Sektor Unggulan dan Interaksi Antarwilayah pada Kawasan Strategis Nasional Perkotaan MEBIDANGRO

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14710/jwl.5.3.181-187

Article Metrics: (Click on the Metric tab below to see the detail)

Article Info
Published: 29-12-2017
Section: Articles
Fulltext PDF Tell your colleagues Email the author
This research aims to analyze the priority sectors in MEBIDANGRO districts and their regional hierarchy and interactions. It used a quantitative descriptive method based on secondary data. The priority sectors were analyzed using Location Quotient (LQ), Shift-Share (S-S), and Klassen Typology. For analyzing the regional hierarchy, the research employed scalogram analysis and Marshall centrality index. The regional interactions were determined by gravitation and breaking point analysis methods. The results show that the regions in MEBIDANGRO have two distinctive priority sectors, namely primary sector specialization and sector diversification. The research also found that Percut Sei Tuan District performs at the highest hierarchy with the strongest influence on regional interactions.

Keywords

MEBIDANGRO; priority sector; regional hierarchy; regional interaction

  1. Mulhady Putra 
    Fakultas Geografi, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
  2. Sri Rum Giyarsih 
    Fakultas Geografi, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
  3. Andri Kurniawan 
    Fakultas Geografi, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
  1. Basuki, Y., Akbar, R., Pradono, P., & Miharja, M. (2013). Komunitas online: Pergeseran terminologi komunitas dari Geddesian menuju era informasi dalam konteks perencanaan transportasi perkotaan. Tata Loka, 15(1), 63–75. doi: 10.14710/tataloka.15.1.63-75.
  2. Giyarsih, S. R. (2012). Koridor antar kota sebagai penentu sinergisme spasial. Tata Loka, 14(2), 90–97. doi: 10.14710/tataloka.14.2.90-97.
  3. Giyarsih, S. R. (2014). The role of Yogyakarta and Surakarta cities in the intensity of the regional transformation of two villages located in the Yogyakarta-Surakarta corridor. Romanian Review of Regional Studies, X(1), 15–22. Retrieved from http://rrrs.reviste.ubbcluj.ro/arhive/v10n12014.html.
  4. Giyarsih, S. R., & Fauzi, N. (2016). Factors that affect urban sprawl symptoms in Sub Urban Areas of Yogyakarta. In The 8th International Graduate Students and Scholars’ Conference in Indonesia (IGSSCI). Yogyakarta: Universitas Gadjah Mada.
  5. Hamidah, N., Rijanta, R., Setiawan, B., & Marfai, M. A. (2014). Kajian transportasi sungai untuk menghidupkan kawasan tepian Sungai Kahayan Kota Palangkaraya. Tata Loka, 16(1), 1–17. doi: 10.14710/tataloka.16.1.1-17.
  6. Handayeni, K. D. M. E., & Ariastita, P. G. (2014). Keberlanjutan transportasi di Kota Surabaya melalui pengembangan TOD (Transit Oriented Development). Tata Loka, 16(2), 108–115. doi: 10.14710/tataloka.16.2.108-115.
  7. Kuncoro, M. (2002). Analisis Spasial dan Regional: Studi Aglomerasi & Kluster Industri Indonesia. Yogyakarta: UPP AMP YKPN.
  8. La Mahi. (2009). Analisis Hierarki Pusat-Pusat Pelayanan pada Pewilayahan Pembangunan di Kabupaten Muna. Yogyakarta: Universitas Gadjah Mada.
  9. Mehrtens, J. M. (2007). Regional Marketing: Buku Panduan untuk Menarik Investasi Melalui Aliansi Pembangunan Daerah. Jakarta: Konrad Adenauer Stiftung.
  10. Richardson, H. W. (1973). Elements of Regional Economics. Middlesex: Penguin Education.
  11. Sriartha, I. P., & Giyarsih, S. R. (2015). The effect of regional development on the sustainability of local irrigation system (A case of subak system in Badung Regency, Bali Province). Forum Geografi, 29(1), 31–40. doi: 10.23917/forgeo.v29i1.789.
  12. Talitha, T., & Hudalah, D. (2014). Model kerjasama antar daerah dalam perencanaan sistem transportasi wilayah. Tata Loka, 16(4), 194–208. doi: 10.14710/tataloka.16.4.194-208.
  13. Yunus, H. S. (2008). Dinamika Wilayah Peri Urban, Determinan Masa Depan Kota. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.