Is there social capital in cities? The association of urban form and social capital formation in the metropolitan cities of Indonesia

ABSTRACT

High-density urban development is claimed as a suitable urban form in enhancing social capital. However, the relationship between those two variables has not been well empirically explored, leading to the emergence of competing results in the literature. This study aimed to investigate the role of urban physical arrangement or urban form in the social capital formation using Indonesian metropolitan cities as a case study. This research was also the first empirical study to investigate the association between urban form and social capital in Indonesia. The multilevel logistic regression was used to investigate the association between the urban form and several indicators of social capital. The findings revealed that individuals in high residential density areas were less likely to know their neighbours, had lower levels of bridging trust, and less involved in the community’s activities.

Meanwhile, street connectivity appeared to have a positive association with bridging trust but negatively related to social networks. Moreover, the land use mix did not seem to be significantly associated with any social capital variables. However, the aggregated data of urban form limited our ability of the present study to provide specific policy recommendations. Nonetheless, this study would still suggest that urban planners and policy makers should be mindful to consider that urban form features might influence the development of social capital.

Highlights

• Multilevel logistic regression confirmed that urban form can be claimed to have association with the formation of social capital in metropolitan cities in Indonesia

• High density seems to have reverse relationship with the level of knowing neighbour, bridging trust and make residents less involve in community activities.

• High connectivity contributes in fostering the level of bridging trust but lowering social networks.

• Meanwhile, land use mix did not appear as significant predictor of social capital

KEYWORDS:

• Social capital
• urban form
• multilevel regression
• urban development
• compact city

JEL CLASSIFICATION:

• Z1
• R00
• R23
• C01

Acknowledgment

The authors would sincerely thanks to the editor and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments to improve this paper. We acknowledge this research was funded by PITMA A grants from the Directorate of Research and Community Engagement, Universitas Indonesia. The first author would also like to thank to LPDP (Indonesia Endowment Fund for Education), Ministry of Finance, Republic Indonesia for providing scholarship during the study at Postgraduate Program in Economics, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Indonesia.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 Each metropolitan area is an abbreviation of the name of some cities.

Mebidangpro (Medan,Binjai,district Deli serdang district and Tanah Karo); Palapa (Padang, Pariaman, district Padang Pariaman); Patungraya Agung (Palembang,district Banyuasin, Ogan Ilir and Ogan Komering Ilir); Jabodetabek (Jakarta,Bogor,Depok,Tangerang and Bekasi); Bandung Raya (Bandung, Cimahi, district Bandung and West Bandung); Kedungsepur (Semarang,Salatiga, district Kendal,Semarang,Demak and Grobongan); Kartamanul (Yogyakarta,district Sleman and Bantul); Solor Raya (Surakarta,district Boyolali,Sukorharjo, Karanganyar, Wonogiri, Sragen, Klaten); Gerbangkertosusila (Surabaya,Mojokerto, district Sidoarjo,Gresik, Mojokerto,Lamongan and Bangkalan); Sarbagita (Denpasar, district Badung,Gianyar and Tabanan); Mataram Raya (Mataram, district West Lombok, East Lombok,Central Lombok and North Lombok); Banjar Bakula (Banjarmasin, Banjarbaru,district Banjar,Barito Kuala and Tanah Laut); Maminasata (Makasar, district Maros,Gowa and Takalar); Bimido (Manado, Bitung and district North Minahasa).