Volume 14, Issue 51 (7-2025)
Haft Hesar J Environ Stud 2025, 14(51): 77-96 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Hoseyni L, Razaghi Asl S, Saleh Sedghpor B. Effective dimensions in enhancing the quality of life in outdoor academic spaces from the perspective of experts. Haft Hesar J Environ Stud 2025; 14 (51) :77-96
URL: http://hafthesar.iauh.ac.ir/article-1-2222-en.html
URL: http://hafthesar.iauh.ac.ir/article-1-2222-en.html
1- Department of Architecture, Shahrekord Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrekord, Iran
2- Department of Urban Planning, Faculty of Architectural Engineering and Urban Planning, Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University, Tehran, Iran
3- Department of Psychology, Faculty of Humanities, Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University, Tehran, Iran
2- Department of Urban Planning, Faculty of Architectural Engineering and Urban Planning, Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University, Tehran, Iran
3- Department of Psychology, Faculty of Humanities, Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University, Tehran, Iran
Abstract: (178 Views)
Introduction: Universities around the world compete to attract students and evolve their educational structures by offering appealing learning and research environments. Due to the emphasis on educational spaces, the physical development of universities often neglects or reduces open spaces, reflecting planners' and designers' focus on indoor areas and their disregard for outdoor environments. This oversight leads to issues such as low student presence, lack of mental and physical comfort, and declining environmental quality. When students' needs and aspirations are met within the university's cultural context, it enhances their quality of life in that environment, fostering social, educational, and recreational activities while providing a better living environment in terms of ecological, social, and economic quality. The current study aims to identify the factors influencing the quality of life in university outdoor spaces from the perspectives of experts.
Methodology: Given the lack of a clear theoretical foundation for the components of quality of life in outdoor university spaces and the exploratory nature of the research, this study adopted a survey-based approach using the Delphi method. After conducting a document analysis of academic articles and research to extract relevant content, open-ended interviews were held with a statistical population of 27 experts. Participants were recruited using the snowball sampling method, and data collection continued until theoretical saturation was reached. Subsequently, using open coding, axial coding, and content-objective table techniques, a researcher-developed questionnaire was prepared and completed by experts in two rounds. Finally, the results were extracted through Q-factor analysis in SPSS software.
Results: After administering the questionnaire to the experts, factor analysis was conducted on their responses, and common themes were identified across their input. At this stage, five factors, representing the participants' perspectives, emerged as statistically and thematically significant. These factors were named based on theoretical foundations, question content, and expert consensus. The Delphi technique ultimately identified five key dimensions: physical, environmental comfort, functional activity, sociability, and semantic-perceptual.
Conclusion: The results indicated that, from the expert’s perspective, the five dimensions — physical, environmental comfort, functional activity, sociability, and semantic-perceptual — ranked in order of importance in contributing to the enhancement of welfare and quality of life in outdoor university spaces. These dimensions help create an environment that is livable and pleasant for students, enabling them to comfortably and enjoyably spend their leisure time there.
Methodology: Given the lack of a clear theoretical foundation for the components of quality of life in outdoor university spaces and the exploratory nature of the research, this study adopted a survey-based approach using the Delphi method. After conducting a document analysis of academic articles and research to extract relevant content, open-ended interviews were held with a statistical population of 27 experts. Participants were recruited using the snowball sampling method, and data collection continued until theoretical saturation was reached. Subsequently, using open coding, axial coding, and content-objective table techniques, a researcher-developed questionnaire was prepared and completed by experts in two rounds. Finally, the results were extracted through Q-factor analysis in SPSS software.
Results: After administering the questionnaire to the experts, factor analysis was conducted on their responses, and common themes were identified across their input. At this stage, five factors, representing the participants' perspectives, emerged as statistically and thematically significant. These factors were named based on theoretical foundations, question content, and expert consensus. The Delphi technique ultimately identified five key dimensions: physical, environmental comfort, functional activity, sociability, and semantic-perceptual.
Conclusion: The results indicated that, from the expert’s perspective, the five dimensions — physical, environmental comfort, functional activity, sociability, and semantic-perceptual — ranked in order of importance in contributing to the enhancement of welfare and quality of life in outdoor university spaces. These dimensions help create an environment that is livable and pleasant for students, enabling them to comfortably and enjoyably spend their leisure time there.
Type of Study: Research |
Received: 2024/02/12 | Revised: 2025/07/16 | Accepted: 2024/08/20 | Published: 2025/06/28 | ePublished: 2025/06/28
Received: 2024/02/12 | Revised: 2025/07/16 | Accepted: 2024/08/20 | Published: 2025/06/28 | ePublished: 2025/06/28
References
1. اسلامی، آرمین، شکوهی بیدهندی، محمدصالح، و جلیلی صدرآباد، سمانه (1402). سنجش درون استانی عوامل موثر بر ارتقاء کیفیت زندگی در شهرهای میانی و کوچک مطالعه موردی: شهر قزوین و ضیاءآباد. فصلنامه پژوهشهای جغرافیای برنامهریزی شهری. (2)11، 115-132
2. بنتلی، ایین. (1398). محیطهای پاسخده: کتابی راهنما برای طراحان. (م. بهزادفر, مترجم) تهران: دانشگاه علم و صنعت ایران.
3. پاکزاد، جهانشاه. (1400). مبانی نظری و فرایند طراحی شهری. تهران: انتشارات شهیدی.
4. پورباقر، سمیه (1399). مدل یابی طراحی معماری فضاهای دانشگاهی با هدف کاهش استرس دانشجویان دانشکده مهندسی معماری و شهرسازی(نمونه موردی: فضاهای اجتماع پذیر دانشگاه). تهران: پایان نامه برای دریافت درجه دتری در رشته مهندسی معماری دانشگاه تربیت دبیر شهید رجایی.
5. توپچی خسروشاهی، مسعود، ثقفی اصل، آرش، ستارزاده، داریوش، و ستاری ساربانقلی، حسن (1400). ارزیابی تحققپذیری شاخصهای کیفیت فضاهای عمومی شهری بر مبنای دیدگاه کرمونا (مطالعه موردی شهر تبریز). مجلّه جغرافیا و توسعه فضای شهری. 196-179
6. تیبالدز، فرانسیس. (1396). شهرسازی شهروندگرا: ارتقاء عرصههای همگانی و محیطهای شهری. (م. احمدی نژاد, مترجم) اصفهان: خاک.
7. جعفری، الهام، غلامعلیزاده، حمزه، و مدیری، محمود (1399). بررسی عوامل محیطی مؤثر بر اجتماع پذیری و میزان اهمیت آ نها، مورد مطالعاتی: محیط آموزش معماری. معماری و شهرسازی آرمانشهر، (32)13، 65-53.
8. جیکوبز، جین. (1386). مرگ و زندگی شهرهای بزرگ آمریکایی. (ح. پارسی، و آ. افلاطونی، مترجم) تهران: موسسه چاپ و انتشارات دانشگاه تهران.
9. حسنی، کیانوش و بهاری نژاد، مرجان (1400). تبیین ارائه راهکارهای طراحی فضاهای شهری زیست پذیر شاد در راستای ارتقای کیفیت زندگی. هویت محیط، (7)2، 54-41.
10. دانشپور، سید عبدالهادی، سپهری مقدم، منصور، و چرخچیان، مریم (1388). تبیین مدل دلبستگی به مکان و بررسی عناصر و ابعاد مختلف آن. نشریه هنرهای زیبا، (38)1، 48-37.
11. درویش، محمد (1399). تبیین شاخص های کالبدی فضاهای باز دانشگاهی اجتماعپذیر با رویکرد ارتقاء سرمایه اجتماعی (نمونه موردی: دانشگاه بوعلی سینا). پایان نامه برای دریافت درجه دکتری در رشته معماری دانشگاه علم و صنعت ایران، دانشکده مهندسی معماری و شهرسازی.
12. ذکاوت، کامران (1379). ضرورت حضور طراحی شهری در فرایند تهیه طرح جامع. فصلنامه صفه، 13-4.
13. رضایی، مینا، افضلی، کوروش، و رنجبر همقاوندی، سجاد (1401). فراتحلیلی بر رابطه شاخصهای کالبدی با اجتماع پذیری در فضاهای آموزشی ایران. فصلنامه علمی تخصصی مطالعات طراحی شهری و پژوهشهای شهری.
14. سامه، رضا، و اکرمی، غلامرضا. (1395). تحلیل تحوّلات اندیشه «کیفیت زندگی » در معماری و شهرسازی. هویت شهر، 25، 40-27.
15. شاهینی، آتنا، جاویدی نژاد، مهرداد، و نقشینه، روزبه (1398). نقش کالبد معماری در ارتقای زندگی جمعی در فضاهای عمومی (نمونه موردی : میدان بهارستان). فصلنامه مطالعات مدیریت شهری. 56-43.
16. شریفیان، سیدعلی، مرادی نسب، حسین، قلمبر دزفولی، مریم، و ملاصالحی، ودیهه (1400). تبیین مؤلفه های تأثیر گذار بر شکل گیری فضاهای اجتماع پذیر در محیط های آموزشی با استفاده از روش تحلیل عاملی(نمونه موردی: فضاهای دانشگاهی). علوم و تکنولوژی محیط زیست،(7)23، 222-207.
17. شکیبایی، سیامک، و سعیدی مفرد، ساناز (1400). تاثیر خرد اقلیم های شهری بر آسایش محیطی در فضای باز عمومی نمونه مورد مطالعه: میدان شهدا شهر مشهد. نشریه علمی مطالعات شهری،(40)10، 72-59.
18. شمس دولت آبادی، حسنا سادات. (1398). اصول طراحی فضای باز مدرسه برای کودکان دوره دوم دبستان با رویکرد تاثیرپذیری از هوش هیجانی بر فرایند یادگیری. پایان نامه برای دریافت درجه دکتری در رشته معماری دانشگاه هنر اصفهان.
19. شهبازی، مهرداد، یگانه, منصور، و بمانیان، محمدرضا (1398). فراتحلیل عوامل سرزندگی محیطی در فضاهای باز. مطالعات شهری.(34)9، 34، 76-61.
20. صابونچی لیل آبادی، میترا، امین زاده گوهرریزی، بهناز، و شاهچراغی، آزاده (1399). نقش طرح معماری در ارتقای کیفیت زندگی مجتمعهای مسکونی در شهرهای جدید ایران(مطالعه موردی: سه شهر اندیشه، پردیس، پرند). مطالعات محیطی هفت حصار،(33)9، شماره 33, 171-157.
21. ضرغامی، اسماعیل، و عظمتی، سعید (1392). بررسی مطلوبیت فضاهای باز محیطهای دانشگاهی از نظر دانشجویان. فن آوری آموزش، 296-287.
22. طهماسبی، ارسلان، علیزاده، هوشمند، و اصلانی، پرویز (1394). مطالعه مؤلفه های شکل دهنده کیفیت معنایی- ادراکی محیط، مورد مطالعاتی: محله قطارچیان سنندج. معماری و شهرسازی آرمانشهر،(25)11، 124-111.
23. عظمتی، سعید، مظفر، فرهنگ، حسینی، سید باقر، و صالح صدق پور، بهرام (1396). اصول طراحی فضاهای باز دانشگاهی مبتنی بر سرزندگی خلاق و تعامل اجتماعی از نگاه متخصصان. پژوهش در نظام های آموزشی,(37)11، 200-179.
24. عظمتی، سعید، مظفر، فرهنگ.، صالح صدق پور، بهرام، و حسینی، سید باقر (1397). اصول طراحی فضاهای باز دانشگاهی براساس مدل سرزندگی و ارتقاء آموزش. نشریه علمی- پژوهشی فناوری آموزش.(2)12، 170-161
25. کارمونا، متئو، هیت، تیم، تنراک، و تیسدل، استیون (1394). مکانهای عمومی، فضاهای شهری: ابعاد گوناگون طراحی شهری. (فریبا قرائی، مهشید شکوهی، زهرا اهری، اسماعیل صالحی, مترجمان) تهران: دانشگاه هنر.
26. کلاین، پائول (1380). راهنمای آسان تحلیل عاملی. (اصدرالسادات اصغر مینایی، مترجم) تهران: انتشارات سمت.
27. لینچ،کوین (1395). تئوری شکل شهر. (سید حسین بحرینی، مترجم) تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه تهران.
28. نظری، جواد، و مختاری، مرضیه (1388). تحلیل عاملی و کاربرد آن در علوم اجتماعی. کتاب ماه.
29. وایت، ، ویلیام (1392). زندگی اجتماعی در فضاهای شهری کوچک. (محسن حبیبی، و محسن غیائی، مترجمان) تهران: دانشگاه هنر.
30. Abbott, P., & Wallace, C. (2012). Social quality: A way to measure the quality of society. Social indicators research, 108, 153-167. [DOI:10.1007/s11205-011-9871-0] [PMID] []
31. Abd Razak, M. Z., Abdullah, N. A. G., Nor, M. F. I. M., Usman, I. M., & Che-Ani, A. I. (2011). Toward a sustainable campus: Comparison of the physical development planning of research university campuses in Malaysia. Journal of Sustainable Development, 4(4), 210. [DOI:10.5539/jsd.v4n4p210]
32. Allen, J. C., Vogt, R. J., & Cantrell, R. L. (2004). Quality of life in rural Nebraska: trends and changes. Publications from the Center for Applied Rural Innovation (CARI), 9.
33. Apparicio, P., Séguin, A. M., & Naud, D. (2008). The quality of the urban environment around public housing buildings in Montréal: An objective approach based on GIS and multivariate statistical analysis. Social Indicators Research, 86(3), 355-380. [DOI:10.1007/s11205-007-9185-4]
34. Bennett, S. (2011). Learning behaviors and learning spaces. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 11(3), 765-789. [DOI:10.1353/pla.2011.0033]
35. Böhnke, P. (2005). First European Quality of Life Survey: Life satisfaction, happiness and sense of belonging.
36. Bonomi, A. E., Patrick, D. L., Bushnell, D. M., & Martin, M. (2000). Validation of the United States' version of the world health organization quality of life (WHOQOL) instrument. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 53(1), 1-12. [DOI:10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00123-7] [PMID]
37. Bramston, P., Pretty, G., & Chipuer, H. (2002). Unravelling subjective quality of life: An investigation of individual and community determinants. Social Indicators Research, 59, 261-274. [DOI:10.1023/A:1019617921082]
38. Bukenya, J. O., Gebremedhin, T. G., & Schaeffer, P. V. (2003). Analysis of rural quality of life and health: A spatial approach. Economic Development Quarterly, 17(3), 280-293. [DOI:10.1177/0891242403255325]
39. Calleo, Y., & Pilla, F. (2023). Delphi-based future scenarios: a bibliometric analysis of climate change case studies. Futures, 149, 103143. [DOI:10.1016/j.futures.2023.103143]
40. Carmona, M. (2021). Public places urban spaces: The dimensions of urban design. Routledge. [DOI:10.4324/9781315158457]
41. Carr, S. (1992). Public space. Cambridge University Press.
42. Carreira, M. B., & Heitor, T. (2014). Learning spaces in the university context. The 7th Knowledge Cities World Summit, 254.
43. Chapman, M. P. (1999). The campus at the millennium: A plea for community and place. Planning for Higher Education, 27(4), 25-31.
44. Chapman, M. P. (2006). American Places: In Search of the Twenty-First Century Campus. ACE/Praeger Series on Higher Education. Greenwood Publishing Group. [DOI:10.5040/9798216193203]
45. Chen, S., & Biljecki, F. (2023). Automatic assessment of public open spaces using street view imagery. Cities, 137, 104329. [DOI:10.1016/j.cities.2023.104329]
46. Costanza, R., Fisher, B., Ali, S., Beer, C., Bond, L., Boumans, R., ... & Snapp, R. (2007). Quality of life: An approach integrating opportunities, human needs, and subjective well-being. Ecological economics, 61(2-3), 267-276. [DOI:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.02.023]
47. Coulson, J., Roberts, P., & Taylor, I. (2014). University trends: Contemporary campus design. Routledge. [DOI:10.4324/9781315757209]
48. Cox, A. M. (2018). Space and embodiment in informal learning. Higher Education, 75(6), 1077-1090. [DOI:10.1007/s10734-017-0186-1]
49. Cubukcu, E., & 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.
50. Cummins, R. A. (2000). Objective and subjective quality of life: An interactive model. Social indicators research, 52, 55-72. [DOI:10.1023/A:1007027822521]
51. Cummins, R. A., McCabe, M. P., Romeo, Y., Reid, S., & Waters, L. (1997). An initial evaluation of the comprehensive quality of life scale-intellectual disability. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 44(1), 7-19. [DOI:10.1080/0156655970440102]
52. Das, D. (2008). Urban quality of life: A case study of Guwahati. Social indicators research, 88, 297-310. [DOI:10.1007/s11205-007-9191-6]
53. Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1997). Measuring quality of life: Economic, social, and subjective indicators. Social indicators research, 40, 189-216. [DOI:10.1023/A:1006859511756]
54. Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D. W., Oishi, S., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2010). New well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social indicators research, 97, 143-156. [DOI:10.1007/s11205-009-9493-y]
55. Düzenli, T., Mumcu, S., Yılmaz, S., & Özbilen, A. (2012). Analyzing youth's activity patterns in campus open spaces depending on their personal and social needs. Journal of Adult Development, 19, 201-214. [DOI:10.1007/s10804-012-9147-1]
56. Elder, S. (2009). ILO school-to-work transition survey: a methodological guide. ILO, Geneva.
57. Epley, D. R., & Menon, M. (2008). A method of assembling cross-sectional indicators into a community quality of life. Social indicators research, 88, 281-296. [DOI:10.1007/s11205-007-9190-7]
58. Estoque, R. C., Togawa, T., Ooba, M., Gomi, K., Nakamura, S., Hijioka, Y., & Kameyama, Y. (2019). A review of quality of life (QOL) assessments and indicators: Towards a "QOL-Climate" assessment framework. Ambio, 48, 619-638. [DOI:10.1007/s13280-018-1090-3] [PMID] []
59. Faria, P. A., Ferreira, F. A., Jalali, M. S., Bento, P., & António, N. J. (2018). Combining cognitive mapping and MCDA for improving quality of life in urban areas. Cities, 78, 116-127. [DOI:10.1016/j.cities.2018.02.006]
60. Felce, D., & Perry, J. (1995). Quality of life: Its definition and measurement. Research in developmental disabilities, 16(1), 51-74. [DOI:10.1016/0891-4222(94)00028-8] [PMID]
61. Franklin, C., Durkin, T., & Schuh, S. P. (2003). The Role of Landscape in Creating a Sustainable Campus. Planning for Higher Education, 31(3), 142-149.
62. Gehl, J. (2011). Life between buildings.
63. Ghorbanzadeh, M. (2019). A Study on the quality of campus landscape on students' attendance at the university campus. Civil Engineering Journal, 5(4), 950-962. [DOI:10.28991/cej-2019-03091302]
64. Göçer, Ö., Göçer, K., Başol, A. M., Kıraç, M. F., Özbil, A., Bakovic, M., ... & Özcan, B. (2018). Introduction of a spatio-temporal mapping based POE method for outdoor spaces: Suburban university campus as a case study. Building and Environment, 145, 125-139. [DOI:10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.09.012]
65. Göçer, Ö., Göçer, K., Özcan, B., Bakovic, M., & Kıraç, M. F. (2019). Pedestrian tracking in outdoor spaces of a suburban university campus for the investigation of occupancy patterns. Sustainable Cities and Society, 45, 131-142. [DOI:10.1016/j.scs.2018.11.006]
66. Grove, S. K., Burns, N., & Gray, J. (2012). The practice of nursing research: Appraisal, synthesis, and generation of evidence. Elsevier Health Sciences.
67. Hajrasouliha, A. (2017). Campus score: Measuring university campus qualities. Landscape and Urban Planning, 158, 166-176. [DOI:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.10.007]
68. Hall, R. (2009). Towards a fusion of formal and informal learning environments: The impact of the read/write web. Electronic Journal of E-learning, 7(1), 29-40.
69. Hanan, H. (2013). Open space as meaningful place for students in ITB campus. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 85, 308-317. [DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.08.361]
70. Ibrahim, M. F., & Chung, S. W. (2003). Quality of life of residents living near industrial estates in Singapore. Social Indicators Research, 61, 203-225. [DOI:10.1023/A:1021305620042]
71. Lee, Y. J. (2008). Subjective quality of life measurement in Taipei. Building and Environment, 43(7), 1205-1215. [DOI:10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.11.023]
72. Lennard, S. H. C., & Lennard, H. L. (1993). Urban space design and social life. Companion to Contemporary Architectural Thought, New York: Routledge Inc.
73. Li, G., & Weng, Q. (2007). Measuring the quality of life in city of Indianapolis by integration of remote sensing and census data. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 28(2), 249-267. [DOI:10.1080/01431160600735624]
74. Livingstone, D. W. (1999). Exploring the icebergs of adult learning: Findings of the first Canadian survey of informal learning practices. [DOI:10.56105/cjsae.v13i2.2000]
75. Mamirkulova, G., Mi, J., Abbas, J., Mahmood, S., Mubeen, R., & Ziapour, A. (2020). New Silk Road infrastructure opportunities in developing tourism environment for residents better quality of life. Global Ecology and Conservation, 24, e01194. [DOI:10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01194]
76. Marcus, C., & Wischemann, T. (1998). Campus outdoor spaces. In C. Marcus, & C. Francis (Eds.), People places: Design guidelines for urban open space (pp. 175-208). Canada: John Wiley & Sons.
77. Massam, B. H. (2002). Quality of life: public planning and private living. Progress in Planning, 58(3), 141-227. [DOI:10.1016/S0305-9006(02)00023-5]
78. McCall, S. (1975). Quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 2(2), 229-248. [DOI:10.1007/BF00300538]
79. Mccrea, R., Stimson, R., & Western, J. (2005). Testing a moderated model of satisfaction with urban living using data for Brisbane-South East Queensland, Australia. Social Indicators Research, 72, 121-152. [DOI:10.1007/s11205-004-2211-x]
80. Michalos, A. C. (2007). Education, happiness and wellbeing. Paper presented at the International Conference on 'Is happiness measurable and what do those measures mean for public policy?'. University of Rome, April. [DOI:10.1007/s11205-007-9144-0]
81. Naidoo, V. (2020). Campus design and the community college experience: An exploration of stress, belonging and scholarly identity.
82. Nasution, A. D., & Zahrah, W. (2012). Public open space privatization and quality of life, case study Merdeka Square Medan. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 36, 466-475. [DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.03.051]
83. Nejad, J. M., Sharghi, A., & Asadpour, F. (2020). Investigating the effective indicators on the desirable quality of open and semi-open spaces of contemporary housing. Int. J. Architect. Eng. Urban Plan, 30(1), 119-135.
84. Nikolopoulou, M., & Steemers, K. (2003). Thermal comfort and psychological adaptation as a guide for designing urban spaces. Energy and Buildings, 35(1), 95-101. [DOI:10.1016/S0378-7788(02)00084-1]
85. Oldenburg, R. (1999). The great good place: Cafes, coffee shops, bookstores, bars, hair salons, and other hangouts at the heart of a community. Da Capo Press.
86. Özkan, D. G., Alpak, E. M., & Var, M. (2017). Design and construction process in campus open spaces: A case study of Karadeniz Technical University. Urban Design International, 22, 236-252. [DOI:10.1057/s41289-017-0041-0]
87. Ouyang, Z., Gursoy, D., & Chen, K. C. (2019). It's all about life: Exploring the role of residents' quality of life perceptions on attitudes toward a recurring hallmark event over time. Tourism Management, 75, 99-111. [DOI:10.1016/j.tourman.2019.04.032]
88. Pacione, M. (1982). The use of objective and subjective measures of life quality in human geography. Progress in human geography, 6(4), 495-514. [DOI:10.1177/030913258200600402]
89. Peker, E., & Ataöv, A. (2020). Exploring the ways in which campus open space design influences students' learning experiences. Landscape Research, 45(3), 310-326. [DOI:10.1080/01426397.2019.1622661]
90. Pope, C., & Mays, N. (Eds.). (2013). Qualitative research in health care.
91. Project for Public Spaces (Ed.). (2000). How to turn a place around: A handbook for creating successful public spaces.
92. Rafiei, S., & Gifford, R. (2023). The meaning of the built environment: A comprehensive model based on users traversing their university campus. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 87, 101975. [DOI:10.1016/j.jenvp.2023.101975]
93. Reilly, C. J., & Renski, H. (2008). Place and prosperity: quality of place as an economic driver. Maine Policy Review, 17(1), 12-25.
94. Rogerson, R. (1997). Quality of life in Britain. Quality of Life Research Group, Department of Geography, University of Strathclyde.
95. Rogerson, R. J., Findlay, A. M., Morris, A. S., & Coombes, M. G. (1989). Indicators of quality of life: some methodological issues. Environment and Planning A, 21(12), 1655-1666. [DOI:10.1068/a211655]
96. 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(2), 57-77.
97. Salih, S. A., Ismail, S., & Ismail, N. A. (2021). Nearby Pockets for Promoting Students' Social Interaction on Malaysian Campus Ground: Taman Poket Berdekatan untuk Menggalakkan Interaksi
98. Salih, S. A., Ismail, S., Ujang, N., Mustafa, F. A., & Ismail, N. A. (2023). Pocket settings for enhancing social learning experience on campus ground: A verbal-visual preference survey. Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 14(9), 102134. [DOI:10.1016/j.asej.2023.102134]
99. Salih, S., Ismail, S., Ismail, N. A., Ujang, N., & Asif, N. (2022). Factors Influencing Social-Learning Experience in Nearby Pocket Parks on Campus Ground. [DOI:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1194205/v1]
100. Seik, F. T. (2000). Subjective assessment of urban quality of life in Singapore (1997-1998). Habitat international, 24(1), 31-49. [DOI:10.1016/S0197-3975(99)00026-0]
101. Shin, D. C., & Johnson, D. M. (1978). Avowed happiness as an overall assessment of the quality of life. Social indicators research, 5, 475-492. [DOI:10.1007/BF00352944]
102. Sirgy, M., Gao, T., & Young, , R. (2008). How does residents' satisfaction with community services influence quality of life (qol) outcomes? Applied Research. Applied Research in Quality of Life. [DOI:10.1007/s11482-008-9048-4]
103. Soares, I., Weitkamp, G., & Yamu, C. (2020). Public spaces as knowledgescapes: Understanding the relationship between the built environment and creative encounters at dutch university campuses and science parks. International journal of environmental research and public health, 17(20), 7421. [DOI:10.3390/ijerph17207421] [PMID] []
104. Southworth, M., & Southworth, S. (1973). Environmental quality in cities and regions. Town Planning Review, 44(3), 231. [DOI:10.3828/tpr.44.3.175m1255618t5176]
105. Szalai, S., & Andrews, F. M. (1980). The quality of life: Comparative studies.
106. Tawfiq, A. G. (1999). Communicating Behavioral Research to Campus Design. Environment and Behavior, 31(6), 764-804. [DOI:10.1177/00139169921972344]
107. T Orbon, G., Sarte, G. M. F., Montero, C. I. V., & Abelardo, R. S. B. (2019). Characterizing campus open spaces of University of the Philippines Diliman based on utilization and perception of outdoor thermal comfort. Journal of Design and Built Environment, 19(2), 74-90. [DOI:10.22452/jdbe.vol19no2.6]
108. Verlet, D., & Devos, C. (2009). The main determinants for subjective well-being: a quest for the holy grail? Can governments enhance the perceived quality of life?. Quality of Life and the Millennium Challenge: Advances in Quality-of-Life Studies, Theory and Research, 193-219. [DOI:10.1007/978-1-4020-8569-7_13]
109. WHOQOL-BREF. (1996). Retrieved from https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/63529.
110. Xu, S., Li, W., & Cheng, B. (2021). Study on Campus Planning from the Perspective of Environmental Behavior-Taking Southwest University of Science and Technology in Mianyang, Sichuan Province as an Example. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 9(8), 326-333. [DOI:10.4236/jss.2021.98022]
111. Yaylali, B., & Cil, E. (2021). Issues in the planning and design of university campuses in Turkey. A/Z ITU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 18(1), 99-114.
112. Yaylali-Yildiz, B., Spierings, B., & Çil, E. (2022). The spatial configuration and publicness of the university campus: Interaction, discovery, and display on De Uithof in Utrecht. Urban Design International, 1-15. [DOI:10.1057/s41289-020-00130-w]
113. Yaylali-Yildiz, B., Czerkauer-Yamu, C., & Cil, E. (2014). Exploring the effects of spatial and social segregation in university campuses, IZTECH as a case study. Urban Design International, 19, 125-143. [DOI:10.1057/udi.2013.19]
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
