Activity Responses on Favorite Places for Young Adults

Finta Lissimia


Architects and urban planners use place theory to plan and design space. Multiple interpretations of place theory result in impractical design concepts. This problem can be solved by studying people's behavior as a user of space. Collective activity helps planners design spaces suited best for the user. This study aims to find out activity response on a favorite place to find a pattern regarding activity in a particular place. Quantitative methods are used to fulfill the purpose of the study. Data will be collected by online questionnaire. Young adult respondent was chosen because it represents the majority of people using a variety of places. The relationship between activity and a specific type of place can be seen as feedback for future architectural design or as foresight for regional planning based on activity. The result shows that many activities in the favorite place can be categorized into low tension and high tension. Low tension activities represent several activities that seem to be done for restorative purposes. Meanwhile, high tension activities represent several activities that corporate mind and body actively. Low tension activity correlates more with a favorite place than high tension activity.

Full Text:



Najafi M, Mohd Sahriff MK. The concept of place and sense of place in architectural studies. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 2011;56:187-93.

Jorgensen BS, Stedman RC. Sense of place as an attitude: lakeshore owners’ attitudes toward their properties. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2001;21:233-48.

Casakin H, Billig M. Effect of settlement size and religiosity on sense of place in communal settlement. Environment and Behavior 2009;41:821-35.

Newell PB. Aa cross-cultural examination of favorite place. Environment and Behavior 1997;29:495- 514.

Korpela KM, Hartig T, Kaiser FG, Fuhrer U. Restorative experience and self-regulation in favorite place. Journal of Environment and Behavior 2001;33:572-89.

Korpela KM. Negative mood and adult place preference. Environment and Behavior 2003;35:331-46.

Sari AA, Kusuma HE, Tedjo B. Tempat favorit mahasiswa sebagai sarana restorative. Jurnal Lingkungan Binaaan 2012;1:1-14.

Chapman JA, Robertson M. Adolescents favourite places : redefining the boundaries between private and public space. Space and Culture 2009;12:419-34

Lewicka M. Place attachment : how far have we come in the last 40 years?. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2011;31:207-30.

Malinowski JC, Thurber CA. Developmental shifts in the place preferences for boys aged 8-16 years. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1996;16:45-54.

Murdy JJ, Gibson HJ, Yiannakis A. Predicting nature-based tourist roles: a life span perspective. Proceedings of the 2002 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium 2002; p.179-83.

Berk LE. Development through the lifespan. 4th Ed. Boston MA: Allyn and Bacon; 2007, chapter 14

Sokol JT. Identity development throughout the lifetime: an examination of eriksonian theory. Graduate Journal of Counseling Psychology 2009; 1.

Kumar R. Research Methodology A Step-by-Step Guide for Beginners. London : SAGE Publications Ltd; 2005.

Lissimia F. Favorite Places of Indonesian Young Adults. International Journal of Built Environment and Scientific Research 2018;2:15-26.

Hashem H, Abbas YS, Akbar HA, Nazgol, B. Between sense and attachment: Comparing the concepts of place in architectural studies. Geografia-Malaysian Journal of Society and Space 2017;9.1.

Kim M, Lee S. Fostering place attachment through selecting and presenting favorite places. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education 2019;28.4: 296-308.

Lissimia, F. Cognitive Response on Favorite Place Case Study of Indonesian Young Adults. International Journal on Livable Space 2020;5.1:21-32.


  • There are currently no refbacks.
Powered by Puskom-UMJ