Compact or Fragmented? The Development of Spatial Pattern in Southern Peri Urban Area of Surakarta City Using Spatial Metric Analysis

Surakarta City is experiencing rapid development of urban agglomeration that extends beyond the city’s administrative boundaries. The spatial development in Surakarta City tends to the south, which strengthens this area as peri-urban Surakarta. The peri-urban area has a massive and sporadic land development phenomenon. This research aims to see the development of spatial patterns in the southern peri-urban area of Surakarta using spatial metric analysis and qualitative descriptive analysis. Metric spatial analysis is used to quantify the characteristics of spatial pattern development. At the same time, descriptive analysis is used to see the spatial direction of spatial pattern development. The results of the analysis show the tendency of agricultural areacharacteristics in all areas to be increasingly fragmented due to the penetration of built-up area. Meanwhile, the character of built-up area tends to be more cohesive and compact, with random and linear growth patterns following the main road.


Introduction
Urbanization is the gradual growth of settlements into large urban concentrations [1].Urbanization represents a natural symptom of urban development that is synonymous with economic growth and industrialization [2].In other conditions, there are areas that have not experienced the urbanization process.These areas are called rural areas, which have different characters and tend to contrast with urban areas.
Urban and rural areas have transitional areas that are widely agreed upon using the term periurban.Peri-urban shows unique symptoms because it is an interaction and transition between areas with urban characteristics and areas with rural characteristics [3].Peri-urban areas are a manifestation of various multidimensional symptoms, namely land use, social, economic, and environmental.Periurban areas are also places where various spatial phenomena arise due to urban growth.A common phenomenon that occurs is urban sprawl.Urban sprawl is a form of disorder and randomness [4].Urban sprawl leads to 'endless' cities that are unreachable by the pedestrian scale and inconsistent development of urban built-up area and sporadic availability of open space [5].Meanwhile, when viewed from the type of urban form [6], the tendency of the type of urban form formed due to the expansion of urban growth is towards compact, dispersed, fragmented, and extensive tendencies.The terms compact and fragmented are the two terms that seem the most opposite.Compact emphasizes efficient use of space by intensifying land and maximizing density, encouraging mixeduse [7].At the same time, fragmentation shows a picture of land inefficiency.The phenomenon of land fragmentation occurs when a vacant lot is filled, and it will always leave another irregular vacant lot [8].Symptoms of peri-urbanization also cause excessive fragmentation and conversion of agricultural areafor various purposes.Land resources are increasingly limited and scarce and should be able to be utilized to the fullest but instead continue to be sacrificed for other interests until the ecological environment deteriorates [9].Meanwhile, in this research location, Kartasura District and Grogol District are the most vulnerable Districts of the five Districts that directly border Surakarta City in the south [10].
Cities on Java Island show dominant empirical symptoms compared to other islands in Indonesia.The development of urbanization in Java Island does not only occur in large cities such as Jakarta and Surabaya but this symptom is also experienced in much smaller urban areas such as Surakarta City [11].Surakarta City is administratively the most populous city in Central Java.This is because Surakarta City only has an area of 44.04 km 2 but is inhabited by 523,008 people in 2022.
This condition causes the administrative boundary of Surakarta City to be dominated by built-up area.Land development within the city is no longer possible because the land is already very limited.Meanwhile, the demand for space is still very high.Finally, the high demand for space has caused the built-up area to expand outside the administration of Surakarta City and form a more extensive urban system.Surakarta's urban growth continues to expand into peri-urban areas and form agglomerations.Surakarta's urbanization increased by 84% from 2002 to 2017 [12].However, spatially, the physical development of Surakarta urban urbanization tends to move to the south and west [13].Administratively, the southern and western areas of Surakarta City are directly adjacent to several subdistricts in Sukoharjo Regency, namely Kartasura, Grogol, Baki, and Mojolaban.Locally, these four sub-districts can be said to be the southern peri-urban area of Surakarta City because Sukoharjo Regency is administratively located in the south of Surakarta City.
As a general symptom of urban sprawl, the southern area will also tend to experience irregularities.If the irregularity is not intervened, the city will develop in an unplanned manner, and the land will be built sporadically and unbalanced.In addition, the southern region also has issues related to the sustainability of agricultural areas.Therefore, the southern peri-urban area must be able to describe and estimate its pattern to anticipate and produce more accurate policies.
Currently, many analyses have attempted to describe spatial patterns, especially with the help of GIS software.However, none have been able to quantitatively describe and provide a 'status' of spatial patterns based on time series land use inputs.Spatial Metrics with fragstat software is able to describe the development trend of spatial patterns and provide a compact or fragmented status.Compact and fragmented statuses are important and suitable for peri urban areas because the main issue of these areas is irregular and sporadic land development.Therefore, this research aims to describe the development of spatial patterns in the southern peri urban area of Surakarata City using metric spatial analysis.However, this research also combines descriptive qualitative to complement the explanation of metric spatial analysis to make it more visible spatially.

Data & Interpretation
This research is located in the southern peri-urban of Surakarta city.Administratively, the area is not in Surakarta City but in Sukoharjo Regency.The analysis unit uses five Districts that are directly adjacent to Surakarta City in the south, namely Kartasura, Grogol, Baki, and Mojolaban Districts (figure 1).This research is supported using secondary data from satellite imagery to see land use in 2014, 2018, and 2022.The analysis was conducted with two approaches, the first being descriptive quantitative using the results of the spatial metric analysis.Interpretation focused on the two most opposite land covers, namely agriculture and built-up land.Both land covers are able to show the real interaction of the development of spatial patterns where there will always be a process of converting agricultural land for other purposes.The flow of the quantitative descriptive method is explained in the diagram in Figure 2 below.Meanwhile, qualitative descriptive is done to see the direction of spatial development by looking at the comparison of three land cover maps in 2014, 2018, and 2022.

Figure 2. Method Framework
The results of the metric spatial analysis in this study produced five codes, namely PD, PLAND, COHESION, MESH, and SPLIT.A description of the five codes can be seen in table 1 below.interpretation is based on the development trend of each code in three years.The trend is expressed as a percentage.

Spatial Metric Methods
In academia, there are several identical uses of the term ' metric,' namely landscape metric, geospatial metric, and spatial statistics.The use of the three terms is based on different scientific backgrounds.Landscape Metric is used in environmental studies; geo-spatial metric is used by urban planners and geographers.At the same time, spatial statistics is commonly used in mathematics and statistics [14].The Spatial Metric is a helpful approach in spatial modeling studies and remote sensing studies [15].
The spatial metric is able to produce clear information in order to identify and interpret land use dynamics.In addition, the spatial metric is able to show urban growth trends to urban sprawl characteristics so as to provide useful information to prevent urban sprawl problems [16].One of the software used to conduct spatial metric analysis is Fragstat.Fragstasts is software used for spatial pattern analysis that usually works to quantify landscape structure (composition and configuration) [17].
Spatial metrics provide new insights into urban spatial analysis.In Indonesia, there are already several authors who use this analysis, including [18] in the framework of a spatial model of regional growth.Meanwhile, [19] analyzed the spatial pattern of land use development.In general, this analysis is able to describe cohesiveness, compactness, and land fragmentation.

Kartasura Distric
From the analysis, it is known that Kartasura district has experienced several changes in the last eight years.In agricultural area, the changes are seen with an increase in the PD value, indicating that the distribution of agricultural area is increasing on each hectare of land.Meanwhile, the decrease in PLAND and COHESION values indicates a decrease in the area of agricultural area, where agricultural area begins to be divided and not physically connected or not compact.In this case, the farm plots have high complexity.High complexity is in line with the decreasing MESH and increasing SPLIT metrics, meaning that land continuity is low due to dispersion in land use and indicates land fragmentation.
Meanwhile, the use of built-up area and open space in Kartasura district shows the opposite phenomenon.Both lands experienced a decrease in PD values, meaning that the distribution of builtup area and open space is not thoroughly spread across the landscape.However, the increase in PLAND in both lands indicates that the distribution of built-up and open space use plots is getting denser and more comprehensive.In this case, the percentage of land area increased from year to year.COHESION values also increased, indicating that the continuity of built-up and open space is high, physically connected, and compact.This is because COHESION shows the physical relationship of built-up areas and how certain plot types are spread and dispersed.Likewise, the decreasing MESH and increasing SPLIT values indicate that both land uses are not fragmented.
The analysis results show that the symptoms of urban character development in Kartasura District are clearly visible.[20] Saw that Kartasura was generally dominated by secondary and primary periurban typologies.Meanwhile, a small part of the area is included in the rural peri-urban zone, or only a few that still show rural characteristics.The disappearance of rural characteristics can be confirmed by the existence of agricultural area, which is increasingly fragmented due to the penetration of built-up area.

Baki District
The results of the analysis show that Baki District has experienced several changes in the last eight years.This is shown by an increase in the PD value, indicating that the distribution of agricultural area is increasing.Meanwhile, the decrease in PLAND and COHESION values indicates a decrease in the area of agricultural area, where agricultural area is starting to be divided and not physically connected or not compact.This is also shown by the decreasing MESH and increasing SPLIT metrics, meaning that land continuity is low due to dispersion in land use.
On the other hand, the use of built-up area and open space shows the opposite phenomenon.The increasing values of PD and PLAND in both lands indicate that the distribution of built-up and open space use plots is getting denser and more comprehensive, with the land area increasing from year to year.The rising COHESION values also indicate that the continuity of built-up and open space is high and physically connected, forming clusters.Likewise, the decreasing MESH and increasing SPLIT values indicate that both land uses are not fragmented (Tables 2 and 3).

Grogol District
Grogol District has a different phenomenon than the other Districts.Grogol District is the location of a planned new city development, Solo Baru.This means that the phenomenon of urban character development in Grogol, accelerated by policy factors, does not necessarily occur naturally.There is also the issue of residential land segregation.New developments that come on a massive scale cannot fully integrate with pre-existing organic settlements [21].
The Solo Baru area is a new development area that focuses on residential development and trade and service centers.Large-scale activity centers such as shopping centers, malls, office centers, hotels, and luxury residential clusters were built massively in Solo Baru.These conditions show that the Solo Baru area is ready to become the new Central Business District (CBD) in the Surakarta region [22].
Agricultural area in Grogol District experienced an increase in PD values, indicating that the distribution of agricultural area is increasing on each hectare of land.Meanwhile, a decrease in PLAND and COHESION values indicates a decrease in the area of agricultural area, where agricultural area is starting to be divided and not compact.In this case, farmland patches have high complexity.High complexity is in line with the decreasing MESH and increasing SPLIT metrics, meaning that land continuity is low due to dispersion in land use and indicating land fragmentation.
Meanwhile, built-up area use in Grogol District shows the opposite condition.Both have decreased in terms of Dominant Distribution (PD) values, indicating that the distribution of built-up and open space is uneven across the area.However, there is an increase in the Percentage of Land Area (PLAND) for both land types, indicating that the distribution of built-up and open space use plots is getting denser and more extensive overall.In this case, the area of land used is increasing from year to year.The COHESION value is also increasing, indicating that the connectivity between built-up area and open space is high and compact.This is because the COHESION value reflects the physical interaction between open space and how certain types of plots are distributed and connected.Similarly, a decrease in the MESH value and an increase in the SPLIT value indicate that both types of land use are not fragmented (Table 4).

Mojolaban District
Mojolaban District is the most different from the previous three districts because it does not directly border the city of Surakarta but is physically bounded by the Bengawan Solo River.Although the area of Mojolaban District is connected to the city of Surakarta, the existence of a firm physical boundary in the form of a river reduces the influence of Surakarta's development in this area.
From the analysis, it is known that Mojolaban District has experienced several changes in the last eight years.In the case of agricultural area, the changes can be seen with an increase in the PD value, indicating that the distribution of agricultural area is increasing on each hectare of land.Meanwhile, the decrease in PLAND and COHESION values indicates a decrease in the area of agricultural area, where agricultural area is starting to be divided, not compact, and not physically connected.In this case, the farm plots have high complexity.High complexity corresponds with decreasing MESH and increasing SPLIT metrics, meaning that land continuity is low due to dispersion in land use and indicating land fragmentation.
The use of developed land and open space in the Mojolaban District shows the opposite phenomenon.Both have decreased in terms of Dominant Distribution (PD) values, indicating that the distribution of developed and open space is uneven across the area.However, there is an increase in the Percentage of Land Area (PLAND) of both land types, indicating that the distribution of built-up and open space use plots is getting denser and more widespread overall.In this case, the area of land used is increasing from year to year.The COHESION values are also increasing, indicating that the connectivity between built-up area and open space is high, compact, and physically connected.This is because COHESION values reflect the physical interactions between open space and the way in which certain types of plots are distributed and connected.Similarly, a decrease in the MESH value and an increase in the SPLIT value indicate that both types of land use are not fragmented (Table 5).

The Development of Spatial Pattern of Southern Peri-Urban Area of Surakarta City
In general, the results of the Spatial metric analysis show results that tend to be the same between districts in the Southern Peri-Urban Area of Surakarta City.Agricultural area is experiencing pressure due to the penetration of built-up area.Built-up area makes agricultural area increasingly fragmented.High land demand makes agricultural area plots divided and fragmented.It is increasingly difficult to find agricultural area in the southern peri-urban area of Surakarta City in a large and unified area.Meanwhile, the condition of built-up area and open space is getting stronger and more aggressive.The existence of built-up area and open space indicates the conversion of agricultural area.The existence of massive built-up area is growing rapidly.This growth is getting closer, merging, and clustering.The development of spatial patterns in the Districts of Kartasura, Grogol, and Baki generally tends to be concentric towards the city of Surakarta by developing towards the south.However, when viewed in more detail, concentric development is formed from linear pattern following the development of roads.The main roads that trigger development are the Solo-Jogja Road in Kartasura District, Ir Sukarno Road, and the Solo Wonogiri Road in Grogol District.The Mojolaban District tends to see the most significant linear pattern following collector roads (Figure 3).When comparing the results of the spatial matric analysis, it can be seen that in agricultural area, Kartasura district is the district with the most fragmented agricultural area.This can also be seen from the amount of agricultural area that has experienced the sharpest decline.Meanwhile, Mojolaban has the lowest level of fragmentation.The level of land fragmentation indicates high land conversion of agricultural area.High land fragmentation can also be attributed to the high population.Based on population growth data, Kartasura district is dominated by high levels of population growthmeanwhile, the Grogol district.Baki and Mojolaban districts are dominated by moderate to low levels of growth [23] (Table 6).Meanwhile, built-up area generally has symptoms of cohesion or compactness but at different levels.Surakarta District has the highest growth rate of built-up area and the highest population, but its cohesion or compactness value is low.This shows that the spatial pattern of built-up area in the Kartasura district tends to be random.This is similar to the findings of [24] that there are two patterns of settlement development in the Kartasura district, namely random and clustered.The random pattern is due to the mixing of settlements with other land uses.Meanwhile, clustered patterns occur due to the presence of activity centers and infrastructure in certain areas so that settlement land follows.This is also corroborated by the conclusion [25] that the southern periphery of Surakarta City has characteristics of mixed land use, branched road network patterns, diverse densities, and heterogeneous building patterns.
The cohesion or compactness of the Baki and Mojolaban districts is higher than Grogol and Kartasura because the dominance of land development tends to still be dominated by larger roads.This is actually an early symptom of the subsequent process experienced by the Kartasura and Grogol districts, which tend to be more random (Figure 4).

Conclusion
Spatial Metric analysis can provide a new approach to analyzing the spatial pattern of cities. Spatial matrices provide more detailed information on the spatial pattern trends of each land use or land cover derived from the interpretation of satellite image data.So far, the approach to looking at spatial patterns tends to be more qualitative by comparing subjectively on each land use map.
The results of the metric spatial analysis show that there is a decrease in agricultural area in all Districts and converted to built-up area.All Districts experienced symptoms of agricultural area fragmentation.However, the Kartasura district experienced the most decline in agricultural area area and the most fragmented agricultural area.Fragmentation due to built-up area tends to grow randomly and sporadically.Meanwhile, the cohesion or compactness value of built-up area is generally positive but not very high.This is still due to the same factor of random growth, but there is still a tendency to cluster on certain facilities or road networks so that the cohesion or compactness value of land is still positive.
When viewed qualitatively, the development of the spatial pattern of the southern peri-urban area of Surakarta City tends to be concentric, widening from the administrative boundary away and towards the south.However, when viewed more deeply, the concentric pattern is formed starting from a linear pattern that follows the main road, then develops more randomly, and then clusters and merges.Currently, the dominant linear pattern can still be seen in Baki and Mojolaban District.Meanwhile, Kartasura and Grogol Districts have passed the next stage, which tends to be more random.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.The location of the research

Figure 3 .
Figure 3.The Map of Development Land Use in 2014,2018, 2022

Figure 4 .
Figure 4.The abstraction of the development of spatial pattern in Southern Peri-Urban Area Surakarta

Table 1 .
Interpretation of Spatial Metric Analysis Results

Table 2 .
Results of Spatial Metric Analysis of Kartasura District

Table 3 .
Results of Spatial Metric Analysis of Baki District

Table 4 .
Results of Spatial Metric Analysis of Grogol District

Table 5 .
Results of Spatial Metric Analysis of Mojolaban District

Table 6 .
Table Comparison of tendency levels of fragmentation and cohesion or compactness