Demir E., Kepez O., Rifki F.A.

Evaluating (Dis)Continuity in Pedestrian Environments: Case of

North Carolina State University Centennial Campus

Outline of the presentation

• Theoretical background• Conceptual framework• Case selection(s)• Methodology• Data collection

– Survey– Visual mapping

• Findings and comparison• Conclusions

• Fried’s (2000) continuity and discontinuity concepts– “continuous place” as environment where successful convergence of “space

as a physical construct” and “space as a social network” is observed. Conversely, unsuccessful convergence of these implies the “discontinuous place” concept.

• Rather than a phenomenological perspective, this study utilizes a post-positivist perspective.

• Underlying assumptions:– Space is both a physical and social construct– There are multiple realities

Theoretical background

Physical (dis)continuityFunctional (dis)continuityPerceived (dis)continuity

Spatial configurations:

Physical spatial layout Socio-functional layout

Distance Barrier

Continuity

Discontinuity

Physical spatial attributes

Socio-cultural spatial attributes

Conceptual Framework

space (dis)continuity

intensity of usespread of use

perceptions of continuity

Case selectionsNCSU Main CampusNCSU Centennial Campus

-Pedestrian oriented design of all NCSU campuses:

• campus of neighborhoods

• campus of paths

-Different spatial layouts

-Comparable sizes of cases

Case selectionsNCSU Main CampusNCSU Centennial Campus

• Methodology:– Correlational research (& comparative case study research)

• Data Collection– Objective data:

• spatial configuration– Physical functional layout– Distance and barrier analyses

– Subjective data• survey tool

– Questionnaire (users’ perceptions and evaluations)– Visual mapping (use of space)

• Data Analyses– Statistical analyses and spatial analysis

Research design

Pref

eren

ce fo

r driv

ing

to w

alki

ng in

sho

rt di

stan

ces

Pref

eren

ce to

wal

k on

cam

pus

Pref

eren

ce to

spe

nd ti

me

outd

oors

Way

findi

ng e

ase

Vehi

cula

r tra

ffic

perc

eptio

n

Ove

rall

safe

ty p

erce

ptio

n

Soci

al in

tera

ctio

n pe

rcep

tion

Pede

stria

n fa

cilit

ies

satis

fact

ion

Park

s an

d op

en s

pace

s sa

tisfa

ctio

n

Publ

ic s

ocia

l pla

ces

stat

isfa

ctio

n

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

up lim - main mean -main low lim -main up lim -centennial mean -centennial low lim -centennial

Survey tool -questionnaire

Overall mean value and corresponding confidence intervals for survey response items for both cases.

Overall and item/profile based analyses were made for both cases. Critical items were analyzed more in depth.

Male versus female respondents in both campuses

Survey tool –visual mapping

malefemale

Survey tool –visual mapping

Student versus faculty/staff respondents in both campuses

students faculty/staff

Survey tool –visual mapping

Locational analyses: mixed use building versus single use building

single use (research, office, academic) mixed use (academic plus social functions)

Survey tool –visual mapping

Overall analysis

Centennial Campus- overall intensity of use Main campus-overall intensity of use

• understanding of continuity with its variance with respect to different user groups: continuity in this sense is not only physical or social, but also varies for different user groups

– Differences between different occupation groups– Differences between different gender groups

• location of some campus buildings and the spatial layout were important factors in the spread of continuity: distance did not have a separate effect in the spread, but barrier and distance had a combined effect.

spatial layout: Different neighborhoods configurations had different levels of use:– Courtyards those were defined by the surrounding buildings seemed to have higher intensity of use compared

to others. – Streets with vehicular traffic surrounding the building neighborhoods had a barrier effect hindering the spread

of use outside these areas.

location: Within the barrier-free zones, users, in order to reach different functions their neighborhoods did not offer, tended not to consider distance as a problem.

conclusions