BIOTROPIA Vol. 29 No. 2, 2022: 161 - 170 DOI: 10.11598/btb.2022.29.2.1690 161 MONITORING FOREST AREA CHANGE USING QUICKBIRD SRI ENDAYANI1, ANDREW STEFANO2*, FATHIAH3, PURBAWATI4 AND IDA ROSANTI4 1Faculty of Agriculture, Forestry Study Program, Universitas 17 Agustus 1945, Samarinda 75123, Indonesia 2Department of Engineering and Informatics, Politeknik Pertanian Negeri Samarinda, Samarinda 75242, Indonsia 3Department of Forest Management, Politeknik Pertanian Negeri Samarinda, Samarinda 75242, Indonsia 4Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Nahdlatul Ulama Kalimantan Timur, Samarinda 75251, Indonesia Received 16 November 2021/Accepted 14 January 2022 ABSTRACT A study was conducted to compare the urban forest management in three urban forests in Samarinda City. The application of GIS (Geographic Information System) is one of the alternatives to conduct a variety of processes such as: providing geographical information system, identifying the areas of urban forests in Samarinda, helping to plan the process of map digitalization and performing overlay process. The main method used for the data analysis process on the map was the overlay process data analysis technique. The research findings showed that: 1) the appointment of urban forests as the initial step of urban forest development needed more implementation from the government; 2) the urban forest determination needed more socialization to the owner of the urban forest and the public in 1992 and 2019; 3) the urban forests needed more management. There were some similarities and differences in the management of urban forests in the three study locations. The similarities among the three locations were that the three locations had already met the minimum standards of one urban forest location even though there was still one location outside of these three locations which did not meet the minimum standard. The differences were in managing the urban forests. These differences indicated that the urban forest policy was not fully implemented in Samarinda City. Keywords: comparison, geographic information system, management, policy implementation, urban forests INTRODUCTION The increasingly rapid growth of population and development nowadays causes a lot of changes in the appearance of Samarinda City (Angel et al. 2019; Caddeo et al. 2019; Cao et al. 2019). The rapid development has turned most of the green spaces in Samarinda City into shopping centers, stores, housing areas, mining areas and other places for anthrophogenic activities (Tunas & Maadji 2018). These changes caused extreme environmental degradations and destructions (Carrer et al. 2018; Daoed et al. 1997; Deng et al. 2020). The city’s development emphasizes on the aspect of economic growth (Diodato & Bellocchi 2020; Fernández- guisuraga et al. 2019; Guo et al. 2020), leading to several environmental problems (Hafeez & Khan 2012; Hong et al. 2017; De Jager et al. 2019), including water crisis, floods and pollution resulting from the traffic and the decreasing number of green spaces in Samarinda City (Daoed et al. 1997). Certainly, the current conditions of Samarinda City are no longer compatible with the city’s slogan a “TEPIAN” city, which is the abbreviation of ‘Teduh’ (Shady), ‘Rapi’ (Tidy), ‘Aman’ (Safe), and ‘Nyaman’ (Comfortable). Environmental degradation, of course, should be ceased to continue (Lagacherie et al. 2020; Lister & Leites 2018; Liu et al. 2017). One of the solutions to overcome the environmental degradation is by applying environmentally sound developments through urban forest development (Liu et al. 2019; Morales & Perry 2017; Nguyen et al. 2019). The Decree of Samarinda Mayor Number 178/HK-KS/2017 showed that the size of the existing urban forests is 690.237 ha of the size of Samarinda City which is 718 km2. Clearly, the size of the urban forests is still far from sufficient to meet the minimum 10% of the urban area based on *Corresponding author, email: andrew.stefano@politanisamarinda.ac.id BIOTROPIA Vol. 29 No. 2, 2022 162 the regulation stated in Article 8 of the Government Regulation Number 63 Year 2002 on Urban Forests (Windusari et al. 2017). In order to meet the 10% minimum percentage, the Samarinda City should have 7,180 ha of urban forests. One of urban forest locations in Samarinda City owned by PT. Gani Mulya is only 0.097 ha and this is not in line with the Article 8 of the Government Regulation Number 63 Year 2002 on Urban Forests which stated that the size of urban forest in one compact stretch is at least 0.25 ha. Unfortunately, this regulation also mentioned about the adjustment of the urban forest size with the local condition of each region (Abdullahi et al. 2017), which seems to give a room for the local government to ignore the existence of urban forests. Most city planner is still unaware of the significance of urban forests (Nuddin et al. 2019; Podlaski 2019; Reza et al. 2020). If the regulation stated in the Government Regulation Number 63 Year 2002 on Urban Forests is properly followed, then all of the existing environmental problems faced by the Government of Samarinda City may be minimized (Hong et al. 2017). Urban forest as an open green space or Ruang Terbuka Hijau (RTH) should actually get attention from the government in order to make Samarinda City an environmentally-sound city (Tunas & Maadji 2018; Viccaro et al. 2019; Wiggins et al. 2019). The population of Samarinda deserves to have a comfortable, healthy and aesthetic environment (Windusari et al. 2017; Zhao et al. 2020). The city needs to be protected from a variety of negative environmental impacts (Tunas & Maadji 2018; Viccaro et al. 2019; Wiggins et al. 2019). Among techniques to achieve a better quality of environment is by increasing the quality and quantity of city greeneries suitable with the city’s urban forests (Hafeez & Khan 2012). Urban forest as an element of RTH is expected to overcome environmental problems in the urban areas by absorbing pollutions caused by the anthrophogenic activities (Silveira et al. 2019; Sinha et al. 2019; Soma & Kubota 2018). The development of urban forest in big cities in Indonesia indicates the policy makers’ awareness on environmental issues (Sameen et al. 2019; Schwede et al. 2018; Shang et al. 2020). The issues of urban forest need a special attention from the government considering the rapid development in Samarinda City which causes adverse impact on the environment and the decreasing number of green spaces (Nuddin et al. 2019; Podlaski 2019; Reza et al. 2020). Following the changing of times and the rapid development of technology, there are many methods to retrieve information on location in the form of map, one of which is using GIS (Geographic Information System) (Liu et al. 2019; Morales & Perry 2017; Nguyen et al. 2019). By using GIS we can capture a map of a location which provides detailed information (Lagacherie et al. 2020; Lister & Leites 2018; Liu et al. 2017). With the existence of geographic information system, it is expected that people will know more about the urban forests available surrounding the Samarinda City. This study aimed to obtain comprehensive understanding on urban forests as the basis of policy making in developing urban forests in Samarinda City (Hafeez & Khan 2012; Hong 2017; De Jager et al. 2019). The interview conducted in this study focused on the urban forest areas of Samarinda City, guard posts, and standardization of forest preservation (Balachandran 2017). This research applied literature study by collecting and studying issues related to the Geographic Information System of forestry data (relevant institutions) (Sulistyo et al. 2017). Basic Theoretical Framework Public policy is a specific goal or a series of specific principles or actions taken by the government in a certain period of time with regard to one subject or as a response toward a crisis condition (Wahab 2008). In addition, Rose (1990) defined public policy as a series of less or more related activities and their consequences to the people concerned rather than a separate decision. Furthermore, Van Meter and Van Horn (1975) defined policy implementation as an action taken by individuals or officials or groups of governmental or private organizations directed to achieve goals which have been stated in the policy decision. From this definition it can be identified that policy implementation covers three aspects, namely: 1) goals and targets of policy; 2) activities or policy goals and objectives; 3) outcome of the activities (Agustino 2006). Public policy has goals, Monitoring forest area change using Quickbird – Sri Endayani et al. 163 objectives and is behavior-oriented. Public policy refers to what the government really acts on, not merely a statement or desired target of action. Public policy is a directed target, meaning that the action is followed by an actor or a number of actors working together to solve problems. Implementation study is an analysis on the policy implementation process. In its practice, policy implementation is a considerably complex process; even it usually has political contents because of intervention of various interests. When an issue which addresses common interests is considered necessary to be regulated, then the formulation of the issue becomes a public policy which needs to be implemented, prepared and approved by all the authorized officials. When the public policy has been stated as a public policy, then it turns into a law which needs to be carefully observed. Policy in Urban Forest Management Urban development is usually reflected by the physical development of a city which is considerably determined by the existing facilities and infrastructure. The past and current urban development tends to minimize the open green spaces and to eliminate the face of nature. The condition of urban environment develops economically, but degrades ecologically. Indeed, the ecological balance of urban environment has the same significance as the development of economic value in urban areas. This condition creates unharmonious relationship between urban community and its environment. Being aware of the inharmony and considering the negative environmental impacts, there should be an effort to improve the environment through urban forest management. Urban forest is one of the open green spaces. Its existence functions as hydrological system, creating micro climate, maintaining oxygen (O2) and carbon dioxide (CO2) balance, reducing pollutant and absorbing noise. In addition, urban forests also function to add the aesthetic values and the beauty of the city, thus giving positive impacts on the quality of environment and the life of the community (Sibarani 2003). There are some municipal government policies which regulated the appointments of some urban forest locations. Samarinda City has an urban forest policy which is stated in the Samarinda Mayor’s Decree Number 178/HK-KS/2019. The detailed regulation which addresses urban forests in the form of Local Regulation has not been made until now in Samarinda City. However, the regulation governing the management of urban forests can be seen in the higher-order regulation, namely the Government Regulation Number 63 Year 2002 on Urban Forests. In addition, there is also the Minister of Forestry Regulation Number P.71/Menhut- II/2009 on the Guidelines for Urban Forest Management. Article 4 of the Government Regulation Number 63 Year 2002 on Urban Forests stated that urban forest management covers: 1) appointment; 2) construction; 3) determination; and 4) management. However, this research only covered urban forest management which focused on the appointment of urban forests which included the sizes and the locations of the urban forests in Samarinda. The highlight of this study were: 1) The determination of urban forests and 2) Urban forest management which includes maintenance, protection and security, utilization, monitoring and evaluation. The policy implementation policy of urban forests were analyzed in 3 locations based on their gradient distances from downtown, namely in the area of City Hall, Lempake Village and Samarinda Botanical Garden of Mulawarman University. MATERIALS AND METHODS Data Retrieval This study used primary data collected from field observations and systematic recording using GPS Garmin 60. Secondary data were collected from various kinds of relevant literatures and social phenomena, namely administrative maps of Samarinda City, vegetation, plantations, and contours. Data Processing Administrative maps, vegetation, plantations and contours were superimposed over the Samarinda urban forest map (BPKH Region IV) (first process). Field checking was conducted to BIOTROPIA Vol. 29 No. 2, 2022 164 obtain the most up-to-date information on the urban forest (second process). Subsequently, the results of the two processes were combined. The image correction was carried out using Quick Bird software to reduce geometric, radiometric and atmospheric problems (Fig. 1). The image analyses were subsequently carried out, by first making criteria and scoring assessments in tabular form as part of the data preparation process. Visual interpretation of up- to-date urban forest maps was used to get raster data in the form of land-use conversion. Figure 2 presents the flowchart of Samarinda urban forest map preparation. The Samarinda's urban forest vegetation was determined based on the results of image analyses. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The determination of one particular area as an urban forest can be in the form of designation within the urban area and it can be a piece of land owned by the government or owned privately with a land ownership right. The designated urban forest location is a part of the open green space of the city. The importance of urban forest functions is regulated in the Government Regulation Number 63 Year 2002 on Urban Forests in Articles 7, 8 and 9. The designation is based on the programs of the Government of Samarinda City through Bapedalda (Local Board of Environmental Impact Management). In 2001 - 2019 the Government of Samarinda City through Bapedalda had planned, prepared and implemented urban forests which was funded by DAKDR budget (Special Fund Allocation - Fund for Forestation). In 2003 the city government and Samarinda Local House of Representative enacted the Local Regulation Number 28 Year 2003 on Protected Area in Samarinda City. Even though there is no obvious regulation concerning urban forests, the Government of Samarinda City keeps continuing the development of urban forests based on the Local Regulation Number 28 Year 2003. Through Bapedalda, the Samarinda City planned, prepared, and implemented urban forests using DAK-DR budget (Special Fund Allocation – Fund for Forestation). Figure 1 Quickbird satellite image of Samarinda City Monitoring forest area change using Quickbird – Sri Endayani et al. 165 Figure 2 Flowchart of Samarinda urban forest map preparation After planning, preparing and implementing Urban Forest in Samarinda, Bapedalda provided a recommendation to the Government of Samarinda City to issue a Mayor Decree concerning the location of urban forests in Samarinda City. Then, the Decree of Samarinda Mayor Number 178/HK-KS/2005 on the Determination of Urban Forest Locations in Samarinda City was issued. There were 25 locations which were appointed as urban forests in the urban area of Samarinda. The Decree of Samarinda Mayor Number 178/HK-KS/2005 showed that the area of urban forests was 690.237 ha with the percentage of 0.96% from the total urban area. Samarinda City has the area of 718.00 km2, so that to meet the minimum 10% of the urban area size, Samarinda should have urban forests with the size of 7,180 ha. This means that Samarinda still requires 6,489.763 ha or 9.04% to fulfill the required minimum 10% of the total urban area. In addition, the decree also mentioned one of the urban forests, namely PT Gani Mulya with the extent of 0.097 ha. The size of urban forest owned by PT Gani Mulya does not meet the standard based on the criteria stated in Article 8 section (2) that the size of urban area in one compact stretch should be at least 0.25 ha. Furthermore, the distribution of urban forest in each subdistrict in Samarinda is not equal because there are still 2 subdistricts from the total of 10 subdistricts which do not have an urban forest in their district areas, such as Palaran and Sungai Pinang Subdistricts. Each subdistrict also still has a significant shortage from the required minimum total area. The criteria of urban forest in each subdistrict is presented in Table 1. Table 1 Criteria of urban forest area for each subdistrict No Subdistrict Urban forest area (ha) Area (km2) Minimal forest area (ha) Shortage (ha) Percentage by the zone (%) 1. Palaran - 221.29 2,212.9 -2,212.9 0 2. Samarinda Ilir 6 17.18 171.8 -165.8 0.35 3. Samarinda Kota 11.56 11.12 111.2 -99.64 1.04 4. Sambutan 187 100.95 1,009.5 -822.5 1.85 5. Samarinda Seberang 1.5 12.49 124.9 -123.4 0.12 6. Loa Janan Ilir 8.697 26.13 261.3 -252.603 0.33 7. Sungai Kunjang 69.75 43.04 430.4 -360.65 1.62 8. Samarinda Ulu 8.98 22.12 221.2 -212.22 0.41 9. Samarinda Utara 306.75 229.52 2,295.2 -1,988.45 1.37 10 Sungai Pinang - 34.16 341.6 -341.6 0 Samarinda City 690.237 718.00 7,180 -6,489.763 0.96 Source: Processing Data from the Mayor’s Decree Number 178/HK-KS/2017on the Determination of Some Urban Forest Locations in Samarinda City. Map of Samarinda City Samarinda City forest area Overlay Samarinda City + Urban forest area Distribution of forest types Map of Samarinda City forest area Overlay BIOTROPIA Vol. 29 No. 2, 2022 166 City Hall Urban Forest The City Hall Urban Forest was appointed as an urban forest in 1992 through the Mayor’s Decree Number No. 224 Year 1992, followed by the Mayor’s Decree Number 178/HK-KS/2019. The City Hall environment was appointed as an urban forest after meeting the requirements, and in this case, the city hall urban forest has an area of 7.64 ha. The area is more than enough to fulfill the minimum requirement of one location to be selected as an urban forest, namely 0.25 ha. The City Hall Urban Forest is located on the state-owned land whose land status and ownership right belongs to the Government of Samarinda City. Land ownership is proven with a land certificate Number: P-24, Number: 305/1981 which was issued by Agrarian Office of Samarinda City on 29 June 1981. Lempake Urban Forest The appointment of Lempake Urban Forest was based on the land status owned by the Municipal Government since the status of the village was changed into Kelurahan. This location was appointed by Bapedalda in 2004 by involving the local community. Lempake Urban Forest has an area of 3.5 ha and this size has met the requirement of a minimum size of 0.25 ha for one location of urban forest. The Determination of Urban Forests Policy in the determination of urban forest has been issued twice by the Government of Samarinda City. The first one was the Mayor’s Decree Number 224 Year 1992 and the second one was the Mayor’s Decree Number 178/HK- KS/2019. The determination of urban forest in 1992 was issued by the Cleaning and Landscaping Agency and the determination of urban forest in 2017 was issued by the Bapedalda which is now recognized as BLH (Environmental Agency). The urban forests which were stated in the Mayor’s Decree Number 178/HK-KS/2019 in Samarinda City were determined after the Bapedalda accomplished the procedure of planning, preparation, and implementation of Urban Forest. The documented procedures was then proposed to the Government of Samarinda City in order to issue a letter of determination for the locations of urban forests in the region of Samarinda City. From 1992 to 2005 there was an increase in urban forests both in their sizes and their total number. In 1992 Samarinda had only 12 locations of urban forests with an extent of 218.177 ha, while in 2019 the number of urban forests increased up to 25 locations with an area of 690.237 ha. This indicates that Samarinda has an additional 13 urban forests and an additional area of 472.06 ha. Unfortunately, the determination policy for urban forests has not been reviewed at least once in two years following the rule stated in point three of the Mayor’s Decree Number 178/HK-KS/2019. City Hall Urban Forest The area of City Hall was first designated as an urban forest on 17 December 1992 through the Mayor’s Decree Number 224 Year 1992 with an area of 6.9 ha. This determination was then renewed by the Mayor’s Decree Number 178/HK-KS/2019. In the Decree Number 178/HK-KS/2019 the area of City Hall had an additional area which was allocated for urban forest, from an area of 6.9 ha to 7.64 ha. The determination of the City Hall area as an urban forest was well-socialized to the public because of its strategic location in the middle of Samarinda City. Lempake Urban Forest The determination of Kas Lempake as an urban forest was not known by the public or the village government. Even though the location status is on the state-owned land, the determination of the urban forest should have been informed to the public, especially to the community where the urban forests are located. The fact that the public do not know the existence of the urban forest is caused by some factors. First, the appointment of Kas Lempake as an urban forest only involved some people following the rapid growth of population. Second, the determination of urban forest had lasted for a long time without any socialization from the former government. Third, there have been a lot of replacements of Lurah and personnel in the Lempake Village since the urban forest determination. Last, there is no activity initiated by the government in relation to to the management of Kas Lempake. Monitoring forest area change using Quickbird – Sri Endayani et al. 167 Urban Forest Management Urban forests are not managed uniformly because the managements are only conducted in several locations which are only owned by the government such as the area of City Hall, Segiri Softball Field, Garden Tombs of Heroes, and Samarinda City Library, which are easily accessed by the government because these locations are in the downtown area. One of the efforts made by the government in urban forest management is by re-registering the existing urban forests. The result of re-registration can be seen Table 2. The City still needs 9.12%. The local office of Agriculture, Plantations and Forestry of the Samarinda City (DistanBunHut) also makes a plan for locations which are going to be appointed into urban forests. After doing re- registration on the size of urban forest stated in the Mayor’s Decree Number 178/HK-KS/2019, the area of urban forest was decreased by 57,167 ha from the original 633.07 ha. Therefore, the percentage of urban forest nowadays is only 0.88% from the previous percentage of 0.96%, namely 71,800 ha. The minimum requirement for an urban forest is 10% of the total urban area. This means that Samarinda still needs urban forests. The planned locations include the Center for Dipterocarp, Land of Municipal Government in Makroman, Polytechnic of Agriculture Campus (Poliagro Samarinda), and Kaltim Cultural Park. The Government Regulation Number 63 Year 2002 and the Regulation of the Minister of Forestry Number P.71/Menhut-II/2009 which is supported by the Mayor’s Decree Number 178/HK-KS/2019 is sufficient to be the basis for urban forest management. Table 2 Re-registration of urban forests in Samarinda City No. City forest location Large SK 2019 (ha) Re-registration data (ha) 1. SMU 10 MELATI 5 5 2. KRUS 300 300 3. Tanah Pemkot 5 5 4. Hutan Kota Belakang Rumah Jabatan Walikota 1.75 1.8 5. Asih Manuntung 0.25 0.25 6. Pesantren Hidayatullah 1 0.38 7. Tanah Pemkot di Makroman 167 167 8. Tanah Pertanian Terpadu 20 20 9. Kas Desa Lempake 3.5 3.5 10. Fakultas Pertanian Unmul 6.5 3.84 11. Pesantren Nabil Husein 9.75 9.75 12. Pesantren Syachona Cholil 0.25 0.25 13. Rumah Potong Hewan 2 5 14. Hotel Mesra 2.3 0.7 15. Jalan Pembangunan Voorfo 0.48 2.6 16. Lingkungan Balai Kota 7.64 3.26 17. Lingkungan Lapangan Softball GOR Segiri 0.5 0.25 18. Perpustakaan Kota Samarinda 0.6 0.5 19. Ujung Timur Jembatan Mahakam 1.5 2 20. PT. HARTATY 60 - 21. PT. Gani Mulya 0.097 2.75 22. PT. Sumber Mas 85 85 23. PT. Sumalindo 3.6 - 24. Taman Makam Pahlawan 0.52 1.04 25. PT. KIANI (Teluk Cinta di Selili) 6 13.2 Total 690.237 633.07 Source: Agriculture, Farming and Forestry Service Office of Samarinda City (2019). BIOTROPIA Vol. 29 No. 2, 2022 168 City Hall Urban Forest The urban forests which are located on the state-owned lands are managed by three government institutions at the same time, i.e., the Agriculture, Farming and Forestry Service, the Cleaning and Landscaping Agency, and the City Planning Service. The forms of management include providing seedlings and plants. The construction of shopping center next to the urban forest location is believed not to use the land of the urban forest because it is still within the border of the land owned by the owner of the building. The City Hall Urban Forest is one of the urban forest locations having decreasing in area size because of the building construction and parking lots which take the green space in this location. Lempake Urban Forest The government policy on the management of urban forests which are located in the land owned by Kas Lempake has not been implemented. This is not in line with the Regulation of Minister of Forestry Number P.71/Menhut-II/2009 in Article l32 through Article l43, which technically governs the urban forest management. Kas Lempake Village is under the responsibility of the government, but until now this urban forest location has never been managed properly. The fact that this urban forest is not managed by the community is caused by the status of the location that is owned by the Government. The Municipal Government has never formed a coordination with the local village to involve the community in the management of urban forests. CONCLUSION There are some similarities and differences in managing urban forests in Samarinda City. Their similarities can be found in the three research locations in which they have met the required minimum standard of one location, i.e., 0.25 ha. In addition, the urban forests also provide the same benefits to the surrounding environment. The City Hall Urban Forest was established as an urban forest in 1992 and it was extended in 2017, while Lempake Urban Forest and the Urban Forest of Universitas Mulawarman Botanical Garden were just established in 2017 through the Mayor’s Decree Number 178/HK-KS/2019. Those urban forests have differences in the status of land ownership. The City Hall Urban Forest and Lempake Urban Forest are located on the state-owned lands, while the Urban Forest of Universitas Mulawarman Botanical Garden is located on the land with a land ownership right. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research was supported by the Ph.D. grant of the Indonesia Endowment Fund for Education (LPDP-BUDI DN) of the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Indonesia. REFERENCES Abdullahi MG, Khairul M, Kamarudin A, Umar R, Endut A. (2017). Night Sky Brightness Assessment in Nigeria Using Environmetric and GIS Technique. Int J Adv Sci Eng Inf Technol 7(1): 28-34. Agustino L. 2006. Dasar-dasar kebijakan publik. Bandung (ID): Alfabeta. Angel M, Aliaga-samanez A, Olivero J, Williams D, Dupain J. 2019. Spatial modeling for predicting potential wildlife distributions and human impacts in the Dja Forest Reserve, Cameroon. Biol Conserv 230:104-12. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon. 2018.12.015 Balachandran C, Subash Chandran MD, Vinay S, Shrikant N, Ramachandra TV. 2017. Pollinator diversity and foraging dynamics on monsoon crop of cucurbits in a traditional landscape of South Indian west coast. BIOTROPIA 24(1):16-27. DOI: 10.11598/ btb.2017.2017.24.1.480 Caddeo A, Marras S, Sallustio L, Spano D, Sirca C. 2019. Agricultural and forest meteorology soil organic carbon in Italian forests and agroecosystems: Estimating current stock and future changes with a spatial modelling approach. Agric For Meteorol 278(11):107654. DOI: 10.1016/j.agrformet. 2019. 107654 Cao B, Domke GM, Russell MB, Walters BF. 2019. Science of the total environment spatial modeling of litter and soil carbon stocks on forest land in the conterminous United States. Sci Total Environ 654 (2019):94-106. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10. 359 Carrer M, Castagneri D, Popa I, Pividori M, Lingua E. 2018. Tree spatial patterns and stand attributes in temperate forests: The importance of plot size, Monitoring forest area change using Quickbird – Sri Endayani et al. 169 sampling design, and null model. For Ecol Manag 407(2018):125-34. DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2017.10. 041 Daoed D, Rusman B, Istijono B, Hakam A, Syukur M. 1997. Evaluation of Drought Vulnerability on Watersheds in West Sumatera Province by using Cropwat-8 and GIS. Int J Adv Sci Eng Inf Technol 8(6):2443-9. De Jager NR, Van Appledorn M, Fox TJ, Rohweder JJ, Guyon LJ, Meier AR, Cosgriff RJ, Vandermyde BJ. 2019. Spatially explicit modeling of floodplain forest succession: interactions among flood inundation, forest successional processes, and other disturbances in the Upper Mississippi River floodplain, USA. Ecol Model 405:15-32. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2019.05.002 Deng K, Webb GF, Wu Y. 2020. Nonlinear Analysis: Real World applications analysis of age and spatially dependent population model: Application to forest growth. Nonlinear Anal Real World Appl 56: 103164. DOI: 10.1016/j.nonrwa.2020.103164 Diodato N, Bellocchi G. 2020. Spatial probability modeling of forest productivity indicator in Italy. Ecol Indic 108(2020): 105721. DOI: 10.1016/ j.ecolind.2019.105721 Fernández-Guisuraga JM, Suárez-seoane S, Calvo L. 2019. Modeling Pinus pinaster forest structure after a large wildfire using remote sensing data at high spatial resolution. For Ecol Manag 446:257-71. DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2019.05.028 Guo X, Bian Z, Wang S, Wang Q, Zhang Y, Zhou J, Lin L. 2020. Agriculture, ecosystems and environment prediction of the spatial distribution of soil arthropods using a random forest model: A case study in Changtu County, Northeast China. Agric Ecosyst Environ 292(120): 106818. DOI: 10.1016/ j.agee.2020.106818 Hafeez K, Khan MAU. 2012. Application of Geographic Information System for the Installation of Surge Arrestors on overhead 132 k-v Power Line. Int J Adv Sci Eng Inf Technol 2(6):6-8. Hong NT, Thi P, Truc T, Liem ND, Loi NK. 2017. Optimal selection of number and location of meter-hydrological monitoring networks on Vu Gia – Thu Bon River Basin using GIS. Int J Adv Sci Eng Inf Technol 6(3):324-8. Ismail N. 2009. Public policy: Analisis, strategi advokasi teori dan praktek. Surabaya (ID): CV Putra Media Nusantara. 203 p. Lagacherie P, Arrouays D, Bourennane H, Gomez C, Nkuba-kasanda L. 2020. Analysing the impact of soil spatial sampling on the performances of digital soil mapping models and their evaluation: A numerical experiment on quantile random forest using clay contents obtained from Vis-NIR-SWIR hyperspectral imagery. Geoderma 375: 114503. DOI: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2020.114503 Lister AJ, Leites LP. 2018. Modeling and simulation of tree spatial patterns in an oak-hickory forest with a modular, hierarchical spatial point process framework. Ecol Model, 378: 37-45. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2018.03.012 Liu W, Lin C, Su K. 2017. Modelling the spatial forest- thinning planning problem considering carbon sequestration and emissions. For Policy Econ 78: 51-66. DOI:10.1016/j.forpol.2017.01.002 Liu X, Zhou T, Luo H, Xu P, Gao S, Liu J. 2019. Models ignoring spatial heterogeneities of forest age will significantly overestimate the climate effects on litterfall in China. Sci Total Environ 661(19):492- 503. DOI: 10.1016/ j.scitotenv.2019.01.162 Morales NS, Perry GLW. 2017. A spatial simulation model to explore the long-term dynamics of podocarp-tawa forest fragments, northern New Zealand. Ecol Model 357: 35-46. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2017.04.007 Nguyen LD, Nguyen CT, Le HS, Tran BQ. 2019. Mangrove Mapping and Above-Ground Biomass Change Detection using Satellite Images in Coastal Areas of Thai Binh Province, Vietnam. Forest and Society 3(2):248-61. Nuddin A, Arsyad M, Putera MI, Nuringsih N. 2019. Making the case for institutional support on designing agroforestry technology models for rehabilitating critical lands. Forest and Society 3(1): 49-63. Podlaski R. 2019. Models of the fine-scale spatial distributions of trees in managed and unmanaged forest patches with Abies alba Mill. and Fagus sylvatica L. For Ecol Manag 439:1-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2019.02.031 Reza H, Gayen A, Lasaponara R, Tiefenbacher JP. 2020. Application of learning vector quantization and different machine learning techniques to assessing forest fire influence factors and spatial modelling. Environ Res 184: 109321. DOI: 10.1016/j. envres.2020.109321 Rose R. 1990. Inheritance before choice in public policy. J Theor Polit 2(3):263-91. DOI: 10.1177/ 095169289000 2003002 Sameen MI, Sarkar R, Pradhan B, Drukpa D. 2019. Landslide spatial modelling using unsupervised factor optimisation and regularised greedy forests. Comput Geosci 134: 104336. DOI: 10.1016/ j.cageo.2019.104336 Schwede DB, Simpson D, Tan J, Fu JS, Dentener F. 2018. Global Forest/Grid Deposition. Environ Pollut. DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.09.084 Shang C, Coops NC, Wulder MA, White JC, Hermosilla T. 2020. Update and spatial extension of strategic forest inventories using time series remote sensing and modeling. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinformation 84(2020): 101956. DOI: 10.1016/j.jag.2019.101956 BIOTROPIA Vol. 29 No. 2, 2022 170 Sibarani JP. 2003. Potensi kampus Universitas Sumatera Utara sebagai salah satu hutan kota di Kota Medan. Medan (ID): Fakultas Pertanian, Program Studi Budidaya Hutan, Universitas Sumatera Utara. Silveira E, Espírito-Santo F, Wulder M, Acerbi FW, Carvalho M, Mello CR, …, Scolforo JR. 2019. Forest ecology and management pre-stratified modelling plus residuals kriging reduces the uncertainty of aboveground biomass estimation and spatial distribution in heterogeneous savannas and forest environments. For Ecol Manag 445(1): 96-109. DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2019.05.016 Sinha P, Gaughan AE, Stevens FR, Nieves JJ, Sorichetta A, Tatem AJ. 2019. Assessing the spatial sensitivity of a random forest mode: Application in gridded population modeling. Comput Environ Urban Syst 75: 132-45. DOI: 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys. 2019.01.006 Soma AS, Kubota T. 2018. Landslide susceptibility map using certainty factor for hazard mitigation in mountainous areas of Ujung-loe Watershed in South Sulawesi. Forest and Society 2(1):79-91. Sulistyo B, Gunawan T, Hartono, Danoedoro P, Martanto R. 2017. Proposed model on levels of degraded land at Merawu Watershed, Banjarnegara Regency, Central Java Province, Indonesia. BIOTROPIA 24(3):220-9. DOI: 10.11598/btb.201 Tunas IG, Maadji R. 2018. The Use of GIS and Hydrodynamic Model for Performance Evaluation of Flood Control Structure. Int J Adv Sci Eng Inf Technol 8(6):2413-20. Van Meter DS, Van Horn CE. 1975. The policy implementation process: A conceptual framework: Administration and Society 6(4). London (GB): Sage Publications, Inc. Viccaro M, Cozzi M, Fanelli L, Romano S. 2019. Spatial modelling approach to evaluate the economic impacts of climate change on forests at a local scale. Ecol Indic 106(9): 105523. DOI: 10.1016/ j.ecolind. 2019. 105523 Wahab AS. 2008. Analisis kebijakan dari formulasi ke implementasi kebijakan negara. Jakarta (ID): Bumi Aksara. Wiggins HL, Nelson CR, Larson AJ, Sa HD. 2019. Using LiDAR to develop high-resolution reference models of forest structure and spatial pattern. For Ecol Manag 434:318–30. DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco. 2018.12.012 Windusari Y, Hanum L, Lestari MS. 2017. Analysis and Identification of Landuse on the Coastal Environment of South Sumatra using GIS. Int J Adv Sci Eng Inf Technol 7(3):785-91. Zhao C, Wang Q, Ban J, Liu Z, Zhang Y, Ma R, …, Li T. 2020. Estimating the daily PM2.5 concentration in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region using a random forest model with a 0.01° × 0.01° spatial resolution. Environ Int 134:105297. DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2019.105297