Urban platform approach in Covid-19 pandemic management (case of Semarang and Yogyakarta, Indonesia)

Yudha Pracastino Heston, Bakti Setiawan, Deva Fosterharoldas Swasto

Abstract

The world population is experiencing urban life disruption since early 2020 due to the Covid-19 pandemic. In Indonesia, Semarang and Yogyakarta both are the capital cities of respective provinces, undergone the peak of pandemic twice. The first peak occurred between January and February 2021, and the second peak occurred in July 2021. The pandemic that occurred in those two cities altered the dynamics of urban social, political, and cultural dynamics. This paper attempted to discover the phenomenon of urban management in Semarang and Yogyakarta in dealing with the Covid-19 pandemic. In this study, statistical description was used by comparing indicators and investigating their relationship using urban platform approach. The study found four major variables in Semarang and Yogyakarta: the quality of the environment; collaboration and coordination among government, society, and private parties; the presence of infrastructure to deal with Covid-19; and pandemic handling in planning and implementation.

Keywords

Management; Pandemic; Planning; Urban

Full Text:

PDF

References

[1] Ghosh B, Arora S. Smart As (Un)democratic? The Making of A Smart City Imaginary in Kolkata, India. Environ Plan C Polit Sp 2022;40:318–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/23996544211027583.

[2] Deslatte A, Hatch ME, Stokan E. How Can Local Governments Address Pandemic Inequities? Public Adm Rev 2020;80:827–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13257.

[3] Aminullah E, Erman E. Policy Innovation and Emergence of Innovative Health Technology: The System Dynamics Modelling of Early COVID-19 Handling in Indonesia. Technol Soc 2021;66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101682.

[4] Sturzaker J, Verdini G. Opposition and Resistance: Governance Challenges Around Urban Growth in China and The UK. J Urban Manag 2017;6:30–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jum.2017.02.001.

[5] Healey P, Cars G, Madanipour A, de Magalhães C. Urban Governance, Institutional Capacity and Social Milieux. London: Routledge; 2002. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315202877.

[6] Oliveira V, Pinho P. Evaluation in Urban Planning: Advances and Prospects. J Plan Lit 2010;24:343–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412210364589.

[7] Friedmann J. Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1987. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv10crf8d.

[8] Sulaeman ES, Murti B, Waryana. Peran Kepemimpinan, Modal Sosial, Akses Informasi serta Petugas dan Fasilitator Kesehatan dalam Pemberdayaan Masyarakat Bidang Kesehatan. Kesmas J Kesehat Masy Nas 2015;9:353–61.

[9] Davey KJ. Urban Management: The Challenge of Growth. Aldershot: Avebury; 1996.

[10] Bačlija I. Urban Management in A European Context. Urbani Izziv 2011;22. https://doi.org/10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2011-22-02-006.

[11] Mattingly M. Private Development and Public Management of Urban Land: A Case Study of Nepal. Land Use Policy 1996;13:115–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/0264-8377(95)00036-4.

[12] Bollier D. The City as Platform: How Digital Networks Are Changing Urban Life and Governance. Washington: The Aspen Institute; 2016.

[13] Parker GG, Van Alstyne MW, Choudary SP. Platform Revolution: How Networked Markets Are Transforming the Economy and How to Make Them Work for You. New York: W. W. Norton & Company; 2016.

[14] Pemerintah Kota Semarang. Kota Semarang Siaga Corona. Pemerintah Kota Semarang 2021.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.20961/region.v18i1.60130

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.