SMART CITY DAN (RE)PRODUKSI RUANG: ANALISIS IMPLEMENTASI SMART CITY DI BALI DAN YOGYAKARTA
Abstract
Smart city is the is the integration of technology infrastructure, development strategies for social/human capital, and a network of stakeholders to ensure the city’s interest. It is implemented to help government overcome urbanisation problems. However, the massive use of ICT in smart city raises questions on production of space in urban areas. Thus, this research aims to examine how production of space occurs in smart cities in Indonesia, namely in Badung (Bali), Sleman, and Bantul Regencies (Yogyakarta). Using qualitative multiple-case studies, this research characterised smart cities studied as proposed by Giffinger and Gudrun and analyzes them in the Lefebvrian’s concept of production of space. Data was collected in two stages: observation of smart city services on the official website and semi-structured interviews with smart city users in the three cities studied. The results show that the three official websites provide smart city services, although further development is required. Although, informants in this study knew about the program, their use of the services is limited due to technical obstacles, lack of interest, and lack of socialization of the services. As conclusion, the implementation of smart cities in three cities is still at the normative and top-down policy level. Hence, citizen might not understand or need these services. Regarding the production of space in smart cities, this research concludes that it occurs in spatial space and representational space. Therefore, the right to the city in the production of space to live and solve the city's social and economic problems is crucial.
Keywords: Production of Space, City, Smart city, Yogyakarta, Bali
AbstrakSmart city adalah tata kelola kota yang mengintegrasikan infrastruktur teknologi, strategi pengembangan modal sosial/manusia, dan jaringan pemangku kepentingan untuk menjamin kepentingan kota. Smart city diterapkan untuk membantu pemerintah mengatasi permasalahan urbanisasi. Namun, masifnya penggunaan TIK di kota pintar menimbulkan pertanyaan mengenai produksi ruang di kawasan perkotaan. Oleh karena itu, penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengkaji bagaimana produksi ruang terjadi di smart city di Indonesia, yaitu di Kabupaten Badung (Bali), Sleman, dan Bantul (Yogyakarta). Dengan menggunakan pendekatan kualitatif studi kasus ganda, penelitian ini mengelompokkan kota pintar berdasarkan karakteristik smart city yang ditawarkan oleh Giffinger dan Gudrun, kemudian menganalisisnya dalam konsep produksi ruang Lefebvrian. Pengumpulan data dilakukan melalui dua tahap yaitu observasi layanan smart city di website resmi dan wawancara semi terstruktur terhadap pengguna smart city di tiga kota yang diteliti. Hasilnya menunjukkan bahwa ketiga situs resmi tersebut telah menyediakan layanan smart city, meskipun masih diperlukan pengembangan lebih lanjut. Meskipun informan dalam penelitian ini mengetahui tentang program ini, namun penggunaan layanan tersebut masih terbatas karena kendala teknis, kurangnya minat pengguna, dan kurangnya sosialisasi mengenai layanan tersebut. Berdasarkan temuan penelitian, dapat disimpulkan bahwa penerapan smart city di tiga kota tersebut masih berada pada level kebijakan normatif dan bersifat top-down. Oleh karena itu, masyarakat mungkin tidak memahami atau bahkan membutuhkan layanan ini. Terkait produksi ruang di smart city, penelitian ini menyimpulkan hal ini terjadi pada ruang spasial dan ruang representasional. Oleh karena itu, hak atas kota dalam produksi ruang bagi warga kota untuk hidup dan menyelesaikan permasalahan sosial dan ekonomi kota menjadi sangat penting.Kata Kunci: Produksi Ruang, Kota, Kota Pintar, Yogyakarta, Bali
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Aji, A. P., & Kausan, B. Y. (2020). Komunitas Satoe Atap: Produksi Ruang Sosial Bagi Anak Jalanan Di Kawasan Simpang Lima Semarang. Jurnal Analisa Sosiologi, 9. https://doi.org/10.20961/jas.v9i0.39816
Albino, V., Berardi, U., & Dangelico, R. M. (2015). Smart cities: Definitions, dimensions, performance, and initiatives. Journal of urban technology, 22(1), 3-21.
Anastasiu, I. (2019). Unpacking the smart city through the lens of the right to the city: A taxonomy as a way forward in participatory city-making. The hackable city: Digital media and collaborative city-making in the network society, 239-260.
Bantul, P. K. (2005). Peraturan Daerah (PERDA) Kabupaten Bantul Nomor 14 Tahun 2005 tentang Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Panjang Daerah Kabupaten Bantul Tahun 2006 – 2025. Bantul, Yogyakarta: Sekretaris Daerah Kabupaten Bantul.
Bantul, P. K. (2021). Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Daerah Tahun 2021-2026 No 6/2021. Bantul,, Yogyakarta: Sekretaris Daerah Kabupaten Bantul.
Brynskov, M., Bermúdez, J. C. C., Fernandez, M., Korsgaard, H., Mulder, I., Piskorek, K., . . . de Waal, M. (2014). Urban interaction design: Towards city making. Urban IxD Booksprint(96).
Chourabi, H., Nam, T., Walker, S., Gil-Garcia, J. R., Mellouli, S., Nahon, K., . . . Scholl, H. J. (2012). Understanding smart cities: An integrative framework. Paper presented at the 2012 45th Hawaii international conference on system sciences.
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions: Sage Publications. Inc.
De Lange, M., & De Waal, M. (2017). Owning the city: New media and citizen engagement in urban design Urban land use (pp. 109-130): Apple Academic Press.
Foth, M., & Brynskov, M. (2016). Participatory action research for civic engagement. Civic media: Technology, design, practice, 563-580.
Galič, M., & Schuilenburg, M. (2020). Reclaiming the smart city: Toward a new right to the city. Handbook of smart cities, 1-18.
Gibson, C. L., Zhao, J., Lovrich, N. P., & Gaffney, M. J. (2002). Social integration, individual perceptions of collective efficacy, and fear of crime in three cities. Justice quarterly, 19(3), 537-564.
Harvey, D. (2015). The right to the city The city reader (pp. 314-322): Routledge.
Heng, T. M., & Low, L. (1993). The intelligent city: Singapore achieving the next lap: Practitoners forum. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 5(2), 187-202.
Hepworth, M. E. (1987). The information city. Cities, 4(3), 253-262. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0264-2751(87)90033-3
Kitchin, R., Cardullo, P., & Di Feliciantonio, C. (2019). Citizenship, justice, and the right to the smart city The right to the smart city (pp. 1-24): Emerald Publishing Limited.
Lefebvre, H., Kofman, E., & Lebas, E. (1996). Writings on cities. Cambridge, Mass, USA: Blackwell Publishers Cambridge, Mass, USA.
Lefebvre, H., & Nicholson-Smith, D. (1991). The production of space (Vol. 142): Oxford Blackwell.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Neirotti, P., De Marco, A., Cagliano, A. C., Mangano, G., & Scorrano, F. (2014). Current trends in Smart City initiatives: Some stylised facts. Cities, 38, 25-36.
Oliveira, Á., & Campolargo, M. (2015). From smart cities to human smart cities. Paper presented at the 2015 48th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
Pamungkas, A. S. (2016). Produksi ruang dan revolusi kaum urban menurut Henri Lefebvre. Lembar Kebudayaan Indoprogress, LKIP Edisi, 31.
Purcell, M. (2014). Possible worlds: Henri Lefebvre and the right to the city. Journal of urban affairs, 36(1), 141-154.
Ratti, C., & Townsend, A. (2011). The Social Nexus. The best way to harness a city’s potential for creativity and innovation is to jack people into the network and get out of the way. Scientific American, New York.
Setiawan, A. (2017). Produksi Ruang Sosial sebagai Konsep Pengembangan Ruang Perkotaan Kajian atas Teori Ruang Henry Lefebvre. Haluan Sastra Budaya, 33(11), 10-20961.
Smilor, R. W., Gibson, D. V., & Kozmetsky, G. (1989). Creating the technopolis: High-technology development in Austin, Texas. Journal of business Venturing, 4(1), 49-67.
Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods: Sage publications.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
