Factors influencing a Commuter Student's Decision when Choosing a Recreational Facility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recreational facilities are commonly used in the university student population, from the access to weight rooms, group activities, and sport-related endeavours, partaking in a fitness centre can be a crucial component in the daily lives of these individuals. With the new recreational centre opening on the Vancouver campus of the University of British Columbia, Rec North, understanding the environmental, social, and personal aspects of what attracts students to a certain facility is crucial, especially for those who commute and have a plethora of options when choosing a facility to commit to. In this study, the aspects regarding the characteristics and requirements commuter students consider when selecting a recreational facility as well as the specific factors that impact their decision when it comes to choosing which facility to attend are explored. This study uses a mixed methods approach. Quantitative analysis is conducted to understand the overarching importance of certain factors within the sample when it comes to certain factors and qualitative descriptions to provide a further understanding on personal perceptions and considerations that contribute to the decision making process when finding a recreational facility. Through this study, it is evident that the most important contributing factors to the deciding of which recreational facility to attend includes location regarding the proximity to the individual's home location and the cost of the facility. The physical environment within a facility including the equipment provided, the cleanliness, and maintenance of the change rooms was also an important consideration when selecting a recreational environment. On the other hand the social environment did not have a significant impact when choosing a recreational facility. It was found that women give greater consideration to how comfortable they would feel while exercising than men and that students who commute more than 60 minutes consider the distance of the facility from campus less than students who live less than 60 minutes away. Recommendations to the partners at UBC Recreation were provided on the basis of the responses received in the Likert Type statements as well as open-ended response questions allowing participants to provide suggestions to make UBC facilities more accessible to them as Rec North opens. The recommendations to the partners included extending the hours to go later into the night to allow more flexibility to commuting students, private space for women (trans-inclusive) to exercise using equipment, real-time capacity updates made available on the UBC Recreation website to inform users of how busy the facility is, change rooms that are more accessible to commuter students by providing towels and soap, and an upgraded membership allowing users who value privacy to have access to extended hours. The purpose of this study was to investigate the factors that play an active part in commuter students’ decisions when selecting a recreational facility in order to provide UBC Recreation with actionable recommendations to implement in order for UBC recreational facilities to be more accessible to commuter students. Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or the SEEDS Coordinator about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report.”
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".