SINTA

0.0

Impact

Google Scholar

8

h-index

Journal of Academic Biology and Biology Education

Open Access Journal

Community Perceptions of Urban Forest Functions in Metropolitan Areas: Evidence from Dukuh City Forest, Jakarta

Firdaus Firdaus
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University Jakarta ROR
Indonesia
frsfirdaus99@gmail.com
Nur Fazreen Zainal
Forest Research Institute Malaysia ROR
Malaysia
Juraj Nič
Technical University of Zvolen ROR
Slovakia
Share

  • Purpose of the study: This study aims to evaluate community perceptions regarding the ecological, social, landscape, and aesthetic functions of Dukuh City Forest as an urban green space in a densely populated metropolitan area of Jakarta, Indonesia, and to examine its contribution to sustainable urban environmental management.

    Methodology: This study employed a convergent mixed-methods approach integrating quantitative and qualitative techniques. Data were collected through participatory observation, documentation, semi-structured interviews, and Likert-scale questionnaires distributed to 35 respondents selected using random sampling techniques. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistical and percentage scoring methods, while qualitative data were analyzed thematically and integrated through triangulation.

    Main Findings: The findings showed that public perception of Dukuh City Forest functions was categorized as good, with an overall score of 68.91%. The ecological function received the highest score (82.94%), indicating strong public awareness of environmental benefits such as improving air quality, reducing urban heat, and increasing water absorption capacity. In contrast, aesthetic and recreational functions received the lowest scores due to limited public utilization, insufficient environmental outreach, and persistent social stigma associated with the area’s previous function as a public cemetery. Limited communication between authorities and communities also affected public participation in urban forest management.

    Novelty/Originality of this study: This study strengthens the socio-ecological urban forest approach by integrating ecological and social perspectives in evaluating urban forest functions and linking urban forest management with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)-based sustainable urban development.

  • How to cite

    [1]
    F. Firdaus, N. F. Zainal, and J. Nič, “Community Perceptions of Urban Forest Functions in Metropolitan Areas: Evidence from Dukuh City Forest, Jakarta”, Jou. Acd. Bio. Ed, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 248–263, Dec. 2025, doi: 10.37251/jouabe.v2i2.3276.

    More Citation Formats

  • 33
    Abstract views
    30
    Downloads

    Metrics — Badges

    1. R. Mahtta et al., “Urban land expansion: the role of population and economic growth for 300+ cities,” npj Urban Sustain., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1–11, 2022, doi: 10.1038/s42949-022-00048-y.
    2. D. Gu, K. Andreev, and M. E. Dupre, “Major trends in population growth around the world,” China CDC Wkly., vol. 3, no. 28, pp. 604–613, 2021, doi: 10.46234/ccdcw2021.160.
    3. A. Addas, “The importance of urban green spaces in the development of smart cities,” Front. Environ. Sci., vol. 11, no. May, pp. 1–18, 2023, doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2023.1206372.
    4. F. Reinwald, D. Haluza, U. Pitha, and R. Stangl, “Urban green infrastructure and green open spaces: An issue of social fairness in times of covid‐19 crisis,” Sustain., vol. 13, no. 19, pp. 1–9, 2021, doi: 10.3390/su131910606.
    5. B. A. Edeigba, U. K. Ashinze, A. A. Umoh, P. W. Biu, and A. I. Daraojimba, “Urban green spaces and their impact on environmental health: A Global Review,” World J. Adv. Res. Rev., vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 917–927, 2024, doi: 10.30574/wjarr.2024.21.2.0518.
    6. M. He, Y. Wu, X. Liu, B. Wu, and H. Fu, “Constructing a multi-functional small urban green space network for green space equity in urban built-up areas: A case study of Harbin, China,” Heliyon, vol. 9, no. 11, pp. 1–17, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e21671.
    7. A. R. Krisnadi, P. Djati, S, N. Nurbaeti, and S. Wulan, “Identification of urban areas as urban tourism destinations in the special capital region of Jakarta,” in International Conference On Research And Development (ICORAD), 2022, pp. 188–204. doi: 10.47841/icorad.v1i2.34.
    8. R. Rachmawati, E. Haryono, R. A. Ghiffari, H. Reinhart, and R. Fathurrahman, “Achieving austainable urban development for Indonesia’s new capital city,” Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Plan., vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 443–456, 2024, doi: 10.18280/ijsdp.190204.
    9. M. A. Rahaman, A. Kalam, and M. Al-Mamun, “Unplanned urbanization and health risks of Dhaka City in Bangladesh: Uncovering the associations between urban environment and public health,” Front. Public Heal., vol. 11, no. October, pp. 1–18, 2023, doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1269362.
    10. A. Piracha and M. T. Chaudhary, “Urban air pollution, erban heat island and human health: A review of the literature,” Sustain., vol. 14, no. 15, pp. 1–19, 2022, doi: 10.3390/su14159234.
    11. D. Dahar, B. Handayani, and & R. Mardikaningsih, “Urban forest: The role of improving the quality of the urban environment,” Bull. Sci. Technol. Soc., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 25–29, 2022.
    12. R. Mundher et al., “Aesthetic quality assessment of landscapes as a model for urban forest areas: A systematic literature review,” Forests, vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 1–22, 2022, doi: 10.3390/f13070991.
    13. R. Crețan, D. Chasciar, and A. Dragan, “Forests and their related ecosystem services: Visitors’ perceptions in the urban and peri-urban spaces of Timișoara, Romania,” Forests, vol. 15, no. 12, pp. 1–25, 2024, doi: 10.3390/f15122177.
    14. H. Zhang, J. Yu, X. Dong, X. Zhai, and J. Shen, “Rethinking cultural ecosystem services in urban forest Parks: An analysis of citizens’ physical activities based on social media data,” Forests, vol. 15, no. 9, pp. 1–23, 2024, doi: 10.3390/f15091633.
    15. M. F. Buraerah, B. Patandjengi, S. Suryani, A. Hamzah, and E. B. Demmalino, “The effect of vegetation in reducing air pollution in an urban environment: A review,” in IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 2023, pp. 1–7. doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/1253/1/012105.
    16. T. Alsalama, M. Koç, and R. J. Isaifan, “Mitigation of urban air pollution with green vegetation for sustainable cities: a review,” Int. J. Glob. Warm., vol. 25, no. 3–4, pp. 498–515, 2021, doi: 10.1504/IJGW.2021.119014.
    17. M. M. D. Cooper, S. D. Patil, T. R. Nisbet, H. Thomas, A. R. Smith, and M. A. McDonald, “Role of forested land for natural flood management in the UK: A review,” Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 1–16, 2021, doi: 10.1002/wat2.1541.
    18. P. Herath, B. Croke, R. Prinsley, J. Vaze, and C. Pollino, “A systematic review of forest cover for catchment-scale flood mitigation: A nature-based solution,” J. Flood Risk Manag., vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 1–20, 2025, doi: 10.1111/jfr3.70125.
    19. C. Ordóñez Barona, K. Wolf, J. M. Kowalski, D. Kendal, J. A. Byrne, and T. M. Conway, “Diversity in public perceptions of urban forests and urban trees: A critical review,” Landsc. Urban Plan., vol. 226, no. May, pp. 1–14, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2022.104466.
    20. S. M. A. Haq, M. N. Islam, A. Siddhanta, K. J. Ahmed, and M. T. A. Chowdhury, “Public perceptions of urban green spaces: Convergences and divergences,” Front. Sustain. Cities, vol. 3, no. October, pp. 1–15, 2021, doi: 10.3389/frsc.2021.755313.
    21. H. Weinbrenner et al., “The forest has become our new living room– The critical importance of urban forests during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Front. For. Glob. Chang., vol. 4, no. June, pp. 1–19, 2021, doi: 10.3389/ffgc.2021.672909.
    22. A. Mandziuk, B. Fornal-Pieniak, D. Stangierska, S. Parzych, and K. Widera, “Social preferences of young adults regarding urban forest recreation management in Warsaw, Poland,” Forests, vol. 12, no. 11, pp. 1–18, 2021, doi: 10.3390/f12111524.
    23. I. A. Abdulai, “Public perception and willingness to participate in urban forest governance,” Arboric. J., vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 52–73, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.1080/03071375.2024.2397263.
    24. A. Bressane, M. B. Silva, A. P. G. Goulart, and L. C. de C. Medeiros, “Understanding how green space naturalness impacts public well-being: Prospects for designing healthier cities,” Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 1–11, 2024, doi: 10.3390/ijerph21050585.
    25. H. Du, F. Zhou, Y. Cai, C. Li, and Y. Xu, “Research on public health and well-being associated to the vegetation configuration of urban green space, a case study of Shanghai, China,” Urban For. Urban Green., vol. 59, p. 126990, Apr. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2021.126990.
    26. T. Semeraro, A. Scarano, R. Buccolieri, A. Santino, and E. Aarrevaara, “Planning of urban green spaces: An ecological perspective on human benefits,” Land, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 1–26, 2021, doi: 10.3390/land10020105.
    27. C. Yang, K. Wang, S. Shi, and X. Ma, “Associations between green open spaces and social interaction in neighbourhoods: a systematic literature review,” Urban For. Urban Green., vol. 113, p. 128991, Nov. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2025.128991.
    28. J. Qi, S. Mazumdar, and A. C. Vasconcelos, “Understanding the relationship between urban public space and social cohesion: A systematic review,” Int. J. Community Well-Being, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 155–212, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s42413-024-00204-5.
    29. L. Zhang, H. Cao, and R. Han, “Residents’ preferences and perceptions toward green open spaces in an urban area,” Sustain., vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 1–23, 2021, doi: 10.3390/su13031558.
    30. Z. Zhao, J. Ren, and Y. Wen, “Spatial perception of urban forests by citizens based on semantic differences and cognitive maps,” Forests, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–19, 2020, doi: 10.3390/f11010064.
    31. U. Izzati and H. S. Hasibuan, “Community perceptions on urban forests development in riparian areas of cisadane river, south tangerang city,” J. Ilmu Kehutan., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 33–44, May 2023, doi: 10.22146/jik.v17i1.4773.
    32. F. Rahmafitria and R. L. Kaswanto, “The role of eco-attraction in the intention to conduct low-carbon actions: A study of visitor behavior in urban forests,” Int. J. Tour. Cities, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 881–904, Sep. 2024, doi: 10.1108/IJTC-07-2023-0138.
    33. M. Esperon-Rodriguez et al., “Barriers and opportunities for resilient and sustainable urban forests,” Nat. Cities, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 290–298, 2025, doi: 10.1038/s44284-025-00212-2.
    34. M. Naghibi, A. Farrokhi, and M. Faizi, “Small urban green spaces: Insights into perception, preference, and psychological well-being in a densely populated areas of Tehran, Iran,” Environ. Health Insights, vol. 18, pp. 1–17, 2024, doi: 10.1177/11786302241248314.
    35. N. Matović and K. Ovesni, “Interaction of quantitative and qualitative methodology in mixed methods research: Integration and/or combination,” Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol., vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 51–65, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.1080/13645579.2021.1964857.
    36. H. Taherdoost, “Data collection methods and tools for research; A step-by-step guide to choose data collection technique for academic and business research projects,” Int. J. Acad. Res. Manag., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 10–38, 2021.
    37. J. Oranga and A. Matere, “Qualitative research: Essence, types and advantages,” OALib, vol. 10, no. 12, pp. 1–9, 2023, doi: 10.4236/oalib.1111001.
    38. K. Dehalwar and S. N. Sharma, “Exploring the distinctions between quantitative and qualitative research methods,” Think India, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 7–15, 2023, doi: 10.26643/think-india.v14i1.7894.
    39. M. K. Alam, “A systematic qualitative case study: questions, data collection, NVivo analysis and saturation,” Qual. Res. Organ. Manag. An Int. J., vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 1–31, Aug. 2020, doi: 10.1108/QROM-09-2019-1825.
    40. A. I. Hamzani, T. V. Widyastuti, N. Khasanah, and M. H. M. Rusli, “Legal research method: Theoretical and implementative review,” Int. J. Membr. Sci. Technol., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 3610–3619, 2023, doi: 10.15379/ijmst.v10i2.3191.
    41. J. Pyo, W. Lee, E. Y. Choi, S. G. Jang, and M. Ock, “Qualitative research in healthcare: Necessity and characteristics,” J. Prev. Med. Public Heal., vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 12–20, 2023, doi: 10.3961/jpmph.22.451.
    42. S. G. Essa, T. Celik, and N. E. Human-Hendricks, “Personalized adaptive learning technologies based on machine learning techniques to identify learning styles: A systematic literature review,” IEEE Access, vol. 11, no. April, pp. 48392–48409, 2023, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3276439.
    43. A. Roque et al., “Community-based participant-observation (CBPO): A participatory method for ethnographic research,” Field methods, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 80–90, 2024, doi: 10.1177/1525822X231198989.
    44. C. B. Uwamusi and A. Ajisebiyawo, “Participant observation as research methodology: Assessing defects of qualitative observational data as research tools,” Asian J. Soc. Sci. Manag. Technol., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 19–32, 2023.
    45. K. Eungoo and H.-J. Hwang, “Ethical conducts in qualitative research methodology :Participant observation and interview process,” J. Res. Publ. Ethics, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 5–10, 2021, doi: 10.15722/jrpe.2.2.202109.5.
    46. K. Mwita, “Strengths and weaknesses of qualitative research in social science studies,” SSRN Electron. J., vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 618–625, 2024, doi: 10.2139/ssrn.4880484.
    47. Y. Tamara, H. Hermansyah, and M. Marleni, “Analysis of teacher professional competence in utilizing information and communication technology,” Esteem J. English Educ. Study Program., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 193–206, 2024, doi: 10.31851/esteem.v7i1.14095.
    48. P. M. Magolda, “Doing case study research: A practical guide for beginning researchers,” J. Coll. Stud. Dev., vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 123–125, 2017, doi: 10.1353/csd.2007.0003.
    49. S. Akhter, “Key Informants’ Interviews,” in Principles of Social Research Methodology, Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, 2022, pp. 389–403. doi: 10.1007/978-981-19-5441-2_27.
    50. A. W. Ritonga et al., “E-learning process of maharah qira’ah in higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Int. J. High. Educ., vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 227–235, 2020, doi: 10.5430/ijhe.v9n6p227.
    51. H. Taherdoost, “Designing a questionnaire for a research paper: A comprehensive guide to design and develop an effective questionnaire,” Asian J. Manag. Sci., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 8–16, 2022, doi: 10.51983/ajms-2022.11.1.3087.
    52. S. P. Chand, “Methods of data collection in qualitative research: Interviews, focus groups, observations, and document analysis,” Adv. Educ. Res. Eval., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 303–317, 2025, doi: 10.25082/aere.2025.01.001.
    53. M. M. Willie, “Distinguishing between population and target population: A mini review,” Surg. Res. J., vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 1–2, 2023, doi: 10.33425/2768-0428.1027.
    54. K. G. Narayan, D. K. Sinha, and D. K. Singh, “Sampling Techniques,” in Veterinary Public Health & Epidemiology, Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, 2023, pp. 111–123. doi: 10.1007/978-981-19-7800-5_12.
    55. J. Pribadi, A. Ridwan, and A. Tjalla, “Comparison of the accuracy of stratified random sampling and simple random sampling methods in national assessment (AN),” Eduvest - J. Univers. Stud., vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 6886–6895, Jun. 2025, doi: 10.59188/eduvest.v5i6.51460.
    56. A. Palikhe and S. Phuyal, “Ethical consideration on editing of data in research,” J. PAAN, vol. 31, pp. 1854–1872, 2025.
    57. M. Naeem, W. Ozuem, K. Howell, and S. Ranfagni, “A step-by-step process of thematic analysis to develop a conceptual model in qualitative research,” Int. J. Qual. Methods, vol. 22, no. October, pp. 1–18, 2023, doi: 10.1177/16094069231205789.
    58. A. Gupta, “Codes and Coding,” 2023, pp. 99–125. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-49650-9_4.
    59. K. Okoye and S. Hosseini, “Choosing Between Parametric and Non-parametric Tests in Statistical Data Analysis,” in R Programming, Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, 2024, pp. 87–98. doi: 10.1007/978-981-97-3385-9_4.
    60. P. Guzik and B. Więckowska, “Data distribution analysis – a preliminary approach to quantitative data in biomedical research,” J. Med. Sci., vol. 92, no. 2, pp. 81–96, 2023, doi: 10.20883/medical.e869.
    61. A. Susilawati, A. S. M. Al Obaidi, A. Abduh, F. S. Irwansyah, and A. B. D. Nandiyanto, “How to do research methodology: From literature review, bibliometric, step-by-step research stages, to practical examples in science and engineering education,” Indones. J. Sci. Technol., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 1–40, 2025, doi: 10.17509/ijost.v10i1.78637.
    62. N. Elangovan and E. Sundaravel, “Method of preparing a document for survey instrument validation by experts,” MethodsX, vol. 8, no. April, pp. 1–9, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.mex.2021.101326.
    63. A. Bele and U. Chakradeo, “Public perception of biodiversity: A literature review of its role in urban green spaces,” J. Landsc. Ecol. Republic), vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 1–28, 2021, doi: 10.2478/jlecol-2021-0008.
    64. C. Miao, J. Wang, and D. Wang, “Research progress on urban forest ecosystem services and multifunctionality,” Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol., vol. 22, no. 12, pp. 11557–11566, Aug. 2025, doi: 10.1007/s13762-024-06045-1.
    65. W. Zhao, Y. Wang, D. Chen, L. Wang, and X. Tang, “Exploring the influencing factors of the recreational utilization and evaluation of urban ecological protection green belts for urban renewal: A case study in Shanghai,” Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, vol. 18, no. 19, pp. 1–18, 2021, doi: 10.3390/ijerph181910244.
    66. J. Kronenberg, E. Łaszkiewicz, E. Andersson, and M. Biernacka, “Popular but exclusive: How can lower socio-economic status groups win access to urban green spaces?,” Geoforum, vol. 143, no. September 2022, pp. 1–11, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2023.103774.
    67. W. K. Foong and R. Yazdanifard, “A review of sustainable development practices in Malaysia ’ s real estate sector,” Proc. Int. Conf. Adv. Res. Manag. Bus. Financ., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1–36, 2025, doi: 10.33422/icmbf.v2i1.1471.
    68. Z. Muhammed and I. R. Abubakar, “Improving the Quality of Life of Urban Communities in Developing Countries,” 2019, pp. 1–14. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-71062-4_25-1.
    69. T. Simončič, J. Kobe, M. Harmel, R. Hostnik, and A. Bončina, “Developing an integrative management plan for urban and peri-urban forests: A case study of Ljubljana, Slovenia,” Urban For. Urban Green., vol. 101, p. 128526, Nov. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2024.128526.
    70. Z. Dobšinská et al., “How can science solve forest management problems in urban forests? A case study of Bratislava Forest District,” Urban For. Urban Green., vol. 104, p. 128630, Feb. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2024.128630.
    71. U. K. Ashinze, B. A. Edeigba, A. A. Umoh, P. W. Biu, and A. I. Daraojimba, “Urban green infrastructure and its role in sustainable cities: A comprehensive review,” World J. Adv. Res. Rev., vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 928–936, 2024, doi: 10.30574/wjarr.2024.21.2.0519.
    72. G. Eweje, A. Sajjad, S. D. Nath, and K. Kobayashi, “Multi-stakeholder partnerships: A catalyst to achieve sustainable development goals,” Mark. Intell. Plan., vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 186–212, Mar. 2021, doi: 10.1108/MIP-04-2020-0135.
    73. D. F. Murphy and L. Stott, “Partnerships for the sustainable development goals (Sdgs),” Sustain., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 1–5, 2021, doi: 10.3390/su13020658.
    74. V. Giannico, G. Spano, M. Elia, M. D’Este, G. Sanesi, and R. Lafortezza, “Green spaces, quality of life, and citizen perception in European cities,” Environ. Res., vol. 196, p. 110922, May 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2021.110922.
    75. A. Bressane, A. I. S. Loureiro, and R. Almendra, “Overcoming barriers to managing urban green spaces in metropolitan areas: Prospects from a case study in an emerging economy,” Urban Sci., vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 1–13, 2024, doi: 10.3390/urbansci8040188.
    76. S. Kifayatullah et al., “Equitable urban green space planning for sustainable cities: A GIS-based analysis of spatial disparities and functional strategies,” Sci. Rep., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 1–17, 2025, doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-07578-2.