Geomatics and Environmental Engineering, vol. 19, no. 3

Issue

Vol. 19 No. 3 (2025): Geomatics and Environmental Engineering

Date Log

Submitted
Dec 16, 2024
Accepted
May 22, 2025
Published
Jul 9, 2025
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Multi-Perspective Evaluation of Urban Green Views: Spatial and Street-View Data Integration in Sudirman Central Business District, Indonesia

https://doi.org/10.7494/geom.2025.19.3.91
Mohammad Raditia Pradana
Universitas Indonesia, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Department of Geography, Depok, Indonesia
https://orcid.org/0009-0005-8836-6801
Adi Wibowo
Universitas Indonesia, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Department of Geography, Depok, Indonesia
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3946-0026
Jarot Mulyo Semedi
Universitas Indonesia, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Department of Geography, Depok, Indonesia
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3418-0997

Corresponding Author(s) : Mohammad Raditia Pradana

mohammad.raditia03@ui.ac.id

Geomatics and Environmental Engineering, Vol. 19 No. 3 (2025): Geomatics and Environmental Engineering

Abstract

Urban green spaces (UGSs) are critical for enhancing urban livability and sustainability by providing both ecological and human-centered benefits. This study integrates spatial landscape metrics and the street-level visibility of greenery (measured through the green view index [GVI]) in order to evaluate the structural and visual characteristics of UGSs in a dynamic urban area – specifically, the Sudirman Central Business District (SCBD) of Jakarta, Indonesia. The analysis focuses on examining the roles of landscape metrics such as area, perimeter, compactness, shape index, and elongation in influencing the GVI and its spatial variability across different types of urban green spaces (including parks, green corridors, and open spaces). The results indicated that larger and more compact UGSs significantly contributed to higher GVI levels (thus, reflecting better visual greenery), while elongated and fragmented green spaces exhibited greater variability and lower visibility. Non-linear relationships (assessed through random forest regression and SHAP analysis) further revealed the complex interactions between GVI and landscape metrics, thus emphasizing the importance of incorporating advanced statistical approaches. The limitations that are related to data quality, temporal coverage, and spatial heterogeneity are also discussed, thus highlighting opportunities for future research for addressing these challenges through multi-temporal analyses and spatially explicit models. By bridging the gap between the spatial configurations and visual perception of UGSs, this study contributes to sustainable urban-planning strategies that are aimed at optimizing green spaces for ecological functionality and human well-being.

Keywords

green view index landscape metrics non-linear analysis random forest spatial distribution street-view urban green spaces
Pradana, M. R., Wibowo, A., & Semedi, J. M. (2025). Multi-Perspective Evaluation of Urban Green Views: Spatial and Street-View Data Integration in Sudirman Central Business District, Indonesia. Geomatics and Environmental Engineering, 19(3), 91–114. https://doi.org/10.7494/geom.2025.19.3.91
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
References
  1. Taylor L., Hochuli D.F.: Defining greenspace: multiple uses across multiple disciplines. Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 158, 2017, pp. 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.09.024.
  2. Yang J., Zhao L., McBride J., Gong P.: Can you see green? Assessing the visibility of urban forests in cities. Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 91(2), 2009, pp. 97–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.12.004.
  3. Lachowycz K., Jones A.P.: Towards a better understanding of the relationship between greenspace and health: Development of a theoretical framework. Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 118, 2013, pp. 62–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.10.012.
  4. Fengjing L., Dong L., Liwei X., Yuan T.: Assessing the green view index in Chinese cities: An example with data from eighty cities. Journal of Digital Landscape Architecture, vol. 7, 2022, pp. 291–300. https://doi.org/10.14627/537724028.
  5. Tang J.H., Huang Y.J., Lee P.H., Lee Y.T., Wang Y.C., Chan T.C.: Associations between community green view index and fine particulate matter from Airboxes. Science of the Total Environment, vol. 921, 2024, 171213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.171213.
  6. Smaniotto Costa C., Šuklje Erjavec I., Mathey J.: Green spaces – a key resource for urban sustainability: The GreenKeys approach for developing green spaces. Urbani Izziv, vol. 19(2), 2008, pp. 199–211. https://doi.org/10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2008-19-02-012.
  7. Li X., Zhang C., Li W., Kuzovkina Y.A., Weiner D.: Who lives in greener neighborhoods? The distribution of street greenery and its association with residents’ socioeconomic conditions in Hartford, Connecticut, USA. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, vol. 14(4), 2015, pp. 751–759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.07.006.
  8. de Jalón S.G., Chiabai A., Quiroga S., Suárez C., Ščasný M., Máca V., Zvěřinová I., Marques S., Craveiro D., Taylor T.: The influence of urban greenspaces on people’s physical activity: A population-based study in Spain. Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 215, 2021, 104229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104229.
  9. Jim C.Y., Chen S.S.: Comprehensive greenspace planning based on landscape ecology principles in compact Nanjing city, China. Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 65(3), 2003, pp. 95–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00244-X.
  10. Jiang Y., Liu D., Ren L., Grekousis G., Lu Y.: Tree abundance, species richness, or species mix? Exploring the relationship between features of urban street trees and pedestrian volume in Jinan, China. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, vol. 95, 2024, 128294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2024.128294.
  11. Nguyen P.Y., Astell-Burt T., Rahimi-Ardabili H., Feng X.: Green space quality and health: A systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 18(21), 2021, 11028. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182111028.
  12. Jennings V., Bamkole O.: The relationship between social cohesion and urban green space: An avenue for health promotion. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 16(3), 2019, 452. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16030452.
  13. Larkin A., Hystad P.: Evaluating street view exposure measures of visible green space for health research. Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology, vol. 29(4), 2019, pp. 447–456. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-018-0017-1.
  14. Kang Y., Zhang F., Gao S., Du Z., Liu Y.: A review of urban physical environment sensing using street view imagery in public health studies. Annals of GIS, vol. 26(3), 2020, pp. 261–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/19475683.2020.1791954.
  15. Yosifof R., Fisher-Gewirtzman D.: Hybrid quantitative mesoscale analyses for simulating pedestrians’ visual perceptions: Comparison of three New York City streets. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, vol. 51(1), 2024, pp. 140–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/23998083231171398.
  16. Atiqul Haq S.M., Islam M.N., Siddhanta A., Ahmed K.J., Chowdhury M.T.A.: Public perceptions of urban green spaces: Convergences and divergences. Frontiers in Sustainable Cities, vol. 3, 2021, pp. 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsc.2021.755313.
  17. Ogawa Y., Oki T., Zhao C., Sekimoto Y., Shimizu C.: Evaluating the subjective perceptions of streetscapes using street-view images. Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 247, 2024, 105073. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2024.105073.
  18. National Research Council: Learning to Think Spatially. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2006. https://doi.org/10.17226/11019.
  19. Yang L., Liu J., Liang Y., Lu Y., Yang H.: Spatially varying effects of street greenery on walking time of older adults. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, vol. 10(9), 2021, 596. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi10090596.
  20. Rehan R.M.: Sustainable streetscape as an effective tool in sustainable urban design. HBRC Journal, vol. 9(2), 2013, pp. 173–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hbrcj.2013.03.001.
  21. Pradana M.R., Dimyati M.: Tracking urban sprawl: a systematic review and bibliometric analysis of spatio-temporal patterns using remote sensing and GIS. European Journal of Geography, vol. 15(3), 2024, pp. 190–203. https://doi.org/10.48088/ejg.m.pra.15.3.190.203.
  22. Shahtahmassebi A.R., Li C., Fan Y., Wu Y., Lin Y., Gan M., Wang K., Malik A., Blackburn G.A.: Remote sensing of urban green spaces: A review. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, vol. 57, 2021, 126946. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126946.
  23. Odindi J.O., Mhangara P.: Green spaces trends in the city of Port Elizabeth from 1990 to 2000 using remote sensing. International Journal of Environmental Research, vol. 6(3), 2012, pp. 653–662.
  24. Rouse J.W., Jr., Haas R.H., Schell J.A., Deering D.W.: Monitoring vegetation systems in the Great Plains with ERTS, [in:] Freden S.C., Mercanti E.P., Becker M.A. (eds.), Third Earth Resources Technology Satellite-1 Symposium. Volume I: Technical Presentations, Section A, NASA, Washington, DC, 1974, pp. 309–317. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19740022614.
  25. Antrop M., Van Eetvelde V.: Holistic aspects of suburban landscapes: Visual image interpretation and landscape metrics. Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 50(1–3), 2000, pp. 43–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00079-7.
  26. Mo W., Sun M., Liu T.: Mapping green view index for urban parks with varied landscape metrics and distances toward the Chinese Eastern Railway Network. Sustainability (Switzerland), vol. 16(5), 2024, 1977. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16051977.
  27. Schiffer F.: The physical nature of subjective experience and its interaction with the brain. Medical Hypotheses, vol. 125, 2019, pp. 57–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2019.02.011.
  28. Namwinbown T., Imoro Z.A., Weobong C.A.A., Tom-Dery D., Baatuuwie B.N., Aikins T.K., Poreku G., Lawer E.A.: Patterns of green space change and fragmentation in a rapidly expanding city of northern Ghana, West Africa. City and Environment Interactions, vol. 21, 2024, 100136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cacint.2023.100136.
  29. Jabbar M., Yusoff M.M., Shafie A.: Assessing the role of urban green spaces for human well-being: A systematic review. GeoJournal, vol. 87, 2022, pp. 4405–4423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-021-10474-7.
  30. Chen S., Haase D., Xue B., Wellmann T., Qureshi S.: Integrating quantity and quality to assess urban green space improvement in the compact city. Land (Basel), vol. 10(12), 2021, 1367. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10121367.
  31. Bartie P., Mills S., Kingham S.: An egocentric urban viewshed: A method for landmark visibility mapping for pedestrian location-based services, [in:] Moore A., Drecki I. (eds.), Geospatial Vision: New Dimensions in Cartography, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg 2008, pp. 61–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-70970-1_4.
  32. Patandianan M.V., Shibusawa H.: Importance and performance of streetscapes at a tourism destination in Indonesia: The residents’ perspectives. Frontiers of Architectural Research, vol. 9(3), 2020, pp. 641–655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2020.05.006.
  33. Huang L., Oki T., Muto S., Ogawa Y.: Unveiling the non-linear influence of eye-level streetscape factors on walking preference: Evidence from Tokyo. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, vol. 13(4), 2024, 131. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi13040131.
  34. Simpson J., Freeth M., Simpson K.J., Thwaites K.: Visual engagement with urban street edges: Insights using mobile eye-tracking. Journal of Urban Design, vol. 12(3), 2019, pp. 259–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2018.1552884.
  35. Wang R., Lu T., Wan C., Sun X., Jiang W.: Measuring the effects of streetscape characteristics on perceived safety and aesthetic appreciation of pedestrians. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, vol. 149(3), 2023, 5023020. https://doi.org/10.1061/jupddm.upeng-4314.
  36. Kang Y., Kim J., Park J., Lee J.: Assessment of perceived and physical walkability using street view images and deep learning technology. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, vol. 12(5), 2023, 186. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi12050186.
  37. Zhang X., Lin E.S., Tan P.Y., Qi J., Waykool R.: Assessment of visual landscape quality of urban green spaces using image-based metrics derived from perceived sensory dimensions. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, vol. 102, 2023, 107200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2023.107200.
  38. Huang D., Jiang B., Yuan L.: Analyzing the effects of nature exposure on perceived satisfaction with running routes: An activity path-based measure approach. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, vol. 68, 2022, 127480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127480.
  39. Li X., Zhang C., Li W., Ricard R., Meng Q., Zhang W.: Assessing street-level urban greenery using Google Street View and a modified green view index. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, vol. 14(3), 2015, pp. 675–685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.06.006.
  40. Cao R., Zhu J., Tu W., Li Q., Cao J., Liu B., Zhang Q., Qiu G.: Integrating aerial and street view images for urban land use classification. Remote Sensing, vol. 10(10), 2018, 1553. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10101553.
  41. Kang J., Körner M., Wang Y., Taubenböck H., Zhu X.X.: Building instance classification using street view images. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, vol. 145(part A), 2018, pp. 44–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2018.02.006.
  42. Xia Y., Yabuki N., Fukuda T.: Sky view factor estimation from street view images based on semantic segmentation. Urban Climate, vol. 40, 2021, 100999. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2021.100999.
  43. Wang J., Liu W., Gou A.: Numerical characteristics and spatial distribution of panoramic street green view index based on SegNet semantic segmentation in Savannah. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, vol. 69, 2022, 127488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127488.
  44. Aikoh T., Homma R., Abe Y.: Comparing conventional manual measurement of the green view index with modern automatic methods using Google Street View and semantic segmentation. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, vol. 80, 2023, 127845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2023.127845.
  45. Wu Z., Xu K., Li Y., Zhao X., Qian Y.: Application of an integrated model for analyzing street greenery through image semantic segmentation and accessibility: A case study of Nanjing City. Forests, vol. 15(3), 2024, 561. https://doi.org/10.3390/f15030561.
  46. Fang Y.N., Tian J., Namaiti A., Zhang S., Zeng J., Zhu X.: Visual aesthetic quality assessment of the streetscape from the perspective of landscape-perception coupling. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, vol. 106, 2024, 107535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2024.107535.
  47. Qian Y., Zhou W., Pickett S.T.A., Yu W., Xiong D., Wang W., Jing C.: Integrating structure and function: Mapping the hierarchical spatial heterogeneity of urban landscapes. Ecological Processes, vol. 9(1), 2020, 59. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13717-020-00266-1.
  48. Qi Z., Duan J., Su H., Fan Z., Lan W.: Using crowdsourcing images to assess visual quality of urban landscapes: A case study of Xiamen Island. Ecological Indicators, vol. 154, 2023, 110793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.110793.
  49. Wu J., Cheng L., Chu S., Xia N., Li M.: A green view index for urban transportation: How much greenery do we view while moving around in cities? International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, vol. 14(12), 2020, pp. 972–989. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2019.1672001.
  50. Biljecki F., Ito K.: Street view imagery in urban analytics and GIS: A review. Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 215, 2021, 104217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104217.
  51. Governor of DKI Jakarta: Peraturan Gubernur Daerah Khusus Ibukota Jakarta Nomor 9 Tahun 2022 tentang Ruang Terbuka Hijau. Official Regulation Document, 2022. https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/211538/pergub-prov-dki-jakarta-no-9-tahun-2022 [access: 16.06.2025].
  52. Gunawan A., Permana S.: Konsep desain ekologis ruang terbuka hijau di Sudirman Central Business District (SCBD) sebagai habitat burung. Tataloka, vol. 20(2), 2018, pp. 181–189. https://doi.org/10.14710/tataloka.20.2.181-194.
  53. Ode Å., Tveit M., Fry G.: Capturing landscape visual character using indicators: Touching base with landscape aesthetic theory. Landscape Research, vol. 33(1), 2008, pp. 89–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426390701773854.
  54. Hou Y., Biljecki F.: A comprehensive framework for evaluating the quality of street view imagery. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, vol. 115, 2022, 103094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2022.103094.
  55. Sánchez I.A.V., Labib S.M.: Accessing eye-level greenness visibility from opensource street view images: A methodological development and implementation in multi-city and multi-country contexts. Sustainable Cities and Society, vol. 103, 2024, 105262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2024.105262.
  56. Semeraro T., Scarano A., Buccolieri R., Santino A., Aarrevaara E.: Planning of urban green spaces: An ecological perspective on human benefits. Land, vol. 10(2), 2021, 105. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10020105.
  57. Song J., Zhu X., Yu X.: Monitoring and mapping vegetation greenery in residential communities using street view images and a Normalized Vegetation Greenery Index: A case study in Beijing, China. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, vol. 6, 2023, 1071569. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2023.1071569.
  58. Jin X., Wang J.: Assessing linear urban landscape from dynamic visual perception based on urban morphology. Frontiers of Architectural Research, vol. 10(1), 2021, pp. 202–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2021.01.001.
Read More
Author biographies is not available.
Download this PDF file
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 113 Download : 90

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.