Students’ Static Activities in relation to Campus Quad Design and Layout Exploring Gender-based Differences

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Cover image: The Egg, Beirut. Protests (2019), day #6. Picture by Louay Kabalan
PDF
Published: Jan 31, 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.32891/jps.v5i1.1252
Keywords:
campus quads design and layout features natural and manmade features gender static activities space syntax

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

Mahbub Rashid
University of Kansas
Bushra Obeidat
Jordan University of Science and Technology

Abstract

This study explores the relationships of campus quad design and layout with students’ static activities focusing on gender differences. Students’ static activities were observed at 8914 locations during 390 rounds of observation in six campus quads of a Middle Eastern university. The design and layout data of the quads were collected in the field, and using various techniques of “space syntax”. The relationships of static activities’ with the design and layout features of the quads were investigated using descriptive and correlational statistics. The results of the study indicate that different design and layout features had different relationships with different static activities; that students’ static activities had stronger relationships with natural design features than manmade design features; and that male students’ and female students’ static activities were affected differently by different design and layout features. The significance of these findings and the future directions of research are discussed.

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

How to Cite
Rashid, M. and Obeidat, B. (2020) “Students’ Static Activities in relation to Campus Quad Design and Layout: Exploring Gender-based Differences”, The Journal of Public Space, 5(1), pp. 75–94. doi: 10.32891/jps.v5i1.1252.
Issue
Vol. 5 No. 1 (2020): Placemaking in Arab Cities
Section
Space

The Authors retain copyright for articles published in The Journal of Public Space, with first publication rights granted to the journal.
Articles in this journal are published under the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial Licence (CC-BY-NC) - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
You are free to:
• Share - copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
• Adapt - remix, transform, and build upon the material
Under the following terms:
• Attribution - You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
• NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.

 

Author Biographies

Mahbub Rashid, University of Kansas

Mahbub Rashid is a tenured full professor in the School of Architecture and Design at the University of Kanas. He serves as the Interim Dean of the School. With a Masters from MIT and a PhD from Georgia Tech, Dr. Rashid is an expert in theories and methods of architectural research with a focus on the structures of built form and space. He uses innovative spatial and social network, fractal, and statistical analysis along with more traditional research techniques to study the effects of built form and space on behavior, psychology, society and culture in office, healthcare, and urban environments. Dr. Rashid has worked on several collaborative research projects with colleagues from many research universities and healthcare institutions in and outside the USA. As a registered architect, he also works as a consultant for reputable architectural design firms. Dr. Rashid has over 90 major and minor publications. His major publications include over 70 peer-reviewed articles (50 of them as the sole and/or main author). He has also made over 70 presentations in national and international peer-reviewed conferences, and another 30 invited presentations.

Bushra Obeidat, Jordan University of Science and Technology

Bushra Obeidat is an assistant professor at Jordan University of Science and Technology. Dr. Obeidat holds a PhD. and MA from the University of Kansas, and two other MSc degrees from Jordan University of Science and Technology and Georgia Institute of Technology. Her research focuses on the links between the built environment and its impacts on human behavior, applying evidence-based design approach for designing and assessing healthcare environments, and the use of spatial and configuration analyses. Her research is looking closely at the use of the evidence-based approach to design and to generate new evidence through empirical studies. She gained extensive teaching experience on a number of courses in both architecture and urban design. Her primary goal as an educator is to help students develop their own critical and creative design thinking, realizing their role as designers and the impact of their designs on users.

References

Abbas, M. & Van Heur, B. (2014). Thinking Arab women's spatiality: The case of ‘mutanazahat’in Nablus, Palestine. Gender, Place & Culture, 21, 1214-1229.

Abu-Ghazzeh, T. M. (1999). 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.

Abu-Obeid, N. & Al-Homoud, M. (2000). Sense of privacy and territoriality as a function of spatial layout in university public spaces. Architectural Science Review, 43, 211-220.

Al-Bishawi, M. A. & Ghadban, S. S. (2011). A methodological approach for reading urban open space. ArchNet-IJAR, International Journal of Architectural Research, 5, 73-85.

Al-Homoud, M. & Abu-Obeid, N. (2003). University outdoor spatial layout effect on perception of students' interaction and group seclusion. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 20, 221-233.

Aljawabra, F. & Nikolopoulou, M. (2010). Influence of hot arid climate on the use of outdoor urban spaces and thermal comfort: Do cultural and social backgrounds matter? Intelligent Buildings International, 2, 198-217.

Aydin, D. & Ter, U. (2008). Outdoor space quality: Case study of a university campus plaza. ArchNet-IJAR, International Journal of Architectural Research, 2, 189-2.

Bada, Y. & Farhi, A. (2009). Experiencing urban spaces: Isovists properties and spatial use of Plazas. Courrier du Savoir, 9, 101-112.

Campos, M. B. (1997). All that meets the eye: Overlapping isovists as a tool for understanding preferable location of static people in public squares. First International Space Syntax Symposium, University College London, London. 01.1-01.9.

Ding, Y. & Guaralda, M. (2013). The study of design elements and people’s behaviour in campus public space: how design shapes user’s behaviour. In Bo: Ricerche e progetti per il territorio, la cittá e l’architettura, 4, 114-136.

Evans, J. D. (1996). Straightforward Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, Pacific Grove, CA, Brooks/Cole Publishing.

Francis, M. (2003). Urban Open Space: Designing for User Needs, Washington, DC, Island Press.

Galindo, M. P. G. & Corraliza, J. A. (2000). Environmental aesthetics and psychological wellbeing: Relationships between preference judgements for urban landscapes and other relevant affective responses. Psychology in Spain, 13-27.

Gehl, J. (2011). Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space, Washington, DC, Island Press.

Ghavampour, E., Vale, B. & Del Aguila, M. (2015). Nature as a Design Element in Small Urban Public Spaces. Future of Places. Stockholm.

Greene, M. & Penn, A. (1997). Socio-spatial analysis of four University Campuses: the implications of spatial configuration on creation and transmission of knowledge. First International Space Syntax Symposium, London. University College London, 13.1-13.16.

Herzog, T. R., Maguire, P. & Nebel, M. B. (2003). Assessing the restorative components of environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 159-170.

Hillier, B. & Hanson, J. (1984). The Social Logic of Space Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

IBM 2013. SPSS Statistics for Windows. 22 ed. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.

Kaplan, R. & Kaplan, S. (1989). The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Lau, S. S. Y., Gou, Z. & Liu, Y. (2014). Healthy campus by open space design: Approaches and guidelines. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 3, 452-467.

Lo, S. M., Yiu, C. Y. & Lo, A. (2003). An analysis of attributes affecting urban open space design and their environmental implications. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 14, 604-614.

Mcfarland, A., Waliczek, T. & Zajicek, J. (2008). The relationship between student use of campus green spaces and perceptions of quality of life. HortTechnology, 18, 232-238.

Ministry Of Planning And International Cooperation Of The Kingdom Of Jordan & United Nations Development Program (2004). Jordan human development report. Amman, Jordan.

Mozingo, L. (1989). Women and downtown open spaces. Places, 6, 38-47.

Peponis, J., Ross, C. & Rashid, M. (1997). The structure of urban space, movement and co-presence: The case of Atlanta. Geoforum, 28, 341-358.

Rached, I. & Elsharkawy, H. (2012). The role of open spaces in the university campus in the Egyptian context. Designing Place - International Urban Design Conference, 2-3 April, Nottingham, UK. 1-15.

Rashid, M., Kampschroer, K., Wineman, J. & Zimring, C. (2006). Spatial layout and face-to-face interaction in offices—a study of the mechanisms of spatial effects on face-to-face interaction. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 33, 825-844.

Rashid, M., Wineman, J. & Zimring, C. (2009). Space, behavior, and environmental perception in open-plan offices: a prospective study. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 36, 432-449.

Reininger, M. K. (2004). Gender and space in Jordan: Boundaries and power in a Middle Eastern society. MA in Political Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

Salama, A. M. (2008). 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.

Shi, S., Gou, Z. & Chen, L. H. (2014). How does enclosure influence environmental preferences? A cognitive study on urban public open spaces in Hong Kong. Sustainable Cities and Society, 13, 148–156.

Stamps, A. E. (2005). Enclosure and safety in urbanscapes. Environment and Behavior, 37, 102-133.

Stamps, A. E. & Smith, S. (2002). Environmental enclosure in urban settings. Environment and Behavior, 34, 781-794.

Turner, A., Doxa, M., O'sullivan, D. & Penn, A. (2001). From isovists to visibility graphs: A methodology for the analysis of architectural space. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 28, 103-121.

Turner, A. & Friedrich, E. (2000-2011). UCL Depthmap: Spatial Network Analysis Software. 10.14. 00b ed. London: University College London.

Ulrich, R. S. (1986). Human responses to vegetation and landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 13, 29-44.

Unlu, A., Edgu, E., Cimsit, F., Salgamcioglu, M., Garip, E. & Mansouri, A. (2009). Interface of indoor-outdoor spaces in buildings: A syntactic comparison of architectural schools in Istanbul. In: KOCH, D., MARCUS, L. & STEEN, J., eds. Seventh International Space Syntax Symposium, Stockholm. KTH.

Unlu, A., Ozener, O. O., Ozden, T. & Edgu, E. (2001). An evaluation of social interactive spaces in a university building. Third International Space Syntax Symposium, Atlanta. University of Michigan, 7-11.

Whyte, W. H. (1980). The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces, Washington DC, Conservation Foundation.

Woolley, H. (2003). Urban Open Spaces, New York, NY, Taylor & Francis.

Yaylali-Yildiz, B., Czerkauer-Yamu, C. & Çil, E. (2014). Exploring the effects of spatial and social segregation in university campuses, IZTECH as a case study. Urban Design International, 19, 125-143.