The Economic and Social Impacts of Rural Placemaking

_________________________________________________________________ Urbanization does not only affect land use in urban areas but also in rural areas. Many lands in rural areas are vacant. Although placemaking is often associated with urban contexts, its role in rural areas has emerged. Placemaking is believed to improve the economic and social aspect of vacant land uses. This study aims to analyze the process and impacts of rural placemaking in transforming vacant land into an attractive public area with a case study in Pasar Papringan, Ngadimulyo Village. This study was conducted by qualitative approach through in-depth interviews with six respondents and by quantitative approach through distributing questionnaires to a total of 61 respondents. The results show that rural placemaking not only activates vacant land, but also improves economic and social capitals. The perception regarding the economic impacts revealed that most respondents agreed that placemaking had the highest impact on innovation and the creative economy, particularly in supporting the creative economy (30 respondents, 49%). While the perception regarding the social impacts revealed that placemaking had the highest impact on their well-being, such as healthy lifestyle (41 respondents, 67%). The results of this study are expected to provide recommendations for vacant land management through rural placemaking practices


INTRODUCTION
Rapid urbanization and globalization impact the village significantly, including more rural land being expropriated into urban land and more people moving to the city for work (Huang et al., 2020), which results in the growth of vacant and neglected land. In the rural context, rural communities are faced with the challenge of increasingly massive land use change, mainly due to the increasing demand for land for living spaces and commercial areas. In the context of Indonesia, Anandita & Patria (2017) discussed several conditions that affect land use change in the rural context include: 1) the agricultural area is slowly decreasing and being converted into residential areas such as real estate; 2) land management and processing costs encourage non-productive land owners to sell the land to other parties; 3) many rural communities and their descendants have begun to leave their jobs as farmers for other jobs outside the village so that their agricultural land becomes unproductive.
Besides, rural residential land has a dispersed and fragmented layout, as its formation is influenced by many factors, such as kinship (Pitria et al., 2014) and other factors resulting in a lack of land use planning and management (Li et al., 2021). The challenges are how to manage the rural vacant lands and to transform those lands into places that attract people and activities. The spatial optimization can increase rural land use efficiency, enhance farmland protection, improve rural working and living conditions, and balance rural and urban development (Xu et al., 2019;Yurui et al., 2019). One approach that is quite often related to improving the quality of places is a placemaking approach.
Placemaking is the process that transforms a space into a place (Balassiano & Maldonado, 2015), a way to improve the quality of various places (Wyckoff & A, 2014) so that people want to live, work, play, shop, learn, and visit (Arrow, 2012). Placemaking can be translated as a collective effort of the people who live in a particular place (Boeri, 2017). Collective efforts are related to the community's activities to reimagine the surrounding environment (Beza, 2016). Society can be individuals, households, groups, communities, and organizations (Montgomery, 2016). The reimagining process can be in the form of a renovation project or space improvement to create a more attractive function, which highlights the uniqueness of a specific area (Eckenwiler, 2016). The placemaking concept, which was first considered as physical planning and design approach, has developed as a multidisciplinary approach, from spatial science, social, art, education, tourism, and followed by the democratic process (Alvarez et al., 2017;Rios & Watkins, 2015;Shibley et al., 2003;Strydom et al., 2018).
At present, studies of placemaking focus more on urban context and are considered to promote better urban planning and design (City of Boroondara, 2019;Project for Public Spaces, 2015;Wyckoff & A, 2014). Until recently, there was little discussion regarding placemaking in rural context. Research about rural placemaking has already emerged but mostly paid attention to the theory, step, and placemaking process (Balassiano & Maldonado, 2015;Huang et al., 2020). There was little discussion regarding rural placemaking and its impacts, particularly in economic and social aspects. Placemaking is believed as an economic development tool (Arrow, 2012).
Placemaking is building economic, cultural, social, green, and physical capitals (Robert, 2020). However, there are still limited kinds of literature discussing the measurement of impacts on economic and social capital in rural placemaking practice. Research about rural placemaking in Indonesia has discussed the rural placemaking approach and its impact most on rural tourism (Priatmoko et al., 2021) and its social impacts in informal urban settlements (Akbar & Edelenbos, 2020), but not much in economic impacts. Learning from best practice in rural placemaking is needed to understand the role and urgency of placemaking in rural context in economic development. Does placemaking can form a better and more developed village? By following up and considering the previous research gaps, this study aims to assess the impact values in the social and economic capital of rural placemaking on vacant land through an exploratory mixed-method approach with the case study of rural placemaking practice in a specific area. The rural placemaking idea is studied through the perceptions of both economic and social impacts of communitybased rural placemaking practice in Ngadimulyo Village, Temanggung, Central Java, Indonesia. Ngadimulyo Village is known with their rural placemaking practice namely Pasar Papringan. From its initiation in 2017, Pasar Papringan has become precedent of another rural development ideas. Study about Pasar Papringan has been carried out by several researchers. The studies that have been carried out are summarized below. Current rural development researches in Pasar Papringan have mostly discussed and focused on tourism, social, and food security aspects. There was no discussion that specifically addresses the placemaking process in the use of vacant land and its economic and social impacts.
The primary purpose of this study is to understand the role of vacant land-based rural placemaking and its economic and social impacts on local communities. Thus, the main research question is: How does rural placemaking on vacant land achieve impact on economic and social capitals? This study hopefully contributes to the understanding of rural placemaking practice and its role in a micro context (village), as well as add to very few researches that assess rural placemaking as an economic development tool.

RESEARCH METHODS
The location of this case study research is in Ngadimulyo Village, Temanggung Regency, Central Java Province, Indonesia. A total of 6225 people live in Ngadimulyo Village, with agriculture and farming as their primary source of income. Ngadimulyo Village consists of seven hamlets, including Ngadidono and Ngadiprono, where respondents of this study live and participate in the rural placemaking process.
According to data from the 2020 Regional Development Planning Agency for Temanggung Regency, Ngadimulyo Village is included in the developing village category and is one of the priority one villages for increasing welfare due to economic growth conditions that are not as fast as other villages. Ngadimulyo Village does not have village-owned enterprises (BUMDes) yet. Even so, Pasar Papringan as a community-based initiative has been known as one of best practices on rural placemaking which has been supporting economic growth for local community in Ngadimulyo Village (Istianah & Nihayatuzzain, 2020;Nilamsari, 2020). The uniqueness of this village is their rural placemaking practice has been lasting for 5 (five) years and specifically use natural resources such as bamboo as their main capitals. Therefore, Ngadimulyo Village was chosen as the case study locus of this study. This study is conducted with mixedmethod approach, particularly exploratory sequential mixed method. The idea of mixedmethod approach is to inquiry involving collecting both quantitative and qualitative data, integrating the two forms of data, and using distinct designs that may involve philosophical assumptions and theoretical frameworks (Creswell, 2014). In the exploratory sequential approach, this study first begins with a qualitative research phase and explored the views of participants. The qualitative study is conducted by having narrative research. The steps are: 1) define the question for qualitative data; 2) data collection with in-depth interview to 3 (three) community representatives and 3 (three) members of NGO namely spedagi regarding land use transformation, placemaking activities, perceptions of general outcome; 3) categorization and data analysis including spatial analysis of rural placemaking; 4) the results were visualized in graphics and maps using Google Maps and Autocad.
Spedagi is one of the initiators of Pasar Papringan, the first regular rural placemaking movement that livens up vacant land in Ngadimulyo Village, Temanggung, Central Java. The in-depth interviews were conducted in June-July 2022. The in-depth interviews helped to provide a general idea of vacant land-based rural placemaking.
Land use transformation, placemaking activities, and general outcomes from 2017 to 2022. The in-depth interview became material sources for the quantitative approach, particularly for compiling sets questionnaire to gain the general perception of economic and social outcomes of a vacant landbased rural placemaking in Ngadimulyo Village, Temanggung, Central Java from residents as well as rural placemaking participants. Based on indepth interviews with local community representatives and Spedagi, currently, the principal and regular rural placemaking movement are Pasar Papringan.
As for the quantitative study is conducted by nonexperimental designs, such as: 1) define the questions and survey instruments based on qualitiative survey findings; 2) survey to first 30 participants; 3) validity and reliability test; 4) survey to another 31 participants; 5) data analysis with Stata 17 and Microsoft Excel; 6) R is used for descriptive statistics analysis and data visualization. The method for selecting respondents is a purposive sampling method, with two criterias: 1) live in Ngadimulyo Village; 2) been actively participated in activities or events at a chosen area of rural placemaking for more than a year, including Pasar Papringan. From the total of 89 prospective respondents that meet the criteria, the total number of respondents were willing to have participated in 61 respondents. The first data collection was conducted through the first survey of 30 respondents on July 2022 to test the validity and reliability of the questionnaire and to understand which economic and social capitals are relevant. After eliminating the irrelevant questions based on the first survey, the second data collection was conducted through a second survey to another 31 respondents on September 2022. Four surveyors administered the survey: the researcher and threeresearch assistants from the Regional Economic Development Planning Study Program, Department of Economic and Business, Vocational College, Universitas Gadjah Mada (UGM) Yogyakarta.
Before conducting the survey, the surveyors informed the residents about the survey plan through Spedagi as the critical community in managing the rural placemaking in Ngadimulyo Village. The surveyors visited each house of the respondents and administered the survey face-to-face, each lasting 15 to 30 minutes. The questionnaire was designed to gain the general perceptions of the residents about rural placemaking practices and its impact on their economic and social dimensions in the village.
The questionnaire consisted of three sets. The first set consisted of multiple and direct answers about their socio-economic profiles. The second set consisted of multiple and direct answers about their specific role and participation in rural placemaking. The third set consisted of graded answers on a Likert scale about their perceptions of rural placemaking impacts in economic and social capitals, with format from 1 to 5, with 1 representing 'Highly Disagree' and 5 representing 'Highly Agree'. The third set was divided into two capital dimensions: economic and social, and consisted of 19 questionnaire items as the unit of measurement with graded answers. After the first data collection from 30 first respondents on July 2022, based on a validity test and a reliability test using Stata 17, six questions were not reliable and therefore eliminated from the questionnaire.
The second survey used the revised questionnaire and consisted of 13 questionnaire items as a unit of measurement with graded answers. The seven questions represent the economic capital dimension, and the six represent the social capital dimension.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
To analyze further land use optimization through the practice of rural placemaking Pasar Papringan in Ngadimulyo Village, Temanggung, Central Java, this study obtained two types of data: 1) Rural placemaking process information to obtain the background, process, and results of vacant land-based rural placemaking based on indepth interviews; 2) Land-use transformation by photos and map based on in-depth interviews. Pasar Papringan, which means Bamboo Market, was initially not located in Ngadimulyo Village but in Kandangan Village, located about 7 km apart. The concept of Pasar Papringan was to optimize land use without changing the existing characteristic and resource, bamboo. (Papringan means bamboo in the Javanese language), and to turn it into a profitable market.
It was a place where people met, ate, and collaborated, which promoted a healthy lifestyle by using natural ingredients for culinary products and using bamboo for almost all elements, such as handicrafts, furniture, and cutleries. Pasar Papringan, as a regular placemaking, was held about once in two weeks. The first Pasar Papringan in Kandangan Village lasted for a few months in 2016 and stopped because the contract to use the bamboo land was over. On the other hand, the local community, namely Komunitas Mata Air in Ngadimulyo Village, was inspired by Pasar Papringan in Kandangan Village to activate their vacant bamboo land, which is located at the upper part of Ngadiprono Hamlet, Ngadimulyo Village. It was a vacant land (bamboo forest) that had been turned into a garbage disposal area for a long time.
The land was owned by six families, with a total area of 2500 m2. Thus, Komunitas Mata Air invited Spedagi as an initiator of Pasar Papringan to collaborate and set up rural placemaking Pasar Papringan in Ngadimulyo Village. Spedagi, Komunitas Mata Air, land owners, and residents needed six months to brainstorm the vision, mission, and concept of Pasar Papringan before starting the land transformation and establishing Pasar Papringan in 2017. Currently, the bamboo forest has transformed into a playground, a culinary market, and other functions of public space.
Pasar Papringan stimulated other rural placemaking events in the same area. The activated bamboo land transformed into a public space used for occasional placemaking. The activities of biweekly and temporal placemaking are described in Table 3.   Obtaining information from in-depth interviews gave insights into the general impacts of rural placemaking Pasar Papringan for residents. Interestingly, the respondents' keywords are not only about short-term impacts, such as additional income, but also long-term impacts, such as business opportunities and infrastructure development. The respondents also mentioned social impacts such as pride, branding, and a healthy lifestyle. Thus, to get further insights into the impacts of rural placemaking, this study analyzed the quantitative data about the perceptions of residents about economic and social impacts. This study would like to assess residents' perceptions of economic and social impacts since it was established in 2017 until today. From the total of 61 respondents representing residents' perceptions about economic and social impacts, more than half of the people in this sampling group were in adulthood, which is 51-60 years old (32.2%) and 41-50 years old (27.1%). About 85.2% of the total respondents were female. Agriculture and farming became the primary source of income for most respondents, which is 39 respondents or 67% of the sampling group, followed by self-employed business (11 respondents), allowance and labor (every 3 respondents), open small-shop at the house (2 respondents), and others (3 respondents). Most respondents (55.6%) had an income of fewer than 1 million IDR or 64 USD, while 40.7% had an income of 65-193 USD or 1-3 million rupiahs. The educational level of respondents was divided into three which are people who studied until elementary school (52.5%), junior high school (24.6%), and senior high school (23%). Details about sampling group characteristics can be found in Appendix.
As explained earlier, the impact measurement of economic and social capital was conducted with a quantitative approach. Both dimensions of economic and social capital were treated collectively as a multiple-response measure of a single construct. This treatment is generally more reliable than a single response measure (Akbar & Edelenbos, 2020). The table below explains the Cronbach's Alpha of each variable. For economic capital, there are economic innovation and creativity, local empowerment, and business opportunity with Cronbach's Alpha 0.9129, 0.7822, 0.7313, and 0.8450, respectively. For social capital, there are pride and branding, liveability, and well-being with Cronbach's Alpha 0.8450, 0.6057, and 0.9459, respectively. It can be concluded that all questionnaire items had relatively high internal consistency.  The questionnaire results about respondents' perception regarding the economic impacts of rural placemaking revealed that most respondents agreed that rural placemaking had the highest impact on innovation and the creative economy, particularly in supporting the creative economy (30 respondents chose highly agree, 49%) and generating innovation (27 respondents chose highly agree, 44%).
In economic innovation and creativity aspects, all 61 respondents either agreed or highly agreed on innovation and creativity as economic impacts of rural placemaking. As for local economic empowerment, most respondents agreed that rural placemaking had impacts, particularly in increasing their household income (24 respondents chose highly agree, 39%), followed by job opportunities (20 respondents chose highly agree, 32%) and stimulating local economic activities (17 respondents chose highly agree, 28%). Regarding business opportunities, most of the respondents agreed that it gave impacts generating new business (15 respondents chose highly agree, 24%) including their product's potential to be widely known by sending them to outside Java and generating buysell activities at the village.
The impact analysis of rural placemaking on social capital based on the questionnaire showed that most respondents felt that rural placemaking had many impacts on their wellbeing, mainly a healthy lifestyle (41 respondents chose highly agree, 67%) and clean lifestyle (38 respondents chose highly agree, 62%). It might relate to their new habits of cooking and to providing healthy food during the Pasar Papringan event and their promotion of a healthy lifestyle. Besides, they have a tradition, namely gotong royong, a collective action in cleaning the neighborhood, particularly in the placemaking area, every week to keep it clean. That tradition motivated them to implement a clean lifestyle in their daily life. As for pride and branding, most respondents felt that their village has a positive branding (36 respondents chose highly agree, 59%) and became well-known not long after their first rural placemaking event Pasar Papringan was held.
Most respondents said they were proud to be a part of their village (32 respondents chose highly agree, 52%). Meanwhile, the perceptions of livability related to the vibrancy of their neighborhood (13 respondents chose highly agree, 21%) and the feeling of a livable place (7 respondents chose highly agree, 11%) were not as high as others. Most respondents said that many people would like to visit Pasar Papringan to experience the village ambiances, but not for long-term living yet. The results of this study affirmed the importance of rural placemaking in improving economic and social capitals. The first finding, which found about rural placemaking on vacant lands confirmed that spatial optimization can increase rural land use efficiency as well as improve living conditions and rural development (Arrow, 2012;Xu et al., 2019;Yurui et al., 2019). This study supported the discussion from Eckenwiler (2016) that placemaking can highlights the uniqueness of a specific area, in this case is Pasar Papringan with its uniqueness as a vacant land on bamboo forest that transformed from waste disposal area into a community-based rural placemaking.
The second finding, which found the economic impacts of Pasar Papringan as rural placemaking was consistent with previous authors. This study confirmed previous studies (Robert, 2020) that placemaking is building economic capital such as economic innovation, creativity, better image, and also local economy. Karssenberg et al (2016) found that placemaking is not about using more money but it is about getting more return for the money. This study confirmed that placemaking gave economic impacts in increasing household income.
The third finding, which found the social impacts of rural placemaking affirmed that social shared activities arranged and participated by residents influence the positive perceptions of their community's collective capacity to solve problems as well as provide various positive benefits to community empowerment (Balassiano & Maldonado, 2015). This study also confirmed previous studies that placemaking has impacts on building social capitals such as pride, health, wellbeing (March, 2009;Rao, 2001;Robert, 2020). Interestingly, this study revealed that resident's perception about liveability aspects such as Pasar Papringan as livable place and vibrancy is not as high as others, even low (11% and 21% chose highly agree from 61 respondents).
Previous study suggested that vibrancy and liveability together with wellbeing were positively related to quality of life as a result of placemaking (Akbar & Edelenbos, 2020;Robert, 2020). The reasons for this insignificant relation can be explained from methodological perspective. Considering the nature of questionnaire that was quite rigid with general statements there were possibilities that some statements might be interpreted differently by therespondents. For instance, when there was a statement in the questionnaire saying that their house and their environment become more livable and make more people want to live in the area, some of them might answer it without giving more thought.

CONCLUSION
This paper proposed an alternative of vacant land-based rural placemaking to stimulate economic and social impacts from a micro perspective, Pasar Papringan. The analysis of land use optimization and assessment of economic and social impacts have explained rural placemaking and its impacts based on an exploratory sequential mixed-method approach involving a sampling group of 61 respondents actively participating in placemaking, the activists, and the community representative. The integration of qualitative and quantitative analysis was done to provide a more complete understanding of a research problem, in this case is the role of rural placemaking on vacant lands (qualitative) and its economic and social impacts (quantitative).
This study concluded with the following findings. First, in the case of Pasar Papringan, vacant land-based rural placemaking contributed not only to promoting land use optimization but also to provide multiple functions, including public space, back-to-village experience, and stimulating local economic and social activities. Second, rural placemaking is inseparable from community initiatives. Thus, the community is the underpinning principle. Their investment of land, time and energy for rural placemaking is vital. The vacant land in Ngadimulyo Village, collectively owned land, is managed and transformed into rural placemaking through community hands. Third, rural placemaking can be a potential tool to support rural economic development through the improvement of economic and social capital, particularly in promoting a creative economy, innovation, and well-being.
This study analyzes the social and economic impacts of rural placemaking with the case study in Pasar Papringan, Ngadimulyo, Temanggung, Central Java, a developed practice in a small-scale area, inevitably having many limitations. Indonesia has more than a thousand islands and tons of villages, and its various acts of rural placemaking need to be understood through further and more extensive research. In future research, we would like to explore rural placemaking in a broader context, larger spatial scale, and more accurate methodology. Figure A1. Stage of life distribution of the sampling.