Zoekresultaten

Post-pandemic adaptive university campus management

Living in a pod

Background and aim – In practice, phone pods and office booths, hereafter referred to as pods, have proven their added value and popularity in open-plan offices. How would that work in another context, such as in higher education? This study explores use and user perceptions of these pods in an atrium on a Dutch university campus.Methods / Methodology – After placing nine pods, the effects were studied through document analysis, guest journey, direct observation (behaviour, indoor climate, bacteria, fungus), interview, and survey.Results – Students use the pods mainly for seven activities: meeting, project work, noise-free work, study, phone call, relaxation, or hang out. Students report a positive general experience of the pod, a very positive experience when entering the pod, and hardly any negative experiences. They feel at ease and the pods ensure better concentration. Finally, pod users reported to be a little less nervous than other atrium users.Originality – The studied pods are mostly applied in open-plan offices. By placing them in an atrium at a Dutch university campus the pods are exposed to different users, generating new user-related findings.Practical or social implications – In order to perform well, students need a variety of places on campus. An atrium is normally crowded, loud, and noisy. Pods provide an extra option, a space within a space, that students use and appreciate. By adding these tiny spaces to their repertoire, universities seem to be better aligned with user needs. Facility managers and researchers could consider experimenting with pods in other lively contexts.

The campus as location for firms

Campuses are increasingly positioning themselves as attractive locations forbusinesses. This research studies how this plays out in Amsterdam. We conclude that there is currently much fragmentation in efforts to position the campus landscape as business location, and provide some policy recommendations.

How can a university campus contribute to the liveability of a city?

Smart Green Campus

Author supplied: Within the Netherlands the interest for sustainability is slowly growing. However, most organizations are still lagging behind in implementing sustainability as part of their strategy and in developing performance indicators to track their progress; not only in profit organizations but in higher education as well, even though sustainability has been on the agenda of the higher educational sector since the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, progress is slow. Currently most initiatives in higher education in the Netherlands have been made in the greening of IT (e.g. more energy efficient hardware) and in implementing sustainability as a competence in curricula. However if we look at the operations (the day to day processes and activities) of Dutch institutions for higher education we just see minor advances. In order to determine what the best practices are in implementing sustainable processes, We have done research in the Netherlands and based on the results we have developed a framework for the smart campus of tomorrow. The research approach consisted of a literature study, interviews with experts on sustainability (both in higher education and in other sectors), and in an expert workshop. Based on our research we propose the concept of a Smart Green Campus that integrates new models of learning, smart sharing of resources and the use of buildings and transport (in relation to different forms of education and energy efficiency). Flipping‐the‐classroom, blended learning, e‐learning and web lectures are part of the new models of learning that should enable a more time and place independent form of education. With regard to smart sharing of resources we have found best practices on sharing IT‐storage capacity among universities, making educational resources freely available, sharing of information on classroom availability and possibilities of traveling together. A Smart Green Campus is (or at least is trying to be) energy neutral and therefore has an energy building management system that continuously monitors the energy performance of buildings on the campus. And the design of the interior of the buildings is better suited to the new forms of education and learning described above. The integrated concept of Smart Green Campus enables less travel to and from the campus. This is important as in the Netherlands about 60% of the CO2 footprint of a higher educational institute is related to mobility. Furthermore we advise that the campus is in itself an object for study by students and researchers and sustainability should be made an integral part of the attitude of all stakeholders related to the Smart Green Campus. The Smart Green Campus concept provides a blueprint that Dutch institutions in higher education can use in developing their own sustainability strategy. Best practices are shared and can be implemented across different institutions thereby realizing not only a more sustainable environment but also changing the attitude that students (the professionals of tomorrow) and staff have towards sustainability.

Facilitating campus interactions – critical success factors according to university facility directors

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to investigate which critical success factors (CSFs) influence interaction on campuses as identified by the facility directors (FDs) of Dutch university campuses and to discuss how these compare with the literature. Design/methodology/approach: All 13 Dutch university campus FDs were interviewed (office and walking interview), focussing on CSFs relating to spaces and services that facilitate interaction. Open coding and thematic analysis resulted in empirically driven categories indicated by the respondents. Similarities and differences between the CSFs as previously identified in the literature are discussed. Findings: The following categories emerged: constraints, motivators, designing spaces, designing services, building community and creating coherence. The campus is seen as a system containing subsystems and is itself part of a wider system (environment), forming a layered structure. Constraints and motivators are part of the environment but cannot be separated from the other four categories, as they influence their applicability. Research limitations/implications: This study was limited to interviews with FDs and related staff. The richness of the findings shows that this was a relevant and efficient data collection strategy for the purpose of this study. Practical implications: By viewing the campus as an open system, this study puts the practical applicability of CSFs into perspective yet provides a clear overview of CSFs related to campus interaction that may be included in future campus design policies. Social implications: This (more) complete overview of CSFs identified in both literature and practice will help FDs, policymakers and campus designers to apply these CSFs in their campus designs. This improved campus design would increase the number of knowledge sharing interactions, contributing to innovation and valorisation. This could create a significant impact in all research fields, such as health, technology or well-being, benefitting society as a whole. Originality/value: This study provides a comprehensive overview and comparison of CSFs from both literature and practice, allowing more effective application of CSFs in campus design policies. A framework for future studies on CSFs for interaction on campuses is provided.