Komparasi sentralitas pusat kegiatan pada kota dan kabupaten di Provinsi Kalimantan Barat

Syaiful Muazir, Lestari Lestari, Muhammad Nurhamsyah, Muhammad Ridha Alhamdani

Abstract

Wilayah merupakan jaringan perkotaan dan setiap kota dalam wilayah saling berhubungan. Struktur keruangan wilayah dibentuk oleh jaringan yang menghubungkan titik pusat aktivitas dengan saluran penghubung berupa garis infrastruktur. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengidentifikasi sentralitas pusat kegiatan pada kota dan kabupaten di Provinsi Kalimantan Barat. Perbandingan kemudian dilakukan untuk mengupas hubungan antara pusat-pusat kegiatan dengan pusat kegiatan hirarki tertinggi pada kota dan kabupaten. Analisis jaringan digunakan untuk mengidentifikasi sentralitas dengan menghitung derajat, kedekatan, keantaraan, dan vektor eigen. Temuan penelitian menunjukkan lima jenis kecenderungan, yaitu: (1) cenderung berada di tengah, (2) cenderung berada di perbatasan, (3) tersebar, (4) cenderung dekat (melekat) dengan ibu kota/kabupaten, dan (5) cenderung meluas. Jenis paling banyak di Provinsi Kalimantan Barat adalah pada tipologi perbatasan. Sementara itu, tidak ditemukan tipologi sentralitas pusat kegiatan yang cenderung melekat dengan pusat kegiatan utama pada kota dan kabupaten di Provinsi Kalimantan Barat.

Keywords

Network; West Kalimantan; Region; Centrality

Full Text:

PDF

References

[1] Pemerintah Republik Indonesia. Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah (RTRW) Nasional 2008.

[2] Glasson J, Marshall T. Regional Planning. New York: Routledge; 2007.

[3] Sokol M. Regional Connectivity. In: Kitchin R, Thrift N, editors. International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, Oxford: Elsevier; 2009, p. 165–80. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008044910-4.00863-4.

[4] Staeheli U. Listing The Global: Dis/Connectivity Beyond Representation? Distinktion: Journal of Social Theory 2012;13:233–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/1600910X.2012.724646.

[5] Sun D (Jian), Zhao Y, Lu Q-C. Vulnerability Analysis of Urban Rail Transit Networks: A Case Study of Shanghai, China. Sustainability 2015;7:6919–36. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7066919.

[6] Park K, Yilmaz A. A Social Network Analysis Approach to Analyze Road Networks. American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ASPRS) Annual Conference, San Diego: 2010.

[7] Sevtsuk A, Mekonnen M. Urban Network Analysis. A New Toolbox for ArcGIS. Revue Internationale de Géomatique 2012;22:287–305. https://doi.org/10.3166/rig.22.287-305.

[8] Taylor P, Derudder B. World City Network: A Global Urban Analysis. 2nd Edition. London: Routledge; 2015.

[9] Zhong C, Arisona SM, Huang X, Batty M, Schmitt G. Detecting the Dynamics of Urban Structure Through Spatial Network Analysis. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 2014;28:2178–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2014.914521.

[10] Lee S-H, Choi J-Y, Yoo S-H, Oh Y-G. Evaluating Spatial Centrality for Integrated Tourism Management in Rural Areas Using GIS and Network Analysis. Tour Manag 2013;34:14–24. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.03.005.

[11] Irwin MD, Hughes HL. Centrality and the Structure of Urban Interaction: Measures, Concepts, and Applications. Social Forces 1992;71:17–51. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/71.1.17.

[12] Porta Sergio and Latora V and SE. Networks in Urban Design. Six Years of Research in Multiple Centrality Assessment. In: Estrada Ernesto and Fox M and HDJ and OG-L, editor. Network Science: Complexity in Nature and Technology, London: Springer London; 2010, p. 107–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84996-396-1_6.

[13] Davies WKD. Centrality and the Central Place Hierarchy. Urban Studies 1967;4:61–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420986720080041.

[14] Badan Pusat Statistik Provinsi Kalimantan Barat. Provinsi Kalimantan Barat dalam Angka 2020. Pontianak: BPS Provinsi Kalimantan Barat; 2020.

[15] Badan Informasi Geospasial. Geospasial untuk Negeri 2023. https://tanahair.indonesia.go.id/unduh-rbi/#/ (diakses pada 12 Januari, 2024).

[16] Pejabat Pengelola Informasi dan Dokumentasi Pemerintah Provinsi Kalimantan Barat. Gambaran Umum Aspek Geografis Kalimantan Barat. PPID Provinsi Kalimantan Barat n.d. https://ppid.kalbarprov.go.id/?public=profil-daerah (diakses pada 3 Januari, 2024).

[17] Newsome DJ. Centrality in its Place: Defining Urban Space in the City of Rome. In: Driessen M, Heeren S, Hendriks J, Kemmers F, Visser R, editors. TRAC 2008: Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference, vol. 0, Oxford: Oxbow Books; 2009, p. 25–38. https://doi.org/10.16995/trac2008_25_38.

[18] Cutini V. Centrality and Land Use: Three Case Studies on the Configurational Hypothesis. Cybergeo: European Journal of Geography 2001. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4000/cybergeo.3936.

[19] Zhao S, Zhao P, Cui Y. A Network Centrality Measure Framework for Analyzing Urban Traffic Flow: A Case Study of Wuhan, China. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications 2017;478:143–57. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2017.02.069.

[20] Anas A, Arnott R, Small KA. Urban Spatial Structure. J Econ Lit 1998;36:1426–64.

[21] Cicerchia A. Measures of Optimal Centrality: Indicators of City Effect and Urban Overloading. Soc Indic Res 1999;46:273–99. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006808506878.

[22] Chiaradia A, Hillier B, Schwander C, Wedderburn M. Spatial Centrality, Economic Vitality/Viability Compositional and Spatial Effects in Greater London. In: Koch D, Marcus L, Steen J, editors. Proceedings of the 7th International Space Syntax Symposium, Stockholm: KTH; 2009.

[23] Siddall WR. Wholesale-Retail Trade Ratios as Indices of Urban Centrality. Econ Geogr 1961;37:124–32. https://doi.org/10.2307/141843.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.20961/region.v19i1.61885

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.