Economic Valuation of Pagutan Green Open Space in Mataram City as a Basic for User Fee Determination and Sustainable Management Strategy

Luh Putu Dyah Madyawati; Diswandi Diswandi; St. Maryam

doi:10.55681/economina.v5i5.2013

Authors

Luh Putu Dyah Madyawati University of Mataram
Diswandi Diswandi Universitas Mataram, Mataram, Indonesia
St. Maryam Universitas Mataram, Mataram, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55681/economina.v5i5.2013

Keywords:

Green Open Space (GOS), Contingent Valuation Method (CVM), participation, Sustainability

Abstract

Rapid urban development is putting pressure on the availability of green open spaces and the quality of the urban environment. This study aims to analyse the economic value of Pagutan green open space from the perspective of public, formulate a fee structure and sustainable management strategy for it.

The study employed a mixed-methods approach with a sequential explanatory design, combining quantitative analysis using the Contingent Valuation Method with a bidding game approach, as well as qualitative analysis through informant interviews and observation. Data were collected from 145 respondents that analysed using multiple linear regression and community participation analysis.

The results indicates that the yearly total economic value of the green urban space is about Rp476.056.512 counted from visitors’ willingness to pay for its existence. Visitors’ age, income, education, visit frequency, distance from residence, and perceptions of green open spaces significantly impacting visitors’ willingness to pay. Community participation was relatively high, particularly in maintaining cleanliness and adhering to regulations, but direct involvement in maintenance activities remained moderate. Based on an analysis of ability to pay, the most realistic fee is Rp3,000/person/visit, applied selectively to the Special Sports Zone, the Environmental Education Zone/Greenhouse, and the Children’s Playground Zone.

The sustainable management strategy for the Pagutan Green Open Space is divided into three categories based on the three pillars of sustainable development: the economic aspect, through the implementation of user fees as a supplementary funding source; the social aspect, through increased community participation and education; and the environmental and institutional aspects, through enhanced vegetation maintenance and strengthened area management.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Annisa, T. M., & Harini, R. (2017). Analisis kesediaan membayar (WTP) untuk mendukung ekowisata berkelanjutan di kawasan wisata Gua Pindul, Kabupaten Gunungkidul. Departemen Geografi Lingkungan, Fakultas Geografi, Universitas Gadjah Mada.

Akhirul et al. (2020) ‘Dampak Negatif Pertumbuhan Penduduk Terhadap Lingkungan Dan Upaya Mengatasinya’, Jurnal Kependudukan dan Pembangunan Ligkungan, 1(3), pp. 76–84.

Allam, Z. et al. (2022) ‘The Metaverse as a Virtual Form of Smart Cities: Opportunities and Challenges for Environmental, Economic, and Social Sustainability in Urban Futures’, Smart Cities, 5(3), pp. 771–801. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities5030040.

Caracelli, V.J. (2006) ‘Enhancing the Policy Process through the Use of Ethnography and Other Study Frameworks: A Mixed-Method Strategy’, Research in the Schools, 13(1), pp. 84–95.

Letidena, S. P. P. E. (2023). Estimasi willingness to pay (WTP) masyarakat terhadap pengadaan taman kota di Kabupaten Bekasi (Tugas Akhir, Program Studi S1 Perencanaan Wilayah dan Kota, Universitas Gadjah Mada).

Idris, I., Hoque, M.E. and Susanto, P. (2022) ‘Willingness to pay for the preservation of urban green space in Indonesia’, Cogent Economics and Finance, 10(1). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2021.2008588.

Jones, L. et al. (2024) ‘Economic value of the hot-day cooling provided by urban green and blue space’, Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 93. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2024.128212.

Latifah, S. et al. (2020) ‘Evaluasi Risiko Pohon Di RTH Udayana Kota Mataram Dengan Tree Risk Assesment’, Jurnal Penelitian Kehutanan Faloak, 4(2), pp. 141–160. Available at: https://doi.org/10.20886/jpkf.2020.4.2.141-160.

Lipton, D.W. et al. (1995) Economic Valuation of Natural Resources: A Handbook for Coastal Resource Policymakers. United States: .S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Coastal Ocean Program, Decision Analysis Series No. 5. Available at: https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/2922?utm_source=chatgpt.com.

Musgrave, R.A. and Musgrave, P.B. (1989) Public Finance in Theory and Practice. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Perman, R. et al. (2011) Natural Resource and Environmental Economics. 4th Editio. Pearson Education.

Purwanza, S.W. et al. (2020) Metodologi Penelitian Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, dan Kombinasi. Bandung: CV Media Sains Indonesia.

Samuelson, P.A. (1954) ‘The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure’, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 36(4), pp. 387–389.

Saputra, H.Y. et al. (2024) ‘Urbanisasi dan Dampaknya terhadap Kualitas Lingkungan’.

Semeraro, T. et al. (2021) ‘Planning of urban green spaces: An ecological perspective on human benefits’, Land. MDPI AG, pp. 1–26. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/land10020105.

Stiglitz, J.E. (2000) Economics of the Public Sector. 3rd Editio. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Tongco, M.D.C. (2007) ‘Purposive Sampling as a Tool for Informant Selection’, Ethnobotany Research and Applications, 5, pp. 147–158.

Wilson, J. and Xiao, X. (2023) ‘The Economic Value of Health Benefits Associated with Urban Park Investment’, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(6). Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20064815.

Yao, N. et al. (2024) ‘Protecting Rural Large Old Trees with Multi-Scale Strategies: Integrating Spatial Analysis and the Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) for Socio-Cultural Value Assessment’, Forests, 15(1). Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/f15010018.