Interaksi Wilayah di Kawasan Strategis Nasional (Perbatasan) dalam Kerangka Jaringan Perkotaan

*Syaiful Muazir -  Program Studi Arsitektur, Fakultas Teknik, Universitas Tanjungpura, Indonesia
Received: 14 Jan 2018; Published: 30 Apr 2019.
Open Access
Citation Format:
Article Info
Section: Articles
Language: ID
Full Text:
Statistics: 348 32
Abstract
To support the development of lagging areas (border areas), the Government of Indonesia has encouraged urban areas in the border to become strategic areas with certain development priorities. These specified areas could become a growth center for "transferring" the development outputs to the other areas. One of the border regency in West Kalimantan Province is Sambas Regency. There are two categories of "strategic areas" in this regency, that is Sambas District (the regency’s capital city) as a tourism strategic area, and border area (Temajuk and Aruk) as the National Strategic Activities Center. Expectedly, these two strategic areas could interact more balanced and equally in regional development. This research deals with preliminary exploration which aims to identify the tendency of regional interaction in the strategic areas. Interaction is considerably important for the lagging areas in the border to  distribute development outputs from other areas. This study applies the principle approach of network analysis by using different network types such as technical networks (infrastructure), transactional networks, and social networks. The results show that the interaction between developed and lagging areas has not been optimal yet. Sambas District is more attracted to the south closing to the provincial capital city while the border areas more attached to neighboring countries as well as other advanced (internal) areas next to the border.
Keywords
areas; border; interaction; network; strategic

Article Metrics:

  1. Albrechts, L., & Seymour, M. (2005). The network society: A new context for planning. (L. Albrechts & M. Seymour, Eds.) (First Edit). New York and London: Routledge.
  2. Badan Pusat Statistik (BPS) Kabupaten Sambas. (2017). Kabupaten Sambas dalam angka tahun 2017. Sambas: Badan Pusat Statistik Kabupaten Sambas.
  3. Bassi, I., Zaccarin, S., & De Stefano, D. (2014). Rural inter-firm networks as basis for multifunctional local system development: Evidence from an Italian alpine area. Land Use Policy, 38, 70–79. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.10.021.
  4. Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). UCINET for Windows: Software for social network analysis. Harvard, MA.
  5. Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Johnson, J. C. (2013). Analyzing social networks (First Edition). California: SAGE Publications Ltd.
  6. Clarke, N. (2009). Networks, urban. In R. Kitchin & N. Thrift (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Human Geography. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  7. Dale, C. (2003). The competitive networks of tourism e-mediaries: New strategies, new advantages. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 9(2), 109–118. doi:10.1177/135676670300900201.
  8. Downs, J. A., & Horner, M. W. (2012). Probabilistic potential path trees for visualizing and analyzing vehicle tracking data. Journal of Transport Geography, 23, 72–80. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.03.017.
  9. Edmonds, E. A. (2007). Reflections on the nature of interaction. CoDesign International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts, 3(3), 139–143. doi:10.1080/15710880701251427.
  10. Glasson, J., & Marshall, T. (2007). Regional planning. Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge.
  11. Hadas, Y. (2013). Assessing public transport systems connectivity based on Google Transit data. Journal of Transport Geography, 33, 105–116.
  12. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2013.09.015.
  13. Hedaa, L., & Törnroos, J.-Å. (2008). Understanding event-based business networks. Time & Society, 17(2–3), 319–348. doi:10.1177/0961463X08093427.
  14. Heydebrand, W. (1999). The network metaphor as key to the analysis of complex production and service relations in a global economy. New York. Retrieved from https://d-nb.info/1024490335/34.
  15. Knoke, D., & Yang, S. (2008). Social network analysis. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Ltd.
  16. Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607–610. doi:10.1177/001316447003000308.
  17. Lobo-Guerrero, L. (2012). Connectivity as the strategization of space – the case of the Port of Hamburg. Distinktion: Scandinavian Journal of Social Theory, 13(3), 310–321. doi:10.1080/1600910X.2012.697860.
  18. Miller, N. J., Besser, T., & Malshe, A. (2007). Strategic networking among small businesses in small US communities. International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 25(6), 631–665. doi:10.1177/0266242607082525.
  19. Muazir, S., & Hsieh, H.-C. (2013). Borderlands and tourism development in Kalimantan Island: Kalimantan Barat, Indonesia - Sarawak, Malaysia “Head to Head.” Journal of Design And Built Environment, 13, 1–12. Retrieved from https://ejournal.um.edu.my/index.php/jdbe/article/view/5336/3125.
  20. Muazir, S., & Hsieh, H.-C. (2016). Social activity and adaptive urban network in strategic areas in Indonesia. Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management, 11(3), 62–77. Retrieved from https://econpapers.repec.org/article/romterumm/v_3a11_3ay_3a2016_3ai_3a3_3ap_3a62-77.htm.
  21. Muazir, S., Hsieh, H.-C., & Lestari, L. (2014). Infrastructure network in a strategic region: Transportation connectivity and accessibility in Sambas Regency, West Kalimantan. In Border and Development International Conference, Pontianak, Indonesia. Pontianak: Universitas Tanjungpura.
  22. Murdock, C. (2010). Changing places: Society, culture, and territory in the Saxon-Bohemian Borderlands, 1870-1946. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
  23. Nazara, S., Hewings, G. J. D., & Sonis, M. (2006). An exploratory analysis of hierarchical spatial interaction: The case of regional income shares in Indonesia. Journal of Geographical Systems, 8(3), 253–268. doi:10.1007/s10109-005-0016-3.
  24. Neuman, M. (2006). Infiltrating infrastructures: On the nature of networked infrastructure. Journal of Urban Technology, 13(1), 3–31. doi:10.1080/10630730600752728.
  25. Oliveira, M., & Gama, J. (2012). An overview of social network analysis. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 2(2), 99–105. doi:10.1002/widm.1048.
  26. Pache, G. (1990). The role of small business in the development of network organisation: The case of France. International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 8(4), 71–76. doi:10.1177/026624269000800405.
  27. Scott, N., Baggio, R., & Cooper, C. (2008). Network analysis and tourism from theory to practice. (C. Cooper, C. M. Hall, & D. Timothy, Eds.). Clevedon/Buffalo/Toronto: Channel View Publications.
  28. Simmie, J. (2002). Trading places: Competitive cities in the global economy. European Planning Studies, 10(2), 201–214. doi:10.1080/09654310120114490.
  29. Sokol, M. (2009). Regional connectivity. In R. Kitchin & N. Thrift (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Human Geography (Vol. 9, pp. 165–180). Oxford: Elsevier.
  30. Staeheli, U. (2012). Listing the global: Dis/connectivity beyond representation? Journal of Social Theory, 13(3), 233–246. doi:10.1080/1600910X.2012.724646.
  31. Takahashi, K., & Sakamoto, A. (2000). Assessing social relationships in adolescents and adults: Constructing and validating the affective relationships scale. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 24(4), 451–463. doi:10.1080/016502500750038008.
  32. Tinsley, R., & Lynch, P. (2001). Small tourism business networks and destination development. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 20(4), 367–378. doi:10.1016/S0278-4319(01)00024-X.
  33. Todeva, E. (2006). Business networks, strategy and structure. Routledge.
  34. Vega, A. (2012). Accessibility and the local concentration of economic activity: A case study for county Galway. Irish Geography, 45(1), 25–44. doi:10.1080/00750778.2012.729917.
  35. Wasti-Walter, D. (2009). Borderlands. Elsevier Ltd.