Journals / A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi / 2022 / Cilt: 19 - Sayı: 1

Measuring place satisfaction by university campus open space attributes

Pages
137–149
Publication Date
2022-10-12
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In conclusion, the present study discussed the environmental attributes of campus open spaces with a 3-dimensional approach and determined that not only perceptual attributes affected place satisfaction.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Campuses, which are a whole with education, teaching, cultural structures and open spaces, are spatial organizations where students, academicians and staff come together.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The purpose of this research is to determine the performance levels of existing campus open spaces and to investigate their effects on place satisfaction.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In conclusion, the present study discussed the environmental attributes of campus open spaces with a 3-dimensional approach and determined that not only perceptual attributes affected place satisfaction.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Campuses, which are a whole with education, teaching, cultural structures and open spaces, are spatial organizations where students, academicians and staff come together. In this respect, in the design of university campuses, it is necessary to focus not only on physical and aesthetic features, but also on spatial organizations that can create the meaning and social interaction of the place. The purpose of this research is to determine the performance levels of existing campus open spaces and to investigate their effects on place satisfaction. The present study, constructed to determine the impact of functional, social and perceptual attributes of campus open spaces on place satisfaction, was conducted at Karadeniz Technical University-Kanuni Campus. When the campus open spaces were selected in the study, open spaces that allowed socio-cultural activities in the campus were preferred, excluding the educational buildings. Within the scope of the study, in which the analysis of the space as an attitude element constitutes the general framework and originality of the study, a total of 240 people were surveyed in 3 regions selected. In conclusion, the present study discussed the environmental attributes of campus open spaces with a 3-dimensional approach and determined that not only perceptual attributes affected place satisfaction. The study findings suggested that functional and social attributes, occupancy frequency and duration variables had positive effects on place satisfaction. The study findings are considered important for both urban planners and administrators, who are responsible for protection and development of campus open spaces, and the users.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖZKAN, D. G., ÖZLÜ, S., ÖZKAN, S. D. (2022). Measuring place satisfaction by university campus open space attributes. A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 19 - Sayı: 1, 137–149. https://ajindex.com/articles/426300

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (7)

  1. Amérigo, M., & Aragones, J. I. (1997). A Theoretical and Method ological Approach to the Study of Residential Satisfaction. Journal of Environmental psychology, 17(1), 47-57. https:// doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1996.0038. Aydin, D., & Ter, U. (2008). Outdoor Space Qualıty: Case Study of a Unıversıty Campus Plaza. Archnet-IJAR, International Journal of Architectural Research 2(3), 189-203.
  2. Bonaiuto, M., Aiello, A., Perugini, M., Bonnes, M. & Ercolani, A. P. (1999). Multidimensional Perception of Residential Environment Quality and Neighbourhood Attachment in the Urban Environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19(4), 331-352. https://doi.org/10.1006/ jevp.1999.0138. Canter, D. (1977). The Psychology of Place (No. 159.953). London: The Architectural Press Ltd. Canter, D. (1983). The Purposive Evaluation of Places: A Facet Approach. Environment and Behavior, 15(6), 659-698. https://doi. org/10.1177/0013916583156001. Canter, D. & Rees, K. (1982). A Multivariate Model of Housing Satisfaction. Applied Psychology, 31(2), 185- 207. Carmona, M., Heath, T., Tiesdell, S. & Oc, T. (2010).
  3. Public Places, Urban Spaces: The Dimensions of Urban De sign. London: Routledge. Carr, S., Stephen, C., Francis, M., Rivlin, L. G. & Stone, A. M. (1992). Public Space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  4. Dober, R. P. (2000). Campus Landscape: Functions, Forms, Features. Canada: John Wiley & Sons. Düzenli, T., Mumcu, S., Yılmaz, S. & Özbilen, A. (2012). Analyzing Youth’s Activity Patterns in Campus Open Spaces Depending on Their Personal and Social Needs. Journal of Adult Development, 19(4), 201-214. Doi 10.1007/s10804-012-9147-1.
  5. Düzenli, T., Mumcu, S. & Özbilen, A. (2019). Mekân Örgütlenmesi Bağlamında Su Öğesi Kullanımları. Journal of International Social Research, 12(64), 304-310. http://dx.doi. org/10.17719/jisr.2019.3353. Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975).
  6. Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Boston: Addison-Wesley. Fleury-Bahi, G., Pol, E. & Navarro, O. (2017). Introduction: Environmental Psychology and Quality of Life. In Handbook of Environmental Psychology and Quality of Life Research (pp. 1-8). Switzerland: Springer, Cham. Günaydın, M. (2011). KTÜ Kanuni yerleşkesi (Trabzon)’ndeki öğrencilerin spor ve rekreasyon ihtiyaçlarının saptanması ve gelişimine yönelik yaklaşımların irdelenmesi. Doktora Tezi, Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi,
  7. Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Trabzon. Gür, Ş. Ö. (1996). Mekân Örgütlenmesi. Ankara: Gür Yayıncılık. Ha