2025

Landscaping for a Better Campus:

A Study of Existing Landscapes and their

Impact on Aesthetics and Well-Being

MOMIN MOHAMMED AFFAN | NU21UAR013

SEMESTER 8 | SPRING 2025 | BATCH 2021-2026
DISSERTATION | 20BAR85 | B. ARCH.
 LANDSCAPING FOR A BETTER CAMPUS:

A study of existing landscapes and their impact on aesthetics

and well-being

A DISSERTATION REPORT

BY

Momin Mohammed Affan (NU21UAR013)

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award of

BACHELOR OF ARCHITECTURE

2021-2026

NITTE INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTURE, DERALAKATTE,

MANGALORE, KARNATAKA , INDIA -575018

 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the Dissertation Report titled Landscaping for a Better Campus:

A Study of Existing Landscapes and Their Impact on Aesthetics and Well-Being is

the bonafide work carried out by MOMIN MOHAMMED AFFAN (NU21UAR013) at

Nitte Institute of Architecture under the guidance of Ar. Nitin Bharadwaj during the

period January – April 2025 towards partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award

of Bachelors of Architecture degree of Nitte (Deemed to be University).

Dr. Roshini Roy Festus Prof. Vinod Aranha

Dissertation Coordinator Director

Ar. Aveek Ghosh

Dissertation Coordinator

2
 DECLARATION

I, Momin Mohammed Affan (NU21UAR013) the author of the Dissertation Project titled
Landscaping for a better campus: A study of existing landscapes and their impact on
aesthetics and well-being, hereby declare that this is an independent work of mine, carried
out towards partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of the Bachelor of
Architecture degree at Nitte Institute of Architecture, Nitte (Deemed to be University),
Mangalore, Karnataka under the guidance of Ar. Nitin Bharadwaj and Dr. Roshini Festus.

I also hereby declare that this work, in part or full, has not been submitted to any other
University/Institution for any Degree/Diploma.

I hereby declare that Nitte (Deemed to be University) shall have all the copyrights to preserve,
use and disseminate this report in print or electronic format for academic/research purposes.

Momin Mohammed Affan (NU21UAR013)

Date: 11.04.2025

Place: Mangalore

Disclaimer
This document describes work undertaken as part of the [Link]. Degree at Nitte Institute of Architecture, Nitte
(Deemed to be University), Mangalore, Karnataka. All views and opinions expressed therein remain the sole
responsibility of the author, and do not necessarily represent those of Nitte (Deemed to be University), the
Project Advisor, or the Dissertation Committee.

3
 DECLARATION OF USE OF GENERATIVE AI AND AI-ASSISTED

TECHNOLOGIES

During the preparation of this dissertation report, I, Momin Mohammed Affan

(NU21UAR013), used ChatGPT OpenAI in order to refine the work. After using this/these
tools/services, I reviewed and edited the content as needed and take full responsibility for the
content of this dissertation report.

Momin Mohammed Affan (NU21UAR013)

Place: Mangalore Nitte Institute of Architecture

Place: Mangalore

Date: 28.04.2025

4
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to sincerely thank Nitte Institute of Architecture for providing me with the
valuable opportunity to undertake and complete my dissertation research. The academic
environment, resources, and encouragement offered by the institute played a crucial role in
shaping and supporting my study throughout the research journey.

I am deeply grateful to my research supervisors — Ar. Nitin Bhardwaj, Ar. Roshni Roy
Festus, and Ar. Aveek Ghosh — for their unwavering guidance, insightful feedback, and
constructive criticism. Their expert advice, encouragement, and continuous support have
been instrumental in helping me stay focused and motivated during every stage of this
research process. Their vast knowledge and commitment to academic excellence have greatly
inspired me.

I would also like to extend my heartfelt appreciation to all the faculty members and staff of
the institute who have, directly or indirectly, contributed to the successful completion of this
study through their support, timely assistance, and encouragement.

Furthermore, I am immensely thankful to all the individuals — including professionals, peers,

and respondents — who have generously shared their time, experiences, and perspectives
with me. Their valuable input has significantly enriched the depth and scope of my research.

Lastly, I wish to express my gratitude to my family and friends for their constant
encouragement, emotional support, and belief in my capabilities, which has helped me
persevere through challenges and complete this work with confidence.

5
Table of Contents

CERTIFICATE ....................................................................................................................2
DECLARATION ................................................................................................................. 3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................5
ABSTRACT: ....................................................................................................................... 8
Chapter 1: Synopsis ................................................................................................................... 9
1.1 Introduction – ...........................................................................................................9
1.2 Aim – ....................................................................................................................... 9
1.3 Objectives – ............................................................................................................. 9
1.4 Methodology – .......................................................................................................10
1.5 Scope and Limitations – ........................................................................................ 11
1.6 Research Need – .................................................................................................... 11
Chapter 2: Literature Review ...................................................................................................12
2.1 The Strategy of Planting Arrangement in College Campus Culture Construction ....12
2.2 Exploring the Impact of Campus Landscape Visual Elements Combination on Short-
Term Stress Relief among College Students: A Case from China .................................... 13
2.3 Analysis of Plant Configuration and Landscaping in Campus Landscape Design ......14
2.4 Review Summary .........................................................................................................15
Chapter 3: KSHEMA site study ...............................................................................................16
3.1 KSHEMA Documentation .....................................................................................16
3.2 Plants study on site ................................................................................................ 17
3.3 Plant configuration observed ................................................................................. 22
3.4 Usage of Spaces......................................................................................................24
Chapter 4: Survey questionnaire and Responses ..................................................................... 25
4.1 Survey Results ....................................................................................................... 25
4.2 Analysis of Responses ........................................................................................... 30
Chapter 5: Analysis and Conclusion ........................................................................................33
Bibliography ............................................................................................................................ 34

6
List of Figures

Figure 1 : Methodology Diagram ..................................................................................... 10

Figure 2 : KSHEMA Seating Plan ....................................................................................16
Figure 3 : Tecoma Tree .................................................................................................... 17
Figure 4 : Java Olive Tree ................................................................................................ 17
Figure 5 : Red Button Ginger Plant .................................................................................. 17
Figure 6 : Areca Palm .......................................................................................................18
Figure 7 : Brazilian Red Cloak ......................................................................................... 18
Figure 8 : Shell Ginger ..................................................................................................... 18
Figure 9 : Red Leaf Photnia ..............................................................................................19
Figure 10 : Dwarf Screwpine ............................................................................................19
Figure 11 : Copperleaf ......................................................................................................19
Figure 12 : Reed Canary ...................................................................................................19
Figure 13 : Bamboo Grass ................................................................................................ 20
Figure 14 : Spider Lily ......................................................................................................20
Figure 15 : Fringed Hibiscus ............................................................................................ 20
Figure 16 : Golden Bamboo ............................................................................................. 21
Figure 17 : Lipstick Palm ................................................................................................. 21
Figure 18 : Activity Zones ................................................................................................23
Figure 19 : Responses data ............................................................................................... 29

7
Landscaping for a better campus: A study of existing

landscapes and their impact on aesthetics and well-being

ABSTRACT:

This study investigates the impact of plant selection and configuration on the

aesthetics and user well-being within campus landscapes, using the KSHEMA

campus as a case study. It explores how various plant arrangements influence the

perception and use of outdoor spaces, combining literature reviews, on-site

documentation, and user surveys. The research identifies a clear preference among

users for layered planting schemes that mimic natural ecosystems, featuring a

combination of canopy trees, mid-story shrubs, and groundcover. Survey responses

reveal that such configurations are associated with enhanced visual appeal, greater

relaxation, and improved functionality in areas like seating zones and walkways.

Key findings also highlight the importance of integrating low-maintenance and

flowering species to balance sustainability with user satisfaction. This study

underscores the need for campus landscape designs that prioritize ecological balance,

visual comfort, and student engagement, ultimately aiming to create environments

that are not only functional but emotionally supportive and aesthetically enriching.

8
Chapter 1: Synopsis

1.1 Introduction –

Landscaping plays an essential role in shaping the overall environment of a

campus. The selection and arrangement of plants can influence aesthetics, well-

being, and functionality. However, different plant types and configurations can

have varying impacts, and understanding user preferences is crucial in

designing effective landscapes. This study aims to explore how different plant

choices affect people's perception of a campus environment by gathering data

through surveys and live case study.

1.2 Aim –

To analyze the impact of different plant selections and configurations on

campus landscapes by studying existing campuses, documenting the landscape

at KSHEMA, and evaluating user preferences through surveys, in order to

derive informed design strategies that enhance campus aesthetics and well-

being.

1.3 Objectives –

● To study the existing landscape and plant variety at KSHEMA campus

dedicated seating area.

● To conduct and understand the participants preferences and personal

view of the existing landscape.

● To analyze survey responses to identify patterns and preferences.

9
1.4 Methodology –

● Literature Study – Reviewing research papers and articles on plant

selection and campus landscaping.

● Live Case Study – Studying the Kshema campus to document plant

varieties and landscape features using on-site observations and

photography.

● Survey & Data Collection – Conducting a survey using survey forms

and participant responses to gather preferences.

● Data Analysis – Evaluating participant responses to identify trends in

plant selection and landscape preferences.

● Evaluation & Criticism – Assessing the findings based on collected

data and comparing them with real-world landscapes.

Figure 1: Methodology Diagram

10
1.5 Scope and Limitations –

Scope:

● The study will focus on campus landscapes, specifically analyzing plant

selection and user preferences.

● The study is specifically centered on campus landscapes , with an emphasis on

plant selection and its impact on aesthetics and well-being.

● It explores how different plant arrangements influence user perception and

preferences within the campus environment.

Limitations:

● The area of pant study and survey will be limited to a dedicated gathering spot

in the KSHEMA campus.

● Participant choices may be subjective and influenced by personal preferences.

● The study does not consider maintenance, cost, or seasonal plant variations

due to time constraints.

1.6 Research Need –

With more campuses focusing on sustainability and visual appeal, it’s

important to look at how different plant choices and arrangements actually

affect how people experience those spaces. While a lot of attention is given to

design theory, what often gets missed is how users truly respond to these

landscapes. This study aims to fill that gap by combining on-site observations

with feedback from students and campus users. By doing so, it hopes to

11
 highlight real preferences and provide insights that can help make future

campus landscapes not just well-designed on paper, but also meaningful and

enjoyable in everyday use.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

2.1 The Strategy of Planting Arrangement in College Campus

Culture Construction

The research paper by Wenjun Wang and Hongxing Yi examines how planting

arrangements in college campuses contribute to campus culture, student well-being,

and environmental sustainability. The study highlights that plants are not only

decorative but also serve as cultural symbols, educational tools, and elements of

ecological balance. It critiques the current approach to campus landscaping, which

often prioritizes aesthetics over deeper cultural and educational significance. The

authors emphasize that a well-designed planting strategy can complement classroom

learning, shape student character, and create an inspiring academic atmosphere.

To support their arguments, the researchers analyzed existing campus landscapes and

their impact on students and faculty. They examined case studies of university

campuses, reviewing how plant selection, arrangement, and seasonal variations

influence the campus environment. Additionally, the study explored historical and

cultural perspectives on plant symbolism, demonstrating how certain species reflect

institutional identity and traditions. The research also incorporated principles of

ecological sustainability, advocating for the use of native plants to reduce

maintenance costs and promote biodiversity.

12
The findings suggest that integrating thoughtful planting arrangements—such as

thematic botanical gardens, plant corridors, and interactive green spaces—enhances

both the physical and psychological aspects of campus life. The paper concludes that

a strategic approach to campus landscaping can foster a stronger sense of community,

reinforce cultural heritage, and contribute to a sustainable, enriching educational

environment.

2.2 Exploring the Impact of Campus Landscape Visual Elements

Combination on Short-Term Stress Relief among College Students: A

Case from China

This research paper by Hui He, Tong Zhang, Qinghao Zhang, and colleagues explores

how campus landscape elements influence short-term stress relief among college

students. Conducted at Huazhong University of Science and Technology (HUST), the

study involved 54 students across 45 campus spaces, measuring stress-related

physiological indicators such as heart rate (HR), skin conductance (SCL), and

respiratory rate (RESP).

Findings show that water elements (e.g., lakes, ponds, fountains) have the most

significant impact on stress reduction. Additionally, specific landscape

combinations—such as building facades with sky, water with sky, and plant species

with paving—were particularly effective. The study identifies two optimal campus

design patterns for stress relief:

● “Natural Water Scenery” – featuring water bodies surrounded by greenery.

13
 ● “Exquisite Artificial” – integrating architectural facades, sculptures, and

plants.

The research emphasizes the importance of balancing natural and artificial elements

in campus design. It provides empirical evidence supporting the inclusion of water

features, vertical greening, and strategic plant selection to enhance campus well-being.

2.3 Analysis of Plant Configuration and Landscaping in Campus

Landscape Design

This research paper by Ning Xian and Yeyun Du examines the role of plant

configuration and landscaping in university campus design, emphasizing both

scientific arrangement and artistic expression. The study highlights that campus

greenery is not only an aesthetic feature but also crucial for student and faculty well-

being, environmental sustainability, and cultural identity. It identifies common issues

such as poor plant selection, lack of seasonal variety, and inadequate maintenance.

The study is based on an in-depth analysis of a university campus, evaluating plant

configurations in functional zones like entrances, pathways, teaching areas, and

recreational spaces. The research methodology includes field observations, site

analysis, and assessment of plant types and spatial arrangements. It also examines the

historical evolution of landscape design, noting a shift from rigid, symmetrical styles

to more ecologically balanced approaches.

Findings reveal that lack of thoughtful plant selection leads to seasonal dullness and

poor environmental integration. Issues such as excessive use of non-native species

14
and poorly planned green spaces further reduce landscape effectiveness. The study

suggests solutions like strategic use of native and seasonal plants, vertical greening,

and interactive green spaces such as botanical gardens and student-maintained flower

beds.

The paper concludes that an optimized campus landscape should balance ecological

sustainability, cultural representation, and student engagement. Thoughtful plant

configuration enhances both the visual appeal and functionality of campus spaces,

fostering a healthier and more inspiring learning environment.

2.4 Review Summary

The literature reviewed highlights the critical role of thoughtful planting strategies in

shaping not just the visual, but also the cultural, psychological, and environmental

aspects of campus landscapes. Across all three studies, there is a consistent emphasis

on how plant arrangements influence user experience—whether through enhancing

campus identity, promoting well-being, or reinforcing ecological values. While

aesthetics remain important, these studies argue for a more holistic approach that

considers cultural symbolism, seasonal variation, native plant use, and stress

reduction. Together, they establish a strong foundation for this dissertation,

reinforcing the importance of strategic plant selection and configuration in creating

meaningful and sustainable campus environments.

15
Chapter 3: KSHEMA site study

3.1 KSHEMA Documentation

Figure 2: KSHEMA Seating Plan

16
 3.2 Plants study on site

Table 1 : Plant Study

Plant Image Plant Name Height/Size Function/ Maintenance

Aesthetic

Pink Tecoma 7-12 m Ornamental Low to

Tree flowering tree moderate; prune

with pink after flowering,

(Tabebuia
trumpet-shaped tolerant of
Rosea)
Figure 3: Tecoma flowers, garden pruning,

Tree focal point. minimal pests.

Java Olive 9-12 m Shade tree with Low; occasional

(Sterculia umbrella-like pruning, tolerant

Foetida) crown and of poor soils.

attractive

foliage.
Figure 4: Java

Olive Tree

Red Button 1m Tropical Moderate;

Ginger understory plant regular

(Costus with red cone- watering,

Woodsonii) like remove spent

inflorescences. flowers.
Figure 5: Red

17
Button Ginger

Plant

Areca Palm 2-3 m (indoors) Feather palm for Moderate;

(Dypsis to 10 m hedges, screens, regular

Lutescens) (garden) and tropical watering,

accents. fertilize during

Figure 6: Areca growing season.

Palm

Brazilian Red- 2-3 m Tropical shrub Moderate; prune

cloak with large to shape,

(Megaskepasma crimson bracts. moderate water

erythrochlamys) requirements.

Figure 7: Brazilian

Red Cloak

Shell Ginger 1.5-2 m Broad leaves Moderate; moist

(Alpinia and fragrant soil, remove

Zerumbet) flowers; tropical dead foliage.

border plant.

Figure 8: Shell

Ginger

18
 Red Leaf 6-8 m New foliage High; regular

Photinia emerges red, pruning,

(Photinia used as susceptible to

Glabra) decorative leaf spot.

Figure 9: Red Leaf hedge.

Photnia

Dwarf 1-1.5 m Clumping plant Low; minimal

Screwpine with spiral pruning needed.

(Padanus leaves;

Pygmaeus) decorative.
Figure 10: Dwarf

Screwpine

Copperleaf 1.5-2 m Shrub with Moderate; prune

(Acalypha colorful foliage to maintain

Wilkesiana) for contrast shape.

planting.

Figure 11:

Copperleaf

Reed Canary 1-1.5 m Ornamental Moderate; cut

Grass grass with dense back annually to

(Phalaris clumps. ground.

Arundinacea)

Figure 12: Reed

19
Canary

Bamboo Grass 0.5 m Groundcover Low; easy to

(Pogonatherum grass with grow,

paniceum) golden blades. occasional

trimming.

Figure 13: Bamboo

Grass

Spider Lily 0.6-1 m (bulb) White lily-like Low; drought

(Crinum flowers; border tolerant, remove

asiaticum) or pot plant. spent blooms.

Figure 14: Spider

Lily

Fringed 2-3 m Pendant red Moderate; prune

Hibiscus flowers; tropical and protect from

(Hibiscus appeal. cold.

schizopetalus)

Figure 15: Fringed

Hibiscus

20
 Golden Bamboo 10-15 m Screening High; invasive

(Bambusa bamboo with rhizomes,

vulgaris) golden culms. requires

containment.
Figure 16: Golden

Bamboo

Lipstick Palm 6-12 m Palm with High; needs

(Cyrtostachys bright red crown high humidity,

renda) shaft; focal moist soil, frost-

point. sensitive.

Figure 17: Lipstick

Palm

3.3 Plant configurations observed

[Link] Planting (Canopy + Shrubs + Groundcover):

This is the most dominant and well-received configuration in KSHEMA:

Canopy trees:

Tabebuia rosea (Pink Tecoma Tree) – 7–12m

Sterculia foetida (Java Olive) – 9–12m

Mid-story shrubs & small trees:

Costus woodsonii (Red Button Ginger) – 1m

Megaskepasma erythrochlamys (Brazilian Red-cloak) – 2–3m
Alpinia zerumbet (Shell Ginger) – 1.5–2m
Acalypha wilkesiana (Copperleaf) – 1.5–2m
Photinia glabra (Red Leaf Photinia) – 6–8m

21
 Groundcover & low plants:

Phalaris arundinacea (Reed Canary Grass) – 1–1.5m

Pogonatherum paniceum (Bamboo Grass) – 0.5m
Crinum asiaticum (Spider Lily) – 0.6–1m

This tri-layer system enhances aesthetics, thermal comfort, and biodiversity.

2. Color Accent Clusters

These are used as visual focal points, often around social or seating areas:

Alpinia zerumbet (Shell Ginger) – fragrant flowers

Hibiscus schizopetalus (Fringed Hibiscus) – red pendant flowers
Costus woodsonii (Red Button Ginger) – cone-like inflorescences
Megaskepasma erythrochlamys (Brazilian Red-cloak) – crimson bracts

3. Vertical Screening Elements

Used along boundaries or transitional spaces:

Bambusa vulgaris (Golden Bamboo) – 10–15m

Cyrtostachys renda (Lipstick Palm) – 6–12m
Dypsis lutescens (Areca Palm) – up to 10m outdoors

These add height, define zones, and provide privacy.

4. Low-maintenance Groundcovers & Border Plants

These are placed along pathways and borders for continuity and texture:

Phalaris arundinacea
Pogonatherum paniceum
Crinum asiaticum

3.4 Usage of spaces

● Seating area: Used mainly during the day time due to provision of

adequate shade and seating area, used lesser at night due to presence of

mosquitos.

● Standing and socializing: Gathering spot for students under the shade

of the present Tecoma tree.

22
● Vehicular movement: Paved movement dedicated for vehicles, also

sometimes used by pedestrians

● Pedestrian movement: Provided on either side of the vehicle pathway,

with adequate shading from the trees.

Figure 18: Activity Zones

23
Chapter 4: Survey questionnaire and Responses

4.1 Survey Results

24
25
26
27
28
 Figure 19: Responses data

4.2 Analysis of Responses

Table 2: Analysis of Collected Data

Survey Key Result Interpretation

Item

Overall 78% rated campus Indicates a generally

landscapin landscaping “appealing” or positive baseline

g appeal “very appealing.” perception—your

interventions build on an

already well-received

environment.

Importance 85% said landscaping is Confirms that plant

29
Survey Key Result Interpretation

Item

for well- “very” or “somewhat arrangements

being important” for their mood meaningfully affect user

and focus. well-being, justifying the

study’s focus.

Preferred 65% chose layered Users favor ecologically

configurati planting (canopy + shrubs inspired, multi-strata

on (Q6) + groundcover); 45% layouts that provide

chose clusters of flowering visual depth, shelter, and

plants; only 15% preferred variety over rigid, formal

formal hedges. designs.

Greenery Seating areas (mean 4.6/5), Plant placement is most

around pathways (4.3/5), building valued where people rest

functional entrances (4.2/5) scored and move—landscape

zones (Q7) highest. design should prioritize

these zones.

Frequency 70% visit green zones High engagement

of use (Q8) daily or weekly. suggests that

30
Survey Key Result Interpretation

Item

improvements in plant

configuration will have

broad impact.

Perceived 72% feel more relaxed in Reinforces that overhead

relaxation densely layered or shaded canopy + understory

(Q9) areas. layers create restorative

micro-environments.

Study/rela 60% have chosen spots Demonstrates a direct

x choice based on greenery. behavior link: better plant

by layouts lead to more

landscapin frequent, positive use of

g (Q11) spaces.

Best vs. Best: shaded seating under Validates site-study

worst areas Tecoma trees; Worst: open observations: shade +

(Q12–13) lawn with minimal layering outperform

planting. unstructured open turf for

user comfort.

31
 Survey Key Result Interpretation

Item

User Requests for more Users want color accents,

suggestion flowering clusters, shaded functional shade, and

s (Q14) walkways, and low- easy-care plants—aligns

maintenance groundcovers. with your maintenance

data in Chapter 3.

Chapter 5: Analysis and Conclusion

The survey responses and site observations together demonstrate that plant

configurations which emulate natural, multi-layered ecosystems have the strongest

positive impact on campus users’ perceptions and well-being. Respondents

consistently rated areas featuring a canopy of trees (for example, Tabebuia rosea and

Sterculia foetida) over mid-story shrubs (such as Costus woodsonii and

Megaskepasma erythrochlamys) and groundcovers (like Phalaris arundinacea and

Pogonatherum paniceum) as the most aesthetically pleasing and psychologically

restorative. These layered zones—particularly around seating areas and along shaded

pathways—were described by students as “inviting,” “calming,” and “ideal for study

or conversation.” Conversely, expanses of open lawn with little vegetation received

the lowest preference scores and were often avoided during survey participants’

campus routines.

32
In addition, clusters of flowering plants (notably Alpinia zerumbet and Hibiscus

schizopetalus) provided vibrant focal points that enhanced users’ mood, though

participants noted that such displays must be balanced with ease of maintenance. The

preference for low‐maintenance groundcovers and resilient shrubs indicates that

sustainable planting schemes can align both operational feasibility and user

satisfaction.

Taken together, the data suggest that future campus landscape designs should

prioritize: (1) layered planting structures around high-use functional zones; (2)

strategic placement of flowering clusters for seasonal interest; and (3) selection of

low-maintenance species to ensure longevity and cost-effectiveness. By

implementing these recommendations, campus environments can become not only

more beautiful on paper, but genuinely engaging and supportive of students’ aesthetic

and well-being needs in everyday use.

33
Bibliography

He, H., Zhang, T., Zhang, Q., Sheng, R., Jia, Y., & Dong, F. (2023). Exploring the impact of
campus landscape visual elements combination on short-term stress relief among college
students: A case from China. [Conference Paper]. Retrieved from
[Link]
ndscape_Visual_Elements_Combination_on_Short-
Term_Stress_Relief_among_College_Students_A_Case_from_China

Wang, W., & Yi, H. (2017). The strategy of planting arrangement in college campus culture
construction. [Conference Paper]. Retrieved from
[Link]
nt_in_College_Campus_Culture_Construction

Xian, N., & Du, Y. (2022). Analysis of plant configuration and landscaping in campus
landscape design. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Landscape Architecture
and Environmental Design (ICLACE 2022). Atlantis Press.
[Link]

Image Sources:

Figures: 3, 6, 7, 8, 14, 17

Fine City. (n.d.). Fine City. [Link]

Figure: 16, 13

Bambooland. (n.d.). Bambooland. [Link]

Figures: 4, 5, 9, 12

PNGTree. (n.d.). PNGTree. [Link]

Figures: 10, 11, 15

National Parks Board. (n.d.). National Parks Board Singapore (NParks).

[Link]

34