Assessment of Pedestrian Walkways within Mahasarakham University
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Mahasarakham University is one of the educational institutions with a vast campus and a continuously growing population. Therefore, the development of pedestrian infrastructure within the university is of critical importance. This research aims to study the current conditions of pedestrian pathways within Mahasarakham University, evaluate pedestrian efficiency, and propose policy-oriented recommendations for improving walkable environments. Presently, the university faces issues such as insufficient pedestrian paths, a lack of connectivity, and environments unsuitable for walking.
The study involved field surveys to assess the physical characteristics of pedestrian routes and applied the Space Syntax method to analyze pedestrian efficiency. A total of 51 pedestrian points across five main zones of the university were evaluated based on four key components: connectivity, accessibility, safety, and comfort. These assessments were integrated with Space Syntax analysis to calculate spatial integration values of pedestrian routes. The findings reveal that most pedestrian pathways are in a critical condition, with 22 out of 51 points (43.1%) rated as low to very low quality. Accessibility scored the lowest average at 2.47 points, with only two locations meeting design standards. Safety scored an average of 2.66 points, indicating a lack of user-centered design. A significant discrepancy was found between spatial integration values and pedestrian quality: among the 11 areas with high integration values (>0.700), only five had good to very good pedestrian quality. Notably, the university’s main entrance, despite its structural potential, lacks adequate pedestrian infrastructure.
The study categorizes areas into four groups based on development priority: Group A (9 points): Urgent areas with high integration but low-quality, Group B (10 points): Model areas that should maintain standards, Group C (9 points): Areas needing improved connectivity Group D (23 points): Areas to be considered based on budget availability. Systematic and prioritized interventions are essential to effectively enhance the quality of life for students and staff. The findings can also serve as a guideline for other educational institutions with similar contexts.
Article Details
References
พระราชบัญญัติมหาวิทยาลัยมหาสารคาม พ.ศ. 2537. (2537, 8 ธันวาคม). ราชกิจจานุเบกษา. เล่ม 111 ตอนที่ 54 ก หน้า 1–18.
พิชศาล พันธุ์วัฒนา. (2567, สิงหาคม). บุพปัจจัยของมาตรการปลอดภัยคนเดินเท้าพื้นที่ถนนหลังมหาวิทยาลัยรามคำแหง. วารสารการพัฒนาชุมชนและคุณภาพชีวิต, 12(3), 212–221. https://so02.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/jcdlq/article/view/268140
มหาวิทยาลัยมหาสารคาม. (2566). แผนพัฒนาการศึกษามหาวิทยาลัยมหาสารคาม ฉบับที่ 13 (พ.ศ. 2566-2570). สำนักงานอธิการบดี มหาวิทยาลัยมหาสารคาม.
สาธิดา สกุลรัตนกุลชัย และวราลักษณ์ คงอ้วน. (2559, มกราคม-มิถุนายน). ความปลอดภัยของทางเดินเท้าและเส้นทางจักรยานในการเข้าถึงสวนสาธารณะในกรุงเทพมหานครและปริมณฑล. Asian Creative Architecture, Art and Design, 22(1), 70–87. https://so04.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/archkmitl/article/view/65060
Abdullah, W. S. (2020). Optimizing social sustainability in walkable university campus: A comparison between the old and new campuses of Sulaimani University. Amazonia Investiga, 9(34), 44–56. https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2020.34.10.5
Alam, M. J. (2018). Compact development and accessibility in university campus planning and design. Journal of Urban Management, 7(2), 62–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jum.2018.04.001
Doğmuşöz, B. B. (2024). Analyzing the factors associated with walkability in a campus setting from users' perspectives. Journal of Green Building, 19(1), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.3992/jgb.19.1.3
Hillier, B., & Hanson, J. (1984). The social logic of space. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597237
Hillier, B., Leaman, A., Stansall, P., & Bedford, M. (1976). Space syntax. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 3(2), 147–185. https://doi.org/10.1068/b030147
Keat, L. K., Yaacob, N. M., & Hashim, N. R. (2016, July 13). Campus walkability in Malaysian public universities: A case study of University Malaya. MATEC Web of Conferences, 66, 00001. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/20166600001
Liao, B., Xu, Y., Li, X., & Li, J. (2022). Association between campus walkability and affective walking experience, and the mediating role of walking attitude. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(21), 14519. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192114519
Pires, B. C., Magagnin, R. C., Fontes, M. S., & Azambuja, M. D. (2022). Methodologies to evaluate the quality of pedestrian infrastructure on the university campus: Systematic review. Revista Nacional de Gerenciamento de Cidades, 10(76), 38–53. https://doi.org/10.17271/23188472107620222989
Ramakreshnan, L., Fong, C. S., Sulaiman, N. M., & Aghamohammadi, N. (2020, December). Motivations and built environment factors associated with campus walkability in the tropical settings. Science of the Total Environment, 749, 141457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141457
Southworth, M. (2005). Designing the walkable city. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 131(4), 246–257. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9488(2005)131:4(246)
Sukor, N. S., & Fisal, S. F. (2020). Safety, connectivity, and comfortability as improvement indicators of walkability to the bus stops in Penang Island. Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research, 10(6), 6450–6455. https://doi.org/10.48084/etasr.3832
