CIkapundung River

Individual Paper PL 4006 Topik Khusus Perencanaan II (Summercamp Class) | Urban and Regional
Planning Bandung Intitute of Technology
PUBLIC SPACE INFORMAL SETTLEMENT IN KAMPUNG LEBAK SILIWANGI:

TACKLING THE SCARCITY OF SPACE
By: Gabriel Bagas Hertanto Merung (15416047)
Abstract: The neighborhood is a basic planning entity in modern residental planning theories. However open
spaces as a vital constituent of the neighbourhood’s physical structure. The presence of open space is often
regarded as one of the considerations that enhance the quality of the living experience of populations in urban
regions and cities and that enhance the long-term sustainability of urban environments. Limited and high prices
of land have led to the needs of neglected public open spaces. They are the arena of both, neighbors outdoor
interactions consequently building the neighbourhood’s sense of community and the micro ecological sphere.
Keywords: Open Space, Neighborhoood, Sustainability, Interaction
INTRODUCTION
In 2015, the role of public spaces in sustainable development received unprecedented recognition by
the international community by including a target to “provide universal access to safe, inclusive and
accessible, green and public spaces, in particular for women and children, older persons and persons
with disabilities” in the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda, Target 7 of SDG 11 on Sustainable
Cities and Human Settlements. Beyond the recognition in target 7, public space is a key component to
achieve a number of the other SDGs such as 3, 5, 6 and 13. Localizing and implementing all the SDGs,
with special emphasis on SDG 11, will depend on local governments across the world and the support
offered to them. However, providing public space in the area with limited space is another level of
challenge. Thus, this study discusses how people living in Kampung Lebak Siliwangi tackle the land
scarcity problem in providing public space for themselves.
Figure 1. Map of Study Area

LITERATURE REVIEW
Madanipour (1999) defined public space as those areas with is towns, and the countryside that are
physically accessible to everyone, where strangers and citizens can enter with few restrictions. Some
have sought to expand the concept of public space to mean ‘any place that people use when not at work
or at home’ (Shonfield 1998), while others have expanded the concept into ‘cyberspace’ (Crang 2000;
Holmes 1997). Open spaces in neighborhoods are defined as ‘any unbuilt land within the boundary or
designated envelope of a neighbourhood which provides, or has the potential to provide, environmental,
social and/or economic benefits to communities, whether direct or indirect.’ (Campbell, 2001) They
could be classified according to a number of criteria, however this paper differentiates vegetated from
nonvegetated areas and this leads to the following typological classification:
• Greenspace: a sub-set of open space, consisting of any vegetated land or structure, water or
geological feature within urban areas.
• Greyspace (sometimes referred to as “civic space”): a sub-set of open space, consisting of urban
squares, market places and other paved or hard landscaped areas with a civic function.
Moreover, seven distinct sub-sets of publicly accessible greenspace, could be realized each with a
specific and distinct primary function (Campbell, 2001):
• Parks and gardens: areas of land, normally enclosed, designed, constructed, managed and
maintained as a public park or garden. They can be either urban parks or country parks
depending primarily on their location. They often incorporate other types of greenspace, such as
children’s play areas and sports facilities, but their primary function is for informal activity or
relaxation, social and community purposes, and horticultural or arboricultural displays. Some
park and gardens may also be designed landscapes of historical importance, where they are
national significance.
• Amenity greenspace: Managed and maintained landscaped areas with no designated specific
use by people, but providing visual amenity or separating different buildings or land uses for
environmental, visual or safety reasons. They may also be used, incidentally, as wildlife
habitats.
• Children’s play areas: Designated and maintained areas providing safe and accessible
opportunities for children’s play, usually linked to housing areas and therefore normally set
within a wider green environment of amenity open space. The primary function of these areas
is to provide safe facilities for children to play, usually close to home and under informal
supervision from nearby houses.
• Sports facilities: Designed, constructed, managed and maintained large and generally (although
not always) flat areas of grassland or specially-designed artificial surfaces, used primarily for
designated sports. The primary function of these areas is to accommodate practice, training and
competition for recognized outdoor sports.

• Green corridors: Routes linking different areas within a town or city as part of a designated and
managed network and used for walking, cycling or horse riding or linking towns and cities to
their surrounding countryside or country parks. The primary function of green corridors is to
allow safe, environment-friendly movement within urban areas. Moreover, they support
wildlife colonization and therefore habitat creation.
• Natural/semi-natural greenspaces: undeveloped land with little or only limited maintenance
which have been planted with wild flowers or colonized by vegetation and wildlife. They also
include woodland, railway embankments, river and canal banks and derelict land, which may
in some cases be thought of as temporary natural greenspace. The primary function of natural
greenspaces is to promote biodiversity and nature conservation.
• Other functional greenspaces: Essentially allotments, the yards of religious buildings and
cemeteries.
Some classifications may wish to add an eighth type of greenspace school grounds. However, regarding
the approach of this paper, they could be included within the above typology, even if they normally
include more than one type of greenspace. There are also various types of Greyspace (civic space),
including:
• Civic squares and plazas: often containing statues or fountains and primarily paved, sometimes
providing a setting for important public buildings.
• Market places: usually with historic connotations.
• Pedestrian streets: usually former roads which have been paved over and provided with seats
and planters.
• Promenades and sea fronts: usually used for recreational activities. They have special value
when located at historical areas.
There are some social benefits that we can got from open spaces:
1. Social Interaction
Recent research by many scholars has emphasized the significance of open green spaces as an
idealspaces for people to meet each other, or as a focus for the community, both formally and
informally (Woolley, 2003). They also provide space for socializing, political discourse and
cultural expression (Li,2014). The existence of trees (and their shade) as well as grass in public
areas can be an attraction for people to spend more time outdoors, which improves social
interaction among the members of the community (Coley, Sullivan, & Kuo, 1997). There is a
great potential for social interaction in open greenspaces because of the easy access to these
spaces, in comparison with the other spaces in a city. Also there can be greater social unity
among the people who interact in leisure activities (organizing public ceremonies, track and
field, cycling) which connect them together (Konijnendijk, Annerstedt, Nielsen, &
Maruthaveeran, 2013).
2. Social Cohesion
Due to globalization, the level of mitigation has increased over the past decades. Therefore,
some parts of the traditional homogenous societies are becoming gradually more multi-cultural
(Kaergard, 2010) which could lead to reduced interaction and less social cohesion. Urban open
green spaces combine ecology with the social scope (Borgström, 2009; Olsson, 2012), allowing
people to meet and interact to establish relationships and to develop social ties within local
communities (Völker etal., 2007). Urban open green spaces have been viewed not only as a
setting for recreation and leisure but also as a significant part of community and urban
development, which can be used to eliminate social distinction. (Coley et al., 1997; Van Herzele
& Wiedemann, 2003; Parr, 2007; Maas, Van Dillen, Verheij, & Groenewegen, 2009). They
contribute to social justice by creating opportunities for all peopleto participate in close
interaction between social layers of diverse ethnic and racial backgrounds (Lofland,1998;
Fainstein, 2005). In particular, they are used for a range of activities that increase the sense of
communal closeness, more recreation activities and social support (Elmqvist et al., 2004; Chu
et al.,2010; Chen & Jim, 2008; Maas et al., 2009; Seeland, Dübendorfer, & Hansmann, 2009;
S; Rakowski etal., 2012; Ahmad, Maulan, Mariapan, & Habib, 2011; Arnberger, 2012;
Arnberger & Eder, 2011).
3. Crime Reduction
Many studies have stated that vegetation can reduce the fear of crime (Taylor, Kuo, & Sullivan,
2002) or incidences of crime and anti-social behavior (Kuo & Sullivan, 2001). Kaplan (1987)
suggested that there could be serious crimes of a violent nature triggered by stress. Besides,
there is empirical evidence that the presence of trees could lower stress, and thus minimize
incidence of crime perpetuated by stressed criminals (Donovan & Prestemon, 2010).Planting
trees and maintenance activities also help to keep crime rates low and strengthen community
bonds (Rij, Dekkers, & Koomen, 2008) while some others have stated that natural greenery
increases the fear of crime (Nasar, Fisher, & Grannis, 1993;Nasar & Fisher, 1993).
4. Reduction of Accidents Probability
Urban street trees create vertical walls that frame streets and provide a defined edge that can
have an important effect on drivers and especially motorists to reduce speed, and act as a
movement guide, giving better distinction between drivers and pedestrians. Furthermore, street
trees also increase the pedestrians' safety because in the case of driving errors they deflect or
fully stop the motorist from accidentally taking a human life (Naderi, 2003; Wolf, 2003).
According to Burden (2008), street tree sections in comparison with equivalent treeless streets
have fewer run-off-the-road crashes and overall crash severity.

5. Aesthetics
When it comes to environmental preference, aesthetic perception is an inﬂuential and widely
shared affective basis (Parsons & Daniel, 2002). It is human nature to harbor psychological
attachment to beautiful natural objects such as pleasing and calming vegetation(Jim,
2004).Green open spaces are significant because they are aesthetically valuable to the
communal domain but as such value is not easily quantifiable, its significance is frequently
down played (Enger, 2005). Furthermore, open greenspace users express differing aesthetic
preferences and values for features like diverse vegetation and trees, water, varied terrain, and
topography (Yuen, 1996;T. Zhang & Gobster, 1998;Byrne & Sipe, 2010).
6. Regional Identity
The typical town common or square, acts as a watering hole for communities in the vicinity
and helps to establish its local identity (Calthorpe, 1993). The preservation of the unique and
natural landscape in these open green spaces also enhances its local character. The existence of
an interconnected series of open green spaces can bond the community together and define the
distinctive character of each community which improves the regional identity (Enger, 2005).
They offer a pleasant difference to the hard structured urban fabric and provide opportunities
for relaxed informal outdoor and pedestrian activities and encourage meditation or quiet
appreciation of nature. They can be an oasis of tranquility and relaxation as opposed to the often
stressfull pace of urban life (Enger, 2005). In other words, well-designed and maintained open
green spaces define the identity of towns and cities, because they offer a diversity of land uses
and opportunities for a wide range of activities, therefore improving attraction for living,
working, investment, and tourism (Tüzin Baycan-Levent & Nijkamp, 2009; Tuzin Baycan-
Levent &van Leeuwen, 2002).
7. Recreation
Different types of people use open green spaces for a range of recreational and amenity
purposes based on their needs, preferences, available times and physical capabilities (Dahmann,
Wolch, Joassart-marcelli, Reynolds & Jerrett, 2010). The recreational function of urban open
green spaces can be categorized into two groups of passive and active recreation (Woolley,
2006); (Woolley, 2008; Schaefer-McDaniel, 2007; Mäkinen & Tyrväinen, 2008). Active
recreation usually involves facilities such as skateboarding parks, sports, tennis courts,
swimming pools and even rock climbing and other games, whereas passive recreation includes
activities like observing children or others or wildlife, taking in the view, reading, relaxing or
interacting with acquaintances (Woolley, 2003).
8. Nature Education and Nature Experience

Access to a green environment has a positive impact on children´s physical movement skills
and outdoor activities (Olsson, 2012). It also increases knowledge and awareness of
environmental issues (Olsson, 2012). Hence, spending time in open green spaces is not only
recreation but also a learning experience, and that enhances the quality of self-growth and
development.
The importance of play for a child‘s development has been proven by many researchers and
increasingly accepted. However, increasing urbanization has resulted in fewer opportunities for
the current generation to engage in outdoor informal play and appreciation of the natural world
around them(Singh, Pandey, & Chaudhry, 2010).Most children would prefer to play outdoors
rather than indoors(Byrne & Sipe, 2010)as they enjoy landscaped spaces of all sizes and
dimensions and prefer more secluded landscaped areas(Sarkissian, 2013)as locations with
shady trees and fresh green grass are more conducive environments for children than those
devoid of such elements of Nature (Singh et al.,2010). Therefore, the main reason for visiting
urban open green spaces for many families is to take their children to playin these spaces
(Dunnett, Swanwick, Woolley, Government & Britain, 2002;Woolley,2003).
In a comparison between two play fields, with and without trees, it is revealed that ―a higher
level of creative play was found in the open green spaces than in the barren areas‖. Thus, open
green spaces can be an excellent venue as an outdoor play area for children. It provides them
with a range of sensory experiences and helps them to refine their motor skills, hence achieve
social development and practice social skills (Gilliland, Holmes, Irwin & Tucker, 2006; Gearin
& Kahle, 2006).
9. Health And Well-Being
Daily urban life can be very stressful with a high level of information and a generally hectic
and busy environment. It also forces our brains to work intensely to screen the impressions with
elements such as noise, crowding and air pollution. Kaplan (1991) stated that this process may
lead to headaches, irritation and depression (Woolley, 2003). There is growing evidence that
access to nature within urban regions positively affects public human health and well-being,
although causal relationships are difficult to determine (Fuller Richard, Irvine, Devine-Wrigh,
Warren, & Gaston, 2007);(Lee & Maheswaran,2011); (Kowarik, 2013); (Annerstedt&
Währborg, 2011); (Irvine, Warber, Devine-Wright, & Gaston,2013).It also enhances the quality
of residential life and behavior (M‘Ikiugu, Kinoshita, & Tashiro, 2012). A green, natural
environment has a positive effects on self-perceived health (Maas, Verheij, Groenewegen, De
Vries, & Spreeuwenberg, 2006);(Lafortezza, Carrus, Sanesi, & Davies, 2009),reduces
headache (Hansmann, Hug, & Seeland, 2007), prolongs longevity of the urban elderly
population (Takano, Nakamura, & Watanabe, 2002),lowers mortality rates (Fukuda et
al.,2004),minimizes health complaints and helps prevent obesity among children and adults
(Blanck et al.,2012).
The Scottish Executive Central Research Unit (Kit Campbell Associates 2001, para. 5.11) tackled the
problem of defining open space and suggested that a common typology was absent from national
guidance and legislation. Many attempts to draw up lists of characteristics. These come from theoretical
work on public spaces and urban design, and from empirical work asking different stakeholders
their opinions of public open space. Clearly, characteristics of good public space depend upon the user
and the purpose of the space. However, there have been several attempts to draw up generic lists.
Much of this material was drawn together by CABE and DETR (2001) in The Value of Urban Design,
following on from By Design (DETR and CABE 2000) which analysed the characteristics of successful
public spaces. Both reports provide seven objectives that constitute a framework for good urban
design.This view is often neglected, but is strongly advocated (Alexander 1977; Lynch 1960). The
objectives emerged from extensive research and are included in government guidance, giving
them considerable legitimacy. The report suggests that successful streets, spaces, villages, towns
and cities have common characteristics. These are:
• Character: Places should have their own identity, responding to and reinforcing distinctive
patterns of development and culture.
• Continuity and enclosure: Public and private spaces should be clearly distinguished, and the
continuity of building frontages should be promoted.
• Quality of the public realm: Places should have attractive and successful public spaces that
work well for all users, including disabled and elderly people.
• Ease of movement: Places should be easy to get to and move through. Places should be inter-
connected and put people before traffic while integrating land uses and transport modes.
• Legibility: Places should have a clear image, be easy to understand and easily identify the
purpose of the space. They should provide recognisable routes and landmarks to help people
find their way around.
• Adaptability: Places should be capable of changing in response to economic, social and
technological conditions.
• Diversity: Places should have variety and choice. There should be a mix of appropriate
developments and uses that meet the local needs of all sectors of society.
The USA-based Project for Public Places, Inc. is an influential non-profit organisation offering
technical assistance, research, education, planning and design. From experience in over 1000 public
space projects, it has found that successful public spaces should perform four main functions: access
and linkages, purpose and activities, comfort and image, and sociability (Project for Public
Places, 2000). It also suggests the reasons that many places fail, as: lack of places to sit, lack of
gathering points, poor entrances and visually inaccessible spaces, features that are not functional.
As already stated, more specific visions of what constitute good local environments depend on the type
of space in question and the stakeholder being asked. Clearly, different groups of stakeholders will have
different priorities. These priorities are related to the interests that a particular stakeholder has, and these
interests are in turn related to the numerous functions that public spaces serve. The stakeholders are
grouped as:
• Private interests
This group includes landowners, developers and businesses, and is mainly motivated by
economic gains. They are interested in the economic function of local environments and their
priority is maximising returns. Hence they want any interventions they have in the public realm
to be value for money and easy to manage. Their definitions of 'good local environments'
concern benefits to profitability, reduction in management costs and reduction in long-term
running costs.
• Public interests
This group includes local authorities and emergency services, including police, and is mainly
motivated by meeting public needs, such as providing safe public spaces that are accessible for
all. It is concerned that functionality is maximised but also that economic, social and
environmental goals are not compromised. In many instances the local authority will also be
the owner or manager of the public realm, and in this role cost issues also motivate it.
• Community interests
This group includes amenity groups and local people. They are motivated
by protection of property prices and local needs. They see good local environments as ones th
at reflect local preferences and are contextually compatible.
METHODOLOGY
The method of data collection used qualitative approach, study on the phenomenon of the formation of
a public open space taking place in the Kampung Lebak SIliwangi. The method in this writing is based
on theories from literature study on things related to space, social network, and time. Through literature
study from various sources, observation, and interview were held to find the problems and variables
associated with the formation of public open space.
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
In this paper and depends on the topic, typology is used for analysed open spaces and categorized them
into three. There is open spaces, semi-open spaces, and close spaces.
1. Open Spaces
Figure 2. Mapping Open Spaces
Table 1. Open Spaces Typology Analysis
Building Type Characteristics
User Managed by Rooftop Size History/Purpos Activity and Time of Use

(y/n) e
Field all Community No 22x10 For public Sport, playing: day
around the footsteps space Parking lot: night
space
Unused Kids, Community No Can be Abandoned Playing: Day
building men around loaded about house Parking lot: Night
20
motorcycles
Alleyway all Community No Wide about Passed by Playing, riding, chatting: All
around, user 3 2-wheeled people day
vehicles
“Lesehan” on housewi User Yes 2x7 metres Sanitation Resting, chatting: Day
Sanitary ves (community (below)
around)
River bank Youth, Community No 15 metres Make a Fishing: Day
men around square distance
between house
and river
Source: Analysis, 2019
2. Semi-Open Spaces
Figure 3. Mapping Semi-Open Spaces

Table 2. Semi-Open Spaces Typology Analysis
User Managed by Rooftop Size History/Purpose Activity and Time of Use

(y/n)
Mosque Hall all Mosque DKM Yes The seat’s Waiting space Chatting: Day
size about for praying and
13 tiles shelter
Security Post men Communities Yes 3x3 metres Standing guard Chatting: Day
around for officers Playing board games,
Guarding: Night
Secretariat Men, One of Yes Can be Meeting centre Putting the things: All day
kids community in loaded 3-4
Lebak “gerobak”
Siliwangi
Stall all Stall owner Yes Can be Shopping Chatting: Day
accomodate Shopping: All day’til closed
d for about (some of them)
3
consumers/
people
MCK housewi Communities Yes 26x10 tiles Doing chores, Washing dishes, doing chores:
ves around taking a bath, Day
urinating
Source: Analysis, 2019
3. Close Spaces
4. Table 3. Close Spaces Typology Analysis
User Managed by Rooftop Size History/Purpose Activity and Time of Use

(y/n)
Multifunctional youth Youth Yes 14x8 Indoor activity Meeting, resting, other
hall organization, footsteps activities: Day
committee
5. Source: Analysis, 2019
Figure 4. Mapping Close Spaces
Based on the data and the framework, most of the “public spaces” are created because of the interaction
between the communities around in socializing each other in some spots. Each type of public space has
common characteristics. According to the topic, some of the case studies below will explain and
summarize the propensity of procurement and management characteristics between types of public
space:
1. Field (Open Public Space)

a. Activity and Time:
Day : drying laundry, parking, recreation activities (sports, traditional games)
Night : Parking lot
Eventual : competition, religious praying
b. Procurement:
- originally intend to provide the outdoor activities.
- Part of local comittee secretary area used as multipurpose field (badminton field as
base, used for many community activities)
- Nowadays used by residents to park their motorcycle because the lack of space in their
house
c. Management: Organized by the community itself
2. Stall (Semi-Open Public Space)
a. Activity and Time: socialize, purchasing goods (‘til stall closed)
b. Description:
- part of the owner’s house used for selling goods
- limited capacity, usually used by people who buy something there and/or their
neighbor
- physical detail: cemented with roof
c. Procurement:
- originally not intended to be public space
- used by the neighbors to socialize in leisure time
d. Management: Managed by stall owner and their neighbors
3. Lesehan (Semi-Open Public Space)
a. Activity and Time: ocialize, playground for kids (Day: 3 am - 5 am)
b. Description:
- space that was built just above the government-made communal septic tank.
- can be used by 4 - 15 people
- physical detail: cemented and colored floor, complete with the roof.
c. Procurement:
- was deliberately intended to be used as a public space, above the government-made
communal septic tank
- Can’t fulfill the originally planned which creating playground
d. Management: government never look after this space and residents around this place take
over the management.
4. Multifunctional hall (Close Public Space)
a. Activity and Time: Community meeting, socialize
b. Description:
- built by the community itself for indoor activities
- can be used by 12-15 people
- physical detail: buildings with roofs and walls
c. Procurement:
- building that was built for indoor activities within the community
- nowadays used by the youth organization and the local comittee as their secretariat
d. Management: Managed by the youth organization and local committee
CONCLUSION
According to literature review and doing some discussion, there are some point that can be highlight:
1. Public space in Lebak Siliwangi can be devided into three types of space: Open, semi-open, and
close space
2. The indicators to state the characteristics of each public space in Lebak Siliwangi are user,
managed by, rooftop, size, history, activity and time of use. All of them are stated in the table
above.
3. The propensity in procurement and management characteristics of public space could be analized
from some of case studies above. Most of the open public spaces are originally intend to be public
space or spot for outdoor activities (Procurement) and organized by the community itself
(Management). Most of the semi-open public spaces are originally not intend to be public space
(Procurement), but potential to be used as public space (on purpose or not) and managed by stall
owner and residents around (Management). Most of the close public space are built for indoor
activities within the community or secreatriat ( Procurement) and managed by the youth
organization and local committee (Management)
4. Good public space is, therefore, as dependent on the audience that perceives it, as it is on the type
or quality of space itself. Public space must reconcile public and private aspirations, as well as
economic, social and environmental functions. Private interests are overwhelmingly economic and
public interests are of social amenity. Clearly, the environmental dimension is also important.
REFERENCES
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs00267-004-0015-z.pdf
https://www.academia.edu/19463162/THE_SOCIAL_BENEFITS_OF_URBAN_OPEN_GREE
N_SPACES_A_LITERATURE_REVIEW
https://www.academia.edu/4173632/Literature_Review_of_Public_Space_and_Local_Environm
ents_for_the_Cross_Cutting_Review
https://www.academia.edu/34777479/Reciprocal_Relation_between_Urban_Open_Spaces_and_
Urban_Community
http://habitat3.org/wp-content/uploads/journal-of-public-space.pdf
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6f91/d372dc2bbd964f54cb79c6d511cc1c19baa0.pdf
researchgate.net/publication/26519154_Towards_a_Sustainable_Neighborhood_The_Role_of_O
pen_Spaces

CIkapundung River

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CIkapundung River

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Individual Paper PL 4006 Topik Khusus Perencanaan II (Summercamp Class) | Urban and Regional

Planning Bandung Intitute of Technology

PUBLIC SPACE INFORMAL SETTLEMENT IN KAMPUNG LEBAK SILIWANGI:

By: Gabriel Bagas Hertanto Merung (15416047)

Keywords: Open Space, Neighborhoood, Sustainability, Interaction

Figure 1. Map of Study Area

competition for recognized outdoor sports.

have fewer run-off-the-road crashes and overall crash severity.

8. Nature Education and Nature Experience

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

Figure 2. Mapping Open Spaces

Table 1. Open Spaces Typology Analysis

Building Type Characteristics

User Managed by Rooftop Size History/Purpos Activity and Time of Use

Figure 3. Mapping Semi-Open Spaces

Table 2. Semi-Open Spaces Typology Analysis

Building Type Characteristics

User Managed by Rooftop Size History/Purpose Activity and Time of Use

4. Table 3. Close Spaces Typology Analysis

Building Type Characteristics

User Managed by Rooftop Size History/Purpose Activity and Time of Use

Figure 4. Mapping Close Spaces

1. Field (Open Public Space)

You might also like