How to Cite

Adedeji, J., Fadamiro, J., & Odeyale, T. (2018). Evidence-Based Design of University Zoological Gardens: A Perception Study in South-west Nigeria. Journal of Contemporary Urban Affairs, 2(2), 46-59. https://doi.org/10.25034/ijcua.2018.3670

Journal Of Contemporary Urban Affairs

2018, Volume 2, Number 2, pages 46–59

Evidence-Based Design of University Zoological Gardens: A Perception Study in

South-west Nigeria

*Dr. JOSEPH ADENIRAN ADEDEJI¹. Dr. JOSEPH AKINLABI FADAMIRO ², Dr.TIMOTHY OLUSEYI ODEYALE ³

^1,2,3Department of Architecture, School of Environmental Technology, the Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria

¹E MAIL: jaadedeji@futa.edu.ng , ²E mail: jafadamiro@futa.edu.ng , ³E mail: toodeyale@futa.edu.ng

*Corresponding Author:

Department of Architecture, School of Environmental Technology, The Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria

E-mail address: jaadedeji@futa.edu.ng

A R T I C L E I N F O:

Article history:

Received 6October 2017

Accepted 15October 2017

Available online 16October 2017

Keywords:

Evidence-Based Design;

Satisfaction Factors;

Perception;

Zoological Gardens.

A B S T R A C T

Evidence-based design (EBD) has become an acceptable paradigm in environment-behaviourendeavours in recent years with documented benefits especially in healthcare facilities. However, little is known of its application to University Campus Open Spaces (UCOS) like University Zoological Gardens (UZGs) which accounts for the repetition of design mistakes. This study aims to assess the UZGs as a major component of UCOS in South-west Nigeria with a view to formulating EBD frameworks. It adopts a comparative post-occupancy evaluation (POE) approach through a Stratified Random Sampling protocol of users (n=3,016) of the gardens in Federal Universities in South-west Nigeria. Results of the quantitative data analyses suggest that while walk-ability is a primary satisfaction factor among thirty design considerations in the formulated model, legibility is the most primary cognitive factor for designing perceptible high quality UZGs. The study argues in favour of the developed framework as design tool-kit and recommends its application as a feed-back input into the design process of UZGs.

JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS (2018) 2(2), 46-59.

https://doi.org/10.25034/ijcua.2018.3670

www.ijcua.com

1. Introduction

The university campus is the total physical environment, including all buildings, open spaces and landscape elements (Aydin and Ter, 2008). It is this combination of buildings and landscaped open spaces between buildings that functions as an organized whole with a distinctive identity (Gehl, 1987). Rapoport (2004) states that these environments are structured and composed of fixed (infrastructure and buildings), half-fixed (open spaces and their components) and non-fixed (users, user actions and vehicles) elements. Half-fixed open spaces and components are the important determinants of the environment’s influence on user attitudes (Aydin and Ter, 2008; Lefebvre, 1991; Abu-Ghazzeh, 1999; Dober, 2000).

The design qualities of these open spaces are related to their spatial, social, cognitive and affective characteristics (Adedeji, Bello and Fadamiro, 2011; Adedeji and Fadamiro, 2012). The spatial characteristics are the design considerations and include accessibility in terms of circulation systems, opportunities for spatial preferences, way-finding and location qualities (Helsper, Johnson, Johnson, Rubba and Steiner, 1990; Arenibafo, 2016; Heitor, Nascimento, Tomé and Medeiros, 2013; Payne, 2007; Muñoz, 2009; Ambler, Webb, Hummell, Robertson, and Bailey, 2013) and disability (Asadi-Shekari, Moeinaddini and Shah, 2014). University campus open spaces (UCOS) are thus learning spaces, natural settings associated with strong public culture, the form and symbol of integrated social relationship, open air communal museums, spaces for social interactions and great public activities in their utilization (Lyndon, 2005; Mumford, 1938, 1969; McHarg, 1969; Geddes, 1906;Sahraiyanjahromi, 2017). From the utilization perspective, campus open spaces have also been described as being arenas that allow for different types of activities encompassing necessary, optional and social activities (Gehl, 1987; Woolley, 2003; Swensen and Stenbro, 2013; Nia, and Suleiman, 2017). UCOS include zoological and botanical gardens, recreation parks, pedestrian linear corridors, sports pitch, playgrounds, courtyards, parking, waterfronts, squares and plazas.

A zoological garden is a park containing plant material, but primarily designed for exhibiting wild animals (Alan, 2005). UZG functions as “a cultural showcase of animals and nature” and its design is “a consequence of human interpretations of the way in which the natural world should be perceived and presented” (Couper, 2013: 235). She posits that “zoological architecture is the physical embodiment of cultural understandings of scientific knowledge” and its interpretation exists within a cultural context of place and “the stages of zoological garden as a scientific endeavour had an interwoven relationship with architecture and place” (p. 235). UZGs focus on public education and nature conservation. Wolf and Tymitz (1979:17) argue that

“education includes observation, perception, satisfying curiosity, making sense out of one’s observation or experiences, accidental learning and, of course, direct efforts to collect or offer information”

According to Gewaily (2010), the five components of visitor experience in zoological gardens are “exploration, authenticity, aesthetics, education and recreation” (p. 45). UZGs are therefore of great academic significance while their recreational benefits as an opportunity for connection between their non-human nature and human nature. Fadamiro and Adedeji (2014) discovered that recreational benefits are contingent upon experiences of users and relies on the quality of the zoological gardens which depends on design considerations and parameters.

Although research concerns on UCOS include the design, designers, design decisions, materials and construction, maintenance and management, and the users, this research focuses on the users of university Zoological gardens (UZGs) which is a major category of UCOS. The users are at the receiving end of all the processes and are thus very central. It is therefore pertinent to carry out a study on UZGs with a prism of post-occupancy evaluation (POE) focussing on the users as a feedback into the design process towards developing framework for sustainable UZGs in South-west Nigeria.

2. Statement of the Research Problem

Designers of UCOS including UZGs are not fully acquainted with the performance of the spaces during their use. This leads to repetition of design mistakes and the university community using the spaces in ways that were only partially predicted (Watson and Thomson, 2005; Venkat, 2011; Cubukcu&Isitan, 2011). As a result, the satisfaction of the users that can enable the formulation of EBD framework as a feed-back process is grossly missing.

2.1 Research Questions, Objectives and Hypotheses

Enhancing the performance of UZGs is contingent on users’ satisfaction. This study’s concern about users’ satisfaction is guided by the following questions:

iWhat is the perception of quality and factors that underpin the users’ satisfaction with the UZGs?

ii. What aspects of user satisfaction can inform design frameworks for UZGs?

Accordingly, the study seeks to:

i.Examine the perception of quality and factors influencing users’ satisfaction with the

UZGs; and

ii.Develop design policy framework for UZGs.

To guide the study, the following hypotheses were formulated:

H_O1There is no significant difference in the perceptions of qualities of the UZGs among the Federal Universities in the study area.

H_O2Perception of quality is not contingent upon satisfaction of the users with the UZGs in the study area.

3. Research Methodology

The study area was the South-west region of Nigeria where the university campuses under study are located. The region comprises of the six states that make up the South-west Geopolitical zone of Nigeria (Figure 1).

Assessment of Zoological gardens of was carried out in the study. The study involved a survey research design with the use of questionnaires to evaluate the users’ satisfaction with the Zoological gardens of the six Federal Universities in the study area. These include: University of Ibadan, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife; University of Lagos; Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta; The Federal University of Technology, Akure and Federal University, Oye-Ekiti.

Table 1. Status of users of the UZGs in South-west Nigeria.

Status Variable	Categories	Frequency		Percentage
Gender	Male	1095		62.3
	Female	664		37.7
	Total	1759		100
Age	Below 18yrs	121		6.9
	18 - 45yrs	1610		91.5
	46 - 65yrs	18		1.0
	Above 65yrs	10		0.6
	Total	1759		100
Educational status	Primary	5		0.3
	Secondary	7		0.4
	Undergraduate	1539		87.5
	B.Sc/HND/NCE	112		6.4
	PGD/M.Sc/Ph.	96		5.5
	Total	1759		100
Discipline	Basic/Applied Sciences	721		41.0
	Engineering and Technology	381		21.7
	Social Sciences and Humanities Arts and Commercial	288 169		16.4 9.6
	Environmental Sciences	198		11.3
	Total	1759		100
Class level (Student)	100L	333		19.0
	200L	432		24.6
	300L	434		24.7
	400L	250		14.2
	500L	175		10.0
	Postgraduate	133		7.6
	Total	1759		100
Physical challenge	None	1755		99.8
	Blindness	3		0.2
	Walking stick assisted	1		0.1
	Crutches assisted	-		-
	Wheel chair assisted	-		-
	Total	1759		100
Car ownership	No	1667	94.8
	Yes	90	5.1
	Total	1759	100

Table 2. Perception of qualities of UZGs of Federal Universities in South-west Nigeria.

Perception of quality	Freq.	(%)
Poor	285	16.2
Scanty	186	10.6
Averagely set	433	24.6
Well set	433	24.6
Excellent	333	18.9
Total	1670	94.4

4.2Testing of Hypothesis

H_O1: There is no significant difference in the perceptions of qualities of the UZGs among the Federal Universities in the study area.

A Kruskal-Wallis H test was conducted to determine if the perceptions of qualities of the Zoological gardens is significantly different among the six Federal Universities and the results are as shown in Table 3. A Kruskal-Wallis H test showed that there was a statistically significant difference in the perceptions of qualities of the UZGs among the six Federal Universities. The results as shown in Figure 2 and explained with chart in Figure 3 indicate that Chi square, χ²(df, 5) = 531.927, p = 0.000, with a mean rank perception of quality score of 1207.46 for UI (Plate 1), 1022.45 for FUNAAB (Plate 2), 843.63 for OAU, 733.44 for FUTA (Plate 3), 604.23 for UNILAG (Plate 4) and 303.97 for FUOYE in descending order with UI having the best and FUOYE having the least. This implies the rejection of the Null Hypothesis H_O1 and implying that there is significant difference in the perceptions of qualities of the Zoological gardens among the Federal Universities in the study area.

To identify the pattern of the statistically significant differences in the perceptions of qualities of the Zoological gardens among the six Federal Universities, a Kruskal-Wallis post-hoc test was carried out. A Pairwise customised analysis result shows that all the Zoological gardens are perceived to be of different qualities except for OAU-FUTA (p= .070) as shown in Figures 3.

$D:\My Journal\papers\Vol 2 issue 2\14 Abedeje\Plate 1.JPG$

Plate 1. Entrance gate of University of Ibadan Zoological Garden, Ibadan, Nigeria

Source: Picture by authors, 2017

$D:\My Journal\papers\Vol 2 issue 2\14 Abedeje\Plate 2.jpg$

Plate 2. A pen in Federal University of Agriculture Abeokuta Zoological Garden, Nigeria

$D:\My Journal\papers\Vol 2 issue 2\14 Abedeje\Plate 3 -futa.jpg$

Plate 3. A pen in Federal University of Technology Akure Zoological Garden, Nigeria

$D:\My Journal\papers\Vol 2 issue 2\14 Abedeje\Plate 4.jpg$

Plate 4. A pen in University of Lagos Zoological Garden, Lagos, Nigeria

Source: Picture by authors, 2017

Table 3.Kruskal Wallis H Test of significant difference in the perceptions of qualities of theUniversity Zoological gardens in South-west Nigeria.

Null Hypothesis	Chi square	Df	Asymp. Sig.	Decision	University	Mean Rank Perception of Quality Score
There is no significant					FUTA	733.44
difference in the perceptions					OAU	843.63
of qualities of Zoological					UI	1207.46
gardens among the Federal	531.927	5	0.000	Reject the null	FUOYE	303.97
Universities in the study				Hypothesis	FUNNAB	1022.45
area.					UNILAG	604.23

temp2153203508129807367

Figure 2. Result of a Pairwise customisedKruskal-Wallis post-hoc test for the perception of Quality of Zoological gardens in the study area.

Figure 3. Differences in the perceptions of qualities of Zoological gardens among the six Federal Universities’ campuses in South-west Nigeria.

3.4 Factors Influencing Users’ Satisfaction

3.4.1 Use Factors

Cramer’s V test was carried out to examine the ‘use factors’ influencing the satisfaction of users with the UZGs. The use factors are extrinsic to the UZGs since they have to do with the users themselves on how they use the gardens. The four use factors are common period of use, common purpose of use, mode of pedestrian use and hindrances to use. Table 6 shows that common period of use and mode of pedestrian use do not have significance on the perception of quality of the UZG (Cramer’s V=0.087, p=0.005). Figure 4 shows that those who use the Zoological gardens for academic purposes had higher perceptions of their qualities than other users.

Figure 4. Influence of common purpose of use on the perception of quality of zoological gardens in federal universities in the South-west Nigeria.

Figure 5 shows that the perception of quality of Zoological gardens is influenced by the purpose of use. Those that use them for group academic, being alone and personal academic purpose perceive the gardens to be of higher quality than utilitarian and passive recreation.

Figure 5. Influence of common purpose of use on the perception of quality of Zoological gardens in Federal Universities in South-west Nigeria.

Furthermore, hindrances to use significantly influenced the perceptions of qualities of the UZGs at 0.01 (99%) confidence level as shown in Table 6. Figure 6 shows that inclement weather and lack of visual privacy accounts for perception of qualities.

Figure 6. Influence of hindrances to use on the perception of quality of Zoological gardens in Federal Universities in the South-west Nigeria.

Table 6. Use factors influencing satisfaction of users with the university. Zoological gardens in the study area.

Use factors	Cramer’s V	p-value
Common period of visit	0.058	0.421
Common purpose of visit	0.070	0.192
Mode of pedestrian use	0.058	0.181
Hindrances to use during visit	0.093	0.000

3.4.2 Cognitive Factors

Cognitive satisfaction factors are intrinsic to the UZGs since they have to do with the spaces. The other intrinsic factors are social, spatial and affective factors. A Spearman’s rank-order correlation was run to determine the relationship between 1759 users’ satisfaction with four cognitive factors (coherence, legibility, complexity and mystery) and perceptions of qualities of the UZGs, both measured in ordinal scales. There were strong, positive correlations between satisfaction with the cognitive factors and perceptions of qualities of the UZGs which was statistically significant as follow: coherence: r_s = .355, p = .000; complexity: r_s = .349, p = .000; mystery: r_s = .315, p = .000; and legibility: r_s = .314, p = .000, in descending order, as shown in Table 7 and Figure 7.

Figure 7. Influence of satisfaction with coherence on the perception of quality of Zoological gardens in Federal Universities in the South-west Nigeria

3.4.3 Social Factors

As shown in Table 7, in view of the high sample size, there were strong, positive correlations between satisfaction with the social factors and perceptions of qualities of the Zoological gardens which was statistically significant at 0.01 (99%) confidence level. Safety (r_s = .330, p = .000) has the highest correlation coefficient followed by social interaction spaces (r_s = .312, p = .000), security (r_s = .277, p = .000), conviviality and audio privacy (r_s = .273, p = .000), visual privacy (r_s = .268, p = .000), and open space for personal meditation (r_s = .252, p = .000) in descending order.

3.4.4 Spatial Factors

Six spatial satisfaction factors were investigated through Spearman’s correlation as determinants of the perception of quality of the UZGs as shown in Table 7. Convenience (r_s = .314, p = .000) has the highest correlation coefficient and continuity (r_s = .265, p = .000) the least. Invariably, zoological gardens should be designed for convenience to enhance the movement of users from one section to another. However, they are not expected to be at continuity with other UCOS at the main activity areas but should be secluded since the proximity correlation coefficient is also low (r_s = .266, p = .000) compared with others. On the whole, the higher the satisfaction with the spatial factors, the higher the perception of quality of the UZGs.

3.4.5 Affective Factors

Table 7 shows the correlation coefficients between perceptions of qualities and affective satisfaction factors of UZGs. The results suggest that fascinating-ability (r_s = .346, p = .000) is the most important affective factor, followed by pleasantness (r_s = .323, p = .000) while recuperative-ability (r_s = .252, p = .000) is the least. This pattern suggests that satisfaction of users with the UZGs is premised upon specific affective factors which should be built into their designs.

Table 7. Factors influencing users’ satisfaction with the University Zoological gardens in the study area.

	Factors	Spearman Correlation	p – value
Cognitive factors	Coherence	0.355	0.000
	Legibility	0.314	0.000
	Complexity	0.349	0.000
	Mystery	0.315	0.000
Social factors	Conviviality	0.273	0.000
	Social interaction spaces	0.312	0.000
	Visual privacy	0.268	0.000
	Audio privacy	0.273	0.000
	Open space for being alone	0.252	0.000
	Safety	0.330	0.000
	Security from crime/fear of crime	0.277	0.000
Spatial factors	Accessibility	0.285	0.000
	Proximity	0.266	0.000
	Walk-ability	0.261	0.000
	Connectedness	0.294	0.000
	Continuity	0.265	0.000
	Convenience	0.314	0.000
Affective factors	Relaxing-ability	0.297	0.000
	Fascinating-ability	0.346	0.000
	Enjoy-ableness	0.310	0.000
	Restfulness	0.265	0.000
	Inviting-ability	0.292	0.000
	Inspiring-ability	0.293	0.000
	Beautifulness	0.321	0.000
	Exciting-ability	0.313	0.000
	Recuperative-ability	0.252	0.000
	Therapeutic-ability	0.229	0.000
	Restorative-ability	0.261	0.000
	Pleasantness	0.323	0.000
	Comfortableness	0.283	0.000

3.5 Testing of Hypothesis Ho2:Influence of Satisfaction Factors on Perceptions of Quality

Ordinal regression analysis was carried out to estimate the 30 intrinsic satisfaction factors (cognitive, social, spatial and affective factors) influencing the perception of quality of the UZGs. Accordingly, model fitting information and Pseudo R-Square were generated as shown in Table 8. The dependent variable which measures the perception of quality is the UZGs. UZGs is equal 1 if the respondent perceives the garden as poor, 2 as scanty, 3 as averagely set, 4 as well set and 5 as excellent. Since dependent/outcome variable is ordinal, and the satisfaction factors, SF (independent/predictors) are measured as ordinal variables (SF is equal 1 if the respondent is very unsatisfied with the performance of the open space based on the SF under consideration, 2 for unsatisfactory, 3 for fairly satisfactory, 4 for satisfactory and 5 for very satisfactory) the ordinal regression model is used to estimate the factors which influence satisfaction of the users. Only the 30 satisfaction factors that are intrinsic to the UZGs were included in the model. Use factors were excluded since they are extrinsic to the UZGs.

The results in the Model indicate that as the ratings of the satisfaction factors increase, the perception of quality increases and the model is significant at the .01 level (99% confidence level). This is for Cox and Snell (theoretical maximum value of less than 1), Nagelkerke (adjusted version of the Cox and Snell R²to cover the full range from 0 to 1) and McFadden’s (based on the log-likelihood kernels for the intercept-only model and the full estimated model) Pseudo R², since it is not possible to compute a single R² statistic that has all of the characteristics in the linear regression model for regression models based on ordinal data (Tjur, 2009). According to Cox and Snell Pseudo R², Table 8 shows that the model predicts that the satisfaction factors, SF [Chi-square=3866.018, df=245, p=0.000, 2 Log Likelihood final=102.613] accounts for 95.0% of the variance in the perception of quality of UZGs.

Table 9 shows the Parameter estimates (beta coefficients) of the intrinsic factors influencing users’ satisfaction. The estimates are based on scale models which depend on the main and interaction effects. Three intrinsic satisfaction factors are the best predictors of perception of quality as highlighted. Table 9 suggests that satisfaction with legibility (0.574) is the best predictor of perception of quality of Zoological gardens. This is followed consecutively by beautifulness (0.331) and walk-ability (0.325). Furthermore, satisfaction with social interaction space (0.434) is a better predictor of perception of quality, being the highest, than restfulness (0.423) and walk-ability (0.356) consecutively.

Table 8. Ordinal regressions of perception of quality of open spaces (dependent/outcome) and factors determining the satisfaction of the users (independent/predictors) in Federal Universities in South-west Nigeria

University Zoological gardens.	Model Fitting Information					Pseudo R-Square
University Zoological gardens.	Model	-2 Log Likelihood	Chi-Square	Df	Sig.	Cox & Snell	Nagelkerke	McFadden
Zoological gardens	Intercept Only	3968.631
	Final	102.613	3866.018	245	.000	.949	.992	.950

Table 9. Parameter estimates of the factors influencing users’ satisfaction with the Federal Universities campus open spaces in the study area.

Satisfaction factors	Components	Parameter estimates
Cognitive factors	Coherence	-0.558
	Legibility	0.574
	Complexity	-0.342
	Mystery	0.060
Social factors	Conviviality	0.165
	Social interaction spaces	0.255
	Visual privacy	0.052
	Audio privacy	-0.214
	Open space for being alone	0.158
	Safety	-0.224
	Security from crime/fear of crime	0.112
Spatial factors	Accessibility	0.156
	Proximity	-0.286
	Walk-ability	0.325
	Connectedness	-0.542
	Continuity	0.186
	Convenience	-0.137
Affective factors	Relaxing-ability	-1.442
	Fascinating-ability	-0.316
	Enjoy-ableness	0.147
	Restfulness	0.280
	Inviting-ability	0.096
	Inspiring-ability	-0.219
	Beautifulness	0.331
	Exciting-ability	0.043
	Recuperative-ability	0.093
	Therapeutic-ability	-0.262
	Restorative-ability	-0.098
	Pleasantness	0.095
	Comfortableness	0.062

4. Discussion of Findings

An assessment of the UZGs in all the six Federal Universities in South-west Nigeria towards the formulation of EBD framework was carried out in this study. According to the findings of this study, the distributions of the users’ status suggest both peculiarities and generalisations. The peculiar needs of the genders, impairment groups, disciplines and age groups are central to the successful provision of UZGs on the campuses. UZGs are discovered to be primarily used for academic activities and also for recreation and these differ from one discipline to another. This suggests that the UZGs are learning spaces and constellation arenas for psychological wellbeing in high disproportion compared with other uses.

The UI Zoological garden was perceived to be of the best quality possibly due to the Zoology programme in the university, the garden being a vital learning space. Also, the UI Zoological garden doubles as a vital recreation facility of the city’s and region’s teaming urban populations and therefore may be admirable as the minimum standard for the design of UZGs in the study area. Those who use the Zoological gardens in the study area for academic purposes had higher perceptions of quality than other users. Furthermore, satisfaction factors are important to successful UZG delivery. While safety is a primary satisfaction factor, result implies that legibility is the most primary cognitive factor for designing perceptible high quality Zoological gardens. This confirms the Kaplan and Kaplan’s (1989) information processing matrix of landscapes. The framework suggests that legibility, beautifulness, walkability and hindrances to use are ‘hot spots’ satisfaction factors of UZGs.

5. Conclusion and Recommendation

This work has established that UZGs are important to the effective functional activities on the campuses. Their design should therefore be evidence-based. Evidence-based design can only be carried out through the instrument of post-occupancy evaluation (POE) for long-term benefit to serve as a feedback into the design process. For POE to produce this desired goal and wider-relevance application, geographical spread is germane. Accordingly, the set aim of this study on the Federal Universities campuses in South-west Nigeria can be appraised to have been achieved. However, the operational quality of the formulated framework can be appraised by engaging it as design tool-kit generally for all formally designable campuses of institutions of higher learning but primarily for university campuses in the study area. Also, medium term benefit can be achieved by applying the policy framework for minor adjustments of existing UZGs for better users’ satisfaction.

Contextually, the study was limited in scope to Federal Universities. Further work can be carried out inclusively and exclusively with other proprietorships of universities within and outside the South-west Nigeria. Such can be for comparative purposes or case studies and can include considerations like maintenance and management of UZGs. In term of methodological approach, since this work is limited to quantitative research design on cross-sectional basis, qualitative and/or mixed method paradigms that can also be longitudinal can be further engaged on different spatial scales.

On the whole, the perception of quality is related to the satisfaction factors such that as the ratings of the satisfaction factors increase, the perception of quality increases. The satisfaction factors therefore account for the significant differences in the perceptions of qualities of the UZGs among the six Federal Universities in the study area. The satisfaction factors that account for the perceptions of qualities of UI Zoological should be programmed into the design of UCOS to avoid the misuse of spaces and best decisions to be taken during the design process.

Acknowledgments

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or non-for-profit sectors.

References

Abu-Ghazzeh, T.M. (1999). Communicating Behavioral Research to Campus Design: Factors Affecting the Perception and Use of Outdoor Spaces at the University of Jordan Environment and Behaviour, 31(6); 764-804. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139169921972344

Adedeji, J.A. and Fadamiro, J.A. (2012). Affective Correlates of Landscapes for Passive Recreation in Institutional Campuses, Ogbomoso, Nigeria Journal of Biourbanism.

JBU II(1) : 77-93. http://www.biourbanism.org/journal-of-biourbanism-n-12012/

Adedeji, J.A., Bello, Y. O. and Fadamiro, J.A. (2011). Thermal Adaptation, Campus Greening and Outdoor Use in LAUTECH Campus, Ogbomoso, Nigeria. Dimensi, Journal of Architecture and Built Environment, 38(2):63-72. https://doi.org/10.9744/dimensi.38.2.63-72

Alan, J. C. (2005). Dictionary of Landscape Architecture and Construction. New York: McGraw Hill. https://www.amazon.com/Dictionary-Landscape-Architecture-Construction-Christensen/dp/0071441425

Ambler, T., Webb, R., Hummell, E., Robertson, G. and Bailey, S. (2013). Exploring Students’ Experiences of Learning in Outdoor Places on a University Campus. Research and Development in Higher Education: The Place of Learning and Teaching, 36:11-25. http://www.herdsa.org.au/publications/conference-proceedings/research-and-development-higher-education-place-learning-and-1

Arenibafo, F. (2016). The Transformation of Aesthetics in Architecture from Traditional to Modern Architecture: A case study of the Yoruba (southwestern) region of Nigeria. Contemporary Urban Affairs (JCUA), 1(1), 35-44. Doi: 10.25034/1761.1(1)35-44. https://doi.org/10.25034/1761.1(1)35-44

Asadi-Shekari, Z., Moeinaddini, M. and Shah, M.Z. (2014) A pedestrian level of service method for evaluating walking facilities on campus streets. Land Use Policy, 38:175-193, May. http://www.istiee.org/te/papers/N67/P02_67_2018a.pdf

Aydin, D. and Ter, U. (2008). Outdoor Space Quality: A Case Study of a University Campus Plaza. Archnet-IJAR, International Journal of Architectural Research, 2(3), 189-203 November. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26571407_Outdoor_Space_Quality_Case_Study_of_a_University_Campus_Plaza_Regular_Paper

Couper,R. (2013). Placing the Origins of the Zoo An Architectural Analysis of the Metamorphosis of the Menagerie into the Zoological Garden” in Proceedings of the Society of Architectural Historians, Australia and New Zealand: 30, Open, edited by Alexandra Brown and Andrew Leach (Gold Coast, Qld: SAHANZ, 2013), vol. 1, p 235-246. https://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0028/349363/S04_01_Couper_Placing-the-Origins-of-the-Zoo.pdf

Cubukcu. E. and 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. http://dergipark.gov.tr/download/article-file/83147

Dober, R. P. (2000). Campus Landscape: Functions, Forms, Features. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Campus+Landscape%3A+Functions%2C+Forms%2C+Features-p-9780471353560

Fadamiro, J. A. and Adedeji, J. A. (2014). Recreational Experiences in Parks and Gardens,

Ibadan, Nigeria, Journal of Place Management and Development, 7 (1):5 – 26. https://doi.org/10.1108/jpmd-11-2013-0023

Faleyimu, O. I. and Agbeja, B. O. (2012). Constraints to Forest Policy Implementation in the Southwest Nigeria: Causes, Consequences and Cure. Journal of Resources and Environment, 2(2), 37-44. https://doi.org/10.5923/j.re.20120202.06

14Geddes, P. (1906) Civics as Applied Sociology, Sociological Papers, Vol. II: 57–111. http://www.archive.org/stream/civicsasapplieds13205gut/13205-8.txt

Gehl, J. (1987) Life between Buildings: Using public spaces, New York: Van NostrandReinhold. https://www.amazon.com/Life-Between-Buildings-Using-Public/dp/1597268275

Gewaily, M. (2010). Visitor Experience in Zoo Design: Design Guidelines for Giza Zoo. A Thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the University of Georgia in Partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Landscape Architecture, Athens, Georgia. https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/gewaily_marwa_201005_mla.pdf

Heitor, T., Nascimento, R., Tomé, A. and Medeiros, V. (2013). (In) Accessible Campus: Space Syntax for Universal Design. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Space Syntax Symposium Edited By Y O Kim, H T Park and K W Seo, Seoul: Sejong University, 2013. http://www.sss9sejong.or.kr/proceedings/proceedings_1.asp

Helsper, H., Johnson, M., Johnson, T., Rubba, D. and Steiner, F. (1990). The Auraria campus: An

Example of American landscape design. Landscape and Urban Planning, 19(1):1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-2046(90)90032-W

Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space (D. Nicholson-Smith, Trans.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. https://monoskop.org/images/7/75/Lefebvre_Henri_The_Production_of_Space.pdf

Lyndon, D. (2005). Caring for Places: Caring for Thought. Places, 17(1), 3. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/69x027m3

McHarg, I. (1969). Design with Nature. New York: Natural History Press. https://www.amazon.com/Design-Nature-Ian-L-McHarg/dp/047111460X

Mumford, L. (1938). The Culture of Cities. New York: Harcourt, Brace. https://monoskop.org/images/5/5a/Mumford_Lewis_The_Culture_of_Cities.pdf

Mumford, L. (1969). The Philosophy of Urban Open Space. In W. N. Seymour, Small Urban Spaces (pp. 13-22). New York: New York University Press. https://lib.ugent.be/en/catalog/rug01:000964963

Munoz, S.A. (2009). Children in the outdoors: A literature review. Sustainable Development Research Centre. Retrieved from http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk

25Nia, H. A. and Suleiman, Y. H. (2017). Aesthetics of Space Organization: Lessons from Traditional European Cities. Journal of Contemporary Urban Affairs (JCUA), 2(1), 66-75. https://doi.org/10.25034/ijcua.2018.3657

Payne, G (2007). Social divisions, social mobilities and social research: Methodological issues after 40 years. Sociology, 41, 901-915. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038507080444

Rapoport, A. (2004). Kültür, Mimarlık, Tasarım [Culture, Architecture, Design] . Translation SelcukBatur, YEM Press, Istanbul, Turkey. https://www.kitapyurdu.com/kitap/kultur-mimarlik-tasarim/66107.html

Swensen, G. and Stenbro, R. (2013). Industrial Heritage as Qualifying Elements in Urban Landscapes. ATINER Conference Paper Series No: PLA2013-0690. http://www.atiner.gr/paper-subjects/architecture-papers.htm

Sahraiyanjahromi, F. (2017). Aesthetic Fitness of New Buildings in Historic Environment: Compatibility and Contextual Design. Contemporary Urban Affairs (JCUA), 2(1), 13-21. https://doi.org/10.25034/ijcua.2018.3652

Venkat, U. (2011) .Building a Sense of Community on Campus through Physical Design. A Thesis Submitted To the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfilment of The Requirements for the Degree Master of Landscape Architecture. https://athenaeum.libs.uga.edu/handle/10724/27629

Watson, C. and Thomson, K. (2005). Bringing post-occupancy evaluation to schools in Scotland. Evaluating Quality in Educational Facilities. OECD. Available online at http://www.oecd.org

Wolf, R. L. AndTymitz, B. L. (1979). Do giraffes ever sit: A study of visitor perceptions at the National Zoological Park, Smithsonian Institution. Washington, DC: Smithsonian. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED196769

9780203402146

Status of users	Cramer’s V Value	Approx. Sig. (p value)
Gender	0.046	0464
Discipline	0.110	0.000
Impairment	0.049	0.447
Car ownership	0,065	0.135

Status of users	Kendal tau Value	Approx. Sig. (p value)
Age	-0.007^c	0.717
Educational status	-0.025^b	0.240
Class level	-0.001^c	0.948