Issues


Issues: 1-5 | 6-10 | 11-12
Downloads: 179

Assessing the impact of green open spaces on urban microclimate in Pinrang Regency, South Sulawesi, Indonesia

Hasniar Ulang Dari, Mukrimin Mukrimin*, and Yusran

Department of Forestry, Faculty of Forestry, Hasanuddin University, Tamalanrea Campus, Jalan
Perintis Kemerdekaan Km. 10, Makassar 90245, Indonesia. *E-mail: mukrimin@unhas.ac.id

Abstract:

Rapid urbanisation and global climate change have increased the Urban Heat Island (UHI) phenomenon, which impacts the quality of the urban environment. Green Open Space (GOS) has a strategic role in mitigating microclimate change. However, its availability in various regions, including Pinrang Regency, is still not optimal. This study aimed to determine the contribution of GOS to microclimate regulation in urban environments. This was achieved by comparing environmental parameters between areas inside and outside the GOS in Pinrang Regency – specifically, Pinrang Urban Forest, Lasinrang Park, Lasinrang Monument Park, and Bau Massepe Stadium Park. The study identified the main factors influencing variations in environmental conditions across these areas and explored the interrelationships among all measured environmental parameters using Principal Component Analysis (PCA). Measurements were conducted at four GOS locations using a Mastech MS6300 device. The Mann-Whitney U test results show significant difference in environmental parameters between areas inside and outside the GOS, where the temperature inside the GOS was 5–6 °C lower than outside, humidity increased by 15–20 %, light intensity decreased by 70 %, wind speed decreased due to vegetation barriers, and noise decreased by 10–15 dB. Identifying the causes of differences in environmental parameters showed that the main contributing factors were vegetation type and density, canopy structure, and surrounding environmental conditions such as exposure to direct sunlight intensity and human activities outside the GOS. In addition, vegetation density analysis using NDVI imagery shows significant differences between GOS. GOS with wide-canopy and high-density vegetation showed more significant microclimate moderating effects than areas with more open vegetation. PCA analysis revealed that temperature, humidity, and sunlight intensity were the dominant factors determining environmental quality in GOS. Therefore, empirical data-based planning and GOS management are essential to improve urban environmental quality optimally.

Received: 29 April 2025 / Accepted: 12 July 2025 / Available online: 23 July 2025

Open Access: This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

(Forestry Ideas, 2025, Vol. 31, No. 1) [Download]
Downloads: 164

Community and forest linkages in food, water, fuelwood of community residing nearby Wan Abdul Rachman Forest Park, Indonesia 

Zainal Abidin (1)*, Muhammad Irfan Affandi (2), Hari Kaskoyo (3), Dewi Lengkana (4), and Eny Puspasari (5)

1. Department of Agribusiness, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Lampung, Jl. Soemantri Brojonegoro 1, Bandar Lampung 35145, Indonesia. *E-mail: zainal.abidin@fp.unila.ac.id
2. University of Lampung, Jl. Soemantri Brodjonegoro 1, Bandar Lampung 35145, Indonesia. E-mail: irfan.affandi@fp.unila.ac.id
3. Department of Forestry, University of Lampung, Jl. Soemantri Brodjonegoro 1, Bandar Lampung 35145, Indonesia. E-mail: hari.kaskoyo@fp.unila.ac.id
4. Department of Science Education, University of Lampuing, Jl. Soemantri Brodjonegoro 1, Bandar Lampung 35145, Indonesia. E-mail: dewi.lengkana@fkip.unila.ac.id
5. Regional Technical Implementing Unit (RTIU) of Wan Abdul Rachman Forest Park, Jl. Wan Abdul Rachman, Bandar Lampung 35158, Indonesia. E-mail: enypuspa2015@gmail.com

Abstract:

Wan Abdul Rachman Forest Park (WARFP) serves various benefits to Lampung Region such as: water, food, cash crops, energy, and ecosystem services. Since WARFP is located nearby a city, it is under constant pressure from human. This study intends to identify how community is dependent on WARFP in terms of food, economy, water, and energy, especially fuelwood. The study involves 61 forest farmer members of Regional Technical Implementing Unit (RTIU) of WARFP. The study employs a mixed-method approach, combining qualitative descriptive techniques and quantitative analysis. Five components were used to assess the level of dependence, namely: 1) use of forest resources such as water, fuelwood, medicinal plants, and food, 2) economy, 3) environment, 4) access and rights to the forest, 5) participation. The study suggests that forest farmers were highly dependent on WARFP in terms of water, food sources, fuelwood energy, economy, and protection of forest from natural hazards such as flooding and forest fire. The community also enjoy the rights to cultivate forest land under partnership. However, participation from forest farmers are still limited and therefore necessary to be improved.

Received: 20 April 2025 / Accepted: 18 July 2025 / Available online: 24 July 2025

Open Access: This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

(Forestry Ideas, 2025, Vol. 31, No. 1) [Download]
Issues: 1-5 | 6-10 | 11-12
Contents:
Forestry Ideas, 2026, Vol. 32, No 1 ( 10 )
Forestry Ideas, 2025, Vol. 31, No 2 ( 12 )
Forestry Ideas, 2025, Vol. 31, No Special Issue 2 ( 13 )
Forestry Ideas, 2025, Vol. 31, No Special Issue 1 ( 20 )
Forestry Ideas, 2025, Vol. 31, No 1 ( 12 )
Forestry Ideas, 2024, Vol. 30, No 2 ( 10 )
Forestry Ideas, 2024, Vol. 30, No 1 ( 15 )
Forestry Ideas, 2023, Vol. 29, No 2 ( 13 )
Forestry Ideas, 2023, Vol. 29, No 1 ( 16 )
Forestry Ideas, 2022, Vol. 28, No 2 ( 15 )
Forestry Ideas, 2022, Vol. 28, No 1 ( 24 )
Forestry Ideas, 2021, Vol. 27, No 2 ( 19 )
Forestry Ideas, 2021, Vol. 27, No 1 ( 23 )
Forestry Ideas, 2020, Vol. 26, No 2 ( 22 )
Forestry Ideas, 2020, Vol. 26, No 1 ( 19 )
Forestry Ideas, 2019, Vol. 25, No 2 ( 19 )
Forestry Ideas, 2019, Vol. 25, No 1 ( 16 )
Forestry Ideas, 2018, Vol. 24, No 2 ( 10 )
Forestry Ideas, 2018, Vol. 24, No 1 ( 6 )
Forestry Ideas, 2017, Vol. 23, No 2 ( 9 )
Forestry Ideas, 2017, Vol. 23, No 1 ( 8 )
Forestry Ideas, 2016, Vol. 22, No 2 ( 10 )
Forestry Ideas, 2016, Vol. 22, No 1 ( 9 )
Forestry Ideas, 2015, Vol. 21, No 2 ( 23 )
Forestry Ideas, 2015, Vol. 21, No 1 ( 13 )
Forestry Ideas, 2014, Vol. 20, No 2 ( 12 )
Forestry Ideas, 2014, Vol. 20, No 1 ( 10 )
Forestry Ideas, 2013, Vol. 19, No 2 ( 9 )
Forestry Ideas, 2013, Vol. 19, No 1 ( 10 )
Forestry Ideas, 2012, Vol. 18, No 2 ( 12 )
Forestry Ideas, 2012, Vol. 18, No 1 ( 14 )
Forestry Ideas, 2011, Vol. 17, No 2 ( 14 )
Forestry Ideas, 2011, Vol. 17, No 1 ( 14 )
Forestry Ideas, 2010, Vol. 16, No 2 ( 18 )
Forestry Ideas, 2010, Vol. 16, No 1 ( 18 )
Forestry Ideas, 2009, Vol. 15, No 2 ( 32 )
Forestry Ideas, 2009, Vol. 15, No 1 ( 32 )


 

SCImago Journal & Country Rank