Does Student Behavior Differ In Relation To Perception / Evaluation of Campus Environments? A Post-occupancy Research in Two University Campuses

Abstract

A Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) survey was applied to 93 students at two universities; Dokuz Eylul University and Karadeniz Technical University. The survey consists questions on: (1) participants’ characteristics, (2) physical environmental characteristics, (3) favorite places, (4) the most and the least liked features and possibilities for improvement, (5) physical activity engagement level, and (6) time spent in the campus.  Results showed that users’ subjective evaluations of their campuses are reflected in their behavior. The students of the negatively evaluated campus reported that they spent less time in campus compared to students of the more positively evaluated campus.

Keywords: post occupancy evaluation, campus setting, environmental evaluation, campus outdoor

 

Keywords

• post occupancy evaluation, campus setting, environmental evaluation, campus outdoor.

References

1. Cooper-Marcus C. & Francis C. “Post occupancy
2. evaluation. In: C. C. Marcus and C. Francis,
3. Editors, People Places: Design Guidelines for
4. Urban Open Spaces”, Van Nostrand Reinhold,
5. New York, 345–356(1990).
6. Fuller C. & Zimring, C. “Post Occupancy Evaluation Program Strategic Plan”, California Department of General Services (2001)
7. Akad, S. & Cubukcu, E. “Kentsel Açık Alanlarda Kullanım Sonrası Değerlendirme” İzmir Sahil Bantları Örneği Üzerine Ampirik Bir Araştırma, Planlama, 3, 105-115 (2006)
8. Nasar, J. L., Preiser W. F.E., & Fisher, T. “Designing for Designers: Lessons Learned from Schools of Architecture”, Fairchild Publications Inc., NewYork (2007)

9. Zeisel, J. “Inquiry by Design: Environment / Behavior / Neuroscience in Architecture, Interiors, Landscape, and Planning”. W. W. Norton & Company, NewYork, London (2006)
10. Zimmerman, A. & Martin, “M. Post-occupancy Evaluation: Benefits and Barriers”, Building Research and Information, 29(2):168-174 (2001)
11. Preiser, W. F. E., Rabinowitz, H. Z., & White, E. T. “Post-occupancy evaluation”. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold (1988).
12. Zimring, C. “Post-occupancy Evaluation: Issues and Implementation. In Bechtel, R. and A. Churchman (eds.).” Handbook of Environmental Psychology, NY: John Wiley & Sons., 306-319 (2002).
13. Baird G., Gray J., Isaacs, N., Kernohan D., & McIndoe techniques”. New York: McGraw-Hill. “Building evaluation
14. Friedmann, A., Zimring, C., & Zube, E. Environmental design evaluation”, New York, Plenum Press (1978).
15. Fuller, C. “Post Occupancy Evaluation: Fast feedback for planners”, Corrections Today, 50 (2), 213-214 (1988).
16. Grannis, P. “Postoccupancy evaluation: An avenue for applied environment-behavior research in planning Literature, 9 (2): 210-219 (1994). of Planning
17. Horgen, H. a. S., “Post-occupancy evaluation of facilities: a participatory approach to programming and design”, Facilities, 14(7/8), 16-25 (1996).
18. Ornstein, S. W. “Post-occupancy evaluation performed in elementary and high schools of greater Sao Paulo, Brazil: The occupants and the quality of the school environment”, Environment and Behavior, 29(2): 236(1997).
19. Ornstein, S. W. “A postoccupancy evaluation of workplaces in Sao Paulo”, Brazil. Environment and Behavior, 31(4), 435-462 (1999).
20. Preiser, W. F. E., & Schramm, U. “Building performance evaluation”. In J. DeChiara, J. Panero, & M Zelnik (Eds.), Time-saver standards (7th ed). New York: McGraw-Hill, 233-238 (1997).
21. Shibley, R. “Building evaluation in the main stream. Environment and Behaviour," 1985(1), 7- 24(1985).
22. Wener, R., Jay Farbstein, Carol Knapel. “Post- occupancy evaluations: Improving correctional facility design”, Corrections Journal, 55(6): 96. (1993).
23. Zimring, C., & Reizenstein, J. “A primer on post- occupancy evaluation”, Architecture, 70(13): 52- 59 (1981).
24. Cohen, R., Standeven, M., Bordass, B., & Leaman, A. “Assessing building performance in use 1: The Probe Information, 2 (29): 85-102 (2001). Research and
25. Baird, G., “Forum: Post-occupancy evaluation and Probe. A New Zealand perspective. Building Research and Information”, 29(6): 469-472 (2001).
26. Cooper, I., “Post-occupancy evaluation-where are you?” Building Research and Information, 2(29):158-163 (2001)
27. Cubukcu, E. “The School of Architecture: Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir Turkey”, Designing for Designers:Lessons Learned from Schools of Architecture, eds. J.L. Nasar, W. F. E. Preiser and T. Fisher, , Fairchild Publications Inc., New York, 205-217 (2007).
28. Dinç, P., Onat, E., “Tasarlanmış Çevrelerin Kullanım Süreçlerinde Değerlendirilmesi”, Yapı Dergisi, 201 (1998).
29. Baskaya A., Yildirim K. & Muslu M. S. Poliklinik bekleme davranisal kalite: Ankara, Ibni Sina Poliklinigi. Gazi Fakultesi Dergisi, 20, 53-68 (2005) ve algi Universitesi Muhendislik Mimarlik
30. Kılıç, A., Türkoğlu, H. “Kentsel Açık Alanlar: Kadıköy İskele Meydanı ve Çevresi” Yapı, 266, 49-52(2004).
31. Korkmaz, E., Türkoğlu, H. D., “Kentsel Açık Alanlar: Beşiktaş İskele Meydanı ve Çevresi", Yapı Dergisi, 264, 11, 65-67(2003).
32. Becker, F.D. “Housing Messages, Strousdburg: Dowden”, Hutchinson & Ross Inc. (1977)
33. Kantrowitz, M. & Nordhaus R. “The Impact of Post-Occupancy Evaluation Research: A Case Study”. Environment and Behavior, 12, 508-519 (1980)
34. Kantrowitz, M., & Farbstein, J. POE delivers for the post office. In G. Baird & J. Gray & N. Isaacs & D. Kernohan & G. McIndoe (Eds.), Building evaluation techniques. New York: McGraw-Hill. (1996).
35. Sanoff, H. “School Building Assessment Methods. National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities”, Washington, DC. (2003)
36. Dinç, P., Onat E., “Bir İlköğretim Yapısının Bina Programı ve Tasarımı Bağlamında Değerlendirilmesi”, Mühendislik-Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 17 (3), 35-55 (2002). Üniversitesi
37. İnce, F.S., Dinç, P., “Akademik Ofislerde Memnuniyet Değerlendirme Çalışması”, Erciyes Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, 24 (1):346-363 (2008).
38. Kaplan, R. “Citizen Participation in the Design and Evaluation of a Park”. Environment and Behavior, 12, 494-507 (1980).
39. Salama A. M. When Good Design Intentions Do Not Meet Users Expectations: Exploring Qatar University Campus Outdoor Spaces. Archnet- IJAR, International Journal of Architectural Research, 2, 57-77(2008).
40. Salama, A. M, “Design Intentions and Users Responses: Assessing Outdoor Spaces of Qatar University Campus”. Open House International, 34 (1): 82-93 (2009).
41. Yildiz, D. & Sener H. “Binalarla tanımlı dış mekanların ITUDergisi/a: Mimarlik”, Planlama, Tasarim, 5 (1):115 - 127 (2006). analiz modeli.
42. Aydin D. & Ter, U. “Outdoor Space Quality: Case Study of a University Campus Plaza, Archnet- IJAR”, International Journal of Architectural Research, 2, 189-203(2008).
43. 39. Abu-Ghazzeh T. M. “Communicating Behavioral Research to Campus Design: Factors Affecting the Perception and Use of Outdoor Spaces at the University of Jordan”. Environment and Behavior, 31:764-804 (1999).