Ayse Ozbil, Ozgur Gocer, Mujesira Bakovic, Kenan Gocer

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.26687/archnet-ijar.v12i2.1611


This study investigates the patterns of occupation of outdoor spaces on a suburban university campus and seeks to understand the factors that affect them. The comprehensive methodology applied in this research attempted to overcome some of the shortcomings of related studies by conducting a longitudinal study (behavioral mapping during a year, as opposed to a few days) and by objectively analyzing the associations of user behavior and physical attributes, and the configurational properties of the campus layout. The results show that campus users fail to capitalize on the potential offered by the spatial configuration of outdoor spaces because they are not supported by amenities for pedestrians such as seating, shading elements and catering facilities. Supporting campus outdoor spaces that have the configurational potential of bringing various types of users (students and staff) with amenities for pedestrians and service facilities would create a lively and sustainable campus for its users.


Suburban university campus; outdoor space; behavioral mapping; apace syntax analysis

Full Text:



Al-Hagla, K. (2008). Towards a sustainable neighborhood: The role of open spaces. Archnet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research, 2(2), 162-177.

Arruda Campos, M.B. (1997). Strategic Spaces: Patterns of Use in Public Squares in the City of London. Proceedings of the 1st Space Syntax Symposium, April, London.

Aydin, D., and Ter, U. (2008). Outdoor space quality: Case study of a university campus plaza. Archnet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research, 2(3), 189-203.

Benedickt, M.L. (1979). To take hold of space: isovists and isovist field. Environment and Planning B, 6, 47-65.

Campos, A. (1999). All that meets the eye: overlapping isovists as a tool for understanding preferable location of static people in public square. 2nd International Space Synyax Symposium, March, Brasilia.

Campos A. and Golka, T., (2005). Public Spaces Revisited: A Study of the Relationship Between Patterns of Stationary Activity and Visual Fields. 5th Space syntax Symposium, 13-17 June, Delft.

Çubukçu, 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.

Conroy-Dalton, R. (2003). The secret is to follow your nose Route path selection and angularity. Environment and Behavior, 35(1), 107-131.

DeClercq, C. (2016). Toward the Healthy Campus: Methods for Evidence-Based Planning and Design. Planning for Higher Education, 44(3), 86.

Erçevik, B., and Önal, F. (2011). Üniversite kampüs sistemlerinde sosyal mekân kullanımları [The usage of Social Areas in University Campus Systems]. Megaron Journal, 151-161.

Erdönmez, M.E. and Akı, A. (2005). Açık Kamusal Kent Mekânlarının Toplum İlişkilerindeki Etkileri [The Effects of Open Public Urban Spaces on Community Relations], YTU Arch. Fac. e-Journal, 1(1).

Erkman U., (1990). Büyüme ve Gelişme Açısından Üniversite Kampüslerinde Planlama ve Tasarım Sorunları [Istanbul Planning and Design Issues in University Campuses in terms of Growth and Development], İ.T.Ü. Mimarlık Fakültesi Baskı Atölyesi,

Gehl, J. (2006). Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space. Arkitektens Forlag - The Danish Architectural Press, Copenhagen, ISBN no.87–7407–360-5, 6 ed.

Golicnik, B., and Marusic, D. (2012). Behavioral maps and GIS in place evaluation and design. In: Alam, B. M. (ed.) Application of Geographic information System (pp. 113-138).

Grajewski, T. and Psarra S. (2001). The Evaluation of Park Layouts and their Impact on the Patterns of Use and Movement: Warley Woods: A Case Study, Urban Parks Forum: Reading.

Hanan, H. (2013). Open space as meaningful place for students in ITB campus. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 85, 308-317.

Heitor, T., Nascimento, R., Tomé, A., and Medeiros, V. (2013). Accessible Campus: space syntax for universal design. In Proceedings of ninth international space syntax symposium (p.84).

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

Hölscher, C., Brösamle M., and Vrachliotis G. (2012). Challenges in Multilevel Wayfinding: A Case study with Space Syntax Technique. Environment and Planning B: Planning & Design, 39, 63-82.

Hussein, H., & Jamaludin, A. A. (2015). POE of Bioclimatic Design Building towards Promoting Sustainable Living. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 168, 280-288.

Karimi, K. A. (2012). Configurational approach to analytical urban design: ‘Space syntax’ methodology. Urban Design International 17(4): 297-318.

Koohsari M.J., T. Sugiyama, Mavoa S., Villanueva K. and others. (2016). Street network measures and adults' walking for transport: Application of space syntax. Health & Place 38(March): 89–95.

Kürkçüoğlu E.,and Ocakçı M. (2015). Kentsel Dokuda Mekânsal Yönelme Üzerine Bir Algı-Davranış Çalışması: Kadıköy Çarşı Bölgesi [A perceptual behaviour study on spatial orienation in Urban Fabric: Kadıköy Baazar District], Megaron,10(3) :365-388 DOI: 10.5505/MEGARON.2015.02486.

Lau, S. S. Yu, Z. Gou, and Y. Liu. (2014). Healthy campus by open space design: Approaches and guidelines. Frontiers of Architectural Research 3(4): 452-467.

Lau, S.S.Y. and Yang, F. (2009). Introducing healing gardens into a compact university campus:design natural space to create healthy and sustainable campuses. Landscape Research, 34 (1):55-81.

Mehta, V. (2007). Lively streets: Determining environment characteristics to support social behavior. Journal of Planning Education and Research 27(2): 165–187.

Özkan, D.G., Alpak, E.M., and Var, M. (2017). Design and Construction process in campus open spaces: A case study of Karadeniz Technical University, Urban Design International, 2(3), 236-252.

Payne S. (2009). Open space: People space. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 532–533.

Read, S. (1999). Space syntax and the Dutch city. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 26(2), 251-264.

Rose, A. (2003). Greenways: Walking at the Urban Fringe. Space Syntax Limited: London.

Salama, A. M. (2009). Design Intentions and Users Responses: Assessing Outdoor Spaces of Qatar University Campus. Open House International, 34(1), 82-93.

Seçkin, Y. Ç., and Dülger Türkoğlu, H. (2010). Amasya Tarihi Kent Merkezi Açık Mekânlarının Kullanım Analizi [The analysis of usage of open spaces ın the historical city of Amasya]. İtüdergisi/A, 5(1).

Talen, E. (2000). Measuring the public realm: A preliminary assessment of the link between public space and sense of community, Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 17 (2000), pp. 344-360.

Tawfiq, M. Abu-Ghazzeh. (1999). Communicating behavioural research to campus design: Factor Affecting the Perception and Use of Outdoor Space at the University of Jordan, Environment and Behavior, 31 (6), 764-804.

Turner, A., et al. (2001). From isovists to visibility graphs: a methodology for the analysis of architectural space. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 28(1), 103-121.

Turner, A., and Friedrich, E. (2011). Depthmap Software. University College London: London, UK.

Van der Hoeven F., and Van Nes A. (2014). Improving the design of urban underground space in metro stations using the space syntax methodology, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 40, 64–74.

Whyte, W. H. (1980). The social life of small urban spaces.

Yaylalı-Yıldız, B., Czerkauer-Yamu, C. and 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.

Yıldız, D., and Şener, H. (2010). Binalarla tanımlı dış mekanların kullanım değeri analiz modeli [A model to analyze the use value of enclosed outdoor spaces]. İTÜDERGİSİ/a, 5(1).

Yücel, G.F. (2006). Kamusal Açık Mekanlarda Donatı Elemanlarının Kullanımı Yayını, Ege Mimarlık Dergisi, (4) 59.

Zengel, R., & Kaya, I. S. (2011). A post occupancy evaluation of shared circulation spaces of the faculty of arts and sciences of Dokuz Eylul university. Archnet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research, 5(3), 58.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2018 Ayse Ozbil, Ozgur Gocer, Mujesira Bakovic, Kenan Gocer

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.


- ISSN (Online) #1938 7806 - ArchNet-IJAR is covered by ArchNet@ MIT Libraries, Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals, EBSCO, CNKI, Pro-Quest, Scopus-Elsevier, Web of Science.

- Published work in ArchNet-IJAR is licensed under Creative Commons: CC-BY--NC-ND license, see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/

Copyrights © Archnet-IJAR 2007-2018


Hit Counter
Visitor Hits Since 15 Jan 2014