Evaluating Placemaking Elements in Campus Urban Parks: A Case Study of UNDIP Jogging Track, Semarang

Daffa Maulana Rifli*  -  Diponegoro University, Indonesia
Airin Dian Nagari  -  Diponegoro University, Indonesia
Budi Sudarwanto  -  Diponegoro University, Indonesia
Siti Rukayah  -  Diponegoro University, Indonesia
Agung Budi Sardjono  -  Diponegoro University, Indonesia

(*) Corresponding Author

Public space plays a crucial role in improving urban quality of life by supporting social interaction, physical activity, and community engagement. However, many existing public spaces in Indonesian cities are not designed with sufficient attention to user comfort, inclusivity, and long-term spatial sustainability. This study evaluates the implementation of the placemaking concept in UNDIP Jogging Track Park, Semarang, by examining four key elements: Uses and Activities, Comfort and Image, Access and Linkages, and Sociability. A qualitative descriptive approach was employed, supported by systematic field observations, spatial mapping, informal user interviews, and triangulation through spatial plan analysis and activity-based interpretation. Data were analyzed using placemaking indicators as an evaluative framework to assess the relationship between spatial configuration, facility distribution, environmental quality, and user perception. The results demonstrate that only 17 of 33 placemaking subcategories were fulfilled, indicating partial implementation of placemaking principles. Nevertheless, the park exhibits strong sociability, high activity diversity, and continuous daily use, supported by spatial integration, visual openness, and functional facility provision. The findings reveal a structural gap between functional success and comprehensive placemaking performance, particularly in aspects of universal accessibility, passive engagement spaces, micro-scale comfort, and inclusive design. This study uniquely positions campus-based public space as a hybrid socio-spatial environment, integrating academic life, public use, and everyday urban activities within a single placemaking evaluation framework. This study contributes to placemaking literature by providing an integrated user-centered assessment model within a campus-based public space context, offering both theoretical insights and practical implications for inclusive and sustainable urban public space development.

Keywords: Placemaking Concept, Placemaking Indicators, Campus Open Space, Public Space.

 

 

Ruang publik memainkan peran penting dalam meningkatkan kualitas hidup perkotaan dengan mendukung interaksi sosial, aktivitas fisik, dan keterlibatan komunitas. Namun, banyak ruang publik yang ada di kota-kota Indonesia belum dirancang dengan perhatian yang memadai terhadap kenyamanan pengguna, inklusivitas, dan keberlanjutan spasial jangka panjang. Penelitian ini mengevaluasi penerapan konsep placemaking di Taman Jogging Track UNDIP, Semarang, dengan mengkaji empat elemen kunci, yaitu: penggunaan dan aktivitas, kenyamanan dan citra, akses dan keterhubungan, serta sosiabilitas.   Pendekatan deskriptif kualitatif digunakan, didukung oleh observasi lapangan sistematis, pemetaan spasial, wawancara informal dengan pengguna, serta triangulasi melalui rencana tata ruang dan interpretasi berbasis aktivitas. Data dianalisis menggunakan indikator placemaking sebagai kerangka evaluatif untuk menilai hubungan antara konfigurasi spasial, distribusi fasilitas, kualitas lingkungan, dan persepsi pengguna. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa hanya 17 dari 33 subkategori placemaking yang terpenuhi, yang mengindikasikan penerapan prinsip placemaking secara parsial. Meskipun demikian, taman ini menunjukkan sosiabilitas yang kuat, keragaman aktivitas yang tinggi, serta penggunaan harian yang berkelanjutan, yang didukung oleh integrasi spasial, keterbukaan visual, dan penyediaan fasilitas yang fungsional. Temuan ini mengungkap adanya kesenjangan struktural antara keberhasilan fungsional dan kinerja placemaking yang komprehensif, khususnya pada aspek aksesibilitas universal, ruang keterlibatan pasif, kenyamanan skala mikro, dan desain inklusif. Studi ini secara unik memposisikan ruang publik berbasis kampus sebagai lingkungan sosio-spasial hibrida, yang mengintegrasikan kehidupan akademik, penggunaan publik, dan aktivitas perkotaan sehari-hari dalam satu kerangka evaluasi pembentukan ruang. Penelitian ini berkontribusi terhadap literatur placemaking dengan menyediakan model penelitian terintegrasi yang berorientasi pada pengguna dalam konteks ruang publik berbasis kampus, serta menawarkan wawasan teoris dan implikasi praktis bagi pengembangan ruang publik perkotaan yang inklusif dan berkelanjutan.

Kata kunci: Konsep Placemaking, Indikator Placemaking, Ruang Terbuka Kampus, Ruang Publik.
  1. Adiba, A., & Ernawati, J. (2022). Persepsi Mahasiswa Terhadap Kenyamanan Spasial Ruang Terbuka Publik di Kampus I UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta. Jurnal Mahasiswa Departemen Arsitektur, 10(2). https://arsitektur.studentjournal.ub.ac.id/index.php/jma/article/view/1917
  2. Aguila, M. D., Ensiyeh, G., & Vale, B. (2019). Theory of Place in Public Space. Urban Planning, 4, 249–259. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v4i2.1978
  3. Amal, C., Amalia, A., & Fuadillah, S. (2020). Intensitas Penggunaan Ruang Terbuka Komunal di Lingkungan Kampus Kota Makassar. Jurnal Linears, 2, 55–65. https://doi.org/10.26618/j-linears.v2i2.3122
  4. Arsyadani, R. (2021). Analisis Jogging Track Universitas Diponegoro. IMAJI, Vol. 10 No 1. https://ejournal3.UNDIP.ac.id/index.php/imaji/issue/viewIssue/1595/114
  5. Awaliah, S. G., & Wibawa, B. A. (2022). Analisis Aksesibilitas Ruang Terbuka Publik di Jogging Track UNDIP. UMPAK : Jurnal Arsitektur dan Lingkungan Binaan, 5(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.26877/umpak.v5i1.19652
  6. Branislav Antonić, Despina Dimelli, Rotondo, F., Alexandra Delgado Jiménez, & Agisilaos Economou. (2024). Placemaking in Practice Volume 1: Experiences and Approaches from a Pan-European Perspective (C. Smaniotto Costa, M. Fathi, J. A. García-Esparza, & A. Djukic, Eds.; Vol. 1). BRILL. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004542389
  7. Cahyaningtyas, A., & Jenny, E. (2024). Kualitas Placemaking Ruang Terbuka Publik Pada Koridor Jalan Di Kawasan Komersial Bersejarah Jalan Panglima Sudirman, Kota Batu. Jurnal Mahasiswa Departemen Arsitektur, 12(2). https://arsitektur.studentjournal.ub.ac.id/index.php/jma/article/view/2461
  8. Carr, S. (1992). Public Space. Cambridge University Press.
  9. Chitwattanakorn, T., Chavasirikultol, N., Kerdngern, N., & Joungtrakul, J. (2024). Investigator Triangulation: A Strategy for Enhancing Trustworthiness in Qualitative Research. Research Community and Social Development Journal, 18(3), 521–532. https://doi.org/10.14456/nrru-rdi.2024.30
  10. Endalew Terefe, A., & Hou, Y. (2024). Determinants influencing the accessibility and use of urban green spaces: A review of empirical evidence. City and Environment Interactions, 24, 100159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cacint.2024.100159
  11. Francis, J., Giles-Corti, B., Wood, L., & Knuiman, M. (2012). Creating sense of community: The role of public space. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32(4), 401–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.07.002
  12. Gomaa, M. M., Ullah, U., Afroz, M., & Zobia. (2024). The Impact of Spatial Configuration on Perceived Accessibility of Urban Parks Based on Space Syntax and Users’ Responses. Civil Engineering and Architecture, 12(3A), 2395–2402. https://doi.org/10.13189/cea.2024.121333
  13. Hanan, H. (2013). Open Space as Meaningful Place for Students in ITB Campus. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 85, 308–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.08.361
  14. Hardi, R., & Diananta, P. (2023). PENILAIAN PLACEMAKING DI RUANG TERBUKA PUBLIK KAWASAN JAM GADANG. ALUR : Jurnal Arsitektur, 6, 64–73. https://doi.org/10.54367/alur.v6i2.2585
  15. Istoriou, T., & Pozoukidou, G. (2025). Understanding placemaking in spatial planning using a text analysis tool. Discover Cities, 2(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44327-025-00097-9
  16. Lau, S. S. Y., Gou, Z., & Liu, Y. (2014). Healthy campus by open space design: Approaches and guidelines. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 3(4), 452–467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2014.06.006
  17. Li, J., Md. Dali, M., & Nordin, N. A. (2023). Connectedness among Urban Parks from the Users’ Perspective: A Systematic Literature Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(4), 3652. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20043652
  18. Liao, B., & Zhu, J. (2025). Exploring the causal relationship between campus walkability and affective walking experience: Evidence from 7 major tertiary education campuses in China. Journal of Urban Management, 14(3), 657–674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jum.2025.01.005
  19. Mehta, V. (2014). Evaluating Public Space. Journal of Urban Design, 19(1), 53–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2013.854698
  20. Peng, Y., Peng, Z., Feng, T., Zhong, C., & Wang, W. (2021). Assessing Comfort in Urban Public Spaces: A Structural Equation Model Involving Environmental Attitude and Perception. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(3), 1287. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18031287
  21. Peters, K., Elands, B., & Buijs, A. (2010). Social interactions in urban parks: Stimulating social cohesion? Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 9(2), 93–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2009.11.003
  22. Public Space, P. F. (2017). What is Placemaking? https://www.pps.org/article/what-is-placemaking
  23. Purwanti, S. (2022). MEMAKSIMALKAN FUNGSI TAMAN KOTA SEBAGAI RUANG TERBUKA PUBLIK. Jurnal Jendela Inovasi Daerah, 5, 56–70. https://doi.org/10.56354/jendelainovasi.v5i1.114
  24. Saryono, & Anggraeni, M. D. (2013). Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif Dan Kuantitatif Dalam Bidang Kesehatan. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Metodologi-Penelitian-Kualitatif-Dan-Kuantitatif-Saryono-Anggraeni/09ecc6f39fec4b2070bc8bcb2908ee1ef1124509
  25. Shirvani, H. (with Internet Archive). (1985). The urban design process. New York : Van Nostrand Reinhold. http://archive.org/details/urbandesignproce0000shir
  26. Siregar, J. P. (2014). Assessment of Public Space Quality Using Good Public Space Index (Case Study of Merjosari Sub District, Municipality of Malang, Indonesia). Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 135, 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.07.318
  27. Strydom, W., Puren, K., & Drewes, E. (2018). Exploring theoretical trends in placemaking: Towards new perspectives in spatial planning. Journal of Place Management and Development, 11(2), 165–180. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPMD-11-2017-0113
  28. Sukawi, S. (2008, August 1). Taman Kota dan Upaya Pengurangan Suhu Lingkungan Perkotaan. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Taman-Kota-dan-Upaya-Pengurangan-Suhu-Lingkungan-Sukawi/cd32a2c34b4cf4375539ae9f3178c0380c891ed1
  29. Susanti, W. D. (2018). POLA PEMANFAATAN RUANG PUBLIK DI LINGKUNGAN KAMPUS (STUDI KASUS FAKULTAS ARSITEKTUR DAN DESAIN UPN ”VETERAN” JATIM). JURNAL ENVIROTEK, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.33005/envirotek.v10i1.1169
  30. UU No. 26. (2007). UU No. 26 Tahun 2007. Database Peraturan | JDIH BPK. http://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/39908/uu-no-26-tahun-2007
  31. Wihandono, F. A., & Qomarun, Q. (2021). Evaluasi Good Public Space Index pada Halaman Benteng Vasternburg sebagai Public Space di Kota Surakarta. Prosiding (SIAR) Seminar Ilmiah Arsitektur, 147–155.
  32. Wyckoff, M. A. (2014). Definitions of placemaking: Four different types. https://www.canr.msu.edu/uploads/375/65824/4typesplacemaking_pzn_wyckoff_january2014.pdf

Jurnal Planologi
Published by Pusat Studi Planologi Universitas Islam Sultan Agung Semarang, in collaboration with Asosiasi Sekolah Perencanaan Indonesia.
Jl. Kaligawe Raya KM. 4 Semarang, Indonesia
Phone: +6212345678
Email: jurnalplanologi@unissula.ac.id

View My Stats

e-ISSN: 1829-9172

p-ISSN: 2615-5257

DOI : 10.30659/japs

Creative Commons License

Get a feed by atom here, RRS2 here and OAI Links here

apps