See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/314079147

Design and construction process in campus open spaces: A case study of

Karadeniz Technical University

Article  in  URBAN DESIGN International · August 2017

DOI: 10.1057/s41289-017-0041-0

CITATIONS READS

21 4,761

3 authors:

Doruk Görkem Özkan Elif Merve Alpak

Karadeniz Technical University Karadeniz Technical University
53 PUBLICATIONS   103 CITATIONS    100 PUBLICATIONS   176 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mustafa Var
Yildiz Technical University
31 PUBLICATIONS   135 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE LANDSCAPE PROPERTIES OF MUSEUM GARDENS AND USER SATISFACTION View project

Pro-Environmental Behavior View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Doruk Görkem Özkan on 25 June 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Original Article
Design and construction process in campus open
spaces: A case study of Karadeniz Technical University

Doruk Görkem Özkana,*, Elif Merve Alpaka and Mustafa Varb

a
Department of Landscape Planning and Design, Karadeniz Technical University, 61080 Trabzon, Turkey.
E-mails: dorukgorkemozkan@hotmail.com; dorukgorkemozkan@ktu.edu.tr
b
Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Yıldız Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey.

*Corresponding author.

Abstract Universities comprise buildings in which education, teaching, research and practice are undertaken
as well as physical structures with social and cultural activity spaces. They’ve a constantly evolving and
changing structure in parallel to an increase in the number of students and the educational structures. Increasing
number of physical structures result in failure to meet students’ requirements for open space. Nevertheless,
university campuses should ensure that students who do not know each other get to know each other and get
used to the environment to which they are strangers by providing students with common living spaces. For this
reason, it was considered to re-design an outdoor area (festival area) in Karadeniz technical university campus,
where students can perform their extracurricular activities and increase their social relations with one another. As
a result of the literature review, it was seen that most of the studies are either carried out only to design
successful outdoor spaces for the needs of the users or the spaces designed by other people are assessed after use.
Consequently, it was determined that there are certain deficits in determining whether the spaces designed in
line with the decisions made by the researcher fulfil user needs. For this reason, it was aimed in this study to
make the post-use evaluation of the production process after the outdoor design process of a campus outdoor
space is completed by the researcher. The present study was conducted in Kanuni Park (festival area) in main
campus of Karadeniz Technical University, which is currently used as a parking lot only and sometimes used as
a concert venue at certain times of the year. The objective of the study was to realize spatial organization of the
said study area so that it meets the students’ needs and requirements, serves as a space where various activities
take place, and provides facilities for a variety of uses (affordance) on a continuous basis, rather than at certain
times of the year. Therefore, programming/design/construction/occupancy/post occupancy evaluation pro-
cesses which comprise spatial development process were performed within Kanuni Park and such processes
were evaluated.
URBAN DESIGN International (2017). doi:10.1057/s41289-017-0041-0

Keywords: design and construction process; campus open spaces; university

Introduction growing urban population and urbanization

Universities, in which students, the future of a
society, are raised, are structures where education-
teaching, research and practice are undertaken.
However, they are also physical structures incor-
porating necessary living conditions for their users
(accommodation, entertainment, shopping, sports,
health and recreation, etc.). As result of a rapidly
today, various physical formations have been
sought for universities trapped in the city, over
time. Changing needs of society forced developers
to plan universities as larges areas outside the
cities. Thus, today’s concept of ‘‘campus’’ playing a
significant role in provision of education and
development of students through social and cul-
tural activities has emerged. Therefore, in the

ª 2017 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International

www.palgrave.com/journals
 Özkan et al
Design and Constrution
Production Process
Programming Design Construction
Figure 1: Design and costruction.
design of campus spaces, not only education,
teaching, research and application spaces but also
activity spaces which ensure personal and social
development of students should be designed.
Mehta (2007) says that social spaces that have a
significant part in daily life, that are easily accessible
and allow for re-use strengthen the friendship
relations and socialization of the user community.
Social spaces where activities such as sitting, relax-
ing mixed land uses, walking, lying on the grass,
gathering, chatting, concerts, book-reading, study-
ing, watching the environment, walking a dog,
listening to music, doing sports are carried out are
important features that affect the social behaviours
of the users (Whyte, 1980; Gehl, 1987; Mehta,
2007, 2009; Farida, 2013; Abdulkarim and Nasar,
2014). For this reason, social activity spaces at
university campuses also play a significant role in
terms of the socialization of the youth (Düzenli et al,
2012). In this context, campus open spaces that
allow students to carry out their activities outside
the lesson are defined as socializing spaces that
allow youngsters to meet with each other, to be
involved in an interaction, to exhibit behaviors, to
perform various activities and different occupan-
cies (Abu-Ghazzeh, 1999; Düzenli et al, 2012;
Yılmaz, 2015). In the design and planning of
university campus open spaces, it is thus essential
to create activity spaces which will meet needs of
students and spatial organizations which will
enable the realization of these activities. In this
way, the live-used designs are created by establish-
ing interaction between the user and environment
and students are ensured to be satisfied with the
environment (Özkan et al, 2015; Alpak et al, 2015).
That students are pleased with the outdoor spaces
of the campus depends on the success of the
physical and social features offered by those spaces.
In other words, the formation of successful outdoor
spaces depends on the fulfilment of the needs and
requirements of the users (Whyte, 1980, 1998; Mar-
cus and Francis, 1998; Francis, 2003).
As a result of the literature review carried out, it
was seen that most of the studies are either carried
ª 2017 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317
Evaluation Process
Occupancy Post Occupancy
Evaluation
out only to design successful outdoor spaces for the
needs of the users (PPS, 2002) or the spaces designed
by other people are assessed after use (Preiser, 2001;
Preiser and Nasar, 2008). Consequently, it was
determined that there are certain deficits in deter-
mining whether the spaces designed in line with the
decisions made by the researcher fulfil user needs.
For this reason, it was aimed in this study to make
the post-use evaluation of the production process
after the outdoor design process of a campus
outdoor space is completed by the researcher
(design and construction process).In this context,
design and construction process is discussed under
two separate headings including production pro-
cess (programming-design-construction) and eval-
uation process (occupancy-post-occupancy
evaluation) (see Figure 1). The evaluation process
constituting the second part of this study was
initiated after the implementation of the output
which was obtained as a result of the production
process. With this process, it was aimed to reveal the
level of meeting the needs of users (performance)
and their satisfaction with space.
In line with these purposes, it is necessary to
determine how these processes are defined and
what these processes are composed of.
Design and construction process
Production process
Programming Process Programming process,
which is the first phase of design and construction
process, is a pre-design process which comprises
the whole information guiding the design. In other
words, this information collection stage is work
carried out in order to determine design problem
(Aksoy, 1975). Identification and solution of a
design problem is one of the most important
stages in spatial design process (Lawson, 1980).
Therefore, at programming stage, initially user
demands and expectations are established and the
design problem is defined. Established user
demands and expectations are transferred to the
URBAN DESIGN International

Table 1: Correlation between human needs and design principles of urban open spaces
Human needs
Physiological
Security
Belonging
Esteem
Self-actualization
Intellectual, emotional and aesthetic satisfaction
Source: Maslow (1987), Lang (1987) and Gür (1996).
design stage (İnceoğlu, 1982; Preiser, 1991; Duerk,
1993). Finally, user (Student-Staff-Guest) require-
ments in urban open spaces are assessed. Design-
ers aim to understand the needs of potential users
while designing spaces. User needs should be
known so that designs become successful and
livable spaces are created (Lang, 1987). Various
classifications for human needs in urban open
spaces have been made in previous work. Despite
the sophistication of human needs, the hierarchy
of needs set forth by Maslow (1987) provides the
basis for the studies conducted up to now with a
variety of interpretations (Table 1).
If an open space design which has been created
without reflecting on such needs is implemented,
there will be conflicts between the space and its
users and that space won’t be used at the desired
level. Previous studies on urban open spaces show
that the prerequisite for successful spaces is to
provide the basic needs of people. In other words,
the formation of successful outdoor spaces depends
on the fulfilment of the needs and requirements of
the users (Whyte, 1980, 1998; Francis, 2003).In line
with the hierarchy of needs defined by Maslow
(1987), studies investigating user needs in campus
open spaces are also carried out (Abu-Ghazzeh,
1999; Düzenli et al, 2012; Yılmaz, 2015). Universities
ª 2017 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317
Design and construction process in campus open spaces
Urban Open Space
Adequate layout planning
Permeability
Comfort
Accessibility
Rigidity
Presence of public services (electricity, water and phone, etc.)
Identifiability, perceptibility
Easy to orientate.
Direction finding
Prevention of sense of isolation
Defining area of sovereignty
Socio-cultural conformance
Socialization
Establishing social interactions
Identity of place
Possession
Individuality
Sense of belonging to a local community
Personalization
Participation
Diversity
Cultural or recreational facilities
Quality landscape architecture
Visual harmony
are institutions that incorporate individuals from
different cultures, beliefs, economic structures and
thoughts. Nevertheless, the university campus life
differs from public spaces in certain forms. In cities,
users do not necessarily have to interact with one
another, while campus life is different in that it
contains mutual aims (Chapman, 2006; Yaylalı-
Yıldız et al, 2013). The existence of the collective life
in the campus requires interaction. Thus, the most
important need in campus life is to fictionalize social
spaces that will increase the social relations between
the students (Düzenli et al, 2016; Bredow, 2006;
Driskell, 2002). These spaces that enable interaction
allow for the opportunity to talk, discuss and learn
among students by allowing for their daily encoun-
ters. Consequently, campus life is formed with the
production and monitoring of the information, and
the social relations between students develop.
Social spaces required for the development of
students’ social relations must allow for such
activities as relaxation, chatting, concert, reading
books, studying, walking, environment watching,
walking the dog, listening to music, doing exercise,
etc. (Whyte, 1980; Gehl, 1987; Mehta, 2007, 2009;
Farida, 2013; Abdulkarim and Nasar, 2014). User
social needs were determined by asking campus
users during the programming stage of this study.
URBAN DESIGN International
 Özkan et al
The design process was proceeded by performing
survey and analysis studies of the area in line with
the user needs identified. The objective of all these
studies is to create outdoor space designs taking
all these needs into consideration as a designer.
Projects that are formed in the context of user
needs become lively and crowded social spaces
with a high density of use, which integrate with
the user. These successful outdoor spaces may
increase social interaction by affecting the staying
of these people in these spaces for a longer time
(Farida, 2013). The Project for Public Spaces (PPS),
which constitutes an example of these studies,
investigates outdoor spaces and develops various
criteria in this context. Founded by William H.
Whyte, PPS was established in 1975 and has
examined more than 2000 spaces so far and
created various criteria for successful spaces.
Successful outdoor spaces create more user satis-
faction and preference as they fulfil user needs
more. More diversity of use and consequently rich
social relations are created as a result of preferring
these spaces more (Elabd, 2013). As a result of all
this information, the design process for the festival
area was started by creating a design suggestion
in order to fulfil the need for the socialization of
the youth.
Design process Design is usually defined as a
process which involves preparation of schemes or
plans required for an activity (Aksoy, 1975).
During Design Methods conference held in Lon-
don in 1962, it was described that design ‘‘is part of
continuous problem-solving process’’ and ‘‘its area
of interest is activity’’ (Esherick, 1963; Aksoy, 1975;
Lawson, 1980). According to Best (1969), designing
is a variety-reducing process. Variety-reducing
process involves choosing from a variety of solu-
tion alternatives. According to Aksoy (1975), those
working on designing bring up the matter of
whether or not to use certain techniques which
will serve to facilitate an architect’s complex task
in a designing activity. Post occupancy evaluation
employed in this study is one of these techniques.
İzgi (1999) defines the design stage as interpreta-
tion, determination and documentation of ‘‘a
whole structure which will satisfy functions iden-
tified to meet requirements, all elements involved
in its construct and its surroundings, its
• Conceptual
• Functional
• Formal
• Structural
ª 2017 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317
• Operational characteristics and properties’’.
Briefly, design is documentation of all details
and determination of all data required to
perform a product, the main goal, in line with
what has been stipulated.
Within the scope of this research, design process
consists of function diagram, schematic design,
design development and construction drawing
processes. Thus, the selection and evaluation pro-
cedures of the design proposal that would meet the
needs determined at the highest level were carried
out.
Design process Construction process: Construc-
tion process is initiated as a result of spatial
organizations developed by a designer based on
formal and functional decisions. After the comple-
tion of design process, construction process, which
is the phase of getting results, begins.
Evaluation process
Occupancy process This is defined as a process in
which people begin to use a designed space after its
construction is completed, i.e. the use process. In
this process, a product which has become concrete
begins to satisfy the functions for which that
product is intended. The goal is to ensure that an
architectural product which has been transformed
into an organism gets closer to and is integrated into
a society and people, who comprise the society, by
mutual interaction (İzgi, 1999). In this study, the
behavioral reactions given by users to the output
emerged as a result of the production process and
how many functions were met were determined.
Post-occupancy evaluation process The post-occu-
pancy evaluation is the process of evaluating the
space, the programming, design and construction
processes of which are completed and which has
been used for a certain time. As it has been
mentioned previously, users enter into an evalu-
ation process in line with their needs and require-
ments and react to space behaviorally when they
come across with space. In this way, the evalua-
tions to be received from the user during the
occupancy stage constitute the post-occupancy
evaluation data. Thus, the necessary measures
are taken by evaluating reactions given by the user
in the available spaces instead of trying to guess
the user’s possible reactions, and new spaces that
meet user needs and requirements are created. In
other words, it is an evaluation method
URBAN DESIGN International

investigating the user’s satisfaction and dissatis-
faction with the physical environment at the
occupancy stage (Marans and Cooper, 2000).
According to Preiser, livability and quality of
space depend on its performance in the face of
user needs and requirements (Preiser et al, 1988).
Evaluation of performance dimensions is benefi-
cial in terms of determining the features of an
available space and making positive changes and
provides guidance on determining programming
criteria to minimize negative aspects in new
formations (Özkan et al, 2015). Thus, to what
extent the project created by designers to meet the
user needs and requirements has been fulfilled
after implementation is revealed with the func-
tional performance. Under which criteria the
functional performance would be evaluated was
determined as a result of the literature review.
In their study in 2013, Yaylalı-Yıldız et al
expressed the importance of campus festival areas
in the socialization of the students. It was said that
when these spaces are not well-defined, they turn
into abandoned spaces except for the organization
of 3–5 days, and cannot fulfil their functions. So, it
is necessary to re-design and increase the diversity
of the use of these areas in a way to allow for
different activities at different times. As in the
outdoor campus spaces, social spaces thus fulfil
user needs, allow for daily encounters and create a
link between the students and space by playing an
Table 2: Design and Construction Process
Source: Developed from Lynch and Hack (1986), Simonds (1997), Preiser and Nasar (2008).
ª 2017 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317
Design and construction process in campus open spaces
important part in the organization of social life
(Yaylalı-Yıldız et al, 2013). So, in order for the
festival areas in the campus to be able to fulfil their
functions successfully; it must be possible to carry
out different activities at any time or day together
in different locations of the area (Variety and
adequacy of activity spaces) (Preiser et al, 1988;
PPS, 2002; Özkan et al, 2015; Alpak et al, 2015), the
transportation between the other activity spaces in
the campus and the festival area should be consis-
tent (Consistency of access to activities) (PPS, 2002),
the activity spaces, equipment, etc. designed
should enable users to get together and meet in
campus life with the comfort conditions they offer
(Fitness of activity spaces and reinforcements to
their intended purpose, Comfort of reinforcement
elements) (Carr et al, 1992; Hidalgo and Hernán-
dez, 2001) and the user diversity (female-male) and
density should be ensured at all times of the day
(Security) (PPS, 2002; Elabd, 2013; Bonaiuto et al,
2006). For this reason, the festival area that makes
up a very important place in the campus life of the
students was also assessed in the context of this
study. Within the scope of this study, a festival area
will be designed for students, and a post-occu-
pancy evaluation study will be carried out in order
to monitor whether this design has achieved
success. First, the concepts of social area and social
life should be emphasised in order for this area, for
which a design recommendation will be
URBAN DESIGN International
 Özkan et al
developed, can be used on every day of the year. In
this article, all of the above-mentioned processes
(programming, design, construction, occupancy
and post occupancy evaluation) were addressed
as a pre-condition of one another (Table 2).
Material and Methods
The study material was Kanuni area (festival
area) in Karadeniz Technical University, Central
Kanuni campus in Trabzon city. Karadeniz Tech-
nical University is located in the city center, to the
east of the city(see Figure 2). Central Kanuni
campus has an approximate area of 1,000,000 m2
with 11 faculties and more than 55 thousand
students.
The project prepared regarding the kanuni area
of the main campus was designed in 2009, and the
post-occupancy evaluation study was carried out
in 2014 by completing the construction in the
second half of 2010. The method of the study was
evaluation of the designed and implemented
project in parallel to programming-design-con-
struction- occupancy processes.
Findings Regarding the Formation Process
of Urban Open Space
Programming
At the programming stage providing data for the
design, for which problem it was necessary to
Figure 2: Location of study area.
ª 2017 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317
search for an answer and the user needs in the
open spaces of Karadeniz Technical University
were firstly determined, then information about
the study area was collected, and survey and field
analysis were carried out. The concrete floor
covered area of 40.000 m2 that could be used for
parking and also university festivals before
designing the study area is a wide area that is
preferred by the users (Figure 3). The study area is
located in Karadeniz Technical University central
campus and has a central location with university
hotel, foreign languages department and student
affairs building around it. The purpose of
redesigning this area is the fact that university
campus open spaces fail to meet user needs
adequately and the lack of open spaces assuming
the role of gathering area where youngsters can
perform various activities.
The question of ‘‘Which activities would you
like to perform in this space to be designed’’ was
asked to 80 students. Thus, the activities and
activity spaces that should be established in this
area were decided in line with the users’ needs
(Table 3). The design stage was initiated by
performing the survey and area analysis of the
area (Table 4) to find the answer to the question of
where these activities and activity spaces could be
established in this area.
Design
During the programming stage, data of the area
were examined in detail, its photographs were
URBAN DESIGN International
 Design and construction process in campus open spaces

Figure 3: Study area.

Table 3: Specified activity list

Activity list N:80 Per cent N:80 Per cent

Sitting 42 7.0 Frisbee 12 2.1

Resting 38 6.3 Studying 23 3.9
Walking 44 7.4 Music/Concert/Ceramony 64 10.9
Walk the dog 17 2.8 Eating 34 5.7
Running 21 3.5 Meet with friends 22 3.7
People-watching 19 3.2 Listen to music 20 3.4
Environment-watching 24 4.0 Sit on Lawn 68 11.4
Chat with friends 18 3.0 Biking 20 3.4
Kids playing 10 1.7 Theater 24 4.0
Doing exercise 26 4.4 Read a book 15 2.5
Dance 22 3.7 Sunbathe 12 2.0

Table 4: Survey and area analysis

Survey data Area analysis

Dominating scenery in the north
Study area is a bowless area
There is an elevation difference of 15 meters between
the study area and its southern border
There are no plants in the study area
The ground is covered with concrete
Existing structures: university hotel, school of foreign
languages and registrar’s office
The study area is surrounded by students residences,
faculties, staff residences
Observation platforms should be considered in northern location which has
dominating scenery
The southern boundary of the study area should be blanketed with
vegetation or reflected in the design using the elevation difference
Concrete lining should be removed in order to make the ground suitable for
students activities
Considering the existing structures, student-staff and guest user groups
should be considered
The study area should be addressed not only with its borders but also its
surroundings while starting the design

taken, design problem was revealed and it was
proceeded to design stage within the scope of needs,
deficiencies, requirements and existing facilities. In
the design of the study area, spatial organizations
allowing various activities toward users’ needs and
serving as a gathering point were taken into account
for the design problem identified during program-
ming stage. Accordingly, design process of the
study was carried out under four headings: Func-
tion diagram, schematic design, design develop-
ment and construction drawing.
Function diagram
Design is a mental project or scheme carried out to
envision, form or produce a plan. During the
design process, first, previously established

ª 2017 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International

 Özkan et al
Figure 4: Function diagram of study area.
Figure 5: Schematic designs.
functions and their relationships with each other
are identified. The purpose of the function dia-
gram is to construct activity spaces to be designed
to satisfy users’ needs and their relationships with
each other. In this process, the data obtained from
the users at the stage of programming through the
survey method were only fictionalized in terms of
their locations and relations by not determining
the form of the activity spaces in Kanuni Area with
the data obtained from the users (see Figure 4).
Schematic design
Schematic design involves re-addressing in terms
of size, form and position and developing activity
spaces and their relationships determined in func-
tion diagram. At this stage, size according to the
type of activity appropriate for Kanuni Area as
well as the number of users, the form according to
the type of activity and the location appropriate
for that activity were agreed upon. Accordingly,
two different proposals were offered (Figure 5).
ª 2017 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317
These proposals formed were evaluated by
Landscape Architect experts. As a result of the
evaluation of the experts, the 1st proposal was
demonstrated to be more integrative and more
readable and to allow more different activities.
Therefore, the 1st schematic design proposal was
selected to develop design proposals. The design
development process was initiated to develop
different design proposals in line with the sche-
matic design decisions selected.
Design development
At this stage, options began to be created for the
spaces whose size, form and location were agreed
upon by type of activity. During this process,
drawing work continued and the drawing which
would best fulfill the functions was selected.(see
Figure 6).
Between two design projects, the 2nd design
proposal was preferred because of having wider
green areas and providing opportunities for
URBAN DESIGN International

Figure 6: Design development phase (Proposal 1 & Proposal 2).
Figure 7: Access and activity spaces.
spatial formations that could meet all functions
and activities determined.
Construction drawing
After the required functions and their relation-
ships were evaluated, it was decided to create a
platform, stage and a ceremony area where var-
ious activities can be organized, an amphitheater
where students can watch such activities, open
and closed sitting areas and footpaths which allow
people to watch nature and sea, and a parking lot
for staff and guests (see Figures 7, 8).
Multi-purpose activity area – Amphitheater – Stage
Within the scope of need – activity – space, it is
necessary to define as a system the elements and
components of spaces in which actions or activities
will take place in order to satisfy users’ needs.
Therefore, a large green area which would allow
performance of various activities in the activity list
ª 2017 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317
Design and construction process in campus open spaces
specified in this study was created. That area was
intended to allow users perform the following
activities in the already specified activity list:
sitting, resting, walking, walk the dog, running,
people-environment watching, chat with friends,
exercise, dance, frisbee, studying, meet friends,
listen to music, sit on lawn, sunbathe.
The elevation difference of 15 meters deter-
mined by area analysis in southern border of this
open green area was made up by designing the
steps of the amphitheater. It was also intended as
an area where activities on the stage designed for
concerts/plays/ceremonies/festivals can be
watched. According to the type and capacity of
the activity taking place on the stage, the stage
sometimes becomes the designed concrete floor
and sometimes the whole green area. In other
words, the designed area can be flexible depend-
ing on the type of the activity.
URBAN DESIGN International
 Özkan et al
Figure 8: Construction project.
Figure 9: Implementation process of the project during 2010.
Sitting areas Sitting areas were designed for users
at points with dominating scenery and nice view
which were determined by area analysis. It is an
area which the students can use for sitting, resting
and watching people, sea, sunset and the environ-
ment during their time outside the classroom.
While designing sitting areas, two different
approaches, one which allows people to interact
with each other and the other which allows
isolation from people, were adopted. Moreover, a
part of sitting areas was created in the form of
small amphitheaters so that particularly students
from the department of foreign languages can
study/prepare skits as a group.
ª 2017 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317
Footpaths A walking axis was designed inside the
open green area, which is a multi-purpose activity
area designed in the study area. These footpaths
were intended to allow the users who do not want
to participate in the activities in the green area to
directly pass. This space was also intended for a
stand area when ceremonies or festivals take place.
Construction
Construction process is initiated as a result of
spatial organizations developed by a designer
based on formal and functional decisions. After
URBAN DESIGN International

Figure 10: Completed version of the construction.
Figure 11: Occupancy process.
the completion of design process, construction
process, which is the phase of getting results,
begins. Upon completion of programming and
design processes, the construction process of the
project began in 2011(see Figure 9). The area,
which was leveled according to project eleva-
tions, was rendered suitable for drainage and
construction activities were performed. Lastly,
planting and turfing were carried out (see
Figure 10).
ª 2017 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317
Design and construction process in campus open spaces
Occupancy
Upon completion of the construction process in
2011, occupancy process of the space began (see
Figure 11). It has become a space where students
carry out their activities outside the lesson and
come together inside the campus and that allows
them to become socialized. As a result of the
observations, this space was determined to be
frequently used by students for different activities
URBAN DESIGN International
 Özkan et al

Table 5: Activity list (occupancy)

Activity list N:8000 Per cent N:8000 Per cent

Sitting 48 7.5 Frisbee 14 2.2

Resting 32 5.3 Studying 19 3.0
Walking 56 9.0 Music/Concert/Ceramony 58 9.2
Walk the dog 9 1.5 Eating 27 4.3
Running 13 2.1 Meet with friends 36 5.8
People-watching 33 5.3 Listen to music 22 3.5
Environment-watching 37 6.0 Sit on Lawn 71 11.2
Chat with friends 35 5.8 Biking 8 1.2
Kids playing 10 1.6 Theater 12 1.9
Doing exercise 15 2.3 Read a book 15 2.4
Dance 30 4.8 Sunbathe 12 2.0

Table 6: Occupancy Levels of Kanuni Areas

(sitting, meeting with friends, sitting on the lawn,
music/concert, etc.) under appropriate weather
conditions. In addition, the answer was found to
the question of ‘‘for which activities students used
this area’’ as a result of the survey conducted with
the students except for the observation. The
frequency values of for what purposes this space
was used are shown in Table 5.
The occupancy process in which the space and
user interaction started was observed until 2014,
and the post-occupancy evaluation studies were
carried out at the end of 2014.
Post-occupancy evaluation
At the Post-occupancy evaluation stage, the last
stage of the process, users’ occupancy level data
related to space where they were present, space
performance data and satisfaction states were
revealed by the survey study of 80 people.
Determination of occupancy levels of Kanuni area open
spaces
At this stage, the survey study was carried out
with 80 students using the Kanuni Area. Firstly,
which open space users come to this area to use it
at the most was determined by posing the ques-
tion of ‘‘Which area do you use the most (Multi-
purpose activity area – Amphi – Stage, Sitting and
Walking roads) in the Kanuni Area?’’. Thus, an
attempt to reveal the occupancy levels of these
spaces was made. As it is understood from Table 6,
the Multi-purpose activity area is the area where
the maximum occupancy occurred.
Determination of Kanuni Area performance value
The performance values of the space were deter-
mined by calculating the averages of the answers
Kanuni Park open spaces f Per cent
Multi-purpose activity areas 44 55.0
Sitting areas 22 27.5
Footpaths 14 17.5
Total 80 100
to the questions for the functional performance
posed to the users in the survey. The functional
performance value of the space (3,81) was revealed
by calculating the average of all these performance
values. Furthermore, which of these performance
data was more significant was demonstrated using
the One-Sample T Test (Table 7).
As it is understood from this table, the most
significant three performance criteria in Kanuni
Park are, respectively, the number of activity
spaces in this area is sufficient (4,48), flooring
elements and green areas in this area are comfort-
able and convenient for activities (4,35), and the
presence of other people using this space allows
me to be safe (4,15). 3 criteria with the lowest
performance value in Kanuni park are, respec-
tively, ‘‘I have easy access to events throughout the
campus from activities in this area’’ (3,15), ‘‘The
number of equipment in this area is sufficient’’
(3,30), and finally ‘‘Equipment in this area is
comfortable and practical’’ (3,44). As it is under-
stood from here, users regarded the space perfor-
mance as more unsuccessful regarding the issues
of availability and the comfort of equipment
compared to other performance criteria.
Determination of user satisfaction levels in Kanuni
Area
In the survey, 80 users were asked about their
satisfaction levels with the space they were
present. The user satisfaction frequencies of the

ª 2017 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International

 Design and construction process in campus open spaces

Table 7: Determination of Kanuni area performance values

Functional performance criteria N Mean t df p \ 0.01

In this area, I have easy access to one activity from another activity. 80 3.68 29,074 79 0.000
I have easy access to events throughout the campus from activities in this area. 80 3.15 24,017 79 0.000
The number of activity spaces in this area is sufficient 80 4.48 47,521 79 0.000
While coming to this area, I can easily find the entrance. 80 3.63 28,923 79 0.000
The number of equipment in this area is sufficient 80 3.30 25,701 79 0.000
Equipment in this area are comfortable and practical 80 3.44 27,937 79 0.000
Flooring elements and grreen areas in this area are comfortable and convenient for activities. 80 4.35 45,615 79 0.000
The presence of other people using this space allows me to be safe. 80 4.15 42,536 79 0.000
I comfortably use this area in the evenings 80 4.11 41,934 79 0.000

space for which the survey study was carried out
are presented in Figure 12. It was demonstrated
that 77.5 per cent of users were satisfied with
Kanuni Area, and 22.5 per cent of them were
dissatisfied with it (Table 8).
Relationship between Kanuni Area user satisfaction
and space performance
As a result of the v2 test carried out with the
crosstabs analysis to determine whether the rela-
tionship between user satisfaction and space per-
formance in open spaces located in Kanuni Area
was statistically significant, it was determined that
performance criteria created a significant differ-
ence in determining the satisfaction (p \ 0,01). The
v2 results of the performance criteria are presented
in Table 9.
According to the v2 test results determined in
Table 9, the most effective functional performance
criteria in determining the satisfaction are the
criteria of ‘‘The number of activity spaces in this
area is sufficient.’’ The following performance
criteria are, respectively, ‘‘Flooring elements and
green areas in this area are comfortable and con-
venient for activities’’, and ‘‘The presence of other
people using this space allows me to be safe’’.
This study shows that Multi-purpose activity
areas created to allow for various activities became
spaces which were most frequently used by users
and where users carried out various activities. At
the same time, according to the results obtained
from the performance values, the functional per-
formance values that users gave the highest value
were values given for the variety of activity
spaces. 77.5 per cent of users in the space stated
that they were satisfied with this space. This result
demonstrates that users’ needs were met. It is
quite obvious that the most important functional
performance criteria in determining user satisfac-
tion are the values for the variety of activity
spaces.
Data obtained from the post-occupancy evalu-
ation section, the last stage of space formation
process, and data on the occupancy level of the
space, space performance, and user satisfaction
will be evaluated under the heading of discussion
and conclusion. In this context, how the space
formation process occurred and how re-program-
ming data were created as a part of the post-
occupancy evaluation are considered to be guiding
for further studies.
Discussion and Conclusion
The design study of Kanuni Park was carried out
due to the lack of social and cultural activity
spaces allowing for various activities and different
uses for the uses of open spaces in Karadeniz
Technical University campus, and the Program-
ming-Design- Construction -Occupancy and Post-
Occupancy Evaluation processes were evaluated.
Within the scope of this study, activity lists were
prepared in line with the needs and requirements
of the student-staff and guests, and spaces, where
these activities could be performed, were
designed. Finally, the post-occupancy evaluation
process, which is the evaluation received from
users during and after occupancy stages of the
designed spaces, was completed, and re-program-
ming data were obtained (Table 10).
As a part of the design of open space, the
designer examined the design process with a
similar construct (initial, investigation, creating
idea and completion stages) to the design process
of Alangoya (2015) evaluating the tradition of
thought and design stages. Likewise, researchers
performing Universal Design Evaluation explained
the programming stage data production process by
making the performance evaluation within these
processes (programming-design-construction-oc-
cupancy and post-occupancy evaluation) (Preiser

ª 2017 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International

 Özkan et al

Figure 12: Behaviorally react to space.

ª 2017 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International

 Design and construction process in campus open spaces

Table 8: Frequency distributions of satisfaction values by Kanuni Area

Satisfaction N f Per cent

Satisfaction 80 62 77.5
Dissatisfaction 80 18 22.5

Table 9: Relationship between user satisfaction and space performance in open spaces

Functional performance criteria v2 df p \ 0.01

In this area, I have easy access to one activity from another activity 37,716 16 0.000
I have easy access to events throughout the campus from activities in this area 32,386 16 0.000
The number of activity spaces in this area is sufficient 60,836 16 0.000
While coming to this area, I can easily find the entrance 36,514 16 0.000
The number of equipment in this area is sufficient 34,117 16 0.000
Equipment in this area are comfortable and practical 35,612 16 0.000
Flooring elements and grreen areas in this area are comfortable and convenient for activities. 54,902 16 0.000
The presence of other people using this space allows me to be safe 51,253 16 0.000
I comfortably use this area in the evenings 45,883 16 0.000

Table 10: Design and construction process and re-programming

et al, 1988; Preiser and Schramm, 1997; Preiser,
2001). This study differs from other studies in
terms of evaluating these stages within an open
space project implemented.
Post-occupancy evaluation studies point out
the importance of the positive relationship
between spaces with high-performance values
and user satisfaction (Preiser et al, 1988; Preiser
and Nasar, 2008). The performance criteria deter-
mined based on the user satisfaction and user
needs and requirements in campus open spaces
were evaluated in this study. In this way, the
effects of space performance on space occupancy
level and user satisfaction were investigated.
Although previous studies in this direction were
usually carried out in enclosed space functions,
this study was carried out within the scope of the
open space. This also constitutes the distinctive
aspect of this study. The positive relationship
between user satisfaction and space performance
obtained in this study supports the results of
previous post-occupancy evaluation studies
(Preiser and Nasar, 2008; Özkan et al, 2015; Alpak
et al, 2015).
The data of this study have revealed that the
performance criterion for a variety of activities
with high-performance value was the most effec-
tive criteria for determining the satisfaction. This
result supports the accuracy of constructing the
multi-purpose activity space allowing for different
activities in line with the activity list determined in
the programming stage of the study. Students
carry out various activities such as sitting on the
lawn, meeting with friends, people watching,

ª 2017 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International

 Özkan et al
environment watching, doing exercise, dance,
studying, etc. within the scope of the possibilities
provided by this large green space. The factors
with a low-performance value that more nega-
tively affect satisfaction compared to other factors
are the performance criteria for accessibility and
the comfort of the equipment. These problems
determined will form the basis for new studies to
be carried out.
When the effect of performance on satisfaction
level is considered, the findings of this study
support the findings of the studies carried out by
Canter and Rees (1982), Marcus and Francis
(1998), Preiser and Nasar (2008).
Carr et al (1992) emphasized that the determi-
nation of user requirements is important for the
success of the space in spaces they examined as
a part of urban open spaces. Juran (1992) argued
that the fact that space meets user needs is one
of the primary targets. Christopher Alexander,
who carried out the first studies in post-occu-
pancy evaluation studies, emphasized the neces-
sity of evaluating user requirements addressed
by the design within the design process. The
findings obtained in this study support all these
studies. In brief, the results obtained from this
study have revealed that spaces that meet user
needs and requirements in the Karadeniz Tech-
nical University campus open space increased
the space performance and ensured the user
satisfaction.
In brief, programming-design-construction-oc-
cupancy and post-occupancy processes were
examined through the project in this study. As it
was stated in the literature section of this study,
the data obtained from the occupancy process of
this study will create data to the design process for
the changes to be made in the future.
Recommendation
Evaluating production process and evaluation
process together has a significant effect on creating
living spaces with high occupancy density.
Designers, who retrospectively address these pro-
cesses and complete the spatial formation process,
create more successful open spaces that meet user
needs. Studies explaining these processes are
available in the literature. However, this study
that explains these processes step by step through
the open space designed differs from other studies.
Therefore, the results of this study will be useful
ª 2017 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317
for designers who want to create commonly used
spaces that meet the needs of people and are
satisfied with the environment. Moreover, this
study which was carried out in the campus open
spaces can also be carried out in different types of
urban open spaces by developing it. In addition to
this study, re-design studies can also be carried
out by reevaluating the evaluation data obtained
by using post-occupancy evaluation at the pro-
gramming stage.
References
Abdulkarim, D. and Nasar, J.L. (2014) Do seats, foof vendors
and sculptures impreve plaza visitability? Environment and
Behavior 46(7): 805–825.
Abu-Ghazzeh, T.M. (1999) Communicating behavioral research
to campus desıgn factors affecting the perception and use of
outdoor spaces at The University of Jordan. Environment and
Behavior 31(6): 764–804.
Alangoya, K.A. (2015) Benefiting from the adventureous nature
of design thinking in urban design education an urban
design studio as a case study: ‘‘On trail of Taksim Square’’,
METU JFA 32(1): 65–89.
Alpak, E.M., Özkan, D.G. and Özbilen, A. (2015) Determination
of the relationship between performance and user preference
on campus open spaces through post occupancy evaluation.
In: A.E. Popa, H. Arslan, M.A. İcbay and T. Butvilas (eds.)
Contextual Approaches in Sociology. Frankfurt am Main: Peter
Lang Publishing, Inc., p. 85.
Aksoy, E. (1975) Mimarlıkta Tasarım İletim ve Denetim- Mimari
Tasarım Teorileri. İstanbul: K.T.Ü Yayınları.
Best, G. (1969) Method and intention in architectural design. In:
G. Broadbent and A. Ward (eds.) Design Methods in Archi-
tecture. Lund: Humphries.
Bonaiuto, M., Fornara, F. and Bonnes, M. (2006) Perceived
residential environment quality in middle- and low-exten-
sion Italian cities. European Review of Applied Psychology 56:
23–34.
Bredow, K.W. (2006) Gathering Spaces: Designing places for
adolescents. Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University, Master of Landscape Architecture.
Canter, D. and Rees, K. (1982) A Multivariate model of housing
satisfaction. International Review of Applied Psychology 31(2):
185–207.
Carr, S., Francis, M., Rivlin, L.G. and Stone, A.H. (1992) Public
Space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chapman, M.P. (2006) American Places: In Search of the Twenty-
First Century Campus. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Driskell, D. (2002) Creating Better Cities with Children and Youth.
Paris: UNESCO, p. 208.
Duerk, D.P. (1993) Architectural Programming: Information Man-
agement for Design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Düzenli, T., Mumcu, S., Yılmaz, S. and 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.
Düzenli, T., Mumcu, S. and Özdemir Işık, B. (2016) Campus
open spaces design depending on youths’ needs. İnönü
University Journal of Art and Design 6(13): 121–130.
URBAN DESIGN International

Elabd, A.A. (2013) Physical and Social Factors in Neighborhood
Place Attachment: Implications for Design. Raleigh, NC: North
Carolina State University.
Esherick, J. (1963) Problems of the design of a design system. In:
J.C. Jones and D.G. Thornley (eds.): Conferance on Design
Methods. London: Pergamon Press.
Farida, N. (2013) Effects of outhdoor shared spaces on social
interaction in a housing estate in Algeria. Frontiers of
Architectural Research 2(4): 457–467.
Francis, M. (2003) Urban Open Space: Designing for User Needs.
Land and Community Design Case Study Series. Washing-
ton, D.C: Island Pres.
Gehl, J. (1987) Life Between Buildings: Using Public Spaces.
Washington, DC: Island Press.
Gür, Ş.Ö. (1996) Mekan Örgütlenmesi.Trabzon: Gür Yayıncılık.
Hidalgo, M.C. and Hernández, B. (2001) Place attachment:
Conceptual and empirical questions. Journal of Environmental
Psychology 21: 273–281.
İnceoğlu, N. (1982) Mimarlıkta Bina Programlama Olgusu. İstanbul:
İstanbul Technical University Department of Architecture.
İzgi, U. (1999) Mimarlıkta Süreç: Kavramlar—İlişkiler. İstanbul:
Yapı Endüstri Merkezi Yayınları.
Juran, J. M. (1992) Departmental quality planning. National
Productivity Review 11(3): 287–300.
Lang, J. (1987) Designing for human behavior. In: J. Lang (ed.)
Architecture and the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Dowden,
Hut chinson & Ross Inc.
Lawson, B. (1980) How Designers Think. London: Architectural
Press.
Lynch, K. and Hack, G. (1986) Site Planning. Cambridge Mass:
The MIT Press.
Marans, R. and Cooper, L. (2000) Measuring the quality of
community life: A program for longitudinal and comparative
international research. Paper Presented to the Second Interna-
tional Conference on Quality of Life in Cities, Singapore.
Marcus, C.C. and Francis, C. (1998) People Places: Design
Guidelines for Urban Open Space. Toronto: Wiley.
Maslow, A. (1987) Motivation and Personality. 3rd edn. rev. by R.
Frager, J. Fadiman, C. Mcreynolds and R. Cox. New York:
Harper & Row.
Mehta, V. (2007) Lively streets: Determining environment
characteristics to support social behavior. Journal of Planning
Education and Research 27(2): 165–187.
ª 2017 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317
View publication stats
Design and construction process in campus open spaces
Mehta, V. (2009) Look closely and you will see, listen carefully
and you will hear: Urban design and social interaction on
streets. Journal of Urban Design 14(1): 29–64.
Özkan, D.G., Alpak, E.M, Yılmaz, S., Düzenli and Ozbilen, A.
(2015) Post Occupancy Evaluation and User Satisfaction in
Urban Open Space. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin 24:
1659–1672.
PPS. (2002) What makes a successful place. Project for Public
Places.
Preiser, W.F.E. (1991) Design intervention and the challenge of
change. In: W.F.E. Preiser, J.C. Vischer and E.T. White (eds.)
Design Intervention: Toward a More Humane Architecture. New
York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Preiser, W.F.E. (2001) The evolution of post-occupancy evalu-
ation: Toward building performance and universal design
evaluation. In: Learning from our Buildings: A State-of-the-
Practice Summary of Post-Occupancy Evaluation (Federal
Facilities Council). Washington, DC: National Academies
Press.
Preiser, W.F.E. and Nasar, J.L. (2008) Assessing building
performance: Its evolution from post occupancy evaluation.
International Journal of Architectural Research 2(1): 84–89.
Preiser, W.F.E. and Schramm, U. (1997) Building performance
evaluation. In: J. De Chiara, M. Zelnik and J. Panero (eds.)
Time Saver Standards. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Preiser, W.F.E, Robinowitz, H.Z. and White, E.T. (1988) Post
Occupancy Evaluation. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Simonds, J.O. (1997) Landscape Architecture—A Manual of Site
Planning and Design. New York: Mc Graw-Hill.
Whyte, W. (1980) The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces.
Washington, DC: The Conservation Foundation.
Whyte, W. (1998) City: Rediscovering the Center. New York:
Doubleday.
Yaylalı-Yıldız, B., Yamu, C. and Çil, E. (2013). Exploring the
effects of spatial and social segregation in university cam-
puses, IZTECH as a case study. Urban Design International
19(2): 125–143.
Yılmaz, S. (2015) Bir kampüs açık mekanının peyzaj tasarımı:
Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Binası.
Kastamonu Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Dergisi 15: 297–307.
URBAN DESIGN International