Volume 38, Issue 3 (Autumn 2025)
JMDP 2025, 38(3): 174-195 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Mohsenzadeh M, Azimi M, Bahramian A. (2025). University Campus Physical Development Strategy through the Identification of Effective Visual Indicators; Case Study: Shiraz University Campus. JMDP. 38(3), 174-195.
URL: http://jmdp.ir/article-1-4892-en.html
URL: http://jmdp.ir/article-1-4892-en.html
1- Department of Architecture, Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism, Art University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran.
2- Department of Architecture, Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism, Art University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran. ,m.azimi@aui.ac.ir
2- Department of Architecture, Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism, Art University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran. ,
Abstract: (450 Views)
Purpose: This article aimed to analyze the visual content in university campuses and to introduce influential visual indicators for the improvement and development of these settings. Therefore, to reach a list of effective visual indicators in university campuses, we selected Shiraz University so that we could realize the campus physical development strategy as well as environment productivity.
Methodology: The study was applied-descriptive within the broader of survey research paradigm. It was implemented in 2025 using the walking methodology in Landscape in the campus of this university. We collected the data via a mixed-method survey combining four qualitative tools including mental imagery, exploratory observation, photographic documentation, and reflective analysis.
Findings: To analyze the data, responses were summarized, interpreted, and coded to identify the corresponding visual indicators. Based on the perceptual nature and spatial adjacency of the indicators, they were then classified into three major categories of factors: objective, subjective, and objective/subjective. As a result, a comprehensive list of potential visual indicators for academic campuses was formulated. Finally, an analytical framework specific to visual indicators has been developed.
Originality: A review of the related literature revealed a lack of a specific analytical framework for visual indicators within university campus environments. Therefore, it is essential to develop localized indicators tailored to the environmental context to achieve purposeful and coordinated campus development.
Recommendations: The suggestion for future research is to conduct this study on other university campuses to complete and expand the results.
Methodology: The study was applied-descriptive within the broader of survey research paradigm. It was implemented in 2025 using the walking methodology in Landscape in the campus of this university. We collected the data via a mixed-method survey combining four qualitative tools including mental imagery, exploratory observation, photographic documentation, and reflective analysis.
Findings: To analyze the data, responses were summarized, interpreted, and coded to identify the corresponding visual indicators. Based on the perceptual nature and spatial adjacency of the indicators, they were then classified into three major categories of factors: objective, subjective, and objective/subjective. As a result, a comprehensive list of potential visual indicators for academic campuses was formulated. Finally, an analytical framework specific to visual indicators has been developed.
Originality: A review of the related literature revealed a lack of a specific analytical framework for visual indicators within university campus environments. Therefore, it is essential to develop localized indicators tailored to the environmental context to achieve purposeful and coordinated campus development.
Recommendations: The suggestion for future research is to conduct this study on other university campuses to complete and expand the results.
Keywords: Visual Indicators, University Campus Development, Environmental Productivity, User Satisfaction, Landscape Walking Method.
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Development Process
Received: Jul 24 2025 | Accepted: Sep 16 2025 | ePublished: Jan 26 2026
Received: Jul 24 2025 | Accepted: Sep 16 2025 | ePublished: Jan 26 2026
References
1. Abubakr, L. Faris, A., & Mustafa, A. (2024). Evaluating the impact of mosque morphology on worshipers' visual comfort: Simulation analysis for daylighting performance. Ain Shams Engineering Journal, (15), 1-18. [DOI:10.1016/j.asej.2023.102412]
2. Adenle, Y. A., Chan, E. H. W., Sun, Y., & Chau, C. K. (2020). Exploring the coverage of environmental-dimension indicators in existing campus sustainability appraisal tools. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators, )8(, 1-11. [DOI:10.1016/j.indic.2020.100057]
3. Alrashed, S. (2020). Key performance indicators for Smart Campus and Microgrid. Sustainable Cities and Society, 60, 102264. [DOI:10.1016/j.scs.2020.102264]
4. Anciaes, P. (2023).Effects of the roadside visual environment on driver wellbeing and behaviour - a systematic review, Transport Reviews, (43)4, 571-598. [DOI:10.1080/01441647.2022.2133189]
5. Arata, S., Sugiuchi, M., Yazawa, R., Funatsu, H., & Kawakubo, S. (2025). Effects of perceived office environment on the subjective well-being of workers: Insights from a structural equation modeling analysis. Building and Environment, 267, 112180. [DOI:10.1016/j.buildenv.2024.112180]
6. Ariannia, N., Naseri, N., & Yeganeh, M., (2024).Cognitive-emotional feasibility of the effect of visual quality of building form on promoting the sense of place attachment (Case study: Cultural iconic buildings of Iran's contemporary architecture). Frontiers of Architectural Research, 13(1), 37-56. [DOI:10.1016/j.foar.2023.10.002]
7. Azizi, S., Nair, G., Rabiee, R., & Olofsson, T. (2020). Application of Internet of Things in academic buildings for space use efficiency using occupancy and booking data. Building and Environment, (186), 107355. [DOI:10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.107355] [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33041459]
8. Bashirzadeh, Y., Mai, R., & Faure, C. (2022). How rich is too rich? Visual design elements in digital marketing communications. International Journal of Research in Marketing, (39), 58-76. [DOI:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2021.06.008]
9. Bellagarda, C. A., Dickinson, J. E., Bell, J., & Badcock, D. R. (2021). The temporal integration windows for visual mirror symmetry. Vision Research, (188), 184-192. [DOI:10.1016/j.visres.2021.07.009] [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34352477]
10. Bonem, E. M., Elleworth, P. C., & Gonzelez, R., (2015). Age Differences in Risk: Perceptions, Intentions and Domains. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, Wiley Library. [DOI:10.1002/bdm.1848]
11. Boys, J. (2014). Building better universities: Strategies, spaces, technologies. Routledge. [DOI:10.4324/9780203798881]
12. Cadena, R. P., Andrade, M. O. D., Meira, L. H., & Dourado, A B. D. F. (2020). The pursuit of a sustainable and accessible mobility on university campuses.Transportation Research Procedia, (48), 1861-1880. [DOI:10.1016/j.trpro.2020.08.220]
13. Chang, S., Saha, N., Castro-Lacouture, D., & Yang, P. P. (2019). Multivariate relationships between campus design parameters and energy performance using reinforcement learning and parametric modeling. Applied Energy, (249), 253-264. [DOI:10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.04.109]
14. Cheng, S., Sheng, D., Yao, J., & Shen, Z. (2023). Poster graphic design with your Eyes: An approach to automatic textual layout design based on visual perception. Displays, (79), 1-12. [DOI:10.1016/j.displa.2023.102458]
15. Coursaris, C. K., & van Osch, W. (2016). A Cognitive-Affective Model of Perceived User Satisfaction (CAMPUS): The complementary effects and interdependence of usability and aesthetics in IS design. Information & Management, 53(2), 252-264. [DOI:10.1016/j.im.2015.10.003]
16. Davydenko, M., & Peetz, J. (2017). Time grows on trees: The effect of nature settings on time perception. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 54, 20-26. [DOI:10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.09.003]
17. Dawes, M. J., Lee, J., & Ostwald, M. J. (2022). 'Visual excitation' in Richard Neutra's residential architecture: An analysis using weighted graphs and centrality measures. Frontiers of Architectural Research, (11), 1092-1103. [DOI:10.1016/j.foar.2022.05.003]
18. Demir, G. O., Çekmis, A., ¸ Yesilkaynak, V. B., & Unal, G. (2021). Detecting visual design principles in art and architecture through deep convolutional neural networks. Automation in Construction, (130), 1-20. [DOI:10.1016/j.autcon.2021.103826]
19. El-Darwish, I. I. (2022). Enhancing outdoor campus design by utilizing space syntax theory for social interaction locations. Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 13(1), 101524. [DOI:10.1016/j.asej.2021.06.010]
20. Farida, N. (2013). Effects of outdoor shared spaces on social interaction in a housing estate in Algeria. Frontiers of Architectural Research, (2), 457-467. [DOI:10.1016/j.foar.2013.09.002]
21. Foellmer, J., Kistemann, T., & Anthonj, C. (2021). Academic Greenspace and Well-Being - Can Campus Landscape be Therapeutic? Evidence from a German University. Wellbeing, Space and Society, 2, 100003. [DOI:10.1016/j.wss.2020.100003]
22. Gandy, M. (2024). Attentive Observation: Walking, Listening, Staying Put. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 1-19. [DOI:10.1080/24694452.2024.2353841]
23. Göçer, Ö., Göçer, K., Başol, A. M., Kıraç, M. F., Özbil, A., Bakovic, M., Siddiqui, F. P., & Özcan, B. (2018). Introduction of a spatio-temporal mapping based POE method for outdoor spaces: Suburban university campus as a case study. Building and Environment, 145, 125-139. [DOI:10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.09.012]
24. Göçer, Ö., Göçer, K., Özcan, B., Bakovic, M., & Kıraç, M. F. (2019). Pedestrian tracking in outdoor spaces of a suburban university campus for the investigation of occupancy patterns. Sustainable Cities and Society, 131-142. [DOI:10.1016/j.scs.2018.11.006]
25. Godfrey, A. C. (Ed.). (2023). Active landscape photography: Diverse practices. Taylor & Francis. [DOI:10.4324/9781003087717]
26. 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. [DOI:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.03.003]
27. Ha, J., & Kim, H. J. (2021). The restorative effects of campus landscape biodiversity: Assessing visual and auditory perceptions among university students. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 64, 127259. [DOI:10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127259]
28. Hanan, H. (2013). Open Space as Meaningful Place for Students in ITB Campus. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 85, 308-317. [DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.08.361]
29. Ho, L. C. (2023). LaDeco: A tool to analyze visual landscape elements. Ecological Informatics, (78), 1-11. [DOI:10.1016/j.ecoinf.2023.102289]
30. Hosseini, S. M., Mohammadi, M., Schröder, T., & Guerra-Santin, O. (2021). Bio-inspired interactive kinetic façade: Using dynamic transitory-sensitive area to improve multiple occupants' visual comfort. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 10(4), 821-837. [DOI:10.1016/j.foar.2021.07.004]
31. Huang, H., Zhang, B., Cheng, J., & Sun, Y. (2024). Psychological and Visual Perception of Campus Lightscapes Based on Lightscape Walking Evaluation: A Case Study of Chongqing University in China. Buildings, 14(3), 753. [DOI:10.3390/buildings14030753]
32. Jiao, Z., & Fu, B. (2019). Research on the Niche Strategy of Campus Planning. Energy Procedia, 157, 782-792. [DOI:10.1016/j.egypro.2018.11.244]
33. Khan, K. R., Siddiqui, M. S., Saawy, Y. A., Islam, N., & Rahman, A. (2019). Condition Monitoring of a Campus Microgrid Elements using Smart Sensor. Procedia Computer Science, (163), 109-116. [DOI:10.1016/j.procs.2019.12.092]
34. Khanmohamadi, M. (2021). Assessing Roles of Environmental Quality on the Students' Mental Health (Case Study: Students Of Arak Sama High School, Islamic Azad University). International Journal of Architecture and Urban Development, 11(2), 63-70. [https://doi.org/10.30495/ijaud.2021.17311]
35. Kraus, M., & Novakova, P. (2019). Gender differences in perception of indoor environmental quality (IEQ). In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering (Vol. 603, No. 5, p. 052084). IOP Publishing. [DOI:10.1088/1757-899X/603/5/052084]
36. Lee, J. H., & Ostwald, M. J. (2023). The 'visual attractiveness' of architectural facades: measuring visual complexity and attractive strength in architecture. Architectural Science Review, (66)1, 42-52. [DOI:10.1080/00038628.2022.2137458]
37. Lu, X., Liu, R., & Xia, L. (2023). Landscape planning and design and visual evaluation for landscape protection of geological environment. Journal of King Saud University - Science, (35), 1-8. [DOI:10.1016/j.jksus.2023.102735]
38. Ma, H., Xu, Q., & Zhang, Y. (2023a). High or low? Exploring the restorative effects of visual levels on campus spaces using machine learning and street view imagery. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. (88), 1-13. [DOI:10.1016/j.ufug.2023.128087]
39. Ma, L., Guo, Z., Lu, M., He, S., & Wang, M. (2023b). Developing an urban streetscape indexing based on visual complexity and self-organizing map. Building and Environment, (242), 1-16. [DOI:10.1016/j.buildenv.2023.110549]
40. Mahdavinejad, M., Bazazzadeh, H., Mehrvarz, F., Berardi, U., Nasr, T., Pourbagher, S., & Hoseinzadeh, S. (2024). The impact of facade geometry on visual comfort and energy consumption in an office building in different climates. Energy Rep, (11), 1-17. [DOI:10.1016/j.egyr.2023.11.021]
41. Majmai, Alia Ibrahim Hussein, & Obeidi, Faiq Mishaal Qaduri (2023). The Role of Strategic Physiognomy in Dealing with Marketing Chaos. Migration Letters, 20(S5). [https://doi.org/10.59670/ml.v20iS5.3960]
42. Manahasa, O., Özsoy, A., & Manahasa, E. (2021). Evaluative, inclusive, participatory: Developing a new language with children for school building design. Building and Environment, 188, 107374. [DOI:10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.107374]
43. Motloch, John L (2017). Introduction to landscape design. John Wiley & Sons. (In Persian). [https://libsysdigi.library.illinois.edu/oca/Books2008-06/introductiontost00hubb/introductiontost00hu]
44. Matloob, F., Sulaiman, A., Ali, T., Shamsuddin, S., & Wan Mohd Rani, W. (2014). Sustaining Campuses through Physical Character-The Role of Landscape. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 140. [DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.421]
45. Matsuoka, R. H., & Kaplan, R. (2008). People needs in the urban landscape: Analysis of Landscape And Urban Planning contributions. Landscape and Urban Planning, (84), 7-19. [DOI:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.09.009]
46. Mehmankhah, H., Memarzadeh Tehran, G., Rahmani, H., Musa Khani, M., (2025). A Model for Assessing Managers' Performance Based on Cognitive Tools. JMDP. 37(4), 61-94. (In Persian). [DOI:10.61882/jmdp.37.4.61]
47. Meneghetti, C., Muffato, V., Toffalini, E., & Altoè, G. (2017). The contribution of visuo-spatial factors in representing a familiar environment: The case of undergraduate students at a university campus. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 54, 160-168. [DOI:10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.09.004]
48. Menezes, A., & Lawson, B. (2006). How designers perceive sketches. Design Studies, (27), 571-585. [DOI:10.1016/j.destud.2006.02.001]
49. Mizuuchi, Y. (2023). Landscape assessment of forest trail using geotagged visitor employed photography: the case of the inariyama trail in the Takao Quasi-National Park, Tokyo. Journal of Forest Research, 28(1), 1-10. [DOI:10.1080/13416979.2022.2117091]
50. Muffato, V., & Meneghetti, C. (2020). Knowledge of familiar environments: Assessing modalities and individual visuo-spatial factors. Journal of Environmental Psychology, (67), 1-9. [DOI:10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101387]
51. Oyama, M., Moore, D., & Pearce, D. R. (2023). Walking Linguistic Landscapes as Ways to Experience Plurality: A Visual Ethnography into Plurilingualism with Elementary School Children in Japan. In Linguistic Landscapes in Language and Teacher Education: Multilingual Teaching and Learning inside and beyond the Classroom (pp. 39-56). Cham: Springer International Publishing. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-031-22867-4_3]
52. Özhanci, E. & Yilmaz, H. (2011). Evaluation of Recreation Areas for Visual Landscape Quality; Sample of Erzurum, Turkey. Iğdır Univ. J. Inst. Sci. & Tech. (1)2, 67-76. [https://doi.org/ 324029782]
53. Ozyavuz, M. (2013). Advances in Landscape Architecture. Namık Kemal University, Turkey. [DOI:10.5772/51738]
54. Palmer, A. K., Riley, M., Brockett, B. F. T., Evans, K. L., Jones, L., & Clement, S. (2023). Towards an understanding of quality and inclusivity in human-environment experiences. Wiley, 1-15. [DOI:10.1111/gec3.12723]
55. Pashman, S. (2024). A Walk in the Park: Kinesthesia in the Arts of Landscape (Vol. 3). Brill. [DOI:10.1163/9789004697591]
56. Peng, Y., Zhang. G., Nijhuis, S., Agugiaro, G., Stoter, J. E. (2024). Towards a framework for point-cloud-based visual analysis of historic gardens: Jichang Garden as a case study. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, (91), 1-12. [DOI:10.1016/j.ufug.2023.128159]
57. Putri, N. T., Amrina, E., & Nurnaeni, S. (2020). Students' Perceptions of the Implementation of Sustainable Campus Development Based on Landscape Concepts at Andalas University. Procedia Manufacturing, 43, 255-262. [DOI:10.1016/j.promfg.2020.02.150]
58. Qin, X., Fang, M., Yang, D., & Wangari, V. W. (2023). Quantitative evaluation of attraction intensity of highway landscape visual elements based on dynamic perception. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, (100), 1-19. [DOI:10.1016/j.eiar.2023.107081]
59. Rapoport, Amos (1990). The meaning of the built environment - a nonverbal communication approach, USA, Arizona: University of Arizona Press. [https://www.scribd.com/document/287956864/Amos-Rapoport-The-Meaning-of-the-Built-Environment-A-Nonve]
60. Rioux, L., Scrima, F., & Werner, C. M. (2017). Space appropriation and place attachment: University students create places. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 50, 60-68. [DOI:10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.02.003]
61. Salama, A. M. (2008). When Good Design Intentions Do Not Meet Users Expectations: Exploring Qatar University Campus Outdoor Spaces. International Journal of Architectural Research, (92)2, 57-77. [https://pureportal.strath.ac.uk/files]
62. Shafavi, N. S., Zomorodian, Z. S., Tahsildoost, M., & Javadi, M. (2020). Occupants visual comfort assessments: A review of field studies and lab experiments. Solar Energy, 208, 249-274. [DOI:10.1016/j.solener.2020.07.058]
63. Shao, M., Che, Z., & Lu, Y. (2023). Research on visual size and visual alignment optimization of icon set design. Displays, (80). 1-16. [DOI:10.1016/j.displa.2023.102571]
64. Shigematsu, R., Sallis, J. F., Conway, T. L., Saelens, B. E., Frank, L. D., Cain, K. L., Chapman, J. E., & King, A. C. (2009). Age differences in the relation of perceived neighborhood environment to walking. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 41(2), 314-321. [DOI:10.1249/MSS.0b013e318185496c] [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19127195]
65. Somoza Medina, X., Lois González, R. C., & Somoza Medina, M. (2023). Walking as a cultural act and a profit for the landscape. A case study in the Iberian Peninsula. GeoJournal, 88(2), 2171-2186. [DOI:10.1007/s10708-022-10745-x] [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3603928]
66. Stauskis, G. (2020). Identifying Key Criteria for Quality Assessment of Landscape Architecture Projects. Architecture and Urban Planning, 16(1), 5-11. [DOI:10.2478/aup-2020-0002]
67. Swaffield, Simon R (2016). Theory in landscape architecture : a reader. Pennpress. [https://www.pennpress.org/9780812218213/theory-in-landscape-architecture/]
68. TEFMA. (2022). Tertiary Education Facilities Management Association. [https://www.tefma.com]
69. Torkzadeh, J., Zeinali, F., & Pakbaz, Z. (2025). Validation of academic organizational capacity framework. JMDP. 38(2) 134-161. (In Persian). [https://jmdp.ir/browse.php?a_id=4846&sid=1&slc_lang=fa&ftxt=0]
70. Wang, R., Jiang, W., & Lu, T. (2021). Landscape characteristics of university campus in relation to aesthetic quality and recreational preference. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 66, 127389. [DOI:10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127389]
71. Wu, H., Zuo, Z., Yuan, Z., Zhou, T., Zhuo, Y., Zheng, N., & Chen, B. (2023). Neural representation of gestalt grouping and attention effect in human visual cortex. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, (399), 1-11. [DOI:10.1016/j.jneumeth.2023.109980] [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37783351]
72. Ylirisku, H., Hohti, R., Mehto, V., & Sinquefield-Kangas, R. (2024). Entangling with the landscape: a methodological walking art experiment. Environmental Education Research, 1-17. [DOI:10.1080/13504622.2024.2370993]
73. Zahraee, SB., Pazhouhanfar, M. (2019). Effect of visual quality of university campuses on social interaction of students (Case study: Gorgan). Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 21(1), 169-182. (In Persian). [https://sid.ir/paper/360116/en]
74. Zhang, X., Li, Q., Fang, Z., Lu, S., & Shaw, S. (2014). An assessment method for landmark recognition time in real scenes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, (40), 206-217. [DOI:10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.06.008]
75. Zingale, Salvator (2024). Design Meets Alterity Case Studies, Project Experiences, Communication Criticism. FrancoAngeli [https://re.public.polimi.it/bitstream/11311/1270076/3/Alterity24%20Calabi.pdf]
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. |
