Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Land Use and Community Perception in Peri-Urban Environments: The Case of the Intermediate City in Indonesia

Abstract

The emergence of a peri-urban area is driven by a high degree of accessibility in the suburbs due to the development of housing and urban facilities. Such a phenomenon requires specialized planning approaches in accordance with the peri-urban dynamics, where there is no clear distinction between a wholly urban and a wholly rural area. The objectives of this research are to (1) identify land-use change of the peri-urban area; (2) analyze the zoning typology of peri-urban area span across 20 years; and (3) identify the settlement pattern and community perception of the peri-urban area. This research observes land-use change in an Indonesian peri-urban area using geographic information system (GIS) analysis in the urban frame zone, urban–rural frame zone, rural–urban frame zone, and rural frame zone during 2012–2022 and land-use change prediction for 2022–2032. Consequent community perception analysis was conducted to comprehend complex interactions in the urban–rural continuum. Results indicate that by 2032, urban characteristics shall become significantly more prominent in 50% of the peri-urban area compared to 2012, due to better accessibility and the presence of nationwide migrant attractors, such as universities. Spatial planning must address these varying dynamics to effectively manage the development of urban, peri-urban, and rural areas.

1. Introduction

Cities all around the globe have undergone an accelerated pace of development since the beginning of the 20th century, characterized by emergent problems in relation to the increasing complexity of urban elements [1,2]. Such rapid development is characterized by rapid population growth as well as increasing land requirement outside of city centers, creating a new phenomenon known as urban encroachment or urban sprawl [3,4]. This phenomenon occurs in the process of developing the city boundary area in the form of centrifugal spatial development, which is a process of increasing urban space outward, allowing the border area to become an urban expansion area [5].

Territorial transformations occurred in urban–rural continuum can no longer be defined as a dichotomy [6]. Development of a city or urban expansion to the periphery can occur in three patterns: along the axis or transportation route, increasing hinterland, and the conurbation of the core urban with the periphery [7]. Suburban development in peri-urban areas is mainly caused by centrifugal force due to increasing competition and declining productivity in the urban area [8,9,10]. Spatial dynamics in residential areas can be observed through four indicators, namely, the increase in the area of settlements, the compaction of residential buildings, the tendency of the segregation of residential houses, and the growth of illegal settlements [9]. Residents in rural areas are generally unable to access quality housing, economic resources, and public services [11]. However, the concentration of resources in cities has promoted urban development, weakened the development of rural areas, and caused system imbalances [12]. Land in the city center has grown scarce and more costly, rendering the establishment of new housing impossible and forcing the growing community to relocate to the peri-urban area [13,14].

Peri-urban areas combine elements of both urban and rural land [15]. They possess distinct characteristics of transition, dynamics, sustainability, and gradual change; often times, this area is considered as a separate geographical unit distinguished from urban and rural areas [16,17,18]. Peri-urban areas, located close to developing cities, form a transition zone where urban influence gradually becomes visible in land-use change, population influx, and changes in economic activities [19,20]. Urban fringe is an area on the outskirts of the city/directly adjacent to the city that has rural characteristics but has experienced a shift in characteristics to urban characteristics [21,22]. As a transitional area, this area is under increasing pressure of urban activities that have an impact on physical changes including the conversion of agricultural and non-agricultural land with its various impacts. Peri-urban areas hold an important key to optimizing space development, for it is related to ecological function in the urban–rural continuum [23].

Acknowledged as a phenomenon occurring in most parts of the world, various research has been conducted to understand the processes of peri-urbanization. Land-cover change is reported in 86% of peri-urbanization processes, while socioeconomic changes are responsible for 67% [15]. Previous studies indicated that peri-urbanization in the global south is commonly divided into four main bodies of the literature: planetary urbanization/bypass urbanism, peripheral urbanization, agrarian urbanism, and global sub-urbanism [24]. Bypass urbanism explains the creation of an entirely new urban configuration at the edge of an urban region that territorially bypasses existing urban areas through various infrastructure; this originated geographically from Kolkata, Lagos, and Mexico City [25,26]. Peripheral urbanization is mostly associated with auto-construction not geographically limited to the margin of the city and originated geographically from Sao Paolo, Brazil, and the Metropolitan Zone of the Valley of Mexico [27,28]. Agrarian urbanism mainly originated from India (such as Delhi, Mumbai, and other metropolitan areas) and highlights how postcolonial systems of land, property, and tenure shape the present processes of urbanization [29,30,31]. Global sub-urbanism is derived from the northern-derived suburbanization concept and puts certain focus on residential spaces, mainly found in North America, London, and other cases in Africa, South Asia, China, and Europe [32,33,34].

Suburban areas have experienced a reduction of thousands of hectares of agricultural land to built-up area that function as pockets of settlements scattered in an uncoordinated and irregular manner [35,36]. Approximately 25% of the population were living in peri-urban areas of intermediate and smaller cities and towns with the highest proportion lies in low- and middle-income countries [37,38]. Unlike metropolitan and large cities, the impact of urban encroachment in intermediate and smaller cities is less explored and less understood [39,40]. It is worth noting that smaller and intermediate cities play important roles in global urbanization, for the largest cities grew from small cities in only a few decades, especially in developing countries such as Indonesia [41,42,43]. The suburbs in Indonesia cannot be characterized solely by the dichotomy between planned urban settlements and rural settlements. Instead, it was mixed with autonomous housing, built by individuals or families without interference from city authorities [44].

Among the largest intermediate cities in Indonesia is Malang City in East Java. Urbanization in Malang is driven by migration for job opportunities and the existence of state universities that attract nationwide students. The number of migrations into Malang City increased from 29% in 2020 to 35% in 2022. The change in the growth of activities that increased caused a shift in development to the outskirts of Malang City. In addition, during the last two decades, built-up land in the western suburbs of Malang has been proven to be the highest, accounting for 84.99% of the entire suburban area in 2016. Most of the built-up areas are new upper-middle class housing built by private developers. In relation to previous research conducted about peri-urbanization, the case of Malang City closely resembles the peripheral urbanization, for it is largely due to auto-construction conducted by the local private developers and the local communities themselves [27,28].

Over time, the development of Malang’s western suburbs will exhibit urban characteristics while retaining some village attributes, necessitating careful management of the peri-urban area’s growth and dynamics. The development in the peri-urban area tends to be scattered before gradually becomes more clustered, forming distinct zones or clusters. Therefore, this study aims to quantitatively measure the spatiotemporal dynamics and community perception of peri-urban development with the empirical case of Malang City, Indonesia. The objectives of this research are to (1) identify land-use change of the western peri-urban area of Malang City, (2) analyze the zoning typology of the western peri-urban area of Malang City in the years 2012–2032, and (3) identify the settlement pattern and community perception of the western peri-urban area of Malang City.

2. Materials and Methods

This research aims to understand the spatiotemporal dynamics of an intermediate city’s peri-urban area through quantitative descriptive method. Quantitative descriptive research aims to describe systematically, factually, and accurately about the facts and nature of certain populations, or describe phenomena in detail [45]. This method is widely accepted to identify the development of peri-urban Indonesia, as demonstrated in Demak District, Semarang Regency, and Cirebon Regency [46,47,48]. Through a combination of spatial analysis (ArcGIS), phenomenology, and descriptive analysis, a comprehensive understanding of both the physical and human dimensions of land-use change is ensured. ArcGIS is a spatial software commonly used to provide detailed spatial analysis and visualization of land use and settlement patterns [49,50,51]. Phenomenology analysis captures the lived experiences and perceptions of community members, offering insights into the social aspect of land-use changes in peri-urban areas [52]. Descriptive analysis summarizes and interprets both quantitative and qualitative data, highlighting key trends and relationships between variables noted in this research.

2.1. Land-Use Change

Land-use change identification in the peri-urban area of Malang City comprised several key steps. First, spatial data with maximum resolution (8192 × 5317) were acquired through Landsat 7 2015 and Landsat 8 2022. Due to SLC failure in Landsat 7, a validation and digitization of built-up area is required, using ArcMap 10.8. Land-use data from the satellite were then integrated with administrative boundaries and infrastructure networks, resulting in the stadia of regional development map. The last step, prediction of land-use changes and land classification, are conducted using overlay analysis in ArcMap 10.8. Results indicate land-use change in the peri-urban area in a spatial form with visual interpretation from Quickbird images of Google Earth in 2012 and 2022.

2.2. Zoning Typology Identification of Peri-Urban Areas

A comprehensive zoning analysis through land-use proportion analysis [53,54,55] of peri-urban areas was used to determine peri-urban dynamics in the years of 2012, 2022, and 2032. It refers to the land-use triangle continuum theory, which divides zones into urban frame zones, urban–rural frame zones, rural–urban frame zones, and rural frame zones [56,57,58]. Each of the frame zones represents a different stage of development and land-use characteristics. Urban frame zones are dominantly urban in nature and exhibit high-density development and are primarily composed of residential, commercial, and industrial buildings. They are normally supported with extensive infrastructure and numerous urban amenities. Urban–rural and rural–urban frame zones are transitional areas that blend urban and rural elements, where the former exhibit more urban characteristics than the latter. Rural frame zones are predominantly rural in nature with minimal urban influence, therefore preserving agricultural land with more traditional rural lifestyles and landscapes. Understanding these classifications will help the gradation of urbanization in peri-urban areas, and, therefore, will allow urban planners to provide appropriate guidance in relation to the development stages.

The proportion of land use was classified according to the zoning standards of peri-urban areas using data on agricultural land (non-built-up areas) and non-agricultural land (built-up areas) as in

Table 1. Zonification of Peri-urban areas.

Activities	Zone
	Urban Frame Zone	City–Village Frame Zone	Village–City Frame Zone	Village Frame Zone
Agriculture	<25%	>25%−<50%	>50%−<75%	>75%
Non-Agriculture	>75%	>50%−<75%	>25%−<50%	<25%

Source: Peri-urban area dynamics–determinants of the future of cities.

.

2.3. Settlement Patterns and Community Perception Analysis

Based on the land-use dynamics model, the settlement patterns in the peri-urban area during the years 2012–2022 are observed and explained through descriptive analysis. As a support system of the settlement area, the increasing quantity of facilities in the peri-urban area shall be taken into consideration as well. The level of increasing facilities shall be measured using a classification system in accordance with the established standards. The classification process and determination of class intervals are assisted by the Sturgess formula [59,60]. The class range and classification of facility fluctuation can be observed in

Table 2. Class range and classification of facility fluctuation.

No.	Class Range	Classification	Score
1	6–108	Low	1
2	108–209	Medium	2
3	209–311	High	3

.

The population of the survey are identified through the total households residing in the periphery of Malang City, namely, in 8 villages in 2 subdistricts. All the villages are assumed to have a homogenic characteristics, and, therefore, systematic classified random sampling is applied as the sampling method. Using Slovin’s formula with 10% error rate, 160 samples are required. After being divided by 8 villages, it can be calculated that 20 respondents are required to be interviewed in each village.

Among the most common methods to measure human perception regarding their environment is a Likert-scale questionnaire [61,62,63,64]. The Likert scale is used to measure attitudes, opinions, and perceptions of a person or people about social phenomena. Researchers used a five-option Likert scale to assess the peri-urban area inhabitants in relation to the zonification. Observations regarding behavior characteristics are observed through data distribution analysis and simple linear regression analysis. Simple regression analysis is suitable for the behavior characteristic analysis for it provides the relationship between two variables: community perception and facility availability. Regression analysis and its variations (simple linear regression, multiple linear regression, logistic regression) provide coefficient estimates for the responses and are commonly used as statistical tools for urban planning analysis [65,66].

The behavior characteristics analysis provided data distribution insight from the minimum, maximum, mean, and standard deviation values. Data should be preprocessed through validity tests and reliability tests to determine the quality of each instrument. The questionnaire is considered valid if r_count > r_table. It is known that the r_table uses a α = 0.05 with d_f = n − 2 (n = number of respondents = 20 − 2 = 18) significance of 5% = 0.4438, then the r_table is 0.4438. A questionnaire is considered reliable if the coefficient value is greater than Cronbach’s alpha, which is 0.75. The min value indicated the lowest value while the max value shows the highest value in the Likert scale option. The statements submitted to the respondents are as follows

(a)

Feeling of living in the city;

(b)

Feeling of living between the village and the city;

(c)

Feeling of living in the village;

(d)

Facilities in the village are like those in the city (minimarket, restaurant, café, laundry, modern school);

(e)

Facilities in the village are mixed between town and village facilities (traditional shops, restaurant, café, traditional market, laundry, modern school);

(f)

Facilities in the village are like those in a typical village (kiosks, stalls).

To provide more insights regarding the community perception, simple linear regression analysis is conducted using SPSS 22 with facility availability as independent variable (X) and community perception (Y). Unstandardized coefficient (R) indicates the strength and direction of the relationship between facility availability and community perception, while R-squared (R²) indicates the proportion of variance in community perception explained by facility availability. Maximum score of R² is 1, and a higher value of R² suggests a stronger relationship between the variables. Last, significance (Sig.) value determines the statistical significance of the analysis. The p-value should be less than 0.05 to be considered significant.

2.4. Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Peri-Urban Development

The spatiotemporal dynamics of the western Malang peri-urban area is examined using a descriptive approach, entailing an analysis of changes in community characteristics and peri-urban zoning. This analysis is synthesized through the calculation of the percentage of built-up land, providing a visual representation of the area’s developmental dynamics. The study investigates both the physical aspects of land use and socioeconomic development, aiming to gauge the extent of progress. Notably, it observes shifts in behavior among local and migrant populations, who increasingly gravitated toward urban-oriented amenities previously rural in nature. This shift reflects the impact of peri-urban development dynamics spanning from 2012 to 2022. Additionally, predictive analysis is conducted for a 10-year horizon, extending to 2032, focusing on the physical aspects of land use.

3. Results

Malang is the second-largest city in East Java, the major business and industrial center in the easternmost part of Java. The city has three main functions, described as Tri Bina Cita as education, industry, and tourism [67]. Malang was planned since the Dutch colonialism era as a tourism city [68], for it is known for its geographical location surrounded by various natural landscapes ranging from mountains, waterfalls, and beaches. Current inhabitants of Malang City are close to 900,000 with an area of 11,060 ha. Land use in Malang City is dominated by urban area (5609.9 ha), followed by agricultural area (2420.9 ha), open space and tree canopy (439.9 ha), as well as shrub areas (110 ha) [69]. Built-up areas in Malang City took up a total of 6902.7 ha in the form of commercial buildings, housing and settlements, factories and industrial areas, and terminals, as well as public facilities. On the other hand, unbuilt-up area comprised waterways, botanical gardens, urban farms, sports fields, public cemeteries, and barren areas. A land-use map of Malang City can be observed in Figure 1.

The peri-urban area of western Malang is experiencing rapid growth, influenced by high accessibility to the main city and balanced by the urbanization process and the development of residential settlements. Large-scale housing development will greatly affect the development of surrounding land. This can be seen, for example, in Karangwidoro village, Dau subdistrict, where there is a large-scale housing estate, Villa Puncak Tidar–Green. The existence of this housing also encourages the construction of new small-scale housing in the surrounding area. Housing developers who build in suburban areas are usually not only intended for lower- and middle-class communities, but are now also intended for the upper class with large-scale housing types. This is supported by adequate infrastructure and emerging urban facilities so that urban character appears in rural areas as peri-urban areas.

3.1. Land-Use Change Analysis

The research site spans 2877 hectares and is composed of diverse land-use types. Changes in land use are evident through the expansion and growth of built-up areas, along with transformations of rice fields or vacant land into residential, educational, industrial, commercial, and service zones. The substantial increase in built-up land from 2012 to 2022 is notable, particularly in the western Malang peri-urban area. In 2012, built-up land expanded by 44.88%, amounting to 656.89 hectares, whereas by 2022, it reached 55.17%, totaling 808.33 hectares. Further specifics regarding built-up and non-built-up areas are detailed in

Table 3. Changes in built-up area of Malang peri-urban area.

No.	Village	Land Area in 2012 (Ha)		Land Area in 2022 (Ha)		Changes in Built-Up Area	Percentage (%)
		Built-Up	Non-Built Up	Built-Up	Non-Built Up
Dau Subdistrict
1	Mulyoagung	143.35	152.65	166.02	129.98	22.67	19.26
2	Landungsari	100.3	197.7	130.81	167.19	30.51	25.92
3	Karangwidoro	79.48	283.52	98.05	264.95	18.57	9.61
4	Kalisongo	74.47	419.45	104.02	376	43.47	45.20
Total		397.6	1053.32	498.9	935.81	117.69	100.00
Wagir Subdistrict
5	Pandanlandung	74.73	330.27	81.42	79.90	6.69	13.34
6	Jedong	64.98	291.02	74.62	79.04	9.64	19.23
7	Sidorahayu	64.72	357.28	88.79	78.96	24.07	48.01
8	Sitirejo	54.86	202.14	64.6	74.86	9.74	19.43
Total		259.29	259.29	309.43	312.76	50.14	100.00
Grand Total		656.89	2234.03	808.33	1250.88	165.36

.

Based on the data table above, the area of built-up land in Dau subdistrict that experienced the highest change was in Kalisongo village with a change in built-up land from 2012 to 2022, which amounted to 45% or 53.2 Ha. The village that experienced the lowest change was in Karangwidoro village from 2012 to 2022, which amounted to 9.61% or 18.57 Ha. The area of built-up land in Wagir subdistrict that experienced the highest change was in Sidorahayu village with a change in built-up land from 2012 to 2022 with a percentage of 24.07% or an area of 48.01 Ha. Meanwhile, the village that experienced the lowest change was Pandanlandung village with a percentage of 13.34% or an area of 6.69 Ha.

An analysis using ArcGIS was conducted to identify and assess spatial changes between 2012 and 2022. The analysis utilized a land-use map encompassing both developed and undeveloped areas. The focus of the study was to determine land-use changes in the peri-urban region of western Malang during the specified timeframe, aiming to elucidate patterns of change. The results of the analysis indicate significant expansion of built-up land in the western Malang area over the decade, with residential areas experiencing particularly rapid change. Specifically, there was a notable increase of 167.83 hectares, representing approximately 17% growth in built-up land. The land-use change between 2012 and 2022 can be observed in Figure 2.

3.2. Zoning Typology of the Western Peri-Urban Area of Malang

The structure of the peri-urban area of western Malang using the land-use triangle theory: continuum. The zonification of the peri-urban area of western Malang uses land-use data that are further divided into the percentage proportion of agricultural and non-agricultural land. The results of the zonification of the peri-urban area structure in 2012 can be observed in

Table 4. Zonification analysis of western Malang peri-urban area (2012).

No.	Village	Land Area of Non-Farm Activities	Percentage of Non-Farm Activities	Land Area of Agricultural Activities	Percentage of Agricultural Activities	Peri-Urban Zone
Dau Subdistrict
1	Mulyoagung	143.35	48.43	152.65	51.57	Rural–urban frame zone
2	Landungsari	100.3	33.66	197.7	66.34	Rural–urban frame zone
3	Karangwidoro	79.48	21.90	283.5	78.10	Rural frame zone
4	Kalisongo	74.47	15.08	405.5	84.49	Rural frame zone
Wagir Subdistrict
5	Pandanlandung	74.73	18.45	330.27	81.55	Rural frame zone
6	Jedong	64.98	18.25	291.02	81.75	Rural frame zone
7	Sidorahayu	64.72	15.34	357.28	84.66	Rural frame zone
8	Sitirejo	54.86	21.35	202.14	78.65	Rural frame zone

.

In 2012, the typology of the peri-urban area revealed that, on average, villages retained their rural character, with exceptions noted in Landungsari and Mulyoagung villages. These particular villages exhibited urban features, a transformation attributed to their strategic locations, which have significantly influenced peri-urban development over the past decade. The results of the zonification of the peri-urban area structure in 2022 can be observed in

Table 5. Zonification analysis of western Malang peri-urban area (2022).

No.	Village	Land Area of Non-Farm Activities	Percentage of Non-Farm Activities	Land Area of Agricultural Activities	Percentage of Agricultural Activities	Peri-Urban Zone
Dau Subdistrict
1	Mulyoagung	166.02	56.09	129.98	43.91	Urban–rural frame zone
2	Landungsari	130.81	43.90	167.19	56.10	Rural–urban frame zone
3	Karangwidoro	98.05	27.01	264.95	72.99	Rural–urban frame zone
4	Kalisongo	104.02	21.67	376	78.33	Rural frame zone
Wagir Subdistrict
5	Pandanlandung	81.42	20.10	323.58	79.90	Rural frame zone
6	Jedong	74.62	20.96	281.38	79.04	Rural frame zone
7	Sidorahayu	88.79	21.04	333.21	78.96	Rural frame zone
8	Sitirejo	64.6	25.14	192.4	74.86	Rural–urban frame zone

.

According to the typology table of the peri-urban area in 2022, it is evident that each village exhibits distinct zoning characteristics. This is discernible through the degree of land-use change, specifically the proportion of agricultural and non-agricultural land utilized to delineate urban and rural attributes. Urban areas typically lack agricultural land, while rural areas feature abundant agricultural activity. Such growth occurred due to the fact that some local universities enroll more students during the years 2012–2022, therefore causing an increase in student migration that brought diverse needs and preferences. High level of student migration allows bigger economic opportunities and housing facilities to flourish, as well as a betterment of infrastructure development and, therefore, changes in land-use patterns.

In Mulyoagung village, Dau subdistrict, the highest level of urbanization (urban–rural frame zone) is observed, where non-agricultural land use predominates due to the prevalence of urban settlements. Conversely, Karangwidoro and Landungsari villages, categorized under the village–urban zone, are transitioning toward urbanization. This transition is evident in the activity intensity within the peri-urban area, as reflected in building density, where higher densities correlate with urban characteristics. Conversely, in the peri-urban area of Wagir subdistrict, Jedong, Pandanlandung, and Sidorahayu villages remain predominantly rural (village frame zone), as agriculture occupies a larger proportion of land compared to non-agricultural use. Sitirejo, however, stands out as a developed village in the village–city frame zone, signaling its nascent urban nature. The prediction of peri-urban zonification in 2032 can be observed in

Table 6. Zonification prediction of western Malang peri-urban area (2032).

No.	Village	Land Area of Non-Farm Activities	Percentage of Non-Farm Activities	Land Area of Agricultural Activities	Percentage of Agricultural Activities	Peri-Urban Zone
Dau Subdistrict
1	Mulyoagung	192	64.96	104	35.04	Urban–rural frame zone
2	Landungsari	171	57.26	127	42.74	Rural–urban frame zone
3	Karangwidoro	121	33.33	242	66.67	Rural–urban frame zone
4	Kalisongo	107	22.30		77.70	Rural frame zone
Wagir Subdistrict
5	Pandanlandung	89	21.98	316	78.02	Rural frame zone
6	Jedong	86	24.16	270	75.84	Rural frame zone
7	Sidorahayu	122	28.87	300	71.13	Rural frame zone
8	Sitirejo	76	29.60	181	70.40	Rural–urban frame zone

.

The table above illustrates varying degrees of urban development in each village, shaped by distinct centrifugal, centripetal, and lateral factors. These factors, unique to each village, collectively influence the landscape. In summary, based on the 2022 land-use data, the development trajectory of the eight villages in the peri-urban region of western Malang is notably influenced by expansive housing projects and settlement initiatives, alongside the establishment of service facilities. The map of zonification analysis can be observed in Figure 3.

The peri-urban zonification map above indicates a prevalent trend of zone changes, particularly transitioning from rural to urban, more prominently observed in Dau Subdistrict. This shift is evident in several villages, previously categorized as rural frame zones in 2012, now classified as urban–rural frame zones and urban–rural frame zones by 2022. Conversely, Wagir subdistrict displays fewer notable changes, aside from Sitirejo village. This highlights the enduring dominance of rural characteristics in Wagir subdistrict, contrasted with the prevalence of urban traits in Dau subdistrict. Analyzing predictive calculations of the projected increase in built and unbuilt land area by 2032 based on the map reveals significant transformations in both Dau and Wagir subdistricts. Notably, rural features begin to diminish as urban characteristics increasingly shape the evolving city landscape.

3.3. Settlement Pattern and Community Perception in Peri-Urban Areas

Annual changes in land-use result in alterations in the attributes of areas previously designated for agriculture, transforming into residential settlements. These shifts in settlement patterns manifest through various characteristics. Independently constructed settlements tend to exhibit irregular patterns, whereas systematically planned developments are typically characterized by uniformity. An example of peri-urban settlement patterns can be observed in Karangwidoro village. In Dau subdistrict, Karangwidoro, Kalisongo, Landungsari, and Mulyoagung villages feature a diverse land-use mix, encompassing housing, commerce, services, recreation, terminal facilities, and agriculture. These villages demonstrate urban characteristics, particularly evident in housing, commerce, and services. Similarly, in Wagir subdistrict, Sitirejo, Jedong, Pandanlandung, and Sidorahayu villages display a similar array of land use including housing, commerce, services, recreation, and agriculture. With population densities exceeding 2500 people per square kilometer, these villages are considered part of the peri-urban area. The total population and density of the research area can be observed in

Table 7. The total population and density of peri-urban area in Malang.

No.	Village	Area (Ha)	Total Population	Population Density
1	Mulyoagung	296	15,550	52,534
2	Landungsari	405	9575	23,642
3	Karangwidoro	363	6830	18,815
4	Kalisongo	480	8256	17,200
5	Pandanlandung	298	9168	30,765
6	Jedong	356	8268	23,225
7	Sidorahayu	422	9592	22,730
8	Sitirejo	257	9929	38,634
TOTAL		2877	77,168	26,822

.

Increasing population signifies an increased demand for essential service amenities to accommodate activities such as education, worship, healthcare, commerce, and services. In 2012, the population of the peri-urban area in west Malang stood at 65,660 individuals, which escalated by 11,508 people to reach 77,168 by 2022. This ongoing population growth is attributed to factors like migration and urbanization, including students relocating from outside the region, thus amplifying the necessity for supportive service infrastructure. An analysis was conducted to assess the extent of change in facility numbers across the western Malang peri-urban area, classifying villages that underwent the most significant changes. This analysis utilized data on facilities such as healthcare, commerce and services, places of worship, and educational institutions from both 2012 and 2022. Key facilities in the peri-urban area encompass educational institutions, places of worship, healthcare facilities, and commercial and service establishments. The number of facilities in the research area in 2012 and 2022 can be observed in

Table 8. Number of facilities in 2012 and 2022.

No.	Village	Number of Facilities in 2012				Number of Facilities in 2022
		Education	Health	Trade	Worship	Education	Health	Trade	Worship
1	Mulyoagung	12	2	288	46	12	2	587	58
2	Landungsari	4	1	186	25	6	3	468	31
3	Karangwidoro	3	0	47	21	5	0	97	30
4	Kalisongo	4	1	49	20	6	0	98	23
5	Pandanlandung	4	0	140	14	5	0	151	25
6	Jedong	3	1	92	26	3	2	94	30
7	Sidorahayu	5	1	112	30	5	2	124	28
8	Sitirejo	5	0	125	25	5	3	143	27
TOTAL		40	6	1039	207	47	12	1762	252

, while the classification level can be observed in

Table 9. Level of change in the number of peri-urban area facilities.

No.	Village	Class Range	Classification of Level of Change in Number of Facilities
1	Mulyoagung	3	High
2	Landungsari	2	Medium
3	Karangwidoro	1	Low
4	Kalisongo	1	Low
5	Pandanlandung	1	Low
6	Jedong	1	Low
7	Sidorahayu	1	Low
8	Sitirejo	1	Low

.

The analysis of changes in the number of facilities in the peri-urban area reveals that Mulyoagung village ranks highest compared to other villages. This is likely due to its strategic location between Malang City and Batu City, coupled with its extensive range of socioeconomic activities. The use of facilities has evolved over time, reflecting a blend of village and urban services. The substantial increase in facilities in the peri-urban area by 2022 indicates growing interactions between villages and cities, positioning the area as a suburban or peri-urban zone. The extent of these interactions depends on proximity to the city center; the farther from the city center, the weaker the interaction. This interaction zone forms concentric circles, starting from the city center and extending outward to the village areas.

In general, the characteristics of peri-urban areas in Dau subdistrict are characterized as urban areas. This is because community activities are dominated by non-agricultural activities and there are many urban facilities to meet community needs such as health facilities, education facilities, worship facilities, and trade and service facilities. Meanwhile, Wagir subdistrict is still dominated by rural areas due to its activities as an agricultural sector. The results of the analysis of community perceptions in the peri-urban area of west Malang can be observed in

Table 10. Data distribution analysis summary.

Number	Village	Variable	Mean	Std. Deviation	Validity	Result Percentage
1.	Mulyoagung	Feeling of living in the city	4.70	0.470	Valid	5 = 70%, 4 = 30%
		Facilities in the village are like those in the city	4.85	0.366	Valid	5 = 85%, 4 = 15%
2.	Landungsari	Feeling of living between the village and the city	4.65	0.489	Valid	5 = 65%, 4 = 35%
		Facilities in the village are mixed between town and village facilities	4.65	0.489	Valid	5 = 65%, 4 = 35%
3.	Karangwidoro	Feeling of living between the village and the city	4.70	0.470	Valid	5 = 70%, 4 = 30%
		Facilities in the village are mixed between town and village facilities	4.65	0.489	Valid	5 = 65%, 4 = 35%
4.	Kalisongo	Feeling of living in the village	4.40	0.503	Valid	5 = 60%, 4 = 40%
		Village facilities	4.45	0.510	Valid	5 = 55%, 4 = 45%
5.	Pandanlandung	Feeling of living in the village	4.70	0.470	Valid	5 = 70%, 4 = 30%
		Facilities in the village are like those in a typical village	4.85	0.366	Valid	5 = 85%, 4 = 15%
6.	Jedong	Feeling of living in the village	4.70	0.470	Valid	5 = 70%, 4 = 30%
		Facilities in the village are like those in a typical village	4.65	0.489	Valid	5 = 65%, 4 = 35%
7.	Sidorahayu	Feeling of living in the village	4.70	0.470	Valid	5 = 70%, 4 = 30%
		Facilities in the village are like those in a typical village	4.65	0.489	Valid	5 = 65%, 4 = 35%
8.	Sitirejo	Feeling of living between the village and the city	4.65	0.489	Valid	5 = 65%, 4 = 35%
		Facilities in the village are mixed between town and village facilities	4.65	0.489	Valid	5 = 65%, 4 = 35%

.

Data distribution analysis indicates that Dau subdistrict exhibits distinct urban characteristics. Mulyoagung village, in particular, shows the highest percentage of urban-oriented responses, with residents feeling as though they live in a city and perceiving village facilities as comparable to urban amenities. In contrast, within Wagir subdistrict, Sitirejo village is closer to urban characteristics compared to the other predominantly rural villages, with residents feeling they live in a mixed urban–village environment and the facilities reflecting both urban and rural attributes.

Overall relationship between community perception (dependent variable, Y) and facility availability (independent variable, X) are examined using simple linear regression analysis. Model summary and ANOVA analysis of community perception can be observed in

Table 11. Model summary of community perception and facility availability.

Model	R	R Square	Adjusted R Square	Std. Error of the Estimate
1	0.702 a	0.493	0.465	0.383

a: Predictors: (Constant), Facility_Availability.

and

Table 12. ANOVA ^a analysis of community perception analysis.

Model		Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
1	Regression	2.564	1	2.564	17.510	<0.001 b
	Residual	2.636	18	0.146
	Total	5.200	19

a: Dependent variable: Community_Perception; b: Predictors: (Constant), Facility_Availability.

. R value of 0.702 indicates a strong positive relationship between facility availability and community perception. This means that as facility availability improves, community perception tends to increase. An R² value of 0.465 indicates that approximately 46.5% of the variance in community perception can be explained by facility availability, while the remaining 53.5% is composed of other factors not included in this model.

The p-value (Sig.) of 0.001 in

Table 13. Coefficients table.

Model		Unstandardized B	Coefficients Std. Error	Standardized Coefficients Beta	T	Sig.
1	(Constant)	3.569	1.015		3.518	0.002
	Facility availability	0.513	0.123	0.702	4.184	<0.001

indicates the relationship between community perception and facility availability is statistically significant for it is below 0.05. This significance score proves that although other variables are needed to explain community perception and behavioral analysis, it is noted that the relationship is not due to random chance, underscoring the reliability of these findings for policymaking and planning decisions.

In addition to peri-urban community perceptions, observations were made regarding the behavior of local communities and migrants. The perceptions of peri-urban communities differ between locals and migrants, influenced by interactions between village and city environments. These interactions impact both groups, affecting how they utilize available facilities despite differences in social status. The facilities themselves shape the behaviors of local residents and migrants. For example, places of worship facilitate interactions between local and migrant residents who gather in one place, and the presence of urban-style trade and services benefits the surrounding population.

4. Discussion

The 2012 land-use map indicates that the built-up area in the peri-urban region of west Malang was 23%, or 656.89 hectares, with the remaining 77%, or 2234 hectares, being non-built-up land. In recent years, this area has seen an increase in built-up land by 17%, reaching 808.33 hectares. This shift reflects a transition from rural to urban land use, with the new built-up areas being utilized for residential purposes, offices, commerce, and services.

The analysis of the peri-urban typology over 30 years, encompassing eight villages, reveals that Mulyoagung village emerged as a prominent urban frame zone by 2022, exhibiting the highest urban characteristics among the villages. This is corroborated by the analysis of facility changes, where Mulyoagung shows the highest classification, supported by factors such as its strategic location and diverse activities.

The development dynamics of the peri-urban area of western Malang were analyzed to assess the level of development in 2012, 2022, and projected for 2032. Figure 4 illustrates the development dynamics of peri-urban areas in each village from 2012, 2022, to 2032.

The graph above illustrates the development dynamics of the peri-urban area from 2012, 2022, and projected to 2032, showing varying degrees of growth across different villages. Notably, Kalisongo village experienced only a slight increase in development compared to other villages in the peri-urban area of western Malang. In contrast, Mulyoagung village exhibited the highest development percentage at 64.96%.

Significant development in the peri-urban area is observed in several locations, particularly along Sengkaling Street in Mulyoagung village, Dau subdistrict. This area is densely populated with a variety of buildings supporting diverse activities, including boarding houses, hotels, convenience stores, offices, retail shops (clothing, shoes, cosmetics, counters), stalls, cafes, laundries, and recreational parks. These activities highlight the urban characteristics dominated by trade and service sectors rather than agricultural activities. Additionally, the presence of universities and easy accessibility has attracted many migrants to settle in the area, necessitating a range of facilities to support their activities. Consequently, both the built environment and the range of activities in the area have become increasingly diverse.

The dynamics of development that occur from the physical and socioeconomic aspects also show the behavior of local residents and migrants. The mixing of urban villages causes interaction between residents and migrants due to the utilization of urban facilities that make the area a peri-urban area. The economic impact that occurs in peri-urban areas is seen from changes in the mindset of people who used to rely solely on agricultural products and ponds but now there are more types of community businesses, which also has positive and negative impacts [70]. The social impact that occurs in the peri-urban areas has developed from initial mutual cooperation and gathering activities to individual activities.

The meeting between urban and rural characteristics in one area makes people develop small clusters according to their social class both between ordinary housing and developer housing. In addition, the social aspect is also related to the spatial aspect of the impact of suburban areas, namely seen from infrastructure development. The existence of road infrastructure development makes suburban areas an investment zone, where the rich are attracted, and most low-income people are usually displaced due to economic conditions, which greatly affects their socio-spatial status [71,72]. This will affect objective and subjective quality of life conditions. The impact of road construction in peri-urban areas differs according to the context of its location [73]. Therefore, residents perceive the impact on the scope of their quality of life differently [74]. Moreover, the impact of road infrastructure on subjective quality of life is particularly important in peri-urban areas, albeit with limited assessment in the literature. The construction of new or upgraded road infrastructure is one of the main factors leading to decreased social interaction and networks in suburban areas. This encourages the construction of gated housing and informal development [73,75].

The following is a combination of several results obtained from analyses looking at the relationship of land use, zoning, facility use, community behavior, and making directions that are in accordance with the dynamic character of the development of each village in the peri-urban area of western Malang. The summary of the findings can be observed in

Table 14. Result summary of peri-urban characteristics.

No.	Village	Zonification	Facility Use Change Rate	Community Perception	Direction
1	Mulyoagung	Urban–Rural Frame Zone	High	Feeling of living in the city	Urban Development
				Facilities in the village are like those in the city
2	Landungsari	Rural–Urban Frame Zone	Medium	Feeling of living between the village and the city	Peri-urban Development
				Facilities in the village are mixed between town and village facilities
3	Karangwidoro	Rural–urban frame zone	Low	Feeling of living between the village and the city	Peri-urban development
				Facilities in the village are mixed between town and village facilities
4	Kalisongo	Rural frame zone	Low	Feeling of living in the village	Rural development
				Village facilities
5	Pandanlandung	Rural frame zone	Low	Feeling of living in the village	Rural development
				Facilities in the village are like those in a typical village
6	Jedong	Rural frame zone	Low	Feeling of living in the village	Rural development
				Facilities in the village are like those in a typical village
7	Sidorahayu	Rural frame zone	Low	Feeling of living in the village	Rural development
				Facilities in the village are like those in a typical village
8	Sitirejo	Rural–urban frame zone	Low	Feeling of living between the village and the city	Peri-urban development
				Facilities in the village are mixed between town and village facilities

.

In conclusion, there is a significant relationship and potential causal effect between community perceptions and the zonification that occurred in peri-urban area of Malang City. Community perceptions influence local policy-making and development decisions, driving the direction and nature of land-use changes. When residents have positive perceptions of urbanization, it often leads to increased support for infrastructure projects, residential developments, and commercial expansions, thus accelerating land-use change from the rural frame zone to urban frame zone. Conversely, negative perceptions can lead to resistance and preservation of rural characteristics. This relationship is supported by evidence from surveys, case studies, and participatory planning processes, which show that community feedback directly impacts planning outcomes. Consequently, understanding and integrating community perceptions into planning processes is crucial for sustainable and accepted land-use transformations in peri-urban areas.

5. Conclusions

The peri-urban area of western Malang exhibits dynamic development, with varying rates of urbanization across different villages. In 2012, most of the region was classified as a village frame zone, with only Mulyoagung and Landungsari showing signs of peri-urban development. By 2022, Mulyoagung had become more urbanized, while other villages such as Karang Widoro and Sitirejo displayed a mix of rural and urban characteristics. Projections for 2032 indicate that Mulyoagung and Landungsari will be urban, Karang Widoro, Sidorahayu, and Sitirejo will be peri-urban, and Kalisongo, Pandanlandung, and Jedong will remain rural. Housing development, urban facilities, and community perceptions contribute to this shift. The northern part of the area shows the most significant changes due to better accessibility and the presence of universities.

Building on the findings from this research, follow-up studies can further enhance the understanding and planning of peri-urban dynamics in Malang City. The impact of policy interventions through comparative analysis with different policy frameworks will allow researchers to best understand best practices for sustainable development and the mitigation of negative impacts associated with rapid urbanization in intermediate cities. Technological integration and environmental impact assessment can support the implementation of smart city initiatives and assess the potentials for improving infrastructures, service delivery, and overall quality of life for peri-urban residents.