Evaluasi objek wisata berdasarkan preferensi estetika Scenic Beauty Estimation di Pantai Pasir Putih, Lampung

Rizka Nabilah, Rahmah Sari

Abstract

Pantai Pasir Putih di Lampung membutuhkan evaluasi terhadap nilai keindahan lanskap untuk melihat preferensi pengunjung wisata. Hal ini dapat menjadi masukan penting dalam pengelolaan dan pengembangan lanskap objek wisata. Dalam suatu perjalanan ke objek wisata, pengunjung memerlukan kepuasan secara psikologis terhadap lanskap pesisir yang dijadikan objek wisata. Preferensi masyarakat terhadap wisata pantai pesisir dapat bervariasi berdasarkan faktor-faktor yang melibatkan kebutuhan dan minat pengunjung, salah satunya adalah karakter visual lanskap. Metode Scenic Beauty Estimation (SBE) dapat digunakan untuk menilai secara kuantitatif preferensi masyarakat terhadap suatu lanskap. Berdasarkan analisis yang dilakukan terhadap hasil kuesioner tentang lima foto lanskap, SBE menunjukkan bahwa foto lanskap gerbang masuk memiliki nilai tertinggi (24,08; Tinggi). Sementara empat lanskap lain memiliki nilai sedang dan rendah. Lanskap dengan nilai rendah dapat dijadikan prioritas rekomendasi desain melalui preseden yang dipilih agar nilai estetika dapat meningkat. Hasil dari penelitian ini diharapkan dapat memberikan dampak peningkatan ketertarikan pengunjung untuk melakukan perjalanan wisata ke Pasir Putih.

Keywords

Lanskap; Objek wisata, Pantai Pasir Putih, Preferensi, SBE

Full Text:

PDF

References

[1]Baitalik A, Bhattacharjee T. Beneath the Sun and Sands: Appraising Coastal Tourism Impact through Community Perceptions in West Bengal, India. Reg Stud Mar Sci 2023;68:103273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsma.2023.103273.

[2]Chen Y, Ma Q, Xu L, Shi Y, Lu Z, Wu Y, et al. Spatial Sight Analysis of Hangzhou Xiaoyingzhou based on Tourists’ Landscape Preference. Frontiers of Architectural Research 2023;12:1157–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2023.08.003.

[3]Moon T, Lee J, Kim M, Kim B, Seo J young, Chon J. Coastal Landscape Preference of Residents and Tourists According to the Physical Attributes and Viewpoints of offshore Wind Farms as seen through Virtual Reality. Reg Stud Mar Sci 2023;66:103157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsma.2023.103157.

[4]Howley P. Landscape Aesthetics: Assessing the General Publics’ Preferences towards Rural Landscapes. Ecological Economics 2011;72:161–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.09.026.

[5]Epifani F, Valente D. Sustainable Governance of Tourism-Based Social–Ecological Landscapes. Sustainability 2023;15:15967. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152215967.

[6]Roberts E, Thomas M, Pidgeon N, Henwood K. Valuing Nature for Wellbeing: Narratives of Socio-ecological Change in Dynamic Intertidal Landscapes. Environ Values 2021;30:501–23. https://doi.org/10.3197/096327120X15916910310635.

[7]Purcell T, Peron E, Berto R. Why do Preferences Differ Between Scene Types? Environ Behav 2001;33:93–106.

[8]Li Y, Xie L, Zhang L, Huang L, Lin Y, Su Y, et al. Understanding Different Cultural Ecosystem Services: An Exploration of Rural Landscape Preferences Based on Geographic and Social Media Data. J Environ Manage 2022;317:115487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115487.

[9]Kermani ZM, Pazhouhanfar M, Kamal MSM. Role of Esthetic Judgment on Perceived Safety of Urban Parks’ Users. Security Journal 2022;35:1263–87. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41284-021-00326-x.

[10]Chen G, Yan J, Wang C, Chen S. Expanding the Associations Between Landscape Characteristics and Aesthetic Sensory Perception for Traditional Village Public Space. Forests 2024;15:97. https://doi.org/10.3390/f15010097.

[11]Reid W V, Mooney HA, Cropper A, Capistrano D, Carpenter SR, Chopra K, et al. Ecosystems and Human Well-being-Synthesis: A Report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Island Press; 2005.

[12]Blaschke T. The Role of the Spatial Dimension within the Framework of Sustainable Landscapes and Natural Capital. Landsc Urban Plan 2006;75:198–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.02.013.

[13]Yang Y, Tang X. The Aesthetic Evaluation of Forest Landscape in Four Urban Forest Parks: A Case Study of Nanjing Hilly Areas, China. Res Sq 2021. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-286000/v1.

[14]França LC de J, Júnior FWA, Jarochinski e Silva CS, Monti CAU, Ferreira TC, Santana CJ de O, et al. Forest Landscape Planning and Management: A State-of-the-Art Review. Trees, Forests and People 2022;8:100275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2022.100275.

[15]Mt Akhir N, Md Sakip SR, Abbas MY, Othman N. Determination of Landscape Aesthetic Value in Developing Questionnaire Survey for Campus Planting Composition. Geographia Technica 2020;15:83–92. https://doi.org/10.21163/GT_2020.151.25.

[16]Yin Y, Shao Y, Meng Y, Hao Y. The Effects of The Natural Visual-Aural Attributes of Urban Green Spaces on Human Behavior and Emotional Response. Front Psychol 2023;14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1186806.

[17]Olszewska-Guizzo A, Sia A, Fogel A, Ho R. Features of Urban Green Spaces Associated with Positive Emotions, Mindfulness and Relaxation. Sci Rep 2022;12:20695. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-24637-0.

[18]Nurmasari S. Hubungan Media Ruang Luar (Menggunakan Pencahayaan Buatan) dengan Kualitas Visual Koridor Dimalam Hari Menurut Persepsi Masyarakat (Studi Kasus Koridor Jalan Pahlawan Semarang). Program Pasca Sarjana Universitas Diponegoro, 2008.

[19]Kang N, Liu C. Towards Landscape Visual Quality Evaluation: Methodologies, Technologies, and Recommendations. Ecol Indic 2022;142:109174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.109174.

[20]Daniel TC. Whither Scenic Beauty? Visual Landscape Quality Assessment in the 21st Century. Landsc Urban Plan 2001;54:267–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00141-4.

[21]Ruswan M. Analisis Pengaruh Elemen Lanskap terhadap Kualitas Estetika Lanskap Kota Depok. Bogor: Fakultas Pertanian, Institut Pertanian Bogor 2006.

[22]Lalicic L, Marine-Roig E, Ferrer-Rosell B, Martin-Fuentes E. Destination Image Analytics for Tourism Design: An Approach Through Airbnb Reviews. Ann Tour Res 2021;86:103100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2020.103100.

[23]Xiao X, Fang C, Lin H, Chen J. A Framework for Quantitative Analysis and Differentiated Marketing of Tourism Destination Image Based on Visual Content of Photos. Tour Manag 2022;93:104585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2022.104585.

[24]Martinez-Falero E. Quantitative Techniques in Landscape Planning. CRC Press; 1995.

[25]Franco D, Franco D, Mannino I, Zanetto G. The Impact of Agroforestry Networks on Scenic Beauty Estimation. Landsc Urban Plan 2003;62:119–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00127-5.

[26]Daniel TC. Measuring Landscape Esthetics: The Scenic Beauty Estimation Method. vol. 167. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range …; 1976.

[27]Long K, Wang N, Lin Z. Assessing Scenic Beauty of Hilly and Mountain Villages: An Approach based on Landscape Indicators. Ecol Indic 2023;154:110538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.110538.

[28]Bastian O, Krönert R, Lipský Z. Landscape Diagnosis on Different Space and Time Scales–a Challenge for Landscape Planning. Landsc Ecol 2006;21:359–74.

[29]De la Fuente de Val G, Atauri J. a., de Lucio, JV, 2006. Relationship between Landscape Visual Attributes and Spatial Pattern Indices: A Test study in Mediterranean-climate Landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan n.d.;77.

[30]Kaplan R, Kaplan S. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge university press; 1989.

[31]Fyhri A, Jacobsen JKS, Tømmervik H. Tourists’ Landscape Perceptions and Preferences in a Scandinavian Coastal Region. Landsc Urban Plan 2009;91:202–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.01.002.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.20961/region.v19i2.84594

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.