Applied Mechanics and Materials Vol. 747 (2015) pp 180-183 © (2015) Trans Tech Publications, Switzerland doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.747.180 Submitted: 24.10.2014 Revised: 25.10.2014 Accepted: 25.10.2014 Assessing the Residents’ Preference of Awareness Regarding Urban Agriculture at Rooftop Garden Neda Jafari1, , Mohd Yazid Mohd Yunos1,b* , Md Azree Othuman Mydin2,c and Osman Mohd Tahir1,d 1 Department of Landscape Architecture, Faculty Design and Architecture, University Putra Malaysia, Malaysia 2 School of Housing, Building and Planning, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800, Penang, Malaysia a neda_jafari65@yahoo.com, bmohdyazid@upm.edu.my, cazree@usm.my dosmanmt@upm.edu.my Keywords: Preference, Awareness, Urban agriculture, Rooftop Garden Abstract. Roof garden can be used as natural environment in an urban setting. Rooftop agriculture with green roof systems can become an attractive possibility. The aesthetic value of green roofs is considered important in cities where roof escapes are dominated by gray color and unattractive structures. The instant objective of this research was to examine on question: What is the resident’s preference of awareness regarding urban agriculture at rooftop garden? The purpose of this study is to understand the resident’s preference of awareness regarding urban agriculture at rooftop garden. The awareness and potential of rooftop urban agriculture are examined. In this research a method presented quantitative - survey questionnaire distributed among of residents in The Heritage condominium in Selangor and Sri Putramas 2 in Kuala Lumpur. The result is expected to lead towards cognition and awareness to elevate sustainable building and promoting the usage of urban agriculture at rooftop gardening residential building. In conclusion of this research contain the result of survey questionnaire that related to awareness of urban agriculture at rooftop garden who residents take part in the survey are agree with this section. Furthermore, this study help to residents for receive a perfect environmental in their live area. Introduction Construction industry in urban city is also contributes destroying the environment simultaneously [1]. During the last few decades, due to climatic changes and especially the heat island effect in urban areas as well as continuing removal of green area, there have been frequent references to their ecological character and their contribution to energy conservation in the building sector [2]. Roof garden or green roof is a roof with vegetative cover, trees, shrubs, grass and even frat vegetable that can be used as natural environment in an urban setting [3]. In spite of the high demand for urban agriculture, it is vulnerable to the development of agriculture. Rooftop agriculture with green roof systems can become an attractive possibility [4, 5] To set up compulsory planning permissions or designing subsidy systemsfor this type of green technology by designers and planners the people’s preference ad expectations are extremely important [6,7,8]. The rooftop garden is very useful for a healthy environment [9, 10, 11]. Roof gardens are useful in reducing runoff and can provide better water quality [12,13,14]. The urban agricultural is under transition due to changes in cultivation systems, urban settlement, energy production and delivery, as well as land abandonment [15]. All rights reserved. No part of contents of this paper may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without the written permission of TTP, www.ttp.net. (ID: 60.54.48.202-01/03/15,10:08:39) Applied Mechanics and Materials Vol. 747 181 Methodology This study evaluates the awareness of the people who live in buildings and having a green space to the heights (rooftop).The theory becomes a framework for the entire study, an organizing model for the research question or hypothesis and for the data collection procedure. The study finally adopted a technique to gather quantitative data i.e. questionnaire survey. In this study use of two case study in Malaysia which located in the Selangor area and Kuala Lumpur area.1.The Heritage, Seri Kembangan, Selangor, 2. Royal Domain Sri Putramas 2, Kuala Lumpur. The sample size for this study was demonstrated as 382 people, a whole number. The number of the population of both the Heritage and Sri Putramas 2 was different. It also reduced the number of units divided by the total number and we'll answer obtained by multiplying the 382 (sample size) which 110 respondents from the Heritage and 272 respondents from the Sri Putramas 2. Results and Discussion i. Residents’’ Awareness about urban agriculture at the Heritage condominium and Sri2 Putramas2 Condominium The result of the table (1) shows that from the population of 110 who participated in the survey questionnaire the mean value of awareness about urban agriculture is 3.77 (neither strongly disagree nor strongly agree) and the mean of the awareness of the production of urban agriculture is 4.02 (agree). The table illustrates that from the minimum 1.00 and maximum 5.00 the mean for the question that like to know more about urban agriculture is 3.74 in the Heritage. Also, this result shows that the mean of the question that the urban agriculture is a local food system, including the production, processing, distribution, consumption section is 3.92 (neither strongly disagrees nor strongly agrees). In addition, this table represents from 110 respondents the mean value is 4.20 of the questions that urban agriculture is significant and environmentally positive and this also shows that of the minimum 1.00 and maximum 5.00 their mean value is 4.12 for urban agriculture is advancement in the sustainability of energy use in manufacturing section. Moreover, this table demonstrates that the mean value of the question that the urban agriculture is advancement in the economic sectors is 4.06 and the mean value of urban agriculture reduces our monthly expenses of residents is 3.93 in the Heritage. Besides, the results from the table (2) show that from 272 respondents the mean value of knowing about urban agriculture is 3.60 (neither strongly disagree nor strongly agree) in Sri Putramas 2 and the mean value of knowing the production of urban agriculture is 3.99 in this case study. Also, this output illustrates that the mean of the question that like to know more about urban agriculture is 3.51 in this condominium and the mean of urban agriculture is a local food system which includes the production, processing, distribution, consumption is 3.96 (neither strongly disagree nor strongly agree). Additionally, this table shows that of minimum 2.00 and maximum 5.00 mean is 4.19 for the question that the urban agriculture is significant and environmentally positive section in Seri Putramas2 and the mean of urban agriculture is advancement in the sustainability of energy use in manufacturing section is 4.19 (agree) in Sri Putramas 2. Moreover, the result shows that the mean of the question that urban agriculture is advancement in the economic sectors section is 4.09 with minimum 2.00 and maximum 5.00 in this case study. Also, the mean of urban agriculture reduces our monthly expenses of residents section is 4.01 (agree) in Sri Putramas 2. 182 Advances in Green Science, Engineering and Built Environment Table 1. Awareness about urban agriculture (The Heritage) Descriptions N Mean Std. Deviation I know about urban agriculture 110 3.77 1.12 I know the production of urban agriculture 110 4.02 .95 I like to know more about urban agriculture 110 3.74 1.06 local food system which, in the production, processing, distribution, consumption 110 3.92 .86 significant and environmentally positive 110 4.20 .83 an advancement in the sustainability of energy use in manufacturing 110 4.12 .89 an advancement in the economic sectors 110 4.06 .86 reduce our monthly expenses of residents 110 3.93 .94 Valid N (list wise) 110 Table 2. Awareness about urban agriculture (Sri Putramas2) N 272 Mean 3.60 Std. Deviation 1.24 I know the production of urban agriculture I like to know more about urban agriculture local food system which, in the production, processing, distribution, consumption significant and environmentally positive 272 3.99 1.00 272 3.51 1.30 272 3.96 .92 272 4.19 .81 an advancement in the sustainability of energy use in manufacturing 272 4.19 .86 an advancement in the economic sectors reduce our monthly expenses of residents Valid N (list wise) 272 4.09 .93 272 4.01 .93 I know about urban agriculture 272 Summary The rooftop garden has a positive impact on environmental issues. Also, Malaysian people perpend aesthetic value this technology. Thus, rooftop gardens are increasing in Malaysia. Thus, The Heritage condominium in Selangor and Sri Putramas 2 condominium in Kuala Lumpur describe awareness about rooftop garden and about urban agriculture in these condominiums. The majority of residents were strongly agreed with the awareness about urban agriculture and rooftop garden in the Heritage condominium and Sri Putramas 2 condominiums. Finally, this research illustrate that the majority of residents who are participate in this survey questionnaire, they have awareness about urban agriculture at roof top garden in two condominiums. In conclusion, this Applied Mechanics and Materials Vol. 747 183 study help to residents for receive a beautiful landscape on roof of their condominium using urban agriculture plants and it help to people for have a perfect environmental in their live area while can help each city to support Malaysia government for food security. References [1] Bianchini, F., & Hewage, K. (2012). Probabilistic social cost-benefit analysis for green roofs: A lifecycle approach. Building and Environment, 58, 152-162.. [2] Theodosiou, T. G. (2003). Summer period analysis of the performance of a planted roof as a passive cooling technique. Energy and Buildings, 35(9), 909-917. [3] Kosareo, L., & Ries, R. (2007). Comparative environmental life cycle assessment of green roofs. Building and environment, 42(7), 2606-2613. [4] Kortright, R. (2001). Evaluating the potential of green roof agriculture. City Farmer. Report on MSc Thesis, Trent University, Canada. Available at http://www.cityfarmer.org/greenpotential. html [5] Gómez-Limón, J., &Fernández, J. V. D. L. (1999). Changes in use and landscape preferences on the agricultural-livestock landscapes of the central Iberian Peninsula (Madrid, Spain). Landscape and Urban Planning, 44(4), 165-175. [6] Zube, E. H., Sell, J. L., & Taylor, J. G. (1982). Landscape perception: researchapplication and theory. Landscape planning, 9(1), 1-33. [7] Fernandez-Cañero, R., Emilsson, T., Fernandez-Barba, C., & Herrera Machuca, M. Á. (2013). Green roof systems: A study of public attitudes and preferences in Southern Spain. Journal of environmental management, 128, 106-115 [8] Lee, K. E., Williams, K. J., Sargent, L. D., Farrell, C., & Williams, N. S. (2014). Living roof preference is influenced by plant characteristics and diversity. Landscape and Urban Planning, 122, 152-159. [9] Dvorak, B., & Volder, A. (2010). Green roof vegetation for North American ecoregions: a literature review. Landscape and urban planning, 96(4), 197-213. [10] Berndtsson, J. C., Bengtsson, L., &Jinno, K. (2009). Runoff water quality from intensive and extensive vegetated roofs. Ecological Engineering, 35(3), 369-380 [11] Hussin, K., & Raid, M. M. (2013). The Assessment of Rooftop Garden in Green Building Index (GBI). In 4th International Conference on Business and Economic Research (4th icber 2013) Proceeding. Bandung, Indonesia. [12] Rowe, D. B., Getter, K. L., & Durhman, A. K. (2012). Effect of green roof media depth on Crassulacean plant succession over seven years. Landscape and Urban Planning, 104(3), 310319. [13] Liu, K. (2004). Sustainable Building Envelope–Garden Roof System Performance. In RCI Building Envelope Symposium, New Orleans, Louisiana. [14] Getter, K. L., & Rowe, D. B. (2006). The role of extensive green roofs in sustainable development. Hort Science, 41(5), 1276-1285. [15] Grammatikopoulou, I., Pouta, E., Salmiovirta, M., &Soini, K. (2012). Heterogeneous preferences for agricultural landscape improvements in southern Finland. Landscape and Urban Planning, 107(2), 181-191. View publication stats