Cover Image

THE DIFFERENCE IN PEOPLE’S RESPONSE TOWARD NATURAL LANDSCAPE BETWEEN UNIVERSITY STUDENTS OF JAPAN AND INDONESIA (Perbedaan dalam Respon Manusia terhadap Lanskap Alami antara Pelajar Jepang dan Indonesia)

https://doi.org/10.22146/jml.18550

Prita Indah Pratiwi(1*), Katsunori Furuya(2), Bambang Sulistyantara(3)

(1) Landscape Architecture Program, Graduate School of Bogor Agricultural University, Bogor Indonesia.
(2) Environmental Science and Landscape Architecture Division, Chiba University, Japan
(3) Landscape Architecture Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Bogor Agricultural University, Bogor, Indonesia
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract


ABSTRACT

People in different culture distinguish in their response to the environment, especially in interpretation and understanding of the perceived landscape. In order to plan and manage the environment for the selection of landscape with the aim of special care, protection, and amenity, it is crucial that people effectively participate and measure the existing values which nature represents to local residents. The purpose of this study was to clarify the differences of landscape recognition of Japan and Indonesia and to find the landscape element which is highly valued. The study was conducted with the following six steps, namely, photos collection, photo grouping, preference evaluation, exoticism evaluation, analysis, and recommendation. Cluster analysis (Ward’s method, squared Euclidean distance) was applied for the analysis of photo categories, and Mann-Whitney U Test was applied to examine the significant differences. In photo grouping, seven natural landscape photos of Japan and Indonesia were categorized in different groups. Forest photos were categorized as wetland by Japanese students. Two rivers, lake, and forest photos were categorized by Indonesian students, but Japanese students categorized it as forest and mountain in distant view. Japanese students also distinguished the wetland as wetland in distant view and wetland in close-up view. The results of preference evaluation show that significant differences were detected in 25 photos of 68 photos. The exoticism evaluation detected significant differences in 48 photos of 68 photos. Neither Japanese nor Indonesian students recognized forest and wetland. However, either the Japanese or Indonesian students preferred waterfall or coast than the others. Based on exoticism evaluation, river and wetland were not recognized, but coast and waterfall were recognized by both of countries. Both of countries shared commonality in landscape photographs evaluation of preference and exoticism, but differences had been found in landscape recognition based on the way of seeing landscape.

 

ABSTRAK

Manusia dalam budaya yang berbeda membedakan respon mereka terhadap lingkungan, khususnya dalam interpretasi dan pemahaman lanskap yang dilihat atau dirasakan. Dalam rangka merencanakan dan mengelola lingkungan untuk pemilihan lanskap dengan tujuan perawatan khusus, perlindungan, dan kenyamanan, sangat penting bahwa manusia berpartisipasi secara efektif dan mengukur nilai-nilai eksisting yang alam berikan bagi penduduk lokal. Preferensi lanskap alami penting dalam perencanaan lanskap dari sudut pandang wisata. Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk mengklarifikasi perbedaan dalam pengenalan lanskap di Jepang dan Indonesia dan menemukans elemen lanskap yang dinilai tinggi. Penelitian ini dilaksanakan dengan enam tahapan, yaitu pengumpulan foto, pengelompokkan foto, evaluasi preferensi, evaluasi eksotisme, analisis dan rekomendasi. Analisis klaster (metode Ward, jarak Euclidian kuadrat) digunakan untuk analisis kelompok foto dan uji Mann-Whitney U digunakan untuk menguji perbedaan nyata. Dalam pengelompokan foto, tujuh foto lanskap alami di Jepang dan Indonesia dikelompokkan ke dalam grup yang berbeda. Foto hutan dikelompokkan sebagai lahan basah oleh pelajar Jepang. Dua foto sungai, danau, dan hutan dikelompokkan oleh pelajar Indonesia, tetapi pelajar Jepang mengelompokkannya sebagai hutan dan gunung pada jarak jauh. Pelajar Jepang juga membedakan lahan basah sebagai lahan basah pada jarak jauh dan lahan basah pada jarak dekat. Hasil evaluasi preferensi menunjukkan bahwa perbedaan nyata ditemukan pada 25 foto dari 68 foto. Evaluasi eksotisme menemukan perbedaan nyata dalam 48 foto dari 68 foto. Pelajar Jepang dan Indonesia tidak memilih hutan dan lahan basah. Namun, keduanya lebih memilih air terjun dan pesisir daripada jenis lanskap lainnya. Berdasarkan evaluasi eksotisme, sungai dan lahan basah tidak dipilih, sedangkan pesisir dan air terjun lebih dipilih oleh kedua negara. Kedua negara tersebut memiliki persamaan dalam evaluasi preferensi dan eksotisme foto lanskap, tetapi perbedaan pun ditemukan dalam pengenalan lanskap yang didasarkan pada cara melihat lanskap.


Keywords


environment perspetive; cluster analysis; exoticism; photo grouping; preference; landscape photographs; perspektif lingkungan; analisis klaster; eksotisme; pengelompokkan foto; preferensi; foto lanskap



References

Anonym., 1982. National Conservation Plan for Indonesia, Introduction. UNDP/ FAO National Park Development Project, Bogor. Cochrane, J., 2006. Indonesian National Parks: Understanding Leisure Users. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(4): 979–997. Faisal, S., 2008. Format-Format Penelitian Sosial. PT Raja Grafindo Persada, Jakarta. Finger-stich, A., 2005. Social Agency in Alpine Communal Forests—Local Actors’ Interactions With Communal Forests and Participation in Communal Forestry in The French and Swiss Alps [dissertation]. University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau. Fraenkel, J.R, and Wallen, N.E., 1993. How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. McGraw-Hill Inc, Singapore. Fujiwara, T., 2003. Public Participation in Japan’s Forest Planning System. In: Inoue M, Isozaki H, editor. People and Forest-Policy and Local Reality in Southeast Asia, the Russian Far East and Japan. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordecht. Gay, L.R, and Diehl, P.L., 1992. Research Methods for Business and Management. Macmillan, New York. Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., and Ryan, R.L., 1998. With People in Mind: Design and Management of Everyday Nature. Island Press, Washington DC. Karjalainen, E., and Tyrvälnen L., 2002. Visualization in Forest Landscape Preference Research: A Finnish Perspective. Landscape and Urban Planning, 59: 13–28. Kleim, J.A., and Wolf, S.A., 2007. Toward Multifunctional Landscapes: Cross-Sectional Analysis of Management Priorities in New York’s Northern Forest. Rural Sociology, 72 (3): 391–417. Knight, J., 2000. From Timber to Tourism: Recommoditizing The Japanese Forest. Development and Change, 31: 341–359. Li, Q., Nakadai. A., Matsushima, H., Miyazaki, Y., Krensky, A.M, Kawada, T., and Morimoto, K., 2006. Phytoncides (Wood Essential Oils) Induce Human Natural Killer Cell Activity. Immunopharmacol and Immunotoxicol, 28: 319-333. Marsden, T., 2003. Communities in Nature, The Construction and Understanding of Forest Natures. Sociologia Ruralis, 43(3): 238–256. Matsushima, H., Petrova E.G., and Mironov, Y., 2013. Which Does Affect The Natural Landscape Appreciation Strongly, Cultural or Geological Difference? [abstract]. In: Program Book of Japan Geoscience Union Meeting 2013. Chiba, 19-24 May 2013. Nasar, J.L., 1988. Environmental Aesthetics: Theory, Study and Aplications. Cambridge Univ Pr, New York. Porteous, J.D., 1977. Environment and Behavior: Planning and Everyday Urban Life. Addison Wesley, United Kingdom. Rannikko, P., 1999. Combining Social and Ecological Sustainability in The Nordic Forest Periphery. Sociologia Ruralis, 39(3): 394–411. Ribe, R.G., 2002. Is Scenic Beauty A Proxy for Acceptable Management? The Influence of Environmental Attitudes on Landscape Perceptions. Environment and Behavior, 34(6): 757–780. Roscoe, J., 1975. Fundamental Research Statistics for The Behavioral Sciences. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York. Ross, S., and Wall, G., 1999. Evaluating Ecotourism: The Case of North Sulawesi, Indonesia. Tourism Management, 20(6): 673–682. Schmithüsen, F., 1995. The Meaning of Forests in A Perspective of Social and Political Development, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Department of Forest Sciences, Chair of Forest Policy and Forest, Zurich. Sugiyono, 2006. Statistika Untuk Penelitian. CV Alfabeta, Bandung. Supranto, J., 2010. Analisis Multivariat: Arti dan Interpretasi. Rineka Cipta, Jakarta. Sutton, M., 2008. Japan, Mongolia and The Potential of Ecotourism. Ritsumeikan International Study, 21(1): 39–55. Swaffield, S.R., and Foster R.J., 2000. Community Perceptions of Landscape Values in The South Island High Country: A Literature Review of Current Knowledge and Evaluation of Survey Methods, Science for Conservation, 159: 1–54. Takayama, N., Petrova, E., Matsushima, H., Ueda, H., Furuya, K., and Aoki Y., 2013. Difference in and Causes of Environmental Attitudes between Russia and Japan [abstract]. In: Program Book of Japan Geosciences Union Meeting 2013. Chiba, 19-24 May 2013. Ueda, H., 2009. A Study on Resident Landscape Perception through Landscape Image-Four Case Studies in Germany and Japan Rural Communities [dissertation]. University of Kassel, Kassel. Van den Berg., A.E., and Koole, S.L., 2006. New Wilderness in The Netherlands: An Investigation of Visual Preferences for Nature Development Landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 78: 362–372. Whitten, A., and Whitten, J., 1992. Wild Indonesia. New Holland, London. Wiyadi, 2009. Pengukuran Indeks Daya Saing Industri Kecil Menengah (IKM) di Jawa Tengah. Jurnal Siasat Bisnis, 1(13): 77–92.



DOI: https://doi.org/10.22146/jml.18550

Article Metrics

Abstract views : 745 | views : 453

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Copyright (c) 2017 Jurnal Manusia dan Lingkungan



JML Indexed by:


Web
Analytics View My Stats