A Bibliometric Analysis on University Campus Design

Abstract

This study provides an extensive bibliometric analysis of university campus design research, examining trends, collaborations, and thematic focuses through a systematic review of data from the Scopus database. A total of 5,753 publications from 1959 to 2024 were analyzed using VOSviewer and Biblioshiny. The results reveal a steady growth in scholarly attention to university campus design, particularly since 2007, with sustainability, digital transformation, and inclusivity emerging as dominant themes. Sustainability is highlighted as a central theme, focusing on energy-efficient materials, green infrastructure, and climate-responsive designs to address environmental challenges. For instance, life-cycle assessments underscore the importance of integrating sustainable practices during the planning stages to minimize long-term ecological impacts. Digital transformation, accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, is another critical trend, emphasizing the integration of hybrid learning environments, Internet of Things (IoT) technologies, and Building Information Modeling (BIM) for adaptive and data-driven campus designs. The analysis also reveals gaps in the field, such as limited research on modular and scalable designs to accommodate fluctuating populations and evolving technological needs. Additionally, the socio-cultural aspects of campus environments, including mental health, community integration and inclusivity, remain underexplored. By synthesizing past and current trends, this study provides a robust framework for advancing university campus design. It emphasizes the importance of interdisciplinary approaches, global collaboration, and innovative solutions to create campuses that are sustainable, adaptive, and inclusive, capable of meeting the evolving demands of the 21st century.

Keywords

• University campus design
• Bibliometric analysis
• Scopus
• VOSviewer
• Biblioshiny

References

1. Bao W. 2020. COVID-19 and online teaching in higher education: A case study of Peking University. Hum Behav Emerg Technol. 2(2): 113-115. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.191
2. Begeç H. 2002. Üniversitelerde kampus yerleşme biçimleri. Yapı Derg, 252: 57-63.
3. Berman M, Chase JS, Landweber L, Nakao A, Ott M, Raychaudhuri D, Ricci R, Seskar I. 2014. GENI: A federated testbed for innovative network experiments. Comput Netw. 61: 5-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjp.2013.12.037
4. Blocken B, Janssen WD, van Hooff T. 2012. CFD simulation for pedestrian wind comfort and wind safety in urban areas: General decision framework and case study for the Eindhoven University campus. Environ Model Softw. 30: 15-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2011.11.009
5. Cobo MJ, López-Herrera AG, Herrera-Viedma C, Herrera F. 2011. Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 62(7): 1382-1402. (accessed date: October 20, 2024). https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21525
6. Deliens T, Clarys P, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Deforche B. 2014. Determinants of eating behaviour in university students: A qualitative study using focus group discussions. BMC Public Health. 14(1): 53. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-53
7. Engel SP, Stieneker M, Soltau N, Rabiee S, Stagge H, De Doncker RW. 2014. Comparison of modular multilevel DC converter and dual-active bridge converter for power conversion in HVDC and MVDC grids. IEEE Trans Power Electron. 30(1): 124-137. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2014.2310656
8. Haddaway NR, Page MJ, Pritchard CC, McGuinness LA. 2022. PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020-compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis. Campbell Syst Rev. 18(2): e1230. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1230

9. Harden A, Thomas J. 2010. Mixed methods and systematic reviews: Examples and emerging issues. In: Tashakkori A, Teddlie C (Eds.), SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research (2nd ed., pp: 749-774). SAGE Publications. (accessed date: December 10, 2024). https://methods.sagepub.com/book/sage-handbook-of-mixed-methods-social-behavioral-research
10. He Q, Wang G, Luo L, Shi Q, Xie J, Meng X. 2017. Mapping the managerial areas of Building Information Modeling (BIM) using scientometric analysis. Int J Project Manag. 35(4): 670-685. (accessed date: November 15, 2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.08.001
11. Heyvaert M, Hannes K, Onghena P. 2016. Using mixed methods research synthesis for literature reviews: The mixed methods research synthesis approach (Vol. 4). Sage Publications. pp: 344. (accessed date: October 13, 2024). https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483399935
12. Kortan E. 1981. Çağdaş üniversite kampusları tasarımı. ODTÜ, Mimarlık Fakültesi, Mimarlık Bölümü, Ankara. pp: 196.
13. Lee HC, Ke KH. 2018. Monitoring of large-area IoT sensors using LoRa wireless mesh network system: Design and evaluation. IEEE Trans Instrum Meas. 67(9): 2177–2187. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIM.2018.2814082
14. Lilly CM, Cody S, Zhao H, Landry K, Baker SP, McIlwaine J, Chandler MW, Irwin RS. 2011. Hospital mortality, length of stay, and preventable complications among critically ill patients before and after tele-ICU reengineering of critical care processes. JAMA. 305(21): 2175-2183. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2011.697
15. Middel A, Häb K, Brazel AJ, Martin CA, Guhathakurta S. 2014. Impact of urban form and design on mid-afternoon microclimate in Phoenix Local Climate Zones. Landsc Urban Plan. 122: 16-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.11.004
16. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group. 2009. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLOS Med. 6(7): e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
17. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, … Moher D. 2021. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 372: n160. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n160
18. Paker N. 2016. Üniversite-kampüs ilişkisinin tarihsel gelişimi üzerine bir okuma. Mimarlık Kültür Dergisi, Mimarist. 16(1): 44-49.
19. Scheuer C, Keoleian GA, Reppe P. 2003. Life cycle energy and environmental performance of a new university building: Modeling challenges and design implications. Energy Build. 35(10): 1049-1064. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7788(03)00066-5
20. Sönmezler K. 2003. Modern mimarinin kentsel deney alanı: Üniversite tasarımı. PhD thesis, Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, Institute of Science, İstanbul. pp: 115.
21. Strain EC, Bigelow GE, Liebson IA, Stitzer ML. 1999. Moderate- vs high-dose methadone in the treatment of opioid dependence: A randomized trial. JAMA. 281(11): 1000-1005. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.281.11.1000
22. Tijssen RJW, Van Raan AFJ. 1994. Mapping changes in science and technology: Bibliometric co-occurrence analysis of the R&D literature. Eval Rev. 18(1): 98–115. (accessed date: October 13, 2024). https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X9401800110
23. Turner PV. 1990. Some thoughts on history and campus planning. Plan High Educ. 16(3): 1–28. (accessed date: September 11, 2024). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ372294
24. Türeyen MN. 2002. Yükseköğretim kurumları: Kampuslar. İstanbul: Tasarım Yayın Grubu.
25. Van Eck NJ, Waltman L. 2010. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics. 84(2): 523–538. (accessed date: September 11, 2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
26. Van Eck NJ, Waltman L. 2014. Visualizing bibliometric networks. In: Ding Y, Rousseau R, Wolfram D (Eds.), Measuring scholarly impact: Methods and practice (pp: 285–320). Springer. (accessed date: October 17, 2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10377-8_13
27. Yalçınkaya M, Singh V. 2015. Patterns and trends in building information modeling (BIM) research: A latent semantic analysis. Autom Constr. 59: 68–80. (accessed date: December 21, 2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2015.07.012