Volume 14, Number 4, 1996

Copyright 1996. Carolyn S. Banning and James H. Banning

In the Beginning

In 1983 The Campus Ecologist began publication as a subscription based quarterly newsletter. The purpose of the newsletter was to provide an opportunity for the exchange of information, ideas, and resources about students and their environment. The belief was that by provid-U19 this opportunity for professionals in student affairs the "paradigm shift" from viewing students as individuals to viewing students as a part of an ecology would be promoted.

Due to a variety of factors (including perhaps in a small way the contributions of The Campus Ecologist), the paradigm has shifted. Few researchers and writers in the field of student affairs view student behavior as only a function of some set of intrapsychic traits. While the language associated with campus ecology may not always be used, the basic tenants of ecological/systems thinking are now evident in much of the student affairs scholarship. Kuhn (1962) notes that a fully developed paradigm is dependent upon the sharing of basic assumptions, analogies, conventions (espistemology, descriptive mode, research setting, unit of analysis), and exemplars. These elements appear to be failing into place.

This newsletter, Vol. XW. No. 4, will be the fifty-sixth published since 1983. Thanks to the dozens of contributors to the newsletter and the many hundreds that have been subscribers during this period. Now is a time for change.

Three changes are forthcoming. One, the focus of the newsletter is going to tighten. The focus 'in the past has been rather loose. While most articles have focused on students and their environments, the content of these articles has been rather broad. In the future, The Campus Ecologist will focus more on the physical environment and the role it plays in understanding campus behavior.

The second change will be the frequency of publication. In the past, the newsletter was published four times a year. In the future, The Campus Ecologist will appear a periodically (one to three editions per year).

The third change for the newsletter will be in its financial base. Subscriptions will no longer be sought. The Campus Ecologist will become a marketing newsletter for the consulting firm Campus Ecology Services and will be sent free to current subscribers and others who wish to be placed on the mailing list.

In summary, the new format will be more focused on the campus physical environment, less frequently published, free, and serve as an information tool for Campus Ecology Services. Thanks for the ongoing support! Please note the box on page 2 regarding The Campus Ecologist and the World Wide Web.

By James H. Banning

Ernest Boyer (1987) speaks to the importance of the campus visit:

... when we asked students what influenced them most during their visit to a campus, about half mentioned "the friendliness of students we met." But it was the buildings, the trees, the walkways, the well-kept lawns - that overwhelmingly won out. The appearance of the campus is, by far, the most influential characteristic during the campus visits, and we gained the distinct impression that when it comes to recruiting students, the director of building and grounds may be more important than the academic dean. p. 17

What happens if the visitor to the campus cannot find the campus or becomes lost during the campus visit? This question brings into focus the concept of "wayfinding. Wayfinding is the process by which people navigate in their environment (Bell, Fisher, Baum, & Green, 1996). Th(campus can be designed through architectural features both natural and built, and signs to facilitate a very welcoming experience. On the other hand, the wayfinding cues can be so poorly designed that the campus visit becomes ,source of stress and frustration.

Garling, Book, and Lindburg (I 982) suggest there(are three characteristics of physical settings that are linked to the ease of wayfinding: (a) the degree of differentiation of the structures within the environment, (b) the degree of visual access, and (c) complexity of the spatial layout Given these characteristics campuses can become very difficult for wayfinding-many buildings look alike, visual access is most often blocked by buildings, and most campuses have complex layouts. What exacerbates the problem of wayfinding on campus is that the help the campus tries to provide in the form of signage often falls short of being helpful. This is often due to the "two ecology" problem.

The two ecology problem is basically that solutions to wayfinding problems most often are generated from those "inside" the campus ecology. The insider perspective often includes experiences, information and assumptions that are not available to the "outsider" or visitor. Often "Welcome" to the campus signs become adorned with "administrative" messages from the insiders. For example, at a Rocky Mountain institution the sign that indicates the name of the institution for the visitor also carries this message:

FIRE LANE ENFORCED AT ALL TIMES VIOLATORS MAY BE TICKETED AND TOWED AT OWNERS EXPENSE

Fire lanes signs are important, but the message on the sign solves insider problems rather than welcoming visitors to the campus. At a Southern institution, the campus identification signs also carried the following message:

VISITORS ARE SUBJECT TO SEARCH

Again, an issue within the university is being addressed but it lessens the welcome to the visitors. In a final example, a Rocky Mountain institution has attached to their Visitors' Center sign a second sign indicating "Faculty/Staff Parking Only." In addition to the "insider ecology" solving problems at visitors' expense, many times the signs that are erected to help visitors carries information that only an insider would know. For example, when institutions use acronyms on signs there is a good chance that the visitor will be unable to decipher the code. If signs are going to be used to help the visitor in the wayfinding process, then special attention needs to be given to the "outsiders" perspective. In addition to being aware of the visitors perspective, there are other considerations for campus signage.

The following guidelines for good wayfinding signage are developed from Arthur and Passini (1992).

1. Wayfinding information should be given at the point that a decision needs to be made.

2. Legibility is important. The information on the sign should be perceived with ease. Make sure signs are not hidden from view by bushes, trees, etc.

3. Readability is the ease with which information can be understood. People "glance" for messages rather than read them word for word. Keep the messages short. Don't expect long messages to be read from moving cars.

4. Reliable relates to the question of whether or not the signs give correct information. Signs with false information can lead to stress, frustration, and mistrust.

5. Accessibility-can persons with disabilities read and use the signs?

Campus wayfinding is important. The stress and frustration caused by unwelcoming and confusing signs may set the stage for a negative on campus experience. In addition to thoughtful campus planning, wayfinding issues can best be addressed by focusing on the "outsider" perspective and giving some commonsense thought to the design and placement of informational signs. As noted by Arthur and Passini(1992), good wayfinding decreases frustration and stress, increases efficiency, accessibility, and safety.

Arthur, P. & Passini, R. (1992). Wayfinding: People, signs, and architecture. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Bell, P., Greene, T., Fisher, J., & Baum, A. (1996).Environmental psychology. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

Boyer, E. (1987). The undergraduate experience in America. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers.

Garling, T., Book, A., & Ergezen, N.(1982). Memory for the spatial layout of the everyday physical environment. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 23, 23-35.

Moeser, S.D. (1988). Cognitive mapping in a complex building. Environment and Behavior, 20, 3-20.