Keywords: Sustainable, Campus, Physical Planning, Student’s Perception, Malaysia
Abstract. The issue of sustainability has been around for a long time. However, it has become a hot issue after the Earth Summit taking place in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro and in 2002 in Johannesburg. Conference in 1992 led to the formulation of Agenda 21, an action plan containing broad principles to help governments and other institutions in carrying out the policies and programs for sustainable development in their respective countries. The aim of this research was to examine the effectiveness of campus physical development planning in Malaysia in creating a sustainable living on campus by assessed the problems that exist. The study was conducted in four public university campuses and limited to only the campus physical planning. Selected campuses are the research universities campus. The case studies were conducted on each campus. The methodology used in this study is qualitative and quantitative techniques. Quantitative technique involves collecting data using questionnaires distributed among 100 respondents for each campus. Meanwhile, the qualitative technique involves collecting comments and opinions from the respondents obtained from questionnaires, behavioral observation and visual research. The results were then compared for each campus for an explanation of the problem. The findings revealed that all campuses had a similar problem. However, there are some differences about the extent or severity of the problems based on campus physical development plan that is different. The result showed that there are minimal problems occurs on the campus that planned more compact compare to a wide and dispersed campus. It also indicates that a compact campus tend to create a sustainable life on campus.
Introduction
Sustainability is a key issue for all organizations in the 21st century [1]. As an institution, the university also can’t avoid the issue of sustainability. Beringer et al. (2009) also recognized that sustainability is an important issue for universities around the world [2]. Thus, there are several universities that have given their commitment in creating a sustainable campus. Among the commitments undertaken by the universities toward the sustainability are through the learning process approach, the campus environment and management [3]. Out of these three approaches, the implementation of a sustainable campus environment is one of the most effective ways possible against other approaches. Alfieri et al. (2009) has stated that: “By living and learning in an environmentally conscious community, students learn to consider the impact of their everyday decisions” [4]. In addition, in 1943 Sir Winston Churchill also issued a statement that used to be the principle or belief until this day; "We shape our buildings and then they shape us” [5]. Although this statement describes the building, in fact it also means the same thing for the environment. This is because the building and the environment have the same function as place for humans to live and do activities. The statement was supported by Campos (2008) who argue that human behavior can be shaped by the environment [6]. Therefore, it is important to create a campus environment that can offer and encourage the community to lead a sustainable life. Thus, a sustainable campus should be implemented through the campus physical development plan.
The Importance of Physical Development of Sustainable Campus
Every year, the number of students who further their studies at universities is increasing. This has been certified by D'Amico and Brooks since 1968 [10]. After nearly 43 years, this is definitely increasing with population growth and industrial development and technology. Thus, the universities must have a long-term development plans for their campuses [8]. They added that there are important for planning development to meet the crucial needs of today while anticipating the impact on the future development of the campus. This fact has been proved that the awareness of sustainable development has been around for a long time, but was not given serious attention. The statement also coincided with the concept of sustainable development is highlighted by the Bruntland Report (1987) which defines sustainable development as development that meets current needs without compromising the needs of future generations [7]. The importance of sustainable campus development can be seen when many universities have committed to creating a 'green campus' lately [9]. The statement was also supported by Ryan et al. (2010) when they state that there are many higher education institutions in the Asia Pacific region, which has been promoting the implementation of 'green campus' [10]. This is because there are many benefits that can be achieved through the development of a sustainable campus [4]. Thus, many universities have made sustainability a priority in planning and designing new projects on the campus [4]. According to Norton et al. (2007), the real benefits of sustainable development can be achieved with the balance of the three aspects of economic, social and environmental [11]. However, there are still many who view the sustainable development from the aspect of environment alone [9, 11]. Therefore, the development of the campus cannot focus on one aspect and ignoring the other aspects because these aspects are mutually dependent and affect each other.
Research Methods and The Scope of the Research
The research involved case studies conducted on selected campuses. To obtain the necessary data and information, both quantitative and qualitative techniques were used. Methods and tools used in this study were questionnaires, behavioral observation and visual research. The selection of university campuses in this research is based on the status of universities as a research university.
First four research universities in Malaysia has been selected namely Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), Universiti Malaya (UM) and Universiti Putra Malaysia. This research was limited to campus physical planning only. Among the elements in the physical design of the campus examined are the layout of the campus, accessibility, circulation, building design, landscape and environment, transport and mobility, and security and lighting, due to limitation of spaces this paper will only focus on two (2) main aspects only which are circulation, and building design.
Circulation
The continuity of the network of roads and paths allow easier travel [12]. Research found that there were similarities in aspect of circulation on the research campus. Result shows that majority of respondents said there is no continuity of covered walkways at their campus. Besides, majority of respondents (except UKM’s respondents) state walking in campus is comfortable. For bicycle lanes, all the research campuses have shown highest percentage respondents expressed that there is no special lane for bicycles provided on their campus.
Figure 1: Students’ feedback on accessibility aspect on their campuses.
The sustainable campus usually promoted students to walk or using bicycles in campus area in order to reduce the usage of engine vehicle. Most of the movements in the campus area are depends on the vehicle usage that contribute to high resource utilization. One way to encourage students to walk or using bicycle is by creating a comfortable end enjoyable experience for them, and also providing high level of security. Malaysia is country that has a hot and humid tropical climate throughout the year. To ensure the comfort of pedestrians, the walkways should be able to protect them from the effects of weather such as rain and sunny day. One of the solutions is by providing covered walkways at campus. Research found that all research campus is less emphasizing on pedestrian’s comfort. Pedestrian circulation on campus is not designed well, but only provided a sidewalk alongside the road without covered walkways. Walkways should be designed separately from the vehicle circulation [13] to ensure pedestrian safety and is covered in order to provide comfort to the users [14]. Pedestrian walkways should become the spine of the campus since it act as liaison to the main areas in campus [15]. Besides walking, bicycle is also an effective ways [16, 17] since it does not pollute the air and also not leave great impact on the environment while helping to improve the health of the cyclist [16]. Research found that special lanes for cyclist are not adequately prepared in the research campus. Bicycle’s lanes are usually shared with pedestrian walkways or vehicle’s lanes. This situation can be dangerous both to pedestrians and also the cyclist. Same as pedestrian’s case, one way to encourage students to use bicycle is by providing a comfort and safe facilities to them. Beatley (2003) states the use of bicycles can be improved by separating the bicycle’s lane from vehicle’s lane, provide a proper place for parking and also provide own signage [17].
Building Design
Planning should consider the aspect of unity in designing the building, but diversity is necessary to indicate the various disciplinary areas offered activities, and cultures that exist on campus.
Majority of respondents from USM, UM and UPM campuses state that buildings design of their campus are unique and able to shown its own identity. On the other hand, majority of UKM respondents believe that building design of their campus is not unique and failed to show its own image.
Figure 2: Students’ feedback on the uniqueness of buildings’ design on their campuses. Visual research conducted found that there is consistency in the design of some building on UKM campus. They are not only uniform, but also have the same design. This resulted in difficulty to differentiate one building from another and the building itself failed to project its own image. It also failed to indicate the diversity of disciplinary that existed on the campus.
Figure 3: Photographs of different buildings on UKM campus that have same designs.
Conclusion
Results showed that there are some weaknesses in physical development plans of studied campuses. Development plans using a wide area and put the location of the buildings are far apart have a big impact on the campus accessibility and circulatory system. Development of large area is difficult for universities to provide facilities such as covered walkways, bicycle paths, optimum lighting and landscaping in a controlled setting throughout the campus. In addition, the campus plans must ensure unity in the building design and landscaping to establish the identity of the disciplines offered. To ensure the convenience of students, the campus transportation system should be more systematic and timely schedule. In addition, lighting is an important aspect in ensuring the safety of students, especially at night. It can be concluded that the physical development of campus planning certainly play a big role in influencing the sustainability of a campus. Referring to the findings, the USM campus that planned more compact compared to other campuses shows minimum overall problems. This proves that compact campus is more practical for a campus that aims to create a sustainable life.
References
[1] Rusinko, C. A. 2010. Integrating Sustainability In Higher Education: A Generic Matrix.
International Journal Of Sustainability In Higher Education. Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 250-259.
[2] Beringer, A., Wright, T. & Malone, L. 2008. Sustainability In Higher Education In Atlantic
Canada. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 48-67. [3] Davis, G. & Wolski, M. 2009. E-Waste And The Sustainable Organisation: Griffith
University’s Approach To E-Waste. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 21-32.
[4] Alfieri, T., Damon, D., dan Smith, Z. 2009. From Living Building to Living Campuses.
Planning for Higher Education. Vol 38, No 1, pp 51-59.
[5] http://www.recyclingandreuseofbuildings.com/Interiorarchitectureinahistoriccontext.pdf
[6] Campos, P. 2008. Sustainable Education Campus in Spain: Nature and Architecture for
Training. Organisation For Economic Co-Operationand Development.
[7] Brundtland Report 1987. Our Common Future: The World Commission for the Environment
and Development. Madrid: Alianza Publication.
[8] D’amico L. A. & Brooks, W. D. 1968. The Spatial Campus. A Planning Scheme and Annotated
Bibliography.
[9] Isiaka, A. & Ho Chin Siong. 2008. Developing Sustainable Index For University Campus.
EASTS International Symposium on Sustainable Transportation incorporating Malaysian Universities Transport Research Forum Conference 2008 (MUTRFC08). Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. 12-13 August 2008.
[10] Ryan, A., Tilbury, D., Corcoran, P. B., Abe, O., & Nomura, K. 2010. Sustainability In Higher
Education In The Asia-Pacific: Developments, Challenges, And Prospects. International
Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 106-119.
[11] Norton, R. K., Brix, A., Brydon, T., Davidian, E., Dinse, K., dan Vidyarthi, S. 2007.
Transforming The University Campus Into Sustainable Community. Planning for Higher
Education. Vol 35, No 4, pp 22-39.
[12] Litman, T. 2008. Measuring Transportation: Traffic, Mobility and Accessibility. Victoria
Transport Policy Institute. Victoria. 4 November 2008.
[13] Sulong Mohamad. 1983. Perancangan Kemudahan Awam Dan Infrastruktur Sosial:
Konsep,Prinsip Dan Amalan. Bangi: Penerbit Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.
[14] Aldrin Abdullah, Lee Lik Meng, Lim Yoke Mui, Nurwati Badarulzaman & Azizi Bahauddin.
2006. The University In A Garden. Pedestrian Network And Landscape Design Proposal. Healthy Campus Series (No. 17). Penerbit Universiti Sains Malaysia, Pulau Pinang.
[15] University of Victoria Campus Planning Committee. 2005. University of Victoria Campus
Design Guidelines. Campus Planning and Sustainability. University of Victoria.
[16] Drumheller, B., Quaid, A., Wyman, M., Liljenwall, J. & Young, A. 2001. Sustainable Transportation Options For Protecting The Climate. A Guide For Local Governments. International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives. USA.
[17] Beatley, T. 2003. Planning for sustainability in European cities: A review of practices in
leading cities. The Sustainable Urban Development Reader. Edited by Wheeler, S. M. and
Beatley, T. 2004. London: Routledge.
No comments:
Post a Comment