Typescript. / Digitized by Kansas Correctional Industries

Master of Regional and Community Planning / Department of Landscape Architecture/Regional and Community Planning / Ray B. Weisenburger / This report examines how 17th Street on the Kansas State University campus, initially a service road on the west edge of the campus, has become a major point of public campus access while retaining its function as a service road. In addition, this report conducts interviews with 10 persons with various backgrounds and experiences involving 17th Street to understand public impressions and interests regarding 17th Street. Finally, this report reviews future development scenarios of 17th Street that allow 17th Street to be a contributor with a distinctive character to the university. When Kansas State University was transferred from old Bluemont Central College to its current location in 1875, 17th Street, which now crosses the middle of the campus on a North-South axis, was outside of the campus’ core facility areas. As various university programs have grown throughout the late 20th Century, the campus of Kansas State University has expanded toward the west. As a result, the relative proximity of 17th Street to the center of campus has changed. Now, 17th Street is recognized as one of the major entrances to campus from the south; yet because of the street’s initial and ongoing service function and its service-related facilities, there are parts of the corridor that are not attractive. It is desired for 17th Street to become a more appealing and functional part of the university experience for guiding and welcoming visitors to the campus.

Typescript (photocopy). / Digitized by Kansas Correctional Industries

Call number: LD2668 .T4 1985 S33

Call number: LD2668 .T4 1986 E49 / Master of Science / Special Education, Counseling and Student Affairs

Digitized by Kansas Correctional Industries

Master of Science / Department of Horticulture, Forestry, and Recreation Resources / Candice A. Shoemaker / Educational opportunities in horticultural therapy at colleges and universities are currently experiencing a minimal level as compared to the time of their development in the early 1970’s. While there is an education decline in horticultural therapy, there is a rebirth of interest in this therapeutic modality taking place within the medical profession. Due to the lack of availability of university introductory-level horticultural therapy courses throughout the United States, it is important to ascertain what topics are needed for inclusion in an introductory course. A survey was sent to 13 horticultural therapy practitioners, 11 university instructors, and 8 students. Overall, responses of practitioners and professors were varied in their opinions. The one topic of importance in which they agreed was horticultural therapy definitions, as definitions for horticultural therapy, horticultural therapist, and horticultural therapy programs. A majority of horticultural therapy practitioners indicated that horticultural therapy history and theories are important topics for an introductory horticultural therapy course. A majority of the professors reported that horticultural therapy settings are a somewhat important topic. Topics of interest to students who had taken an introduction to horticultural therapy course included interaction with special populations (for example, elders, children, patients in physical rehabilitation), the use of adaptive gardening techniques and tools, and measuring the benefits of horticultural therapy. Topics of interest about which students wanted to learn more were ways in which to help each population through planned activities and how to reach horticultural therapy goals planned for patients and clients. Results of a literature search was conducted in which sources of information indicated that there have been declines in educational opportunities over time and a lack of growth in these opportunities. Based on the survey results and literature review, an introductory horticultural therapy course was developed. An introduction-type course is one that briefly introduces most, if not all, topics that will be studied in depth in more advanced courses. It should be designed in such a way that interests students and encourages them to continue their studies in the program. At the same time, the concerns and interests of the practitioners and professors need to be considered in the design of the course. As a result, the course was planned and includes the topics that are of interest to the participants in the surveys. The topics include horticultural therapy history, theories, definitions, program types, client/patient groups, settings, and the people-plant relationship.

Master of Regional and Community Planning / Department of Landscape Architecture/Regional and Community Planning / John Keller / The purpose of this thesis is to discover whether disability access regulations are being met and whether the regulations fulfill their intended purpose. Is Kansas State University Campus in Manhattan, Kansas ADA compliant (follows the current law) and convenient (user-friendly)? This inquiry can be split into two research questions: (1) Do the main entrances (entry experience being the sidewalk, ramp, and door) to buildings on the Kansas State University campus comply with current ADA guidelines? (2) Do students on campus find the access to these buildings user-friendly? This study has two main questions, and therefore multiple research methodologies: a focus group, audit, and guided activity. The focus group was made up of physically disabled students at KSU who are therefore familiar with access on the campus. The second method involved a yes-no checklist to test whether the buildings meet code. The third involved disabled and non-disabled students using a wheelchair for a day, with post-event survey to test public opinion of access on campus. My hypothesis anticipated that Kansas State University is code compliant, but not user-friendly. The conclusion is that no structure is fully sidewalk/ramp/door compliant, but two structures’ doors are fully compliant. According to the audit: ramps are mostly not needed (only 35 percent of structures need a ramp), sidewalks are 66 percent compliant, and doors are 63 percent compliant. According to the survey: doors are in the best condition, with ramps next, and sidewalks last. When comparing the checklist (compliance) and survey (convenience) results, sidewalk results were different, the ramp results were non-conclusive, and the door results were similar. This means that sidewalks meet code, but people do not find them accessible. Because ramps are not always needed, it made the checklist and survey difficult to compare. The analysis did not result in a clear “Similar” or “Different” result, therefore the comparison was non-conclusive. Doors were in the best condition on the checklist, and most people felt they were in good conditions. The application of this project allows other universities and communities to test whether their structures adequately provide access to students with a disability in a way that is user-friendly.