Environmental preferences of female students from the space of university campuses based on qualitative study

Jalalian, Sahar; Shahabian, Pooyan; Lak, Azadeh; Modiri, Atoosa

Environmental preferences of female students from the space of university campuses based on qualitative study

Document Type : Original Research

Authors

S. jalalian ¹

P. Shahabian ²

A. Lak ³

A. Modiri ⁴

¹ PhD student of urban study at Islamic Azad University, central Tehran branch

² Associate Professor of Islamic Azad University, Central Tehran Branch

³ Associate Professor of Shahid Beheshti University

⁴ Assistant Professor of Islamic Azad University, Central Tehran Branch

Abstract

Aims: The main goal of the upcoming research is to explain the principles and spatial qualities of campuses based on the environmental preferences of female students.

Methods The nature of the research is qualitative and exploratory based on the methodology of content analysis and semi-structured in-depth interviews with a total of 40 female students of the faculties of literature and humanities and basic sciences in each of the two studied universities of Tehran and Shahid beheshti is done.

Findings: According to the narrative of female students, eight criteria of urban location, university campus structure plan, faculty architecture plan, likeability, university brand, attention to the dignity and rights of female students, the attractiveness of university activities and events, and the importance of hangout in the university are among the environmental qualities. It is effective in improving the presence of female students in university campuses.

Conclusion: Based on the environmental preferences of women, in addition to physical factors, non-physical factors are also effective in the presence of women in university campuses. In addition, the space may have a suitable physical quality, but it is gendered in a way that gives the woman the feeling of being subjugated and under control. For this purpose, the physical qualities of university campuses are necessary and not sufficient to promote the presence of girls.

Keywords

Female experience

Campus

Gender space

Eenvironmental preferences of female students

Content Analysis

Subjects

Quality of Urban Public Spaces

[1]- Fazeli, N. (2015). Feminization of Urban Spaces in Contemporary Iran: With Emphasis on Tehran Grand City Spaces. Pazuhesname-ye zanan. 6(2). 107-132.
[2]- Hoch, S. J. (2002). Product experience is seductive. J. Consum. Res. 29 (3), 448–454.
[3]- Tschumi, B. (2012). Events:The Turning Point in Architecture Concepts: Red is Not a Color. Rizzoli, New York.
[4]- Leatherbarrow, D. (2005). Architecture's unscripted performance. Kolarevic, B., Malkawi, A. (Eds.), Peformative Architecture, beyond Instrumentality 2–16 Spon Press, New York, NY.
[5]- Anderson, S. (2011). Seductive Interaction Design: Creating Playful, Fun, and Effective User Experiences. New Riders, Berkeley, CA.
[6]-Rahimi, F. B., levy, R. M., Boyd, J. E., & Dadkhahfard, S. (2018). Human behaviour and cognition of spatial experience; a model for enhancing the quality of spatial experiences in the built environment. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 68, 245–255.
[7]- Rendell, J. (2000). Introduction: ‘Gender, Space, in Gender space architecture an interdisciplinary introduction. London and New York, Routledge, 101.
[8]-Pakzad, J. & Bozorg, H. (2012). Alphabet of environmental psychology for designers. Tehran: Arman-Shahr.
[9]- Narcissians, A. (2005). Anthropology of Gender, Publication of the Thoughts of the Cultural Heritage Organization, first edition.
[10]- Robertson, I. (1989). Society: A Brief Introduction. Worth Publishers Inc. U.S., Published.
[11]- Lawanga, M. (2001). Gender, Environment and Sustainable Development. Paper presented at Sustainable Development, Governance and Globalization Meeting: An African Forum for Strategic thinking Towards the Earth Summit 2002 and beyond, Nairobi, Kenya, Vol. 2.
[12]- Cuthbert, A. (2006). Chapter Six: Gender. the form of cities, Black well publishing, 128.
[13]- Massey, D. (1994). Space, Place and Gender, London and Minneapolis, University of Minnesota press, MN, Vol. 179.
[14]- Madanipour, A. (1996). Design of urban space: An inquiry into a socio-spatial process: John Wiley & Son Ltd.
[15]- Massey, D. (1984). Spatial Divisions of Labour: Social Structures and the Geography of Production. London: Macmillan.
[16]- McDowell, L. (1983). Towards an understanding of the gender division of urban space. Environment and planning. Society and Space. 1(1), 59-72.
[17]- Bondi, L., & Davidson, j. (2005). Situating gender. A companion to feminist geography. 15- 31.
[18]- Rose, G. (1993). Feminism and Geography: the limits of geographical knowledge. Polity, 1st edition.
[19]- Pearce, M. (2001). University Builders, Academy Press Publisher; 1th edition. 13-14.
[20]- Heijer, D. C. A. (2008). Managing the University Campus in an Urban Perspective: Theory, Challenges and Lessons from Dutch Practice. Corporations and Cities, Envisioning Corporate Real Estate in the Urban Future.
[21]- Heijer, D. C. A. & Magdaniel, F.T. (2012). The university campus as a knowledge city, exploring models and strategic choices. International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development, 3(3) 283–304.
[22]- Heijer, D. A.C. & Magdaniel, F.T. (2018). Campus–City Relations: Past, Present, and Future. P. Meusburger, M. Heffernan, and L. Suarsana (eds.) Geographies of the University. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 439–459.
[23]- Strange, C.C., & Banning, J.H. (2001). Education by design: Creating campus learning environments that work. The Jossey-Bass higher and adult education series. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
[24]- Lang, J. (1987). Creating Architectural Theory: The Role of the Behavioral Sciences in Environmental Design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.
[25]- Dober, R. P. (1996). Campus planning. Chem: Reinhold.
[26]- Dober, R. P. (1992). Campus Design. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
[27]- Hajrasouliha, A. H. (2017). Master-planning the American campus: goals, actions, and design strategies. Urban Design International, 22(4), 263-381.
[28]- Kenney, D. R., Dumont, R., & Kenney, G.S. (2005). Mission and place: Strengthening learning and community through campus design. Westport: Greenwood.
[29]- Abu-Ghazzeh, M. (1999). Outdoor Spaces at the University of Jordan Communicating Behavioral Research to Campus Design. Factors Affecting the Perception and Use of Jordan, Environment and Behavior, 31(6), 764-804.
[30]- Franklin, C., Durkin,T. & Schuh, S. P. (2003). The Role of the Landscape in Creating a Sustainable Campus, Planning for Higher Education. 142-149.
[31]- Griffith, J. C. (1994). Open space preservation: An imperative for quality campus environments. Journal of Higher Education, 65(6), 645-669.
[32]- Gaines, T. A. (1991). The campus as a work ofart. New York: Praeger Publishers.
[33] Re-thinkingthefuture. 10 things to remember while designing a university campus. https://www.re-thinkingthefuture.com
[34] Project for public spaces. The benefits of great spaces. https://www.pps.org.
[35] Brush, L. D. & Miller, E. (2022). Re-Envisioning Bystander Programs for Campus Sexual Violence Prevention. Journal of family violence.
[36] Taylor, Z. W. (2021). I Do Not Speak as Freely: Gendered Views on Campus Carry at a Research University. Education and Urban Society.
[37] Klodawsky, F. & Lundy, C. (1994). Women’s safety in the university envirinment. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research. 11(2), 128-136.
[38]- Gifford, R. (2016). Research Methods for Environmental Psychology, UK: WILEY.
[39]-Graneheim, Ulla H., et al. (2017). Methodological Challenges in Qualitative Content Analysis: A Discussion Paper. in Nurse Education Today, 56, 29-34.
[40]-Gill, P., Stewart, K., Treasure, E. & Chadwick, B. (2008). Methods of data collection in qualitative research: interviews and focus groups. British Dental Journal, 204(6). 291– 295.
[41]-Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.