!!BEHAVIORAL RESPONSES TO
 NOMADIC CHAIRS
: UTILITY
 OF MOVABLE 
CHAIRS AT A UNIVERSITY PARK
  By  Jiabin Zhang
 !                        A THESIS
  Submitted to
 Michigan State University
 in 
partial fulfillment of the requirements
 for the degree of
  Environmental Design
-Master of Arts
  2019!ABSTRACT
  BEHAVIORAL RESPONSES TO NOMADIC CHAIRS: UTILITY OF MOVABLE 
CHAIRS AT A UNIVERSITY PARK
  By  Jiabin Zhang
  Human behavior is impacted by both 
the 
physical and social environment. 
Within this 
broader area of study,
 only few studies have explored 
peopleÕs sitting behavior in public spaces. 
This study aims (a) to identify personal
, social 
and environmental factors 
that have significant 
effect
s on peopleÕs sitting preference
s; (b) to examine differences in both personal and 
environmental factors for different sociodemographic groups; 
and 
(c) to investigate 
the 
relationship between peopleÕs sitting behavioral performa
nce and 
the 
social and physical 
environment at a public space within the Michigan State University campus. To collect data, 
surveying and observation mapping were conducted to record the sitting behavior of students, 
faculty members, and community members.
 The 
site was an open space
, which
 consisted
 of several 
intersectional walkways, a large lawn
 area
, canopy trees, 
and some fixed benches. There 
were
 105 visitors who participated 
in 
the survey on weekdays, and 55 visitors participated 
in 
the survey on 
a football game day
 (Saturday)
. Logistic regression model was performed on the data to identify 
the 
variables that influence 
peopleÕs decisions to use nomadic chairs
. Results of this study showed 
that occupation, the importance of
 chairs
 are movable
, group s
ize, and 
why they move chairs
 all have significant effects on 
whether people like to move their chairs
 within the designated area. 
Additionally, age, group 
size, and importance of chairs are movable 
were also predictors to 
peopleÕs preference for sitting o
n nomadic chairs 
less or 
more than 20 minutes. 
The study provide
d sufficient evidence to support factors that may affect peopleÕs decision
s on using nomadic chairs 
on campus
es that
 could be beneficial for planners
, and landscape architects.
 ! Copyright by 
 JIABIN
 ZHANG
 2019  !iv !I dedicate
 this 
thesis to
 my parents
 Thank you for all your support along the way
!v !!ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
   I would like to express my appreciation to my 
thesis advisor
 Dr. Linda 
Nubani
, and my 
committee members 
Dr. Jun
-hyun Kim and Dr. Eunsil Lee. The
y have guided me to complete 
my thesis 
writing 
through the master program
, and shared many valuable comments and 
experiences to support my research.
 Without their 
guidance 
and 
passio
nate 
participation, the 
study could not have been successfully completed.
 In addition, a thank you to
 my former
 chai
r professor Dr. Pa
t Crawford
 for helping me 
gather
 the
 different data
 collected in this thesis
. She 
has provided me a 
direction
 for my thesi
s study and 
helped me to construct the framework of my thesis. 
  I would also like to thank the help and support from Hope Azaeze for Statistical training and 
consulting. Her patience and professional background allowed me to complete my data analysis. 
  I would also like to acknowledge 
the 
Infrastructure Planning and Facilities department
 at Michigan State University
 for supporting 
access to
 the site for my study and 
collect my data
.  Finally, I would like to 
express my gratitude to 
the Landscape 
Architecture
 professor
s and
 facult
y at Michigan State University for providing me continuous support and encouragement 
throughout both un
dergraduate and graduate 
studies.
  !vi !TABLE OF CONTENTS
   LIST
 OF TABLES
 ...................................................................................................................... vii  LIST OF FIGURES
 ................................................................................................................... viii  CHAPTER
 ONE INTRODUCTION
 ...........................................................................................................................1    CHAPTER 
TWO LITERATURE
 REVIEW
 ................................................................................................................8 2.1 Use of Public Spaces
 ..................................................................................................................8 2.2 Spatial Behavior
 .......................................................................................................................10 2.3 Street Furniture
 ........................................................................................................................11   CHAPTER THREE
 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................14 3.1 Site Description
 ........................................................................................................................14 3.2 IRB Approval
 ...........................................................................................................................15  3.3 Participants
 ...............................................................................................................................16 3.4 Measurement Procedure
 ...........................................................................................................19  3.5 Statistical Analysis
 ...................................................................................................................21   CHAPTER FOUR
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 ....................................................................................................23 4.1 Personal 
Social/ Situational 
and Environmental Factors
 .........................................................23 4.2 Descriptive Statistics
 ................................................................................................................25 4.3 Logistic Regression Model Output
 ..........................................................................................27 4.3.1 Dependent Variable 1: Whether people moved their 
chairs
 .........................27 4.3.2 Dependent Variable 2: Time 
people anticipate spending on nomadic 
chairs
 ......................................................................................................................32 4.4 Discussion
 ................................................................................................................................34  CHAPTER FIVE
 CONCLUSION
 ..............................................................................................................................38  APPENDIX
 ...................................................................................................................................41  BIBLIOGRAPHY
 ........................................................................................................................44!vii
 !LIST OF TABLES
   Table 4.
1 A summary of descriptive statistics
 for personal factors
 ..............................................25 Table 4.
2 A summary of descriptive statistics
 for social/ situational factors 
 ...............................26 Table 4.
3 A summary of descriptive statistics
 for environmental factors 
 ....................................26 Table 4.
4 Logistic Regression Output
 1 ........................................................................................28 Table 4.
5 Logistic Regression Output
 2 ........................................................................................31 Table 4.
6 Logistic Regression Output
 3 ........................................................................................33      !viii
 !LIST OF FIGURES
   Figure 
1.1 Conceptual Framework
 ..................................................................................................7 Figure 
3.1 People using the PeopleÕs Park nomadic chairs under shade (
2017) ..........................14 Figure 3.2
 Top view of the site
 .....................................................................................................15 Figure 3.3
 Gender
. There were 59% 
female and 41% male from the participants
 .......................16 Figure 3.4
 Group Size.
 There were three types of group size that included individual, small group 
and large group
 ..............................................................................................................................17  Figure 3.5
 Profession/Major
. The graph showed that participants were mostly from 9 
professions 
in MSU
 ...........................................................................................................................................17  Figure 3.6
 Building Use Analysis
. The analysis showed the composition of building types on MSU 
main campus for 5 mins, 10 
mins and 15 mins walking circle
 ......................................................18  Figure 3.7 
User Analysis
. The analysis showed two types of population who w
ere the potential 
users of the site. They have 
dif
ferent occupation, gr
oup size and usage time and date
 ................19  Figure 4.1 
A summary of personal, social/ s
ituational and 
environmental f
actors 
with dependent 
variables
 .........................................................................................................................................24  Figure 4.2 
Summarizes the findings from
 the logistic regression analysis
 ...................................24  Figure 4.
3 Time people antici
pate spending on nomadic chairs
 ...................................................36 Figure 4.4
 World Cloud using survey response of why people moving their chairs
 ....................36!1 !CHAPTER
 ONE INTRODUCTION
  As a popular topic, public space has been discussed by many scholars for more than 20 
years. There are different definitions of public space in terms of ownership, management, 
accessibility and function (Mehta, 2014). 
In this paper
, public space refers to 
Òpublicly accessible 
places where people go for group or individual activitiesÓ (
Ward, 1993
). Although people have 
different understanding of public space, there is no doubt that it is becoming an essential part of 
our life. From ancient periods to recent 
years, public space has never disappeared, and it is 
changing its forms from piazzas and church squares to public parks and shopping malls. The 
value of public space is significant, it provides us Òthe channels for movement, the nodes for 
communication, an
d the common grounds for play and relaxationÓ (
Ward, 1993
). Public space is 
all around us, the high quality of public space will bring us numerous benefits. For example, a 
high quality public environment will attract more business
es and residents; improve 
our physical 
and mental health; promote and protect biodiversity. 
 In public life, public space is a vital part that helps people satisfy their various needs. 
Therefore, the public space becomes the place where people spend the most time when they are 
not 
at work or home, people like to go to public spaces to engage with their communities.
 All groups and individuals who are legally allowed to interact in society are invited to public space
s (Dolbec and 
Castilhos
, 2017). In public space
s, groups and 
individu
als may 
behave differently
 depending on
 spatial 
design
s and 
normative social influence
s. Human
s are social animals, whose 
behavior is influenced by other humans.
 In the 
public space, 
human behavior is largely 
dependent on more indirect forms of social 
influence
s (Aarts and 
Dijksterhuis
, 2003). IndividualsÕ preference
s and decision
s conform 
to 
the
 social
 environment
. Moreover
, human 
behavior
 is also 
strongly
 influe
nced by design el
ements in public space
s.  !2 !The Street Life Project, conducted by William H.
 Whyte, is one of the most well
-known 
public space research
es that filmed peopleÕs behaviors in small parks and plazas in New York 
City. Through studying New York CityÕs public spaces, Whyte has found elements that will 
attract people to these public spaces
 (Whyte, 1980)
. Sittable space was examined to have major 
influence in plaza use. Visitors would like to use these plazas when there are places to sit. 
Natural elements, such as trees, wind, water feature, were indicated to influence peopleÕs sitting 
preference. For instance, people tend to sit in the sun when temp
erature is comfortable, but they 
also like to sit in the shade when there is sun. Thus, Whyte advocates to use movable chairs 
instead of fixed seating options to attract users to plazas. In addition, food, street and 
triangulation were also discussed to po
sitively influence the use of plaza. The plaza of the 
Seagram Building was recorded in the film, which has attracted a lot of people during lunch 
time. Although the plaza was not planned for people to use, it became a popular gathering area 
for office work
ers from nearby buildings since there are plenty of sittable areas. Compare
d with 
other plazas in the film, the plaza of the Seagram Building did not provide furniture for sitting, 
but the ledges and steps with appropriate elevation attracted many people t
o sit on. The simple 
and inviting sittable spaces encouraged visitors to use the plaza. However, other plazas that 
people rarely visited were found that there were no such sitting areas as in Seagram BuildingÕs 
plaza
 (Whyte, 1980
). Therefore, the spatial d
esign is used to not only attract people to stay but 
also to disperse crowds from the space.
 The spatial design can either 
attract
 people to stay or 
disperse
 crowd
s from the space.
 For 
example, i
n urban area
s, many office building plazas are supposed to be
 occupied by the public
. There were instances, however, where these plazas were observed to be 
under
used and virtually 
empty
 (Smithsimon, 2008)
. Smithsimon (2008) indicated that 
these plazas are designed
 !3 !intentionally 
to 
repel people from
 the 
proposed
 public space
, by incorporating 
unfavorable 
elements.
 Therefore, h
uman 
behavior changes easily 
and readily 
in both 
social 
and physical 
environment
s. The present study
 explore
s correlations
 between human behavior
 and environment 
through a nomadic chair 
project,
 which
 is research on 
peopleÕs behavior 
with 
movable chairs
 on the Michigan State University campus. Studying
 why peo
ple 
choose
 or choose not to
 use the 
nomadic chairs, 
as well as 
how people use the nomadic chairs 
on campus
, is important for
 future 
public space development.
 This study can help MSU, and campuses like it, decide in favor of 
nomadic chairs
, as appose to fixed benches
, for their
 versatility. 
 Prior
 research 
of human behavior in
 public space
s addressed 
pedestrian
sÕ movement 
patterns, and how their movement 
is influenced by 
the 
personal attributes
 of study participants
 and 
the 
physical characteristics of streets
. According to 
the 
social force model, walking 
pattern
s of pedestrian crowd
s are
 influenced
 by self
-organized processes, which dependent on 
interactions among pedestrians (
Guo, 
Ding
, Ling, Shi, and Takashi, 
2013). In predicting walking 
patterns of crowd
s, various 
factors 
affect how human
s negotiate public spaces
.  Among t
hese factors
, GjersoeÕs group believe that they can be 
classified as personal
 (age 
and gender)
, situational
 (group size and level of mobility)
 and environmental
 (time
 of day
 and 
location)
 in 
their 
study
. The findings 
indicated
 that 
People are influenced by personal, s
ituational 
and environmental factors in
 uncluttered environment
s, spaces where people have freedom to 
select their position in space and the speed at which they walk 
(Gjersoe, Havard, Kukla, 
Kerridge, and 
Willis, 2004)
. These 
factors 
affect 
how people 
behave
, and guide their decision
-making 
in 
a certain environment.
 However, peopleÕs behaviors also affect how an environment is 
designed.
 Behavioral needs of the 
people,
 such as 
exercise needs
, promote
 pedestrian friendly 
environment
s. Consequently, e
nvironmental
ly friendly 
designs encourage
 physical activities 
that
 !4 !promote public health in 
an 
urban space (Frank and Engelke
, 2001). The linkage between 
the 
environment and behavior draws many research
ers
 to the
 elements and factors 
that 
influence 
human b
ehavior
 the most
.  Research
 on behavioral 
performance
 in public space provide
s scope o
n how urban 
space 
incorporate
s human behavior
. Since
 William H. Whyte indicated 
that
 Òpeople tend to sit where 
there are places to sitÓ from his 
Street
 Life project
, the seating space has received a lot of 
attentions from designers and 
researchers
 (Whyte, 1980)
. Mehta 
conducted 
multiple studies
 that 
focus on 
the relationship between
 characteristics 
of public space
 and 
human behavior.
 In MehtaÕs 
projects
, he found both seating provided by business 
owners 
and 
seating 
provided 
by public
 authorities
 contribute to
 stationary and social activities in public space
 (Mehta, 2007)
. The
 commercial
 seating and public seating were
 found as 
significant 
factor
s to predict the liveness 
of public
 space
 (Mehta and Bosson, 2018)
. Besides seating space, 
Whyte 
also discussed
 some 
physical elements
, such as tree and water, 
associate with human behavior
 in public space
 (Whyte, 1980)
. Chang (2002
) evaluate
d different 
design elements 
that contribute to the activities 
and qualities of the public space
, which
 promotes urban design 
in accordance to
 the 
behavioral 
needs of users
. Although the empirical literature 
provides purposely collected data relating a 
specific group o
f users
 and case
-study location
s, a more comprehensive study
 of how 
environment affect
s human behavior
 is required to complement 
the integrity and reliability of the 
data.
 With the exception of 
design
 elements 
(such as 
outdoor 
facilities and vegetation)
, identifying
 and predicting
 behavioral 
performance
, personal
, social/ situational
 and 
environmental
 factors 
should
 be consider
ed when analyzing 
human behavior 
in the public space.
 For example, 
when predicting peopleÕs movement behavior, size of group 
significantly 
influence
s behavioral 
performance
. Single
s walk faster than group
s, and groups like to walk on
 !5 !the road 
rather 
than on the 
sidewalk
 (Gjersoe, Havard, Kukla, Kerridge, and Willis, 200
4). However, 
behavioral 
performance
 and predictability
 are
 at times 
difficult to 
determine
 due to
 the 
overlapping characteristics
 of participants
. For example, in 
Gjersoe, Havard, Kukla, Kerridge, 
and Willis
Õs study (2004), men tended to walk on the edge of the sidewalk, while those carrying 
a bag tended to walk o
n the middle of the sidewalk. The study did not adequately explain if, for 
example, men carrying bags tended to exhibit characteristics more in line with men or with bag
-carrying. 
The present research of 
the 
nomadic chairs project conducts a more systemati
c investigation on 
why behavioral 
performance
 is affected by
 the
 environment
, in that each 
participant characteristic is explained in isolation and with other overlapping participant 
characteristics
. Predicting human behavioral 
performance
 becomes
 an increasingly important goal to 
landscape architects and urban planners
 pursuing
 effective public space
s in their designs
. However, 
most studies were conducted in office building plazas, the 
behavioral 
research 
in campus 
setting
 was deficient.
 In many 
American college towns, the role of the campus is not 
only a place for learning but also becomes a symbol, a park and a cultural and social center. 
Thus, the college campus is an important public space that serves students and faculty, or even 
the populati
on of a town and region
 (Gumprecht, 2007)
. Among limited number of research 
about campus plaza, 
Aydin and 
Ter (2008) indicated 
physical environment and user 
characteristics 
are important components that 
contribute to the campus plazaÕs quality.
 But, the 
relationship between 
physical elements and user behavior
al performance
 was not discussed
.  In addition
, proposing a predictive model is not 
a simple
 process due to existing large 
number
s of confounding variables.  This study will attempt to consider some of these variables in 
the data collection 
stage
 such 
as weather
 and time of day
. These variables 
provide opportunities 
!6 !to 
extend
 the study
 to a deeper understanding of
 space
. For example, space can be 
divided by 
gender
 through
 situated social practices, and gender 
may help
 in studying
 space
 in social 
relations (Panayiotou, 2015).
 The present research of how people use nomadic chairs on the
 MSU campus aims to 
show what the 
most 
influential factors 
are on
 peopleÕs
 sitting 
preferences
 in public space.
 The significance of this study is to provide a comprehensive understanding of 
how people negotiate space 
when they are free to select and move chairs in 
public
 space
s.  The purpose of
 this study is to
 understand 
human
sÕ sitting
 behavioral 
performance
 within 
public space
s specifically within campus settings.
 The 
main 
objective of this research 
is to 
identify and explain the factors that contribute to peopleÕs behavioral performance on c
ampus. 
The research questions to be addressed in this thesis are: Do personal factors affect 
sitting
 behavior? Do 
social/
 situational factors affect 
sitting
 behavior?
 And
 do environmental factors 
affect 
sitting
 behavior?
 Figure 1.1
 represents the conceptual framework for this thesis.
 To meet this end, the researcher
 examined the 
use 
of nomadic chairs on the 
Michigan 
State University campus
.  Specifically, the researcher 
utilize
d the study on the Ò
Idea Chair 
project
Ó at Michigan 
State University
. The Idea Chair project was 
initiated
 by the 
Infrastructure
 and Planning Facilities department where they brought colorful nomadic light
-weight chairs to 
an open space on campus.  
The site is located at 
an open area
 between 
two buildings
. The site is 
described as 
a large
 lawn area 
with 
intersectional sidewalks and trees, 
named
 PeopleÕs 
Park. 
The 
researcher surveyed users of this site in October 2017.  The methodology chapter describes the 
participants of this study
, the instruments used for
 the surveys and the statistical method used for 
the analysis.  
 The discussion chapter delves into the outcome of the study and discusses ways to 
incorporate seating preferences in future desig
n guidelines for campus plazas.
 !7 ! Figure 1.1
 Conceptual Framework
     !"#$%&'()*'+,%#$
-%+.'(/-.,0',.%&'()
*'+,%#$
1&2.#%&3"&,'()
*'+,%#$
-.,,.&4)5"6'2.%#
!8 !CHAPTER TWO
 LITERATURE REVIEW
 A p
ublic space is designed t
o provide an open social space, inviting all groups and 
individuals
. It 
encourages social behaviors,
 which allow 
people to communicate and interact with 
each other
. As
 social animals, humans may influence
, and be influenced by,
 the 
behavior
s of 
others
. In public space
s, humans attempt to conform 
to 
the social
 expectations in an
 environment
, rather than controlling their own behavior
. Research on human behavior and 
diffe
rent 
environment
s reveals that human behavior is correlated with 
the 
environment 
through
 design elements 
and
 social norms in public space
s (Whyte, 1980)
. This review is divided into 
three sections. The first section discusses how public spaces are built 
on both urban areas and 
college campuses, and how publi
c spaces are used and function
 in these areas. The second 
section describes and discusses 
human
 behaviors in public space
s, and focuses on what 
personal, 
social/situational and environmental 
factors may 
impact humansÕ behaviors. Finally, the third 
section specifically discusses 
human 
decision making and behavior when using street furniture, 
which relates back to the research topic of how and why people use nomadic chairs on the 
Michigan State University c
ampus.
  2.1 Use of Public Spaces
 The public space is an important place in urban planning and design. 
The amount that
 public spaces 
are used globally, 
reveals that for people who are living in urban area
, maintaining 
the quality of a public space is essent
ial for the well
-being of its residents
. Typical urban public 
spaces include parks, plazas, roads, and beaches. As one of the most visited 
public spaces
, plazas 
provide space for socializing, relaxing, reading, eating
, and exercising.
 However, Mitchell 
(2017) indicates that public spaces are often occupied by homeless people, so other people 
!9 !consider these spaces are unsafe.
 Therefore, in many cities, 
urban plazas are designed 
intentionally to repel people from using public spaces
 (Smi
thsimon, 
2008). Architects and 
planners identified the developer 
as the one
 responsible for the uninviting and inaccessible 
privately owned plazas (Smithsimon, 2008). 
In the article, however, specific decisions
 (such as 
intentionally not providing seating)
 made by the developers to prevent 
people
 from using the
 public space are not fully explained. Therefore, the current study aims to investigate specific 
elements that either invite or repel people using public spaces. In urban areas
, land resources are 
ext
remely 
limited and valuable
, and uninviting plazas restrict the efficient 
use of 
space, which is 
unhealthy for urban development. 
From previous studies, uninviting plazas are intentionally 
designed to repel people, a tendency that needs to be avoided in co
llege campuses.
      Contrasting with urban areas
, campus
es in American college towns are
 considered both 
environment
s of learning and
 public spaces (Gumprecht, 2007
). Campus
es that
 incorporate
 large 
area
s of green space provide both psychological and phys
iological benefits for students (
Hipp
, Gulwadi, Alves, and
 Sequeira
, 2016). Hipp, Gulwadi, Alves, and Sequeira
 (2016) indicate that 
campus environments have the potential to affect studentsÕ health, and need more studies on 
impacts of how specific design e
lements can help students concentrating on different subjects. 
In America, college campuses may include performance centers, sports stadiums, museums, and 
landscape grounds. Events and activities attract both students and 
nearby residents
. Therefore, 
campu
ses become not only a learning space, but also a landscape park, a social and culture 
center, and a symbol of the college
 (Gumprecht, 2007
). The author also 
suggests that colleges 
should promote campus as an attraction to recruit students, and to strengthe
n the relationship 
with alu
mni, residents, and benefactors. Consequently, college campuses are a microcosm of 
how cities implement public space, that have potential research value for public space design. 
!10 !The current study will focus on campuses as a study
 site to conduct a survey to understand the 
relationship between human behavior and public spaces.
  2.2 Spatial Behavior
      Human behavior can be easily changed
 and impacted by personal, 
social/ 
situational, and 
environmental factors (
Gjersoe, Havard, 
Kukla, Kerridge, and Willis
, 2004). These factors can 
be categorized into two 
areas
: peopleÕs behavior is influenced by other people
 and
 peopleÕs 
behavior is influenced by objects, such as seats, trees, and water features. Based on these two 
factors, peopl
e have opportunities to understand their behavior in depth. As social animals, 
humans are indirectly
 yet heavily
 impacted by social influence (Aarts and Dijksterhuis, 2003). 
Aarts and 
Dijksterhuis 
(2003) indicate w
hen people are in a
 particular
 situation
, they may 
conform to the normative
 behavior
 that is expected of them from society 
in that 
situation. For 
example, people are quiet when visiting a library or church
. Therefore, a social environment 
effects peopleÕs behavior (Aarts and Dijksterhuis, 2003). 
The limitation of the article is that the 
research sites are indoor spaces, which have well
-established situational norms. Outdoor spaces 
have external factors, such as weather, that effect how people behave in an environment. Indoor 
spaces do not have thes
e external factors. In this way, indoor spaces are stable, which causes 
stable behaviors; outdoor spaces are variable, which causes people to behave in a larger variety 
of ways. The current research focuses on outdoor spaces that combine complex and uncont
rolled 
factors to explore peopleÕs behavior in social environments. 
 Contrasting with social environments that imperceptibly impact human behavior, 
physical environments are easier to be observed and measured by 
researchers
. People tend to 
visit
 urban plaz
as with seats, food, and sculptures 
more
 than plazas without those elements 
!11 !(Abdulkarim and Nasar, 2014). 
Even when these preferred plazas have slightly higher levels of 
crowding, people choose to stay in these plazas rather than moving to plazas with less
 preferred 
environmental conditions (
Wu, Zacharias, and Stathopoulos
, 2004). Whyte (1980) 
conducted a
 prominent 
study
 about urban public spaces in New York City in 1971. He identified elements 
that attract people and make streets and plazas vibrant. Moreov
er, these elements have different 
effects on changing peopleÕs behavior. 
For example, triangulation is a process that externally 
stimulates interaction between people, 
encourag
ing
 strangers to stop and talk with 
one another.
 Food is another factor in plaza
s that 
helps to attract more people and vendors. Through visual 
experiments, Abdulkarim and Nasar 
(2014) indicate that the combination of different elements 
attracts people to
 public spaces
 the best
. However, most previous studies only focused on 
peopleÕs 
behavior, in terms of how their behavior was influenced by people or objects. The 
present research discusses how both factors may affect peopleÕs behavior in public spaces. More 
specifically, the research will test personal factors (such as age and occupat
ion), situational 
factors (such as whether people like to sit next to strangers), and environmental factors (such as 
sitting under sunlight or shade).
  2.3 Street Furniture
 Street furniture is one of the most important physical features that improves the 
quality of 
streets and activates public spaces (
Ewing, Hajrasouliha, Neckerman, Purciel
-Hill, and Greene
, 2016). Previous research on seating in public spaces identifies fixed or movable seats as 
important in attracting people to public spaces (Whyte, 1980
; Mehta, 2007; Abdulkarim and 
Nasar, 2014). Seating furniture not only attracts a large number of people, but also contributes to 
the amount of time that people decide to spend in a space. Mehta (2007) indicates that people 
!12 !spent the more time in public sp
aces with seating than in those without. Although previous 
research proves that seating has effects on human behavior, understanding the motivation of 
public place visitorsÕ decisions is helpful for researchers to know why people choose their seats. 
 Seat material, design, and comfort are potential factors that guide peopleÕs decisions. 
Neto and Munakata (2015) focus on how distance impacts peopleÕs choice of seat. They 
conducted an observational survey to identify the relationship between behavioral patter
ns and 
seat choice at the central plaza in Chiba University. The survey recorded the movement and 
choice patterns of 37 participants, and evidence supports the conclusion that the visual distance 
of seats guides people in how they choose their seats in pub
lic spaces. People prefer seats that are 
the closest to them, but groups may choose seats further away from them than individuals would. 
However, 37 participants 
are
 too small of a sample size to support the theory from the research. 
The present research s
urveyed more than 150 participants to explore peopleÕs behavior on 
movable chairs in a large open space on the Michigan State University campus. In understanding 
how seating furniture guides peopleÕs decisions and behaviors in public spaces, an investigati
on of why people choose to use the nomadic chairs on the Michigan State University campus 
becomes meaningful and useful for planners and designers to implement public spaces in the 
future.
 Previous research shows that human behaviors are closely related to
 surrounding 
environments. Existing articles provide general background for the present research on human 
behavior in public spaces. However, many are limited in their sample size and site location 
selection. With background on how public spaces are built 
on both urban areas and college 
campuses, spatial behaviors in public spaces, and human decision making and behavior when 
using street furniture, this present research uses a case study of human behavior to explore how 
!13 !nomadic chairs effect public space de
sign. The current research focuses on a campus as a 
research site to explore personal, situational, and environmental factors, which may affect why 
students and faculty choose to use nomadic chairs on the site. 
     !14 !CHAPTER THREE
 METHODOLOGY
  This research
 is an extension of ÒThe Idea C
hair
Ó research 
that 
is conducted by 
the 
School of Planning, Design
, and Construction at Michigan State University
.  It aims to 
administer a survey 
to understand why people choose or choose not to use nomadic chairs on 
campus.
 This methodology
 chapter
 is divided into three sections. The first section 
describes
 the
 location of the selected
 research site. The second section 
discusses how
 participants were 
selected for the research
. The third section discusses how data 
was collect
ed and 
measured in this 
research.
   3.1 Site
 Description
  Figure 
3.1 People using the PeopleÕs Park nomadic chairs under shade (2017)
 The research site is an open space bordered by Wells Hall and the International Center on 
the Michigan State University campus. The site was assigned by the Infrastructure Planning and 
!15 !Facilities (IPF) department of Michigan State University. The IPF suppo
rted the Idea Chair 
project to explore peopleÕs behaviors and motivations when using nomadic chairs on the site
 (see 
Figure 3.1)
. The findings from this research will inform how nomadic chairs are implemented on 
campus public spaces in the future. Since th
e selected site is in the central area of the campus, 
many students and faculty 
pass by the site 
while walking to classrooms and offices
 (see Figure 
3.2). The open space, called PeopleÕs Park, consists of
 several walkways, a large lawn with sun 
exposure, 
trees, and a few fixed benches.
 Figure 3.2
 Top view of the site
  3.2 IRB Approvals
 The researcher completed the Human Research Protection Program (HRPP) certification 
training. After crafting the survey questions, the researcher obtained all the necessary 
approvals 
from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Michigan State University.
 !16 !3.3 Participants 
 Participants were selected from people 
who were 
using the 
nomadic 
chair
s at site.  The 
researcher approached these people, introduced himself and the projec
t, and informed them that
 their participation in the research 
would be 
voluntary. Those using the chairs were asked if they 
wanted to participate before being given the survey. All participants 
agreed to 
sign 
the 
consent 
form that was approved by the Insti
tutional Review Board (IRB). Participants were free to not 
answer any questions or stop participating at any time. The survey responses were kept 
anonymous to assure participant confidentiality. Future use for reporting, publication, or 
presentation of the
 data will be aggregated. According to the IRB application requirement, 
surveys were only given to participants who were 18 or older. There 
were 
in total 155 people 
who participated in the survey on weekdays, and 55 people who participated on a football ga
me day (Saturday). All participants were not compensated for participating in this research. Among 
those participants, 59% of them 
were 
female and 41% of them 
were 
male. The top three 
professions/majors that participants 
were affiliated with
 were 
Natural 
Science
 (22%), Engineering (13%) and Social Science (11%). About 47% of the population 
were 
individual 
users, 38% users 
were 
in small groups (1
-4 people) and 15% users 
were 
in large groups (5 people 
and more).
  Figures 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5 display these descri
ptive statistics.
  Figure
 3.3 Gender
. There were 59% female and 41% male from the participants
 !17 ! Figure 
3.4 Group Size.
 There were three types of group size that included individual, small 
group and large group
                 Figure 
3.5 Profession/Major
. The graph showed that participants were 
mostly 
from 9 professions 
in MSU
  Additionally
, the 
researcher 
conducted a building analysis 
(see figure 3.6) 
on MSU main 
campus and 
was able to 
identif
y two types of population that 
were 
the primary users of the s
tudy 
site. One 
was the Commuting 
Population that
 consisted of 
students
 (93.3%), faculty 
(5.7%) and 
community members
 (1%). They often visit
ed the site in weekdays during working hours as 
individuals or in small groups. Another one 
was Event
-based 
Population that
 consisted of visitors 
(60%), students (30%) and faculty (10%). They visit
ed the site for sports events in weekend, but 
they only 
came in groups. The group size 
could 
be small and large, the range for these groups 
!18 !was from 2 to 12 people.
  Figure 
3.7 graphically illustration the distribution of the population 
observed on campus.
  Figure 3.6
 Building Use Analysis
. The analysis showed 
the composition of building types on 
MSU main 
campus for 5 mins, 10 mins and 15 mins walking circle
 Academic
Residential
Sports
Arts/
Performance
Mixed Use
Parking
Services
Residential
Academic
Sports
15 mins
5 mins
10 mins
15 mins
Academic
Sports
10 mins
Residential
Academic
Sports
Parking
5 mins
Mixed
Building Use Analysis
!19 !  Figure 
3.7 User Analysis
. The analysis showed two types of population who were the potential 
users of the site. They have 
dif
ferent 
occupation
, group size and usage time and date
  3.4 Measurement P
rocedure
 In urban planning research, surveys are a common method f
or interpreting a 
phenomenon. A survey was conducted for this research to explore peopleÕs decisions and 
behaviors while using nomadic chairs. In order to enhance the reliability of the research, 
responses were gathered during both weekdays and a game day.
 The research question
 focused 
on what is the most influential factor that motivates students and faculty to use nomadic chairs 
on MSU campus
? Previous research on park usage incorporated variables such as age, gender, 
occupation, and group size into surveys (Lapham
 et al.
, 2016; Phau, Lee
 and
 Quintal, 2013). This 
survey uses many of those same variables along with ones such as 
time people antic
ipate 
spending on nomadic chairs
 and colors of the nomadic chairs. Open
-ended questions, such as 
Commuting 
Population
Event 
based population
Monday 
-Friday
Saturday& Sunday
9 am 
Ð6 pm
Before game &
After game
Students
, 93.30%
Faculty
, 5.70%
Community 
member
, 1%Students
, 30%Faculty
, 10%Visitors
, 60%1 Ð5 people
2Ð12 people
!"#$%&'(
)"*!$%&'(
**"*#$%&'(
*#"+!$%&'(
,-./$012'$
+!$%&'(
0-5 mins
6-10 mins
11-15 mins
15-20 mins
More 
than 20 
mins
User Analysis
!20 !ÒWhat invites you to use this space?Ó and ÒWhat did you decide to view?Ó were 
also 
included in 
the survey to explore the potential reasons for participation. I
n order to understand the 
importance of chair mobility and the surrounding environment, Likert Scale questions were 
included in the survey. Questions like ÒHow would you rate the surrounding environment?Ó were 
based on a 10
-point Likert Scale ranging from 
1 (not at all enjoyable) to 10 (very enjoyable). 
However, there is no midpoint in this 10
-point scale, so it will force participants to select leaning 
toward either important (6
-10) or not important (1
-5). For example, 6 is slightly important, and 5 
is sli
ghtly not important.
 See Appendix
 to access the full version of the survey
 The independent variables 
were 
age, gender, occupation,
 major, group size, sit with other 
or alone, select chair by color, why select the color, day interview, select chair for particular 
view, why use the space, why they move chair and surrounding environment
, because these 
variables 
were 
based on influences 
that cannot be controlled in the environment and sampling 
method. 
The key independent variable 
was the importance of chairs are movable
, which 
was measured by a 10 point Likert scale from 1 (not at all important) to 10 (
extremely
 important). 
The d
ependent 
variables 
were
 the time people anticipate
 spend
ing
 on nomadic chairs and 
whether people moved 
their 
chairs. The time that people 
anticipate
 spend
ing
 on nomadic chairs 
was measured by 5 categories, and each category 
was based on 
the following time intervals
: 0-5 minutes, 6
-10 minutes, 11
-15 minutes, 16
-20 minutes, and 20 minutes or more. Whether people 
moved 
their 
chairs 
was measured by two categories, Yes or No.
 Possible co
nfounding variables 
include
d weather and time of the day. 
    !21 !3.5 Statistical 
Analysis
 All variables that
 were
 collected from the survey were coded and transferred into the 
SPSS program
 (version 25
) in
 order to understand the relationship between independent 
variables and dependent variables. 
 Regression Analysis as a powerful stati
stical model can help researcher to examine the 
relationship between two or more variables of interest. The results from the model could provide 
detailed insight to determine which factor is the most significant one and how it influence other 
variables. Ba
sed on the variables from the survey,
 the 
independent variables include all three 
levels data (nominal, ordinal, scale)
. But t
he 
dependent
 variable
s only include two levels data, 
time is at scale level and 
whether people m
oved chairs is at nominal level
. Therefore, 
logistic 
regression 
and linear regression 
analysis 
could be used in this study 
to test how the dependent 
variable changes when an independent variable is varied, holding other variables constant. The
 logistic regression analysis
 will help the stu
dy to identify whether the importance of 
chairs are 
movable
 most
 associates with 
peopleÕs
 willingness to move chairs.
 Then, the linear regression 
analysis will help the study to identify the independent variable that has the strongest relationship 
with the
 time people anticipate spending on 
nomadic 
chairs. The equation of the linear regression 
analysis is 
!" = #$ + #%X%" + #&X&"+ '", !" is the time variable, 
X%" is the 
importance of 
chairs are 
movable
, and 
X&" can be dummy variables, such as gender and sun/shade.
 However, the 
linear
 regression model could not provide any 
strong findings 
for this 
study. 
One 
of the
 limitation
s of linear regression analysis 
was that only linear relationship can be 
found in the mod
el.  Other reasons could be attributed to the fact
 that data distribution of the time 
people anticipates spending on 
nomadic 
chairs 
was not normal
ly distributed. 
Also, h
alf of the 
respondents chose to sit on the chairs more than 20 minutes
. Thus, the variable was reclassified 
!22 !into
 the following
 two categories
: 0 representing 
Òless than 20 mins
 and
 1 representing 
Ò20 mins 
and moreÓ)
.  This is known as 
nominal level data.
 Therefore, the study will 
only 
run the 
logistic 
regression to identify i
ndependent variables that 
were
 most associated with whether people 
move
d their
 chairs
 and 
time people anticipate spending on nomadic chairs
 (less than 20 minutes 
or 20 minutes and more)
.  !23 !CHAPTER FOUR
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 4.1 Personal, Social/ Situational 
and Environmental Factor
s In this study, 
independent variables can be categorized into 
three
 types of facto
rs. One 
was internal 
personal factors 
that consisted of
 age, gender, major, occupation and group size.
 Another
 was soci
al/ situational
 factors that consisted of group size 
and
 sit with other of alone. 
The last
 one 
was external 
environmental Factors that included chair color, why they move chair, 
day interview, select chair for particular view, why use the space, sit with o
ther people, 
surrounding environment and importance of chairÕs movability
. Table 4.1 summari
zes personal 
factors
, social/ situational
 and environmental factors 
that 
might
 have 
influence 
on the dependent 
variables Ò
whether people moved their chairs
Ó and 
Òtime people anticipate spending on nomadic 
chairs
Ó. Table 4.2 summarizes the findings from the 
logistic 
regression analysis discussed in the 
previous chapter.  In personal factors, age was examined having distinct relationship with the 
time people anticipa
te spending on nomadic chairs and occupation was examined having 
relationship with whether people moved their chairs. 
In social/ situational factors, f
indings 
indicate
d that
 group size was 
associated with
 both dependent variables. 
Similarly, i
n environment
al factors, 
the importance of chairÕs movability was also associated with both 
dependent variables.  Additionally, 
why 
they move chair
 directly impacted 
with whether people 
moved their chairs
. !24 ! Figure
 4.1 A summary of
 personal, social/ situational 
and 
environmental 
factors 
with dependent 
variables
   Figure
 4.2 Summarizes the findings from the 
logistic 
regression analysis
  Whether people moved 
their chairs
Time 
people anticipate 
spending on nomadic 
chairs
Personal Factors
!Age
!Gender
!Major
!Occupation
Social Factors
!Group Size
!Sit with Other 
People 
or Alone
Environmental Factors
!Select Chair by Color
!Why Select the Color
!Day 
Interview
!Select Chair for 
Particular 
View
!Why they move 
chair
!Why Use the Space
!Surrounding 
Environment
!Importance of 
Movability
!"#$%$"#$"&'()*+),-$.
/$%$"#$"&'
()*+),-$.
!"#$%&$'&($%)*+","&)+$%
-&$*."*/%
'*%*'#).",%
,0)"1-
20$+0$1%&$'&($%
#'3$.%+0$"1%,0)"1-
!"#$%&'())*'+,%#$
4/$
5$*.$1
6)7'1
8,,9&)+"'*
-&./#%&0"&,'()*'+,%#$
:$($,+%;0)"1%<=%;'('1
20=%:$($,+%+0$
;'('1
>)=%?*+$13"$@
:$($,+%;0)"1%A'1%B)1+",9()1%C"$@
20=%D-$%+0$%:&),$
20=%+0$=%#'3$%,0)"1
:911'9*."*/%E*3"1'*#$*+
?#&'1+)*,$%'A%;0)"1-
)1$%#'3)<($
1%+/'()*'+,%#$
51'9&%:"F$
:"+%@"+0%8+0$1%'1%4('*$
!25 !4.2 Descriptive Statistics
 Section 3.3 showed some descriptive statistics about the demographics of the participants 
such as
 gender, 
group size
 and major
.  In this section, the researcher summarizes the descriptive 
statistics for variables that address personal, social/ situational, and environmental factors (see 
Table 4.1
, Table 4.2 and Table 4.3
).  Table 4.1 
A summary of descriptive 
statistics for personal factors
 !"#$%#&'(
)#"'#&*
+,-./0)#"'#&*
1%2%-,*.3#0)#"'#&*
!"#$%"
&'()*)()*)()*)#$%"
+),-*.,-*.-//*/012$%-+(-//*/-//*/345678%285"9$:;9<$285$%9
=">1857">
',*.+*&+*&352>9$:;9?"22"5>
--+*'-/*)-'*+@51$;9A1%%"4"91!9
@8>6:">>
-/+*-&*).'*(A1##8:67$261:9352>9
$:;9B76":7">
&(*()*)C+*CD;87$261:
),*)'*),,*-D:46:""56:4
-,)*(-C*'('*)E8#$:9F";676:"
-/*+-*/()*)G$#">9F$;6>1:9
A1%%"4"-/*+-*/(&*)<$285$%9B76":7">
.C-C*&..*().*,H2I"5>
(C*/,*&)'*CB176$%9B76":7">
-.'*C--*)&&*/J"2"56:$5K9F";676:"
-/*+-*/-//*/012$%-/.+-*)-//*/BK>2"#9F6>>6:4
+CC)*.012$%-+(-//*/>28;":2
--+'/*C'/*C'/*C!$78%2K
-.'*C'*C''*+71##8:62K9#"#L"5
C'..*,..*,-//*/012$%-+(-//*/-//*/45.&.2%2
5,6.2%2
5#,&
7*/809#3.,*.:&
-+(-)*/'-*/.'*(-.*++C!"#$%&'()*'+,%#$
!"#$"%&'()%
*++,-'./)#
01"!26 ! Table 4.2 
A summary of descriptive statistic
s for social/ situational factors
  Table 4.3 
A summary of descriptive statistic
s for environmental factors
  !"#$%#&'(
)#"'#&*
+,-./0)#"'#&*
1%2%-,*.3#0)#"'#&*
!"#$%&'(&)*(&)*(&)*+,-./#-.%01
2&34)(34)(5()67#-.58(4)6(4)6866)69#-!"85&866)6866)645.&.2%2
5,6.2%2
5#,&
7*/809#3.,*.:&
85&8)683)63)4&3)'28!"#$%&'(!$)*%)$"+%&(,%#)"-.
!"#$%"#&$'#&()$')$*+',(
-)'./$!"0(
!"#$%#&'(
)#"'#&*
+,-./0)#"'#&*
1%2%-,*.3#0)#"'#&*
!"#$$%&'(%&'(%)*+,
)&$-'#$-'##../"012#-3#..'.#..'.456+708+79"2":
$-#3';#3';#-!"075<=":01>0
#$$%&'(%&'((.?@1521A2+71072"9105">
#%#.'&#.'&#../"012#-3#..'.#..'.B++6C1D
#.3-&'--&'--)B++6+>C
-.&-')&-')#../"012#-3#..'.#..'.!"-#&%'.&%'.&%*+,
#.)-&'.-&'.#../"012#-3#..'.#..'.!"7:+1,">
3%&)'3&)'3&3E507F5087G:5+>C,
&&$.'.$.'.33H>7,I>7":7,81C+
-.&-')&-')(#E5075>7JI5+07=219+
%)'$)'$(3>59+72"9105">
;)';)';#../"012#-3#..'.#..'.45.&.2%2
5,6.2%2
5#,&
7*/809#3.,*.:&
#-33'.#.'.(')..'(3345.&.2%2
5,6.2%2
5#,&
7*/809#3.,*.:&
#-3#'.#.'.;'3(#';.)!"#$%"&#$'()&$*"+,-
./--(/01,02$30),-(0'&0%
4'5(-%+0*&$(6$*"+,-7$+-&$'()+89&
!"#$%&"'(")*+,-*.)&%/
!"#$7&9&*%$%"&$*(9(-
:+#$,0%&-),&;
.&9&*%$*"+,-$8#$*(9(-
.&9&*%$*"+,-$6(-$),&;
!27 !4.3 Logistic Regression
 Model
 Output
 Logistic Regression 
was used to determine the significant factors that will influence 
whether people move their chairs 
and 
the time people anticipate spending on nomadic chairs.
   4.3.1 Dependent Variable 1: W
hether 
people moved their chairs
 When 
the 
depen
dent variable was wh
ether people moved their chairs and independent 
variables were 
gender, age, occ
upation, group size, why they move 
chairs, importance of 
chairs 
are movable
 and 
surrounding 
environment
, results
 show
ed that o
ccupation, why they move chair 
and importance of chairs are movable 
became the significant factors
 (see Table 4.4
). Additionally, community members were less likely to move chairs than students; people who 
have a specific reason to move their chairs were m
ore likely to move chairs than people who did 
not provide a reason; 
people think that chairs are movable 
is more important are more likely to 
move chairs
. On the other hand, gender, age, group size
, major, chair color, 
day 
interview, sit 
with other 
or alon
e and 
surrounding 
environment were no
t significant factors 
for people
 choosing 
to move
 their chair
.  !28 ! Table 4.
4 Logistic Regression Output
 1 !"#$%$&'())$*$
&+,-.(
/-0()1(.1($*$
&+,-.(
23456
23678
9":(.
$;<<(.
!"#$%&'%(
=23>?@23847
234A5
732>?
)"#*+%
237?5
23784
23@77
>3555
,"#-./0(
&,BC(DE$FG$H-D,)EI
=23@?23?A6
232?6
?3>>6
&,BC(DE$FG$!"JJ,'FEI$
K(JB(.
=7325>1"1,2232>@
23@?5
3"#$(045#678%
23247
238@7
23@7?
>3754
&FE$-)"'(
23>@8
238>>
23??8
4376A
&FE$:FEL$"EL(.$<("<)(
234?@
236@@
23?27
?35@?
&FE$:FEL$H.F('MG
?3725
1"111>23287
??5348@
&FE$F'$&,'$".$&L-M(
>3557
1"1117387
>538A7
&FENO,F(E$P)-D(
73A?8
1"1)>36>@
>4>34>@
&FEN/FD($9"D-EF"'
73@>8
1"11973285
>4?36A?
9"#:;50(<.&=%#0>#=?.7(@#
.(%#;0A.BC%
23674
1"11!>37?>
73756
D"##64((04'7&+#
%&A7(0&;%&<
=2348423>74
23?75
>3>2A
!1"#E?F#4@%#<?%#@5.=%
!!"#6%C%=<#G?.7(#BF#G0C0(
!)"#E?F#@%C%=<#<?%#=0C0(
!,"#H.F#:&<%(A7%I
!2"#6%C%=<#G?.7(#>0(#
5.(<7=4C.(#A7%I
!"'GE-'E
=432?237>8
J"#E04C'#F04#C7K%#<0#@7<#I7<?#0<?%(#0(#.C0&%
L.(7.BC%@#7&#<?%#MN4.<70&
P(.G"'-)$H-DE".G
&F03
Q&"DF-)$H-DE".G
R'SF."'J('E-)$H-DE".G
/TO"#E?F#<?%F#;0A%#=?.7(
/T-0'%C#!#64;;.(F
56U$!V$W".$RXPYQZ
2"#P=455.<70&#
/T/T/T/T!29 !More specifically, statistical results can be summarized as follow:
 ¥!Controlling for the effect of gender, 
why they
 move chair
, importance of chairs are 
movable
, surrounding 
environment
, group size and age, community members are 
less likely to move chairs than students. However, there is no significant difference between 
students and faculty members in the likelihood 
to move a chair
. The odds of moving 
chairs among community members are 0.124 times lower than the odds of moving chairs 
among students.
 ¥!Controlling for the effect of gender, 
age, occupation
, group size,
 importance of chairs
 are 
movable
 and 
surrounding 
envi
ronment
, results showed the following:
 o!People want to sit with friends are more likely to move chairs than people whom 
moved chairs for no reason.
 The odds of moving chairs for sitting with friends is 
67.277 times higher than the odds of moving chairs for no reason.
 o!People want to sit in sun or shade are more likely to move chairs than people 
whom moved chairs for no reason.
 The odds of moving chair
s for sitting in sun or 
shade is 7.331 times higher than the odds of moving chairs for no reason.
 o!People want to sit in quiet place are more likely to move chairs than people whom 
moved chairs for no reason.
 The odds of moving chairs for sitting in quiet p
lace is 
14.117 times higher than the odds of moving chairs for no reason.
 o!People want to sit at a nice location are more likely to move chairs than people 
whom moved chairs for no reason.
 The odds of moving chairs for sitting at a nice 
location is 16.727 t
imes higher than the odds of moving chairs for no reason.
 ¥!Controlling for the effect of gender
, age, occupation, group size, why they move chair 
and 
surrounding 
environment, people think that c
hairs are movable 
is more important are 
!30 !more likely to move cha
irs. The unit increase in the 
importance of chairs are movable
 is associated with 1.688 increase in the odds of moving chairs.
 The modelÕ summary in Table
 4.4 shows that b
etween 39.5% and 52.7% variation in 
whether people moved chairs are explained by gend
er, age, occupation, group size, 
why they 
move chair, importance of chairs are movable 
and 
surrounding 
environment.
  In independent variables, 
why they move chair
 and 
why use the space
 included four to 
five categories, 
thus the study has recoded them into individual dummy variables in order to run 
the regression analysis. 
However,
 the input variable
s could 
not include 
all dummy variables, 
which 
might
 cause the regression analysis fail. 
Besides, the 
dummy variables from 
why they 
move chair 
and 
why use
 the space were very similar, which could cause correlation between 
dummies.
 Thus, 
the study had
 to 
examine their relationship with dependent variable separately.
 When dependent variable was whether people moved their chairs a
nd independent 
variables were 
gender, age, occupation, group size, 
why use
 the space, importance of chairs
 are 
movable
 and 
surrounding 
environment. 
Table 4.5
 showed that g
roup size
 and importance of 
chairs are movable
 became the significant factors.
 In addition, the group size was bigger, people 
were more likely to move their chai
rs; people thought that chairs are movable 
was more 
important were more likely to move their chairs.
 However, gender, 
occupation, 
age, major, 
select chair 
by color, 
day 
inte
rview, sit with other 
or alone
 and 
surrounding 
environment were 
identified as nonsignificant factors for people choosing to move their chair.
   !31 ! Table 4.
5 Logistic Regression Output
 2  !"#$%$&'())$*$
&+,-.(
/-0()1(.1($*$
&+,-.(
2345
23526
7"8(.
$9::(.
!"#$%&'%(
;235<6235==
2355>
?3<65
)"#*+%
23?54
23<@>
236@=
?3A=>
,"#-./0(
&,BC(DE$FG$H-D,)EI
23<2A
23A@<
234?4
?23A=A
&,BC(DE$FG$!"JJ,'FEI$
K(JB(.
;?355A2326?
232A4
?3?44
1"#$(023#456%
2344
7"778?32=@
?3<A>
&FE$-)"'(
&FE$8FEL$"EL(.$:(":)(
9"#:;<#=;%<#>0?%#@;.5(
8"#A>30(=.&@%#0B#@;.5(C#
.(%#>0?.DE%
23=<@
7"777?355@
4345@
F"##42((02'5&+#
%&?5(0&>%&=
;2352<23?5
23<>@
?32>5
7"D-EF"'
236=4
23?<6
236A6
=3@A4
&,'$".$&L-M(
23=5
235?4
23A2@
<36<6
*()-#F'0
23=2A
235A@
23==4
<3>@5
!L-E
23545
23A=6
23554
=36<A
!!"#4%E%@=#G;.5(#D<#G0E0(
!)"#:;<#C%E%@=#=;%#@0E0(
!,"#H.<#A&=%(?5%I
!J"#4%E%@=#G;.5(#B0(#
3.(=5@2E.(#?5%I
!"'GE-'E
;532<=23?5
/N/NO'PF."'J('E-)$H-DE".G
!7"#:;<#2C%#=;%#C3.@%
/N/N/NJ"#K@233.=50&#
&"DF-)$H-DE".G
L"#:02E'#<02#E5M%#=0#C5=#I5=;#0=;%(#0(#.E0&%
/N/NQ&F03
R(.G"'-)$H-DE".G
/NN.(5.DE%C#5&#=;%#OP2.=50&
>=S$!T$U".$OVRWQX
-0'%E#)#42>>.(<
!32 !In this model, group size become statistically significant.
 ¥!Controlling the effect of gender, age, occupation, 
why
 use the space, importance of chairs 
are movable 
and 
surrounding 
environment, t
he group size is bigger, people are more 
likely to move their chairs.
 The unit increase in the group size is associated wit
h 1.247 increase in the odds of moving chairs.
 ¥!Controlling the effect of gender, age, occupation, group size, 
why use the
 space and 
surrounding 
environment, 
people 
think that 
chairs are movable 
is more important are 
more likely to move chairs.
 The unit inc
rea
se in the importance of chairs are movable 
is associated with 1.73 increase in the odds of moving chairs.
  Table 4.5
 shows that b
etween 23% and 30.7% variation in whether people moved chairs 
are explained by gender, age, occupation, group size, 
why
 use
 the space, importance of chairs
 are 
movable
 and 
surrounding 
environment.
  4.3.2 Dependent Variable 2: 
Time
 people anticipate spending on nomadic chairs
 When dependent variable was 
the time people anticipate spending on 
nomadic 
chairs
, Table 4.
6 showed that 
age, group size, and importance of chairs are movable
 were significant
 factors.
 Furthermore, people whom was older were less likely to sit more than 20 minutes
; the 
group size was bigger, people we
re more likely to sit more than 20 minutes
; p
eople thought that 
chairs are movable
 was more important we
re more likely to 
sit more than 20 minutes
. On the 
other hand, 
gender, 
occupation
, major,
 select chair 
by color, 
day 
interview, 
why they move chair
, sit with other 
or alone
 and 
surrounding 
environmen
t were identified as nonsignificant factors for 
people choosing 
how long 
to 
use the
 chair
s.  !33 ! Table 4.
6 Logistic Regression Output
 3  !"#$%$&'())$
*$&+,-.(
/-0()1(.1($
*$&+,-.(
23456
23786
9":(.
$;<<(.
!"#$%&'%(
=2326423674
23>?6
436?6
)"#*+%
=232>8,",-)23@74
23@@A
-"#./01(
&,BC(DE$FG$H-D,)EI
&,BC(DE$FG$!"JJ,'FEI$
K(JB(.
=2387@23?@8
2374A
73>24
2"#$(134#567%
237?7
,",,84325>
43?>8
&FE$-)"'(
&FE$:FEL$"EL(.$<("<)(
&FE$:FEL$H.F('MG
23487
23674
238A>
83?56
&FE$F'$&,'$".$&L-M(
2324>
23@58
23>?>
737A5
&FENO,F(E$P)-D(
234@?
23645
23788
A3888
&FEN/FD($9"D-EF"'
43826
2377?
23>>6
823?8>
9"#:;41(</&=%#1>#=?/6(@#
/(%#;1A/BC%
238>
,",,-4347>
435?5
D"##53((13'6&+#
%&A6(1&;%&<
!,"#E?F#3@%#<?%#@4/=%
!!"#5%C%=<#G?/6(#BF#G1C1(
!)"#E?F#@%C%=<#<?%#=1C1(
!-"#H/F#:&<%(A6%I
!J"#5%C%=<#G?/6(#>1(#
4/(<6=3C/(#A6%I
!"'GE-'E
=835?5232@>
.1'%C#-#53;;/(F
K/(6/BC%@#6&#<?%#LM3/<61&
Q&F03
@?R$!S$T".$UVPWQX
P(.G"'-)$H-DE".G
/YJ"#N=344/<61&#
&"DF-)$H-DE".G
8"#E13C'#F13#C6O%#<1#@6<#I6<?#1<?%(#1(#/C1&%
/Y/Y/Y/Y/Y/YU'ZF."'J('E-)$H-DE".G
P"#E?F#<?%F#;1A%#=?/6(
/Y/Y/Y!34 !More specifically, statistical results can be summarized as follow:
 ¥!Controlling the effect of gender, occupation, group size, 
why they move chair, 
importance of chairs are movable
, people whom is older are less likely to sit more than 
20 minutes. The unit increase in age is associated with 0.958 decrease in the odds of 
sitting more than 20 minutes.
 ¥!Controlling the effect of gende
r, occupation, age, why they move chair
, importance of 
chairs are movable
, the group size is bigger, people are more likely to sit more than 20 
minutes.
 The unit increase in group size is associated
 with 1.287 increase in the odds of 
sitting more than 20 minutes.
 ¥!Controlling the effect of gender, occupation, age, group size, 
why they move chair
, people think that chairs are movable 
is more important are more likely to 
sit more than 20 
minutes
. The 
unit in
crease in importance of chairs are movable 
is associated with 1.405 
increase in the odds of sitting more than 20 minutes.
 Table 4.6
 shows that b
etween 17.8% and 23.8% variation in the time people would spend 
on chairs are explained by gender, age, 
occ
upation, group size, why they move chair, importance 
of chairs are movable
.   4.4 Discussion
 According to the output of the logistic regression model, 
group size and importance of 
chairs are movable 
were identified 
as significant factors that influence both whether people 
moved 
their 
chairs and time people anticipate 
spending
 on nomadic 
chairs.
 Other 
significant 
factors
 such as 
age, occupation and 
why they move chair 
only influenced one 
of the two 
dependent variables
. However, these 
significant factors
 were 
less convincible 
compa
red 
with the 
!35 !nonsignificant 
factors
, because they were highly logically connected with dependent variables
. For example, 
people 
who 
rate
d chairs are movable 
with higher scores 
were 
more likely
 to move 
their chairs
, which was predictable in logical manner
. Thus, this study 
also addressed
 the 
nonsignificant factors as the primary finding.
 William H. Whyte, as a pioneer in public space studies
, has indicated
 that movable chairs 
were more 
favored 
by users than fixed seats.
 He explained fixed seats were awkward in public 
open spaces since they cannot be moved to keep appropriate social distance
 (Whyte, 1980)
. However, he did not explain 
what factors will influence
 peopleÕs 
willing
ness
 to move their 
chairs
. In present study, 
age, gender, major, 
color of chairs, 
day 
interview, 
select chair for 
view, 
why use the space, 
sit with other 
or alone 
and quality of surrounding environment 
were 
identified
 as factors that will not influence people to move their chairs.
 However, the study was conducted 
under a campus setting, the finding
s may not 
reflect 
what happened in urban plazas.
 Following WhyteÕs study, many 
scholars
 focused on different 
design 
element
s that may 
affect peopleÕs behavior 
and
 decision
 making
 in public space,
 that 
were
 mentioned or not 
mentioned in WhyteÕs study
 (Abdulkarim
 and Nasar, 2014; Chang, 2002
). When studying on the 
liveness of streets, 
Mehta (2007) 
found that 
people spent 
more
 time on the streets
 with 
seating
 than 
on those without.
 However, how long people would like to sit 
and why 
they spend time on 
chairs 
were not explained in MehtaÕs study
. According to Figure 4.3
, 48% of the participants 
in 
the present study 
would like to u
se the nomadic chairs more than 20 minutes. 
The findings from 
the study su
ggested that people like to sit less than 20 minutes
 when they are older and people 
like to sit more than 20 minutes when 
their
 group size
 is larger
. Besides, 
gender, occupation, 
major, color of chairs, 
day 
interview, 
select chair for 
view, 
why use the space, 
willingness of 
!36 !sitting with other people and quality of surrounding environment were found as factors that will 
not influence 
the time 
people 
anticipate spending
 on nomadic 
chairs.
  Figure 4.
3 Time people anticipate spending on nomadic chairs
 Based
 on the answers from two
 survey question
s ÒWhy did or did you not move your 
chair?Ó
 and ÒWhy did you decide to use the space today?
Ó the study has found that 
Òsun
 or shadeÓ was the
 most men
tioned 
answer 
from the 
participants
 (see Figure 4.4
). Thus, 
having 
both 
sun exposed and shade
 area
 was significant to motivate people 
using nomadic chairs and 
moving 
their chairs.
  Figure 4.4
 World Cloud 
using survey response of 
why people moving
 their chairs
 !37 !Therefore, 
when designin
g a public space such as plazas, 
parks
 and streets
, seating was a 
significant factor that required to be 
considered by designers as Whyte and Mehta suggested. 
Additionally, the seating area
s that 
were
 exposed by sun or shade 
should be 
include
d in design 
considerations.
 Although many factors, such as gender, 
major
 and 
sit with other or alone
, were 
identified as nonsignificant in this study
, the characteristics of users 
and social environment 
may 
influen
ce how they will use the space
 when a public space covers different types of users
. For example,
 when 
users are younger and 
group size is 
larger
, people 
would like to stay longer 
on chairs 
and move their chairs to stay closer
. Therefore, a
nalyzing
 the user profile 
in public space 
design 
should be recognized by 
landscape architects and planners.
  !38 !CHAPTER FIVE
 CONCLUSION
 Because of the importance of public spaces to peopleÕs daily lives
, researching of public 
spaces 
is meaningful and useful for urban
 development. 
Previous studies
 have researched 
personal attributes
 of participants, as well as
 physical characteristics that significantly impact on 
the visitability of public spaces and human behavior in 
those 
public spaces. However, 
the effect 
of movable chairs 
on people using a space
 has not been comprehensively explored
. As a physical 
element, chairs 
play
 an important role 
in encourag
ing
 people 
to 
visit a space. However, fixed 
benches 
in study site are 
typically 
empty and unused. The present stu
dy conducted research on 
movable chairs to explore how movability of chairs affect
s people using a space to complement 
existing research on public spaces
. This research also
 provides 
recommendations
 for improving 
outdoor facilities on the campus in 
the 
future. The study covered 160 participants
, providing 
sufficient evidence to support results from this research.
 Since this study is an extension of ÒThe Idea ChairÓ project, which 
was conducted by the 
School of Planning, Design, and Construction at Michigan 
State University, the research site was 
assigned for surveying people 
on why they chose to use nomadic chairs. The Infrastructure 
Planning and Facilities (IPF) department of Michigan State University selected the location of 
the research site and set up mo
vable chairs on the site. Therefore, the limitation of the study is 
only focusing on one park, called 
PeopleÕs 
Park on campus. The park has similar facilities with 
other public spaces on campus, but has a unique location. Furthermore, the survey was 
conduc
ted in fall, on both week days and a football game day
 (Saturday)
, but people may have 
different sitting behavioral performances throughout the year. Therefore, it is difficult to 
generalize why people chose to use nomadic chairs on campus since people may
 have different 
reasons depending on the time of the year.
 !39 !Findings from this study support notions reported earlier in WhyteÕ study in the 1980s.  
This study further investigated the 
personal, social/ situational and environmental 
factors that 
might be 
significant
 or not significant on why
 people moved their chairs.
 From the present study, 
group size, occupation
, why they move chair
 and import
ance of chairs are movable 
contributed 
to participantsÕ decision of whether 
they will move chairs.
 Age, gender, major, color of chairs, 
day 
interview, 
select chair for 
view, 
why use the space, sit
 with other 
or alone
 and quality of 
surrounding environment were not significant in this study
. Additionally, 
the study 
investigated 
the factors that may influ
ence the time people anticipate spending on nomadic chairs.
 Age, group
 size and importance of chairs are movable 
were identified as significant, the nonsignificant 
factors included gender, occupation, major, color of chairs, 
day 
interview, 
select chair for
 view, 
why use the space,
 why they move chair,
 sit with other 
or alone
 and quality of surrounding 
environment.
 Therefore, 
the study suggested that 
when 
nomadic chairs 
became
 optimal seating 
option
 in 
plaza design
, the space should 
be designed to 
accommodate
 both small and 
large group 
of people
 in terms of their sitting behavior
s. Implications from this study
 are useful for future 
design guidelines for campus planners, 
and landscape architects 
in order 
to understand what factors affect people using
 nomadic chairs 
on campus. Understanding what attract
s and affect
s people using nomadic chairs 
is important to 
improve outdoor facilities and public space design on campus. Due to the limitation
s of this 
study, future studies should be conducted on differe
nt public spaces on campuses with different 
characteristics and facilities. Selecting multiple research sites helps to generalize the results 
in 
order 
to identify specific factors that significantly affect people using chairs on campus. Further 
research is
 recommended
 to 
see if
 results of this study 
apply 
to other public spaces on 
different 
campuses
.  Are the factors that influenced 
peopleÕs behaviors with nomadic chairs at MSU 
!40 !similar to the factors that influence 
peopleÕs interactions with nomadic chairs
? Expanding the 
sample size
 in this way 
will improve the reliability of study on nomadic chairs, as it will 
establish whether nomadic chairs 
cause the same behavioral 
performances
 and are as popular as 
they were at MSU. Additionally, this study was not able
 to survey all who used the nomadic 
chairs because it only involved one researcher recording answers. The researcher was not able to 
survey every user
, and so some perspectives on the chairs 
may have been 
missed. In order to 
improve the validity of future 
studies, having more researchers available to ask all who use 
nomadic chairs in a given observation period will ensure that all of the perspectives on the 
nomadic chairs are recorded in a given study. 
     !41 !APPENDIX  !42 !#IdeaChair 
Ð Movable Chairs in PeopleÕs Park, MSU Campus
  Please take a moment to tell us a bit about yourself.
  1.!What is your gender?
 Male   Female   I identify as:
   2.!What is your age?
    3.!What is your major or area of concentration?
     4.!Are you a (please circle one):
 Student
 Faculty or Staff Member
 Community Member
     5.!How many people have come with you to enjoy the chairs today (
excluding yourself
)?     6.!Did you move your chair? Why did or did you not move your chair?
      7.!Did you pick a chair with any color? Why or w
hy not?
     8.!Would you like to sit next to other people or alone?
    !43 !9.!How long do you anticipate sitting in here today?
 _____ 0-5 Minutes
 _____ 6-10 Minutes
 _____ 11-15 Minutes
 _____ 16-20 Minutes
 _____ More than 20 minutes
    10.!Why did you decide to use this 
space today?
        11.!Did you select or move your chair for any particular view?  (such as facing the sidewalk, 
facing the sun, to watch other people sitting in chairs, to watch nature)
            12.!How important is it that the chairs are moveable? 
  1              2            3            4          5           6            7              8                9             10 Not at all important
                    Very Important
     13.!How would you rate the surrounding environment? 
  1              2            3            4          5           6            7              8                9             10 Not at all enjoyable
                    Very Enjoyable
 !44 !BIBLIOGRAPHY
!45 !BIBLIOGRAPHY
   Aarts, H., &
 Dijksterhuis, A. (2003). The silence of the library: Environment, situational norm, 
 and social behavior.
 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
 84(1), 18-28. doi:10.1037/0022
-3514.84.1.18  Abdulkarim, D., & Nasar, J. L. (2014). Do seats, food vend
ors, and sculptures improve plaza 
 visitability?
 Environment and Behavior,
 46(7), 805-825. doi:10.1177/0013916512475299
  Aydin, D., & Ter, U. (2008). 
Outdoor 
space quality: Case study of a university campus plaza.
 Archnet
-IJAR,
 2(3), 189-203. doi:10.26687/archnet
-ijar.v2i3.294
  Castilhos, B. R., & Dolbec, PY. (2017). Conceptualizing spatial types: Characteristics, 
 transitions, and research avenues.
 Marketing Theory,
 0(0). doi:10.1177/1078087407306325
  Chang, H. (2002).
 Human behavior patterns 
in office building plaza: Three case studies in 
 downtown Dallas. 
ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global,
 250152052  Ewing, R., Hajrasouliha, A., Neckerman, K. M., Purciel
-Hill, M., & Greene, W. (2016). 
Streetscape features related to pedestrian activity.
 Journal of Planning Education and 
 Research,
 36(1), 5-15. doi:10.1177/0739456X15591585
  Frank, L. D., & Engelke, P. O. (2001). The built environment and human activity patterns: 
   Exploring the impacts of urban form on public health.
 Journal of Planning 
Literature
, 16(2), 202-218. doi:10.1177/08854120122093339
  Gjersoe, N., Havard, C., Kukla, R., Kerridge, J., & Willis, A. (2004). Human movement 
behaviour in urban spaces: Implications for the design and modelling of effective 
pedestrian environments.
 Envi
ronment and Planning B: Planning and Design
, 31(6), 805-828. doi:10.1068/b3060
  Gumprecht, B. (2007). The campus as a public space in the American college town.
 Journal of 
Historical Geography
, 33(1), 72-103. doi: 10.1016/j.jhg.2005.12.001
  Guo, N., Ding, 
J., Ling, X., Shi, Q., & Takashi, I. (2013). The walking behavior of pedestrian 
crowd under impact of static and movable targets.
 The European Physical Journal 
B, 86(7), 1-7. doi:10.1140/epjb/e2013
-30531-8  Hipp, J. A., Gulwadi, G. B., Alves, S., & 
Sequeira, S. (2016). The relationship between 
perceived greenness and perceived restorativeness of university campuses and student
-reported quality of life.
 Environment and Behavior,
 48(10), 1292-1308. doi:10.1177/0013916515598200
 !46 !Lapham, S. C., Cohen, D.
 A., Han, B., Williamson, S., Evens
on, K. R., McKenzie, T. L.,
 Ward, 
P. (2016). How important is perception of safety to park use? A four
-city survey.
 Urban 
Studies,
 53(12), 2624-2636. doi:10.1177/0042098015592822
  Mehta, V. (2007). Lively streets: Determi
ning environmental characteristics to support social 
behavior.
 Journal of Planning Education and Research,
 27(2), 165-187. doi:10.1177/0739456X07307947
  Mehta, V., & Bosson, J. K. (2018). Revisiting lively streets: Social interactions in public space.
 Jour
nal of Pl
anni
ng Education and Research,
 739456. doi:10.1177/0739456X18781453
  Mitchell, D. (2017). PeopleÕs park again: On the end and ends of public space.
 Environment and 
Planning A,
 49(3), 503-518. doi:10.1177/0308518X15611557
  Neto, O. A., & 
Munakata, J. (2015). Seat choice and distance judgment in public spaces.
 Perceptual and Motor Skills,
 121(2), 548-567. doi: 10.2466/24.PMS.121c20x3
  Panayiotou, A. (2015). Spacing gender, gendering space: A radical "strong plot" in film. 
Management Learnin
g, 46(4), 427.  Phau, I., Lee, S., & Quintal, V. (2013). An investigation of push and pull motivations of visitors 
to private parks: The case of araluen botanic park.
 Journal of Vacation Marketing,
 19(3), 269-284. doi:10.1177/1356766712471232
  Smithsimon, 
G. (2008). Dispersing the crowd: Bonus plazas and the creation of public 
space.
 Urban Affairs Review,
 43(3), 325-351. doi:10.1177/1078087407306325
  Ward, C. (1993).
 People and place 
-- public space by stephen carr, mark francis, leanne G. rivlin 
and andrew
 M. stone. London: Emap Limited.
  Whyte, W. H., & Project for Public Spaces. (1980).
 The social life of small urban spaces
. New 
York: Project for Public Spaces.
  Wu, H., Zacharias, J., & Stathopoulos, T. (2004). Spatial behavior in san francisco's plazas: 
The 
effects of microclimate, other people, and environmental design. (author abstract).
 Environment and Behavior,
 36(5), 638.  !