The Sustainable Campus as a Living Lab

1,192 views

Published on

Presentation at the International Symposium on Sustainable Campuses (Hokkaido University,Japan - 2012)

Published in: Education
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,192
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
396
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
69
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

The Sustainable Campus as a Living Lab

  1. 1. Sustainable  Campus  Interna1onal  Symposium  October  2012   The  Sustainable  Campus  as  a  Living  Lab:     a  mul&-­‐criteria  assessment     of  value-­‐based  metrics  using  images  João  Romão  –  Karima  Kour1t  –  Eveline  van  Leeuwen  –  Peter  Nijkamp  
  2. 2. Sustainable  Campus  Interna1onal  Symposium  October  2012   The  concept  of  sustainability  is  applied  to  community  daily  life     and  a  University  Campus  can  be  faced  as  a  living  laboratory     for  the  development  of  sustainable  prac1ces.        We  developed  a  mul1-­‐criteria  assessment  for  the  Campus  at  Hokkaido  University,   focused  on  the  contribu1ons  of  the  landscape  and  physical  condi1ons    for  its  performance  and  sustainable  development,     analyzing  how  the  goals  and  principles  defined  in  the  Campus  Plans     fit  the  needs  and  concerns  of  its  users.       This  boOom-­‐up  approach  aims  to  contribute  to  mobilize     the  community  of  users  of  the  Campus     for  a  sustainable  daily  life  with  a  high  academic  quality.      João  Romão  –  Karima  Kour1t  –  Eveline  van  Leeuwen  –  Peter  Nijkamp  
  3. 3. Sustainable  Campus  Interna1onal  Symposium  October  2012   Two  focus  group  mee1ngs  have  been  organized     in  two  different  areas  of  the  Campus,     using  a  SWOT  analysis  methodology     followed  by  a  strategic  assessment     and  supported  by  visual  assessment.       The  individual  results  obtained  in  the  mee1ngs     have  been  evaluated  by  the  par1cipants,     crea1ng  a  collec1ve  assessment  on  the  performance  of  the  Campus,     focused  on  its  physical  characteris1cs  and  landscape.       This  process  leads  to  a     Strategic  Choice  Analysis  and  a   Decision  Making  Analysis     (Mul1  Criteria  Assessment  based  on  the  Regime  Method),   which  can  be  applied  in  other  planning  processes  in  the  future.  João  Romão  –  Karima  Kour1t  –  Eveline  van  Leeuwen  –  Peter  Nijkamp  
  4. 4. Sustainable  Campus  Interna1onal  Symposium  October  2012  Methodology  Results  Conclusions  João  Romão  –  Karima  Kour1t  –  Eveline  van  Leeuwen  –  Peter  Nijkamp  
  5. 5. Sustainable  Campus  Interna1onal  Symposium  October  2012   University  Campuses  are  spaces  where  thousand  of  persons  interact  everyday,     performing  different  tasks  with  diverse  purposes  and  mo1va1ons:     students,  researchers,  teachers,  managers,  other  professional  staff  and  visitors     use  a  common  space  for  their  daily  ac1vi1es,     requiring  a  wide  range  of  products  and  services,  consuming  energy,     circula1ng  in  public  spaces  and  using  common  facili1es.   The  importance  recently  given  in  many  Universi1es  to  sustainability  issues     in  the  planning  processes,  strategic  assessment  and  academic  programs,     makes  these  communi1es  specially  appropriate  to  be  analyzed  as  a  “living  lab”     for  the  evalua1on  of  ac1ons  and  policies  regarding  sustainable  behavior,     at  individual  and  collec1ve  levels.    João  Romão  –  Karima  Kour1t  –  Eveline  van  Leeuwen  –  Peter  Nijkamp  
  6. 6. Sustainable  Campus  Interna1onal  Symposium  October  2012   In  this  case,  we  assume  that  a  Living  Lab  as  a  boOom-­‐up  approach  implying   a  process  of  evalua1on  and  co-­‐crea1on  of  strategies  and  scenarios    for  the  development  of  the  Campus  of  Hokkaido  University  by  its  community  of  users,   combining  research  and  informa1on  about  the  exis1ng  condi1ons  of  the  Campus     with  the  development  of  innova1ve  ideas  and  strategic  op1ons  for  its  future.     BoOom-­‐up  approaches  are  today  commonly  assumed  as  a  necessary  condi1on    for  the  successful  implementa1on  of  sustainable  ac1on  plans  at  community  level.       Advantages  of  a  boOom-­‐up  approach:   -­‐  mobilize  the  different  users  for  the  objec1ves  and  strategies  to  be  implemented;   -­‐  improve  the  collabora1on  between  users  and  managers;   -­‐  ensure  that  development  plans  consider  the  needs  and  problems  of  different  users;    -­‐  increase  the  chances  of  conflict  resolu1on  among  diverse  mo1va1ons  of  different  groups.  João  Romão  –  Karima  Kour1t  –  Eveline  van  Leeuwen  –  Peter  Nijkamp  
  7. 7. Sustainable  Campus  Interna1onal  Symposium  October  2012   This  assessment  of  the  sustainability  of  the  University  Campus     aOempts  to  achieve  a  comprehensive  approach    to  the  different  func1ons  daily  performed  by  the  University,     systema1zing  different  domains  of  analysis     and  considering  the  users  of  the  Campus  as  a  community     of  different  persons  with  different  purposes  sharing  the  same  territory.     For  this  purpose,  a  conceptual  framework  is  defined,   in  order  to  envision  future  perspec1ves  for  the  Campus.     These  “Future  Images”  represent  4  “extreme  perspec1ves”   (or  4  ideal  representa1ons)  of  the  Campus:   Crea1ve,  Scien1fic,  Sustainable  and  Social  Campus.  João  Romão  –  Karima  Kour1t  –  Eveline  van  Leeuwen  –  Peter  Nijkamp  
  8. 8. Sustainable  Campus  Interna1onal  Symposium  October  2012   Assessment  Factors  for  the  Campus:   Crea.ve   Scien.fic   Campus   Campus   Sustainable   Social   Campus   Campus  João  Romão  –  Karima  Kour1t  –  Eveline  van  Leeuwen  –  Peter  Nijkamp  
  9. 9. Sustainable  Campus  Interna1onal  Symposium  October  2012   These  Assessment  Factors  include  different  aspects  (indicators)   to  be  quan1fied  according  to  a  hierarchical  decomposi1on    in  the  Mul1-­‐Criteria  Analysis  to  be  developed:     Crea1ve  Campus  is  focused  on  the  rela.on  with  the  regional  society,  including     academic  spin-­‐offs  (incubators),  Private  R&D,  Collabora.ve  R&D,  Connec.vity  (ICT  networks),   Ar.s.c  and  Crea.ve  professions  and  linkage  to  the  local  community;     Sustainable  Campus  is  focused  on  environmental  problems  and  in  the  use  of  resources,   including  ques.ons  related  to  Accessibility,  Mobility,  Energy  consump.on  and  produc.on,   Water  and  Waste  management,  CO2  Emissions  or  Biodiversity  and  public  spaces;    Scien1fic  Campus  is  focused  on  the  “tradi.onal”  domains  of  ac.vity  of  the  University,  including   Teaching  and  learning  condi.ons,  Research  condi.ons,  Libraries,  Conference  facili.es,   Special  educa.on  facili.es  or  Experimental  farms  and  produc.ons;     Social  Campus  includes  the  complementary  services  provided  to  the  users  of  the  Campus,     like  the  Financial  support  for  students,  Student  housing,  Bookstores,  Other  services,    Leisure,  recrea.onal,  cultural  and  spor.ve  ac.vi.es  or  projects  involving  the  local  community.   João  Romão  –  Karima  Kour1t  –  Eveline  van  Leeuwen  –  Peter  Nijkamp  
  10. 10. Sustainable  Campus  Interna1onal  Symposium  October  2012   Hokkaido  University  has  65,000  hectares  of  campus  resources,     which  include  experimental  forests  and  a  variety  of  other  facili1es.    More  than  22,000  students  and  staff  members  use  the  1,776,248m2  of  the  Sapporo  Campus,   which  is  open  to  the  residents  of  the  city  and  tourists.   João  Romão  –  Karima  Kour1t  –  Eveline  van  Leeuwen  –  Peter  Nijkamp  
  11. 11. Sustainable  Campus  Interna1onal  Symposium  October  2012  Two  “focus-­‐group”  mee1ngs  were  organized  for  these  different  territories  of  the  Campus      North  Campus     R&D  ac.vi.es,  collabora.on  with  private  and  public  en..es;   To  be  expanded  with  new  buildings,  infra-­‐structures  and  public  areas.     6  par.cipants     1  manager  in  a  private  ins.tu.on,  1  manager  in  an  academic  ins.tu.on,     2  researchers  and  2  PhD  students   (3  par.cipants  were  women;  1  person  was  coming  from  abroad)       South  Campus     Tradi.onal  University  Campus;   To  be  transformed  with  very  limited  physical  expansion.     16  par.cipants   10  students  from  different  facul.es,  1  Master  student,  3  academic  staff  and  2  other  staff    (7  par.cipants  were  women;  3  persons  were  coming  from  abroad).  João  Romão  –  Karima  Kour1t  –  Eveline  van  Leeuwen  –  Peter  Nijkamp  
  12. 12. Sustainable  Campus  Interna1onal  Symposium  October  2012   Mee;ng  at  North  Campus  João  Romão  –  Karima  Kour1t  –  Eveline  van  Leeuwen  –  Peter  Nijkamp  
  13. 13. Sustainable  Campus  Interna1onal  Symposium  October  2012   Mee;ng  at  South  Campus  João  Romão  –  Karima  Kour1t  –  Eveline  van  Leeuwen  –  Peter  Nijkamp  
  14. 14. Sustainable  Campus  Interna1onal  Symposium  October  2012   Each  mee1ng  started  with  a  presenta1on  of  the  exis1ng  plans     for  the  development  of  Hokkaido  University,  using  visual  elements:     Master  Plan   (2006)   Ac1on  Plan  for   Sustainability   (2012)  João  Romão  –  Karima  Kour1t  –  Eveline  van  Leeuwen  –  Peter  Nijkamp  
  15. 15. Sustainable  Campus  Interna1onal  Symposium  October  2012   Aher  this  general  presenta1on,    informa1on  related  to  the  issues  to  be  discussed  (Assessment  Factors)  was  provided     and  a  set  of  pictures  with  posi1ve  and  nega1ve  aspects  of  the  Campus  was  distributed.          An  open  discussion  among  the  par1cipants  (during  one  hour)  took  place,     addressing  the  main  aspects  of  the  Assessment  Factors  of  the  Campus   and  oriented  towards  a  SWOT  analysis  structure.   SWOT  analysis  is  a  tool  to  be  used  as  a  precursor  to  strategic  management  planning,     aiming  to  obtain  support  informa1on  for  strategic  choices,     taking  into  considera1on  posi1ve  and  nega1ve  factors    or  internal  and  external  aspects     that  might  have  an  impact  on  the  proposed  development.    João  Romão  –  Karima  Kour1t  –  Eveline  van  Leeuwen  –  Peter  Nijkamp  
  16. 16. Sustainable  Campus  Interna1onal  Symposium  October  2012   The  outputs  of  this  discussion  were  organized  in  order  to  generate     a  Strategic  Choice  Analysis   and  a  Decision  Making  Analysis  (Mul1-­‐Criteria  Assessment)   based  on  the  following  elements:     SWOT  Analysis  (supported  by  Visual  Assessment)   Par1cipants  were  asked  to  write  their  sugges1ons  for  the  SWOT  analysis,     iden1fying  what  they  considered  to  be  the  most  relevant    Strengths,  Weaknesses,  Opportuni1es  and  Threatens  for  the  development  of  the  Campus.   Strategic  Assessment  (supported  by  Visual  Assessment)   Par1cipants  were  asked  to  propose  generic  strategic  ideas  for  the  future  of  the  Campus,   considering  the  possibility  to  be  implemented  in  the  short  run     and  the  consequences  in  the  long  run.       Visual  Assessment   Each  par1cipant  has  chosen  3  pictures  represen1ng  posi1ve  aspects  of  the  Campus     and  3  pictures  represen1ng  nega1ve  aspects  of  the  Campus.   This  innova1ve  process  of  assessment  complemented  the  informa1on  provided   in  the  SWOT  analysis  and  the  Strategic  Assessment,     showing  objec1ve  images  for  the  preferences  of  the  users.  João  Romão  –  Karima  Kour1t  –  Eveline  van  Leeuwen  –  Peter  Nijkamp  
  17. 17. Sustainable  Campus  Interna1onal  Symposium  October  2012   Aher  each  focus-­‐group  mee1ng,     a  document  systema1zing  all  the  proposals     (SWOT  analysis  and  strategic  assessment  supported  by  visual  assessment)    has  been  sent  to  all  the  par1cipants.       Each  par1cipant  evaluated  according  to  a  Likert  scale  (1  to  5)     the  importance  of  each  element  in  order  to  rank  all  the  sugges1ons.       Only  the  most  important  proposals  were  considered  in  the  final  output,     represen1ng  a  collec1ve  process  evalua1on.       These  outputs  were  confronted  with  the  Campus  Foci     projected  by  the  main  development  plans  for  the  Hokkaido  University  Campus  João  Romão  –  Karima  Kour1t  –  Eveline  van  Leeuwen  –  Peter  Nijkamp  
  18. 18. Sustainable  Campus  Interna1onal  Symposium  October  2012   Campus  Foci   CampusFoci MasterPlan(2006)! ActionPlan(2012) Questionsconsidered Planning!open!space,! Development!of!! Social!interaction! Experiential frame,!place!making public!space! and!non9academic!activities! Facility!design!! Services!and!facilities! Functional Zoning! and!setting! for!academic!functions! and!management! Ecosystem!! conservation! Structure!of!natural! Biodiversity,!energy!production!and! Energy!consumption!! Ecological and!ecological! and!production! consumption!or!waste!and!water! environment! management! Waste!and!water! management! Accessibility,! Transport,!parking,! Accessibility!! Accessible mobility,!circulation!! pedestrianism! and!mobility! Collaborative Collaboration!! Connection!with! Relations!with!! campus!9!city! regional!community! the!community! ! As  the  Assessment  Factors,  these  Campus  Foci     are  not  “closed”  concepts  and  they  are  inter-­‐related  with  each  other.    João  Romão  –  Karima  Kour1t  –  Eveline  van  Leeuwen  –  Peter  Nijkamp  
  19. 19. Sustainable  Campus  Interna1onal  Symposium  October  2012     A  Mul1  Criteria  Analysis  was  developed,   based  on  the  mul1-­‐aOribute  representa1on     of  the  mul1faceted  aspects  of  choice  alterna1ves.     The  Regime  Method  was  applied,  combining    a  matrix  of  Campus  Foci  and  evalua1on  criteria  (Assessment  Factors)   with  a  vector  defining  its  priority,   in  order  to  es1mate  the  rela1ve  dominance  of  each  Factor.     Following  the  hierarchical  decomposi1on  of  the  Assessment  Factors,     the  impact  of  each  indicator  on  the  Campus  Foci  was  quan1fied.,   in  order  to  obtain  a  Regime  Matrix.     The  importance  of  each  indicator  included  in  the  Campus  Archetypes     defines  a  vector  for  preference  intensity.      João  Romão  –  Karima  Kour1t  –  Eveline  van  Leeuwen  –  Peter  Nijkamp  
  20. 20. Sustainable  Campus  Interna1onal  Symposium  October  2012   Overview  of  the  methodology   Fieldwork  Bibliography   Assessment   Focus   SWOT  Analysis  and   Factors   Groups   Strategic  Assessment   Experts   (with  visual  support)   Impacts  of  the   Fieldwork   Archetypical  Campus   Strategic   Experts   on  the     Choice   Alterna.ve  Campus   Models   Master  Plan   Campus     Ac.on  Plan   Foci   Preference   Intensity   Mul.  Criteria   Analysis   Regime  Method   João  Romão  –  Karima  Kour1t  –  Eveline  van  Leeuwen  –  Peter  Nijkamp  
  21. 21. Sustainable  Campus  Interna1onal  Symposium  October  2012  Methodology  Results  Conclusions  João  Romão  –  Karima  Kour1t  –  Eveline  van  Leeuwen  –  Peter  Nijkamp  
  22. 22. Sustainable  Campus  Interna1onal  Symposium  October  2012   North  Campus  Accessible  Campus   Ques1ons  related  to  accessibility  (from  the  city  to  the  North  Campus)     and  to  mobility  (connec1on  between  South  and  North  Campus)     have  been  men1oned  as  weak  aspects  in  the  SWOT  analysis.     Improvements  in  the  bus  services  were  proposed.   Posi.ve  image  for  mobility   Nega.ve  image  for  mobility  (conges.on)  João  Romão  –  Karima  Kour1t  –  Eveline  van  Leeuwen  –  Peter  Nijkamp  
  23. 23. Sustainable  Campus  Interna1onal  Symposium  October  2012   North  Campus  Ecological  Campus  Energy  produc1on,  informa1on  about  the  energy  consump1on    or  waste  management  and  reu1liza1on  were  among  the  suggested  proposals.  The  responsibility  of  the  University  in  educa1on  for  sustainability  was  emphasized.  Lack  of  forest  to  protect  from  wind,  was  pointed  as  a  nega1ve  aspect  (with  important  implica1ons  on  the  “Experien1al”  and  Collabora1ve”  Images).   The  need  for  the  development  of  green  areas  has  been  men.oned  in  the  visual  assessment     (with  two  pictures  of  green  areas  from  the  South  Campus  selected  as  posi.ve  aspects)  João  Romão  –  Karima  Kour1t  –  Eveline  van  Leeuwen  –  Peter  Nijkamp  
  24. 24. Sustainable  Campus  Interna1onal  Symposium  October  2012   North  Campus  Func1onal  Campus  Although  no  weakness  has  been  raised  regarding  the  working  condi1ons,    the  lack  of  other  facili1es  considered  necessary  at  the  Campus    was  considered  as  an  important  “weakness”    (restaurants,  convenience  store,  book  store  and  sports  facili1es).    The  development  of  new  facili1es  and  public  spaces  to  improve    the  “Func1onal”,  Experien1al”  and  “Collabora1ve”  Images  of  the  Campus    are  possible  through  its  development  and  expansion.      The  huge  land  s1ll  available  in  this  area  has  been  pointed  out  as  a  strength,    once  it  enhances  the  possibility  to  implement  new  buildings  and  infra-­‐structures  keeping  adequate  ecological  condi1ons.  João  Romão  –  Karima  Kour1t  –  Eveline  van  Leeuwen  –  Peter  Nijkamp  
  25. 25. Sustainable  Campus  Interna1onal  Symposium  October  2012   North  Campus  Experien1al  Campus   The  weak  points  men1oned  enhance  the  lack  of  spaces  and  facili1es     for  leisure  and  sports  or  communica1on  and  non-­‐professional  mee1ngs.     The  crea1on  of  aOrac1ve  public  spaces  to  meet  is  an  important  demand,   with  relevant  implica1ons  on  the  “Collabora1on”  with  the  local  community.     Posi.ve  images  for  historical  buildings  and  public  spaces  to  increase  social  interac.on.   These  are  also  important  aspects  for  the  “Collabora.ve”  Campus.  João  Romão  –  Karima  Kour1t  –  Eveline  van  Leeuwen  –  Peter  Nijkamp  
  26. 26. Sustainable  Campus  Interna1onal  Symposium  October  2012   North  Campus  Collabora1ve  Campus   University  support  to  big  projects  developed  by  private  companies  as  a  strength.   Five  opportuni1es  for  development  related  to  the  collabora1on     that  can  be  established  among  researchers  and  different  ins1tu1ons.     Proposals  to  increment  the  aOrac1veness  of  the  area  for  the  residents     and  to  reinforce  the  historical  aspects  of  the  University     were  suggested  to  increase  the  interac1on  with  the  local  community.    Pictures  of  historical  elements  (from  South  Campus)  were  selected  as  relevant  posi.ve  aspects.   João  Romão  –  Karima  Kour1t  –  Eveline  van  Leeuwen  –  Peter  Nijkamp  
  27. 27. Sustainable  Campus  Interna1onal  Symposium  October  2012   South  Campus  Accessible  Campus  Accessibility  to  the  Campus  (from  city  center  or  public  transports)  is  a  strength  but  several  aspects  of  the  mobility  inside  the  Campus  (lack  of  transporta1on  services,    disconnec1on  between  North  and  South  Campus  or  traffic  conges1on),    and  their  consequences  on  the  public  space  were  men1oned.  Different  proposals  for  the  improvement  of  the  transport  system  were  suggested.   All  the  pictures  selected  as  bad  examples  of  the  Campus  were  related  to  mobility.   These  examples  suggest  the  concerns  with  car  traffic  and  excessive  quan.ty  of  bicycles.   João  Romão  –  Karima  Kour1t  –  Eveline  van  Leeuwen  –  Peter  Nijkamp  
  28. 28. Sustainable  Campus  Interna1onal  Symposium  October  2012   South  Campus  Ecological  Campus  Problems  with  mobility  have  implica1ons  on  the  ecological  structure  of  the  Campus,    faced  as  an  extremely  important  aspect  by  its  users,  considering  the  quan1ty    of  strong  points  men1oned  in  the  SWOT  analysis  (farms  and  beau1ful  landscapes,    green  areas,  large  Campus  and  possibility  to  implement  long-­‐term  plans).    Concerns  with  excessive  energy  consump1on  and  the  lack  of  control  of  the  users    regarding  high-­‐consuming  systems  (like  lights  or  hea1ng)  were  also  expressed    and  complemented  with  relevant  proposals.   1  -­‐  green  areas   3  -­‐  green  areas   Pictures  of  green  areas  have  been  selected  to  show  posi.ve  aspects  of  the  Campus.   João  Romão  –  Karima  Kour1t  –  Eveline  van  Leeuwen  –  Peter  Nijkamp  
  29. 29. Sustainable  Campus  Interna1onal  Symposium  October  2012   South  Campus  Func1onal  Campus  The  concerns  with  the  preserva1on  of  free  and  green  areas  have  been  expressed    regarding  the  “Func1onal  Campus”  and  a  proposal  to  develop  new  facili1es    preserving  free  spaces  being  men1oned  as  an  answer  to  the  threaten    of  decreasing  in  open  space  as  a  result  of  the  implementa1on  of  new  ac1vi1es.      The  problems  detected  in  this  area  are  mostly  related  with  ICT  systems    (Wi-­‐Fi  access  to  Internet  all  over  the  Campus  and  PC  area  with  café  open  24  hours)    or  to  new  educa1onal  programs  (combining  disciplines  from  different  courses),    not  requiring  physical  expansion  of  services  or  facili1es.   João  Romão  –  Karima  Kour1t  –  Eveline  van  Leeuwen  –  Peter  Nijkamp  
  30. 30. Sustainable  Campus  Interna1onal  Symposium  October  2012   South  Campus  Experien1al  Campus  The  problems  regarding  the  “Experien1al  Campus”  require  a  more  difficult  approach,    as  many  weak  points  detected  relate  to  the  lack  of  facili1es  for  social  interac1on    (cafes,  restaurant  or  sports).  The  quietness  of  the  Campus  and  its  atmosphere  were  men1oned  as  strengths.    New  facili1es  and  services  should  be  implemented  through  the  reconversion    of  exis1ng  buildings,  ensuring  the  preserva1on  of  the  public  open  green  spaces.   7  -­‐  public  spaces  for  mee1ngs   10  –  historical  buildings   The  history  of  the  University  and  public  spaces  for  mee.ngs  were  selected  as  posi.ve  aspects.   João  Romão  –  Karima  Kour1t  –  Eveline  van  Leeuwen  –  Peter  Nijkamp  
  31. 31. Sustainable  Campus  Interna1onal  Symposium  October  2012   South  Campus  Collabora1ve  Campus  The  openness  of  the  Campus  to  everyone  is  a  strength  but  the  lack  of  informa1on    about  cultural  heritage  is  a  weakness.    The  opportunity  created  by  the  proximity  between  business  and  academy  in  Sapporo    can  be  difficult  to  explore  considering  the  weak  economic  condi1ons  in  Hokkaido.  Other  proposals  and  opportuni1es  suggested  are  related  to  social  interac1on    among  Japanese  students,  interna1onal  students  and  local  residents.   12  –  historical  buildings   7  -­‐  public  spaces  for  mee1ngs  Historical  buildings  and  public  spaces  are  also  relevant  for  the  rela.on  with  the  local  community.   João  Romão  –  Karima  Kour1t  –  Eveline  van  Leeuwen  –  Peter  Nijkamp  
  32. 32. Sustainable  Campus  Interna1onal  Symposium  October  2012   Mul1-­‐Criteria  Assessment    Regime  Analysis   ! Creat.! Sust.! Sci.! Soc.! The  “Preference  Intensity”  was  quan1fied  Experiential! 2,3$ 2,3$ 2,7$ 3,5$ based  on  the  Strategic  Choice  Analysis,   according  to  number  of  items  men1oned     Functional! 3,2$ 3,8$ 4,7$ 3,5$ in  the  SWOT  analysis  and  the  Strategic  assessment   for  each  indicator  considered  in  the  Campus  Archetypes:   Ecological! 1,5$ 4,2$ 2,0$ 1,2$   1  point  for  0  men.ons;     Accessible! 3,0$ 3,2$ 3,5$ 3,3$ 2  points  for  1  or  2  men.ons;    Collaborative! 5,0$ 1,5$ 2,2$ 3,5$ 3  points  for  3  or  4  men.ons;   4  points  for  5  or  6  men.ons;     Preference! 3,0! 3,7! 2,0! 3,2! 5  points  for  7  or  more  men.ons.   Intensity! The  impact  of  the  “Campus  Archetypes”  on  each  “Alterna1ve  Campus  Model”     was  quan1fied  based  on  field  work,  exis1ng  literature  and  expert  assessment.  João  Romão  –  Karima  Kour1t  –  Eveline  van  Leeuwen  –  Peter  Nijkamp  
  33. 33. Sustainable  Campus  Interna1onal  Symposium  October  2012   Mul1-­‐Criteria  Assessment    Regime  Analysis   Crea1ve   Campus   05   04   03   02   01   Sustainable   Social  Campus   00   Campus   Scien1fic   Campus   Experien.al   Func.onal   Ecological   Collabora.ve   Accessible   The  Alterna1ve  Campus  Models    according  to  the  impact  of  the  Campus  Archetypes.  João  Romão  –  Karima  Kour1t  –  Eveline  van  Leeuwen  –  Peter  Nijkamp  
  34. 34. Sustainable  Campus  Interna1onal  Symposium  October  2012   Methodology   Results   Conclusions  João  Romão  –  Karima  Kour1t  –  Eveline  van  Leeuwen  –  Peter  Nijkamp  
  35. 35. Sustainable  Campus  Interna1onal  Symposium  October  2012  Regarding  the  ques1ons  related  to  accessibility  and  mobility  inside  the  Campus,     the  disconnec1on  between  North  and  South     and  the  mobility  problems  in  winter   have  been  men1oned  in  both  mee1ngs.     Conges1on  is  a  major  concern  in  South  Campus     and  Isola1on  (difficult  access  from  inside  and  outside)  in  North  Campus.       A  renova1on  of  the  circula1on  infra  structure  is  already  defined  in  the  Plans     but  new  regula1ons  for  mobility,     an  improvement  in  the  transport  services,     beOer  infra-­‐structures  for  mobility  in  winter   and  beOer  accessibility  from  outside  to  the  North  Campus  are  required.  João  Romão  –  Karima  Kour1t  –  Eveline  van  Leeuwen  –  Peter  Nijkamp  
  36. 36. Sustainable  Campus  Interna1onal  Symposium  October  2012  Facili1es  for  “tradi1onal”  academic  services  (related  to  educa1on  and  research)     or  to  basic  services  (like  food  or  convenience  stores)     seem  adequate  in  the  South  Campus     but  should  be  improved  in  the  North  Campus.       The  provision  of  Wi-­‐Fi  access  to  Internet  all  over  the  Campus     is  a  major  demand  of  the  users  of  South  Campus     and  it  is  not  included  in  the  Plans  for  the  development  of  the  Campus.  João  Romão  –  Karima  Kour1t  –  Eveline  van  Leeuwen  –  Peter  Nijkamp  
  37. 37. Sustainable  Campus  Interna1onal  Symposium  October  2012  The  development  of  the  “Experien1al”  Campus  appears  like  an  important  priority     for  the  users  of  the  Campus,  both  at  North  and  South  areas.       Social  interac1on  in  public  spaces,     like  cafes,  dining  rooms,  entertainment  areas,  leisure  areas  or  sports  facili1es    are  not  enough  in  the  South  Campus  and  almost  inexistent  in  the  North  Campus.       Although  the  Plans  for  the  Development  of  the  Campus     clearly  express  these  concerns,  concrete  solu1ons  are  not  implemented.   João  Romão  –  Karima  Kour1t  –  Eveline  van  Leeuwen  –  Peter  Nijkamp  
  38. 38. Sustainable  Campus  Interna1onal  Symposium  October  2012   The  dynamic  collabora1on  between  academy  and  industry     or  the  openness  of  the  University  to  the  local  community  and  tourists     are  very  posi1ve  aspects  men1oned  by  the  users  in  both  sides  of  the  Campus,   although  some  improvements  can  be  made    in  the  informa1on  and  services  provided  to  visitors.  João  Romão  –  Karima  Kour1t  –  Eveline  van  Leeuwen  –  Peter  Nijkamp  
  39. 39. Sustainable  Campus  Interna1onal  Symposium  October  2012   This  process  of  assessment  has  been  extremely  mo1va1ng  for  the  par1cipants,  providing  interes1ng  results  concerning  the  evalua1on  of  the  Campus  by  its  users,     at  very  low  cost.     This  can  be  extremely  useful  for  the  “C”  (Check)  stage     of  the  process  of  Planning  for  Sustainability   (PDCA:  Plan  –  Do  –  Check  –  Ac1on)     Similar  ini1a1ves  can  be  applying  this  methodology.     The  range  of  users  contribu1ng  for  the  assessment  should  be  enlarged,     including  other  kind  of  “regular”  (like  other  workers  in  the  Campus)     and  “occasional”  users  (local  residents  or  tourists).       Considering  the  importance  of  the  Campus  in  the  context  of  the  city     and  the  necessary  interconnec1on  between  them,     other  agents  (like  urban  or  transport  planners)  should  also  be  involved.   João  Romão  –  Karima  Kour1t  –  Eveline  van  Leeuwen  –  Peter  Nijkamp  
  40. 40. Sustainable  Campus  Interna1onal  Symposium  October  2012   This  study  has  been  developed  at  the  Sapporo  Campus  of  Hokkaido  University   with  a  very  important  support  from    Takao  Ozasa,  Takashi  Yokoyama,  Maki  Komatsu,  Tomohiro  Morimoto  and  Yuki  Matsubara     (Office  for  a  Sustainable  Campus  -­‐  Hokkaido  University)   between  July  and  October  /  2012.     This  work  would  not  have  been  possible     without  the  ac1ve  par1cipa1on  of  22  users  of  the  Campus     who  contributed  with  their  opinions  and  sugges1ons     in  the  focus  group  mee1ngs.    João  Romão  –  Karima  Kour1t  –  Eveline  van  Leeuwen  –  Peter  Nijkamp  

×