Purnomo Adi Saputro, Elsa Nur Aida

Integrasi Pendidikan Lingkungan dalam Upaya Pelestarian Kawasan Perlindungan Alam di Kota Salatiga

Introduction

Integrasi pendidikan lingkungan dalam upaya pelestarian kawasan perlindungan alam di kota salatiga. Integrasi pendidikan lingkungan krusial untuk pelestarian kawasan alam di Salatiga. Atasi ketidaksesuaian tata ruang & kesadaran rendah dengan edukasi spasial dan kolaborasi.

Abstract

This study analyzes the role of spatial education in improving public understanding of land use control in Salatiga City based on the implementation of the Regional Spatial Plan (RTRW). Land use mismatch of 20% of the total area of ​​nature protection areas is mainly due to land conversion into residential and commercial areas. This study uses quantitative methods with overlay analysis, quantitative SWOT, and time series 2018–2023. Data were collected through questionnaires to 100 employees of related agencies. The results of the study indicate that low public awareness and weak law enforcement are the main obstacles in the implementation of the Regional Spatial Plan (RTRW). However, there is good integration between spatial education and increasing public compliance with land use regulations from areas with higher levels of socialization of the Regional Spatial Plan (RTRW) have lower levels of land mismatch. Therefore, integration of spatial education is needed through collaboration between the government, educational institutions, and local communities to improve the effectiveness of land use control and maintain the sustainability of nature protection areas in Salatiga City.

Review

The study "Integrasi Pendidikan Lingkungan dalam Upaya Pelestarian Kawasan Perlindungan Alam di Kota Salatiga" addresses a highly relevant and pressing issue concerning land use management and environmental preservation in Salatiga City. The abstract effectively highlights the significant challenge of land use mismatch (20%) within nature protection areas due to conversion, underscoring the urgency of the problem. The core argument that education, specifically spatial education, plays a crucial role in enhancing public understanding and compliance with land use regulations is compelling and offers a promising avenue for policy intervention. The paper's overall aim to link educational initiatives with practical conservation outcomes is commendable and contributes to the ongoing discourse on sustainable urban development. While the study presents an important contribution, several aspects require clarification. There is a notable inconsistency between the title, which refers to "Environmental Education" (Pendidikan Lingkungan), and the abstract, which consistently discusses "Spatial Education" (Pendidikan Spasial). This needs to be rectified to ensure coherence. Methodologically, the abstract mentions the use of quantitative methods including overlay analysis, quantitative SWOT, and time series (2018-2023). However, it then states that "Data were collected through questionnaires to 100 employees of related agencies." This raises a critical question: how were sophisticated techniques like overlay analysis (typically GIS-based for spatial data) and time series analysis (usually involving historical land-use maps or imagery) performed *solely* using questionnaire data from agency employees? The abstract implies that employee perceptions or knowledge were the sole data source for these analytical methods, which seems inadequate for robust spatial or temporal analysis of land use changes. Clarity on how these methods were operationalized with the stated data source is essential. Despite these concerns, the study's finding that areas with higher levels of RTRW (Regional Spatial Plan) socialization exhibit lower levels of land mismatch is a significant insight that strongly supports the proposed integration of spatial education. The recommendation for collaborative efforts involving government, educational institutions, and local communities is well-grounded and actionable. To strengthen the paper, the authors should precisely define "spatial education" within their context, elaborate on how its "integration" was measured or observed, and crucially, provide more detailed information on the specific data used for the overlay and time series analyses, ensuring it aligns with the stated data collection method. Addressing these points would significantly enhance the methodological rigor and overall impact of this otherwise pertinent study.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.