RINGKASAN Kepuasan penghuni terhadap lingkungan huniannya (Residential satisfaction) secara teoritis merupakan salah satu faktor penentu terbentuknya ikatan batin atau kelekatan psikologis seseorang terhadap suatu tempat atau lingkungan huniannya {place attachment). Kepuasan berhuni muncul karena persepsi positif penghuni terhadap kualitas lingkungan huniannya. Hubungan antara kepuasan berhuni (residential satisfaction), yang dijembatani oleh persepsi terhadap kua!".as lingkungan hunian, dengan place attachment merupakan persoalan mendasar dalam bidang ilmu psikologi lingkungan dan hal yang penting untuk dikaji untuk menjelaskan hubjngan antara manusia dengan lingkungan hunian mereka. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mendapatkan model teoritik pengaruh kepuasan berhuni atau residential satisfaction, yang dioperasionalkan melalui persepsi penghuni terhadap kualitar lingkungan hunian, terhadap place attachment atau ikatan batin antara penghuni dengan lingkungan huniannya. Studi kasus dilakukan pada kota Malang, yang merupakan kota kedua terbesar di Jawa Timur setelah Surabaya, dan memiliki karakteristik sebagai kota hunian masyarakat dengan keanekaragaman hunian. Dengan menggunakan multi stage probability sampling , terpilih 250 responden yang merupakan masyarakat dari berbagai wilayah yang mewakili 10 Kelurahan di Kota Malang. Responden diminta untuk mengisi self administered questionnaire, yang terdiri dari tiga bagian pertanyaan. Bagian pertama mcnggali aspek manusia yang terdiri dari variabel sosial-demografi dan variabel residensial Bagian kedua kuesioner menggali penilaian kualitas lingkungan hunian menurut persepsi penghuni dalam 4 aspek: arsitektur dan perencanaan kota; hubungan sosial; pelayanan masyarakat; dan aspek kontekstual. Bagian ketiga kuesiokedua dan ketiga menggunakan pengukuran skala Likert yang terdiri dari 7 skala dari "sangat tidak setuju" (nilai 1) sampai dengan "sangat setuju" (nilai 7). Masyarakat sebagai partisipan dalam penelitian ini sebagian terbesar berusia 31-55 tahun (79,8% dari responden), 83,3% responden berpendidikan SMU/SMK ke atas, dengan tingkat sosial ekonomi menengah ke bawah. Sebagian besar responden (77%) telah tinggal di kota Malang lebih dari 30 tahun dan setidaknya 76,4% dari mereka telah tinggal di lingkungan hunian mereka saat ini selama lebih dari 15 tahun. Rata-rata setiap rumah dihuni oleh 4 orang. Hasil analisis faktor yang dilakukan pada data penilaian kualitas lingkungan hunian berdasarkan persepsi masyarakat, ditemukan secara keseluruhan ada 40 faktor kua'itas lingkungan hunian, yang terdiri dari 12 faktor dari aspek arsitektur dan perencanaan kota (yang menjelaskan 56,6% hingga 72,8% varians dalam masyarakat), 7 faktor hubungan sosial (yang menjelaskan 71,2% varians dalam masyarakat), 14 faktor pelayanan masyarakat (yang menjelaskan 61,2% hingga 71% varians dalam masyarakat), dan 7 faktor aspek tautan lokal atau kontekstual (yang menjelaskan 65,2% hingga 71,8% varians dalam masyarakat). Faktor-faktor tersebut, yang merupakan indeks kualitas lingkungan hunian, kemudian dilihat pengaruhnya terhadap terbentuknya place attachmentdengan menggunakan path analysis. Path analysis dilakukan terhadap indeks persepsi terhadap kualitas lingkungan hunian dengan indeks place attachment secara terpisah untuk setiap aspek kuaiitas lingkungan hunian dari ke-4 aspek kualitas lingkungan hunian (arsitektur dan perencanaan kota; hubungan sosial; pelayanan masyarakat; dan aspek tautan atau kontekstual). Dari model hubungan yang terbentuk pada setiap aspek dipilih prediktor terbaik dalam memprediksi place attachment. Selanjutnya prediktor-prediktor terbaik dalam memprediksi place attachment untuk setiap aspek digunakan dalam menyusun model teoritik hubungan antara kepujsan berhuni (yang dioperasionalkan
melalui persepsi masyarakat terhadap kualitas lingkungan hunian) dengan place attachment. Hasil penelitian menemukan 8 indeks kualitas lingkungan hunian yang merupakan prediktorner terdiri dari 6 pertanyaan untuk mengukur place attachment, yaitu ikatan batin citau kelekatan psikologis antara individu dengan lingkungan huniannya. Bagianterbaik bagi terbentuknya place attachment, yaitu (1) fungsional bangunan (kesesuaian fungsi-fungsi bangunan di lingkungan hunian); (2) kualitas pemeliharaan utilitas lingkungan; (3) sosial budaya masyarakat di lingkungan hunian; (4) ukuran bangunan (kesesuaian ukuran bangunan yang membentuk suasana di lingkungan hunian); (5) kualitas fasilitas pendidikan; (6) tersedianya fasilitas bagi kegiatan remaja dan kegiatan keagamaan; (7) estetika bangunan-bangunan di lingkungan hunian masyarakat; (8) faktor keamanan lingkungan dari tindak kejahatan. Secara keseluruhan kedelapan indeks kualitas lingkungan hunian tersebut memberikan kontribusi sebesar 57,5% terhadap terbentuknya place attachmant (rasa keterikatan/ikatan ps'kologis antara masyarakat dengan linqkungan huniannya), sedangkan yang 42,5% ditentukan oleh faktor lain yang tidak ditemukan dalam penelitian ini. Diharapkan penelitian berikutnya dapat mengungkap faktorfaktor lain yang menentukan terbentuknya place attachment untuk dapat melengkapi hasil penelitian ini.
SUMMARY Residential satisfaction, the dweller satisfaction on his dwelling environment, is theoretically one of the determining factors that forms place attachment, the person spiritual bonding or psychological attachment with a certain p'ace or dwelling environment. Residential satisfaction develops as the result of positive perception of dweller on the quality of his housing environment. The relationship between residential satisfaction with place attachment is linked by the perception on the quality of the dwelling environment. This relationship is a basic issue in environmental psychology and important to be assessed to explain the relationship between human and their dwelling environment. The aim of this research is to obtain the theoretical model of the residential satisfaction influence on place attachment, the spiritual bonding between the dweller and his dwelling environment. Residential satisfaction is operationalized through the dweller's perception on the quality of dwelling environment. A case study is carried out on Malang, the second biggest city after Surabaya in East Jawa. Malang is also a residential city which has a variety form of dwelling. Using mult/ stage probability samp/ing, 250 respondents were selected from the population of various area representing 10 Kelurahan in Malang. Respondents were requested to fill a set of self administered questionnaire, which was divided into three groups of questions. The first part of the questionnaire examined the human aspects which consist of socio-demography and residential variables. The second part examined the evaluation of the housing environment quality based on the dweller perception. There are four aspects for this evaluation: architecture and city planning; social relationship; community services; and contextual aspect;. The third part of questionnaire consists of 6 questions to measure place attachment, the spiritual bonding or psychological attachment between individual and his housing environment. The;econd and third part of the questionnaire was carried out using Likert scale neasurement which contained 7 scale form "very disagree" (value 1) to "very 3gree" (value 7). Most of the participants in this research were 31-55 year old (79,8%). \mong the respondent 83,3% hold High School degree or higher and were from middle low socio-economic level. Most of the respondents had lived in Malang for more than 30 years and at least 76,4% of them had been living in their housing environment for more than 15 years. The average of person living in every house was 4 persons. Factor analysis on the data of housing environment quality evaluation based on public perception shows 40 factors of housing environment quality. These 40 factors of housing environment quality consist of 12 factors of architecture and city planning aspects (explaining 56,6% to 72,8% variance within public), 7 factors of social relationship (explaining 71,2% variance within public), 14 factors of public service (explaining 61,2% to 71% variance within public), and 7 factors of local contextual aspect (explaining 65,2% to 71,8% variance within public). These factors which become the index of housing environment were then assessed using path analysis to see the influence on place attachment Path analysis was carried out to the index of perception on housing environment quality and pkce attachment, separately for every housing environment aspects (architecture and city planning; social relationship; public service; and contextual aspect). From the relationship model that built on every aspect, the best predictors for place attachment were selected. Then, these best predictors were ur.ed in developing theoretical model of the relationship between residential satisfaction (operationalized through public perception on housing environment quality) with place attachment. (2) quality of environmental utility maintenance; (3) public sociocultural in the
housing environment; (4) building dimension (the appropriateness of building dimension that create the atmosphere in the housing environment); (5) quality of educational facility; (6) supply of facility for adolescent and religious activity ; (7) buildings aesthetic in the housing environment; (8) factor of environmental security from crime. In general, the 8 index of housing environment quality contribute 57,5% to place attachment(the psychological bonding between public and their housing environment). Other 42,5% are determined by other factor which was not found in this research. Future research then will be expected to complete this research by discovering other factors determining place attachment. The result finds out 8 index of housing environment quality that became the best predictors for the formation of place attachment, these are (1) building function (the appropriateness of building functions in the housing environment);
DAFTAR PUSTAKA Altman, I. (1986). Theoritical Issues in Environmental Psychology. 21st Congress of the International Association of Applied Psychology. Jerusalem. Altman, I. & Low, S. (Eds) (1992). Place attachment, Human Behaviour and Environment, Vol. 12. New York: Plenum Press. Altman, I. & Rogoff, B. (1987). World Views inPsychology: Trait, Interactional, Organismic, and Transactional Perspectives. In D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds). Handbook of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 1. New York: Wiley, pp. 7-40. Altman, I. & Wandersman, A. (Eds). (1987). Neighbourhood and Community Fnvironment. Human Behaviour and Environment. New York: Plenum Press. Amerigo, M. & Aragones, J I. (1990). Residential Satisfaction in Council Housing. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 10, 313-325. Andriaanse, C. (2007). Measuring Residential Satisfaction: a Residential Environmental Satisfaction Scale (RESS). Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 22 (3), pp. 287-304. Bonaiuto, M., Fornara, F. & Bonnes, M. (2004). Scales on Perceived Urban Residential Quality Indicators. In B. Martens & A. G. Keul (Eds.), Evaluation in Progress Strategies for Environmental Research and Implementation. IAPS 18 Conference Proceedings. Bonnes, M., Bonaiuto, M., Aiello, A., Perugin, M. & Ercolani, A. P. (1997). A transactional Perspective on Residential Satisfaction. In C Despres & D. Piche (Eds.). Housing Surveys: Advances in Theory and Methods. Quebec, Canada: CRAD Universite Laval, pp. 75-99. Bonnes, M., Carrus, G. & Passafaro, P. (2004). Attitudes Towards Urban Gre^n Spaces, Perceived Residential Quality and Neighbourhood Attachment. In B. Martens & A. G. Keul (Eds.), Evaluation in Progress - Strategies for Environmental Research and Implementation. IAPS 18 Conference Proceedings. Canter, D. (1977). The Psychology of Place. London: Architectural Press. Canter, D. (1983). the Purposive Evaluation of Places: A Facet Approach. Environment and Behaviour, 15, 659-698. Carp, F.M. & Carp, A. (1982). Perceived Environmental Quality of Neighborhoods: Development of Assessment Scales and Their Relation to Age and Gender. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2, 245-312. D'Amico, A. M. & Giuliani, M. V. (2004). Place Attachment Among University Students. In B. Martens & A. G. Keul (Eds.), Evaluation in Progress - Strategies for Environmental Research and Implementation. IAPS 18 Conference Proceedings. Ernawati, J. (1992). Studi Pendekatan Penanganan Permukiman di Kawasan Bersejarah Kota yang Mempakan Aset Wisata. Bandung: ITB. Ernawati, J. (2005). Impressions and Cognitive Evaluations of an Historic District by Tourists and the Local Community. Sydney: The University of Sydney. Emawati, J. & Amiuza, C. H. (2008). Bentuk dan Makna Karakteristik Kota Industri Gula Menurut PersepsiMasyarakatnya. Malang: Lemlit Unibraw. Francescato, G., Weidemann, S. & Anderson, J. R. (1989). Evaluating the Built Environment From the Users' Point of View: An Attitudinal Model of Residential Satisfaction. In W. F. E. Preiser (Ed), Building Evaluation. New York: Basic Books, pp. 151-171. Fried, M. (1982). Residential Attachment: Sources of Residential and Community
Satisfaction. Journal of Social Issues, 38,107-119. Fried, M. (1984). The Structure and Significance of Community Satisfaction. Population and Environment, 7 (2), 61-86. Fried. M. (2000). Continuities and Discontinuities of Place. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20,193-205. Giuliani, M. V. & Foldman, R. M. (1993). Place Attachment in a Developmental and Cultural Context. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13, 267-274. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Holahan C. J. (1985). Environmental Psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 37, 381-407. Hoyle, R. H., Harris, M. J. & Judd, C. M. (2002). Research Methods In Social Relations. Wadsworth: Thomson Learning. Huck, S. W. (2000). Reading Statistics and Research. New York: Longman. Kwanda, T., Rahardjo, J. & Wardani, M. K. (2001). Analisis Kepuasan Penghuni Perumahan Sederhana di Denpasar Berdasarkan Faktor Lokasi, Prasarana, Sarana, Kualitas Bangunan, Desain dan Harga. Dimensi Teknik Arsitektur, 29 (2). Low, S. & Altman, I. (1992). Place Attachment: A Conceptual Inquiry. In I. Altman & S. Low (Eds.). Place Attachment, Hunan Behaviour and Environment, Vol. 12. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 1-12. Mazumdar, S., Mazumdar, S., Docuyanan, F., McLaughlin, C. M. (2000). Creating a Sense of Place: The Vietnamese-Americans and Little Saigon. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20, 319-333. Moore, G. T. (1987). Environment and Behaviour Research in North America: History, Developments, and Unresolved Issues. In D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.). Handbook of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 2. New York: Wiley, pp. 1359-1410. Ponzetti, J. J. (2004). Growing Old in Rural Communities: a Visual Methodology for Studying Place Attachment. Studying Place Attachment, http://www.marshall.edu/rcp/E6Ponzetti.htm. diakses 21 Februari 2008. Proshansky, H., Fabian, A. K. & Kaminoff, R. (1983). Place Identity: Physical World Socialization of the Self. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 57-83 Rahardjo, J. & Wibowo, B. R. (2003). Analisis Kepuasan Penghuni Rumah Sederhana Tipe 36 di Kawasan Sidoarjo Berdasarkan Faktor Kualitas Bangunan, Lokasi, Desain, Sarana & Prasarana. Dimensi Teknik Arsitektur, Vol. 31 (2). Rapoport, A. (1977). Human Aspects of Urban Form. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Rapoport, A. (1982). The Meaning of the Built Environment. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Russell, J. A. & Ward, L. M. (1982). Environmental Psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 651-688. Stokols, D. (1987). Conceptual Strategies of Environmental Psychology. In D. Stokols h I. Altman (Eds). Handbook of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 1, New York: Wiley, pp. 41-70. Stokols, D. & Shumaker, S. A. (1981). People in Places: A Transactional View of Settings. In J. H. Harvey (Ed), Cognition, Social Behavior and Environment. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence, pp. 441-485. Sundstrom, E., Bell, P.A., Busby, P.L. & Asmus, C. (1996). Environmental Psychology
1989-1994. Annual review of'Psychology, 47, 485-512. Tognoli, J. (1987). Residential Environments. In D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 1. New York: Wiley, pp. 655-690. Twigger-Ross, C. L. & Uzzel, D. L. (1996). Place and Identity Processes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 205-220. Weidemann, S. & Anderson, J. R. (1985). A Conceptual framework for Residential Satisfaction. In I. Altman & C. M. Werner (Eds.). Home Environments: Human Behaviour and Environment, Vol. 8. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 153-212. Werner, C. M. (1987). Home Interiors: A Time and Place for Interpersonal Relationship. Environment and Behavior, 19. 169-179. Werner, C. M., Altman, I. & Oxley, D. (1985). Termporal Aspects of Homes: A Transactional Perspective. In I. Altman & C. M. Werner (Eds). Home Environments: Human Behavior and Environment. Vol. 8. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 1-32.
