Taxonomy of tertiary education campus planning


This paper aims to present and discuss phases of planning and designing campuses for Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). The authors argue that creating a taxonomy to control an environment conducive to learning is of the same order of importance as that for education as depicted by Bloom, given the size, financial burden, and influence on learning outcomes. A specific model is proposed for the taxonomy of planning campuses for HEIs with four ordered phases: educational programming, spaces programming, master planning, and detailed design. The researchers followed four methodologies to support the proposed model: A literature review to seek relevant knowledge and terms used in previous studies; a descriptive discussion of the proposed campus planning and design taxonomy model; a survey of experts in educational and campus planning to examine the proposed phases; and, a case study of the campus of Kingdom University in Bahrain where the phases of taxonomy were implemented. This latter case study further exhibits how the executed campus planning process is developed in adherence with state-of-the-art educational demands and trends. This paper is concluded with guidelines of HEIs campus planning as illustrated a diagram for the proposed model of taxonomy showing the process and illustrating the model domains, together with its phases and planning process considerations. The model also analyses the relationship between the domains that are ordered according to the process flow starting with educational programming up to the detailed design phases.

Keyword : taxonomy, campus planning, design

How to Cite
Terro, M. J., Soliman, A. M., & Angell, J. (2021). Taxonomy of tertiary education campus planning. Journal of Architecture and Urbanism, 45(1), 19-37.
Published in Issue
Feb 8, 2021
Abstract Views
PDF Downloads
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.


Al-Atiqi, I. T. M. (2008). Guide to the criteria for assessment of sites and buildings of Private Universities. General Secretariat of the Private Universities Council, Technical Committee, Ministry of Higher Education of The State of Kuwait.

Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook 1: cognitive domain. Longman.

Campus News. (2009, April 3). Decrease in crime on UT campus thanks to outreach efforts.

Campus Planning and Landscape Guidlines. (2011, August 19).

Chapman, P. M. (2006). American places: in search of the twentyfirst century campus. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.

Chylinski, M. (2010, January). Campus safety. Private Colleges and Universities and Careers and Colleges.

Coulson, J., Roberts, P., & Taylor, I. (2018). University trends: contemporary campus design. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Dalton, L. C., Hajrasouliha, A. H., & Riggs, W. W. (2018). State of the art in planning for college and university campuses: site planning and beyond. Journal of the American Planning Association, 84(2), 145–161.

David, N. J. (2003). Building type basics for college and university facilities (S. A. Neuman, Ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

El-Ansari, W., & Stock, C. (2010). Is the health and wellbeing of university students associated with their academic performance? Cross sectional findings from the United Kingdom. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2(7), 509–527.

Glare, P. G. (Ed.). (1982). Oxford Latin dictionary. Oxford University Press.

Gloster II, A. S., & Saltzberg, S. A. (1996). Multimedia and asynchronous learning: changing the support model for information technologies services. Cause/Effect, 2(4), 27–29, 34–36.

Gul, A., Uzun, Ö. F., & Keleş, E. (2016). Recreational demand and trends in the campus students and lecturers of Süleyman Demirel University. Journal of Architecture Sciences and Applications, 1(1), 26–43.

Hossein, A. (2002). Impact of the internet on learning and teaching. USDLA Journal, 16(3).

Jimenez, R. (2003). Space planning guidelines (2nd ed.). Australasian Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers

Loukaitou-Sideri, A., Medury, A., Fink, C., Grembek, O., Shafizadeh, K., Wong, N., & Orrick, P. (2014). Crashes on and near college campuses: a comparative analysis of pedestrian and bicyclist safety. Journal of the American Planning Association, 80(3), 198–216.

NBBJ. (2015). NBBJ science and education brochure. ISSUU.

Office of University Architects for Facillities Planning. (2018). Architectural campus planning principles. UGA.

Quinn, P. D., & Duckworth, A. L. (2007). Happiness and academic achievement: evidence for reciprocal causality. The Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Society, 24–27.

Resolution No. (1127)/2017 for regulations of Sport facilites in HEIs. (2017). HEC, Minstry of Education.

Resolution No. (2)/2007 for admin and academic affaires of HEIs. (2007). HEC, Minstry of Education.

Resolution No. (4)/2007 for regulations of HEIs buildings. (2007). HEC, Minstry of Education.

Schulz, R. (2017). Statmnet of design principles of SDSU campus. SDSU.

Stack, P., & Leitch, A. (2020). Chapter 3: integrated budgeting and planning. In L. Goldstein, Linking resource allocation to planning and assessment (Vol. 25, pp. 25–39). Society for College and University Planning.

The sustainable sites initiative: guidelines and performance benchmarks. (2020, December 15).

Thomas, J. L. (2014, April 28). Bloom’s taxonomy: education.

Troost, S. (2020). Campus planning.

Turland, N. J., & Wiersema, J. H. (2018). International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants. Koeltz Botanical Books.

Turner, P. V. (1984). Campus: An American planning tradition. Cambridge. The MIT Press.

Wedge, C., & Kearns, T. (2005, July/August). Creation of the learning space: catalysts for envisioning and navigating the design process. Educause Review, 32–38.

Yerli, O., & Ozdede, S. (2017). Design process of a campus plan: a case study of Duzce University Konuralp Campus. International Journal of Engineering Research and Application, 7(4), 50–59.

Young, J. R. (2010, July 24). Reaching the last technology holdouts at the front of the classroom.