(Department of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering, Brawijaya University, Indonesia)*corresponding author
AbstractThis study purposed to identify urban street-side greenery’s effect on people's preferences towards streets in Malang town, Indonesia. Nine samples of streets were randomly selected based on greenery conditions and street typologies. Thirty participants for each street systematically selected came to a total of 270 respondents. The research instrument was a questionnaire with photos of the nine streets as stimuli to explore people's preferences towards street-side greenery based on six street greenery variables and two street conditions using multiple rating scales. The data analyses employed a descriptive statistic to determine people's preferences and multiple regression analysis to identify street greenery attributes that influence people's visual preference of the street. The results show that all street greenery attributes significantly influence people's preferences (p < .05). As a whole, street-side greenery attributes, i.e., plant height, green street median, vegetation arrangement, the distance between trees, tree and vegetation species, and the number of trees, determine around 17.2% of urban street visual preferences. Among those street greenery qualities, the number of trees, vegetation arrangement, and green street median existence have the most influence on people's visual preferences. However, other than street greenery attributes, the street conditions (i.e., street width and the sidewalk width) significantly contribute to people's preference. It accounts for around 49.4% of the visual preference of the street.
|
DOIhttps://doi.org/10.31763/aet.v1i3.681 |
Article metrics10.31763/aet.v1i3.681 Abstract views : 1105 | PDF views : 382 |
Cite |
Full Text Download
|
References
[1] Choumert J 2010 An empirical investigation of public choices for green spaces Landuse policy 27 pp 1123- 1131.
[2] Chiesura A 2004 The role of urban parks for the sustainable city Landscape and Urban Planning 68 pp 129-138 .
[3] Jim C Y 2004 Green space preservation & allocation for sustainable greening of compact cities Cities 21 pp 311-320.
[4] Ye Y et al. 2018 Measuring daily accessed street greenery: a human-scale approach for informing better urban planning practices Landscape and Urban Planning https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.08.028.
[5] Jim C Y and Shan X 2013 Socioeconomic effect on perception of urban green spaces in Guangzhou, China Cities 31 2 pp 123-131.
[6] Henderson-Seller A. and Mc Guffie K 1987 A climate model primer New York: Wiley.
[7] Hien W N and Jusuf S K 2008 An Assessment method for existing greenery conditions in University campus Architectural Science review 51 3 pp 212-222.
[8] Todorova A et al. 2004 Preferences for and attitudes towards street flowers and trees in Sapporo, Japan Landscape and Urban Planning 69 4 pp 403-416.
[9] Long Y and Ye Y 2016 Huam-scale urban form: Measurements, performances, and urban planning & design interventions South Architecture 8 5 pp 39-45.
[10]Bolund P and Hunhammar S 1999 Ecosystem services in urban areas Ecological Economics 29 pp 293- 301.
[11]Li X et al. 2016 Environmental inequities in terms of different types of urban greenery in Hartford, Connecticut Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 18 pp 163-172.
[12]Tzoulas K et al. 2007 Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using green infrastructure: a Literature review Landscape and Urban Planning 81 pp 167-178.
[13]Lu Y. et al. 2018 The effect of street-level greenery on walking behavior: evidence from Hong Kong Social Science & Medicine 208 pp 41- 49.
[14]Takano T et al. 2002 Urban residential environments and senior citizens’ longevity in megacity areas: the importance of walkable green space Journal of Epidemical Community Health 56 12 pp 913-918.
[15]de Vries et al. 2003 Natural environment – healthy environments? An exploratory analysis of the relationship between green space and health Environment and Planning 35 17-31.
[16]Whitford V et al. 2001 City form and natural process-indicators for ecological performance on urban areas and their application to Merseyside, UK Landscape Urban Planning 57 2 pp 91103.
[17]Taylor A F et al. 1998 Growing up in the inner city: Green spaces as places to grow Environment and Behavior 30 1 pp 3–27.
[18]White E and Gatersleben B 2011 Greenery on residential buildings: Does it affect preferences and perceptions of beauty? Journal of Environmental Psychology 31 1 pp 89-98.
[19]Ernawati J et al. 2018 People’s preferences of urban design qualities for walking on a commercial street IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 126 012206.
[20]Long Y and Liu I 2017 How green are the streets? An analysis of central areas of Chinese cities using Tencent Street View PLlos One 12 2 e0171110.
[21]Ernawati J 2016 Dimensions underlying local people’s preferene of street characteristics for walking Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 234 pp 461-469.
[22]Camaeho-Cervantes M et al. 2014 How do people perceive urban trees? Assessing likes and dislikes in relation to the trees of a city Urban Ecosystems 17 3 pp 761-773.
[23]Barau A S 2015 Perceptions and contributions of households towards sustainable urban green infrastructure in Malaysia Habitat International 47 285-297.
[24]Lee J S and Kim J W 2016 South Korea’s urban green energy strategies: Policy framework and local responses under the green growth Cities 54 2 pp 20-27.
[25]Hitchmough and Bonugli 1997 Attitude of residents of a medium sized town in South West Scotland to street trees Landscape research 22 3 pp 327-337.
[26]Kaplan & Kaplan 1989 The experience of nature: a psychological perspective New York: Cambridge University press.
[27]McPherson E G et al. 2010 Million trees Los Angeles canopy and benefit assessment Landscape and urban planning 99 pp 40-50.
[28]Schroeder and Cannon 1983 The aesthetic contribution of trees to residential streets in Ohio Towns Journal of Arboriculture 9 pp 237-243.
[29]Sommer and Sommer 1989 The factor structure of street tree attributes Journal of Arboriculture 15 pp 243-246 Reprinted in D Neely Ed. 1994 Journal of Arboriculture: A compendium. Vol. 6: Social Aspects of Arboriculture, pp 92-95. Savoy IL : International Society of Arboriculture.
[30]Thaiutsa B et al. 2008 Urban green space, street and heritage large tree assessment in Bangkok, Thailand Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 7 pp 219-229.
[31]Sommer R and Summit J 1996 An evaluation of tree descriptions in a popular garden guide Journal of Arboriculture 22 3 pp 155-159.
[32]Sommer R 1997 Further cross-national studies of tree form preference Ecological Psychology 9 pp 153- 160
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2022 J Ernawati
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Applied Engineering and Technology
ISSN: 2829-4998
Email: aet@ascee.org | andri.pranolo.id@ieee.org
Published by: Association for Scientic Computing Electronics and Engineering (ASCEE)
Organized by: Association for Scientic Computing Electronics and Engineering (ASCEE), Universitas Negeri Malang, Universitas Ahmad Dahlan
View My Stats AET
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.