Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Kampüs Tasarımının Öğrencilerin Kampüs Yaşamının Kalitesine Etkisi: Gebze Teknik Üniversitesi Çayırova Kampüsü Master Planı Örneği

Year 2021, Volume: 14 Issue: 4, 975 - 994, 25.12.2021
https://doi.org/10.35674/kent.909791

Abstract

Üniversiteler, ülkelerin ve kentlerin nitelikli işgücünün ve entelektüel toplumun kaynağıdır. Üniversitelerde sunulan bilgi ve beceri geliştirici eğitim-öğretim faaliyetleri kadar önemli olan bir başka bileşen, öğrencilerin üniversite mekânında kaliteli zaman geçirmesi ve olumlu anılar biriktirebilmesidir. Üniversite yaşantısının kalitesinden memnuniyet olarak somutlaşan bu konu, bir yönetim problemi olduğu kadar, bir tasarım ve planlama problemi olarak da kabul edilmektedir. Köklü üniversitelerin birçoğunda yıllar içerisinde biriken deneyimler ile bir anlamda kendiliğinden oluşan kampüs yaşam kalitesi düzeyi, yeni kurulan ve gelişmekte olan birçok üniversitede kampüs tasarımı ve yönetimsel müdehaleler ile yükseltilmeye çalışılmaktadır. Türkiye’nin genç sayılabilecek üniversitelerinden biri olan Gebze Teknik Üniversitesi, akademik ölçütlere göre yapılan değerlendirmelerde üst sıralarda yer alsa da akademik yaşantının bir parçası olan kampüs yaşamının önemini de göz önüne alarak, 2015 yılında “Kampüs Master Planı” tasarımı hazırlıklarına başlamış ve kampüs yaşam kalitesinin arttırılmasını amaçlamıştır. Bu amaçla, aynı yıl içinde hazırlanan kampüs tasarımı ile kampüste eksik olduğu çeşitli şekillerde ifade edilen sosyal etkileşim ve boş vakit değerlendirme mekânları önerilmiş, bu mekanlar arasındaki yaya odaklı ilişkiler güçlendirilmiş, kampüsün doğal karakteri korunmuş ve geliştirilmiştir. Aradan geçen süreçte kampüs master planına uygun şekilde kampüs içinde çok sayıda uygulama gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, 20.03.2015 tarihinde onaylanan GTÜ Çayırova Kampüsü Master Planı’nın yürürlüğe girmesi sonrasında kullanıcıların kampüs tasarımından ve kampüs yaşantısından memnuniyet düzeylerinin ölçülerek kampüs master planının etkinliğinin değerlendirilmesidir. Çalışma sonucuna göre; ilerleyen bu süreç içerisinde öğrencilerin kampüsten genel olarak memnun olduğu, ancak sosyal etkileşim alanlarının yeterliliği, tasarımı ve içeriği konusunda halen geliştirilmesi gereken konular olduğu ortaya çıkmıştır.

References

  • Abd Razak, M. Z., Utaberta, N., Abdullah, N. A. G., Tahir, M., & Che Ani, A. (2011). Sustainable Campus Design in Malaysia: An Evaluation of Student’s Perception on Four Research University Campuses. In Applied Mechanics and Materials , Vol. 71,4313-4316). Trans Tech Publications Ltd.
  • Abu-Ghazzeh, T. M. (1999). Communicating behavioral research to campus design: Factors affecting the perception and use of outdoor spaces at the University of Jordan. Environment and behavior, 31(6), 764-804.
  • Aldemir, C. & Gülcan, Y. (2004). Student satisfaction in higher education. Higher education management and policy, 16(2), 09-122.
  • Arslan, S. & Akkas, O. A. (2014). Quality of college life (QCL) of students in Turkey: Students’ life satisfaction and identification. Social Indicators Research, 115(2), 869-884.
  • Bahari, N. B., & Said, I. B. (2008). A Greenway Network for University Campus. Faculty of Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai, Johor, Malaysia.
  • Castaldi, B. (1994). Educational facilities: Planning, modernization, and management. Allyn & Bacon (A Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc.), 160 Gould St., Needham Heights, MA 02194.
  • Chang, S., Saha, N., Castro-Lacouture, D., & Yang, P. P. J. (2019). Multivariate relationships between campus design parameters and energy performance using reinforcement learning and parametric modeling. Applied energy, 249, 253-264.
  • Crowe, S., 1979. Site Planning, Landscape Techniques, Buller and Tanner Ltd., Frume, Londra, U.K.
  • Clemes, M. D., Gan, C. E., & Kao, T. H. (2008). University student satisfaction: An empirical analysis. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 17(2), 292-325.
  • Coulson, J., Roberts, P., & Taylor, I. (2017). University trends: Contemporary campus design. Routledge.
  • Çelik, A. K., & Akyol, K. (2015). Predicting Student Satisfaction with an Emphasis on Campus Recreational Sports and Cultural Facilities in a Turkish University. International Education Studies, 8(4), 7-22.
  • Doi, K., Kii, M., & Nakanishi, H. (2008). An integrated evaluation method of accessibility, quality of life, and social interaction. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 35(6), 1098-1116.
  • Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological bulletin, 125(2), 276.
  • Douglas, J. A., Douglas, A., Mc Clelland, R. J., & Davies, J. (2015). Understanding student satisfaction and dissatisfaction: an interpretive study in the UK higher education context. Studies in Higher Education, 40(2), 329-349.
  • Erkman, U. (1990). Büyüme ve Gelişme Açısından Üniversite Kampüslerinde Planlama ve Tasarım Sorunları, İ.T.Ü. Mimarlık Fakültesi Baskı Atölyesi.
  • Erçevik, B., & Önal, F. (2011). Üniversite Kampüs Sistemlerinde Sosyal Mekan Kullanımları. Megaron, 6(3), 151-161.
  • Erdoğan, E. (2006). Çevre ve kent estetiği. Bartın Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 8(9), 68-77.
  • Ertekin, M. & Çorbacı, Ö. (2010). Üniversite Kampüslerinde Peyzaj Tasarımı (Karabük Üniversitesi Peyzaj Projesi Örneği). Kastamonu University Journal of Forestry Faculty , 10 (1), 55-67.
  • Göçer, Ö, Özbil Torun, A, Bakoviç, M. (2018). Kent dışı bir üniversite kampüsünün dış mekânlarında ısıl konfor, kullanım ve mekân dizim analizi. Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 33 (3), 853-874.
  • Gulwadi, G. B., Mishchenko, E. D., Hallowell, G., Alves, S., & Kennedy, M. (2019). The restorative potential of a university campus: Objective greenness and student perceptions in Turkey and the United States. Landscape and Urban Planning, 187, 36-46.
  • Gürün, D. K. & Çınar, Ö. (2006). “Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi’nin Avşar Yerleşke Planının İrdelenmesi”, Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Fen ve Mühendislik Dergisi, 1, 9.
  • Hajrasouliha, A. (2017). Campus score: Measuring university campus qualities. Landscape and Urban Planning, 158, 166-176.
  • Hendershott, A. B., Wright, S. P., & Henderson, D. (1992). Quality of life correlates for university students. NASPA Journal, 30(1), 11-19.
  • Kärnä, S., & Julin, P. (2015). A framework for measuring student and staff satisfaction with university campus facilities. Quality Assurance in Education.
  • Kuh, G. D. (2009). Understanding campus environments. İçinde G. S. McClellan & J. Stringer (Eds.), The handbook of student affairs administration (pp. 59-80) San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  • Main, B., & Hannah, G. G. (2010). Site furnishings: a complete guide to the planning, selection and use of landscape furniture and amenities. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
  • Marans, R. W., & Stimson, R. (2011). An overview of quality of urban life. İçinde: Marans R., Stimson R (eds) Investigating Quality of Urban Life. Social Indicators Research Series, vol 45. Springer, Dordrecht.
  • Kangal, A. (2009). “Üniversite yaşam kalitesi ölçeğinde psikometrik özelliklerinin incelenmesi ve Türk üniversite öğrencilerine uyarlanması”, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Akdeniz Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İşletme Anabilim Dalı, Antalya.
  • Lau, S. S., & Yang, F. (2009). Introducing healing gardens into a compact university campus: design natural space to create healthy and sustainable campuses. Landscape Research, 34(1), 55-81.
  • Lee, D. J. (2008). A model of quality of college life (QCL) of students in Korea. Social Indicators Research, 87(2), 269-285.
  • Li, X., Ni, G., & Dewancker, B. (2019). Improving the attractiveness and accessibility of campus green space for developing a sustainable university environment. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(32), 33399-33415.
  • McFarland, A. L., Waliczek, T. M., & Zajicek, J. M. (2008). The relationship between student use of campus green spaces and perceptions of quality of life. HortTechnology, 18(2), 232-238.
  • Maidinsah, H., Sari, M. M., & Sari, M. (2016). Students’ quality of university life in a public university in Malaysia. International Journal of Education and Research, 4(4), 493-506.
  • Patel, M. (2019). Campus Design: Assessing Outdoor Spaces at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo to Improve Student Experience. Pezeshkpoor, Z. (2020). “The role of movability on campus outdoor furniture”, unpublished master's thesis, Kansas State University.
  • Seitz, C. M., Reese, R. F., Strack, R. W., Frantz, S., & West, B. (2013). Identifying and improving green spaces on a college campus: A photovoice study. Ecopsychology, 6, 98-108.
  • Sirgy, M.J., Grzeskowiak, S. & Rahtz, D. (2007), “Quality of College Life (QCL) of Students: Developing and Validating a Measure of Well-Being”, Social Indicators Research, 80, 343-360.
  • Sirgy, M. J., Lee, D. J., Grzeskowiak, S., Grace, B. Y., Webb, D., El-Hasan, K., Vega, J. J. G., Ekici, A. Johar, J.S., Krishen, A., Kangal, A., Swoboda, B., Claiborne, C. B., Maggino, F., Rahtz, D., Canton, A. & Kuruuzum, A. (2010). Quality of college life (QCL) of students: Further validation of a measure of well-being. Social Indicators Research, 99(3), 375-390.
  • Terzi, F., Türkoğlu, H. D., Bölen, F., Baran, P. K., & Salihoğlu, T. (2015). Residents’ perception of cultural activities as quality of life in Istanbul. Social Indicators Research, 122(1), 211-234.
  • Türkoğlu, H., Bölen, F., Baran, P. K., & Marans, R. W. (2008). İstanbul'da yaşam kalitesinin ölçülmesi. İTÜDERGİSİ/a, 7(2), 103-113.
  • Van Marle, K. (2018). ‘Life is Not Simply Fact’: Aesthetics, Atmosphere and the Neoliberal University. Law Critique, 29, 293–310.
  • Yılmaz, S. (2015). Bir Kampüs Açık Mekânın Çevresel Tasarımı: Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Binası. Kastamonu University Journal of Forestry Faculty, 15(2), 297-307.
  • Wiers-Jenssen J., Stensaker B. & Grøgaard JB. (2002). Student Satisfaction: Towards an empirical deconstruction of the concept. Quality in Higher Education, 8(2),183 195.
  • Yu, G. B., & Kim, J. H. (2008). Testing the mediating effect of the quality of college life in the student satisfaction and student loyalty relationship. Applied Research Quality Life, 3, 1–21
  • Yu, G.B. & Lee, D.J. (2008). A Model of Quality of College Life (QCL) of Students in Korea, Social Indicators Research, 87, 269-285
  • URL: GTÜ (2019) Performans Programı Raporu. (Web Adresi: https://www.gtu.edu.tr/Files/UserFiles/136/Raporlar/2019_Yl_Performans_Program_.pdf)
  • URL: GTÜ Web Sitesi (2020). Aday Öğrenci Sayfası. (Web Adresi: http://aday.gtu.edu.tr/)

The Effect of Campus Design on the Quality of Student’s Campus Life: Case of Gebze Technical University Çayırova Campus Master Plan

Year 2021, Volume: 14 Issue: 4, 975 - 994, 25.12.2021
https://doi.org/10.35674/kent.909791

Abstract

Universities are the source of the qualified workforce and intellectual society of countries and cities. Another component that is as important as the knowledge and skill-enhancing educational activities offered at universities is the ability of students to have quality time in the university space and collect positive memories. This issue, which is embodied as satisfaction with the quality of university life, is regarded as a design and planning problem as well as a management problem. Many newly established and developing universities are tried to be increased with campus design practices and administrative interventions. While Gebze Technical University, taking the top places in the assessments made by academic criteria, "Campus Master Plan" has begun to design in 2015, taking into consideration the importance of the quality of campus life as a part of the academic success. For this purpose, spaces for social interaction and leisure time, which were expressed in various ways, were proposed, pedestrian-oriented relations between these places were strengthened, the natural character of the campus was preserved and developed with the campus design prepared in the same year. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the campus master plan by measuring the satisfaction levels of the students with the campus design and campus life, after the GTÜ Çayırova Campus Master Plan, which was approved on 20.03.2015. According to the results, it has been revealed that students are generally satisfied with campus life, but there are still issues that need to be improved in terms of the adequacy, design and content of social interaction areas.

References

  • Abd Razak, M. Z., Utaberta, N., Abdullah, N. A. G., Tahir, M., & Che Ani, A. (2011). Sustainable Campus Design in Malaysia: An Evaluation of Student’s Perception on Four Research University Campuses. In Applied Mechanics and Materials , Vol. 71,4313-4316). Trans Tech Publications Ltd.
  • Abu-Ghazzeh, T. M. (1999). Communicating behavioral research to campus design: Factors affecting the perception and use of outdoor spaces at the University of Jordan. Environment and behavior, 31(6), 764-804.
  • Aldemir, C. & Gülcan, Y. (2004). Student satisfaction in higher education. Higher education management and policy, 16(2), 09-122.
  • Arslan, S. & Akkas, O. A. (2014). Quality of college life (QCL) of students in Turkey: Students’ life satisfaction and identification. Social Indicators Research, 115(2), 869-884.
  • Bahari, N. B., & Said, I. B. (2008). A Greenway Network for University Campus. Faculty of Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai, Johor, Malaysia.
  • Castaldi, B. (1994). Educational facilities: Planning, modernization, and management. Allyn & Bacon (A Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc.), 160 Gould St., Needham Heights, MA 02194.
  • Chang, S., Saha, N., Castro-Lacouture, D., & Yang, P. P. J. (2019). Multivariate relationships between campus design parameters and energy performance using reinforcement learning and parametric modeling. Applied energy, 249, 253-264.
  • Crowe, S., 1979. Site Planning, Landscape Techniques, Buller and Tanner Ltd., Frume, Londra, U.K.
  • Clemes, M. D., Gan, C. E., & Kao, T. H. (2008). University student satisfaction: An empirical analysis. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 17(2), 292-325.
  • Coulson, J., Roberts, P., & Taylor, I. (2017). University trends: Contemporary campus design. Routledge.
  • Çelik, A. K., & Akyol, K. (2015). Predicting Student Satisfaction with an Emphasis on Campus Recreational Sports and Cultural Facilities in a Turkish University. International Education Studies, 8(4), 7-22.
  • Doi, K., Kii, M., & Nakanishi, H. (2008). An integrated evaluation method of accessibility, quality of life, and social interaction. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 35(6), 1098-1116.
  • Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological bulletin, 125(2), 276.
  • Douglas, J. A., Douglas, A., Mc Clelland, R. J., & Davies, J. (2015). Understanding student satisfaction and dissatisfaction: an interpretive study in the UK higher education context. Studies in Higher Education, 40(2), 329-349.
  • Erkman, U. (1990). Büyüme ve Gelişme Açısından Üniversite Kampüslerinde Planlama ve Tasarım Sorunları, İ.T.Ü. Mimarlık Fakültesi Baskı Atölyesi.
  • Erçevik, B., & Önal, F. (2011). Üniversite Kampüs Sistemlerinde Sosyal Mekan Kullanımları. Megaron, 6(3), 151-161.
  • Erdoğan, E. (2006). Çevre ve kent estetiği. Bartın Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 8(9), 68-77.
  • Ertekin, M. & Çorbacı, Ö. (2010). Üniversite Kampüslerinde Peyzaj Tasarımı (Karabük Üniversitesi Peyzaj Projesi Örneği). Kastamonu University Journal of Forestry Faculty , 10 (1), 55-67.
  • Göçer, Ö, Özbil Torun, A, Bakoviç, M. (2018). Kent dışı bir üniversite kampüsünün dış mekânlarında ısıl konfor, kullanım ve mekân dizim analizi. Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 33 (3), 853-874.
  • Gulwadi, G. B., Mishchenko, E. D., Hallowell, G., Alves, S., & Kennedy, M. (2019). The restorative potential of a university campus: Objective greenness and student perceptions in Turkey and the United States. Landscape and Urban Planning, 187, 36-46.
  • Gürün, D. K. & Çınar, Ö. (2006). “Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi’nin Avşar Yerleşke Planının İrdelenmesi”, Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Fen ve Mühendislik Dergisi, 1, 9.
  • Hajrasouliha, A. (2017). Campus score: Measuring university campus qualities. Landscape and Urban Planning, 158, 166-176.
  • Hendershott, A. B., Wright, S. P., & Henderson, D. (1992). Quality of life correlates for university students. NASPA Journal, 30(1), 11-19.
  • Kärnä, S., & Julin, P. (2015). A framework for measuring student and staff satisfaction with university campus facilities. Quality Assurance in Education.
  • Kuh, G. D. (2009). Understanding campus environments. İçinde G. S. McClellan & J. Stringer (Eds.), The handbook of student affairs administration (pp. 59-80) San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  • Main, B., & Hannah, G. G. (2010). Site furnishings: a complete guide to the planning, selection and use of landscape furniture and amenities. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
  • Marans, R. W., & Stimson, R. (2011). An overview of quality of urban life. İçinde: Marans R., Stimson R (eds) Investigating Quality of Urban Life. Social Indicators Research Series, vol 45. Springer, Dordrecht.
  • Kangal, A. (2009). “Üniversite yaşam kalitesi ölçeğinde psikometrik özelliklerinin incelenmesi ve Türk üniversite öğrencilerine uyarlanması”, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Akdeniz Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İşletme Anabilim Dalı, Antalya.
  • Lau, S. S., & Yang, F. (2009). Introducing healing gardens into a compact university campus: design natural space to create healthy and sustainable campuses. Landscape Research, 34(1), 55-81.
  • Lee, D. J. (2008). A model of quality of college life (QCL) of students in Korea. Social Indicators Research, 87(2), 269-285.
  • Li, X., Ni, G., & Dewancker, B. (2019). Improving the attractiveness and accessibility of campus green space for developing a sustainable university environment. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(32), 33399-33415.
  • McFarland, A. L., Waliczek, T. M., & Zajicek, J. M. (2008). The relationship between student use of campus green spaces and perceptions of quality of life. HortTechnology, 18(2), 232-238.
  • Maidinsah, H., Sari, M. M., & Sari, M. (2016). Students’ quality of university life in a public university in Malaysia. International Journal of Education and Research, 4(4), 493-506.
  • Patel, M. (2019). Campus Design: Assessing Outdoor Spaces at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo to Improve Student Experience. Pezeshkpoor, Z. (2020). “The role of movability on campus outdoor furniture”, unpublished master's thesis, Kansas State University.
  • Seitz, C. M., Reese, R. F., Strack, R. W., Frantz, S., & West, B. (2013). Identifying and improving green spaces on a college campus: A photovoice study. Ecopsychology, 6, 98-108.
  • Sirgy, M.J., Grzeskowiak, S. & Rahtz, D. (2007), “Quality of College Life (QCL) of Students: Developing and Validating a Measure of Well-Being”, Social Indicators Research, 80, 343-360.
  • Sirgy, M. J., Lee, D. J., Grzeskowiak, S., Grace, B. Y., Webb, D., El-Hasan, K., Vega, J. J. G., Ekici, A. Johar, J.S., Krishen, A., Kangal, A., Swoboda, B., Claiborne, C. B., Maggino, F., Rahtz, D., Canton, A. & Kuruuzum, A. (2010). Quality of college life (QCL) of students: Further validation of a measure of well-being. Social Indicators Research, 99(3), 375-390.
  • Terzi, F., Türkoğlu, H. D., Bölen, F., Baran, P. K., & Salihoğlu, T. (2015). Residents’ perception of cultural activities as quality of life in Istanbul. Social Indicators Research, 122(1), 211-234.
  • Türkoğlu, H., Bölen, F., Baran, P. K., & Marans, R. W. (2008). İstanbul'da yaşam kalitesinin ölçülmesi. İTÜDERGİSİ/a, 7(2), 103-113.
  • Van Marle, K. (2018). ‘Life is Not Simply Fact’: Aesthetics, Atmosphere and the Neoliberal University. Law Critique, 29, 293–310.
  • Yılmaz, S. (2015). Bir Kampüs Açık Mekânın Çevresel Tasarımı: Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Binası. Kastamonu University Journal of Forestry Faculty, 15(2), 297-307.
  • Wiers-Jenssen J., Stensaker B. & Grøgaard JB. (2002). Student Satisfaction: Towards an empirical deconstruction of the concept. Quality in Higher Education, 8(2),183 195.
  • Yu, G. B., & Kim, J. H. (2008). Testing the mediating effect of the quality of college life in the student satisfaction and student loyalty relationship. Applied Research Quality Life, 3, 1–21
  • Yu, G.B. & Lee, D.J. (2008). A Model of Quality of College Life (QCL) of Students in Korea, Social Indicators Research, 87, 269-285
  • URL: GTÜ (2019) Performans Programı Raporu. (Web Adresi: https://www.gtu.edu.tr/Files/UserFiles/136/Raporlar/2019_Yl_Performans_Program_.pdf)
  • URL: GTÜ Web Sitesi (2020). Aday Öğrenci Sayfası. (Web Adresi: http://aday.gtu.edu.tr/)
There are 46 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Architecture
Journal Section Research Article
Authors

Tayfun Salihoğlu 0000-0002-9959-6961

Güliz Salihoğlu 0000-0003-0505-4350

Pınar Özyılmaz Küçükyağcı 0000-0002-7045-7722

Murat Yıldız This is me 0000-0003-3660-1150

Publication Date December 25, 2021
Submission Date April 5, 2021
Published in Issue Year 2021 Volume: 14 Issue: 4

Cite

APA Salihoğlu, T., Salihoğlu, G., Özyılmaz Küçükyağcı, P., Yıldız, M. (2021). Kampüs Tasarımının Öğrencilerin Kampüs Yaşamının Kalitesine Etkisi: Gebze Teknik Üniversitesi Çayırova Kampüsü Master Planı Örneği. Kent Akademisi, 14(4), 975-994. https://doi.org/10.35674/kent.909791

International Refereed and Indexed Journal of Urban Culture and Management | Kent Kültürü ve Yönetimi Uluslararası Hakemli İndeksli Dergi
Information, Communication, Culture, Art and Media Services (ICAM Network) | www.icamnetwork.net
Address: Ahmet Emin Fidan Culture and Research Center, Evkaf Neigh. No: 34 Fatsa Ordu
Tel: +90452 310 20 30 Faks: +90452 310 20 30 | E-Mail: (int): info@icamnetwork.net | (TR) bilgi@icamnetwork.net