Campus Landscape and Activity Patterns at Caleb University, Imota, Lagos State, Nigeria

The landscape of a university campus is a dynamic environment that significantly influences the behavior and engagement of its inhabitants. This research investigates the interaction between the landscape of Caleb University, Imota, Lagos State, Nigeria, and how it corresponds with the activities within the campus. The study determines how the physical environment—softscape and hardscape—supports or restricts the academic, social, and recreational activities of students and staff. A mixed-methods approach was employed, combining a structured questionnaire administered to 300 respondents across multiple colleges and academic levels with direct spatial observation of the campus landscape. Findings reveal that the campus landscape significantly influences daily movement patterns, with 232 respondents (77.4%) confirming that landscape design affects their movement and that areas of difficult access exist. Shade emerged as the most critical factor for outdoor comfort, with 184 respondents (61.3%) agreeing that shaded areas encourage longer outdoor stays, while heat and sun exposure were identified as the primary challenges. Only 107 respondents (35.5%) use outdoor spaces for academic activities, and 213 respondents (71%) confirmed that some campus areas are rarely used, validating the existence of passive zones. The study classifies campus zones as active (academic buildings, cafeteria, hostels, shaded walkways) and passive (football field, mini green fields, peripheral open spaces, Medicals area), revealing that active zones are predominantly associated with necessary activities while spaces for optional and social activities are underserved due to inadequate shade, seating, maintenance, and pathway connectivity. The Love Garden presents a paradoxical case—valued by some for its shade and connectivity but avoided by others due to insects, poor maintenance, and bad access pathways. The study recommends prioritising shade infrastructure, providing outdoor seating, improving pathway connectivity, activating passive zones through targeted interventions, and engaging professional landscape design expertise to create a more responsive campus environment.

Active and passive zones, Caleb University

1. Abu-Ghazzeh, T. M. (1999). Communicating behavioral research to campus design: Factors affecting the perception and use of outdoor spaces at the University of Jordan. Environment and Behavior, 31(6), 764–804. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Ademakinwa, O. O., Onamade, A. O., Adewumi, B. J., Adenubi, O. O., & Alagbe, O. A. (2024). Impact of accommodation on job performance at Caleb University, Imota-Lagos State, Nigeria. Caleb International Journal of Development Studies, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.26772/cijds-2024-07-01-013 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Adeyemi, B. A., Ademakinwa, O. O., & Adeyemi, I. S. (2024). Housing as a stimulus to students’ academic deliverables: A study of Federal University of Technology, Akure. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Applied Science, 9(3), 493–505. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Adeyemi, I. S., Adejumo, O. T., Iweka, A. C., Adeyemi, B. A., & Ademakinwa, O. O. (2024). Environmental quality of public residential estates in Lekki Peninsula. AAUA Journal of Environmental Design and Management, 3(1), 72–82. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Appleton, J. (1975). The experience of landscape. John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Booth, N. K. (2012). Foundations of landscape architecture: Integrating form and space using the language of site design. John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Carmona, M. (2019). Principles for public space design, planning to do better. Urban Design International, 24(1), 47–59. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41289-018-0070-3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Carmona, M., Heath, T., Oc, T., & Tiesdell, S. (2010). Public places urban spaces: The dimensions of urban design (2nd ed.). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Coulson, J., Roberts, P., & Taylor, I. (2015). University planning and architecture: The search for perfection. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Dee, C. (2001). Form and fabric in landscape architecture: A visual introduction. Spon Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Dober, R. P. (2000). Campus landscape: Functions, forms, features. John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Fadamiro, J. A., & Adedeji, J. A. (2013). Landscape components and outdoor spatial quality in Nigerian university campuses. Journal of Geography and Regional Planning, 6(8), 287–300. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Gehl, J. (2011). Life between buildings: Using public space (6th ed.). Island Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Gehl, J., & Svarre, B. (2013). How to study public life. Island Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Hajrasouliha, A. H. (2017). Campus score: Measuring university campus qualities. Landscape and Urban Planning, 158, 166–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.08.012 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Harris, C. W., & Dines, N. T. (1998). Time-saver standards for landscape architecture (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Heft, H. (1988). Affordances of children’s environments: A functional approach to environmental description. Children’s Environments Quarterly, 5(3), 29–37. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15(3), 169–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-4944(95)90001-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Lau, S. S. Y., Gou, Z., & Liu, Y. (2014). Healthy campus by open space design: Approaches and guidelines. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 3(4), 452–467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2014.11.001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Marcus, C. C., & Francis, C. (1998). People places: Design guidelines for urban open space (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. 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(2), 232–238. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH.18.2.232 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Mehta, V. (2014). Evaluating public space. Journal of Urban Design, 19(1), 53–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2013.854698 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Scholl, K. G., & Gulwadi, G. B. (2015). Recognizing campus landscapes as learning spaces. Journal of Learning Spaces, 4(1), 53–60. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Speake, J., Edmondson, S., & Nawaz, H. (2013). Everyday encounters with nature: Students’ perceptions and use of university campus green spaces. Human Geographies – Journal of Studies and Research in Human Geography, 7(1), 21–31. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Ulrich, R. S. (1984). View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science, 224(4647), 420–421. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.6143402 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Whyte, W. H. (1980). The social life of small urban spaces. Project for Public Spaces. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Re-Validating the Uniqueness of Urban Morphology of the Shekhawati Region Through Reconnaissance Using Hotspot Analysis
• Golden Ages and Emerging Needs: Rethinking old Age Homes as Self Sustained Communities
• The Missing Link between Colonial Jack Arch Roofing and Indigenous Construction Practices in India
• Archiving Kolakopa - A Study on the Present Condition and the Architectural Features of an Evanescing Historic Settlement.
• Analysing Vendor Lock-In in Serverless Architectures