Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
Table 20.2
Impact matrix for five campus profiles
Campus profiles
Assessment criteria
Experiential Functional Ecological Accessible Collaborative
Science orientation
2.8
4.5
2.0
3.5
2.2
Teaching and learning
conditions
3
5
2
4
1
Research conditions
3
5
2
4
1
Libraries
3
5
1
4
2
Conference facilities
2
5
1
4
3
Experimental Farms and
production
3
2
5
1
4
Special education facilities
3
5
1
4
2
1.8
3.3
1.8
3.0
5.0
Creativity
Academic spin-off
1
3
2
4
5
Private R&D
1
3
2
4
5
Collaborative R&D
1
4
2
3
5
Artistic and creative
professions
4
2
1
3
5
Linkage to local community
1
4
2
3
5
Connectivity (ICT networks)
3
4
2
1
5
Environment
2.3
3.7
4.3
3.2
1.5
Accessibility
3
4
2
5
1
Mobility
2
3
4
5
1
Biodiversity and public spaces 4
3
5
2
1
Emissions
1
4
5
3
2
Energy consumption and
production
2
4
5
3
1
Water and waste management 2
4
5
1
3
Social capital
4.2
2.0
1.5
3.7
3.7
Financial support for students
4
2
1
3
5
Student housing
5
3
2
4
1
Various services
3
1
2
4
5
Recreation, culture and sports 5
2
1
3
4
Projects with the city
4
1
2
3
5
Bookstores
4
3
1
5
2
models represented according to the impact of the different assessment factors.
Given the current information on Assessment criteria and campus profiles, a
feasible campus can be designed within the boundaries as shown in this Figure.
The spider diagram in Fig.
20.4
represents the five future campus profiles
according to the impacts of each factor considered in the system of evaluation. It
is noteworthy that the Experiential Profile is mostly influenced by social factors, the
Functional Profile is highly dependent on the scientific mission, the Ecological
Profile is (not surprisingly) closely related to the environmental issues, the Collabo-
rative Profile is strictly connected to social
talent and creativity, while the
