Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Security Checkpoints at University Campus Entrances and Their Impact on Social Integration: A Case Study of the University of Wasit

Abstract

Historically, universities are more of an open social and cultural system where interaction, accessibility, and engagement among neighbors are favored. Rise in pressure on security has seen most institutions adopt policies on physical control like security checkpoints at college gates. These interventions are supposed to improve the safety but might create some physical and psychological distance between the universities and the city. In this paper, the researcher will assess how security checkpoints influence the perceived Spatial and Social Impact of Security Checkpoints at University Campus Entrances: A Case Study of the University of Wasit. A combined mixed-method design was employed, creating a spatial analysis of four campus entry points and a structured survey of a questionnaire consisting of more than 40 questions, which was implemented among the students, employees, visitors, and residents of the location. The results show that security checkpoints boost perceived safety in internal users to a great extent. Nevertheless, they diminish the spatial receptivity as well as limit free motion and inhibit impromptu social manifestation. The indicators of social integration, especially the sense of belonging and interaction, have always registered low scores. The non-student users of the campus find it to be hard to enter and very monitored, which further assists in the perception of social and spatial isolation. The research outcomes are based on the findings suggests that although security checkpoints address protective goals, their design and functioning have the significant impact on the campus experience and campus-community relationships. It claims transparency in the checkpoint design; dispersed entrances and well balanced security measures will enhance the social connectivity without jeopardizing security.

Keywords

Social integration, university campus, security checkpoints, urban barriers

PDF

References

  1. Altbach, P. G., Reisberg, L., & Rumbley, L. E. (2010). Trends in Global Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004406155
  2. AMECWU. (2026). Access map for exam centers at Wasit University. Wasit University website RSS2. https://uowasit.edu.iq/old/en/examination-centers-in-wasit-university-2/
  3. Averdijk, M. (2010). Reciprocal effects of victimization and routine activities. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 27(2), 125–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-010-9106-6
  4. Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done? Qualitative Research, 6(1), 97–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794106058877
  5. Coleman, R. (2004). Images from a neoliberal city: The state, Surveillance and Social Control. Critical Criminology, 12(1), 21–42. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:crit.0000024443.08828.d8
  6. Cozens, P. M., Saville, G., & Hillier, D. (2005). Crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED): A Review and modern bibliography. Property Management, 23(5), 328–356. https://doi.org/10.1108/02637470510631483
  7. Curti, G. H. (2008). From a wall of bodies to a body of walls: Emotion, Space and Society, 1(2), 106–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emospa.2009.02.002
  8. De Vaus, D., & de Vaus, D. (2013). Surveys in Social Research. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203519196
  9. Dovey, K. (2002). Framing Places. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203017579
  10. Ellin, N. (2013). Integral Urbanism. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203956854
  11. Ewing, R., & Handy, S. (2009). Measuring the unmeasurable: Urban design qualities related to walkability. Journal of Urban Design, 14(1), 65–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574800802451155
  12. Fong, L., & Law, R. (2013). Hair, J. F. Jr., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., sarstedt, M. (2014). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications. ISBN: 978-1-4522-1744-4. 307 pp. European Journal of Tourism Research, 6(2), 211–213. https://doi.org/10.54055/ejtr.v6i2.134
  13. Gehl, J., & Svarre, B. (2013). How to Study Public Life. https://doi.org/10.5822/978-1-61091-525-0
  14. Gifford, R. (2016). Introduction. Research Methods for Environmental Psychology, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119162124.ch1
  15. Giglioli, I. (2012). Cities under siege: The new military urbanism, by Stephen Graham. Berkeley Planning Journal, 25(1). https://doi.org/10.5070/bp325111854
  16. Hajrasouliha, A. (2017). Campus score: Measuring university campus qualities. Landscape and Urban Planning, 158, 166–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.10.007
  17. Hillier, B., & Hanson, J. (1984). The Social Logic of Space. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511597237
  18. Jackson, J. (2009). A psychological perspective on vulnerability in the fear of crime. Psychology, Crime & Law, 15(4), 365–390. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160802275797
  19. Kitchen, T., & Schneider, R. H. (2007). Crime Prevention and the Built Environment. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203098813
  20. Kitchin, R., & Dodge, M. (2011). Code/Space. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262042482.001.0001
  21. Mehta, V. (2013). Evaluating public space. Journal of Urban Design, 19(1), 53–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2013.854698
  22. Montello, D., & Sutton, P. (2006). An Introduction to Scientific Research Methods in Geography. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452225814
  23. Porta, S., Crucitti, P., & Latora, V. (2006). The network analysis of Urban Streets: A primal approach. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 33(5), 705–725. https://doi.org/10.1068/b32045
  24. Putnam, R. D. (2007). E pluribus unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-First Century the 2006 Johan Skytte prize lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30(2), 137–174. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x
  25. Rapoport, A. (2019). Culture and built form - a reconsideration. Culture-Meaning-Architecture, 175–216. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315200248-10
  26. Tinto, V. (2006). Research and practice of student retention: What next? Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 8(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.2190/4ynu-4tmb-22dj-an4w
  27. UWMSSV. (2026). University of Wasit location, maps, satellite and street views. uniRank. https://www.unirank.org/iq/uni/university-of-wasit/map/
  28. Van Melik, R., Van Aalst, I., & Van Weesep, J. (2009). The private sector and public space in Dutch city centres. Cities, 26(4), 202–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2009.04.002
  29. WUE. (2026). Wasit University Entrance. Amarseen. https://amarseen.com/wasit-university-entrance
  30. Yiftachel, O. (2009). Theoretical notes on `gray cities’: The coming of urban apartheid? Planning Theory, 8(1), 88–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095208099300.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Similar Articles

31-40 of 125

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.