Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
physical and landscape conditions influence the performance—and hence the
satisfaction level of the campus—and how the campus may look like in the future,
starting with the assessment of the current campus and continuing with the identifi-
cation of general strategic ideas for its future development. The basic information is
based on the current Master Plan for the campus and the Action Plan for
Sustainability (forecasting and backcasting). The methodology followed in this
study will be applied in the future for the preparation of a new Master Plan of the
Campus, including scenario analysis, choice experiments among conflictive
proposals, and financial restrictions (which will not be analysed in this work).
As the campus of Hokkaido University is a rather open public space, used also
by residents and tourists as a public park, this creates conditions for a close
interaction between academia and the local community, but it may also prompt
potential conflicts between “regular users” and occasional visitors or tourists.
On the other hand, the campus is an important green area within the ecological
structure of the city and its landscape (see Fig.
20.1
), which reinforces the need for
enhancing the importance of its planning in the context of the city plan. Examples
of such approaches can be found in Kenney et al. (
2005
), who provide an analysis of
the role of Universities in the context of a city, and in Perry and Wiewel
2005
), who
present different examples of interaction between University campuses and the
surrounding communities.
The analysis of the sustainability of a University campus needs a systematic and
comprehensive approach to the different aspects and functions daily performed by
the University, systematizing different domains of analysis and considering the
users of the campus as a community of different persons with different purposes
sharing the same territory. A similar process of systematization has been applied in
urban planning by Bourdic et al. (
2012
), defining three main pillars (urban form;
economic and social aspects; environment) and a set of indicators for each pillar.
Recent other examples of various importance categories relevant for university
campus evaluation are provided by Akg¨n et al. (
2012
), proposing five systems
(Physical, Social, Economic, Ecological and Institutional) in order to address “the
stakeholders' multi-faceted viewpoints on future sustainable development” at a
regional scale, and by Heijer (
2012
), suggesting five functions (Academic,
Residential, Business Related, Retail and Leisure, Infrastructure) to analyse the
performance of universities. Other recent examples of an application of bottom-up
processes for the assessment of university campuses are provided by Abd-Razak
et al. (
2011
), Disterheft et al. (
2012
), Zink et al. (
2008
), assuming a decentralized
approach as a necessary condition for the successful implementation of sustainable
action plans at community level.
The Hokkaido University Campus hosts 20,800 students and staff members
(20,300 in the South and 500 in the North) in 1,776,248 m
2
and it is well known
that it has two rather distinct, but mutually adjacent, areas: the South and North
Campus (see map in Fig.
20.2
). These areas have different characteristics,
functions, users and expected developments. The two different territories of the
Campus were analysed during our study, with the organization of two focus-group
meetings, involving users of these two areas.
