Post on 18-Dec-2015
transcript
Demir E., Kepez O., Rifki F.A.
Evaluating (Dis)Continuity in Pedestrian Environments: Case of
North Carolina State University Centennial Campus
Outline of the presentation
• Theoretical background• Conceptual framework• Case selection(s)• Methodology• Data collection
– Survey– Visual mapping
• Findings and comparison• Conclusions
• Fried’s (2000) continuity and discontinuity concepts– “continuous place” as environment where successful convergence of “space
as a physical construct” and “space as a social network” is observed. Conversely, unsuccessful convergence of these implies the “discontinuous place” concept.
• Rather than a phenomenological perspective, this study utilizes a post-positivist perspective.
• Underlying assumptions:– Space is both a physical and social construct– There are multiple realities
Theoretical background
Physical (dis)continuityFunctional (dis)continuityPerceived (dis)continuity
Spatial configurations:
Physical spatial layout Socio-functional layout
Distance Barrier
Continuity
Discontinuity
Physical spatial attributes
Socio-cultural spatial attributes
Conceptual Framework
space (dis)continuity
intensity of usespread of use
perceptions of continuity
Case selectionsNCSU Main CampusNCSU Centennial Campus
-Pedestrian oriented design of all NCSU campuses:
• campus of neighborhoods
• campus of paths
-Different spatial layouts
-Comparable sizes of cases
Case selectionsNCSU Main CampusNCSU Centennial Campus
• Methodology:– Correlational research (& comparative case study research)
• Data Collection– Objective data:
• spatial configuration– Physical functional layout– Distance and barrier analyses
– Subjective data• survey tool
– Questionnaire (users’ perceptions and evaluations)– Visual mapping (use of space)
• Data Analyses– Statistical analyses and spatial analysis
Research design
Pref
eren
ce fo
r driv
ing
to w
alki
ng in
sho
rt di
stan
ces
Pref
eren
ce to
wal
k on
cam
pus
Pref
eren
ce to
spe
nd ti
me
outd
oors
Way
findi
ng e
ase
Vehi
cula
r tra
ffic
perc
eptio
n
Ove
rall
safe
ty p
erce
ptio
n
Soci
al in
tera
ctio
n pe
rcep
tion
Pede
stria
n fa
cilit
ies
satis
fact
ion
Park
s an
d op
en s
pace
s sa
tisfa
ctio
n
Publ
ic s
ocia
l pla
ces
stat
isfa
ctio
n
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
up lim - main mean -main low lim -main up lim -centennial mean -centennial low lim -centennial
Survey tool -questionnaire
Overall mean value and corresponding confidence intervals for survey response items for both cases.
Overall and item/profile based analyses were made for both cases. Critical items were analyzed more in depth.
Male versus female respondents in both campuses
Survey tool –visual mapping
malefemale
Survey tool –visual mapping
Student versus faculty/staff respondents in both campuses
students faculty/staff
Survey tool –visual mapping
Locational analyses: mixed use building versus single use building
single use (research, office, academic) mixed use (academic plus social functions)
Survey tool –visual mapping
Overall analysis
Centennial Campus- overall intensity of use Main campus-overall intensity of use
• understanding of continuity with its variance with respect to different user groups: continuity in this sense is not only physical or social, but also varies for different user groups
– Differences between different occupation groups– Differences between different gender groups
• location of some campus buildings and the spatial layout were important factors in the spread of continuity: distance did not have a separate effect in the spread, but barrier and distance had a combined effect.
spatial layout: Different neighborhoods configurations had different levels of use:– Courtyards those were defined by the surrounding buildings seemed to have higher intensity of use compared
to others. – Streets with vehicular traffic surrounding the building neighborhoods had a barrier effect hindering the spread
of use outside these areas.
location: Within the barrier-free zones, users, in order to reach different functions their neighborhoods did not offer, tended not to consider distance as a problem.
conclusions