Next Article in Journal
Framing “The Gypsy Problem”: Populist Electoral Use of Romaphobia in Italy (2014–2019)
Previous Article in Journal
No Power without Knowledge: A Discursive Subjectivities Approach to Investigate Climate-Induced (Im)mobility and Wellbeing
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

Social Impacts of Place-Making in Urban Informal Settlements: A Case Study of Indonesian Kampungs †

Poeti Nazura Gulfira Akbar
* and
Jurian Edelenbos
Erasmus School of Social and Behavioural Sciences (ESSB), Erasmus University Rotterdam, 3062 PA Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
This paper is based on a PhD dissertation that was approved in 2020.
Soc. Sci. 2020, 9(6), 104;
Submission received: 7 May 2020 / Revised: 8 June 2020 / Accepted: 11 June 2020 / Published: 17 June 2020


This study aims to assess the social outcome of place-making in urban informal settlements. This research is guided by the following research question: What are the relationships between regular and temporal place-making towards local capacity, social connection, local identity, and quality of life? Data were collected using a self-administered questionnaire in two informal settlements in Indonesia. Several indicators were combined from existing literature in order to assess the influence of the place-making on the residents’ perceptions of the four social outcomes. The results of the multiple linear regression analysis were presented while increasing our comprehension of how specific dimensions of place-making, such as nature of activities and their frequency, affect social aspects of the community where the practice took place. The originality of this paper lies in the context of the research and the methodology where it fills the existing gaps in both areas.

1. Introduction

Although many researchers from different parts of the world have shown that place-making provides many social benefits to the individual and their communities, this impact seems to be unclear from the Global South context. Most of the place-making conceptualizations and applications have been done in developed countries. Cohen et al. (2018) explicitly states that given that socioeconomic, physical, and institutional contexts in those groups are distinctly different from the former ones, their outcomes might also differ. Meanwhile, other previous researchers also state that place-making was mainly discussed, conceptualized, and applied in the Western countries, particularly from North America, Europe, and Australia (Friedmann 2010). Peirce (2015) (in Iwińska 2017, p. 23) further supports this opinion: “Even though place-making still does not translate into many languages, projects which include the approach, are carried out in locations as distant as India or South Korea”. Consequently, uncertainties exist as to whether place-making brings positive impacts on social aspects of residents in the context of developing and non-Western countries, particularly those who live in problematic areas such as urban informal settlement dwellers. It is indeed an area that has been little explored in the place-making literature which may have significant contributions for further understanding the concept (Lew 2017).
In addition to the discussion in the previous paragraph, several authors (Ponzini and Palermo 2014; Iwińska 2017) also brought up the gap in the methodology and analysis of how place-making process influences the social aspect. One major downside that place-making shares where it is seen as a process rather than a product, is difficulty of measuring the outcomes (Cohen et al. 2018; Hordijk et al. 2015; Silberberg et al. 2013). The results of place-making as a process is much less tangible than the traditional planning approach where the results are more visible through physical changes or economic profits. This might be the reason that several discussions pertaining to quantitative analysis of place-making were found in the literature, but they primarily involve studies of physical or economic impacts (e.g., Silberberg et al. 2013; Wironkowicz 2015). As stated, “Whereas physical makeover is easily seen and evaluated, symbolic, anthropological, and social analyses continue to be schematic or merely hypothetical” (Ponzini and Palermo 2014, p. 6). In their suggestion of future research, Alzahrani et al. (2016) proposed the need to create indicators for assessing social value of place-making so that urban planners can identify areas where enhancements are required to deliver social benefits to local communities. Similar opinion came from Balassiano and Maldonado (2015) who argue that more studies are needed to not only fill in the gap related to the lack of measurement for social impacts of place-making, but also the lack of quantification of place-making activities itself including operationalization of resident’s perceptions related to place-making.
Taking into consideration the previous research gaps, this study aims to assess the social outcome of place-making through quantitative approach. Place-making concept is revisited through the experience of community-based initiatives of public space improvements in two big Indonesian cities—Bandung and Semarang. By applying the concept of place-making in informal settlements as explained earlier, the main purpose of this study is to understand the role of place-making through regular and temporal practices on local empowerment, identity, social connection, and quality of life of residents in Indonesian urban informal settlements. The main research question is therefore formulated to achieve the aim: What are the relationships between regular and temporal place-making towards local capacity, social connection, identity, and quality of life? The results of this study might add to the very few quantitative researches on place-making as well as contribute to the understanding of the concept in the developing context.

2. Place-Making as Process

A perspective of place-making as a process is adopted, particularly using Henri Lefebvre’s work on urbanism and the creation of space—which has been significant for place-making movement until today. It argues that urban places are embedded in the built environment and come into being through the reiterative social practices, meanings that are made and remade on a daily basis (Cresswell 2004). In other words, place is seen as a process where the setting of place is a product of the users’ activities, and therefore, remaking a place is a social activity that involved people (Arefi 2014; Lombard 2014). Lefebvre also demonstrates different kinds of strategies that have been developed in place-making, that are small- and large-scale events; temporary and long-term place activations and development (Marshall and Bishop 2015). Taking into consideration the importance of both nature of place-making, this study introduces the terms ‘regular’ and ‘temporal place-making’ to empirically examine place-making. Explanation of these two forms of place-making will be further explained in the following sections.

Classification of ‘Regular’ and ‘Temporal’ Place-Making

In this study, regular place-making refers to some characteristics of place-making that is the collective ‘mundane’ activities of ordinary residents in their neighborhoods. In the literature where the characteristic is found, some scholars, either partly or wholly, drew upon ‘everyday life’ to explain place-making (Douglas 2016; Elwood et al. 2015; Friedmann 2010; Lombard 2014). Everyday life is defined as a process where places are claimed and shaped through everyday social practices. This concept of everyday life is acknowledged as the essence of ‘lived space’ by (Lefebvre 1991, p. 362), identified as a representational space inhabited or used by people imposing their “private worlds upon the public realm". Drawing from his idea, more recent scholars of place-making have put forth the ideas of the ‘lived place-making’. For instance, Jupp (2008 in Balassiano and Maldonado 2015) refers it to activities where ordinary citizens, who do not have enough power to transform their places as significant as those who are in the upper position, are involved in space appropriation to generate feelings of belonging. Together, these scholars emphasize on the ability of ordinary citizens or users to become involved in the formation of space.
In the literature, place-making is also characterized as ‘temporary’ to refer the use of urban space (Andres 2013; Marshall and Bishop 2015; Silberberg et al. 2013). Besides ‘temporary’, this characteristic of place-making is applied in different terms by other scholars. While Till and McArdle (2015) choose ‘interim space’ to consider short-term projects such as a pop up event in Dublin’s park by an artistic collective, ‘temporality’ is adopted by Rota and Salone (2014) and Kern (2015) to categorize several formally organized activities by local neighborhood-level organizations, such as annual music festivals. These terms, albeit classified differently, are principally the same in explaining the ‘temporary’ characteristic of place-making as place activations through occasional events at the neighborhood or block level. Several authors also used ‘temporary’ to describe a specific approach of place-making which called ‘tactical’ (Douglas 2016; Lew 2017). This approach is described as "a bottom-up approach led by community groups looking to test, change, improve aspects of their locale and often using temporary, low-technology interventions" (Cohen et al. 2018, p. 13). The main aim is to make people think outside the box about what might be possible to improve the quality of life in a place. Lew (2017) states that although tactical place-making involves organic processes, it nevertheless entails some level of forward-planning. In this sense, tactical place-making is often utilized to test small-scale physical improvements before making “substantial political and financial commitments” for a permanently designed public space in the future (Lydon et al. 2012 in Iwińska 2017). The difference characteristics of regular and temporal place-making were described in Table 1.

3. Area of Study

This section presents the study area, which are two kampungs in Indonesia. Before explaining the two kampung cases, an introduction of kampung is provided in detail, such as definition, characteristics, and development. It is followed by geographic and demographic information of the two kampungs.

3.1. Introduction of Indonesian Urban Kampungs

In Indonesia, urban informal settlements are called ‘kampung’, which is initially referred to as ’village’ in Bahasa Indonesia. Throughout its development where many kampungs are absorbed by urban development, the term has been transformed to include any informal settlement areas that exist in the city (Putra 2018; Rahmi et al. 2001; Setiawan 2010). From the perspective of rural inhabitants, people immigrate to the city with a common hope to improve their lives (Sutandyo-Buchholz 2013). This remarkable capacity of kampung to absorb expanding city populations has been shown since the 1940s where kampungs, particularly in Java, usually occupy about 60% of the total area of a city and are situated close to the city centers, as well as providing settlement for more than three-quarters of the citizens (Rahmi et al. 2001). It was said that the number of kampungs was even higher in the 1980s (Stryk et al. 1990 in Simarmata 2018). Nonetheless, as the documentation of Indonesian urban kampungs is lacking because the census had never been completed until currently, neither the exact number of kampungs nor the total kampung population is known (Simarmata 2018). As a result of this development, kampungs are also referred to as an urban village. To differentiate the kampungs as villages and kampungs as urban informal settlement, many of the previous authors also called the latter as ‘urban kampungs.’ In this study, the latter definition of kampung is used. Other than the urban village and informal settlement, a kampung is also a common term for ‘low-income settlement’ because its dwellers that are mainly low-income people.

3.2. Informal Characteristics of Kampungs

According to UN Habitat (2003 in Hutama 2016), informal settlements are characterized as follows: Spontaneous spatial layout, informal land tenure, lack of basic infrastructures, and exposed to discrimination. Despite these general characteristics, the depiction of informal settlement varies in every country. In Indonesia, degrees of “informality” of urban kampungs are explained differently by different authors (Hutama 2016). This study attempts to explain what informality means within the context of urban kampungs in relation to physical, economic, socio-cultural, and spatial characteristics.

3.3. Physical Characteristic

In many cases, a kampung is associated with ‘slum’ and ‘squatter’ because of its physical characteristic that is high density, dominated by poor, and lack of adequate basic services, including sanitation and shelter (Dovey and King 2012). Interestingly, kampung has been recognized as a slum since there was a program called Kampung Improvement Program (KIP) by the Indonesian government. It was supported by the World Bank and UN Habitat, in which both declared kampung as a slum because it has the same typologies as slums or squatter settlements. In this way, they refer to the following characteristics: Irregular, self-made residences on land unsuited for residences, such as floodplains, swamps, riverbanks, toll roads, and railway areas (Simarmata 2018).
Despite the notorious characteristic of kampung with its physical limitation, kampung has distinctive space features because of its density and shortage of space, that is the social interaction within the community. Rahmi et al. (2001) demonstrated that the pressure of high densities and lack of open space had encouraged the kampung dwellers to reconstruct and adapt some places in urban kampungs to be socially acceptable public spaces. Many of the previous researchers in urban kampungs (Hutama 2016; Indraswari 2006; Rahmi et al. 2001; Sudarwanto et al. 2017) found that these social spaces are abundant despite the limited availability of open spaces in kampungs. In this regard, they referred to pathways/alleys, local shops/taverns, public baths and toilets, fields, and other public facilities (e.g., community spaces, guard posts, mosques). This kind of public spaces can be seen in Table 2 below.

3.4. Economic Characteristic

The informal characteristic of kampungs can also be seen from the informal business in kampungs (Indraswari 2006; Sutandyo-Buchholz 2013). This informal income-generating activity is varied depending on each kampung. However, most often, the activities include operating small informal shops, selling food in wagons or food stalls, and running small home-based industries. This showed that kampungs do not merely function as settlements only, but also working spaces, which enabled their inhabitants to reside and conduct businesses in the same place (Rahmi et al. 2001). Regarding the informal economy in kampungs, it is also seen as one of the unique identities of kampungs that cannot be found in other parts of the city, most notably in the formal neighborhood and settlements. Indraswari (2006) gave an example of the presence of small shops or called warung. In the city, warung does not play an important role in the citizens’ needs, as most of them prefer to buy their daily necessities in the formal business sector, such as a supermarket; whereas warung is significant to kampung residents because they provide the residents’ needs at more affordable prices compared to the formal shops. The presence of warung can be seen in the Figure 1 below.

3.5. Social Characteristic

The unique characteristic of kampungs is not only shown in the physical and economic aspects. Instead, its social and cultural environment are believed to convey more vibrancy and informal creative activity, while giving identity to the city (Sastrosasmito 2009 in Hutama 2016). One of the well-recognized values of kampungs is the strong bonding among the residents. It is shown by how its inhabitants engage in collective efforts or kerja bakti to improve their lives, such as through providing housing on their own (Bowen 1986). This traditional collective characteristic mainly occurs in rural areas where the social environment is nearly homogenous (Sutandyo-Buchholz 2013). Nonetheless, this collective characteristic becomes a part of urban kampung characteristic since the existence of kampung is generally marginalized, and the dwellers need to carry out their needs of shelter and infrastructure by their capacity of knowledge that they have gained through their experience (Rahmi et al. 2001; Simarmata 2018; Sutandyo-Buchholz 2013). An example of how kerja bakti look like in the real life case of kampung can be seen in Figure 2 below.

3.6. Spatial Characteristic

From a spatial perspective, the organic development of urban kampung creates unpredictable patterns that enrich the spatial experience within a city. This causes each kampung to acquire different character from one another according to the background of its people and their adaptability (Sihombing 2004). Regarding this spatial characteristic, Ford (1993 cited in Hutama 2016, pp. 7–8) shows four classifications of Indonesian urban kampungs in terms of location, density, and settlement characteristics. This classification can be seen in the Table 3 below.

3.7. Study Site

The target population in this study is residents in Kampung Dago Pojok and Kampung Bustaman, as can be seen in Table 4. Both kampungs are chosen as target populations to explore regular and temporal place-making in the context of urban informal settlements because of several reasons. First, they are one of the few Indonesian kampungs that have adopted small-scale art and cultural festivals. The justification also considers the relatively established nature of kampung or the age of place-making practice in a kampung (Bendt et al. 2013), which is represented in a way that place-making, particularly the temporal one, in the selected kampung has to be conducted at least for five years. The other criterion is that both kampungs are perceived to have comparatively good long-term prospects for upgrading social and physical integration into the city. This reputation is mainly referred to as the perception of urban professionals towards related kampungs (e.g., best-practices, pilot project, prototype, or a good example for developing other kampungs). In this case, as explained earlier, Dago Pojok was chosen as a pilot project of Bandung Creative Kampung, while Bustaman was a prototype for developing Thematic Kampung in Semarang. As the two urban informal settlements were chosen based on specific criteria, the type of sampling used for choosing kampung cases in this study was criterion sampling.

3.8. Kampung Dago Pojok

Kampung Dago Pojok is part of the Dago District in Bandung City (as can be seen in Figure 3). It is located within the administrative zone called RW (Rukun Warga) 03, covering 30 hectares of Dago land and providing a house for at least 3.852 people with the head of a family equal to 1.002. Like many kampungs in Indonesian cities, the majority of people residing in Dago Pojok are poor, but there are also middle and higher-middle income households settled in the kampung. The kampung is located adjacent to the urban renewal area, Dago Street, which has been well known as a major tourist and commercial area in the city. As the area has been rapidly developing into upper-class residential areas and shopping centers, this situation led to the increase of social problems in Dago Pojok, along with the threat of its existence due to poverty.
In order to save the kampung from demolishment, a place-making movement through art and cultural-based festivals was introduced, which became popular under the term Kampung Kreatif or translated as Creative Kampung. The movement was first initiated in 2003 by Taboo, a local organization comprised of various people—artists, activists, researchers, and educators, which mainly focus on education and arts. Besides the two fields, the organization focused on the city planning issues, particularly Bandung. Taboo used the Kampung Kreatif movement as a starting point to make Dago Pojok an important part of the city, particularly in tourism, as the kampung was well known with its Sundanese traditional art and culture. This includes cultural performances by the kampung residents (as can be seen in Figure 4) and mural paintings to improve the physical attractiveness of the kampung (as shown in Figure 5). However, only six out of nine blocks or RT (Rukun Tetangga) in RW 03 were included as part of Kampung Kreatif, which are RT 01, RT 02, RT 03, RT 04, RT 07, and RT 09; while the other three RTs were excluded because it was a luxury residential area.

3.9. Kampung Bustaman

Bustaman is a high-density urban settlement located in the Purwodinatan sub-district, Semarang City (as can be seen in Figure 6). It consisted of 0.6 ha with a population density equal to 590 people per ha. The kampung consists of 2 RT, namely RT 04 and RT 05, where approximately 400 inhabitants live. It is one of the old kampungs in the city, which has been popular because of Gulai Kambing or goat curry making, a local tradition since the Dutch colonial period. Most residents rely on goat trading varying from butchers, goat merchant, to catering service that specializes in the goat curry. Despite its limitation as to the city’s slum area, it has a high productivity level on account of its goat-trading and culinary activity.
A local organization based in Semarang City called Hysteria similarly used an art festival as the medium to attract public’s attention to kampungs that have been threatened with demolishment. Kampung Bustaman was chosen as their pilot projects to arrange the festival called Tengok Bustaman or translated as Look Bustaman. Since then, the organization has coordinated with various grassroots communities, artists, and students in Semarang surrounding. Their activities include discussions, exhibitions, workshops, festivals, and other types of community facilitation activities. Similar to the creative movement in Dago Pojok, there are some cultural performances in the festival (shown in Figure 7) and physical improvement through murals (Figure 8). This biannual festival had taken place for three times already from 2013 until 2017. Every edition had different theme, activity, and aim.

4. Methodology

In this study, quantitative data and results were used to provide a general picture of the research problem by exploring the relationships between place-making and four social outcomes. A proportionate stratified random sampling survey of 227 households was completed to gain the general perception of local residents in both the kampungs, as can be seen in Table 5. Data were collected through a household survey from June–August 2017. The questionnaires were administered face-to-face, and each lasted between 20 and 40 min. No telephone numbers of the households were taken, and no consecutive appointments were scheduled. Furthermore, the survey in each kampung was administered by a team of four experienced surveyors, including the researcher. The four surveyors were: Two research assistants from the Regional and City Planning Department at Bandung Institute of Technology (ITB) and two research assistants from the Urban and Regional Planning Department at Diponegoro University (UNDIP) Semarang.

4.1. Participants of the Household Survey

Since the type and number of place-making practices were implemented differently in each RT, there is a high possibility that the perception of residents would be different in each RT. Therefore, the population of kampung does not comprise of a homogenous group. Regarding this, a proportionate stratified random sampling was chosen since it involved a process of dividing the population into homogenous subgroups, which in this study, the participants were divided per RTs before doing the sampling. In the case of Kampung Dago Pojok, which was divided into six blocks of RTs, place-making was frequent in RT 02 and RT 03, while in RT 01 and RT 07 the program was not as often as in the previous two kampungs, and the residents in RT 04 and RT 09 were the least active groups among other RTs. It could be seen that each RT was more heterogeneous than the total population. The same condition also applied in Kampung Bustaman, which comprised two blocks of RTs: RT 04 and RT 05. After the number of households in each RT was selected, the next stage of the sampling process involved identifying the eligible households and household members to be surveyed.
To randomly select households, the researcher acquired documents by the local RT leaders, which were then enumerated and organized in sequence. The documents contained a list of addresses in every RT in Kampung Dago Pojok and Kampung Bustaman. The survey respondents were either active, inactive, and former participants of regular and temporal place-making activity in both kampungs. It is also important to note that the survey respondent was limited only to residents whoever participated in at least one of the regular activities in the kampung and/or the art festival. Residents who never participated or attended regular and/or temporal place-making in kampung were not included in the sampling and were substituted instead. In all these cases, new random numbers were generated.
Regarding the sample size based on Yamane’s formula, the 67 respondents were residing in Bustaman, while the other 169 respondents were living in Dago Pojok. By using a computational method from, some random numbers were generated and used as a sample. Substitutions were allowed in specific circumstances such as when the location was not identifiable, for example, when the exact street address, number, or house could not be found in the block, and the household member for the survey was not present or rejected to participate. Compared to its population size, residents who lived in Dago Pojok were more widely sampled than those in Bustaman because the former kampung was inhabited by a higher number of households. However, for the sampling group in Dago Pojok, nine respondents rejected and did not complete the questionnaires, thus they were excluded. Therefore, the final sample size was 227, comprised of 160 households in Dago Pojok and 67 in Bustaman. In this case, the researcher is confident that the sample reflects the accessible population within plus or minus 7%.

4.2. Measures

A set of questionnaires was designed to inquire about the subjective perception of the inhabitants of kampungs about place-making practices in the kampungs and its impacts on them. The questionnaire was based on a mix of close structured and open questions with the combination of direct answers, multiple answers, and graded answers in Likert scale format from 1 to 5 with 1 representing ‘Highly Disagree’ and 5 representing ‘Highly Agree’. The questionnaire was also split into several chapters, obtaining different types of information, such as socio-economic, influential factors, and social outcomes. Before going into survey, the questionnaire was pilot tested to 10 randomly selected participant, and based on the pilot testing, some survey items were slightly revised.
Since few quantitative studies exist, it has been quite challenging to operationalize place-making as a contextualized social process into a partial and specific set of measurable indicators. Nonetheless, the few existing quantitative studies that work in the place-making context (e.g., Hunter 2012; Peng 2013; Silberberg et al. 2013; Stewart 2010) have presented a set of measures that can be used for influential factors and social outcomes. Therefore, part of the questionnaire for this study was derived from those earlier researches and adapted to the specific context of place-making in informal settlements.

4.3. Measurement of Independent Variables

Influential factors, which were also the independent variables, were measured based on four dimensions: Local capacity, network, regular and temporal place-making, and demographic.

4.4. Local Capacity

Based on the systematic review, capacity was defined as a particular tactic used by locals in improving their places without being driven by government or other stakeholders (Andres 2013; Arefi 2014; Chan 2011). This tactic includes the use of individual and communal skills, talents, resources, and abilities. In this way, capacity was also defined as self-organization (Friedmann 2010; de Sartre et al. 2012). Other authors also explained capacity as the ability and willingness of residents to work collectively for community goals and benefits, which could be through organizing place-making on their own and drawing benefit from it (Brunnberg and Frigo 2012; Zelinka and Harden 2005).
Although the indicators were not specifically used for measuring local capacity as a whole, certain elements that contribute to the capacity were being measured within the place-making context. For instance, Silberberg et al. (2013) use some indicators to value place-making, like the number of public events held in the community and range of people who show up to community activities. Study by Stewart (2010) about the social benefit of green spaces showed that local capacity was measured by the hectares of woodland managed by the local community, the number of people involved in the woodland activities, and their level of involvement. Therefore, referring to early researches, the local capacity in this study was measured by type and frequency of organized and participated activities.
Participants also reported what type of place-making practices they organized and participated in kampung through questions such as “what kind of activity is held routinely/a few times a year”, and “in which activity/activities have you ever participated”. This type of division of activities is needed to take into consideration as previous researchers (e.g., Balassiano and Maldonado 2015; Bendt et al. 2013; Brunnberg and Frigo 2012) also mention that different type of activities used in place-making lead to different impacts. The questions were followed by an option of 16 activity categories related to community self-organization. These categories including “promoting wellbeing”, “promoting environmental issues”, “caring for public spaces”, “planting greenery”, “promoting recreational activities”, “promoting social cohesion”, “promoting sports and games”, “promoting culture and arts”, “increasing entrepreneurship”, “generating renewable energy”, “improving safety”, “establishing infrastructure”, “supporting young people”, “empowering women”, “providing care for elderly”, and “offering education”.

4.5. Network

Network is defined as the enthusiasm and openness to work together with other groups of residents and external stakeholders. The internal network was measured by the frequency of interaction with other residents, either beyond or within their immediate familial and social groups. These items were also used by the Project for Public Spaces for investigating the factors that make a great public space (PPS 2018). For the assessment of the external network, it was measured by the residents’ perception of the importance of having collaboration with other stakeholders, such as local organizations and government. Participants reported whether they perceived that collaboration with the local organization and government as important on a 5-point Likert scale. The scale includes statements such as, “It is important to have collaboration with the local organization” and “It is important to have collaboration between local residents and municipality”.

4.6. Regular and Temporal Place-Making

Besides the classification based on its nature, each question related to the type of activities was also divided into “regular” and “temporal” activities. From the systematic review, it was found that the characteristic of place-making as a social process included any activities that are “mundane, spontaneous, small-scale, and inexpensive” and also “tactical, planned, and temporary” activities (Cilliers et al. 2015; Elwood et al. 2015; Friedmann 2010; Larson and Guenther 2012; Andres 2013; Marshall and Bishop 2015; Quayle and Lieck 1997; Rota and Salone 2014). As the impact between the two groups of place-making characteristics activities might be different, it is important to differentiate them. Participants reported their frequency of arrangement and participation in regular and temporal place-making through questions such as “how many times per month/year do residents arrange regular/temporal activities” and “how many times per month/year do you usually participate in the activities”.

4.7. Socio-Economic Status

The determinants under this term were associated with personal attributes and socio-economic status. In the systematic literature review, demographic factors were found influential in the practices of place-making as well as its impact on particular social outcomes. Therefore, referring to early researches, the socio-economic status in this study comprised of gender, age, marital status, occupation, education, income, and number of people living together in the same house. There were also earlier researches that revealed the influence of personal attributes, and in this case referred to place of origin and length of residence (Pollock and Paddison 2014; Sandoval and Maldonado 2012; Drinkwater and Platt 2016).

4.8. Measurement of Dependent Variables

The dependent variables used in this study referred to previous researches that measured social impacts, such as local empowerment, social connection, quality of life, and local identity based on community perception. These measurements can be seen in Table 6.

4.9. Local Empowerment

Local empowerment is defined as a process of change in which individuals or groups of the local community, who initially have little or no control, have gained more power and capacity to intervene in certain things that affect their lives. This capacity can be in forms of solving problems, motivating, and persuading other residents to get involved, participate, and work collectively for making and remaking their places. The indicators of local empowerment were mainly based on a study by Stewart (2010) about measuring community empowerment for place-making in forestry. Peng (2013) used the same indicators to measure the effect of institutional capacity in place-making practices towards local sustainability.
Participants reported their perception of the impact of place-making towards their empowerment level through a 5-point Likert scale. The scale includes statements such as, “The place-making activities give higher opportunities to exchange knowledge related to the nature of the activities”, “Give higher opportunities to gain informal knowledge from ordinary conversations”, “Higher opportunities to understand broader issues about kampung”, “General improvement among residents to intervene and be more active in solving kampung problems”, and “General improvement among residents to participate in kerja bakti”.

4.10. Social Connection

Social connection as the outcome of place-making is defined as the condition where there is an improvement of connection, not only within a community but also creating and linking new relationships with other groups of the community. This study used the same Likert statements that referred to the indicators of ‘relational resources’ used by Peng (2013) to measure the relationships between groups of local people and also with outside people. The other reference was Delconte et al. (2016) social impacts of the local art center in a neighborhood.
Participants reported whether there is a better social connection among residents in kampungs since place-making took place in the kampung. Similar to the previous section, the perception of the residents was taken by the 5-point Likert scale. The scale includes statements such as, “These activities increase interaction and cooperation between different age groups”, “Increase interaction and cooperation between different social hierarchy groups”, “Increase interaction and cooperation between long-standing with newcomers”, “The common objective of residents in arranging these activities have drawn them closer to one another”, “Help me to create new friendships with various groups of people who may never come into contact if not through the place-making”, and “Attract various people from broader area of the city”.

4.11. Quality of Life

The quality of life is intended to explain the relationship between people and their environments or places. It mainly focuses on the characteristics of a specific geographical area that can offer to its residents as well as the characteristics and wellbeing of the residents themselves. The characteristics include the place’s lively and vibrant social environment, safety and security, and wellbeing of the residents. For the measurement, it was based on previous studies, such as Cohen et al. (2018), about measuring place-making impacts, including health and wellbeing. The other one was a study by Hunter (2012), where he measured by public sector services on the residents, including the quality of life.
Participants reported whether there is an improvement in the quality of their kampung environment since place-making took place. Their opinion was taken on a 5-point Likert scale, which includes statements such as, “Add more activity to kampung and make it become more alive”, “Living in kampung becomes more comfortable”, “There is an upgrading image from initial poor image to become a good place (social and playful, creative atmosphere)”, and “Make me feel that walking around the kampung at night is as secure and safe as during the day”.

4.12. Local Identity and Pride

Local identity and pride are related to the specific social, cultural, and physical components of place that can contribute to strengthening the identity of the place and its inhabitants. The indicators for local identity and pride were referred to as mixed-method researches in place-making and local identity (Main and Sandoval 2015; Rota and Salone 2014).
Participants reported whether there was an improvement regarding the local identity since the implementation of place-making in the kampung. The assessment was also done on a 5-point Likert scale with statements such as, “Local specialties become more known to the public”, “There were improvements in general local attitudes towards preserving local culture”, and “There were improvements in general local attitudes to participate in cultural activities”.

5. Data Analysis

5.1. Multiple Regression Analysis

To analyze the influence of two new constructed factors on the four social outcomes, multiple linear regression was employed for the total sample. Regression was used to understand the effects of multiple independent variables on each social outcome.

5.2. Independent Variables

The Pearson’s correlation test is usually used for examining the strength and direction of correlation that exists between two or more continuous variables. In our case, the test needs to be done to all the new constructed independent variables before conducting any other correlation and causation analysis. This is because the Pearson’s test has an important role in investigating the possibility of multicollinearity amongst the independent variables, which is examined based on the strength of the correlation. After conducting further analysis with the VIF (variance inflation factors) test among all the independent variables, which is recommended to be done after examining through bivariate correlations, the results did not detect any multicollinearity between the regressors. This is indicated by the VIF scores, which were around 1 and less than 2, as well as the tolerance (ToL) scores that were lower than 0.2.

5.3. Dependent Variables

Before testing the dependent variables, all 18 dependent variables were combined into a single measure of construct. In this way, dependent variables were treated collectively as a multiple-response measure of a single construct because it is generally more reliable than single-response measures. As explained earlier, each group of dependent variables is correlated with each other based on their internal consistency or Cronbach’s Alpha. Therefore, the next step is combining all dependent variables into four constructs by computing their mean. As can be seen from the Table 7 below, the alpha coefficient of all dependent variables, namely local empowerment, social connection, quality of life, and local identity and pride, was 0.853, 0.812, 0.749, and 0.829, respectively, which suggest that the items had relatively high internal consistency.

5.4. Control Variables

One of the factors that might have an impact on social outcome of place-making was socio-economic characteristics of residents. Therefore, this study considered socio-economic characteristics as control variables, which was comprised of gender, age, education, income, and length of residence.

6. Findings

6.1. Sample Characteristics

The outcome indicated that the majority of the people in this sampling group were in middle adulthood, which is 41–50 years old (27%), 31–40 years old (24%), and 51–60 years old (22%). The majority of the respondents who filled in the questionnaires were female (67%), and most of whom (48%) were the spouse of the household head. The data collected also show that 180 households were female headed (21%) because of the death of their spouse. The educational component of this sampling group was comprised of people who studied until primary school (20%), secondary school (20%), vocational school (44%), university degree (13%), and the rest of adults had never been to school and were illiterate (3%). The largest proportion of households (37%) had income more than 150 Euro, while a significant proportion (16%) earned 61–90 Euro. The mean and median of household income per month of the respondents were in the range of 91–120 Euro, and the mode was more than 150 Euro. The most common sources of income were earned by day labor (20%), small business owners (19%), self-employed in business/service provision (13%), regular employee in some fixed business establishment (13%), regular employee in government, NGO, or other institutions (11%), allowances received because of various factors such as retirement, education, child, and divorce (5%), construction labor (7%), business owner using hired labor (2%), servant/maid (1%), and others (5%). The majority of respondents also reported that the total persons from the household who contributed to the income were two persons in 53% households and one person in the remaining 37%. Details about sample characteristics can be found in Appendix A.

6.2. Place-Making Arrangements in Two Kampung Cases

This section provides an overview of regular and temporal place-making characteristics in the two kampung cases, including the place to arrange activities and the type of organized and participated activities.
The questionnaire revealed that the most mentioned type of activities that came up from the respondents when they were asked about regular activities is those that seemed to promote the wellbeing of residents (30%). In this case, some respondents mentioned activities such as pengajian (reading and reciting the Quran together), monthly check-ups and healthcare at Posyandu (community-based health clinic), and playing sports like football and volleyball. The other most held type of activities was related to caring for public spaces (23%) and promoting environmental issues (22%). However, these two activities were mainly held in Dago Pojok because the kampung arranged weekly kerja bakti (collective work) to clean particular public places in the neighborhood while in Bustaman, the activity was done occasionally. The other type of activity, which was the fourth most mentioned type of activity, was promoting social cohesion. Mainly, respondents refer this type of activity to arisan, a regular social gathering where some people put an agreed amount of money, shuffle their names, and give the collected money to the person whose name got drawn. Some other activities were also considered to promote social cohesion, namely fishing in local ponds, monthly meeting, kerja bakti, and pengajian. On the other hand, a significant number of respondents perceived the temporal place-making as to promote a better connection between residents (23%) and to promote culture, arts, sports, and games (22%). The other type of event, ‘promoting recreational activities’ was also mentioned frequently (11%).
Regarding the type of places that were used for place-making, there were several main public spaces that most used in Dago Pojok (as seen in Figure 9) and Bustaman (as shown in Figure 10). Most respondents mentioned that regular activities were usually held in the mosque (29%). The street or alley was the second most preferable place (28%). Various places (21%) such as small vacant space, fishing pond, Posyandu, or public toilet, became the third frequent choice for residents’ regular activities. Meanwhile, the community halls such as RT/RW halls (13%) were the last two options before the sports field. In the case of temporal place-making, the streets or alleys were mentioned the most as the places where residents held festivals in the kampungs (46%). It was followed by an open field (33%) and other places (13%) which most likely did not belong to the residents, but they were located in the kampung and were publicly accessed, such as vacant land and buildings that belong to a former university that was once built in the kampung.

6.3. Multiple Linear Regression

The assumptions for conducting the multiple linear regression analysis (MLR) were examined and met. No cases were eliminated, examination of the histograms revealed normal distributions for all of the analysis, and examination of the residual plots revealed that the assumption of linearity was also met. Furthermore, both the tolerance and VIF statistics indicated that multicollinearity was not a problem in the regression analysis.
Table 8 displays the results from the MLR analysis and indicating that among respondents from involved households, there was only one non-significant relationship between place-making and residents’ perceptions of social outcomes. The first outcome, local identity and pride, was found significantly and positively influenced by both types of place-making at F (4, 222) = 16.395, p = 0.000, with an R2 of 0.228. The findings interestingly showed that temporal place-making (β = 0.497) had higher impact on local pride and identity than regular place-making (β = 0.164). The equation that forecast the factors influencing on this aspect implied that respondent’s pride and identity increased by 0.330 and 0.109 for each point of the arrangement and participation in temporal place-making and regular place-making, respectively.
For the second outcome, the findings showed that both regular and temporal place-making had a positive relationship with local empowerment. They influenced empowerment, which was found significantly at F (5, 221) = 25.172, p = 0.000, with an R2 of 0.363. The score of partial correlation coefficient (β) implied that the temporal place-making (β = 0.530) affected empowerment more than regular place-making (β = 0.261). Meanwhile, the predictive equation suggested that the respondents’ empowerment increased by 0.363 and 0.179 for each point of the arrangement and participation in temporal place-making and regular place-making, respectively.
Findings from MLR on the third outcome also indicate that the social connection was affected by both types of place-making, which were found significantly at F (4,222) = 11.158, p = 0.000, with an R2 of 0.167. The findings also showed that the regular place-making had more influence on social connection (β = 0.251) rather than temporal place-making (β = 0.163). The equation that forecast the factors influencing on the social connection of respondent implied that their social connection increased by 0.140 and 0.091 for each point of the arrangement and participation in regular place-making and temporal place-making, respectively.
However, when considering the effects of types of place-making on the last outcome, the findings suggested that only regular place-making (β = 0.216) affected the respondent’s quality of life, while there was no statically significant effect of temporal place-making towards this aspect. The predictive equation implied that resident’s quality of life increased by 0.111 for each point of the arrangement and participation in regular place-making.
It was important to note that there was no distortion caused by control variables. The regression results were the same as the one without the control variables. The only difference was on the score of Tol and VIF of temporal place-making although it was not a problem as the scores were still within the safe range in which multicollinearity was not detected. The other difference was regarding the predictive power of temporal place-making, which was higher than the regular place-making on local empowerment.

7. Discussion

The results of this study affirmed the importance of regular and temporal place-making practices in kampungs for the development of different types of social outcomes. Implementing place-making was valuable for inadequate neighborhoods or urban informal settlements, like where this study was conducted, because they were more likely to bring positive impacts for both places and their inhabitants. Having various types of place-making activities in kampung led to more positive perceptions of local identity and pride, local empowerment, social connection, and quality of life.
The first finding, which found the significant and positive associations between two types of place-making and local identity, was consistent with previous authors. Many recent studies (e.g., Coghlan et al. 2017; Jaeger and Mykletun 2013; Lew 2017) demonstrated the influence of temporal place-making, such as community-based festivals and events, in generating a strong local community spirit and enhance community’s identity, character, and sense of pride. Furthermore, the role of festivals and events was not only important for community identity, but also for individual identity. Based on his mixed-method study in seven Indian poor neighborhoods, Rao (2001) found that individual pride and festivals were strongly associated with one another. The current finding regarding the significant and positive relationship between regular place-making and local identity was also in line with previous studies (e.g., Qu and Dorst 2014; Semenza et al. 2007). For instance, in their studies about daily activities in Chinese urban villages, Qu and Dorst (2014) demonstrated that the local traditions, such as prayers, have formed cultural identity in the village, which also forms a livable public space.
This study also showed that both place-making had a significant and positive relationship with local empowerment. This study confirmed previous findings (e.g., Ohmer and Beck 2006; Sampson 2004) that the more varied the type of social shared activities arranged and participated by residents, the more positive their perception of their community’s collective capacity to solve neighborhood problems. This finding also mirrors those reported in the literature. For instance, some researchers reported that the arrangements of everyday life activities (Balassiano and Maldonado 2015; de Carteret 2008) provide various positive benefits to community empowerment. It ranges from informal knowledge through interaction to learning experience through deliberative discussion. Furthermore, this study also supported earlier researchers that temporal place-making (Cilliers et al. 2015; Dukanovic and Zivkovic 2015; Silberberg et al. 2013), as in the case of community-based art festivals, could also lead to local empowerment. There was no question that festivals offered opportunities to learn new things through knowledge exchange among residents and visitors as well as opportunities for cultural and educational development of communities (Jamal and Getz 1995).
Findings of this study also supported the hypothesis that both types of place-making positively and significantly influenced social connection. Although there were some variations with specific social connection constructs assessed, earlier research supports our findings of an increase in social interactions due to regular place-making practices such as community gardening, neighborhood meetings, and other community activities to improve neighborhood on a regular basis (Alaimo et al. 2010; Ohmer and Beck 2006; Wakefield et al. 2007). Meanwhile, previous research also supported our findings that temporal place-making, from an urban renewal project through intersection repair and construction of community art spaces to community festival in low-income neighborhoods, was a strong predictor of social capital with direct benefits for residents’ wellbeing (Semenza and March 2009), could increase social networks (Brisson and Usher 2005), and built social cohesion by reinforcing ties within the community (Rao 2001).
Interestingly, our hypothesis of the relationship between place-making and quality of life was partially confirmed. Previous study in low socioeconomic neighborhoods suggested that free or low-cost opportunities to engage and connect with neighbors through participation in regular activities such as religious groups, sporting groups, volunteer organizations, and leisure groups could increase life satisfaction of individuals in a low socioeconomic or stigmatized neighborhood (Qu and Dorst 2014). Reis et al. (2000) also found the importance of daily activities, such as meaningful talk and hanging out with other neighbors, as significant contributors for emotional wellbeing. Contrary to expectations, this study showed that the implementation of temporal place-making did not influence residents’ perception on quality of life. Although many scholars from developed countries (Cohen et al. 2018; Till and McArdle 2015) showed that community art and cultural festivals positively correlated with residents’ social wellbeing and significantly improved quality of life in communities; this study found that art and cultural festivals could not be a predictor or influential factor for the residents’ quality of life in Indonesian kampungs. The residents’ quality of life was significantly and positively influenced by regular place-making, but not temporal place-making.
The reasons for this insignificant relationship can be explained from theoretical and methodological perspectives. From the former point of view, this finding might be due to the fact that despite the role of festivals in maintaining identities and community cohesiveness, which represent investments in social and cultural capital, there was not much benefit in terms of economic and physical environment aspect that the festival may offer to certain community, including the poor neighborhoods in developing countries. Since the generated revenue from arranging temporal place-making may not cover the total costs that community paid for organizing them, this type of place-making may not be a critical aspect for their quality of life. The result of this study is in line with Rao (2001) study in Indian poor neighborhoods, which suggested that if it was not for their social and cultural benefits, festivals in those neighborhoods may be perceived as a waste of money in the sense that they take resources away from investments in other more important aspects that related to the quality of life of the community. In this way, several authors who investigated place-making projects (e.g., Houghton et al. 2015; Lazarević et al. 2016) also demonstrated the importance of getting strong financial support from the government for the viability of grassroot projects.
Furthermore, like most community-based art festivals, the temporal place-making festivals in this study were mainly arranged through modifying the use of existing spaces and decorating them with community artworks, such as public art installations, murals, and cultural ornaments. Meanwhile, the living conditions of Indonesian kampungs were still poor, where the health of the kampungs’ residents were adversely threatened by bad environmental features such as extremely high density, low housing quality, inadequate sanitation, and other physical deterioration. Since the modification on built environment of the kampungs through art festivals was not able to improve the physical health of the residents and upgrade the poor living conditions of the kampungs, type and frequency of temporal place-making may not be important. This might also be the reason why the regular place-making practices, although did not completely solve those issues yet, their routine and practical interventions through regular clean ups and regular public infrastructure renovation could at least facilitate a better living conditions improvement in kampungs.
The last reason could be explained from the methodological perspective. Considering the nature of questionnaire that was very rigid and only provided general questions, there were possibilities that some questions might be interpreted differently or not be comprehended clearly by the respondents. For instance, when there was a statement in the questionnaire saying that activities in the kampung could make the respondents feel mentally and physically good, some of them might answer it without giving some thought.

8. Conclusions

Overall, the findings of this study have supported the literature that regular and temporal place-making have impacts on the four social outcomes. The evidence also suggested that some of the demographic variables, namely age and income, have an impact on the relationships under study. The strengths and limitations of this study should also be considered. Thus, it will be explained in the following paragraphs.
The main strengths of this study were clearly defined sample and the focus on the social impacts of place-making, which, up to this point, has been relatively unexplored. That is to say, this study contributed to the gap found within the existing quantitative studies on place-making by analyzing the relationships between place-making and different forms of social outcome. This finding also goes some way to extend our knowledge of the differences that do exist among the relationships, which depends on the type of place-making. In this regard, the current data showed that temporal place-making did not affect quality of life.
Another benefit of the quantitative finding was the place-making measures in our survey, which enabled us to unfold the new constructs that have been linked to the two types of place-making, and investigated separately. In that sense, this study adds to existing research by examining both regular and temporal place-making as mechanisms through which local identity, local empowerment, social connection, and quality of life are facilitated in Indonesian kampungs. These findings also enhanced our understanding of how specific dimensions of place-making affect social aspects of the community where place-making took place.
Despite the strengths, the results of this study should also be evaluated in the light of certain limitations. The main limitations of this survey include the relatively small sample and the data were collected solely from the residents in two Indonesian kampungs. Findings of the study, thus, may be specific to the participants of the kampungs examined in this study and may not be generalizable. As such, future studies with bigger sample size that focus on residents of other urban informal settlements or poor neighborhoods are needed. Moreover, this study examined associations between arrangement and participation in place-making with participants’ perceptions of social outcomes of place-making. However, this study did not distinguish the place-making and perceptions between the individual and neighborhood-level.
To conclude this study, two main directions for future research are proposed to address previously mentioned contributions and limitations of this study that need further investigation. Firstly, a follow-up qualitative interview might be helpful to explore the respondents’ point of view that cannot be revealed using the former approach. In this sense, we found that one of the possibilities that contribute to the non-significant relationship between place-making and quality of life is the nature of the questionnaire itself. Therefore, specific questions during the interview would make the respondents think directly about each of the activity that they participated in and provide a further explanation that might be uncovered in the questionnaire. Secondly, future research on the relationship between community-based festivals in a poor neighborhood with residents’ quality of life is needed. Since there is still a small body of research demonstrating the relationship between community-based festivals and quality of life in poor neighborhoods within the context of developing countries, it is hard to conclude that festivals are not important for the wellbeing of residents, particularly considering that many of the previous scholars who investigated this topic have shown that festivals could bring various social benefits to the community’s wellbeing.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.N.G.A. and J.E.; Data curation, P.N.G.A.; Formal analysis, P.N.G.A.; Funding acquisition, P.N.G.A.; Investigation, P.N.G.A.; Methodology, P.N.G.A.; Resources, P.N.G.A.; Supervision, J.E.; Writing—original draft, P.N.G.A.; Writing—review & editing, J.E. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


Research funding was provided by the Indonesia Endowment Fund for Education (LPDP) and the APC was covered by Erasmus Open Access Fund.


We would like to thank all of the research participants in Kampung Bustaman and Dago Pojok, whose support and generosity made this research possible.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Figure A1. Stage of life distribution of the sampling.
Figure A1. Stage of life distribution of the sampling.
Socsci 09 00104 g0a1
Figure A2. Household gender of the sampling.
Figure A2. Household gender of the sampling.
Socsci 09 00104 g0a2
Figure A3. Respondent gender of the sampling.
Figure A3. Respondent gender of the sampling.
Socsci 09 00104 g0a3
Figure A4. Educational distribution of the sampling.
Figure A4. Educational distribution of the sampling.
Socsci 09 00104 g0a4
Figure A5. Household income of the sampling group.
Figure A5. Household income of the sampling group.
Socsci 09 00104 g0a5
Figure A6. Public Spaces to Arrange Regular Activities.
Figure A6. Public Spaces to Arrange Regular Activities.
Socsci 09 00104 g0a6
Figure A7. Most Organized Regular Activities.
Figure A7. Most Organized Regular Activities.
Socsci 09 00104 g0a7
Figure A8. Most Participated Regular Activities.
Figure A8. Most Participated Regular Activities.
Socsci 09 00104 g0a8
Figure A9. Public Spaces to Arrange Temporal Activities.
Figure A9. Public Spaces to Arrange Temporal Activities.
Socsci 09 00104 g0a9
Figure A10. Most Organized Temporal Activities.
Figure A10. Most Organized Temporal Activities.
Socsci 09 00104 g0a10
Table A1. Income sources of the sampling group.
Table A1. Income sources of the sampling group.
Type of OccupationDago PojokBustaman
Day labor3313
Construction labor152
Petty business2122
Business owner using hired labor13
Self-employed in business/service provision1613
Regular employee in government or NGO232
Regular employee in fixed business establishment245


  1. Alaimo, Katherine, Thomas M. Reischl, and Julie Ober Allen. 2010. Community gardening, neighborhood meetings, and social capital. Journal of Community Psychology 38: 497–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Alzahrani, A., Katharina Borsi, and D. Jarman. 2016. Place-making and its implications for social value: A comparison study of two urban squares in London. Urban Regeneration & Sustainability 12: 392. [Google Scholar]
  3. Andres, Lauren. 2013. Differential Spaces, Power Hierarchy and Collaborative Planning: A Critique of the Role of Temporary Uses in Shaping and Making Places. Urban Studies 50: 759–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Balassiano, Katia, and Marta Maria Maldonado. 2015. Placemaking in rural new gateway communities. Community Development Journal 50: 644–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Bendt, Pim, Stephan Barthel, and Johan Colding. 2013. Civic greening and environmental learning in public-access community gardens in Berlin. Landscape and Urban Planning 109: 18–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Bowen, John R. 1986. On the Political Construction of Tradition: Gotong Royong in Indonesia. The Journal of Asian Studies 45: 545–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Brisson, Daniel S., and Charles L. Usher. 2005. Bonding social capital in low-income neighborhoods. Family Relations: Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies 54: 644–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Brunnberg, Liselott, and Alberto Frigo. 2012. Placemaking in the 21st-century city: Introducing the funfair metaphor for mobile media in the future urban space. Digital Creativity 23: 113–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Chan, Selina Ching. 2011. Cultural governance and place-making in Taiwan and China. China Quarterly 206: 372–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Cilliers, E., W. Timmermans, F. Van den Goorbergh, and J. Slijkhuis. 2015. The Story Behind the Place: Creating Urban Spaces That Enhance Quality of Life. Applied Research in Quality of Life 4: 589–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Coghlan, Alexandra, Bev Sparks, Wei Liu, and Mike Winlaw. 2017. Reconnecting with place through events: Collaborating with precinct managers in the placemaking agenda. International Journal of Event and Festival Management 8: 66–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Delconte, John, Carol S. Kline, and Carmine Scavo. 2016. The impacts of local arts agencies on community placemaking and heritage tourism. Journal of Heritage Tourism 11: 324–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Douglas, Gordon C. C. 2016. The formalities of informal improvement: Technical and scholarly knowledge at work in do-it-yourself urban design. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability 9: 117–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Dovey, Kim, and Ross King. 2012. Informal Urbanism and the Taste for Slums. Tourism Geographies 14: 275–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Drinkwater, Bahar Durmaz, and Stephen Platt. 2016. Urban development process and creative clustering: The film industry in Soho and Beyoğlu. Urban Design International 21: 151–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Dukanovic, Zoran, and Zivkovic Jelena. 2015. Public Art & Public Space Programme: Learning, But Doing! Annales-Anali Za Istrske in Mediteranske Studije-Series Historia et Sociologia 25: 49–64. [Google Scholar]
  17. Elwood, Sarah, Victoria Lawson, and Samuel Nowak. 2015. Middle-Class Poverty Politics: Making Place, Making People. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 105: 123–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Friedmann, John. 2010. Place and place-making in cities: A global perspective. Planning Theory & Practice 11: 149–65. [Google Scholar]
  19. Houghton, Kirralie, Foth Marcus, and Miller Evonne. 2015. Urban Acupuncture: Hybrid Social and Technological Practices for Hyperlocal Placemaking. Journal of Urban Technology 22: 3–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Hunter, James. 2012. Place matters: But does local leadership? Public Money and Management 32: 95–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Jaeger, Kari, and Reidar J. Mykletun. 2013. Festivals, identities and belonging. Event Management 17: 213–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Jamal, Tazim B., and Donald Getz. 1995. Collaboration theory and community tourism planning. Annals of Tourism Research 22: 186–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kern, Leslie. 2015. Rhythms of gentrification: Eventfulness and slow violence in a happening neighborhood. Cultural Geographies 23: 441–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Larson, C., and J. Guenther. 2012. Parklets planning with place-making in mind rationale and strategy for municipal planners. Plan Canada 52: 43–47. [Google Scholar]
  25. Lazarević, E. V., A. B. Koružnjak, and M. Devetaković. 2016. Culture design-led regeneration as a tool used to regenerate deprived areas. Belgrade—The Savamala quarter; reflections on an unplanned cultural zone. Energy and Buildings 115: 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Lew, Alan A. 2017. Tourism planning and place making: Place-making or placemaking? Tourism Geographies 19: 448–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Lombard, Melanie. 2014. Constructing ordinary places: Place-making in urban informal settlements in Mexico. Progress in Planning 94: 1–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Main, Kelly, and Gerardo Francisco Sandoval. 2015. Placemaking in a translocal receiving community: The relevance of place to identity and agency. Urban Studies 52: 71–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Marshall, N., and K. Bishop. 2015. Is there any correlation between placemaking and place attachment? A challenge for interdisciplinary research. The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social and Community Studies 9: 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ohmer, Mary, and Elizabeth Beck. 2006. Citizen participation in neighborhood organizations in poor communities and its relationship to neighborhood and organizational collective efficacy. The Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare 33: 179–202. [Google Scholar]
  31. Peng, Li-Pei. 2013. Effects of anti-dam campaigns on institutional capacity: A case study of Meinung from Taiwan. Paddy and Water Environment 11: 353–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Pollock, Venda Louise, and Ronan Paddison. 2014. On place-making, participation and public art: The Gorbals, Glasgow. Journal of Urbanism 7: 85–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Quayle, Moura, and Tilo C. Driessen van der Lieck. 1997. Growing community: A case for hybrid landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 39: 99–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Reis, H. T., K. M. Sheldon, S. L. Gable, J. Roscoe, and R. M. Ryan. 2000. Daily Well-Being: The Role of Autonomy, Competence, and Relatedness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 26: 419–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Rota, Francesca S., and Carlo Salone. 2014. Place-making processes in unconventional cultural practices. The case of Turin’s contemporary art festival Paratissima. Cities 40: 90–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Sampson, R. 2004. Neighborhood and community: Collective efficacy and community safety. New Economy 11: 106–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Sandoval, Gerardo Francisco, and Marta Maria Maldonado. 2012. Latino Urbanism revisited: Placemaking in new gateways and the urban-rural interface. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability 5: 193–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. de Carteret, P. 2008. Diverse pleasures: Informal learning in community. Australian Journal of Adult Learning 48: 502–21. [Google Scholar]
  39. Arnauld de Sartre, Xavier, Vincent Berdoulay, and Raquel Da Silva Lopes. 2012. Eco-Frontier and Place-Making: The Unexpected Transformation of a Sustainable Settlement Project in the Amazon. Geopolitics 17: 578–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Semenza, Jan C., Tanya L. March, and Brian D. Bontempo. 2007. Community-initiated urban development: An ecological intervention. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 84: 8–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Semenza, Jan C., and Tanya L. March. 2009. An urban community-based intervention to advance social interactions. Environment and Behavior 41: 22–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Sutandyo-Buchholz, A. 2013. Collective Activity as a Traditional Knowledge Behind the Physical Design. Case of Urban Kampungs in Indonesia. Planum The Journal of Urbanism 26: 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  43. Till, Karen E., and Rachel McArdle. 2015. The Improvisional City: Valuing urbanity beyond the chimera of permanence. Irish Geography 48: 37–68. [Google Scholar]
  44. Wakefield, S., F. Yeudall, C. Taron, J. Reynolds, and A. Skinner. 2007. Growing urban health: Community gardening in South-East Toronto. Health Promotion International 22: 92–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Woronkowicz, Joanna. 2015. Art-Making or Place-Making? The Relationship between Open-Air Performance Venues and Neighborhood Change. Journal of Planning Education and Research 36: 49–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Arefi, Mahyar. 2014. Deconstructing Placemaking: Needs, Opportunities, and Assets. Oxon: Routledge, pp. 50–77. [Google Scholar]
  47. Cohen, M., K. Maund, T. Gajendran, J. Lloyd, and C. Smith. 2018. Communities of Practice Collaborative Project: Valuing Creative Placemaking: Development of a Toolkit for Public and Private Stakeholders. Sydney: Landcom. [Google Scholar]
  48. Cresswell, T. 2004. Place: A Short Introduction. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell, vol. 1. [Google Scholar]
  49. Hordijk, M., L. Sara, C. Sutherland, and D. Scott. 2015. Participatory Instruments and Practices in Urban Governance. In Geographies of Urban Governance. Edited by J. Gupta, K. Pfeffer, H. Verrest and M. Ros-Tonen. Amsterdam: Springer, pp. 127–47. [Google Scholar]
  50. Lefebvre, H. 1991. The Production of Space. Hoboken: Blackwell. [Google Scholar]
  51. Ponzini, Davide, and Pier Carlo Palermo. 2014. Placemaking and Urban Development: New Challenges for Contemporary Planning and Design. Oxon: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  52. Rahmi, Dwita Hadi, Bambang Hari Wibisono, and Bakti Setiawan. 2001. Rukun and gotong royong: Managing Public Places in an Indonesian kampung. In Public places in Asia Pacific Cities. Edited by Pu Miao. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 119–34. [Google Scholar]
  53. Rao, Vijayendra. 2001. Poverty and Public Celebrations in Rural India. Available online: (accessed on 19 April 2019).
  54. Silberberg, S., K. Lorah, R. Disbrow, and A. Muessig. 2013. Places in the Making: How Placemaking Builds Places and Communities. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. [Google Scholar]
  55. Simarmata, Hendricus Andy. 2018. Phenomenology in Adaptation Planning: An Empirical Study of Flood-Affected People in Kampung Muara Baru Jakarta. Singapore: Springer. [Google Scholar]
  56. Stewart, A. 2010. Place-Making and Communities: A Review of Concepts, Indicators, Policy, and Practice. London: The Research Agency of the Forestry Commision. [Google Scholar]
  57. Zelinka, Al, and Susan Jackson Harden. 2005. Placemaking on a Budget: Improving Small Towns, Neighborhoods, and Downtowns without Spending a lot of Money. Michigan: American Planning Association. [Google Scholar]
  58. Sihombing, Antony. 2004. The Transformation of Kampung Kota: Symbiosis between Kampung and Kota. Jakarta, Indonesia: University of Indonesia, Unpublished work. [Google Scholar]
  59. Qu, Lei, and Machiel Dorst. 2014. Environment and behaviour interaction in two urban villages of Shenzen. Paper presented at 11th International Symposium on Environment-Behavior Research, China University of Technology, Taipei, Taiwan, 22 August 2015. [Google Scholar]
  60. Sudarwanto, Budi, Gagoek Hardiman, Atiek Suprapti, and Agung B. Sarjono. 2017. The Uniqueness and Complexity of Kampung City Bustaman Semarang Indonesia. Paper presented at International Conference on Sustainability in Architectural Design and Urbanism, Semarang, Indonesia, 1 December 2017. [Google Scholar]
  61. Hutama, Irsyad Adhi Waskita. 2016. Exploring the Sense of Place of an Urban Kampung. Through the Daily Activities, Configuration of Space and Dweller’s Perception: Case Study of Kampung Code, Yogyakarta. Master’s dissertation, Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia. [Google Scholar]
  62. Indraswari, Indraswari. 2006. Women and Warung in an Urban Kampung. Ph.D. dissertation, Bandung Institute of Technology, Bandung, Indonesia. [Google Scholar]
  63. Iwińska, K. 2017. Towards Better Participatory Planning: Guide to Place-Making. Master’s dissertation, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands. [Google Scholar]
  64. Putra, B. D. 2018. Placemaking Dynamism of Green Space Production in Urban Kampung Setting: A Case Study in Jakarta, Indonesia. Ph.D. dissertation, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia. [Google Scholar]
  65. Setiawan, Teguh. 2010. Role of Public Art in Urban Environment: A Case Study of Mural Art in Yogyakarta City. Master’s dissertation, Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia. [Google Scholar]
  66. Susetyo, N. A. 2015. Linking Urban Poor Participation with Comprehensive Tourism Governance. Master’s dissertation, International Institute of Social Studies Erasmus University, Hague, The Netherlands. [Google Scholar]
  67. PPS. 2018. What Makes a Successful Place. Available online: (accessed on 6 May 2019).
  68. UGD. 2015. Tugu Bustaman: Dari Kampung Membangun Budaya Berkota. Available online: (accessed on 2 February 2016).
Figure 1. The presence of warung as an important informal business in Kampung Dago Pojok (Left) and Kampung Bustaman (Right).
Figure 1. The presence of warung as an important informal business in Kampung Dago Pojok (Left) and Kampung Bustaman (Right).
Socsci 09 00104 g001
Figure 2. Collective actions for constructing a stage of Kampung Kreatif Festival in Dago Pojok.
Figure 2. Collective actions for constructing a stage of Kampung Kreatif Festival in Dago Pojok.
Socsci 09 00104 g002
Figure 3. Case study site 1: Kampung Dago Pojok.
Figure 3. Case study site 1: Kampung Dago Pojok.
Socsci 09 00104 g003
Figure 4. Cultural performances by the kampung residents in Kampung Kreatif Festival.
Figure 4. Cultural performances by the kampung residents in Kampung Kreatif Festival.
Socsci 09 00104 g004
Figure 5. Murals in one alley in Dago Pojok to improve aesthetical value of the spaces during the festival.
Figure 5. Murals in one alley in Dago Pojok to improve aesthetical value of the spaces during the festival.
Socsci 09 00104 g005
Figure 6. Case study site 2: Kampung Bustaman.
Figure 6. Case study site 2: Kampung Bustaman.
Socsci 09 00104 g006
Figure 7. Dance and theatrical performances by Bustaman residents in Tengok Bustaman. Source: (UGD 2015).
Figure 7. Dance and theatrical performances by Bustaman residents in Tengok Bustaman. Source: (UGD 2015).
Socsci 09 00104 g007
Figure 8. Some murals were created during the preparation of Tengok Bustaman. Source: (UGD 2015).
Figure 8. Some murals were created during the preparation of Tengok Bustaman. Source: (UGD 2015).
Socsci 09 00104 g008
Figure 9. Type of public spaces in Kampung Dago Pojok: (1) Football field, (2) and (5) mosques, (3) and (4) Posyandu, (6) fishing pond.
Figure 9. Type of public spaces in Kampung Dago Pojok: (1) Football field, (2) and (5) mosques, (3) and (4) Posyandu, (6) fishing pond.
Socsci 09 00104 g009
Figure 10. Type of public spaces in Kampung Bustaman: (1) Public bath, (2) mosque, (3) culinary areas, (4) security post, (5) alley streets.
Figure 10. Type of public spaces in Kampung Bustaman: (1) Public bath, (2) mosque, (3) culinary areas, (4) security post, (5) alley streets.
Socsci 09 00104 g010
Table 1. Regular and temporal place-making.
Table 1. Regular and temporal place-making.
FrequencyDaily, weekly, monthly, occasionallyAnnual, biannual
ScaleIndividual, group, community, block, neighborhood levelNeighborhood or block level
FacilitationMostly by residents Mostly facilitated by external stakeholders
Involved actorsLocal residents (individual and neighborhood organizations), government, other external stakeholders Local residents, civil society organization, government, other external stakeholders
Nature of Activity (based on the survey result)Promoting wellbeing, establishing infrastructure, caring for public spaces, promoting social cohesion, and empowering women.Promoting art and culture, social cohesion, recreational activities, and supporting young people
Table 2. Types and characteristics of public spaces in urban kampungs.
Table 2. Types and characteristics of public spaces in urban kampungs.
Type of Social Space in KampungsCharacteristics
Streets/alleys/pathwaysIn a typical urban kampung, streets are directly connected with the house terrace and benches. It is on the streets that kampung dwellers usually spend much time to socialize with each other
Warung (small shop)The presence of a small shop in kampungs shows the informality in the economic aspect. It not only functions as the supplier for affordable services to meet the daily basic needs of residents but also serves as a place to chat and hang out
Public bath and toilet Public bath and toilet are also the places where residents interact at particular times of the day, such as when residents wait for their turn to take a bath and when women wash their clothes
Public facilitiesCommunity hall, guard post, mosque, and Posyandu (neighborhood health clinic) are the common type of public facilities in kampungs. Other than their real functions (for instance, the mosque is used for praying), public facilities in kampungs play important roles in accommodating social interaction for dwellers who use the facilities
Open space The form of open space is varied in every kampung. It can be a field, small gardens, left-over spaces between houses, or a vacant space for conducting various social activity
Table 3. Typology of Indonesian urban kampungs.
Table 3. Typology of Indonesian urban kampungs.
TypologyLocationDensitySettlement Characteristics
Inner-city kampungBetween the original colonial city and the new inland coresHigh
(100,000 people per square kilometer)
Share space in traditional house
Mid-city kampungIn the middle of a cityMedium
(Between 20,000 and 40,000 people per square kilometer)
Two story of a concrete structured house
Peripheral kampungFar from a cityLowTraditional house
Temporary squatter kampungScattered in metropolitan area-Temporary house
Adapted from (Ford 1993) (cited in Hutama 2016, p. 8).
Table 4. Profile of the selected kampungs.
Table 4. Profile of the selected kampungs.
KampungCityTotal Population (Kampung)Total Area (Ha) Number of Households
Dago PojokBandung3.852 1258 21.035
BustamanSemarang400 30.6 4101
Source: Compiled from various sources: (Susetyo 2015); Bustaman demographic book, 2015. 1 The total population was measured at the level of sub-district in 2012; 2 The total area was measured in the sub-district in 2011; 3 The total population was measured at the level of sub-district in 2012; 4 The total population was measured at the level of sub-district in 2012.
Table 5. Selection of quantitative sample.
Table 5. Selection of quantitative sample.
KampungRTNumber of HouseholdsProportionate Sample Selection 1
Dago Pojok 114824
The sample size was identified based on Yamane’s formula with 7% precision level and confidence level is 95%.
Table 6. Measurements of social outcomes.
Table 6. Measurements of social outcomes.
VariablesDefinitionIndicatorsUnit of MeasurementSource
Local empowermentA process of change in which individuals or groups of local community, who initially has little or no control, have gained more power and capacity to intervene in particular things that affect their lives.Knowledge exchange Gain knowledge related to related to place-making activityLikert statementPeng (2013); Stewart (2010)
Gain knowledge related to kampung
Gain knowledge related to general issue
Capacity to intervene and be active in solving problems Intervention in problem solving
Involvement in volunteering
Social connectionAn improvement of connection within a community and among group of communities.Diverse social groups in the community work together Increases on the interaction, dialogue and cooperation among different hierarchical group of local residentsLikert statementDelconte et al. (2016);
Peng (2013)
Improve the relationship between long-standing and new comers
Opportunities to meet new peopleExpand social circle
Attract various people from broader are of the city
Mutual helps based on collaborationCommon objective among residents have drawn closer connection
Quality of lifeThe characteristics of particular geographical area that can offer to its residents as well as the characteristics and wellbeing of the residents themselves.Quality of place Upgrading image from initial poor image to become good placeLikert statementCohen et al. (2018);
Hunter (2012)
Vibrancy and LiveabilityAdd more activity to the area and make this kampong become more alive
Safety and securityWalking at night is as safe as walking in the daylight
WellbeingResidents enjoy better health outcomes in general, as a result of an improvement on the environment quality
Local identity and prideThe specific social, cultural, and physical components of place that can contribute to strengthening the identity of the place and its inhabitants.Confidence on individual and communal identity Improvement in general local attitudes towards local culture and communal identityLikert statementDelconte et al. (2016); Hunter (2012);
Main and Sandoval (2015); Rota and Salone (2014)
Cultural regenerationImprovement to preserve and participate in cultural activities
Local products and traditional events become more known to public
Table 7. List of dependent variables.
Table 7. List of dependent variables.
Dependent VariablesQuestionnaire ItemsCronbach’s Alpha
DV 1: LOCAL IDENTITY AND PRIDEImprovement in general local attitudes towards local culture and identity0.829
Improvement in general local attitudes towards cultural activities
Local specialties become more known to public
DV 2: LOCAL EMPOWERMENTHigher opportunities to exchange knowledge related to the place-making practices in kampung0.853
Higher opportunities to understand broader issues about kampung
Higher opportunities to gain general knowledge
General improvement among residents to intervene and be more active in solving problems
General improvement among residents to participate in voluntary works (including activities by non-profit organisation)
DV 3: SOCIAL CONNECTIONImprove the relationship between local people with different age 0.812
Improve the relationship between local people with different hierarchy (ethnics, jobs, incomes, political views)
Improve the relationship between long-standing with new-comers
Drawn closer connection among residents
Expand social circle of residents
Attract various people from broader area of the city
DV 4: QUALITY OF LIFEAdd more activity to and make kampung become more alive0.749
Upgrading image of kampung
Improvement in safety and security
Residents enjoy better health outcomes in addition to an improvement on the environment quality
Source: Analysis, 2017.
Table 8. Results of multiple linear regression analysis.
Table 8. Results of multiple linear regression analysis.
Independent VariablesBβt-ValuePTol.VIF
DV1: Local pride and identity
Constant 4.198 34.3470.000 ***
Age−0.086−0.180−2.9830.003 **0.9601.042
Temporal Place-making0.3300.4975.7830.000 ***0.4712.121
Regular Place-making0.1090.1642.6060.010 *0.8831.133
Regression equation:
Local pride and identity = 4.198 + 0.330 (Temporal Place-making) + 0.109 (Regular Place-making)
R2 = 0.228, F (4, 222) = 16.395, (p = 0.000) ***
DV2: Empowerment
Constant 3.820 23.4280.000 ***
Age−0.080−0.162−2.9220.004 **0.9381.066
Income0.0480.1202.1550.032 *0.9261.080
Temporal Place-making0.3630.5306.7120.000 ***0.4632.161
Regular Place-making0.1790.2614.5700.000 ***0.8821.134
Regression equation:
Empowerment = 3.820 + 0.363 (Temporal Place-making) + 0.179 (Regular Place-making)
R2 = 0.363, F (5, 221) = 25.172, (p = 0.000) ***
DV3: Social connection
Constant 3.908 26.8950.000 ***
Age−0.086−0.215−3.4160.001 ***0.9481.055
Income0.0440.1372.2020.029 *0.9681.033
Regular Place-making0.1400.2514.0800.000 ***0.9921.008
Temporal Place-making0.0910.1632.6410.009 *0.9841.016
Regression equation:
Social connection = 3.908 + 0.140 (Regular Place-making) + 0.091 (Temporal Place-making)
R2 = 0.167, F (4, 222) = 11.158, (p = 0.000) ***
DV4: Quality of life
Constant 3.850 28.0120.000 ***
Age−0.057−0.155−2.4070.017 *0.9641.038
Income0.0560.1892.9430.004 *0.9681.033
Regular Place-making0.1110.2163.4050.001 ***0.9921.008
Regression equation:
Quality of life = 3.850 + 0.111 (Regular Place-making)
R2 = 0.114, F (3, 223) = 9.532, (p = 0.000) ***
* p ≤ 0.05, ** p ≤ 0.005, *** p ≤ 0.001. Source: Analysis, 2017.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Akbar, P.N.G.; Edelenbos, J. Social Impacts of Place-Making in Urban Informal Settlements: A Case Study of Indonesian Kampungs. Soc. Sci. 2020, 9, 104.

AMA Style

Akbar PNG, Edelenbos J. Social Impacts of Place-Making in Urban Informal Settlements: A Case Study of Indonesian Kampungs. Social Sciences. 2020; 9(6):104.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Akbar, Poeti Nazura Gulfira, and Jurian Edelenbos. 2020. "Social Impacts of Place-Making in Urban Informal Settlements: A Case Study of Indonesian Kampungs" Social Sciences 9, no. 6: 104.

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop