## 1 Introduction  
The role of university campuses and science parks has essentially remained the same over time: they are spatial clusters that are conceived as environments to foster contacts and informal networks based on frequent face-to-face interactions [1; 2]. The implementation of knowledge-based activities in one location is expected to provide synergy, creativity and innovation from previously unrelated disciplines [3]. Previous research found that the spatial configuration and physical features of university campuses play a fundamental role in people's interactions and learning activities, and hence their creativity [4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9]. Creativity emerges and develops in dynamic interactions between individuals as 'creators' and their environment [5]. Creativity is not an innate attribute of a single individual, no matter how intelligent and talented that person might be; it is influenced by local contexts, knowledge environments,spatial relations and spaces of interaction [5; 10]. From a spatial perspective, [PERSON] explains that, in order to enable creativity, a (public) space must enhance contacts of the 'right kind'. He defines such contacts as \"those more likely to make links between ideas and generate new ones\" [11] (p. 82). [PERSON] [11] argues, in his space syntax theories, that creativity is the fourth sustainability, together with the other three: environmental, social, and economic sustainability. Creativity is therefore facilitated by the spatial configuration of cities. According to [PERSON] [5; 10], creativity and new knowledge can be enabled by \"meeting the right people in the right place at the right time\" [5] (p. 137), and for creativity to occur, it further requires certain environmental conditions connected to a sense of place. Creativity is influenced by the way in which people perceive a place through its physical features. In other words, the complementary approach of both scholars leads to the assumption that creativity is a spatial and non-spatial phenomenon at one and the same time. Empirical research in campus planning and design that deals with the interrelations between creativity and the built environment have been carried out from the city-wide scale to the building scale. From the citywide perspective, studies have investigated the spatial relationship and accessibility between cities and university campuses [12; 13; 14]. The masterplan design of campuses has been approached as entailing functional and visual units [7; 15], and for the building scale, the relationships between the physical features of office spaces and people's contact to share tacit knowledge have been investigated [16; 17; 18]. Based on [PERSON] and [PERSON] theoretical framework and the aforementioned empirical researches, it was noticed that the spatial aspects of the creativity of campus' public spaces have not yet been explored. Public spaces at university campuses are creative and knowledge hubs that enable interactions and knowledge-sharing between people, and social wellbeing through a sense of place and community [19; 20; 21]. They are catalysts that bring people, ideas and resources together before a creative process can occur [5; 22]. In reality, however, campus public spaces are often neglected spaces between buildings and classrooms, which-in many cases-may inhibit the generation, evaluation and adoption of creative ideas [5; 8]. This can be attributed to the fact that campus planning and masterplan design tend to ignore the impacts of the built environment on human beings from the perspective of the individual [9; 23]. In other words, the interface between campus' spatial configurations and the user perceptions of possible creative encounters are somewhat overlooked. Such issues are the result of the fragmented governance, interests and investments of the multiple campus stakeholders [24; 25], which have implications for the quality of public spaces. These issues are recognised in the case study for this research: Zernike Campus Groningen, in The Netherlands.