DAMPAK KEBIJAKAN PENYEDIAAN INFRASTRUKTUR DASAR TERHADAP TINGKAT HUNIAN PERUMAHAN MENENGAH KE BAWAH
Abstract
Rumah mempunyai fungsi yang multidimensi. Selain fungsi fisik, rumah juga mempunyai fungsi sosial dan ekonomi yang dapat terlihat dari pemanfaatannya. Agar dapat berfungsi secara layak, rumah harus dilengkapi infrastruktur dasar seperti taman, ruang terbuka, jaringan jalan dan sistem transportasi, jaringan listrik dan air minum. Penyediaan tersebut harus sesuai dengan tata ruang yang ada sehingga dapat mendukung berbagai kegiatan sosial dan ekonomi baik dalam skala lingkungan perumahan maupun kota. Namun kenyataannya banyak pengembangan perumahan tidak didukung infrastruktur dasar yang memadai sehingga tidak berfungsi optimal. Orientasi kebijakan pengembangan perumahan pada pencapaian target kuantitas - khususnya untuk segmen menengah ke bawah - tampaknya ikut memengaruhi penyediaan infrastruktur dasar perumahan yang berdampak sangat penting terhadap tingkat hunian perumahan. Tulisan ini mengungkapkan dampak kebijakan penyediaan infrastruktur dasar terhadap kepuasan pada perumahan menengah ke bawah. Dari analisis tingkat makro dan mikro terhadap data lapangan yang dikumpulkan pada beberapa sampel perumahan menengah ke bawah di kota Bekasi dapat diungkapkan pentingnya pengaruh kebijakan penyediaan infrastruktur dasar terhadap daya dukung fungsional suatu perumahan. Melalui identifikasi permasalahan tersebut diturunkan strategi peningkatan pemenuhan infrastruktur dasar perumahan melalui pelibatan semua pelaku pembangunan perumahan. Kata kunci: infrastruktur dasar, kualitas perumahan, tingkat hunian, perumahan kelas bawah dan menengah Housing has multi dimensional function. Beside of physical function, housing has also social and economic ones which can bee seen from its utilization. In order to be in decent function houses must be completed with basic infrastructures such as parks, open spaces, road transportation system, electricity, and water. The provision has to in accordance with existing spatial planning so that it can support social and economic activities both in settlement and urban scales. However in reality many housing developments have not been included proper basic infrastructure so that it could not be well in function. Housing development policy that refers on quantitative achievement rather than qualitative one - especially on low to middle income group - seems to influence housing basic infrastructure provision that produce significant impact on housing occupancy level. This paper exposes the influence of policy on basic infrastructure provision on low to middle income housing satisfaction. From macro and micro levels analysis data upon collected field data of some housing samples at the city of Bekasi, it discloses the importance of basic infrastructure policy on housing functional capacity. By understanding the problem, than it can be formulated appropriate strategies to enhance the fulfilment of basic infrastructure by involving all stakeholders in housing development. Key Words: basic infrastructure, settlement quality, level of occupancy, low to middle income housingReferences
Awang, M.Z. 2000. "Kajian Kepuasan Penghuni dan
Persekitarannya; Kajian Kes: Taman Perumahan
Permin Jaya, Cendering, Kuala Terengganu".
Thesis Ijazah Sarjana Sains (Perumahan).
Universiti Sains Malaysia: Pusat Pengajian
Perumahan, Bangunan dan Perancangan.
Bassett, E.M., Schweitzer, J. dan Panken, S. 2006.
Understanding Housing Abandonment and
Owner Decision-Making in Flint Michigan: An
Exploratory Analysis. Working Paper.
Harrisburg, Pensylvania : Lincoln Institute of
Land Policy.
Bramley, G. dan Power, S. 2005. "Urban Form and Social
Sustainability: the role of density and housing
type". European Network for Housing Research
Conference. Reykjavik, Iceland, June.
Cohen, M. and Cheema, S. 1992. The New Agendas in N.
Harris (ed), Cities in the 1900s. London : UCL
Press.
Grimes, A, Kerr, S., Aitken, A., dan Sourell, R. 2006. The
housing fulcrum: balancing economic and social
factors in housing research and policy. Kµtuitui :
New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online.
Royal Society of New Zealand. Vol. 1:65-79.
Hall, P., dan Pfeiffer, U. 2000. Urban Future 21. A global
Agenda for Twenty - first Century Cities. New
York : E&FN Spon and Feddral Ministry of
Transport, Building and Housing.
Kingsley, T. 1997. "Neighborhood Indicators: Taking
Advantage of the New Potential. Growing Smart.
Working Paper.
Logan, J. R dan Harvey, L.M. 1987. Urban Fortune. The
Political Economy of Place. Los Angeles and
London : University of California Press.
Ogu, V.I. 2002. Urban Residential Satisfaction and The
Planning Implications in a Developing World
Context: The Example of Benin City, Nigeria,
International Planning Studies, 7(1): 37-53.
Onibokun, A.G. 1974. Evaluating Consumers'
Satisfaction with Housing: An Application of a
System Approach, Journal of American Institute
of Planners, 40(3): 189-200.
Rosentraub,M.S., dan ShroitmanHROITMAN, T. 2004.
Public Employee Pension Fund and Social
Investments: Recent Performance and A Policy
Option for Changing Investment Strategies.
Journal of Urban Affairs.Volume 2 Number 3
page 325 - 335 Urban Affairs Association
Stokie, T. 1999. Benchmarking Melbourne: Indicators of
Liveability and Competitiveness dalam Yuan,
Lim Lan dkk.s (ed). Urban Quality of Life.
Critical Issues and Options. School of Building
and Real Etate, National University of Singapore.
Theodori, G. L. 2001. Examining the Effects of
Community Satisfaction and Attachment on
Individual Well-being, Rural Sociology, 4(66):
-628.
Turner, J.F.C. 1976. Housing by People, Toward
autonomy in building environments. London :
Marion Boyars.
Van Zandt, S. 2006. The Costs and Benefits of Homeownership.
Center for Urban and Regional
Studies. University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill. Working paper.
Varady, D.P. dan Preiser, W.F.E. 1998. Scattered-Site
Public Housing and Housing Satisfaction:
Implications for the New Public Housing
Program, Journal of American Planning
Association, 6(2): 189-207.
Yeh, S.H.K. 1972. Homes For The People: A Study of
Tenants's Views on Public Housing in Singapore.
University of Singapore: Economic Research
Center. Working Paper.
Yuan, L.L., Yuen, B., dan Low, C. 1999. Qualty of Live in
Cities-Definition, Approaches and Research
dalam Yuan, Lim Lan dkk.s (ed). Urban Quality of
Life. Critical Issues and Options. School of
Building and Real Etate. Singapore : National
University of Singapore.