis 1:32–38  Google Scholar
  3. Blumentrath C, Tveit MS (2014) Visual characteristics of roads: a literature review of people’s perception and Norwegian design practice. Transp Res Part Policy Pract 59:58–71. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Budiyono (2006) Kajian Pengembangan Ruang Terbuka Hijau (RTH) Kota Sebagai Sarana Ruang Publik (Studi Kasus Kawasan Sentra Timur DKI Jakarta). IPB, BogorGoogle Scholar
  5. Cheng Q, Wu X (2009) Comprehensive evaluation of eco-tourism resources in Hangzhou based on GIS. In: Meynart R, Neeck SP, Shimoda H (eds) Proceeding of SPEI. 74741V–74741V-10.
  6. Daniel TC (2001) Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landsc Urban Plan 54:267–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Domon G (2011) Landscape as resource: consequences, challenges and opportunities for rural development. Landsc Urban Plan 100:338–340 Google Scholar
  8. Gobster PH, Nassauer JI, Daniel TC, Fry G (2007) The shared landscape: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology?. Landsc Ecol 22:959–972Google Scholar
  9. Gunawan RAF, Leksono AS, Afandhi A (2017) Land use change and carbon stock dynamic in Tuban, East Java, Indonesia. Ecol Environ Conservation 23:71–76Google Scholar
  10. Hakim R, dan Utomo H (2004) Design component of Landscape architecture. Bumi Aksara, JakartaGoogle Scholar
  11. Hartini S (2008) Analisis Konversi Ruang Terbuka Hijau Menjadi Penggunaan Perumahan Di Kecamatan Tembalang Kota Semarang. UGM, YogyakartaGoogle Scholar
  12. Haq SMA (2011) Urban green spaces and an integrative approach to sustainable environment. J Environ Prot 2:601–608Google Scholar
  13. Krisdianto S, Udiansyah YB (2012) Standing carbon in an urban green space and its contribution to the reduction of the thermal discomfort index: a case study in the city of Banjarbaru, Indonesia. Int J Sci Res Publ 2(4):1–6Google Scholar
  14. Lokocz E, Ryan RL, Sadler AJ (2011) Motivations for land protection and stewardship: exploring place attachment and rural landscape character in Massachusetts. Landsc Urban Plan 99:65–76. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nowak DJ, Hoehn R, dan Crane DE (2007) Oxygen production by urban trees in the United States. Arboric Urban For 33(3):220–226Google Scholar
  16. Poerwoningsih D, Antariksa ASL, Hasyim AW (2015) Implementing visual resource management to support green corridor planning. Ecol Environ Conserv 21:539–546Google Scholar
  17. Purnomohadi (2006) Ruang Terbuka Hijau Sebagai Unsur Utama Tata Ruang Kota. Dirjen Penataan Ruang Departemen Pekerjaan Umum. JakartaGoogle Scholar
  18. Rogge E, Nevens F, Gulinck H (2007) Perception of rural landscapes in Flanders: looking beyond Aesthetics. Landsc Urban Plan 82:159–174. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Saito Y (1998) The aesthetics of unscenic nature. J Aesth Art Criti 56:101–111Google Scholar
  20. Septriana D (2005) Perencanaan Pengembangan Hutan Kota di Kota Padang Sumatera Barat. Tesis, Program Studi Pengelolaan Sumber Daya Alam dan Lingkungan, Sekolah Pascasarjana Institut Pertanian Bogor. Tidak dipublikasikan, BogorGoogle Scholar
  21. Setyowati DL (2008) Iklim Mikro Dan Kebutuhan Ruang Terbuka Hijau Di Kota Semarang. Fakultas Geografi UGM, YogyakartaGoogle Scholar
  22. Soini K, Vaarala H, Pouta E (2012) Residents’ sense of place and landscape perceptions at the rural–urban interface. Landsc Urban Plan 104:124–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ståhle A (2010) More green space in a denser city: critical relations between user experience and urban form. Urban Des Int 15:47–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Strohbach M, Arnold E, Haase D (2012) The carbon footprint of urban green space—a life cycle approach. Landsc Urban Plan 104:220–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sznajder M, Przezbórska L (2004) Identification of rural and agri-tourism products and services. Rocz. AR. Pozn. CCCLIX, Ekonomia 3:165–177Google Scholar
  26. Tress B, Tress G (2001) Capitalising on multiplicity: a transdisciplinary systems approach to landscape research. Landsc Urban Plan 57:143–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Walker AJ, Ryan RL (2008) Place attachment and landscape preservation in rural New England: a maine case study. Landsc Urban Plan 86:141–152. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amin Setyo Leksono
    • 1
  • Dina Poewoningsih
    • 2
  • Nur Wiwit Puji Mahastiti Ika
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Biology, Faculty of Mathematic and Natural SciencesBrawijaya UniversityMalangIndonesia
  2. 2.Department of Architecture, Faculty of EngineeringUniversity of MerdekaMalangIndonesia
  3. 3.Batu City OfficeBatu CityIndonesia

Personalised recommendations