Nearby Pockets for Promoting Students' Social Interaction on Malaysian Campus Ground
Taman Poket Berdekatan untuk Menggalakkan Interaksi Sosial Pelajar di Kawasan Kampus di Malaysia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47548/ijistra.2021.39Keywords:
Pocket parks, Pockets on-campus ground, Social interaction, Visual preference survey, Malaysian universitiesAbstract
Recently, nearby pockets on campus ground have become an important tool to improve academic outcomes by enhancing students’ social-learning activities. However, nearby open spaces and pocket parks of Malaysian universities lack the promotion of social interaction and informal activities that affect the academic experience, especially in the outdoor spaces. Therefore, there is a need to enhance students' social interaction on campus ground in Malaysian universities. This study aims to understand the preferred attributes of nearby pocket parks in Malaysian universities to predict students’ social interaction. This study employed a visual preference survey (VPS) conducted in three Malaysian universities, including Universiti Malaya (UM), Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM), and Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), to assess the visual preferences of 415 students toward six pocket parks photographs. Multiple regression analysis was used to predict the relationship between students' social interaction and preferred pocket parks. The results indicate that students preferred pockets that provide variety in softscape and activities as well as offer proper hardscape and shade to enhance their social interaction. The results also show that students from different ethnicities, education status and universities have different social interaction levels on Malaysian campus grounds. The current study contributes to integrating nearby pocket parks in outdoor social interaction to improve campus urban design and academic experience. Hence, the study's findings are of great importance for policymakers, architects, landscape architects, urban planners, and researchers in the field in creating sustainable-socially responsive campuses.
Dewasa ini, kawasan taman poket di kawasan kampus telah menjadi faktor penting untuk meningkatkan hasil akademik dengan menambahbaikkan aktiviti pembelajaran secara sosial di kalangan para pelajar. Walaubagaimanapun, kawasan lapang dan taman poket di universiti di Malaysia kurang menitikberatkan tentang interaksi secara sosial dan aktiviti tidak rasmi yang dapat mempengaruhi pengalaman akademik, terutama sekali di tanah lapang. Oleh itu, terdapat keperluan untuk meningkatkan interaksi sosial pelajar di kampus universiti di Malaysia. Kajian ini bertujuan untuk memahami ciri-ciri pilihan kawasan taman poket di universit di Malaysia untuk mengetahui cara interaksi sosial para pelajar. Kajian ini menggunakan tinjauan preferensi visual (VPS) yang dilakukan di tiga universiti di Malaysia, iaitu Universiti Malaya (UM), Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM), dan Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), untuk menilai pilihan visual 415 orang pelajar terhadap enam taman poket bergambar. Kepelbagaian analisis regresi digunakan untuk menjangkakan hubungan di antara interaksi sosial pelajar dan taman poket pilihan. Hasilnya menunjukkan bahawa para pelajar lebih menggemari taman poket yang menyediakan kepelbagaian jenis landskap lembut dan aktiviti serta menawarkan jenis-jenis landskap kejur dan tempat teduhan yang sesuai untuk meningkatkan tahap interaksi sosial di antara mereka. Hasil kajian juga menunjukkan bahawa pelajar dari pelbagai etnik, status pendidikan, dan universiti mempunyai tahap interaksi sosial yang berbeza di dalam kawasan kampus di Malaysia. Kajian semasa menyumbang untuk mengintegrasikan taman poket berdekatan dalam interaksi sosial luar bagi meningkatkan reka bentuk bandar dan pengalaman akademik. Oleh itu, penemuan kajian ini sangat penting bagi penggubal dasar, arkitek, arkitek landskap, perancang bandar, dan penyelidik di dalam bidang ini dalam mewujudkan ‘livable-socially’ kampus yang paling sesuai.
Downloads
References
Abd El-Aziz, N. A. (2017). Pocket Park Design in Informal Settlements in Cairo City, Egypt. Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning, 2(2), 51–60. http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo?journalid=241&paperId=10020954.
Balai Kerishnan, P., Maruthaveeran, S., & Maulan, S. (2020). Investigating the usability pattern and constraints of pocket parks in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 50, 126647. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126647.
Baur, J. W., & Tynon, J. F. (2010). Small-Scale Urban Nature Parks: Why Should We Care? Leisure Sciences, 32(2), 195–200. doi:10.1080/01490400903547245.
Cohen, D. A., Marsh, T., Williamson, S., Han, B., Derose, K. P., Golinelli, D., & McKenzie, T. L. (2014). The Potential for Pocket Parks to Increase Physical Activity. American Journal of Health Promotion, 28(3), 9–26. doi:10.4278/ajhp.130430-quan-213.
Creswell, J. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches (4th ed). SAGE Publications.
Currie, M. A. (2016). A design framework for small parks in ultra-urban, metropolitan, suburban and small town settings. Urban Design, 22(1), 76–95. doi:10.1080/13574809.2016.1234334.
De Vaus, D. (2013). Surveys in Social Research (6th ed). Routledge.
Giridharan, R., Lau, S. S. Y., Ganesan, S., & Givoni, B. (2008). Lowering the outdoor temperature in high-rise high-density residential developments of coastal Hong Kong: The vegetation influence. Building and Environment, 43(10), 1583–1595. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2007.10.003.
Hafner, K., Zasada, I., Zanten, B., T., Ungaro, F., Koetse, M., & Piorr, A. (2018). Assessing landscape preferences: a visual choice experiment in the agricultural region of Märkische Schweiz, Germany. Landscape Research. 43(6), 846–861. doi: org/10.1080/01426397.2017.1386289.
Hecke, L. V., Ghekiere, A., Cauwenberg, J., Veitch, J., Bourdeaudhuij, I., Dyck, D., Clarys, P., Weghe, N., & Deforche, B. (2018). Park characteristics preferred for adolescent park visitation and physical activity: A choice-based conjoint analysis using manipulated photographs. Landscape and Urban Planning, 178, 144–155. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.05.017.
Hussein, H. (2012). The Influence of Sensory Gardens on the Behaviour of Children with Special Educational Needs. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 38, 343–354. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.03.356.
Ibrahim, N., & Fadzil, N. H. (2013). Informal Setting for Learning on Campus: Usage and preference. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 105, 344–351. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.11.036.
Ibrahim, N., Fadzil, N., H. and Saruwono, M. (2013). Learning outside Classrooms on-Campus Ground: Malaysia. Asian Journal of Environment-Behaviour Studies, 4(13), 97–109. doi:10.21834/ajbes.v3i9.68.
Kaboudarahangi, M., Tahir, O., Shariff, M., & Maulan, S. (2013). Factors influencing preferences of garden iconographies. Social Science and Humanities, 21(4), 1395–1409. http://psasir.upm.edu.my/id/eprint/39801.
Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press.
Keppell, M., Souter, K., & Riddle, M. (2012). Physical and Virtual Learning Spaces in Higher Education: Concepts for the Modern Learning Environment (1st ed). IGI Global.
Kim, Y. L., & Lee, S. M. (2015). Effect of Satisfaction in Major at University on Academic Achievement among Physical Therapy Students. Journal of Physical Therapy Science, 27(2), 405–409. doi:10.1589/jpts.27.405.
Lau, S. S., Lin, P., & Qin, H. (2012). A preliminary study on environmental performances of pocket parks in high-rise and high-density urban context in Hong Kong. International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies, 7, 215–225. doi:10.1093/ijlct/cts033.
Mertens, L., Van Cauwenberg, J., Veitch, J., Deforche, B., & Van Dyck, D. (2019). Differences in park characteristic preferences for visitation and physical activity among adolescents: A latent class analysis. PLOS ONE, 14(3), e0212920. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0212920.
Nordh, H., Alalouch, C., & Hartig, T. (2011). Assessing restorative components of small urban parks using conjoint methodology. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 10(2), 95–103. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2010.12.003.
Nordh, H., Hartig, T., Hagerhall, C. M., & Fry, G. (2009). Components of small urban parks that predict the possibility for restoration. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 8(4), 225–235. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2009.06.003.
Nordh, H., & Østby, K. (2013). Pocket parks for people: A study of park design and use. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 12, 12–17. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2012.11.003.
Peschardt, K. K & Stigsdotter, U. K. (2014). Evidence for Designing Health Promoting Pocket Parks. ArchNet - IJAR, 8(3), 149–164. doi:10.26687/archnet-ijar.v8i3.341.
Peschardt, K. K., Stigsdotter, U. K., & Schipperrijn, J. (2014). Identifying Features of Pocket Parks that May Be Related to Health Promoting Use. Landscape Research Journal, 41(1), 79–94. doi:10.1080/01426397.2014.894006.
Peschardt, K. K., Schipperijn, J., & Stigsdotter, U. K. (2012). Use of Small Public Urban Green Spaces (SPUGS). Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 11(3), 235–244. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2012.04.002.
Polat, A. T., & Akay, A. (2015). Relationships between the visual preferences of urban recreation area users and various landscape design elements. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 14(3), 573–582. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2015.05.009.
Rasidi, M., Jamirsah, N., & Said, I. (2013). Development of Urban Green Space Affects Neighborhood Community Social Interaction. Asian Journal of Environment-Behaviour Studies, 4(14), 107–129. doi: 10.21834/aje-bs.v3i8.281.
Rea, T. (2009). Informal learning outdoors. In S. Gibson & J. Haynes (Eds.), Perspectives on Participation and Inclusion: Engaging Education (pp. 122–131). Continuum International.
Salih, S. A., & Ismail, S. (2017a). Criteria for Public Open Space Enhancement to Achieve Social Interaction: a Review Paper. Materials Science and Engineering, 291, 012001. doi:10.1088/1757-899x/291/1/012001.
Salih, S. A., & Ismail, S. (2017b). Means to Achieve Social Interaction in Green Open Space in Baghdad, Iraq. Built Environment, Technology and Engineering, 2, 159–167. doi: psasir.upm.edu.my/id/eprint/62365.
Salih, S. A., & Ismail, S. (2018a). Green Open Spaces Criteria to Achieve Social Interaction of Karkh Community in the City Baghdad, Iraq. Materials Science and Engineering, 401, 012029. doi:10.1088/1757-899x/401/1/012029.
Salih, S. A., & Ismail, S. (2018b). Determining the Factors Affecting Social Interaction in the Parks of Baghdad City, Iraq. Archnet-IJAR, 12(3), 40–52. doi:10.26687/archnet-ijar.v12i3.1658.
Salih, S. A., Ismail, S., Ismail, N. A. (2019). Pocket Parks for Enhancing Residents’ Social Interaction in the City of Baghdad, Iraq. International Journal of Engineering & Technology, 8(1.9), 611-616. doi:10.14419/ijet.v8i1.9.30071.
Salih, S. A., Ismail, S., & Mseer, A. (2020). Pocket parks for promoting social interaction among residents of Baghdad City. Archnet-IJAR, 14(3), 393–408. doi:10.1108/arch-11-2019-0261.
Sheriff, N., M. and Abdullah, N. (2017). Research Universities in Malaysia: What Beholds? Asian Journal of University Education, 13(2), 35–50. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1207763.
Shrotryia, V. K., & Dhanda, U. (2019). Content Validity of Assessment Instrument for Employee Engagement. SAGE Open, 9(1), 215824401882175. doi:10.1177/2158244018821751.
Swanwick, C., Dunnett, N., & Woolley, H. (2003). Nature, Role and Value of Green Space in Towns and Cities: An Overview. Built Environment, 29(2), 94–106. https:/www.jstor.org/stable/23288809.
Tabassum, S. (2018). Environmental Response of Small Urban Parks in Context of Dhaka City. Journal of Physics, 953(1), 1–19. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/953/1/012038.
Taherdoost, H. (2016). Sampling Methods in Research Methodology; How to Choose a Sampling Technique for Research. International Journal of Academic Research in Management, 5(2), 18–27. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3205035.
Tahir, M. M., Abdullah, N. A., Usman, I. M., Che, A. I., Mohd N. F., & Surat, M. (2009). Constructing place and space in the design of learning environments for PBL in Malaysian universities. Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 1(1), 26–34. https://ejournal.ukm.my/ajtlhe/article/view/10459.
Yamane, T. (1973). Statistics: An Introductory Analysis (3rd ed). Harper and Rao.
Zheng, B., Zhang, Y., & Chen, J. (2011). Preference to home landscape: wildness or neatness? Landscape and Urban Planning, 99(1), 1–8. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.08.006.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
