ANALYZING THE CRITERIA OF PLANTING DESIGN FOR VISUAL LANDSCAPE QUALITY IN CAMPUS

Authors

  • Norizan Mt Akhir Department of Built Environment Studies & Technology Faculty of Architecture, Planning and Surveying UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA, PERAK BRANCH, MALAYSIA
  • Siti Rasidah Md Sakip Department of Built Environment Studies & Technology Faculty of Architecture, Planning and Surveying UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA, PERAK BRANCH, MALAYSIA
  • Mohamed Yusoff Abbas Faculty of Architecture, Planning and Surveying UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA, SHAH ALAM, MALAYSIA
  • Noriah Othman Faculty of Architecture, Planning and Surveying UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA, SHAH ALAM, MALAYSIA

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21837/pm.v19i16.950

Keywords:

Planting composition, planting design, criteria, campus, landscape preferences, well-being

Abstract

Planting design is the art of composing plants to create a campus landscape design. The composition may influence the students’ preferences owned by the criteria of planting. This study aims to identify the planting design criteria towards enhancing visual landscape quality in campus environment. The photograph-based method used to collect the landscape planting images and compose it into a questionnaire. This photo-questionnaire design is mostly practiced by academicians in this research field. The question uses five Likertscale format to analyse the preference rating. The descriptive and correlation analysis are used to quantify the mean results and the relationship between the criteria. The finding represents the most influencing factor in landscape planting preference is arrangement with a score 4.34 while texture is less considered with 3.71 rating score. Most of the attributes were significant except for attributes planting with variety of forms, texture intensity and different species arrangement. As a result, this research finding is able to guide designers to sensibly setting the planting design, particularly in the campus environment.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Akhir, N. M., Sakip, S. R. M., Abbas, M. Y., & Othman, N. (2019). Modelling landscape aesthetic of planting composition influencing visual quality and well-being: PLS-SEM approach. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 385(1), 012021.

Ali, S. M., Othman N., Abdul Latif, F. A., Awang, A. H., Rostam, K. (2020). The Functions of Landscape in School Learning Process. Planning Malaysia Journal of the Malaysian Institute of Planners, 18(4), 191–202.

Bakar, A. A., Osman, M. M., Bachok, S., Zen I., Abdullah, M. F. (2017). A Review on Sustainable Wellbeing Indicators for Human Interrelationships with the Environment. Planning Malaysia Journal of the Malaysian Institute of Planners, 15(1), 357–368.

Daniel, T. C., & Vining, J. (1983). Methodological Issues in the Assessment of Landscape Quality. In: Altman, I., Wohlwill, J. (Eds.), Human Behavior and Environment, VI, 39–84.

Daniel, T. C. (2001). Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54, 267–281.

De La Fuente De Val, G., & Mühlhauser, S. H. (2014). Visual quality: An examination of a South American Mediterranean landscape, Andean foothills east of Santiago (Chile). Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 13(2), 261–271.

Firmansyah, Sudradjat, I., Martokusumo, W., & Faisal, B. (2017). Development of visual quality evaluative assessment method in campus landscape. TATALOKA, 19(4), 256–265.

Gerstenberg, T., & Hofmann, M. (2016). Perception and Preference of Trees: A Psychological Contribution to Tree Species Selection in Urban Areas. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 15, 103–111.

Hoyle, H., Hitchmough, J., & Jorgensen, A. (2017). All about the ‘wow factor’? The relationships between aesthetics, restorative effect and perceived biodiversity in designed urban planting. Landscape and Urban Planning, 164, 109–123.

Jiang, B., Chang, C.Y., Sullivan, W.C. (2014). A dose of nature: tree cover, stress reduction, and gender difference. Landscape and Urban Planning, 132, 26–36.

Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S. (1989). The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, UK.

Liu, M., & Schroth, O. (2019). Assessment of Aesthetic Preferences in Relation to Vegetation-Created Enclosure in Chinese Urban Parks: A Case Study of Shenzhen Litchi Park. Sustainability, 11(1809), 2–16.

Lothian, A. (2000). Landscape Quality Assessment of South Australia. Department of Geographical and Environmental Studies. University of Adelaide.

Polat, A. T., & Akay, A. (2015). Relationships between the visual preferences of urban recreation area users and various landscape design elements. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 14(3), 573–582.

Sevenant, M., & Antrop, M. (2009). Cognitive attributes and aesthetic preferences in assessment and differentiation of landscapes. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(9), 2889–2899.

Ulrich, R. S. (1986). Human responses to vegetation and landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 13, 29–44.

Van den Berg, A.E., Jorgensen, A., Wilson, E.R. (2014). Evaluating restoration in urban green spaces: does setting type make a difference? Landscape Urban Planning. 127, 173–181.

Zube, E. H., Sell, J. L., & Taylor, J. G. (1982). Landscape perception: Research, application and theory. Landscape Planning, 9, 1–33.

Downloads

Published

2021-07-27

How to Cite

Mt Akhir, N., Md Sakip, S. R., Abbas, M. Y., & Othman, N. (2021). ANALYZING THE CRITERIA OF PLANTING DESIGN FOR VISUAL LANDSCAPE QUALITY IN CAMPUS. PLANNING MALAYSIA, 19(16). https://doi.org/10.21837/pm.v19i16.950

Issue

Vol. 19 (2021): PLANNING MALAYSIA JOURNAL : Volume 19, Issue 2, 2021

Section

Article

License

Copyright & Creative Commons Licence

eISSN: 0128-0945 © Year. The Authors. Published for Malaysia Institute of Planners. This is an open-access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license.

The authors hold the copyright without restrictions and also retain publishing rights without restrictions.

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 > >>