Perkembangan Penelitian Indikator Kota Berkelanjutan Menggunakan Bibliometric Analysis dan Systematic Literature Review

Laili Fuji Widyawati; Asti Istiqomah; Yolamalinda Yolamalinda

doi:10.33830/Reksabumi.v2i2.5313.2023

Laili Fuji Widyawati IPB University
Asti Istiqomah IPB University
Yolamalinda Yolamalinda IPB University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.33830/Reksabumi.v2i2.5313.2023

Keywords:

Sustainability, Indicators, Status

Abstract

The three pillars of sustainability namely economic, ecological, and social have been fundamental in development including sustainable urban development. A sustainable city is one that’s environmentally safe, socially inclusive, and economically viable, to allow all of its citizens, now or in the future, to meet their personal needs and improve their quality of life at no cost to others’ natures or human lives. Effective evaluation of urban sustainability is essential for sustainable development. In evaluating, it is necessary to measure sustainability indicators. Therefore, the goal of this study is to determine development and productivity of sustainable city research publications using bibliometric analysis and to identify indicators for evaluating the sustainability of a city using Systematic Literature Review (SLR). Data were obtained through search methods from the leading Scopus journal database and manual search. The material obtained is then filtered in three stages namely identifications, screening, and eligibility level. Based on the bibliometric analysis, it was identified that the word cloud of popular research keywords is sustainability and sustainable development while research with indicator keywords is still limited. As a result SLR, had a total of 36 materials and documents that were found and summarized for highlighting. The results showed that there were 225 indicators in a sustainable city, consisting of socio-cultural (65 indicators), environmental (75 indicators), economy (51 indicators), ICT/transverse (12 indicators), and urban (22 indicators) dimensions.

References

Banamar, I., & Smet, Y. D. 2018. An extension of PROMETHEE II to temporal evaluations. International Journal of Multicriteria Decision Making, 7(3–4), 298–325.

Bibri, S. E., & Krogstie, J. 2017. ICT of the new wave of computing for sustainable urban forms: Their big data and context-aware augmented typologies and design concepts. Sustainable Cities and Society, 32, 449–474. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. scs.2017.04.012.

Borrett, S.R.; Sheble, L.; Moody, J.; Anway, E.C. Bibliometric review of ecological network analysis: 2010–2016. Ecol. Model. 2018, 382, 63–82. [CrossRef]

Boto-Álvarez, A., & García-Fernández, R. 2020. Implementation of the 2030 agenda sustainable development goals in Spain. Sustainability, 12(6), 2546. http://dx.doi. org/10.3390/su12062546.

Bouzguenda, I., Alalouch, C., & Fava, N. 2019. Towards smart sustainable cities: A review of the role digital citizen participation could play in advancing social sustainability. Sustainable Cities and Society, 50, Article 101627. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.scs.2019.101627.

Chen, Chaomei. 2003. Mapping Scientific: The Quest For Knowledge Visulization. London:Springer-Verlag. 223p.

De Looze, M.A., & Lemarie, J. 1997. Corpus Relevance Through Co-Word Analysis: An Application to Plants. Scientometrics, 39(3): 267-280.

Frini, A., & Benamor, S. 2018. Making decisions in a sustainable development context: A state-of-the-art survey and proposal of a multi-period single synthesizing criterion approach. Computational Economics, 52(2), 341–385. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s10614-017-9677-5.

Frini, A., Benamor, S., & Urli, B. 2020. Temporal MCDA methods for decision-making in sustainable development context. Sustainability Concept in Developing Countries, http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90698.

Hassan, A. M., & Lee, H. 2015. The paradox of the sustainable city: definitions and examples. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 17(6), 1267–1285. http: //dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10668-014-9604-z.

Höjer, M., & Wangel, J. 2015. Smart sustainable cities: definition and challenges. In ICT innovations for sustainability (pp. 333–349). Springer, http://dx.doi.org/10. 1007/978-3-319-09228-7_20.

ITU. 2014. Smart sustainable cities: An analysis of definitions. The international telecommunication union.

Koch, F., & Krellenberg, K. 2018. How to contextualize SDG 11? Looking at indicators for sustainable urban development in Germany. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 7(12), 464. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijgi7120464.

Koh, K. L., Gunawansa, A., & Bhullar, L. 2010. ‘‘Eco-cities’’ and ‘‘sustainable cities’’ - whither? Social Space, 84–92, URL https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/lien_research/58/.

Liberati, A.; Altman, D.G.; Tetzlaff, J.; Mulrow, C.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Ioannidis, J.P.; Moher, D. 2009.The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. J. Clin. Epidemiol., 62, e1–e34. [CrossRef]

Miola, A., & Schiltz, F. 2019. Measuring sustainable development goals performance: How to monitor policy action in the 2030 agenda implementation? Ecological Economics, 164, Article 106373. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019. 106373.

Tupan; Rochani, N.R.; Rulina R.; Endang S.R.R.2018. Analisis Bibliometrik Perkembangan Penelitian Bidang Ilmu Instrumentasi. Jurnal Dokumentasi dan Informasi, 39 (2) Desember 2018: 135-149

UN. 2009. Planning sustainable cities – global report on human settlements 2009. United nations human settlements programme. URL https://mirror.unhabitat.org/ pmss/listItemDetails.aspx?publicationID=2831.

Wahono, R.S. Systematic Literature Review: Pengantar, Tahapan Dan Studi Kasus. 2020. Available online: https://romisatriawahono.net/2016/05/15/systematic-literature-review-pengantar-tahapan-dan-studi-kasus/ (accessed on 2 July 2022).