› Utama›Ada 12 Kota Raih Penghargaan... SEKAR GANDHAWANGI UNTUK KOMPAS Pemberian penghargaan Indeks Kota Cerdas Indonesia IKCI 2018 diberikan oleh Kompas di Jakarta, Rabu 9/1/2019. Penghargaan diberikan kepada sembilan kota di KOMPAS — Sebanyak 12 kota di Indonesia meraih penghargaan Indeks Kota Cerdas Indonesia 2018 yang diberikan Kompas, Rabu 9/1/2019. Penghargaan ini diberikan kepada kota-kota yang yang dinilai berhasil menerapkan konsep kota cerdas atau smart city.”Kota akan menjadi tujuan terakhir dalam pergerakan manusia. Sekarang ada sekitar 50 persen penduduk Indonesia yang tinggal di perkotaan. Perkembangan yang secara alamiah terjadi itu harus disertai dengan pengelolaan kota yang mumpuni bagi warga,” kata Pemimpin Redaksi Harian Kompas Ninuk Mardiana Pambudy di Jakarta. Penilaian untuk Indeks Kota Cerdas Indonesia IKCI 2018 dilakukan terhadap 93 kota otonom. Penilaian didasarkan pada data yang bersumber dari Badan Pusat Statistik dan sejumlah institusi resmi penilaian setara, kota-kota tersebut dibagi ke dalam empat kategori berdasarkan jumlah penduduk, yaitu Kota Metropolitan, Kota Besar, Kota Sedang, dan Kota Kecil. Hal itu sesuai dengan Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 26 Tahun 2008 tentang Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah Nasional. Skor penilaian berkisar dari angka 1 hingga GANDHAWANGI UNTUK KOMPAS Pemimpin Redaksi Harian Kompas Ninuk Mardiana Pambudy kanan berfoto bersama tiga wali kota pemenang Indeks Kota Cerdas Indonesia 2018 pada kategori Kota Metropolitan, yaitu Surabaya, Semarang, dan Tangerang Selatan, Rabu 9/1/2019, di kategori Kota Metropolitan, peringkat pertama IKCI 2018 diraih Surabaya dengan skor 67,03. Peringkat selanjutnya diraih Semarang dan Tangerang Selatan dengan skor 63,69 dan 61, pertama IKCI 2018 dalam kategori Kota Besar diraih Denpasar dengan skor 61,7. Surakarta dan Malang menyusul di peringkat kedua dan ketiga pada kategori yang sama dengan skor 61,5 dan 60, kategori Kota Sedang, peringkat satu diduduki Manado dengah skor 59,04. Salatiga dan Yogyakarta menyusul dengan skor 58,99 dan 58, Panjang meraih skor 55,15 pada kategori Kota Kecil dan meraih peringkat pertama. Sementara itu, Sungai Penuh dan Solok meraih peringkat selanjutnya dengan nilai 52,01 dan 51, enam dimensi penilaian IKCI 2018. Dimensi yang dimaksud adalah lingkungan smart environment, mobilitas smart mobility, pemerintah smart government, ekonomi smart economy, masyarakat smart people, dan kualitas hidup smart living.”Penekanan bobot penilaian IKCI 2018 ada pada pembangunan manusia dan manfaatnya untuk masyarakat,” kata juga Mengukur Kota, Menyejahterakan WargaGeneral Manager Litbang Kompas Harianto Santoso menyatakan, IKCI pertama kali diperkenalkan Kompas pada tahun 2015. Saat itu Kompas memublikasikan kota-kota di Indonesia yang jumlahnya 93 kota otonom dan 5 kota administrasi melalui liputan setiap hari. Selain infografik memuat statistik deskriptif, juga dipaparkan arah pembangunan kota dalam liputan kembali melakukan pengukuran kota pada tahun 2018. Prinsipnya adalah melanjutkan indeks yang sudah dilakukan tiga tahun sebelumnya. Sesuai dengan kaidah ilmiah, dilakukan beberapa penyesuaian dalam pengukuran. Mengenai indeks itu sendiri, dilakukan penyesuaian dari sebelumnya dimensi dengan tiga aspek menjadi enam aspek. Kali ini indeks mengadopsi model yang dikembangkan oleh Boyd Cohen, seorang penggiat kota cerdas di tataran Harianto, penilaian IKCI kali ini melibatkan 12 pakar dari disiplin ilmu berbeda-beda di antaranya pakar perencanaan perkotaan, sosiologi, dan bidang keahlian lain. Panitia merekrut mereka untuk melakukan penilaian atas aspek dimensi serta turunannya, begitu pula penilaian atas status kota itu sendiri. SEKAR GANDHAWANGI

Provinsi Riskesdas 2018 25 Tabel 3.1.6 Proporsi Pengetahuan Rumah Tangga terhadap Kemudahan Akses ke Klinik/Praktek Dokter/Praktek Dokter Gigi/Praktek Bidan Mandiri menurut Karakteristik, Riskesdas 2018 26 Tabel 4.1.1 Proporsi Pemakaian Air per Orang per Hari di Rumah Tangga (5 Kategori) menurut Provinsi, Riskesdas 2018 28

Indeks Kota Cerdas Indonesia 2018 – JAKARTA – Penelitian dan Pengembangan Media Kompas KG Media berhasil menduduki peringkat pertama dalam Indonesia Smart City Index IKCI 2018 kategori Kota Kecil, memberikan kota Padang Panjang, Rabu 9/1. Penghargaan diserahkan oleh CEO KG Media Andi Budiman yang diterima langsung oleh Walikota Padangpanjang H. Marwilis, SH, MA dan Kepala Bidang Elektronika Pemerintah Ario Dian Pratama, ST . Usai menerima penghargaan, para pemenang terbaik dari masing-masing kategori tampil dalam talkshow bersama para pakar untuk membahas apa yang sudah dan akan dilakukan oleh masing-masing kabupaten, termasuk Kota Padangpanjang. Kota Gunungsitoli Mendapat Predikat Sebagai Salah Satu Kota Yang Inovatif » Pemko Gunungsitoli Pertemuan tersebut diadakan untuk para peserta bertukar pikiran dan ide-ide inovatif untuk diterapkan di daerah-daerah nantinya. Dalam kesempatan tersebut, Walikota Fadli Imran dengan sangat bangga mengucapkan terima kasih atas capaian yang diraih Kota Padang Panjang saat ini yang ditegaskan kembali oleh Dinas Komunikasi dan Informatika Kota Padang Panjang sendiri. “Alhamdulillah, di awal tahun 2019 ini Padangpanjang penuh dengan prestasi, dan kami berharap ini menjadi prestasi yang berkelanjutan kedepannya, dan Kota Padangpanjang semakin maju dan dapat menjadi pemacu bagi daerah lainnya,” ujar Fadli. Sementara itu, pada kesempatan yang sama, Marwilis, Kepala Dinas Informasi dan Komunikasi Kota Padanganjang, bangga Kota Padanganjang menjadi kota kecil yang berhasil meraih Smart City Award. Binder17jan19 By Harian Bhirawa “Kami tidak bisa berhenti sampai di sini, apalagi puas dengan penghargaan yang kami terima ini, karena ke depan kami memiliki tanggung jawab yang lebih besar untuk menghadapi kemajuan Kota Padang Panjang selanjutnya, dan kami berharap dapat melakukannya dengan baik,” harap Marwilis. . Untuk peringkat pertama, Kota Padangpanjang saat itu memiliki skor 55,14, sedangkan Kota SungaiFull meraih peringkat kedua dengan skor 55,02 dan Kota Solok di peringkat ketiga dengan skor 51,64 yang diukur KG Media secara berkala. Del Tangerang Selatan masuk dalam Indonesia Smart Cities Index IKCI 2018 kategori kota urban dengan skor 61,68. “Berapapun nilainya, ini angka yang harus dievaluasi agar lebih baik ke depan,” kata Arin Rashmi Dayani, Wali Kota Tangerang Selatan. Airin mengatakan, Tangsel saat ini fokus meningkatkan kualitas sumber daya manusianya. Dengan memberikan pelatihan baik kepada Aparatur Sipil Negara ASN maupun masyarakat melalui masyarakat di Tangsel. Terus Berbenah, Mewujudkan Salatiga Smart City Yang Sesungguhnya Erin mengatakan, peran partisipasi masyarakat sangat penting untuk membangun smart city. Tanpa partisipasi warga, akan sulit untuk mengimplementasikan program dan rencana di perkotaan. Kota pintar Tangsel tidak hanya menyediakan infrastruktur untuk pelayanan publik, tetapi juga mendorong masyarakat dan industri kreatif melalui berbagai kursus dan peningkatan ekonomi kerakyatan. Tangsel menerapkan pelayanan publik secara elektronik, dan seluruh sistem pelayanan dipantau secara langsung dan transparan, seperti aplikasi pelaporan jalan rusak Simanja. Sementara itu, General Manager Research and Development R&D Harian Kompas F Harianto Santoso mengatakan, walikota menjadi chief executive officer CEO kota agar tidak hanya membuat kota menjadi lebih modern, tetapi juga mampu untuk kemakmuran warga negara. Pdf Kesiapan Pemerintah Daerah Dalam Mewujudkan Kota Cerdas Di Bandung Dan Surabaya “Masyarakat adalah inti fundamental dari smart city. Ini juga yang menjadi alasan mengapa dalam penilaian IKCI 2018 kami lebih fokus pada dimensi komunitas. Tangsil, Surabaya dan Semarang berhasil mencapai tujuan tersebut tanpa mengesampingkan dimensi lainnya. ” Tinggi Jakarta, – Di awal tahun 2019, Kota Malang kembali meraih gelar Indonesia Smart City Index IKCI tahun 2018 kategori Kota Besar. Rabu 9/1/2019. Penghargaan ini diberikan langsung oleh Wakil Pangdam Kompas Kota, Budiman Tanredjo kepada Walikota Malang Dr. Sutyaga. IKCI merupakan kota yang dinilai berhasil menerapkan konsep smart city. Sebanyak 93 kota di Indonesia dinilai menggunakan serangkaian dimensi dan metode standar. Agar penilaiannya seimbang, kota-kota tersebut dibagi menjadi empat kategori berdasarkan jumlah penduduknya, yaitu megacity, kota besar, kota sedang, dan kota kecil. Hal ini sejalan dengan Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 26 Tahun 2008 tentang Rencana Antariksa Nasional. Skor peringkat berkisar dari 1 hingga 100. 12 kota dipilih, dan peringkat I, II, dan III diberikan untuk setiap kategori. “Kota akan menjadi tujuan terakhir pergerakan manusia. Sekitar 50 persen penduduk Indonesia kini tinggal di perkotaan. Perkembangan yang terjadi secara alami harus dibarengi dengan pengelolaan kota yang kompeten bagi penduduknya,” ujar Harian Kompas Ninok Mardiana Pampudi , Pemimpin Redaksi Jakarta. Kota Malang dalam IKCI 2018 menduduki peringkat ketiga kategori kota besar setelah Kota Denpasar dan Kota Surakarta dengan skor 60,21 dari 6 indikator seperti lingkungan, ekonomi, tata kelola, kualitas hidup, masyarakat dan mobilitas. Menurut survei dan evaluasi, peringkat tertinggi disumbangkan oleh Kota Malang dari dimensi komunitas komitmen, kualitas hidup dan lingkungan. Semarang Raih Peringkat 2 Sebagai Kota Metropolitan Versi Indeks Kota Cerdas Indonesia ikci 2018 Walikota Malang mengatakan dalam wawancara bahwa penghargaan hari ini akan menjadi insentif bagi kota Malang. “Tujuan smart city adalah kota dan penduduknya. Pemerintah harus mampu memenuhi aspirasi masyarakat dan pemerintah harus cerdas menyampaikan apa yang diinginkan masyarakat.” kata Pak Aji yang biasa dipanggil walikota Malang. Ibu Posted in Berita Terkini, Dokumentasi, Headline Tagged with Feature, Kota Miskin, Kota Malang Raih Penghargaan Indonesia Smart City Index Museum swasta Tomoron di Surakarta terbuka untuk umum secara privat dan gratis © Foto Vita Ayu Anggraini Sejak saat itu, banyak orang yang bermigrasi ke perkotaan. Alasannya sederhana, karena diyakini lapangan kerja lebih banyak tersedia di perkotaan. Untuk mengambil contoh ibu kota Indonesia, Anda dapat melihat bahwa pada musim perayaan atau Natal, ibu kota Jakarta sangat sepi karena banyak orang yang mudik. Hal ini menunjukkan bahwa hanya sedikit penduduk Jakarta yang merupakan penduduk asli Jakarta sendiri. Rapat Evaluasi Program Pembangunan Kota Bogor Menuju Kota Cerdas smart City Menurut data Badan Pusat Statistik BPS tahun 2010, proporsi penduduk yang tinggal di perkotaan adalah 49,8%. Pada tahun 2030, proporsi penduduk yang tinggal di perkotaan mencapai 63,4 persen. Dengan meningkatnya populasi di kota-kota, efek dan masalah tidak bisa dihindari. Tuntutan muncul pada kebutuhan masyarakat untuk dilayani oleh berbagai utilitas publik. Perekonomian juga diharapkan berjalan lancar sehingga warga dapat hidup sejahtera tanpa melebarkan ketimpangan. Yang tak kalah mendesak adalah pelestarian kelestarian lingkungan. Solusi untuk masalah dan perbaikan mulai muncul di setiap kota. Dari semua solusi dan perbaikan tersebut, Kompas mulai menyusun Indeks Kota Cerdas Indonesia IKCI tahun 2018. Indikator ini menunjukkan besar dan luasnya keterlibatan setiap kota dalam penerapan konsep smart city. Dalam Indeks IKCI 2018, 93 kota dari 98 kota masuk dalam proses penghitungan indeks. Ke-93 kota tersebut dikelompokkan menurut jumlah penduduk yang dibagi menjadi empat kategori; kota besar atau kota dengan populasi setidaknya satu juta; Megacity, wilayah dengan populasi lebih dari hingga kurang dari satu juta orang; kota sedang yang luasnya lebih dari sampai jiwa; dan kota-kota kecil dengan tidak lebih dari penduduk. Studi Tiru Pengembangan Smart City, Dprd Bersama Opd Rembang Kunjungi Bumi Projotamansari Indikator ini berfokus pada Lingkaran Kota Cerdas Boyd Cohen. Dimana lingkungan, mobilitas, pemerintahan, ekonomi, masyarakat dan kualitas hidup merupakan indikator normatif. Di dalam lingkaran tersebut, smart city dibangun dari berbagai aspek yang dapat dikelompokkan menjadi enam pilar, yaitu lingkungan, mobilitas, pemerintahan, ekonomi, masyarakat, dan kualitas hidup. Bobot terbesar dari enam elemen smart city terletak pada aspek kemasyarakatan, terutama dalam kaitannya dengan pendidikan, kreativitas, dan inklusivitas. Dan Kordin Coworking Space untuk mendorong industri kreatif. Selain itu, terdapat rumah bahasa yang dapat melayani warga yang belajar bahasa asing secara gratis. Teknologi juga turut membantu kelancaran pendidikan di Surabaya. Pemalang Menuju Smart City LABEL Indonesia Smart City Index 2018 Surabaya Smart City Semarang Tangerang Selatan Denpasar Surakarta Malang Manado Salatiga Yogyakarta Padang Sungai panjang penuh keindahan Artikel ini dibuat oleh Sahabat GNFI, sesuai dengan Aturan Penulisan GNFI. Isi artikel ini sepenuhnya menjadi tanggung jawab penulis. Penulisan laporan. Terima kasih telah melaporkan penyalahgunaan yang melanggar aturan atau praktik penulisan GNFI. Kami terus berusaha untuk menjaga agar GNFI tetap bersih dari konten yang tidak termasuk di sini. 6 Isi Pengantar oleh Ronnie Primanto Bagian 1. Ide dari Yoga 1. Warisan, Saujana, Ekonomi Budaya dan Digitalisasi 2. Panggung Virtual Pondok Gotong Royong di Era Digital 3. Membangun Sistem Penanganan Kekerasan Terhadap Perempuan Menggunakan Wonders App 4 .Yogyakarta Digital Encyclopedia 5. Gerakan Sosial Berbasis Konvergensi Budaya, Best Practices bagi Komunitas Multikultural di Yogyakarta 6. Becak Yogyakarta Moda Transportasi Tradisional untuk Media Komunitas Pertanian, Industri, dan Masyarakat 7. Kecerdasan Berbasis Budaya Kota 8. Perempuan Masa Kini Bagian Dua . Spirit Budaya di Jogja Smart Province 9. Jogja Smart Province dan Keistimewaan E-Learning Yogya 10. Smart Culture 11. Nilai Filosofis Yogyakarta 5 Biodata Penulis 8 Pengantar oleh Rony Primanto Kepala Kominfo DIY Gerakan Menuju 100 Smart Cities dan gerakan Electronic Creative Digital Literacy GNLD yang dicanangkan Kementerian Komunikasi dan Informatika Republik Indonesia dengan partisipasi aktif berbagai pemangku kepentingan telah dampak yang besar. Kota-kota di seluruh nusantara mulai terjebak dalam distrik pintar yang sedang berkembang. Peradaban digital mulai ditata dengan baik atas dasar moralitas dan etika yang luhur. Kedua gerakan tersebut menyadarkan masyarakat akan pentingnya kehidupan digital modern yang harus selalu berlandaskan pada nilai-nilai. Yang terjadi sekarang adalah masyarakat kaya akan teknologi canggih tetapi miskin moral dan etika. Akibatnya, media digital didistorsi dan disalahgunakan sebagai sarana untuk mengobarkan penipuan, ujaran kebencian, cyberbullying, cyberradicalism, cyberterrorism, dan pornografi. Khawatir dengan penurunan tersebut, masyarakat Yogya mendambakan tumbuhnya daerah-daerah cerdas yang mengedepankan nilai-nilai luhur. Digitalisasi dilakukan dengan pemanfaatan teknologi informasi berbasis budaya secara maksimal. Inilah highlight dari buku yang merupakan bagian dari Seri Literasi Digital yang diterbitkan oleh Kementerian Komunikasi dan Informatika RI ini. Bagian pertama buku ini menyajikan pemikiran-pemikiran para Humanis Yogya. Selain mengungkapkan gagasan tentang digitalisasi berbasis budaya, beberapa penulis memaparkan pengalaman Yogya dalam mengkonstruksi kehidupan digital untuk meningkatkan budaya. Bagian kedua buku ini membahas tentang perkembangan rencana umum Prefektur Pintar Jogja yang sarat dengan nilai-nilai budaya filosofis. Sebelum tim ahli dan tim penyusun menyusun rencana induk ini, Kementerian Komunikasi dan Informatika DIY Kota Cerdas Cerminan Pemimpin Dan Masyarakat Yang Cerdas

IndeksHarga Konsumen atau IHK adalah indeks yang menghitung rata-rata perubahan harga dari suatu paket barang dan jasa (komoditas) yang dikonsumsi rumah tangga dalam kurun waktu tertentu. (SBH) yang dilaksanakan oleh BPS selama tahun 2018, di 90 kota dengan total sampel sebanyak 141.600 rumah tangga. Berikut adalah grafik IHK dari bulan

Walikota IB Rai Dharmawijaya Mantra tengah Kado awal tahun 2019 diterima Kota Denpasar. Ibu kota Provinsi Bali yang dipimpin Walikota IB Rai Dharmawijaya Mantra dan Wakil Walikota IGN Jaya Negara ini berhasil menjadi Kota Besar dengan raihan tertinggi Indeks Kota Cerdas Indonesia IKCI 2018 dengan nilai 61,70. Angka tersebut berhasil mengungguli kota besar lainya yakni Kota Surakarta pada posisi kedua dengan nilai 61,03 dan Kota Malang di posisi ketiga dengan nilai 60,23. Penghargaan yang digagas oleh media nasional ini diterima Walikota Denpasar, IB Rai Dharmawijaya Mantra di Jakarta 9/1/2019. Kepala Dinas Komunikasi, Informatika dan Statistik Kota Denpasar, I Dewa Made Agung, mengungkapkan, penilaian tersebut dilakukan dengan berdasarkan model Lingkaran Kota Cerdas oleh Boyd Cohen. Ada 6 indikator penilaian, yakni lingkungan, mobilitas, ekonomi, masyarakat, pemerintahan dan kualitas hidup. Di tahun 2018, sebanyak 93 kota di Indonesia turut andil dalam penyusunan Indeks Kota Cerdas Indonesia ini. Terdapat empat kategori yang menjadi acuan yakni kota metropolitan atau kota dengan penduduk minimal 1 juta jiwa, kota besar, yaitu daerah yang berpenduduk lebih dari 500 ribu jiwa hingga kurang dari 1 juta jiwa, kota sedang, daerah berpenghuni lebih dari 100 ribu jiwa hingga 500 ribu jiwa. Serta kategori kota kecil, atau yang berpenduduk paling banyak 100 ribu jiwa. Rai Mantra mengungkapkan bahwa Pemkot Denpasar terus berupaya melakakukan berbagai inovasi untuk semakin meningkatkan kualitas kota dan masyarakat dari berbagai aspek baik kesehatan, pendidikan, dan kesejahteraan. Berbagai fasilitas dan program pemberdayaan dilakukan seperti revitalisasi sungai dan pasar tradisional, pembinaan UMKM dan wirausaha muda, berbagai festival unjuk kreativitas masyarakat serta pemberdayaan ODGJ melalui Rumah berdaya. "Ke depan, kami akan fokus tentang ekonomi kreatif dan orange ekonomi yang mampu mendukung pengembangan sektor pariwisata dan keberlanjutan kebudayaan, serta yang terpenting bagaimana program dan inovasi pemerintah ini dapat dirasakan kemanfaatnya oleh masyarakat menuju kesejahteraan rakyat itu sendiri," jelas Rai Mantra. Lebih lanjut dikatakan, Pemkot Denpasar pun terus berbenah melalui berbagai inovasi untuk memudahkan akses perlayanan publik untuk masyarakat, seperti adanya Mal Pelayanan Publik di Gedung Graha Sewaka Dharma yang memudahkan masyarakat dalam urusan administrasi dan pelayanan lainnya dalam satu gedung. Masyarakat juga dimudahkan untuk menyampaikan keluhan dan pengaduan secara online melalui aplikasi PRO Denpasar, serta berbagai pelayananan yang disediakan secara online sehingga bisa diakses kapan pun dan di mana pun. Sedangkan di bidang lingkungan, Pemkot Denpasar sudah mulai menginisiasi untuk pengurangan sampah plastik, bahkan sudah mengeluarkan Perwali mulai 1 Januari 2019 pasar modern dan pasar tradisional dilarang menyediakan kantong plastik, Di bidang ekonomi, Pemkot Denpasar juga sudah melakukan menerapkan sistem pembayaran non tunai, sementara dibidang mobiltas Denpasar sudah mulai menyediakan angkutan bus sekolah gratis yang dilengkapi berbagai aplikasi yang canggih dan pemasangan sejumlah CCTV di beberapa titik strategis Kota Denpasar.

Editor Mikhael Gewati Kota Semarang berhasil menyabet peringkat kedua kategori Kota Metropolitan cerdas yang digagas Indeks Kota Cerdas Indonesia (IKCI) 2018. Dengan nilai 63,69, Semarang berhasil mengungguli kota lainnya seperti Tangerang Selatan yang mendapat nilai 61,68.

JAKARTA - Kado indah turut mengisi awal tahun Kota Denpasar. Ibu kota Provinsi Bali yang dipimpin Walikota IB Rai Dharmawijaya Mantra dan Wakil Walikota IGN Jaya Negara ini berhasil menjadi Kota Besar dengan raihan tertinggi Indeks Kota Cerdas Indonesia IKCI Tahun 2018 dengan nilai 61,70. Angka tersebut berhasil mengungguli kota besar lainya yakni Kota Surakarta pada posisi kedua dengan nilai 61,03 dan Kota Malang di posisi ketiga dengan nilai 60,23. Penghargaan yang digagas salah satu media terkemuka di Indonesia ini diterima Walikota Denpasar, IB Rai Dharmawijaya Mantra di Jakarta. Dalam kesempatan tersebut Walikota Rai Mantra turut menjadi narasumber dalam sharing tentang Kota Cerdas bersama kepala daerah lainya. Kepala Dinas Komunikasi, Informatika dan Statistik Kota Denpasar I Dewa Made Agung mengungkapkan bahwa penilaian tersebut dilakukan dengan berdasarkan model Lingkaran Kota Cerdas oleh Boyd Cohen. Dimana terdapat 6 indikator penilaian yakni lingkungan, mobilitas, ekonomi, masyarakat, pemerintahan dan kualitas tahun 2018 sebanyak 93 kota di Indonesia turut andil dalam penyusunan Indeks Kota Cerdas Indonesia ini. Terdapat empat kategori yang menjadi acuan yakni kota metropolitan atau kota dengan penduduk minimal 1 juta jiwa, kota besar, yaitu daerah yang berpenduduk lebih dari 500 ribu jiwa hingga kurang dari 1 juta jiwa, kota sedang, daerah berpenghuni lebih dari 100 ribu jiwa hingga 500 ribu jiwa. Serta kategori kota kecil, atau yang berpenduduk paling banyak 100 ribu Walikota Denpasar, IB Rai Dharmawijaya Mantra mengungkapkan bahwa Pemkot Denpasar terus berupaya melakakukan berbagai inovasi untuk semakin meningkatkan kualitas kota dan masyarakat dari berbagai aspek baik kesehatan, pendidikan, dan kesejahteraan. Berbagai fasilitas dan program pemberdayaan dilakukan seperti revitalisasi sungai dan pasar tradisional, pembinaan UMKM dan wirausaha muda, berbagai festival unjuk kreatifitas masyarakat serta pemberdayaan ODGJ melalui Rumah berdaya."Kedepan kami akan fokus tentang ekonomi kreatif dan orange ekonomi yang mampu mendukung pengembangan sektor pariwisata dan keberlanjutan kebudayaan, serta yang terpenting bagaimana program dan inovasi pemerintah ini dapat dirasakan kemanfaatnya oleh masyarakat menuju kesejahteraan rakyat itu sendiri," jelas Rai lanjut dikatakan, Pemkot Denpasar pun terus berbenah melalui berbagai inovasi untuk memudahkan akses perlayanan publik untuk masyarakat, seperti adanya Mal Pelayanan Publik di Gedung Graha Sewaka Dharma yang memudahkan masyarakat dalam urusan administrasi dan pelayanan lainnya dalam satu gedung. Tidak hanya itu, masyarakat juga dimudahkan untuk menyampaikan keluhan dan pengaduan secara online melalui aplikasi PRO Denpasar, serta berbagai pelayananan yang disediakan secara online sehingga bisa diakses kapan pun dan dimana pun. Sedangkan di bidang lingkungan Pemkot Denpasar sudah mulai menginisiasi untuk pengurangan sampah plastik, bahkan sudah mengeluarkan Perwali dimana mulai 1 Januari 2019 pasar pasar modern dan pasar tradisional dilarang menyediakan kantong plastik. Pada bidang ekonomi, Pemkot Denpasar juga sudah melakukan menerapkan sistem pembayaran non tunai, sementara dibidang mobiltas Denpasar sudah mulai menyediakan angkutan bus sekolah gratis yang dilengkapi berbagai aplikasi yang canggih dan pemasangan sejumlah CCTV di beberapa titik strategis Kota Denpasar.“Kami dari Pemkot Denpasar terus mengupayakan adanya berbagai inovasi-inovasi yang dapat kami terapkan untuk kemudahan masyarakat. Tidak hanya fasilitas fisik, namun juga berbagai program pemberdayaan yang nantinya akan berdampak meningkatkan kualitas, kebahagiaan dan kesejahteraan masyarakat Kota Denpasar," ungkap Rai Mantra.akr

1. ԵՒմюхиդец иψե
2. Տощеሠ вኬςωклሼτе
   1. Зօբ εпէ
   2. ጠуզ твէքխ ψе
   3. Ρиш ዐφомукр φ
3. ዴ шодиጌ
4. Βաшуслልруп ա

SURYACO.ID, KOTA KEDIRI - Meski wilayahnya kecil, Kota Kediri patut diperhitungkan di Jatim bahkan masuk kategori kota ceras (smart city). Ini setelah di penghujung 2021, Kota Kediri meraih Penghargaan Rating Kota Cerdas Indonesia 2021 untuk Kota Sedang. Wali Kota Kediri, Abdullah Abu Bakar mengungkapkan, keberhasilan ini memotivasi Pemkot

Discover the world's research25+ million members160+ million publication billion citationsJoin for free Smart City Measurement Identification of Smart Economy Performance Indicators in Indonesia Bima Ajie Bahari1,*, Tony Dwi Susanto2, Janti Gunawan3 1Faculty of Intelligent Electrical and Informatics Technology, Institute Technology Sepuluh Nopember, Surabaya Indonesia 2Faculty of Intelligent Electrical and Informatics Technology, Institute Technology Sepuluh Nopember, Surabaya Indonesia 3Department of Business Management, Institute Technology Sepuluh Nopember, Surabaya, Indonesia *Corresponding author. Email bimaajiebahari The concept of smart city is believed to be one of the solutions to overcome problems in urban areas. Although much research has been carried out, there is still no agreed international standards regarding models, concepts, indicators, ways to measure smart city performance and the characteristics of each country that are different. In Indonesia, there is a smart city model that consists of 6 dimensions. One of the dimensions is smart economy, where there are three sub-dimensions to make it more specific and targeted. The three sub-dimensions are industry, welfare, and transactions. Also, there are factors of each sub-dimensions for support purpose. Smart economy has goal to develop competitive, superior, and adaptive economic ecosystems. This study aims to identify indicators of the application of the smart economy in Indonesia. Literature reviews related to smart economy will be used, and article sources come from leading online databases. The purpose of the literature review is to find indicators of other research findings outside Indonesia that are relevant to this study. Hundreds of articles have been found and filtered into 30 articles only. From 30 literatures, synthesis analysis was carried out to look for indicators of findings and mapped according to sub-dimensions and factors in Indonesia's smart economy. As a result, there are 18 indicators found. Indicators resulting from this research are expected to contribute both in theory and practice. In addition, the indicators found are expected to help the government develop smart cities in Indonesia. Keywords smart city, smart economy, smart economy indicator, indicator development. 1. INTRODUCTIONSmart cities have become a trend in recent decades as part of the strategic planning of a modern city [1]. The concept of smart city itself has existed since 30 years ago, along with the popularization of Information and Communication Technologies ICT [2]. The goal of smart city according to Schaffers 2011 [3] is to build sustainable economic growth and improve the quality of life of the community by utilizing human resources, social capital and modern technological infrastructure through government-based community participation. The smart city idea cannot be separated from the increasing influence of urbanization [4]. It is estimated that by 2050, 68% of the world's population will live in cities [5]. In Indonesia there will be approximately 148 million inhabitants out of 264 million total population living in urban areas on 2018 [5]. This dynamic will bring important changes in the role of a city, considering that the city is not only a center of human activity but also a Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research, volume 175 Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Business and Management of Technology ICONBMT 2020Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Atlantis Press is an open access article distributed under the CC BY-NC license - 294 great social and economic demand. Therefore urbanization can cause significant socio-economic changes and create new challenges for a country [4]. In Indonesia, smart city initiation has been started since 2017 through the "Movement Towards 100 Smart City" which is a program of several state institutions namely the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology Kemkominfo, the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Ministry of PUPR, Bappenas and the Presidential Staff Office [6]. This movement aims to encourage and guide districts or cities in Indonesia to develop a master plan for the formation of smart cities in their respective regions to maximize the potential of available resources and technology [7]. In its implementation, there are 6 dimensions of smart city that must be met by the city or district participating in the "Movement Towards 100 smart cities". These dimensions are smart governance smart governance, smart branding smart regional branding, smart economy smart economic governance, smart living standard of living, smart society smart society, and smart environment smart environmental management [8]. This research will focus on the smart economy dimension. In the implementation of the "Movement Towards 100 smart cities" the Ministry of Communication and Information also conducted an evaluation. However, the evaluation only focused on the progress of smart city implementation carried out by the city/district, not how well the smart city implementation was carried out. Some institutions outside the government such as the Citiasia Center for Smart Nation CCSN have taken measurements related to the achievement of 7 categories, namely smart readiness, smart governance, smart branding, smart economy, smart living, smart society and smart environment to 98 cities and 412 districts in Indonesia [9]. Besides, there is also an assessment by Kompas Research and Development. The assessment is divided into 3 categories, namely economic, social, and environmental [10]. Although evaluations have been carried out from the government and outside the government, up to the time of this study, there were no official measuring standards that contain detailed indicators to measure how well the implementation of smart cities in cities/districts in Indonesia. Indicators are variables that can provide information about a particular condition so that it is possible to measure changes made over time [11]. Indicators play an important role in achieving effective, accurate, efficient, and responsive governance [12]. Besides, indicators are needed in measuring the process and performance of an activity carried out so that it can help achieve goals [13]. So that it takes a set of measuring devices, which include indicators of the achievement of the application of smart economy so that the implementation carried out by the city/district government can be successful as intended. This study aims to identify indicators of smart economy in the implementation of smart cities in Indonesia by conducting a review of the previous smart city research literature. This research is expected to help the government in developing and evaluating smart cities in Indonesia, especially in the smart economy dimension. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW Smart City Smart city is a concept that first appeared in 1998 by IBM [14]. The smart city is understood as an appropriate city development framework to overcome various problems in the city and as a tool to achieve transformation in social, economic, and environmental aspects [15]. The concept of smart city emerged along with the growth of urban society. A 2014 UN study on world urbanization trends showed 54% of the human population lived in urban areas. This means that more than half of the human population lived in urban areas that year [16]. According to Schaffers 2011 [3] smart city has a definition of a city that is able to utilize human resources, social and cultural capital, and modern telecommunications infrastructure to realize sustainable economic stability and high quality of life for people through government-based participation in society. Meanwhile, according to Barrionuevo 2012 [17], smart city means using all available resources in a wise, smart, and coordinated way to develop a livable, integrated, and sustainable city. Smart Economy Smart economy in smart city aims to realize economic ecosystems in regions that are able to meet the challenges of the information age which are competitive, disruptive and demanding to adapt quickly [8]. The target of the smart economy dimension is an ecosystem that supports community economic activities that are aligned with leading and adaptive economic sectors to technological changes in this era and increase the financial iteracy of the community through various programs including cashless society. The target is realized by carrying out three elements in the smart economy, namely the industrial ecosystem, the improvement of people's welfare and the financial transaction ecosystem [8]. The economy of a city can be said to be "smart" if it can gather innovation and productivity to adapt to the market and the needs of workers to improve new business models and reliable global models so that they can compete on a local or global level [18]. Giffinger in his research entitled “Smart Cities Ranking of European medium-sized cities – Final Report 2007” mentions smart economy consists of various aspects such as entrepreneurship, productivity, employment, global competitiveness, the spirit of innovation and economic image/trademark. Giffinger divides smart economy into Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research, volume 175295 6 factors with 23 assessment indicators [19]. Smart economic governance is one of the dimensions that has an important role in the sustainability of activities and the welfare of the people in urban areas [20]. According to Bruneckiene & Sinkiene 2014 [21] smart economy is one of the main keys and becomes a measurement tool for smart city implementation because urban areas have high economic competitiveness characteristics. Indonesia’s Smart City In Indonesia, smart city initiation has been started since 2017 through the "Movement Towards 100 Smart City" which is a program of several state institutions namely the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology Kemkominfo, the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Ministry of PUPR, Bappenas and the Presidential Staff Office [8]. The Movement Into 100 Smart City Program was officially launched in Makassar City in May 2017. In this program 25 cities/districts were selected as the smart city implementers in the first phase [6]. This movement aims to encourage and guide districts or cities in Indonesia to develop a master plan for the formation of smart cities in their respective regions with the aim of maximizing the potential of available resources and technology. In 2017, 25 cities / districts have been selected that are considered capable of implementing the concept of smart city. The city or district will be guided and accompanied directly by experts. This program targets that in 2019 there will be 100 cities / regencies in Indonesia that have implemented smart city-based development as well as being an example for other cities/regencies [6]. According to the RI Ministry of Communication and Information, there are 6 dimensions of smart city that must be met by the participating cities or regencies "Movement Towards 100 smart cities". These dimensions are smart governance, smart branding, smart economy, smart living, smart society, and smart environment. Each dimension is not independent but rather integrated and influences one another [22]. One example is the initiative to empower MSMEs through a regional e- commerce program smart economy which will be influenced by the level of digital readiness of the community smart society. In the implementation of the "Movement Towards 100 smart cities" the Ministry of Communication and Information also conducted an evaluation. However, the evaluation only focused on the progress of smart city implementation carried out by the city/district, not how well the smart city implementation was carried out. Some institutions outside the government such as the Citiasia Center for Smart Nation CCSN have taken measurements related to the achievement of 7 categories, namely smart readiness, smart governance, smart branding, smart economy, smart living, smart society and smart environment to 98 cities and 412 districts in Indonesia [9]. In addition, there is also an assessment by Kompas Research and Development. The assessment is divided into 3 categories, namely economic, social and environmental [10]. Although evaluations have been carried out from the government and outside the government, up to the time of this study there were no official measuring standards that contain detailed indicators to measure how well the implementation of smart cities in cities/districts in Indonesia. Smart City Measurement in Indonesia Measurement of the implementation of smart city in Indonesia has been carried out several times. One of the institutions that did the measurement was Kompas Research and Development, in which the Bandung Institute of Technology ITB was also involved. The measurement is called IKCI Indonesian Smart Cities Index. A total of 93 cities/districts were ranked. The measurement is based on secondary data collected from several other institutions, one of which is BPS Statistics Indonesia. There are 6 aspects that are used as indicators of assessment namely the environment, society, economy, mobility, government and quality of life. Cities assessed are divided into 4 categories namely metropolitan cities, large cities, medium cities and small cities [23]. Other assessments have also been carried out by the SCCIC Smart City Community & Innovation Center ITB using the GSCF Garuda Smart City Framework framework. GSCF is a framework that focuses on smart city assessment with 3 aspects, namely economic, social and environmental. In addition there are also supporting aspects, namely technology, governance, and people. In total there are 111 assessment indicators with assessment results consisting of 5 levels. The levels from the lowest are adhoc, initiative, scattered, integrative and the highest is smart. Assessment with the GSCF has the aim to find out the extent of the readiness of a city / district in adopting the idea of smart city [24]. Based on some of the measurements that have been made, there are no details regarding the indicators used to assess. This makes it difficult for any local government to initiate smart city implementation. In the implementation of the "Movement Towards 100 Smart City" evaluation is conducted twice a year. Cities / regencies are required to complete data online from each question asked. In the assessment there are indicators in the form of general questions such as; Has the smart economy program been implemented this year? The question is final, so information about what steps must be taken to maximize value in each dimension is still lacking, especially in smart economy. Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research, volume 175296 3. METHODOLOGY Previous studies that included smart city indicators, especially smart economy, have been scattered in several sources. Later these studies will be analyzed to identify which indicators are relevant to the research. The reference used in the context of smart economy in Indonesia is the "100 Smart City Movement Guidebook" where there are 3 sub-dimensions for smart economy, namely industry, welfare, and transaction. The method used in this study is a systematic review. A systematic review aims to identify, interpret, and evaluate the results of the previous article review so that it can be relevant to the research objectives [25]. Besides, a systematic review serves to explore gaps and inconsistencies in the literature so that new points or theories can be found [26]. a. Data Collecting Literature review was conducted on previous research related to smart economy to identify the indicators needed. Previous research was obtained from reputable online publisher database such as and The keywords used including; smart city, smart city indicators, smart economy, smart economy measurement, smart economy indicators, industry, welfare, cashless society, and other keywords related to the smart economy indicator. The indicators taken from previous studies are indicators that relate to Indonesia's smart economy sub- dimension. In addition, article searches are limited to the publication period from 2010 to 2020. The article sought must be relevant to the research topic and must be in English. Articles must be in the form of research articles, not in the form of editorials, chapter books, working paper or opinions. In addition, the article must review economy in the city and its measurement, the article must produce indicators for smart economy, and finally, the indicators generated in the article can be grouped according to the smart sub-dimension in smart cities in Indonesia. More than a thousand articles found in the initial search. Further identification of the articles found in the initial search with inclusion and exclusion criteria. The results identified 30 articles that meet the criteria of inclusion. b. Data Mapping Indicators that have been collected from literature studies are then grouped by sub-dimensions of smart economy consisting of industry, welfare, and transactions [8]. From the Ministry of Communication and Information guidelines there are factors in the sub dimensions shown in the table 1. Table 1 Factors Industrial competitiveness Then synthesis analysis is done based on sub dimensions and existing factors. Aside from the smart economy dimension, the synthesis analysis also includes indicators from the general smart city research, because there are very few articles focusing on smart economy. 4. RESULT AND DISCUSSION Based on the results of the analysis of synthesis 30 literature there are 20 smart economy indicators found. Indicators grouped based on smart economy sub-dimensions. Indicator result show in table 2. Table 2 Smart Economy Indicators In industry sub-dimension, industrial competitiveness aims to measure the ability of the industry to sell products that meet demand requirements such as quantity, quality and price and able to compete with competitors [28], [29], [30]. Meanwhile, industrial integration is related to the ability of industries to interconnect between sectors for the benefit of the country [28]. Export quality product is the ability to produce international quality goods [31], [32], [33]. In the welfare sub-dimensions Gross Domestic Product GDP is related to total value of market from all final goods and services produced [21], [28], [29], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]. Household income measure the median of all people income in the same house [21], [28], [39], [41], [42], [43], [44]. Enterpreneurship growth is related to the number of businesses registered like micro and medium small businesses [21], [29], [30], [34],[36], [37], [39], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49],[50]. Percentageof unemployment is related to the rate of unemployment citizen in certain area [21], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [34],[35], [36], [38], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [47], [48], [50], [51]. Easy access to job information includes the level of ease of information Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research, volume 175297 through both print and digital media, job market and promotion [28], [29], [31], [46], [48], [52], Level of innovation and productivity is related to the ability of the community to produce work or businesses that have competitiveness [29], [30], [31], [35], [36], [41], [47], [48],[49], [50], [51]. Worker skill is related to related to the level of productivity to achieve valuable contributions to the company thereby increasing revenue [28], [41], [53]. In transaction sub-dimension “lesh cash” machine availability measure about the quantity, readiness and human support about the machine ATM [28], [29], [46], [48], [52]. Less cash knowledge measure how good the citizen knowledge about cashless system [28], [41], [53]. Bankable society is is the level of customer eligibility that meets bank requirements [21], [28], [38], [41], [50], [52]. Fintech quality refers to how good the technology is in supporting transactions conducted by citizens [21], [28], [29], [46]. Foreign direct and domestic invesment is related to level of investment from abroad directly to domestic companies [32], [37], [40], [53], [54], [55]. Network availability refers to refers to the availability of IT equipment, internet networks and the ability of the community to operate technology [28], [29], [31], [46], [48], [52]. Finally, market intensity is the frequency of spending through e-commerce, the number of sellers in the market place and product availability [21], [29], [31], [35],[45], [49], [51]. 5. CONCLUSION Smart economy becomes one of the dimensions in Smart City because in the information age as it is today, economic movement is an essential key in the progress of a city. Still, it must also be able to attract community participation from both inside and outside the city, as well as business people and investors, to help accelerate urban development. Smart economy is an innovative and creative practice of the city government. The aim is to realize the economic ecosystem in regions that can meet the challenges of the information age, which are competitive, disruptive, and demanding to adapt quickly. Previous research shows that GDP per capita and unemployment rate are aspects of crucial in smart economy activities. This situation is identified from the number of indicators in the welfare sub- dimension. Besides, all previous studies in this study showed the effect of income on cities' economies. Indicators result is expected to contribute to the development of smart city implementation in Indonesia both in theory and practice. Future studies are expected to be able to find other indicators related to Indonesia's smart economy's characteristics and look for factors that inhibit the development of smart economy also suggested. REFERENCES [1] Amine, T. M., Abderrahman, D., R. Z. & Mohamed, A., 2016. Smart cities and new technology trends state of the art and perspectives. International Journal on Recent and Innovation Trends in Computing and Communication, 47, pp. 282-285 [2] Caragliu, A., Bo, C. D. & Nijkamp, P., 2011. Smart cities in Europe. Journal of Urban Technology, 182, pp. 65-82 [3] Schaffers, H. et al., 2011. Smart cities and the future internet towards cooperation frameworks for open innovation. pp. 431-446. [4] ChuanTao, Y., Zhang, X., Hui, C. & JingYuan, W., 2015. A literature survey on smart cities. SCIENCE CHINA Information Science. [5] Ritchie, H. & Roser, M., 2019. [Online] Available at [6] Rizkinaswara, L., 2018. [Online] Available at 100-smart-city/[Accessed 10 05 2020]Rosandya, R., 2017. Neraca. [Online] Available at [Accessed 10 05 2020] [7] Kemkominfo, 2017. Buku Panduan Penyusunan Master Plan Smart City 2017 Gerakan Menuju Smart City. 1st Edition ed. [8] 2018. Inilah Para Penerima Penghargaan The 3rd ISNA 2018. [Online] Available at para-penerima-penghargaan-the-3rd-isna-2018/ [9] 2019. Penghargaan Indeks Kota Cerdas Indonesia IKCI Diraih Surabaya. [Online] Available at indeks-kota-cerdas [10] Bosch, P. & Gabrielsen, P., 2003. Environmental indicators typology and use in reporting. [11] R., Gaffud, R. & E., 1999. Indicators of good governance developing an index of governance quality at the LGU level. Philippine Journal of Development, February, 262, pp. 1-69. [12] Velimirović, D., Velimirović, M. & Stanković, R., 2011. Role and importance of key performance indicators measurement. Serbian Journal of Management, Volume 6, pp. 63-72. [13] Bollier, D., 1998. How smart growth can stop sprawl - a fledgling citizen movement expands / a briefing guide for funders 1998. 1st Edition ed. Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research, volume 175298 Washington DC Essential Books [14] Djunaedi, A. et al., 2018. Membangun Kota dan Kabupaten Cerdas Sebuah Panduan bagi Pemerintah Daerah. 1st Edition ed. Yogyakarta UGM Press [15] Albino, V., Berardi, U. & Dangelico, R. M., 2015. Smart cities definitions, dimensions, performance, and initiatives. Journal of Urban Technology, 221, pp. 1- 19 [16] Barrionuevo, J. M., Pascual, B. & Eric, R. J., 2012. Smart Cities, Sustainable Progress Opportunities for Urban Development. IESE Insight, 15 September, Volume 14, pp. 50-57 [17] Monzon , A. et al., 2017. Assessment Methodology for Smart City Projects Application to the Mediterranean Region, Madrid Ascimer [18] Giffinger, 2007. Smart cities ranking of European medium-sized cities, Vienna the Centre of Regional Science 2010, pp. 133–142. [19] Tyas, W. P., 2019. Applying smart economy of smart cities in developing world learnt from indonesia’s home based enterprises. [20] Dagiliene, L., Bruneckiene, J., Jucevicius, R. & Lukauskas, M., 2019. Exploring smart economic development and competitiveness in Central and Eastern European countries. An International Business Journal, Volume In Press, pp. 1-21. [21] Susanto, T. D., 2019. SMART CITY DEFINISI, MODEL, & DIMENSI. In SMART CITY KONSEP, MODEL, & TEKNOLOGI. Surabaya Asosiasi Sistem Informasi Indonesia AISINDO, pp. 2-3. [22] Publik, B. I., 2019. Pemerintah Kota Malang.[Online] Available at malang-raih-penghargaan-ikci- 2018/?utm_source= [Accessed 05 06 2020] [23] Irawan, I., 2018. [Online] Available at smart-city-model/–346 [24] Kitchenham, B., 2004. Procedures for Performing Systematic Reviews, NICTA Technical Report [25] Vet, H. d., Verhagen, A., Logghe, I. & Ostelo, R., 2005. Literature research Aims and design of systematic reviews. Australian Journal of Physiotherapy, Volume 51, pp. 125-128. [26] Allam, Z. & Newman, P., 2018. Redefining the smart city culture, metabolism and governance. Smart Cities, 11, pp. 4-25 [27] Lombardi, P., Giordano, S., Farouh, H. & Yousef, W., 2012. Modelling the smart city performance. The European Journal of Social Science Research, Volume 25, pp. 137-149. [28] Sharifi, A., 2020. A typology of smart city assessment tools and indicator sets. Sustainable Cities and Society, Volume 53, pp. 1-36. [29] Sharifi, A., 2019. A critical review of selected smart city assessment tools and indicator sets. Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 233, pp. 1269-1283. [30] Akande, A., Cabral, P., Gomes, P. & Casteleyn, S., 2019. The Lisbon ranking for smart sustainable cities in Europe. Sustainable Cities and Society, Volume 44, pp. 475-487. [32] Li, X., Fong, P. S., Dai, S. & Li, Y., 2019. Towards sustainable smart cities An empirical comparative assessment and development pattern optimization in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 215, pp. 730-743. [33] Falco, S. D., 2019. Are smart cities global cities? A European perspective. European Planning Studies, 274, pp. 759-783. [34] Marchetti, D., Oliveira, R. & Figueira, A. R., 2019. Are global north smart city models capable to assess Latin American cities? A model and indicators for a new context. Cities, Volume 92, pp. 197-207. [35] Huovila, A., Bosch, P. & Airaksinen, M., 2019. Comparative analysis of standardized indicators for Smart sustainable cities What indicators and standards to use and when?. Cities, Volume 89, pp. 141-153. [36] Shen, L. et al., 2018. A holistic evaluation of smart city performance in the context of China. Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 200, pp. 1-53. [37] Sureshchandra, S. M., Bhavsar, J. J. & Pitroda, J. R., 2016. Assesment of critical success factors for smart cities using significance index method. International Journal of Advance Research and Innovative Ideas in Education, 23, pp. 802-810. [38] Ahvenniemi, H., Huovila, A., Pinto-Seppä, I. & Airaksinen, M., 2017. What are the differences between sustainable and smart cities?. Cities, Volume 60, pp. 234-245. [39] Loo, B. P. Y. & Tang, W. S. M., 2019. “Mapping” Smart Cities. Journal of Urban Technology, 262, pp. 129-146. [40] Warnecke, D., Wittstock, R. & Teuteberg, F., 2019. Benchmarking of European smart cities – a maturity model and web-based self-assessment tool. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal , 104, pp. 654-684. [41] Dudzevičiūtė, G., Šimelytė, A. & Liučvaitienė, A., 2017. The application of smart cities concept for citizens of Lithuania and Sweden comperative analysis. Independent Journal of Management & Production, 84, pp. 1433-1450. [42] Goodman, N., Zwick, A., Spicer, Z. & Carlsen, N., 2020. Public engagement in smart city development lessons from communities in Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research, volume 175299 Canada’s smart city challenge. The Canadian Geographer, pp. 1-17. [43] Tania Ray Bhattacharya, A. B., Mclellan, B. & Tezuka, T., 2018. Sustainable smart city development framework for developing countries. Urban Research & Practice, Volume 13, pp. 180-212. [44] Lazaroiu, G. C. & Roscia, M., 2012. Definition methodology for the smart cities model. Energy, Volume 47, pp. 326-332. [45] Ismagilova, E., Hughes, L., Dwivedi, Y. K. & Raman, K. R., 2019. Smart cities Advances in research—An information systems perspective. International Journal of Information Management, Volume 47, pp. 88-100. [46] Anthony, B., 2020. A case‐based reasoning recommender system for sustainable smart city development. AI&SOCIETY, pp. 1-25. [47] Giffinger, R., Haindlmaier, G. & Kramar, H., 2010. The role of rankings in growing city competition. Urban Research and Practice, 33, pp. 299-312. [48] Neirotti, P. et al., 2014. Current trends in Smart City initiatives Some stylised facts. Cities, Volume 38, pp. 25-36. [49] Appio, F. P., Lima, M. & Paroutis, S., 2019. Understanding Smart Cities Innovation ecosystems, technological advancements, and societal challenges. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Volume 142, pp. 1-14. [50] Galperina, L. P., Girenko, A. T. & Mazurenko, V. P., 2016. The concept of smart economy as the basis for sustainable development of Ukraine. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, Volume 6, pp. 307-314. [51] Schiavone, F., Paolone, F. & Mancini, D., 2019. Business model innovation for urban smartization. Business model innovation for urban smartization, Volume 142, pp. 210-219. [52] Al-Alwani, M. K., 2018. A development framework for smart cities assessment. Journal of University of Babylon, 263, pp. 340-349. [53] Heaton, J. & Parlikad, A. K., 2019. A conceptual framework for the alignment of infrastructure assets to citizenrequirements within a Smart Cities framework. Cities, Volume 90, pp. 32-41. [54] Yadav, G., Mangla, S. K., Luthra, S. & Rai, D. P., 2019. Developing a sustainable smart city framework for developing economies An Indian context. Sustainable Cities and Society, Volume 47, pp. 1-14. [55] Mattoni, B., Losilla, J. & Bisegna, F., 2020. Planning Smart cities comparison of two quantitative multicriteria methods applied to real case studies. Sustainable Cities and Society, Volume 60Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research, volume 175300 ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication. Bokolo Anthony the deployment of Information and Communication Technologies ICTs and the needs of data and information sharing within cities, smart city aims to provide value-added services to improve citizens quality of life. But, currently city planners/developers are faced with inadequate contextual information on the dimensions of smart city required to achieve a sustainable society. Therefore, in achieving sustainable society there is need for stakeholders to make strategic decisions on how to implement smart city initiatives. Besides, it is required to specify the smart city dimensions to be adopted in making cities smarter for sustainability attainment. But, only a few methods such as big data, Internet of Things IoT, cloud computing, etc. have been employed to support smart city attainment. Thus, this study integrates Case Based Reasoning CBR as an Artificial Intelligence Technique AI technique to develop a recommender system towards promoting smart city planning. CBR provides suggestions on smart city dimensions to be adopted by city planners/decision makers in making cities smarter and sustainable. Accordingly, survey data was collected from 115 respondents to evaluate the applicability of the implemented CBR recommender system in relation to how the system provides best practice recommendations and retaining of smart city initiatives. Results from descriptive and exploratory factor analysis suggest that the developed system is applicable in supporting smart city adoption. Besides, findings from this study are expected to provide valuable insights for practitioners to develop more practical strategies and for researchers to better understand smart city Quality of life is often touted as the main benefit of building smart cities. This, however, raises questions about the extent to which the public is engaged as part of the “smart” development process, particularly given the significant financial investments often required to meaningfully design smart city projects. To better understand approaches to public engagement in the context of smart city development, we draw upon three selected finalists of Infrastructure Canada's Smart City Challenge, which invited municipalities, regional governments, and Indigenous communities to enter a competition where the winning proposals would be awarded federal financial grants to complete their projects. Prizes of $5 million, $10 million, and $50 million were awarded. Specifically, we compare the public engagement experiences of the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne Quebec, the City of Guelph, and the Region of Waterloo. We carried out semi‐structured interviews and reviewed documents in each community to better understand how finalists in each category engaged residents in proposal development. The paper addresses how communities are approaching public engagement in smart city development and the implications of these approaches. We conclude that, despite earnest attempts to publicly engage and become citizen‐centric, municipal governments continue to see civic participation as a top‐down tool. La participation des citoyens au développement de la ville intelligente les leçons du concours canadien sur les villes intelligentes fr La qualité de vie est souvent perçue comme étant le principal avantage de la mise en place des villes intelligentes. Toutefois, ceci soulève des questions sur la nature de la participation des citoyens à ce processus, en raison des investissements financiers importants requis pour concevoir les projets de ville intelligente. Pour mieux comprendre les approches à l'égard de la participation dans le contexte du développement de la ville intelligente, nous avons étudié les projets des trois finalistes sélectionnés lors du concours sur les villes intelligentes d'Infrastructure Canada, Rappelons que les propositions gagnantes se voyaient accorder des subventions financières fédérales pour réaliser leurs projets. Des prix de 5, 10 et 50 millions de dollars ont ainsi été attribués. Cet article évalue la façon dont les collectivités abordent la participation des citoyens dans le développement de la ville intelligente et les implications des différentes approches utilisées. Dans ce contexte, nous comparons les expériences de participation publique du Conseil mohawk d'Akwesasne, au Québec, de la Ville de Guelph et de la région de Waterloo. Nous avons effectué des entretiens semi‐directifs et analysé des documents dans chaque collectivité pour mieux comprendre la façon dont les finalistes ont mobilisé les résidents dans le développement de la proposition. Nos résultats montrent que malgré les tentatives sincères d'impliquer la population et d'adopter une approche centrée sur les citoyens, les administrations municipales continuent de considérer la participation civique comme un outil allant du haut vers le This paper aims to investigate theoretically and empirically the interactions between smart economic development SED and competitiveness in Central and Eastern European CEE countries. The main argument to uphold here is that smartness approach has been traditionally more focused on smart urban planning and smart specialization. Design/methodology/approach An evaluation by index, correlation and significance analysis is used to present original empirical evidence from six CEE countries. Findings Smartness approach integration into economic development justifies the identification of SED determinants basics welfare, digitality, environmental, social responsibility and enhancers learning, networking, agility, innovations and knowledge-driven. The interaction between SED and countries’ competitiveness in CEE countries might be described by two approaches, namely, focus-based several most important basics and enhancers and balance-based equal importance of basics and enhancers. Research limitations/implications The limitations relate to the particular sample of CEE countries and gathering opportunities of statistical data. Practical implications The combination of SED-Index sub-indices and WEF GCI might aid a more accurate ex ante measurement. Despite common global challenges, each country should choose its own combinations for smartness determinants to achieve long-term competitiveness. Social implications The findings are important for fostering smartness approach in economic development for long-term competitiveness. Originality/value This paper contributes to economic development literature by discovering basics and enhancers for SED. By linking well-known term of competitiveness and economic development with a concept of smartness, the new approaches, namely, focus-based and balance-based, to policy making in CEE countries of the methodologies available in the scientific literature for measuring ongoing sustainable efforts at municipal levels are from affluent regions Europe, US, and Canada. Due to context idiosyncrasies, the models available to measure ongoing sustainable efforts in affluent cities are not suitable for cities in Latin America. Issues related to the lack of infrastructure, the absence of primary and sustainable services, and the problems derived from economic, social, and political environment constraints, which are remarkable in some Latin American cities, have been mostly overcome in the western global north cities. A mere reproduction of successful technological solutions adopted by some cities of the Global North does not mean that the results achieved there will be equally obtained in Latin America. Latin American cities are unevenly developed and in need of different and customized solutions. In the absence of a conceptual and widely accepted methodology to evaluate the smartness of a city considering the Latin America context and in accordance to the literature, this research proposes an innovative model and indicators, levelling up the importance of dimensions less remarkable in previous models. Latin American cities must use their own model to measure their ongoing sustainable efforts that consider the idiosyncrasies of the region while not being tempted to use models from affluent regions, avoiding the risk of reiterating a top-bottom approach and thus using an inappropriate tool. Ayyoob SharifiIn the era of digital revolution many cities around the world have invested significantly in the design and implementation of smart city projects and initiatives to provide solutions to the challenges of climate changes and urbanization. At the same time, various efforts have been made to evaluate performance and outcomes of those projects and initiatives. This study provides a critical analysis of 34 selected smart city assessment tools to highlight their strengths and weaknesses and to examine their potential contribution to the evolution of the smart city movement. The selected tools are evaluated against an analysis framework that covers criteria related to comprehensiveness, stakeholder engagement, context sensitivity, strategic alignment, uncertainty management, interlinkages and interoperability, temporal dynamism, flexibility, feasibility, presentation and communication of the results, and action plans. Results indicate that selected tools have achieved limited success in addressing these criteria. In particular, only few tools have addressed criteria related to stakeholder engagement, uncertainty management, interlinkages, and feasibility. The paper argues that assessment tools should capitalize on the advancements in smart solutions and big data analytics to develop better strategies for addressing these criteria. In addition to highlighting weaknesses that need to be addressed in the future, results of this study can be used by interested target groups such as smart city developers, planners, and policy makers to choose tools that best fit their cities are facing many challenges such as pollution, resource consumption, gas emissions and social inequality. Many future city views have been developed to solve these issues such as the Smart City model. In literature several methods have been proposed to plan a Smart city, but, at the best of the authors’ knowledge, only a few of them have been really applied to the urban context. Most of them are indeed theoretical and qualitative approaches, providing scenarios that have not been applied to real cities/districts. Moreover, a comparison among the results of different quantitative planning models applied to real case studies is still missing. In this framework, the aim of the paper is to propose a new quantitative method based on a previous qualitative model developed by the same authors. The feasibility and validity of the method will be tested through the comparison with an existing AHP model and the application of both approaches on two real case studies, characterized by different territorial levels. Results of the analysis show that both methods are consistent, reliable and do provide similar results despite the differences in the application process. Ayyoob SharifiThere has been a surge of interest over the past several years in the development and implementation of tools, frameworks, and indicator sets hereafter, schemes’ for smart city assessment. This indicates the growing recognition of the significance of assessment schemes to better inform planning and design of sustainable, smart, and resilient cities. Despite this, there has been little examination of the typology and structure of assessment schemes. This gap has been partially addressed in a recent study by Sharifi 2019 that examines strengths and weaknesses of selected assessment schemes in terms of issues such as coverage of different smartness dimensions, stakeholder engagement, context sensitivity, alignment with city vision and strategic needs, uncertainty management, addressing interlinkages and interoperabilities between smart city indicators, dealing with temporal dynamism issues, flexibility, feasibility, presentation and communication of the results, and using assessment results to inform action plans. To build on and complement that study, this paper examines thirty-four schemes to contribute to a better understanding of their typology. It provides general information related to characteristics such as geographic focus, scale of analysis, target audience, and the method of development. In addition, it identifies format, thematic focus areas, and persistent indicators across the schemes and provides detailed information on the major methods and approaches used for assessing city smartness. Results show that diverse approaches have been taken, but there are also some commonalities. Index is the dominant format across the schemes and the most common themes are economy, people, governance, environment, mobility, living, and data. This typology study can be used for multiple purposes; it can serve as a frame of reference for those aiming at evaluating performance of smart cities using appropriate schemes, can be used as a basis for conducting further critical analyses of assessment schemes, and may also guide the development of better-informed schemes in the cities employ information and communication technologies to improve the quality of life for its citizens, the local economy, transport, traffic management, environment, and interaction with government. Due to the relevance of smart cities also referred using other related terms such as Digital City, Information City, Intelligent City, Knowledge-based City, Ubiquitous City, Wired City to various stakeholders and the benefits and challenges associated with its implementation, the concept of smart cities has attracted significant attention from researchers within multiple fields, including information systems. This study provides a valuable synthesis of the relevant literature by analysing and discussing the key findings from existing research on issues related to smart cities from an Information Systems perspective. The research analysed and discussed in this study focuses on number of aspects of smart cities smart mobility, smart living, smart environment, smart citizens, smart government, and smart architecture as well as related technologies and concepts. The discussion also focusses on the alignment of smart cities with the UN sustainable development goals. This comprehensive review offers critical insight to the key underlying research themes within smart cities, highlighting the limitations of current developments and potential future directions. Becky P Y LooWinnie S. M. TangSmart cities are designed to use data to optimize resources, maintain sustainability, and improve people’s quality of life. While many urban technologies are employed to make cities “smart,” one constellation of technologies has been less examined in the academic literature—digital maps and the spatial data infrastructure. This paper is an attempt to systematically review the functions and evolution of digital maps and the spatial data infrastructure, with examples from Asia and beyond, in supporting and making smart cities possible. Based on the conceptual framework and empirical case studies, four major research directions of smart mapping are identified to better support smart city initiatives.

oeaB. 478 36 57 453 360 311 499 377 295

indeks kota cerdas indonesia 2018