Evaluating Campus Life Centers through Occupant-Centered Performance

Abstract

Social centers on university campuses function not only as support facilities for academic life but also as essential spaces that foster social interaction, cultural activities, and a sense of belonging. Assessing these buildings from the occupants’ perspective is vital for identifying spatial strengths and weaknesses and for informing future design and planning strategies. This study presents a post-occupancy evaluation (POE) of the Life Center at Harran University’s Osmanbey Campus. The aim is to examine how effectively the building meets occupant expectations regarding aesthetic, functional, and technical performance. A mixed-method approach was applied: qualitative data were collected through on-site observation, spatial analysis, and project documentation, while quantitative data were gathered via a structured questionnaire distributed to campus users. The integration of these methods enabled a holistic assessment of building performance. Findings show that while aesthetic features, such as the overall appearance and central courtyard canopy, were positively perceived, deficiencies appeared in functional and technical dimensions. Problems related to accessibility, circulation, thermal comfort, and indoor environmental quality were emphasized. In conclusion, occupant-centered evaluations provide essential feedback for improving architectural design quality and support the creation of sustainable, inclusive, and user-friendly campus facilities, offering practical insights for architects, planners, and administrators.

Keywords

• Post-Occupancy Evaluation
• Campus Life Center
• Architectural Performance
• Occupant Satisfaction

Ethical Statement

This research was approved by the Ethics Committee of Hasan Kalyoncu University (Date: 18.08.2023, Decision No: 2023/28). Voluntary informed consent was obtained from all participants. Throughout the study, all rules stated in the Higher Education Institutions Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Directive were followed, and none of the actions listed under the section ‘Actions Contrary to Scientific Research and Publication Ethics’ were carried out

Thanks

We would like to thank the Rectorate of Harran University, the Department of Construction and Technical Affairs, and the students, academic staff, and administrative personnel who voluntarily participated in the survey, for their contributions in granting the necessary permissions during the execution of this study.

Kampüs Yaşam Merkezlerinde Kullanıcı Odaklı Performans Değerlendirmesi

Abstract

Üniversite kampüslerinde yer alan sosyal merkez yapıları, öğrencilerin akademik faaliyetlerinin yanı sıra sosyal ve kültürel ihtiyaçlarını karşılayan, aidiyet duygusunu güçlendiren ve öğrenme süreçlerine dolaylı katkı sağlayan mekânlar olarak önem taşımaktadır. Bu yapıların kullanıcı odaklı biçimde değerlendirilmesi, hem mevcut mekânsal kaliteyi ortaya koymakta hem de gelecekteki tasarım ve planlama süreçleri için yol gösterici olmaktadır. Bu çalışma, Harran Üniversitesi Osmanbey Kampüsü’nde yer alan Yaşam Merkezi’nin kullanım sonrası değerlendirmesini (KSD/POE) gerçekleştirerek, yapının estetik, işlevsel ve teknik açılardan kullanıcı beklentilerini ne ölçüde karşıladığını incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Araştırma, karma yöntemli bir yaklaşım ile yürütülmüş; nitel veriler gözlem ve mekânsal analizlerle, nicel veriler ise kullanıcı anketi ile toplanmıştır. Katılımcılardan elde edilen veriler istatistiksel analizler aracılığıyla değerlendirilmiş, nitel bulgularla desteklenerek bütüncül bir çerçeve oluşturulmuştur. Araştırma bulguları, yapının tasarımında estetik unsurların önceliklendirildiğini, buna karşın işlevsellik ve teknik performans boyutlarında çeşitli eksikliklerin bulunduğunu göstermektedir. Özellikle erişilebilirlik, iç mekân dolaşımı ve kullanıcı konforuna ilişkin faktörler geliştirilmesi gereken alanlar olarak öne çıkmıştır. Sonuç olarak, çalışma sosyal merkez yapılarının kullanıcı deneyimlerine dayalı olarak değerlendirilmesinin, hem mimari tasarım kararlarının iyileştirilmesine hem de üniversite kampüslerinde sürdürülebilir, kapsayıcı ve kullanıcı dostu mekânların geliştirilmesine katkı sağladığını ortaya koymaktadır.

Keywords

• Kullanım Sonrası Değerlendirme
• Kampüs Sosyal Merkezleri
• Mimari Performans
• Kullanıcı Memnuniyeti

Ethical Statement

Bu araştırma, Hasan Kalyoncu Üniversitesi Etik Kurulu tarafından onaylanmıştır (Tarih: 18.08.2023, Karar No: 2023/28). Araştırmaya katılan tüm bireylerden gönüllü katılım esasına dayalı onam alınmıştır. Çalışma sürecinde Yükseköğretim Kurumları Bilimsel Araştırma ve Yayın Etiği Yönergesi’nde belirtilen tüm kurallara uyulmuş, yönergenin ‘Bilimsel Araştırma ve Yayın Etiğine Aykırı Eylemler’ başlığı altında tanımlanan eylemlerden herhangi biri gerçekleştirilmemiştir.

Thanks

Çalışmanın yürütülmesi sürecinde gerekli izinlerin verilmesinde katkı sağlayan Harran Üniversitesi Rektörlüğü’ne, Yapı İşleri ve Teknik Daire Başkanlığı’na ve anket uygulaması sırasında gönüllü katılım gösteren öğrencilere, akademik ve idari personele teşekkür ederiz.

References

1. Abdulkarim D., Nasar JL. Do seats, food vendors and sculptures improve plaza visitability? Environment and Behavior 2014; 46(7): 805–825.
2. Abu-Ghazzeh TM. Communicating behavioral research to campus design: Factors affecting the perception and use of outdoor spaces at the University of Jordan. Environment and Behavior 1999; 31(6): 764–804.
3. Adewunmi Y., Omirin M., Famuyiwa F., Farinloye O. Post‐occupancy evaluation of postgraduate hostel facilities. Facilities 2011; 29(3/4): 149–168.
4. Ahmed H., Edwards DJ., Lai JH., Roberts C., Debrah C., Owusu-Manu DG., Thwala WD. Post occupancy evaluation of school refurbishment projects: Multiple case study in the UK. Buildings 2021; 11(4): 169.
5. Altomonte S., Schiavon S., Kent MG., Brager G. Indoor environmental quality and occupant satisfaction in green-certified buildings. Building Research ve Information 2019; 47(3): 255–274.
6. Aydın D., Ter U. Outdoor space quality: Case study of a university campus plaza. Archnet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research 2008; 2(3): 189–203.
7. Bodur A., Keskin K. Housing satisfaction via post occupancy evaluation: A case study in Samsun. Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 2021; 11(22): 183–201.
8. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951; 16(7): 297–334.

9. Deshmukh J. Speculations on the post-pandemic university campus–a global inquiry. Archnet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research 2021; 15(1): 131–147.
10. Durosaiye IO., Hadjri K., Liyanage C. A critique of post-occupancy evaluation in the UK. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 2019; 34(1): 345–352.
11. Düzenli T., Mumcu S., Yılmaz S., Özbilen A. Analyzing youth’s activity patterns in campus open spaces depending on their personal and social needs. Journal of Adult Development 2012; 19(4): 201–214.
12. Evrim T. Kullanım sonrası değerlendirme (KSD) yönteminin YTÜ Kimya ve Metalurji Fakültesi binası örneğinde incelenmesi. Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Yüksek Lisans Tezi, 2010, 196 s., İstanbul. Farida N. Effects of outdoor shared spaces on social interaction in a housing estate in Algeria. Frontiers of Architectural Research 2013; 2(4): 457–467.
13. Göçer Ö., Göçer K., Başol AM., Kıraç MF., Özbil A., Bakovic M., Siddiqui FP., Özcan B. Introduction of a spatio-temporal mapping based POE method for outdoor spaces: Suburban university campus as a case study. Building and Environment 2018; 145: 125–139.
14. Göçer Ö., Göçer K., Özcan B., Bakovic M., Kıraç MF. Pedestrian tracking in outdoor spaces of a suburban university campus for the investigation of occupancy patterns. Sustainable Cities and Society 2019; 45: 131–142.
15. Göçer Ö., Hua Y., Göçer K. Completing the missing link in building design process: Enhancing post-occupancy evaluation method for effective feedback for building performance. Building and Environment 2015; 89: 14–27.
16. Graham LT., Parkinson T., Schiavon S. Lessons learned from 20 years of CBE’s occupant surveys. Buildings ve Cities 2021; 2(1): 1–23.
17. Günaçar E., Erbil Y. An analysis on post occupancy evaluation method in buildings. KAPU Trakya Mimarlık ve Tasarım Dergisi 2022; 2(2): 69–84.
18. Hajrasouliha AH. Master-planning the American campus: Goals, actions, and design strategies. Urban Design International 2017; 22(4): 363–381.
19. Harran Üniversitesi Yapı İşleri ve Teknik Daire Başkanlığı. Kurumsal Proje Arşivi [Teknik rapor/proje dokümanı]. Harran Üniversitesi 2024.
20. Hassanain MA., Alamoudi A., Al-Hammad AM., Abdallah A. Barriers to the implementation of POE practices in the Saudi Arabian building industry. Architectural Engineering and Design Management 2020; 16(2): 150–165.
21. Hossini SB., Azemati S., Elyasi N., Mozaffar F. The effect of the vitality level of university campuses on increasing social interactions. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 2015; 170: 225–233.
22. Hua Y., Göçer Ö., Göçer K. Spatial mapping of occupant satisfaction and indoor environment quality in a LEED platinum campus building. Building and Environment 2014; 79: 124–137.
23. Ikediashi D., Udo G., Ofoegbu M. Post-occupancy evaluation of University of Uyo buildings. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology 2020; 18(6): 1711–1730.
24. Işıklar Bengi S., Topraklı AY. The perspective of Turkey in the post occupancy evaluation studies. Periodica Polytechnica Architecture 2020; 51(1): 83–91.
25. Karagenç O. Toplu konut alanlarında simgesel performansa yönelik kullanım sonrası değerlendirme modeli. İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Doktora Tezi, , 2002, 330 s.İstanbul.
26. Kayaalp E. Tasarım parametreleri geliştirmeye yönelik kullanıcı görüşlerinin KSD yöntemiyle değerlendirilmesi: Dicle Üniversitesi Mimarlık Fakültesi örneği. Dicle Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, , 2019, 132 s. Diyarbakır.
27. Kim YK., Bande L., Tabet Aoul KA., Altan H. Dynamic energy performance gap analysis of a university building: Case studies at UAE university campus, UAE. Sustainability 2020; 13(1): 120.
28. Kumar M., Khan S. Using post-occupancy evaluation as a methodological approach to assess residential hostels in CFTI. Archnet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research 2023; 17(2): 343–357.
29. Li P., Froese TM., Brager G. Post-occupancy evaluation: State-of-the-art analysis and state-of-the-practice review. Building and Environment 2018; 133: 187–202.
30. Lin H., Juan YK., Castro-Lacouture D. Guiding campus building design and renovation through design quality indicators and post-occupancy evaluations. Ain Shams Engineering Journal 2025; 16(8): 103457.
31. López-Chao V., López-Pena V. Purpose adequacy as a basis for sustainable building design: A post-occupancy evaluation of higher education classrooms. Sustainability 2021; 13(20): 11181.
32. Luo Z., Sun C., Dong Q., Qi X. Key control variables affecting interior visual comfort for automated louver control in open-plan office: A study using machine learning. Building and Environment 2022; 207: 108565.
33. Mehta V. Look closely and you will see, listen carefully and you will hear: Urban design and social interaction on streets. Journal of Urban Design 2009; 14(1): 29–64.
34. Mendell MJ., Heath GA. Do indoor pollutants and thermal conditions in schools influence student performance? A critical review of the literature. Indoor Air 2005; 15(1): 27–52.
35. Öncel HK. Kişisel fotoğraf arşivi. 2024.
36. Ozbil A., Gocer O., Bakovic M., Gocer K. A quantitative investigation of the factors affecting patterns of occupation in a suburban campus: The case of Ozyegin University in Istanbul. Archnet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research 2018; 12(2): 98–125.
37. Özkan DG., Alpak EM., Var M. Design and construction process in campus open spaces: A case study of Karadeniz Technical University. Urban Design International 2017; 22(3): 236–252.
38. Preiser WF. Post‐occupancy evaluation: How to make buildings work better. Facilities 1995; 13(11): 19–28.
39. Preiser WF., White E., Rabinowitz H. Post-occupancy evaluation (Routledge revivals). Routledge 2015.
40. Preiser WFE., Vischer JC. The evolution of building performance evaluation: An introduction. In: Preiser WFE., Vischer JC. (Eds.), Assessing building performance. Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann 2005: 1–15.
41. Puteh M., Ibrahim MH., Adnan M., Che’Ahmad CN., Noh NM. Thermal comfort in classroom: Constraints and issues. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 2012; 46: 1834–1838.
42. Schneider M. Do school facilities affect academic outcomes? National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities 2002.
43. Tavakol M., Dennick R. Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education 2011; 2(1): 53–55.
44. Tekin H. Eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme. Yargı Yayınları, Ankara 1996.
45. Teli D., Jentsch MF., James PA. Naturally ventilated classrooms: An assessment of existing comfort models for predicting the thermal sensation and preference of primary school children. Energy and Buildings 2012; 53: 166–182.
46. Tookaloo A., Smith R. Post occupancy evaluation in higher education. Procedia Engineering 2015; 118: 515–521.
47. Tourinho ACC., Barbosa SA., Göçer Ö., Alberto KC. Post-occupancy evaluation of outdoor spaces on the campus of the Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Brazil. Archnet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research 2021; 15(3): 617–633.
48. Turk YA., Sen B., Ozyavuz A. Students’ exploration on campus legibility. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 2015; 197: 339–347.
49. Van der Voordt DJM., Wegen HBR. Architecture in use. Routledge 2007.
50. Vischer J. Post-occupancy evaluation: A multifaceted tool for building improvement. In: Learning from our buildings: A state-of-the-practice summary of post-occupancy evaluation. National Academy Press 2001: 23–34.
51. Yaylalı Yıldız B., Yamu C., Çil E. Exploring the effects of spatial and social segregation in university campuses: IZTECH as a case study. Urban Design International 2013; 19(2): 125–143.
52. Yazıcıoğlu Y., Erdoğan S. SPSS uygulamalı bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Detay Yayıncılık, Ankara 2014. Yükseköğretim Kurulu Başkanlığı (YÖK). Yükseköğretim Kurulu Web Sitesi Ana Sayfa.. 2024. https://www.yok.gov.tr
53. Zhussupbekov M., Memon SA., Khawaja SA., Nazir K., Kim J. Forecasting energy demand of PCM integrated residential buildings: A machine learning approach. Journal of Building Engineering 2023; 70: 106335.
54. Zimring C., Rosenheck T. Post-occupancy evaluations and organizational learning. In: Learning from our buildings: A state-of-the-practice summary of post-occupancy evaluation. National Academy Press 2001: 42–53.