Measuring students’ preferences for urban furniture vandalism in Selçuk University Campus in Turkey: A case study

Nurgül ARISOY 1

1   Department of Landscape Architecture, Agricultural Faculty, Selçuk University, Konya, TURKEY

✉ Coressponding author: See PDF.

doi https://doi.org/10.26832/24566632.2020.0503026

doi

Abstract

Vandalism is a phenomenon that we can encounter in any circumstances to public or private property. The vandalistic behaviors depend on the individuals’ perception and public tolerance; also, the human intolerance and their behavior are the factors which might influence the vandalistic acts. To understand the individuals’ perception of the vandalism issue, it is necessary to get the correct information, reason, and dimension of the act. The purpose of this research is to identify and understand the perception, thoughts, and attitudes of the students from Selçuk University toward the concept of vandalism. According to the questionnaire conducted for this purpose, 82.3% of the participants were reported to have aggressive behaviors against urban elements, and the damage to urban furniture was mostly done by writing (66.2%). The survey-research revealed that gender, which mostly involved in vandalism are males. Also, the timing of vandalism is observed at 21:00 (49%). The rate of those participants who said that they harmed the urban furniture is 15.6%, consciously stated that they had damaged the picnic table (55.1%) by writing or drawing (40%), and they had done it because the urban furniture was already vandalized (44.6%). This study will provide guidance on solutions by finding the causes and types of vandalism acts on urban furniture, which is a serious but not undetected problem in university campuses. The research indicated that people perceived vandalism as a lack of consciousness, sanction, and quality of the material and affects the quality of life. While, if enough people are aware of the problem, then the incident rate will decline, simultaneously.

Keywords:

Preferences, Students, University campus, Urban furniture, Vandalism

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Akyol, E. (2006). Kent Mobilyaları Tasarım ve Kullanım Süreci. Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü.

Arıkan, R. (2018). Anket yöntemi üzerinde bir değerlendirme.

Atilla, A. (2016). Traces of Vandalism in City Parks. Recent Researches in Interdisciplinary Sciences, 713.

Badiora, A.I. (2017). Patterns of crime on campuses: a spatial analysis of crime and concerns for safety at a Nigerian university. Acta Criminologica: Southern African Journal of Criminology, 30(3): 180-200.

Ceccato, V. and Haining, R. (2005). Assessing the geography of vandalism: Evidence from a Swedish city. Urban Studies, 42(9): 1637-1656.

De Wet, C. (2005). Strategies for preventing learner vandalism. Acta Academica, 37(1): 146-172.

Dinçtürk, S. (2007). Türkiye’de Vandalizmin Sosyal; Ekonomik ve Psikolojik Boyutları. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.

Doğan, S. (2011). Okul tahripçiliğine ilişkin kuramsal bir çözümleme. Adıyaman Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (7): 52-68.

Feyzi, M., Hosseini, S.B. and Razaghiasl, S. (2008). Identification of Environmental Design Methods and Techniques for Preventing Vandalism.

General, O. M. o. t. A. (1981). Vandalism-Responses and Responsibilities Report of the Task Force on Vandalism.

Ghanbari, A., Tahooni, M. and Gaderi, N. (2017). Factors Influencing the Incidence of Vandalism in Urban Furniture (Case Study: Tabriz).

Goldstein, A.P. (2013). The psychology of vandalism. Springer Science & Business Media.

Gomes, V., Dionísio, A. and Pozo-Antonio, J.S. (2017). Conservation strategies against graffiti vandalism on Cultural Heritage stones: Protective coatings and cleaning methods. Progress in Organic Coatings, 113: 90-109.

Ilgın, İ. D. (2001). Tasarım Eğitimi: Yaratıcılığı Desteklemek. DomusM ,10(10).

Khalilikhah, M., Heaslip, K. and Hancock, K. (2016). Traffic sign vandalism and demographics of local population: A case study in Utah. Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering (English Edition), 3(3): 192-202.

Nobles, M.R., Fox, K.A., Khey, D.N. and Lizotte, A.J. (2013). Community and campus crime: A geospatial examination of the Clery Act. Crime & Delinquency, 59(8): 1131-1156.

Nordmarker, A., Hjärthag, F., Perrin-Wallqvist, R. and Archer, T. (2016). The roles of gender and personality factors in vandalism and scrawl-graffiti among S wedish adolescents. PsyCh journal, 5(3): 180-190.

Olgun, R., Yılmaz, T. and Adan, E. (2017). A Research on Opinions about Vandalism of University Students: The Case Study of Akdeniz University.

Pfattheicher, S., Keller, J. and Knezevic, G. (2019). Destroying things for pleasure: On the relation of sadism and vandalism. Personality and Individual Differences, 140: 52-56.

Potas, I.L., Vining, A. and Wilson, P.R. (1990). Young people and crime: Costs and prevention. Australian Institute of Criminology Canberra.

Richard, P. (2000). Dober. CAMPUS LANDSCAPE. Copyright by John Wiley&Sons.

Shachaf, P. and Hara, N. (2010). Beyond vandalism: Wikipedia trolls. Journal of Information Science, 36(3): 357-370.

Tarakcı, F.N. (2003). Kentsel Çevrede Vandalizm: Vandalizmin Bank Tasarımına Etkileri. Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü.

Tewksbury, R. and Mustaine, E. E. (2000). Routine activities and vandalism: A theoretical and empirical study. Journal of Crime and Justice, 23(1): 81-110.

Yavuz, A. (2011). The effects of locational factors on vandalism in the seaside parks. Scientific Research and Essays, 6(20): 4207-4212.

Published

2020-09-25

How to Cite

ARISOY, N. (2020). Measuring students’ preferences for urban furniture vandalism in Selçuk University Campus in Turkey: A case study . Archives of Agriculture and Environmental Science, 5(3), 426-430. https://doi.org/10.26832/24566632.2020.0503026