Journal of Environmental Protection, 2011, 2, 365-370
doi: 10.4236/jep.2011.24040 Published Online June 2011 (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/jep)
365
Planning of Recreation Parks in the University
Campus
Anthopoulos K. Petros, George Costa
Democritus University of Thrace, Department of Physical Education and Sport Science, Komotini, Greece.
Received February 20th, 2011; revised March 28th, 2011; accepted May 1st, 2011.
ABSTRACT
The benefits of parks and recreation are very serious. The purpose of this study was to investigate the attitudes of the
people that use the camp us area of Democritus universi t y of Thrace, in Komotini. There are series of factors that should
be taken under consideration when campus is under planned. In this research took part 742 people and more specific,
they were: under graduate students, post graduate students, tutors as well as teaching and administrative staff. An
analysis of Principle components has been accomplished and 8 factors have been accrued with eigenvalue more than 1.
These factors explain the 55.32% of the whole variation. The conclusion of this study was that a model for campus
planning must consists of these 8 parameters: land, climate, vegetation, physical activity, environmental consciousness,
daily users of territory and inhabitants of an area.
Keywords: Campus, Park , Physical Activity, Questionnaire
1. Introduction
Greek towns’ public space is faced, from the majority of
the citizens, as an unconcerned topic. It is not recognized
as a common good which is not only available to them
but also it isn’t considered as an obligation to protect it.
It is a totally strange thing to the citizens and for this
reason it is often pollu ted or violated by them. The same
behavior is noticed in the green urban space even if it is
public or private. The public green outdoors is the victim
of the rapid urbanization and super-construction which
after 60 s, possessing it was thought a luxury but often an
unnecessary one. It is a topic superficially discussed in
relation to the urban lay out, putting it in contrast to the
practice done in the European and international space, in
which green is the major keystone in the organization
and function of the urban groups.
In the Greek society green public places are limited.
They are not properly organized. Also, the option of the
location and planting is badly selected. Green places
happened accidentally according to the constructive den-
sity where the latter permits it. This doesn’t enable their
integration to the town’s fun ctionality.
Stress is a powerful factor of mortality [1] for the hu-
mans who live in modern societies or industrialized so-
cieties. This phenomenon results in two things: first, it
does higher the cure cost and second, there are lost
working hours. Psychological health is a sign of humans’
good physical condition. U.K.D.H. [2] points that physi-
cal exercise helps people feel better improving at the
same time their mood and limiting their worry. Exercise
increases self respect and reduces stress reactions while
managing a better quality of sleep.
Parks, passages and green places that exist in a town
offer an active way of life prohibitin g obesity and sudd en
deaths [3-6]. Natural activity benefits persons in their
physical and psychological behavior [7]. When exercise
is done inside the natural environment then an added
factor comes on surface. A term known as green exercise
is mentioned by Pretty and his colleagues. Environment
must be kept intact for ethical and financial reasons
[8-11]. Little attention has been given to the advantages
of the psychic health. Less natural environment means
bad human condition and stress higher percentage [12].
So, research results show that green contributes to the
human health and helps to get over stress, while it boosts
immune system. Also, it does concentration easier.
Universities’ open space and tutoring quality are two
contrastive things. The plan of a campus, the unity of the
surroundings and the buildings help for a pleasant place
not only for the students but also for the academic staff.
Institutions are usually situ ated in the center of a town.
So their right planning is critical. There is an attempt for

Planning of Recreation Parks in the University Campus 366
them to function as free spaces available and amusing to
the people. An interaction as well as cooperation between
the urban web and the outdoor space should be feasible.
Neighborhood is the basic society’s element. An institu-
tion must function as a neighborhood or as a system of
neighborhoods that are accessible to the locals offering
not only knowledge but also other important things.
Natural elements and institutional ch aracteristics indicate
the mixture level with the constructive web of the town
[13].
Aristotle university of Thessaloniki’s campus is down-
town (Figure 1). Some green places exist in the center of
the campus but they are not designed and created ration-
ally. There is a big surface which is covered with sod and
a small number of trees in abnormal and accidental thesis.
There is also a small pond but it is not reclaimed. Due to
the length of the campuses’ streets there are trees that
offer protection from the various weather conditions. An
important but negative effect is the creation of a square
in front of the positive studies school and the medicine
school. This square is p aved with out green . In additio n, a
huge concrete construction in front of the library that
causes a bad impression. There is a satisfactory attempt
around the philosophical, law and r e ligious schools.
Map of Greece

Planning of Recreation Parks in the University Campus367
Figure 1. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (Google).
The campus of Athens is in an area that called Zogra-
fou in the beginning of the mountain Immetus (Figure 2).
Observing this field we can find self sown vegetation and
especially the kind of pine cones. There aren’t any other
green places but there are many sports facilities. Cars are
exposed to the weather because the protection in the
parking lacks. Around the buildings there is vegetation
roughly designed.
Patras campus (Figure 3) is a better example for plan-
ning and configuring the outwards. There are important
interventions to the surroundings that make things posi-
tive. There are voluminous buildings not inappropriately
placed because of the physical function of the area. There
is a vehicle protection in park station accompanied by the
presence of vegetation. We can find additional places
without green or creating shad ow. A positive thing is the
existence of sculpture, almost in every building, that is
eye catching. Furthermore, there is sod and some trees. A
negative element is the water intensive sod. In Patras
campus some desultory squares and some buildings are
Figure 2. The campus of Athens (Google).
Figure 3. Patras campus (Google).
obvious. Finally, there are some sport facilities available
for the users.
The campus of Ioannina (Figure 4) covers a certain
land away from the town’s web. There are no traces of
external design. The campus lacks in intervention in its
majority. Instead, there are plain cases that are impres-
sive. Also, some parking stations have deciduous trees
for solar radi at i on p rot ecti o n during summer.
The agronomic university of Athens (Figure 5) is the
web of the town. It is a good example in reference to the
design and the configuration because of the landscape
and the architecture laboratory. There are places for pri-
vacy, quiet, and rest, categorized in the whole length of
the campus. A negative thing is the presence of chairs
made by concrete, which is not compatible with the en-
vironment. The most pedestrian precincts are configured
rightly with some kinds of palm trees that are compatible
with the climate. Parking stations are characterized from
vegetation and they are weather protected. There is some
vegetation as for example some fences that are useful to
separate the space. Finally, there are eye catching items,
not always as successful as a palm trees.
2. Method
2.1. Questionnaire
The draft of a questionnaire by professional scientists of
physical education and landscape’s architecture became
real. It was distributed to a number of people to the
Figure 4. The campus of Ioannina (Google).
Figure 5. The agronomic university of Athens (Google).

Planning of Recreation Parks in the University Campus 368
Ua
has got closed quarries in
or
questioned people aged less than 25
oups are a) tutoring personnel, b) administrative
st
ents analysis in order to trace
niversity of Komotini (Figure 6). Then it became
statistical treatment and its validity was checked by the
Cronbach criterion .
This specific questionnaire
der to be immediate filled. The responses were imme-
diate from the users of the Komotini’s campus. The
process was done by a computer with the method of spss
17. In detail, as far as the form of the questionnaire it is
the following. The first five questions have to do per-
sonal information such as age, sex, specification, family
condition and semester. The rest 36 questions having a
seventh degree-Likert climax (I totally agree = 1, I cer-
tainly agree = 2, I ag ree = 3, I don’t know = 4, I disagr ee
= 5, I certainly disagree = 6, I totally disagree = 7) and
were categorized in 6 groups: a) physical conditions, b)
vegetation, c) activity, d) surrounding construction, e)
users, f) environmental conscience.
2.2. Participants
The majority of the
years old because of their student identity. 60.6% were
women and 39.4%were men. The most of them were not
married. In D.U.TH. (Democritus University of Thrace)
of Komotini the data are: educational personnel 5.7%,
administrative staff 4.6%, under graduate students 75.5%
and post graduate students 14.3%. The research was set
in D.U.TH. in March 2010 with stratificated sampling.
The total population was sub divided in homogenous and
uncovered sub populating fields, based on users’ specifi-
cation.
The gr
aff, c) undergraduate students, d) post graduate students.
The participants were 742 in their total number. They are
categorized proportionally to their specification and ac-
cording to their university department.
2.3. Statistical Analysis
There is a principal compon
them and determine the kind of the 36 questions. Their
validity was checked by a co efficient “a” created by
Cronbach for each one of the results separately.
Figure 6. Democritus University of Thrace (Google).
3.
omponent analysis to research the
s of the appropriateness in order to apply
th
0.784, for the second a =
0.
e application of the specific parame-
ginning of a questionnaire’s
gr
conclusion that the users of
Results
There is a principle c
form of the 36 questions. The criterion for the eigenval-
ues exceeds 1.
The diagnosi
e principles in the under discussion data K.M.O. and
Bartlett’s test of sphericity give satisfactory results
(K.M.O. = 0.862, x2 = 8639.878, p < 0.01). As an ac-
ceptable limit of loading in order to include a component
in a summarized climax it was estimated the 0.40. 8 fac-
tors were selected after the research. They have value
bigger than 1 that interpret the 55.32% of the whole scale
because of the high interrelation between the factors
there are results after varimax (Table 1). The cases are
infrastructure, land, activity, climate, environmental con-
sciousness, users, inhabitants.
As for the first factor a =
789, for the third a = 0.704, for the fourth a = 0.794, for
the fifth a = 0.761, for the seventh a = 0.711. These val-
ues show a little relation between the variables that create
these elements. For the sixth factor the value is up to a =
0.662 and about th e eighth the value is a = 0.675. Finally,
for the whole components the value is a = 0.644 which
shows that there is a strong relation between them.
4. Discussion
The existence and th
ters during the design of the outdoors are necessary. The
decision of the right factors is pivotal to the rational de-
sign. In the past, many researchers have referred the fact
of the natural environment but without mingled with a
questionnaire process. This survey is ambitious for cov-
ering this lack by forming the institutions externally. If
we adapt this tool it is possible to use it to other similar
institutions such as hospitals.
The present survey is the be
owth that has its primary goal to form the spaces of the
educational institutions. The results that accrued from the
factors analysis were encouraging. The factors that finally
occurred agree with other professional scientists’ issues.
They have proved in various researches the importance
of the individual factor. Specifically, Dafis [14], supports
that during the outdoor design should think about the
physical conditions and should be used adaptable forestry
and eco items. Dober [15] centers on the importance of
these outdoor spaces that enable users necessities. Pretty
[16] proves that exercise in a pleasant natural environ-
ment benefits blood pressure in contrast with the exercise
in an artificial landscape which lacks in vegetation.
5. Conclusions
The survey comes to the

Planning of Recreation Parks in the University Campus 369
omponent analysis.
Table 1. Principle c
Factors
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Subject focus 0.679
Botanical garden 0.649
Cultural 0.593
Fences plants 0.570
Environmental inf ormation 0.556
Meeting spaces 0.554
View locations 0.551
Isolation sights 0.513
Type of soil 0.723
Soil depth 0.664
Terrain 0.577
Soil moisture 0.572
Slope land 0.531
Moderate activity 0.676
Alternative forms of activity 0.646
Extreme sports 0.621
Team sports 0.612
Sports spaces 0.572
Footpaths 0.546
Rainfall 0.794
Wind 0.723
Humidity 0.640
Trees shape 0.783
Trees colors 0.728
Trees height 0.573
Trees type 0.503
Roads 0.733
Car using 0.693
Close buildings 0.661
Materials of construction 0.657
Opinion users 0.815
Wishes users 0.795
Active participation users 0.480
Access inhabitants 0.802
Active participation inhabitants 0.731
Events 0.703
Extraction method: principal component analysis. tation me t ho d: varimax with kaiser normalition. Ro za

Planning of Recreation Parks in the University Campus 370
he campus of Komotini find critical the 8 factors of t
Principle component analysis. So, they believe that the
designer of such a place should consider the land (soil,
topography etc.) and the climate (rain, wind etc.) of the
reason, the existed and not vegetation, the construction
that may use the visitors, the environmental factors (ma-
terials, botanic garden, information about environment),
the sub assistance of physical activity (fields, adventure
park etc.) and the views of users (students, professors)
and the citizens who live around the campus. Finally, the
scientist who wants to plan a university campus has a
tool which could follow. We think that he model which
came from this study and it consists of the above 8 pa-
rameters is useful for environmentalists and help the
protection of physical enviro nment.
REFERENCES
son, M. Hickma[1] L. Rainford, V. Man and A. Morgan
Department of Health, “At Least Five a
he Built Environment
,
“Health in England 1998. Investigating the Links between
Social Inequalities and Health,” The Stationery Office,
London, 2000.
[2] United Kingdom
Week: Evidence on the Impact of Physical Activity and
Its Relationship to Health,” A Report from the Chief
Medical Officer, London, 2004.
[3] L. D. Frank and P. O. Engelke, “T
and Human Activity Patterns: Exploring The Impacts Of
Urban Form On Public Health,” Journal of Planning Lit-
erature, Vol. 16, No. 2, 2001, pp. 202-218.
doi:10.1177/08854120122093339
[4] C. Maller, et al., “Healthy Nature Healthy People, ‘Con-
Material Ba
12, No. 4, 2006, pp. 361-371.
tact with Nature’ as an Upstream Health Promotion In-
tervention for Populations,” Health Promotion Interna-
tional, Vol. 21, No. 1, 2005, pp. 45-54.
[5] S. E. Coen and N. Ross, “Exploring the sis for
Health: Characteristics Of Parks In Montreal Neighbour-
hoods With Contrasting Health Outcomes,” Health and
Place, Vol.
doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2005.02.001
[6] K. Reynolds, J. Wolch, J. Byrne, C. Cho
Weaver and M. Jerrett, “Trail Characu, G. Feng, S. teristics as Corre-
l Wellbe-
ess, Oxford, 1949.
, pp.
lates of Urban Trail Use,” American Journal of Health
Promotion, Vol. 21, No. 4, 2007, pp. 335-345.
[7] D. Scully, J. Kremer, M. Meade, R. Graham and K.
Dudgeon, “Physical Exercise and Psychologica
ing: A Critical Review,” British Journal Sports Science,
Vol. 32, No. 2, 1999, pp. 11-20.
[8] A. Leopold, “A Sand County Almanac and Sketches Here
and There,” Oxford University Pr
[9] Costanza, et al., “The Value of the World's Ecosystem
Services and Natural Capital,” Nature, Vol. 387, 1997
253-260. doi:10.1038/387253a0
[10] R. Eckersley, “The Discourse Ethic and the Problem of
Representing Nature,” Environmental Politics, Vol. 8, No
and Human Health,” Environmental
2, 1999, pp. 24-49.
[11] P. A. Sandifer, A. F. Holland, T. K. Rowles and G. I.
Scott, “The Oceans
Health Perspective, Vol. 112, No. 8, 2004, pp. 454-455.
doi:10.1289/Ehp.112-A454
[12] J. Pretty, M. Griffin and M. Sellens, “Is Nature Good for
You?,” Ecosystem, Vol. 24, 2004, pp. 2-9.
ds and Spaces
ley & Sons, New York, 2000.
al, Vol. 5,
[13] P. Anthopoulos and J. Georgi, “Research Employer’s
Preferences for Landscape Design of Groun
Surrounding Hospitals. Case Study University Hospital of
Alexandroupolis,” Congress of Landscape Architecture &
Urban Environment, Drama, 12-17 April, 2010.
[14] S. Dafis, “Urban Forestry, Art of Text,” Thessaloniki,
Greece, 2001.
[15] R. Dober, “Campus Landscape: Functions, Forms, Fea-
tures,” John Wi
[16] J. Pretty, “How Nature Contributes to Mental and Physi-
cal Health,” Spirituality & Health Internation
No 2, 2004, pp. 68-78. doi:10.1002/shi.220