Assessment of user preferences of campus green space at Ferdowsi University of Mashhad-Iran

Document Type : Full Paper


1 Assistant Professor, Department of Ornamental Plants, Research Center for Plant Sciences, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Iran

2 Assistant Professor, Department of Horticulture, Agriculture Faculty, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Iran


Researchers have found that a user’s perception of the campus environment is related to quality life and academic accomplishment. In this study, we have analyzed the perceptions of more than 600 users at the Ferdowsi University of Mashhad to evaluate the level of green space use and to understand user preferences from aesthetics and safety aspects. The results show that for most of the respondents (more than 80%), the use of green space was nearly 40%. The respondents’ aesthetics and safety preferences were more than moderate (65%) and nearly high (70%) respectively. A high correlation (nearly 80%) was found between their aesthetics and safety preferences. Based on the results, we recommend a thorough investigation of the effective factors and exploration of the reasons for the reduced campus green space use.


Main Subjects

  1. Chen, B., Adimo, O. A. & Bao, Z. (2009). Assessment of aesthetic quality and multiple functions of urban green space from the users’ perspective: The case of Hangzhou Flower Garden, China. Landscape and Urban Planning, 93, 76-82.
  2. Doxey, J. (2006). The impact of interior houseplants in university classrooms on course performance and on perceptions of the course and instructor. Unpublished master’s thesis, Texas State University-San Marcos, San Marcos, Texas. USA.
  3. Drottenborg, H. (1999). Aesthetics and Safety in Traffic Environments. Lund Institute of Technology, Department of Technology and Society, Traffic Engineering, 183.
  4. Dwyer, J. F., McPherson, E. G., Schroeder, H. W. & Rowntree, R. A. (1992). Assessing the benefits and costs of the urban forest. Journal of Arboriculture, 18, 227-234.
  5. Felsten, G. (2009). Where to take a study break on the college campus: An attention restoration theory perspective. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(1), 160-167.
  6. Hami, A., Suhardi, B. M., Manohar, M. & Malekizadeh, M. (2014). The relationship between landscape planting patterns and perceived safety in urban parks in Tabriz, Iran.  African Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 8(2), 107-113.
  7. Hanan, H. (2013). Open Space as Meaningful Place for Students in ITB Campus. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 85, 308-317.
  8. Hipp, J. A., Gulwadj, G. B., Alvea, S. & Sequeira, S. (2015). The Relationship between Perceived Greenness and Perceived Restorativeness of University Campuses and Student-Reported Quality of Life. Environment and Behavior, (Accepted). 1-17.
  9. Hurst, C.S., Baranik, L.E. & Daniel, F. (2013). College student stressors: A review of the qualitative research. Stress and Health, 29, 275-285.
  10. Im, S. (1984). Visual preferences in enclosed urban spaces: An exploration of a scientific approach to environmental design. Environment and Behavior, 16(2), 235-262.
  11. Jieun, L. (2005). The moderating effects of vegetation on human violent behavior caused by environmental stressors. The University of Texas at Arlington, 83.
  12. Kuchelmeister, G. & Braatz, S. (1993). Urban forestry revisited. Unasylva, 44(173), 3-12.
  13. Lewis, C.A. (1994). The evolutionary importance of people-plant relationships. In: J.Flagler and R. Poincelot (Eds.) People-plant relationships: Setting research priorities, 239-254. The Haworth Press, Binghamton, New York.
  14. Lyons, E. (1983). Demographic correlates of landscape preference. Environment and Behaviour, 15, 487-511.
  15. McFarland, A. (2007). The Relationship between Student Use of Campus Green Spaces and the Arboretum and Perceptions of Quality of Life. Degree Master of education, Texas State University-San Marcos, USA.
  16. McFarland, A.L., Waliczek, T.M. & Zajicek, J.M. (2008). The relationship between student use of campus green spaces and perceptions of quality of life. HortTechnology, 18, 232-238.
  17. Ode, A., Tveit, M.S. & Fry, G. (2008). Capturing Landscape Visual Character Using Indicators: Touching Base with Landscape Aesthetic Theory. Landscape Research, 33(1), 89-117.
  18. Patrick, G. (2002). Evaluation of the Quality of Parks, Green Structure and Urban Planning, Report of 6th Management Committe Meeting and Working Group Meetings.
  19. Robotham, D. (2008). Stress among higher education students: Towards a research agenda. Higher Education, 56, 735-746.
  20. Stepan, K., Schuster, L., Cole, J., Davision, T. & McKey, W. (2014). Green Space Perception. Green space perception, Dalhouse University, 1-40.
  21. Uzzell, D. (1989). People, Nature and Landscape: An Environmental Psychological Perspective. Landscape Research Group (monograph), London, England.
  22. Yücel, G. F. (2006). Safety Concerns Issues for Park Users, Case Study in Zeytýnburnu Waterfront Park in Ýstanbul. 1st International CIB Endorsed METU Postgraduate Conference Built Environment & Information Technologies, Ankara, 319-330.