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. "> [PDF] Measuring place satisfaction by university campus open space attributes | [PDF] Measuring place satisfaction by university campus open space attributes 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. ">
Doruk Görkem ÖZKAN, Seda ÖZLÜ, Sinem Dedeoğlu ÖZKAN

6013

Measuring place satisfaction by university campus open space attributes

Measuring place satisfaction by university campus open space attributes

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.
PDF

___

  • 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.
  • 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). 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.
  • 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.
  • 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). 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, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Trabzon.
  • Gür, Ş. Ö. (1996). Mekân Örgütlenmesi. Ankara: Gür Yayıncılık.
  • Hanan, H. (2013). Open Space as Meaningful Place for Students in ITB Campus. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 85, 308-317. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.08.361.
  • Herting, J. R. & Guest, A. M. (1985). Components of Satisfaction with Local Areas in the Metropolis. The Sociological Quarterly, 26(1), 99-116. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.1985. tb00218.x.
  • Hosany, S. & Prayag, G. (2013). Patterns of Tourists’ Emotional Responses, Satisfaction, and Intention to Recommend. Journal of Business Research, 66(6), 730-737. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.09.011.
  • Kahana, E., Lovegreen, L., Kahana, B. & Kahana, M. (2003). Person, Environment, and Person-environment Fit as Influences on Residential Satisfaction of Elders. Environment and Behavior, 35(3), 434-453. https://doi.org/10.1 177/0013916503035003007.
  • Kenney, D. R., Dumont, R. & Kenney, G. (2005). Mission and Place: Strengthening Learning and Community through Campus Design. Lanham, Maryland: Greenwood Publishing Group.
  • Kuloğlu, N. (2013). Boşluğun Devinimi: Mimari Mekândan Kentsel Mekâna. ICONARP Mimarlık ve Planlama Dergisi, 1 (2), 201-214.
  • Lewicka, M. (2010). What Makes Neighborhood Different from Home and City? Effects of Place Scale on Place Attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(1), 35-51. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.05.004.
  • Lützkendorf, T., Speer, T., Szigeti, F., Davis, G., Le Roux, P., Kato, A. & Tsunekawa, K. (2005). A Comparison of International Classifications for Performance Requirements and Building Performance Categories Used in Evaluation Methods. Performance Based Building, 61-80.
  • Marcus, C. C. & Francis, C. (Eds.). (1997). People Places: Design Quidlines for Urban Open Space. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers.
  • Mesch, G. S. & Manor, O. (1998). Social Ties, Environmental Perception, and Local Attachment. Environment and Behavior, 30(4), 504-519. https:// doi.org/10.1177/001391659803000405.
  • Montgomery, J. (1998). Making a City: Urbanity, Vitality and Urban Design. Journal of Urban Design, 3(1), 93-116. https://doi. org/10.1080/13574809808724418.
  • Özkan, D. G., Alpak, E. M., & Var, M. (2017). Design and construction process in campus open spaces: a case study of Karadeniz technical university. Urban Design International, 22(3), 236-252.
  • Özkan, D. G., & Yilmaz, S. (2019). The effects of physical and social attributes of place on place attachment. ArchNet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research, 14(1), 133-150.
  • Pascual González, A. & Peña Díaz, J. (2012). Espacios Abiertos de uso Público. Arquitectura y Urbanismo, 33(1), 25-42.
  • Ramkissoon, H., Smith, L. D. G. & Weiler, B. (2013). Testing the Dimensionality of Place Attachment and its Relationships with Place Satisfaction and Pro-environmental Behaviours: A Structural Equation Modelling Approach. Tourism Management, 36, 552- 566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.09.003.
  • Salama, A. M. & Azzali, S. (2015). Examining Attributes of Urban Open Spaces in Doha. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Urban Design and Planning, 168(2), 75-87. https:// doi.org/10.1680/udap.14.00011.
  • Scholl, K. G. & Gulwadi, G. B. (2015). Recognizing Campus Landscapes as Learning Spaces. Journal of Learning Spaces, 4(1), 53-60.
  • Stedman, R. C. (2002). Toward a Social Psychology of Place: Predicting Behavior from Place-based Cognitions, Attitude, and Identity. Environment and Behavior, 34(5), 561-581. https://doi.org/10.1177/001391650203 4005001.
  • Tudorie, C. A. M., Vallés-Planells, M., Gielen, E., Arroyo, R. & Galiana, F. (2020). Towards a Greener University: Perceptions of Landscape Services in Campus Open Space. Sustainability, 12(15), 6047. doi:10.3390/su12156047.
  • Yaylali-Yildiz, B., Czerkauer-Yamu, C. & Cil, E. (2014). Exploring the Effects of Spatial and Social Segregation in University Campuses, IZTECH as a Case Study. Urban Design International, 19(2), 125-143. doi:10.1057/ udi.2013.19.
  • Yılmaz, O., Ak, K. & Benliay, A. (2005). Yerleşke Tasarımın Ekolojik Boyutu, II. Ulusal Üniversite Planlaması ve Çevre Düzenlemesi Çalıştayı, 9-10 Haziran 2005, Kahramanmaraş.
A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi-Cover
  • ISSN: 2564-7474
  • Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 3 Sayı
  • Başlangıç: 2005
  • Yayıncı: İTÜ Rektörlüğü
Arşiv
Sayıdaki Diğer Makaleler

Landscape strategies for abandoned airports in the context of landscape urbanism: Case of Atatürk Airport

Diler ÇİFTÇİ, Meltem Erdem KAYA

Implementation of government policies in the construction industry: The case of Sri Lanka

A. P. K. D. MENDIS, D. A. S. R. JAYATUNGE, Vijitha DISARATNA, B. A. K. S. PERERA

Questioning a grid-planned settlement structure at ancient Larisa (Buruncuk)

Ilgın KÜLEKÇİ, Turgut SANER

Measuring place satisfaction by university campus open space attributes

Doruk Görkem ÖZKAN, Seda ÖZLÜ, Sinem Dedeoğlu ÖZKAN

Exploring usability tests to evaluate designers’ interaction with mobile augmented reality application for conceptual architectural design

Mahmut Çağdaş DURMAZOĞLU, Leman Figen GÜL

Builders and building tradition of Barbaros as intangible cultural heritage

Şeyma SARIBEKİROĞLU, Fatma Nurşen KUL

An enabling technique for describing experiences in architectural environments

Luis Alfonso DE LA FUENTE SUÁREZ

The characteristics of halal and non-halal food territories in multilayered mapping of Jakarta’s Chinatown urban foodscape

Olga Nauli KOMALA, Evawani ELLISA, Yandi Andrı YATMO

A field study on thermal comfort in the shopping malls in a temperate humid climate

Fatma Zoroğlu ÇAĞLAR, Gülay Zorer GEDIK

Evaluation of the location choice of software industry in Istanbul based on the types of economy

Suheda KOSE, Ayse Lale BERKOZ