1. Demir E., Kepez O., Rifki F.A. Evaluating (Dis)Continuity in Pedestrian Environments: Case of North Carolina State University Centennial Campus

2. Outline of the presentation Theoretical background Conceptual framework Case selection(s) Methodology Data collection –Survey –Visual mapping Findings and comparison Conclusions

3. 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

4. Physical (dis)continuity Functional (dis)continuity Perceived (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 use spread of use perceptions of continuity

5. Case selections NCSU Main CampusNCSU Centennial Campus - Pedestrian oriented design of all NCSU campuses: campus of neighborhoods campus of paths -Different spatial layouts -Comparable sizes of cases

6. Case selections NCSU Main CampusNCSU Centennial Campus

7. 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

8. 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.

9. Male versus female respondents in both campuses Survey tool –visual mapping malefemale

10. Survey tool –visual mapping Student versus faculty/staff respondents in both campuses studentsfaculty/staff

11. Survey tool –visual mapping Locational analyses: mixed use building versus single use building single use (research, office, academic) mixed use (academic plus social functions)

12. Survey tool –visual mapping Overall analysis Centennial Campus- overall intensity of use Main campus-overall intensity of use

13. 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