Download Evidence-Based Design of University Zoological Gardens: A Perception Study in South-west Nigeria and more Essays (university) Urban planning in PDF only on Docsity!
Contemporary Urban Affairs
2018 , Volume 2 , Number 2 , pages 46 – 59
Evidence-Based Design of University Zoological
Gardens: A Perception Study in
South-west Nigeria
* Dr. JOSEPH ADENIRAN ADEDEJI^1. Dr. JOSEPH AKINLABI FADAMIRO^2 , Dr. TIMOTHY OLUSEYI ODEYALE^3
1, 2, (^3) Department of Architecture, School of Environmental Technology, the Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria (^1) E MAIL: jaadedeji@futa.edu.ng , 2 E mail: jafadamiro@futa.edu.ng , 3 E mail: toodeyale@futa.edu.ng
A B S T R A C T
Evidence-based design (EBD) has become an acceptable paradigm in environment-
behaviour endeavours in recent years with documented benefits especially in
healthcare facilities. However, little is known of its application to University Campus
Open Spaces (UCOS) like University Zoological Gardens (UZGs) which accounts for
the repetition of design mistakes. This study aims to assess the UZGs as a major
component of UCOS in South-west Nigeria with a view to formulating EBD
frameworks. It adopts a comparative post-occupancy evaluation (POE) approach
through a Stratified Random Sampling protocol of users (n=3,016) of the gardens in
Federal Universities in South-west Nigeria. Results of the quantitative data analyses
suggest that while walk-ability is a primary satisfaction factor among thirty design
considerations in the formulated model, legibility is the most primary cognitive factor
for designing perceptible high quality UZGs. The study argues in favour of the
developed framework as design tool-kit and recommends its application as a feed-
back input into the design process of UZGs.
CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS (201 8 ) 2 ( 2 ), 46 - 59.
https://doi.org/10.25034/ijcua.2018. www.ijcua.com Copyright © 2017 Contemporary Urban Affairs. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction The university campus is the total physical environment, including all buildings, open spaces and landscape elements (Aydin and Ter, 2008). It is this combination of buildings and landscaped open spaces between buildings that functions as an organized whole with a distinctive identity (Gehl, 1987). Rapoport (2004) states that these environments are structured and composed of fixed (infrastructure and buildings), half-fixed (open spaces and their components) and non-fixed (users, user actions and vehicles) elements. Half-fixed open spaces and components are the important determinants of the environment’s influence on user attitudes (Aydin and Ter, 2008; Lefebvre, 1991; Abu-Ghazzeh, 1999; Dober, 2000). The design qualities of these open spaces are related to their spatial, social, cognitive and affective characteristics (Adedeji, Bello and Fadamiro, 2011; Adedeji and Fadamiro, 2012). The spatial characteristics are the design considerations and include accessibility in terms
A R T I C L E I N F O:
Article history: Received 6 October 2017 Accepted 15 October 2017 Available online 16 October 2017 Keywords: Evidence-Based Design; Satisfaction Factors; Perception; Zoological Gardens.
- Corresponding Author: Department of Architecture, School of Environmental Technology, The Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria
E-mail address: jaadedeji@futa.edu.ng
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution - NonCommercial - NoDerivs 4.0. "CC-BY-NC-ND"
of circulation systems, opportunities for spatial preferences, way-finding and location qualities (Helsper, Johnson, Johnson, Rubba and Steiner, 1990; Arenibafo, 2016; Heitor, Nascimento, Tomé and Medeiros, 2013; Payne, 2007; Muñoz, 2009; Ambler, Webb, Hummell, Robertson, and Bailey,
- and disability (Asadi-Shekari, Moeinaddini and Shah, 2014). University campus open spaces (UCOS) are thus learning spaces, natural settings associated with strong public culture, the form and symbol of integrated social relationship, open air communal museums, spaces for social interactions and great public activities in their utilization (Lyndon, 2005; Mumford, 1938, 1969; McHarg, 1969; Geddes, 1906; Sahraiyanjahromi, 2017 ). From the utilization perspective, campus open spaces have also been described as being arenas that allow for different types of activities encompassing necessary, optional and social activities (Gehl, 1987; Woolley, 2003; Swensen and Stenbro, 2013; Nia, and Suleiman, 2017). UCOS include zoological and botanical gardens, recreation parks, pedestrian linear corridors, sports pitch, playgrounds, courtyards, parking, waterfronts, squares and plazas. A zoological garden is a park containing plant material, but primarily designed for exhibiting wild animals (Alan, 2005). UZG functions as “a cultural showcase of animals and nature” and its design is “a consequence of human interpretations of the way in which the natural world should be perceived and presented” (Couper, 2013: 235). She posits that “zoological architecture is the physical embodiment of cultural understandings of scientific knowledge” and its interpretation exists within a cultural context of place and “the stages of zoological garden as a scientific endeavour had an interwoven relationship with architecture and place” (p. 235). UZGs focus on public education and nature conservation. Wolf and Tymitz (1979:17) argue that “education includes observation, perception, satisfying curiosity, making sense out of one’s observation or experiences, accidental learning and, of course, direct efforts to collect or offer information” According to Gewaily (2010), the five components of visitor experience in zoological gardens are “exploration, authenticity, aesthetics, education and recreation” (p. 45). UZGs are therefore of great academic significance while their recreational benefits as an opportunity for connection between their non-human nature and human nature. Fadamiro and Adedeji (2014) discovered that recreational benefits are contingent upon experiences of users and relies on the quality of the zoological gardens which depends on design considerations and parameters. Although research concerns on UCOS include the design, designers, design decisions, materials and construction, maintenance and management, and the users, this research focuses on the users of university Zoological gardens (UZGs) which is a major category of UCOS. The users are at the receiving end of all the processes and are thus very central. It is therefore pertinent to carry out a study on UZGs with a prism of post-occupancy evaluation (POE) focussing on the users as a feedback into the design process towards developing framework for sustainable UZGs in South-west Nigeria.
2. Statement of the Research Problem Designers of UCOS including UZGs are not fully acquainted with the performance of the spaces during their use. This leads to repetition of design mistakes and the university community using the spaces in ways that were only partially predicted (Watson and Thomson, 2005; Venkat, 2011; Cubukcu &Isitan, 2011). As a result, the satisfaction of the users that can enable the formulation of EBD framework as a feed-back process is grossly missing. 2.1 Research Questions, Objectives and Hypotheses Enhancing the performance of UZGs is contingent on users’ satisfaction. This study’s concern about users’ satisfaction is guided by the following questions: i What is the perception of quality and factors that underpin the users’ satisfaction with the UZGs? ii. What aspects of user satisfaction can inform design frameworks for UZGs? Accordingly, the study seeks to: i. Examine the perception of quality and factors influencing users’ satisfaction with the UZGs; and ii. Develop design policy framework for UZGs. To guide the study, the following hypotheses were formulated: HO 1 There is no significant difference in the perceptions of qualities of the UZGs among the Federal Universities in the study area. HO2 Perception of quality is not contingent upon satisfaction of the users with the UZGs in the study area.
data was used to identify the statuses of the users, evaluate their perception of quality of the open spaces, analyse the relationship between their statuses and perception of qualities, examine the factors influencing their satisfaction and develop policy framework for Zoological gardens in Federal Universities in South-west Nigeria.
4. Data Presentation and Analysis 4.1 Status of the users and perception of quality of the UZGs Table 1 reveals the status of the users of the UZGs. The users are disproportionately males (62.3%) than females (37.7%), mostly undergraduates (87.5%) in the active age bracket of 19-45years (91.5%). That all categories of users are adequately represented suggests the result should be adequate for generalization synthesis. Their perception of quality of the UZGs as shown in Table 2 are also reliable since they are well acquainted with the gardens and therefore their value-judgments can be upheld. Table 1. Status of users of the UZGs in South-west Nigeria. Status Variable Categories Frequency Percentage Gender Male 1095 62. Female 664 37. Total 1759 100 Age Below 18yrs 121 6. 18 - 45yrs 1610 91. 46 - 65yrs 18 1. Above 65yrs 10 0. Total 1759 100 Educational status Primary 5 0. Secondary 7 0. Undergraduate 1539 87. B.Sc/HND/NCE 112 6. PGD/M.Sc/Ph. 96 5. Total 1759 100 Discipline Basic/Applied Sciences 721 41. Engineering and Technology 381 21. Social Sciences and Humanities Arts and Commercial 288 169
Environmental Sciences 198 11. Total 1759 100 Class level (Student) 100L 333 19. 200L 432 24. 300L 434 24. 400L 250 14. 500L 175 10. Postgraduate 133 7. Total 1759 100 Physical challenge None 1755 99. Blindness 3 0. Walking stick assisted 1 0. Crutches assisted - - Wheel chair assisted - - Total 1759 100 Car ownership No 1667 94. Yes 90 5. Total 1759 100 Table 2. Perception of qualities of UZGs of Federal Universities in South-west Nigeria. Perception of quality Freq. (%) Poor 285 16. Scanty 186 10. Averagely set 433 24. Well set 433 24. Excellent 333 18. Total 1670 94.
4.2 Testing of Hypothesis HO 1 : There is no significant difference in the perceptions of qualities of the UZGs among the Federal Universities in the study area. A Kruskal-Wallis H test was conducted to determine if the perceptions of qualities of the Zoological gardens is significantly different among the six Federal Universities and the results are as shown in Table 3. A Kruskal-Wallis H test showed that there was a statistically significant difference in the perceptions of qualities of the UZGs among the six Federal Universities. The results as shown in Figure 2 and explained with chart in Figure 3 indicate that Chi square, χ^2 (df,
- = 531.927, p = 0.000, with a mean rank perception of quality score of 1207.46 for UI (Plate 1), 1022.45 for FUNAAB (Plate 2), 843.63 for OAU, 733.44 for FUTA (Plate 3), 604.23 for UNILAG (Plate 4) and 303.97 for FUOYE in descending order with UI having the best and FUOYE having the least. This implies the rejection of the Null Hypothesis HO 1 and implying that there is significant difference in the perceptions of qualities of the Zoological gardens among the Federal Universities in the study area. To identify the pattern of the statistically significant differences in the perceptions of qualities of the Zoological gardens among the six Federal Universities, a Kruskal-Wallis post-hoc test was carried out. A Pairwise customised analysis result shows that all the Zoological gardens are perceived to be of different qualities except for OAU-FUTA (p= .070) as shown in Figures 3. Plate 1. Entrance gate of University of Ibadan Zoological Garden, Ibadan, Nigeria Source: Picture by authors, 2017 Plate 2. A pen in Federal University of Agriculture Abeokuta Zoological Garden, Nigeria Plate 3. A pen in Federal University of Technology Akure Zoological Garden, Nigeria Plate 4. A pen in University of Lagos Zoological Garden, Lagos, Nigeria Source: Picture by authors, 2017
Figure 3. Differences in the perceptions of qualities of Zoological gardens among the six Federal Universities’ campuses in South- west Nigeria. 3.3 Impact of Status of Users on Perception of Quality of Zoological gardens Tables 4 and 5 show the result of the Cramer’s V test between the status of the users and their perception of qualities of the Zoological gardens. Only discipline (Cramer’s V=0.110, p=0.000<0.005) has significant impact at 95% confidence level. Table 4. Relationship between status (nominal variables) of the users and their perception of qualities of the Zoological gardens. Table 5. Relationship between status (ordinal variables) of the users and their perception of qualities of the Zoological gardens. Status of users Kendal tau Value Approx. Sig. ( p value) Age - 0.007c^ 0. Educational status - 0.025b^ 0. Class level - 0.001c^ 0. b: Kendal tau b because of the square contingency table c: Kendal tau c because of the rectangular contingency table 3.4 Factors Influencing Users’ Satisfaction 3.4.1 Use Factors Cramer’s V test was carried out to examine the ‘use factors’ influencing the satisfaction of users with the UZGs. The use factors are extrinsic to the UZGs since they have to do with the users themselves on how they use the gardens. The four use factors are common period of use, common purpose of use, mode of pedestrian use and hindrances to use. Table 6 shows that common period of use and mode of pedestrian use do not have significance on the perception of quality of the UZG (Cramer’s V=0.087, p=0.005). Figure 4 shows that those who use the Zoological gardens for academic purposes had higher perceptions of their qualities than other users. Status of users Cramer’s V Value Approx. Sig. ( p value) Gender 0.046 0464 Discipline 0.110 0. Impairment 0.049 0. Car ownership 0,065 0.
Figure 4. Influence of common purpose of use on the perception of quality of zoological gardens in federal universities in the South-west Nigeria. Figure 5 shows that the perception of quality of Zoological gardens is influenced by the purpose of use. Those that use them for group academic, being alone and personal academic purpose perceive the gardens to be of higher quality than utilitarian and passive recreation. Figure 5. Influence of common purpose of use on the perception of quality of Zoological gardens in Federal Universities in South-west Nigeria. Furthermore, hindrances to use significantly influenced the perceptions of qualities of the UZGs at 0.01 (99%) confidence level as shown in Table 6. Figure 6 shows that inclement weather and lack of visual privacy accounts for perception of qualities. Figure 6. Influence of hindrances to use on the perception of quality of Zoological gardens in Federal Universities in the South-west Nigeria. Table 6. Use factors influencing satisfaction of users with the university. Zoological gardens in the study area. Use factors Cramer’s V p - value Common period of visit 0.058 0. Common purpose of visit 0.070 0. Mode of pedestrian use 0.058 0. Hindrances to use during visit 0.093 0. 3.4.2 Cognitive Factors Cognitive satisfaction factors are intrinsic to the UZGs since they have to do with the spaces. The other intrinsic factors are social, spatial and affective factors. A Spearman’s rank-order correlation was run to determine the relationship between 1759 users’ satisfaction with four cognitive factors (coherence, legibility, complexity and mystery) and perceptions of qualities of the UZGs, both measured in ordinal scales. There were strong, positive correlations between satisfaction with the cognitive factors and perceptions of qualities of the UZGs which was statistically significant as follow: coherence: rs = .355, p = .000; complexity: rs = .349, p = .000; mystery: rs = .315, p = .000; and legibility: rs = .314, p = .000, in descending order, as shown in Table 7 and Figure 7.
Fascinating-ability 0.346 0. Enjoy-ableness 0.310 0. Restfulness 0.265 0. Inviting-ability 0.292 0. Inspiring-ability 0.293 0. Beautifulness 0.321 0. Exciting-ability 0.313 0. Recuperative-ability 0.252 0. Therapeutic-ability 0.229 0. Restorative-ability 0.261 0. Pleasantness 0.323 0. Comfortableness 0.283 0. 3.5 Testing of Hypothesis Ho2: Influence of Satisfaction Factors on Perceptions of Quality Ordinal regression analysis was carried out to estimate the 30 intrinsic satisfaction factors (cognitive, social, spatial and affective factors) influencing the perception of quality of the UZGs. Accordingly, model fitting information and Pseudo R-Square were generated as shown in Table 8. The dependent variable which measures the perception of quality is the UZGs. UZGs is equal 1 if the respondent perceives the garden as poor, 2 as scanty, 3 as averagely set, 4 as well set and 5 as excellent. Since dependent/outcome variable is ordinal, and the satisfaction factors, SF (independent/predictors) are measured as ordinal variables (SF is equal 1 if the respondent is very unsatisfied with the performance of the open space based on the SF under consideration, 2 for unsatisfactory, 3 for fairly satisfactory, 4 for satisfactory and 5 for very satisfactory) the ordinal regression model is used to estimate the factors which influence satisfaction of the users. Only the 30 satisfaction factors that are intrinsic to the UZGs were included in the model. Use factors were excluded since they are extrinsic to the UZGs. The results in the Model indicate that as the ratings of the satisfaction factors increase, the perception of quality increases and the model is significant at the .01 level (99% confidence level). This is for Cox and Snell (theoretical maximum value of less than 1), Nagelkerke (adjusted version of the Cox and Snell R^2 to cover the full range from 0 to 1) and McFadden’s (based on the log-likelihood kernels for the intercept-only model and the full estimated model) Pseudo R^2 , since it is not possible to compute a single R^2 statistic that has all of the characteristics in the linear regression model for regression models based on ordinal data (Tjur, 2009). According to Cox and Snell Pseudo R^2 , Table 8 shows that the model predicts that the satisfaction factors, SF [Chi-square=3866.018, df=245, p=0.000, 2 Log Likelihood final=102.613] accounts for 95.0% of the variance in the perception of quality of UZGs. Table 9 shows the Parameter estimates (beta coefficients) of the intrinsic factors influencing users’ satisfaction. The estimates are based on scale models which depend on the main and interaction effects. Three intrinsic satisfaction factors are the best predictors of perception of quality as highlighted. Table 9 suggests that satisfaction with legibility (0.574) is the best predictor of perception of quality of Zoological gardens. This is followed consecutively by beautifulness (0.331) and walk-ability (0.325). Furthermore, satisfaction with social interaction space (0.434) is a better predictor of perception of quality, being the highest, than restfulness (0.423) and walk-ability (0.356) consecutively. Table 8. Ordinal regressions of perception of quality of open spaces (dependent/outcome) and factors determining the satisfaction of the users (independent/predictors) in Federal Universities in South-west Nigeria University Zoological gardens. Model Fitting Information Pseudo R-Square Model - 2 Log Likelihood Chi- Square Df Sig. Cox & Snell Nagelker ke McFadd en Zoological gardens Intercept Only 3968. Final 102.613 3866.018 245 .000 .949 .992. Link function: Logit.
Table 9. Parameter estimates of the factors influencing users’ satisfaction with the Federal Universities campus open spaces in the study area. Satisfaction factors Components Parameter estimates Cognitive factors Coherence - 0. Legibility 0. Complexity - 0. Mystery 0. Social factors Conviviality 0. Social interaction spaces 0. Visual privacy 0. Audio privacy - 0. Open space for being alone 0. Safety - 0. Security from crime/fear of crime 0. Spatial factors Accessibility 0. Proximity - 0. Walk-ability 0. Connectedness - 0. Continuity 0. Convenience - 0. Affective factors Relaxing-ability - 1. Fascinating-ability - 0. Enjoy-ableness 0. Restfulness 0. Inviting-ability 0. Inspiring-ability - 0. Beautifulness 0. Exciting-ability 0. Recuperative-ability 0. Therapeutic-ability - 0. Restorative-ability - 0. Pleasantness 0. Comfortableness 0. 3.6 Evidence-based Design Framework for University Zoological Gardens Figure 8 shows the framework developed for the design of UZGs. While all the satisfaction factors are important to the perception of quality, satisfaction with legibility is the most crucial, followed by beautifulness, walk-ability and hindrances to use.
adjustments of existing UZGs for better users’ satisfaction. Contextually, the study was limited in scope to Federal Universities. Further work can be carried out inclusively and exclusively with other proprietorships of universities within and outside the South-west Nigeria. Such can be for comparative purposes or case studies and can include considerations like maintenance and management of UZGs. In term of methodological approach, since this work is limited to quantitative research design on cross- sectional basis, qualitative and/or mixed method paradigms that can also be longitudinal can be further engaged on different spatial scales. On the whole, the perception of quality is related to the satisfaction factors such that as the ratings of the satisfaction factors increase, the perception of quality increases. The satisfaction factors therefore account for the significant differences in the perceptions of qualities of the UZGs among the six Federal Universities in the study area. The satisfaction factors that account for the perceptions of qualities of UI Zoological should be programmed into the design of UCOS to avoid the misuse of spaces and best decisions to be taken during the design process. References 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 Behaviour, 31(6); 764-
- https://doi.org/10.1177/ Adedeji, J.A. and Fadamiro, J.A. (2012). Affective Correlates of Landscapes for Passive Recreation in Institutional Campuses, Ogbomoso, Nigeria Journal of Biourbanism. JBU II(1) : 77 - 93. http://www.biourbanism.org/journal-of- biourbanism-n-12012/ Adedeji, J.A., Bello, Y. O. and Fadamiro, J.A. (2011). Thermal Adaptation, Campus Greening and Outdoor Use in LAUTECH Campus, Ogbomoso, Nigeria. Dimensi, Journal of Architecture and Built Environment, 38(2):63- 72. https://doi.org/10.9744/dimensi.38.2.63- 72 Alan, J. C. (2005). Dictionary of Landscape Architecture and Construction. New York: McGraw Hill. https://www.amazon.com/Dictionary- Landscape-Architecture-Construction- Christensen/dp/ Ambler, T., Webb, R., Hummell, E., Robertson, G. and Bailey, S. (2013). Exploring Students’ Experiences of Learning in Outdoor Places on a University Campus. Research and Development in Higher Education: The Place of Learning and Teaching, 36:11-25. http://www.herdsa.org.au/publications/confere nce-proceedings/research-and-development- higher-education-place-learning-and- 1 Arenibafo, F. (2016). The Transformation of Aesthetics in Architecture from Traditional to Modern Architecture: A case study of the Yoruba (southwestern) region of Nigeria. Contemporary Urban Affairs (JCUA), 1(1), 35 - 44. Doi: 10.25034/1761.1(1)35-44. https://doi.org/10.25034/1761.1(1)35- 44 Asadi-Shekari, Z., Moeinaddini, M. and Shah, M.Z. (2014) A pedestrian level of service method for evaluating walking facilities on campus streets. Land Use Policy , 38:175 - 193 , May. http://www.istiee.org/te/papers/N67/P02_67_ 18a.pdf Aydin, D. and Ter, U. (2008). Outdoor Space Quality: A Case Study of a University Campus Plaza. Archnet-IJAR, International Journal of Architectural Research, 2(3), 189-203 November. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/ 1407_Outdoor_Space_Quality_Case_Study_of_a _University_Campus_Plaza_Regular_Paper Couper,R. (2013). Placing the Origins of the Zoo An Architectural Analysis of the Metamorphosis of the Menagerie into the Zoological Garden” in Proceedings of the Society of Architectural Historians, Australia and New Zealand: 30, Open, edited by Alexandra Brown and Andrew Leach (Gold Coast, Qld: SAHANZ, 2013), vol. 1, p 235-
https://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_fi le/0028/349363/S04_01_Couper_Placing-the- Origins-of-the-Zoo.pdf Cubukcu. E. and Isitan, Z. N. (2011). Does Student Behavior Differ in Relation to Perception/ Evaluation of Campus Environments? A Post- occupancy Research in Two University Campuses Gazi University Journal of Science, 24(3):547-558. http://dergipark.gov.tr/download/article- file/ Dober, R. P. (2000). Campus Landscape: Functions, Forms, Features. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://www.wiley.com/en- us/Campus+Landscape%3A+Functions%2C+For ms%2C+Features-p- 9780471353560 Fadamiro, J. A. and Adedeji, J. A. (2014). Recreational Experiences in Parks and Gardens,
Ibadan, Nigeria, Journal of Place Management and Development , 7 (1):5 – 26. https://doi.org/10.1108/jpmd- 11 - 2013 - 0023 Faleyimu, O. I. and Agbeja, B. O. (2012). Constraints to Forest Policy Implementation in the Southwest Nigeria: Causes, Consequences and Cure. Journal of Resources and Environment , 2(2), 37 - 44. https://doi.org/10.5923/j.re.20120202. Geddes, P. (1906) Civics as Applied Sociology, Sociological Papers , Vol. II: 57 – 111. http://www.archive.org/stream/civicsasapplied s13205gut/13205-8.txt Gehl, J. (1987) Life between Buildings: Using public spaces, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. https://www.amazon.com/Life-Between- Buildings-Using-Public/dp/ Gewaily, M. (2010). Visitor Experience in Zoo Design: Design Guidelines for Giza Zoo. A Thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the University of Georgia in Partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Landscape Architecture, Athens, Georgia. https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/gewaily_marwa_ 201005_mla.pdf Heitor, T., Nascimento, R., Tomé, A. and Medeiros, V. (2013). (In) Accessible Campus: Space Syntax for Universal Design. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Space Syntax Symposium Edited By Y O Kim, H T Park and K W Seo, Seoul: Sejong University, 2013. http://www.sss9sejong.or.kr/proceedings/proce edings_1.asp Helsper, H., Johnson, M., Johnson, T., Rubba, D. and Steiner, F. (1990). The Auraria campus: An Example of American landscape design. Landscape and Urban Planning , 19(1 ): 1 - 16. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-2046(90)90032-W Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space (D. Nicholson-Smith, Trans.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. https://monoskop.org/images/7/75/Lefebvre_H enri_The_Production_of_Space.pdf Lyndon, D. (2005). Caring for Places: Caring for Thought. Places, 17(1), 3. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/69x027m McHarg, I. (1969). Design with Nature. New York: Natural History Press. https://www.amazon.com/Design-Nature-Ian-L- McHarg/dp/047111460X Mumford, L. (1938). The Culture of Cities. New York: Harcourt, Brace. https://monoskop.org/images/5/5a/Mumford_L ewis_The_Culture_of_Cities.pdf Mumford, L. (1969). The Philosophy of Urban Open Space. In W. N. Seymour, Small Urban Spaces (pp. 13-22). New York: New York University Press. https://lib.ugent.be/en/catalog/rug01: 3 Munoz, S.A. (2009). Children in the outdoors: A literature review. Sustainable Development Research Centre. Retrieved from http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk Nia, H. A. and Suleiman, Y. H. (2017). Aesthetics of Space Organization: Lessons from Traditional European Cities. Journal of Contemporary Urban Affairs (JCUA), 2(1), 66 - 75. https://doi.org/10.25034/ijcua.2018. Payne, G (2007). Social divisions, social mobilities and social research: Methodological issues after 40 years. Sociology, 41 , 901 - 915. https://doi.org/10.1177/ Rapoport, A. (2004). Kültür, Mimarlık, Tasarım [Culture, Architecture, Design]. Translation Selcuk Batur, YEM Press, Istanbul, Turkey. https://www.kitapyurdu.com/kitap/kultur- mimarlik-tasarim/66107.html Swensen, G. and Stenbro, R. (2013). Industrial Heritage as Qualifying Elements in Urban Landscapes. ATINER Conference Paper Series No: PLA2013-0690. http://www.atiner.gr/paper- subjects/architecture-papers.htm Sahraiyanjahromi, F. (2017). Aesthetic Fitness of New Buildings in Historic Environment: Compatibility and Contextual Design. Contemporary Urban Affairs (JCUA), 2(1), 13-21. https://doi.org/10.25034/ijcua.2018. Venkat, U. (2011) .Building a Sense of Community on Campus through Physical Design. A Thesis Submitted To the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfilment of The Requirements for the Degree Master of Landscape Architecture. https://athenaeum.libs.uga.edu/handle/10724/ 27629 Watson, C. and Thomson, K. (2005). Bringing post- occupancy evaluation to schools in Scotland. Evaluating Quality in Educational Facilities. OECD. Available online at http://www.oecd.org Wolf, R. L. And Tymitz, B. L. (1979). Do giraffes ever sit: A study of visitor perceptions at the National Zoological Park, Smithsonian Institution. Washington, DC: Smithsonian. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED Woolley, H. (2003). Urban Open Spaces. London: Spon Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/
