Investigating patterns of activities within Lancaster University campus: An exploratory study

1. Investigating patterns of activities within Lancaster University campus:An exploratory study Alan Dix, Corina Sas and MRes students

2. Overview • Rationale • Methodology • Counting people • Questionnaire • Preliminary results • Conclusions

3. Rationale • AISD coursework • research methods for gathering data about human behaviour • preliminary work to be further extended into the CDP • Input for the eCampus project • spatial perception and behaviour, e.g. movement patterns • social interaction

4. Methodology • Quantitative data • people’s presence in the campus outdoor spaces • Qualitative data • people’s understanding, experience and emotional response to the campus

5. Back of Great Hall Front of Great Hall University House Underpass Bowland Venue Environmental Science Fylde Spine Drysdale Graduate College Counting people • Simultaneously counting # individuals crossing in any of the 10 locations, in each direction in the lane: • 2 min in one direction; followed by 2 min in the opposite direction. • Measuring the velocity with which the crowd moves (dist. covered in time unit). • Time: 7 hourly time intervals: 10am, 11am, 12am, 1pm, 2pm, 3pm, 4pm; • Date: on Wednesday 24/11/2004. • Weather: • morning: overcast and spitting • afternoon: cloudy and drizzle

6. Questionnaire • Theme: people’s perception of the campus and how they make use of it. • Dimensions: • Outdoor activities: moving, searching for navigation support, socialising • Togetherness: alone, dyad, small groups, large groups • Satisfaction with campus spatial layout: visibility, length/width of paths, distinctiveness of architectural elements, easiness to orient and maintain orientation, possibilities of recovering in the case of disorientation, feelings of enclosure, openness, security, belonging, connectedness

7. Questionnaire • Santa Barbara Spatial Orientation Scale • Kasmar’s Adjective checklist of environmental descriptors • Factual data: • Gender • Age • Nationality • Familiarity with the campus

8. Sample Non-random opportunity sample, 43 participants: • 60% males, 40% females • 55% younger than 25 years of age • 51% British • 65% participants live in campus and 58% for less than an year • 91% students

9. Results Time: between 10-11 am

10. Results Time: between 11-12 am

11. Results Time: between 12-13

12. Results Time: between 1-2 pm

13. Results Time: between 2-3 pm

14. Results Time: between 3-4 pm

15. Results Time: between 4-5 pm

16. Results • Time and location impact significantly on the flow rate/min • One peak between 1-2 pm • almost 12 people passing per minute

17. Back of Great Hall Front of Great Hall University House Underpass Bowland Venue Environmental Science Fylde Spine Drysdale Graduate College Results The most visited locations: • Bowland North Spine • Flow rate mean = 17.79 • Fylde Spine • Flow rate mean = 16.94 • Venue • Flow rate mean = 14.25 The least visited locations: • University House • Flow rate Mean = 1.59 • Back of Great Hall • Flow Rate Mean =2.60 • Underpass • Flow rate Mean = 3.20

18. Results Interaction effect • The highest flow rate across all the locations and hours is • between 1-2 pm on North Spine Bowland (almost 40 people per min.), and at Venue (almost 30 people per min.). • between 11-12 am on North Spine Bowland (almost 25 people per min.). • This indicates the highest flow rate at lunch time and morning break

19. often seldom very seldom seldom very seldom often often very seldom often often seldom seldom seldom Results

20. Results • Moderate-low level of satisfaction with campus spatial layout • Sense of direction and familiarity with the campus impact on this level of satisfaction • Subjects with good sense of direction are significantly more satisfied the distinctiveness of the architectural elements others than buildings, easiness to spatially orient and maintain orientation than those with average or low sense of direction. • Subjects more familiar with the campus are significantly more satisfied with the feeling of campus openness, feeling of security, of belonging, distinctiveness of buildings, easiness to maintain orientation and possibility of recovering in the case of disorientation than those who joined the campus less then an year ago.

21. Results Factor analysis for the adjective checklist

22. Results Factor I Campus aesthetic • colour, beauty, fashion, style • Mean = 4.27 • Cronbach alpha = 0.95

23. Results Factor II Campus claustrophobia • free space, light • Mean = 3.85 • Cronbach alpha = 0.92

24. Results Factor III Campus overall structure • well planned • Mean = 3.2 • Cronbach alpha = 0.90

25. Results Factor IV Campus organisation • well organised • Mean = 3.3 • Cronbach alpha = 0.86

26. Results Factor V Campus social dimension • Crowded, empty, quite • Mean = 3.91 • Cronbach alpha = 0.82

27. Study limitations • Non random opportunity sample of relative limited size • Exploration and hypotheses formulation rather than generalisation

28. Conclusions • South-Centre part of the campus is the most visited one, recording a very high flow rate per min. of people passing by at midday. • Possible applications: • display of information that can be seen by a large number of people, without asking them to stop. • Advantage - high audience • Disadvantage - less personalised information and limited potential of interaction

29. Conclusions • North side of the campus is the least visited one. • Possible applications: • making this part of campus more animated by organising art performance • Advantage - using the (less used) public space for facilitating social interaction • Disadvantage – risk of reduced audience if it fails to attract people

30. Conclusions • Activities frequencies • The most often activity performed in the campus (apart from walking) is chatting. • People preferred way to walk is alone or within small groups (2-3). • Sense of direction and familiarity with the campus impact on level of satisfaction with campus spatial layout • People with below average sense of direction and visitors may benefit from navigational support

31. Conclusions • Perception of campus • Rather unattractive, dull, lacking colour and style • Rather closed, lacking space and light • Average overall structure, organisation • Average animation • Suggestions - any forms of art performance or entertainment that can engage and facilitate interaction