EVALUASI MULTIDIMENSI PSIKOLOGI LINGKUNGAN PADA CO-WORKING SPACE AKADEMIK DI SGLC UGM
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31848/arcade.v10i2.4581Keywords:
Environmental psychology, User satisfaction, Co-working spaceAbstract
Research on co-working spaces has predominantly focused on commercial settings, while studies employing an environmental psychology approach in academic co-working spaces in Indonesia remain limited. This study aims to evaluate user satisfaction in the co-working spaces of the Smart Green Learning Center (SGLC), Universitas Gadjah Mada, based on environmental psychology dimensions. A quantitative-descriptive approach was employed involving 240 respondents across 25 co-working space units. Data were collected through a questionnaire covering environmental control, thermal comfort, visual comfort, acoustics and privacy, spatial flexibility, and social perception. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and supported by users’ open-ended responses. The results indicate that overall user satisfaction was very high, with a mean score of 4.26. Spatial flexibility achieved the highest score (4.37), followed by visual comfort (4.22) and social perception (4.20), while acoustics and privacy received the lowest score (3.57). In addition, 26.3% of respondents reported experiencing thermal discomfort while using the spaces. These findings suggest that the quality of user experience in academic co-working spaces is influenced by the interaction of physical, psychological, and social aspects of the environment. The study highlights the importance of an environmental psychology approach in the design and evaluation of collaborative learning spaces in higher education settings.
References
Altman, I. (1975). The environment and social behavior: Privacy, personal space, territory, crowding. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing.
Bouncken, R. B., Ratzmann, M., & Kraus, S. (2020). Coworking-spaces: How a phenomenon of the sharing economy builds a novel trend for the workplace and for entrepreneurship. Review of Managerial Science, 14, 317–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-018-0305-y
Brager, G. S. (2005). Adaptive comfort model and personal control of the indoor environment. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Climate and Building Physics, 13–17 June 2005, Lodz University of Technology.
de Dear, R., & Brager, G. (1998). Developing an adaptive model of thermal comfort and preference. ASHRAE Transactions, 104(1), 145–167.
Ergenç, F., Şimşek, F., & Karakaya, A. (2024). Evaluating environmental comfort in co-working spaces. Journal of Environmental Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2024.102043
Evans, G. W., & McCoy, J. M. (1998). When buildings don’t work: The role of architecture in human health. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18(1), 85–94. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1998.0089
Frontczak, M., Schiavon, S., Goins, J., Arens, E., Zhang, H., & Wargocki, P. (2011). Quantitative relationships between occupant satisfaction and satisfaction aspects of indoor environmental quality. Building and Environment, 45(11), 2289–2295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2010.11.021
Garrett, L. E., Spreitzer, G. M., & Bacevice, P. A. (2017). Co-constructing a sense of community at work: The emergence of community in coworking spaces. Organization Studies, 38(6), 821–842. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840616685354
Gifford, R. (2007). Environmental psychology: Principles and practice (4th ed.). Optimal Books.
Guo, X., Tian, X., & Zhu, Z. (2023). The restorative effects of shared learning spaces on students’ stress recovery: Evidence from physiological and subjective indicators. Building and Environment, 236, 110202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2023.110202
ISO 7730. (2005). Ergonomics of the thermal environment — Analytical determination and interpretation of thermal comfort using calculation of the PMV and PPD indices and local thermal comfort criteria. International Organization for Standardization.
Kinsman, N., Marris, N., & Oakman, J. (2023). What impact do coworking spaces have on users' performance, mental and physical health? A scoping review. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 25(3), 195–213. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCRE-07-2022-0035
Kim, J., & de Dear, R. (2002). Nonlinear relationships between individual IEQ factors and overall workspace satisfaction. Building and Environment, 37(7), 673–679. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1323(01)00040-0
Kojo, I., & Nenonen, S. (2016). Typologies for co-working spaces: Understanding the phenomenon. Journal of Facilities Management, 14(3), 256–269. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFM-10-2015-0027
Stokols, D., & Altman, I. (Eds.). (1987). Handbook of environmental psychology. Wiley.
Spinuzzi, C. (2012). Working alone together: Coworking as emergent collaborative activity. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 26(4), 399–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651912444070
Thilakarathne, N., & Hettiarachchi, H. (2022). Enhancing collaborative learning through space: A study of student-centered design in university environments. International Journal of Educational Management, 36(1), 71–86.
Weijs-Perrée, M., Appel-Meulenbroek, R., Arentze, T., & Romph, E. (2018). Analysing user preferences for co-working space characteristics. Building Research & Information, 46(7), 729–740. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2018.1463750
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Jurnal Arsitektur ARCADE
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
