Planning of Recreation Parks in the University Campus

doi:10.4236/jep.2011.24040

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Journal of Environmental Protection, 2011, 2, 365-370

doi: 10.4236/jep.2011.24040 Published Online June 2011 (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/jep)

365

Planning of Recreation Parks in the University

Campus

Anthopoulos K. Petros, George Costa

Democritus University of Thrace, Department of Physical Education and Sport Science, Komotini, Greece.

Email: [email protected]

Received February 20th, 2011; revised March 28th, 2011; accepted May 1st, 2011.

ABSTRACT

The benefits of parks and recreation are very serious. The purpose of this study was to investigate the attitudes of the

people that use the camp us area of Democritus universi t y of Thrace, in Komotini. There are series of factors that should

be taken under consideration when campus is under planned. In this research took part 742 people and more specific,

they were: under graduate students, post graduate students, tutors as well as teaching and administrative staff. An

analysis of Principle components has been accomplished and 8 factors have been accrued with eigenvalue more than 1.

These factors explain the 55.32% of the whole variation. The conclusion of this study was that a model for campus

planning must consists of these 8 parameters: land, climate, vegetation, physical activity, environmental consciousness,

daily users of territory and inhabitants of an area.

Keywords: Campus, Park , Physical Activity, Questionnaire

1. Introduction

Greek towns’ public space is faced, from the majority of

the citizens, as an unconcerned topic. It is not recognized

as a common good which is not only available to them

but also it isn’t considered as an obligation to protect it.

It is a totally strange thing to the citizens and for this

reason it is often pollu ted or violated by them. The same

behavior is noticed in the green urban space even if it is

public or private. The public green outdoors is the victim

of the rapid urbanization and super-construction which

after 60 s, possessing it was thought a luxury but often an

unnecessary one. It is a topic superficially discussed in

relation to the urban lay out, putting it in contrast to the

practice done in the European and international space, in

which green is the major keystone in the organization

and function of the urban groups.

In the Greek society green public places are limited.

They are not properly organized. Also, the option of the

location and planting is badly selected. Green places

happened accidentally according to the constructive den-

sity where the latter permits it. This doesn’t enable their

integration to the town’s fun ctionality.

Stress is a powerful factor of mortality [1] for the hu-

mans who live in modern societies or industrialized so-

cieties. This phenomenon results in two things: first, it

does higher the cure cost and second, there are lost

working hours. Psychological health is a sign of humans’

good physical condition. U.K.D.H. [2] points that physi-

cal exercise helps people feel better improving at the

same time their mood and limiting their worry. Exercise

increases self respect and reduces stress reactions while

managing a better quality of sleep.

Parks, passages and green places that exist in a town

offer an active way of life prohibitin g obesity and sudd en

deaths [3-6]. Natural activity benefits persons in their

physical and psychological behavior [7]. When exercise

is done inside the natural environment then an added

factor comes on surface. A term known as green exercise

is mentioned by Pretty and his colleagues. Environment

must be kept intact for ethical and financial reasons

[8-11]. Little attention has been given to the advantages

of the psychic health. Less natural environment means

bad human condition and stress higher percentage [12].

So, research results show that green contributes to the

human health and helps to get over stress, while it boosts

immune system. Also, it does concentration easier.

Universities’ open space and tutoring quality are two

contrastive things. The plan of a campus, the unity of the

surroundings and the buildings help for a pleasant place

not only for the students but also for the academic staff.

Institutions are usually situ ated in the center of a town.

So their right planning is critical. There is an attempt for

Planning of Recreation Parks in the University Campus

366

them to function as free spaces available and amusing to

the people. An interaction as well as cooperation between

the urban web and the outdoor space should be feasible.

Neighborhood is the basic society’s element. An institu-

tion must function as a neighborhood or as a system of

neighborhoods that are accessible to the locals offering

not only knowledge but also other important things.

Natural elements and institutional ch aracteristics indicate

the mixture level with the constructive web of the town

[13].

Aristotle university of Thessaloniki’s campus is down-

town (Figure 1). Some green places exist in the center of

the campus but they are not designed and created ration-

ally. There is a big surface which is covered with sod and

a small number of trees in abnormal and accidental thesis.

There is also a small pond but it is not reclaimed. Due to

the length of the campuses’ streets there are trees that

offer protection from the various weather conditions. An

important but negative effect is the creation of a square

in front of the positive studies school and the medicine

school. This square is p aved with out green . In additio n, a

huge concrete construction in front of the library that

causes a bad impression. There is a satisfactory attempt

around the philosophical, law and r e ligious schools.

Map of Greece

Planning of Recreation Parks in the University Campus367

Figure 1. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (Google).

The campus of Athens is in an area that called Zogra-

fou in the beginning of the mountain Immetus (Figure 2).

Observing this field we can find self sown vegetation and

especially the kind of pine cones. There aren’t any other

green places but there are many sports facilities. Cars are

exposed to the weather because the protection in the

parking lacks. Around the buildings there is vegetation

roughly designed.

Patras campus (Figure 3) is a better example for plan-

ning and configuring the outwards. There are important

interventions to the surroundings that make things posi-

tive. There are voluminous buildings not inappropriately

placed because of the physical function of the area. There

is a vehicle protection in park station accompanied by the

presence of vegetation. We can find additional places

without green or creating shad ow. A positive thing is the

existence of sculpture, almost in every building, that is

eye catching. Furthermore, there is sod and some trees. A

negative element is the water intensive sod. In Patras

campus some desultory squares and some buildings are

Figure 2. The campus of Athens (Google).

Figure 3. Patras campus (Google).

obvious. Finally, there are some sport facilities available

for the users.

The campus of Ioannina (Figure 4) covers a certain

land away from the town’s web. There are no traces of

external design. The campus lacks in intervention in its

majority. Instead, there are plain cases that are impres-

sive. Also, some parking stations have deciduous trees

for solar radi at i on p rot ecti o n during summer.

The agronomic university of Athens (Figure 5) is the

web of the town. It is a good example in reference to the

design and the configuration because of the landscape

and the architecture laboratory. There are places for pri-

vacy, quiet, and rest, categorized in the whole length of

the campus. A negative thing is the presence of chairs

made by concrete, which is not compatible with the en-

vironment. The most pedestrian precincts are configured

rightly with some kinds of palm trees that are compatible

with the climate. Parking stations are characterized from

vegetation and they are weather protected. There is some

vegetation as for example some fences that are useful to

separate the space. Finally, there are eye catching items,

not always as successful as a palm trees.

2. Method

2.1. Questionnaire

The draft of a questionnaire by professional scientists of

physical education and landscape’s architecture became

real. It was distributed to a number of people to the

Figure 4. The campus of Ioannina (Google).

Figure 5. The agronomic university of Athens (Google).

Planning of Recreation Parks in the University Campus

368

has got closed quarries in

questioned people aged less than 25

oups are a) tutoring personnel, b) administrative

ents analysis in order to trace

niversity of Komotini (Figure 6). Then it became

statistical treatment and its validity was checked by the

Cronbach criterion .

This specific questionnaire

der to be immediate filled. The responses were imme-

diate from the users of the Komotini’s campus. The

process was done by a computer with the method of spss

17. In detail, as far as the form of the questionnaire it is

the following. The first five questions have to do per-

sonal information such as age, sex, specification, family

condition and semester. The rest 36 questions having a

seventh degree-Likert climax (I totally agree = 1, I cer-

tainly agree = 2, I ag ree = 3, I don’t know = 4, I disagr ee

= 5, I certainly disagree = 6, I totally disagree = 7) and

were categorized in 6 groups: a) physical conditions, b)

vegetation, c) activity, d) surrounding construction, e)

users, f) environmental conscience.

2.2. Participants

The majority of the

years old because of their student identity. 60.6% were

women and 39.4%were men. The most of them were not

married. In D.U.TH. (Democritus University of Thrace)

of Komotini the data are: educational personnel 5.7%,

administrative staff 4.6%, under graduate students 75.5%

and post graduate students 14.3%. The research was set

in D.U.TH. in March 2010 with stratificated sampling.

The total population was sub divided in homogenous and

uncovered sub populating fields, based on users’ specifi-

cation.

The gr

aff, c) undergraduate students, d) post graduate students.

The participants were 742 in their total number. They are

categorized proportionally to their specification and ac-

cording to their university department.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

There is a principal compon

them and determine the kind of the 36 questions. Their

validity was checked by a co efficient “a” created by

Cronbach for each one of the results separately.

Figure 6. Democritus University of Thrace (Google).

omponent analysis to research the

s of the appropriateness in order to apply

0.784, for the second a =

e application of the specific parame-

ginning of a questionnaire’s

conclusion that the users of

Results

There is a principle c

form of the 36 questions. The criterion for the eigenval-

ues exceeds 1.

The diagnosi

e principles in the under discussion data K.M.O. and

Bartlett’s test of sphericity give satisfactory results

(K.M.O. = 0.862, x2 = 8639.878, p < 0.01). As an ac-

ceptable limit of loading in order to include a component

in a summarized climax it was estimated the 0.40. 8 fac-

tors were selected after the research. They have value

bigger than 1 that interpret the 55.32% of the whole scale

because of the high interrelation between the factors

there are results after varimax (Table 1). The cases are

infrastructure, land, activity, climate, environmental con-

sciousness, users, inhabitants.

As for the first factor a =

789, for the third a = 0.704, for the fourth a = 0.794, for

the fifth a = 0.761, for the seventh a = 0.711. These val-

ues show a little relation between the variables that create

these elements. For the sixth factor the value is up to a =

0.662 and about th e eighth the value is a = 0.675. Finally,

for the whole components the value is a = 0.644 which

shows that there is a strong relation between them.

4. Discussion

The existence and th

ters during the design of the outdoors are necessary. The

decision of the right factors is pivotal to the rational de-

sign. In the past, many researchers have referred the fact

of the natural environment but without mingled with a

questionnaire process. This survey is ambitious for cov-

ering this lack by forming the institutions externally. If

we adapt this tool it is possible to use it to other similar

institutions such as hospitals.

The present survey is the be

owth that has its primary goal to form the spaces of the

educational institutions. The results that accrued from the

factors analysis were encouraging. The factors that finally

occurred agree with other professional scientists’ issues.

They have proved in various researches the importance

of the individual factor. Specifically, Dafis [14], supports

that during the outdoor design should think about the

physical conditions and should be used adaptable forestry

and eco items. Dober [15] centers on the importance of

these outdoor spaces that enable users necessities. Pretty

[16] proves that exercise in a pleasant natural environ-

ment benefits blood pressure in contrast with the exercise

in an artificial landscape which lacks in vegetation.

5. Conclusions

The survey comes to the

Planning of Recreation Parks in the University Campus

369

omponent analysis.

Table 1. Principle c

Factors

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Subject focus 0.679

Botanical garden 0.649

Cultural 0.593

Fences plants 0.570

Environmental inf ormation 0.556

Meeting spaces 0.554

View locations 0.551

Isolation sights 0.513

Type of soil 0.723

Soil depth 0.664

Terrain 0.577

Soil moisture 0.572

Slope land 0.531

Moderate activity 0.676

Alternative forms of activity 0.646

Extreme sports 0.621

Team sports 0.612

Sports spaces 0.572

Footpaths 0.546

Rainfall 0.794

Wind 0.723

Humidity 0.640

Trees shape 0.783

Trees colors 0.728

Trees height 0.573

Trees type 0.503

Roads 0.733

Car using 0.693

Close buildings 0.661

Materials of construction 0.657

Opinion users 0.815

Wishes users 0.795

Active participation users 0.480

Access inhabitants 0.802

Active participation inhabitants 0.731

Events 0.703

Extraction method: principal component analysis. tation me t ho d: varimax with kaiser normalition. Ro za

Planning of Recreation Parks in the University Campus

370

he campus of Komotini find critical the 8 factors of t

Principle component analysis. So, they believe that the

designer of such a place should consider the land (soil,

topography etc.) and the climate (rain, wind etc.) of the

reason, the existed and not vegetation, the construction

that may use the visitors, the environmental factors (ma-

terials, botanic garden, information about environment),

the sub assistance of physical activity (fields, adventure

park etc.) and the views of users (students, professors)

and the citizens who live around the campus. Finally, the

scientist who wants to plan a university campus has a

tool which could follow. We think that he model which

came from this study and it consists of the above 8 pa-

rameters is useful for environmentalists and help the

protection of physical enviro nment.

REFERENCES

son, M. Hickma[1] L. Rainford, V. Man and A. Morgan

Department of Health, “At Least Five a

he Built Environment

“Health in England 1998. Investigating the Links between

Social Inequalities and Health,” The Stationery Office,

London, 2000.

[2] United Kingdom

Week: Evidence on the Impact of Physical Activity and

Its Relationship to Health,” A Report from the Chief

Medical Officer, London, 2004.

[3] L. D. Frank and P. O. Engelke, “T

and Human Activity Patterns: Exploring The Impacts Of

Urban Form On Public Health,” Journal of Planning Lit-

erature, Vol. 16, No. 2, 2001, pp. 202-218.

doi:10.1177/08854120122093339

[4] C. Maller, et al., “Healthy Nature Healthy People, ‘Con-

Material Ba

12, No. 4, 2006, pp. 361-371.

tact with Nature’ as an Upstream Health Promotion In-

tervention for Populations,” Health Promotion Interna-

tional, Vol. 21, No. 1, 2005, pp. 45-54.

[5] S. E. Coen and N. Ross, “Exploring the sis for

Health: Characteristics Of Parks In Montreal Neighbour-

hoods With Contrasting Health Outcomes,” Health and

Place, Vol.

doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2005.02.001

[6] K. Reynolds, J. Wolch, J. Byrne, C. Cho

Weaver and M. Jerrett, “Trail Characu, G. Feng, S.

teristics as Corre-

l Wellbe-

ess, Oxford, 1949.

, pp.

lates of Urban Trail Use,” American Journal of Health

Promotion, Vol. 21, No. 4, 2007, pp. 335-345.

[7] D. Scully, J. Kremer, M. Meade, R. Graham and K.

Dudgeon, “Physical Exercise and Psychologica

ing: A Critical Review,” British Journal Sports Science,

Vol. 32, No. 2, 1999, pp. 11-20.

[8] A. Leopold, “A Sand County Almanac and Sketches Here

and There,” Oxford University Pr

[9] Costanza, et al., “The Value of the World's Ecosystem

Services and Natural Capital,” Nature, Vol. 387, 1997

253-260. doi:10.1038/387253a0

[10] R. Eckersley, “The Discourse Ethic and the Problem of

Representing Nature,” Environmental Politics, Vol. 8, No

and Human Health,” Environmental

2, 1999, pp. 24-49.

[11] P. A. Sandifer, A. F. Holland, T. K. Rowles and G. I.

Scott, “The Oceans

Health Perspective, Vol. 112, No. 8, 2004, pp. 454-455.

doi:10.1289/Ehp.112-A454

[12] J. Pretty, M. Griffin and M. Sellens, “Is Nature Good for

You?,” Ecosystem, Vol. 24, 2004, pp. 2-9.

ds and Spaces

ley & Sons, New York, 2000.

al, Vol. 5,

[13] P. Anthopoulos and J. Georgi, “Research Employer’s

Preferences for Landscape Design of Groun

Surrounding Hospitals. Case Study University Hospital of

Alexandroupolis,” Congress of Landscape Architecture &

Urban Environment, Drama, 12-17 April, 2010.

[14] S. Dafis, “Urban Forestry, Art of Text,” Thessaloniki,

Greece, 2001.

[15] R. Dober, “Campus Landscape: Functions, Forms, Fea-

tures,” John Wi

[16] J. Pretty, “How Nature Contributes to Mental and Physi-

cal Health,” Spirituality & Health Internation

No 2, 2004, pp. 68-78. doi:10.1002/shi.220