University Library Space Renovation Based on the User Learning Experience in Two Wuhan Universities
1
School of Architecture & Urban Planning, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, China
2
Hubei Engineering and Technology Research Center of Urbanization, Wuhan 430074, China
3
Department of Mathematics, New York University, 70 Washington, Square South, New York, NY 10012, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(16), 10395; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191610395
Submission received: 13 July 2022
/
Revised: 10 August 2022
/
Accepted: 17 August 2022
/
Published: 20 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue ‘Indoor Generation’: Effects of the Indoor Environment on Work Performance and Well-Being)
Abstract
:University library spaces play an important role in the learning experience of students. However, the traditional designs for these learning spaces no longer meet the needs of users, and researchers have been turning their attention to university library space renovation. By combing existing theories and practices, this study determined a framework of six university library space renovation design principles and subsequently conducted a survey to examine university library space user learning experience in two university libraries in Wuhan, China. Data analysis was conducted using SPSS. From the questionnaire-based survey results, this study determined seven design elements that affect the learning experience of university library users. The results of binary logistic regression showed that two elements, indoor physical space comfort and indoor acoustic environment comfort, have positive effects on the frequency and length of visits to the library. Key spatial elements that can promote library space users’ learning experience were also identified, thus providing data that can reliably inform future design strategies for the space renovation of university libraries.
1. Introduction
The spatial renovation of university libraries has become a focus of construction worldwide since the beginning of the 21st century. Library space renovation refers to the overturning of the traditional space layout; this entails the rebuilding of the indoor and outdoor spaces and virtual spaces of libraries to meet users’ material and spiritual needs and make the space concordant with technological development, people’s cultural demands, and the transformation of the philosophy behind running libraries [1].
The user experience (UX) is the design practice of building research tools and services from a user-centered perspective. The motivation for implementing UX approaches in libraries is to actively focus on the individual needs of users, allowing libraries to design and deliver relevant services in a more targeted manner [2]. The library UX is focused on the behavioral experience of learning activities. Currently, the user learning experience in libraries is rapidly evolving toward “human interaction in service use,” which is considered an important factor in the value and development of contemporary university libraries [3].
The motivation for library space renovation stems from three main reasons. First, higher educational objectives have recently changed from cultivating purely professional talents to comprehensive and innovative talents; with this change, the simple storage and one-way transmission of knowledge in libraries no longer fits the mission of contemporary universities. Second, along with the development of constructivist learning theory in the pedagogy field, today’s higher education institutions have started emphasizing collaborative and social learning more than ever before. Third, the development of information technology has revolutionized readers’ information-seeking habits, making it important to provide relevant device technology and Internet support in the learning environment to improve users’ learning efficiency and learning experience [4]. Furthermore, students’ learning styles and demands related to the library space have also changed.
For the last two decades, there has also been much research conducted on the assessment of library space reengineering, bringing together many post-occupancy evaluations and studies involving anthropological approaches that have become a core component of the library space renovation process. The assessment of library spaces focuses on UX and is conducted based on activity types, learning preferences, space type needs, and social needs. One of the earliest space value assessments was conducted at Northeastern University in the United States. Additionally, the Tools for the Evaluation of Academic Library Spaces (TEALS) project at Deakin University in Australia made seven recommendations for space renovation. Another such assessment was conducted at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro; this evaluation project offered a progressive puzzle approach to assessing a space while renovating. There has also been such an assessment at Sheffield Hallam University, which proposed ten elements of spatial renovation based on user surveys [5].
After more than 20 years of development, the layout of the library space of universities worldwide has changed significantly. The aforementioned inventory-based approaches to space assessment have provided directional guidance for space renovation and new constructions at colleges and universities. However, the focus of many of these assessments varies, with some focusing on which space elements attract students to the library and others focusing on space utilization. Nonetheless, these two variables do not fully overlap with the student learning experience. From an architectural design perspective, the need remains to explore the specific space design elements that influence students’ learning experience.
First, this study was established on the basis of a literature review to summarize and sort out the elements of spatial renovation design in university libraries, and on this basis a research framework was conducted (Figure 1). Then we used an empirical questionnaire-based survey with samples from two university libraries in Wuhan to collect feedback on and evaluate library space performance from the perspective of the user learning experience (including four levels: physical environment, interior decoration, service facilities, and different types of space perception). It explored how architectural design can enhance and facilitate users’ learning experience in libraries, as well as identified which spatial elements impact the learning experience and which affect users’ frequency and length of visits to the library. Evidence-based strategies are provided to guide future university library space renovation endeavors.
2. Principles of Library Space Renovation
Currently, university libraries, as academic resource centers in universities, are undergoing a new phase of spatial transformation. Such transformation is related to the expansion of the library’s role in the campus ecological network [6]. Nowadays, users come to the library not only for learning activities but also for socializing, recreation, and other uses. Accordingly, Jamieson [7] stated that the space layout, decoration, home comfort, and interior aesthetics are important elements of the learning environment and should match the user’s needs. Zeivots and Schuck’s [4] study showed that students agreed that the physical spaces of learning environments should work together with the related virtual spaces and technological devices to support their learning activities. Moreover, Lam et al. [8], in a study on post-use evaluation of learning spaces, found that the interior design of learning spaces is an important factor that affects students’ learning experience and effectiveness. The spatial contradictions between individual and collaborative learning can be better resolved by having a diverse and flexible mix of furniture in the learning space [9]. By exploring different elements of the spatial design characteristics of the user learning experience, we have listed and organized the descriptions of various studies on the design principles that can influence the contemporary user learning space experience (Table 1 and Table 2).
3. Methods
3.1. Research Case Selection
The participant universities were Wuhan University (WHU) and Wuhan University of Technology Nanhu Campus (WUT), both in Wuhan. These two universities were conveniently selected because, first, they are both located in Wuhan, and the study authors are from Huazhong University of Science and Technology in Wuhan. Thus, the research sites were near the researchers’ location, which facilitated the research process. Second, both libraries were completed or renovated after the 2010s and are comparable in scale. WHU’s library completed its latest spatial reengineering in 2011 and has a floor area of 35,548 m2; WUT’s library completed its latest reengineering in 2016 and officially opened in 2018 with a floor area of 48,800 m2 (Table 3).
Third, both cases are representative of the current space reengineering of university libraries in China. WHU, as one of the earliest university libraries in China to build a learning sharing space, can be considered a “wind vane” of space reengineering, albeit without resulting in any overall directional change in space reengineering. As a newly built library, WUT represents the latest domestic design trends for university libraries. The types of internal learning spaces in these libraries can be divided into the reading, individual learning, group learning, and leisure learning spaces (as shown in Table 4). We aimed to analyze the difference in users’ learning experiences in university library spaces. The study was approved by the ethics committee of the Tongji Medical College of Huazhong University of Science and Technology (2022-S052), Wuhan, China. Written informed consent was obtained from the participants prior to completing the questionnaire, and oral consent was obtained for the web-based questionnaire.
3.2. Questionnaire Design
This was a comparative study using a quantitative method. The questionnaires were distributed in both online and offline formats. First, the researchers used social networks (WeChat group and QQ group) to disseminate the questionnaire forms made by Wen Juanxing software. Second, the researchers distributed information in the libraries, contacting library patrons and asking whether they would like to voluntarily complete the online questionnaire. The questionnaires were distributed from May to July 2022.
In the first part of the survey (show as Appendix A), users were asked to provide personal information about their sex, year of college, and major. The second part of the survey comprised a questionnaire with a scale for user satisfaction with the spatial design characteristics of the university library (responded on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1–5 with 1, strongly unaffected; 2, somewhat unaffected; 3, neither affected nor unaffected; 4, somewhat affected; 5, strongly affected), which in turn contained 25 design elements. These elements and dimensions were summarized based on a review of the literature on university library space design principles, studies related to learning spaces, and the research by Freeman et al. [26], Gayton [28], and Holder and Lange [29]. The final set of evaluation factors was extracted by combining the ideas of “users’ needs for diverse learning spaces” proposed in the aforementioned literature.
4. Results
4.1. Descriptive Statistics
For data analysis of the questionnaire data, SPSS version 26.0 was used. In total, 438 questionnaires were distributed and 435 were collected. After eliminating three repeated and four invalid responses, 428 valid responses were finally used for analysis, including 211 from WHU and 217 from WUT. The effective recovery rate of the questionnaires was 97%.
Through a reliability analysis of the university library space user experience questionnaire, the Cronbach’s alpha value was 0.950 (Table 5), indicating excellent reliability. After conducting rounds of discussions with experts in the field, we deleted some items based on these discussions; then, we checked whether the Cronbach’s alpha value of the scale changed after the deletion. This process informed the decision-making regarding which items to delete. Finally, three items were deleted (Table 6). The remaining 39 items were subject to subsequent factor analysis.
Descriptive statistics of the sample are shown in Table 7. In total, 54.2% were men, and 45.8% were women, with a relatively even gender ratio of users in the study sample. Regarding educational level distribution, 46.5% of the total library users in WHU and WUT are undergraduates, and 51.7% are master’s and doctoral students. In general, the users are mainly undergraduate students. Regarding majors, the highest percentages appeared for science, engineering, agriculture, and medicine.
As shown in Table 8, regarding the frequency of visits to the library, users who come to the library every week accounted for 46.0%, followed by users who come every month (24.5%). Regarding the distribution of length of visits to the library, the number of users who spent more than three hours each time they went to the library was the highest, accounting for 46.0%, followed by the number of students who came within 1–3 h, accounting for 36.0%. Regarding purposes for visiting the library (as shown in Table 9), users who come to the library for studying alone accounted for the highest proportion, at 40.5%.
4.2. Factor Analysis of the Questionnaire and Data Analysis of Survey Responses
Factor analysis was performed to reduce the large amount of data collected from the questionnaires into smaller, manageable sets of components (potentially clustered factor groups) for analysis and discussion. Factors were extracted using principal component analysis with Varimax rotation and Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) normalization methods using the SPSS FACTOR program. The results showed a KMO value of 0.938—indicating the achievement of excellent metrics—and a very low correlation significance level (p-value) of 0.000 (i.e., <0.05) in Bartlett’s spherical test (Table 10). This validates that factor analysis can be used to analyze scale data with sufficient evidence for further statistical analysis. That is, the scales are suitable for factor analysis.
As listed in Table 11, seven potential clustered factors were generated after factor extraction and rotation. The percentage of total variance explained was 65.608%; as shown in Figure 2, the seven-dimension model represented the variables of the entire questionnaire appropriately.
The results of the component matrix after rotation by factor analysis are shown in Table 12. These results were analyzed in combination with discussions with experts; specifically, we examined the changes in the cumulative explanatory variance of the remaining items after removing a specific item, then we decided whether to remove that item. We removed item by item several times until the extracted elements and the text items contained in the elements were more consistent with the theoretical architecture. Through this process, the original 39 items were reduced to 28 items. Based on the total variance explained, the original six factors as Table 2 (physical space environment; supporting facilities and services; space availability; interior decoration; Furniture type and comfort; Space layout accessibility) were reclassified into seven categories. The results of naming the seven first-level elements are shown in Table 13, including (E1) physical environment self-control; (E2) physical environment comfort; (E3) interior space aesthetics; (E4) interior acoustic environment comfort; (E5) interior space use comfort; (E6) interior space use flexibility; (E7) complete guidance and equipment.
4.3. Binary Logistic Regression Analysis
4.3.1. Frequency of Visits to the Library
Using binary logistic regression, the seven factors obtained were used to explore the variables influencing students’ frequency and length of visits to the library. First, the independent variables were the seven factors that affect the university library user learning experience, and the dependent variable was the frequency of visits to the library. Results showed (Figure 3) that the total percentage of daily and weekly library users was 53.2%. Therefore, we dichotomized the frequency of coming to the library by daily and weekly visits (F1 = daily + weekly vs. F0 = monthly + quarterly + basically not going + other). The Hosmer and Lemeshow test results are shown in Table 14; the model showed a good fit to the data (p = 0.096, >0.05).
The results of the binary logistic regression analysis for the frequency of visits to the library are shown in Table 15. Specifically, the p-values for physical environment comfort (E2; p = 0.001, <0.05) and indoor acoustic comfort (E4; p = 0.037, <0.05) were significant and positively correlated with the frequency of visits to the library. The p-value of interior space aesthetics (E3; p = 0.001, <0.05) was also significant and negatively correlated with the frequency of visits to the library.
4.3.2. Binary Logistic Regression Analysis of Length of Visits to the Library
Here, the independent variables are the seven factors that affect university library user learning experience, and the dependent variable is the length of visits to the library. The total time spent in the library for each study session was used to measure the length of visits to the library. According to the results (Figure 4), 82.0% of the students spent more than one hour in the library, so we chose one hour as the cutoff value and treated the length of visit to the library as a dichotomous variable (T1 = more than one hour/time vs. T0 = less than one hour/time; the latter was used as the reference group). The Hosmer and Lemeshow results are shown in Table 16 and indicate that the model fits the data well (p = 0.747, >0.05).
The results of the binary logistic regression analysis of the length of time visiting the library are shown in Table 17. The p-values of physical environment comfort (E2; p = 0.032, <0.050) and indoor acoustic comfort (E4; p = 0.001, <0.050) were significant and positively correlated with the length of visit to the library. The p-value of interior space aesthetics (E3; p = 0.003, <0.05) was significant and negatively correlated with the length of visit to the library.
5. Discussion
5.1. Major Findings
5.1.1. Seven Spatial Factors Affecting User Experience
This study conducted a factor analysis based on a questionnaire scale to obtain seven spatial factors that affect students’ learning experience in the library: (E1) physical environment self-control; (E2) physical environment comfort; (E3) interior space aesthetics; (E4) interior acoustic environment comfort; (E5) interior space use comfort; (E6) interior space use flexibility; and (E7) complete guidance and equipment. The contribution of these spatial factors is shown in Figure 5. A binary logistic regression analysis was then performed to relate each of these seven factors to users’ frequency and length of visit to the library to further explore the spatial factors that enhance these two variables.
- E1: Physical environment self-control
In one empirical study, Beckers et al. [30] found users strongly needed personal control over noise, temperature, and room illumination in the learning space. Another study showed that differences in the quantity and quality of light can have different effects on the comfort level of the learning environment [31]. Hence, a room with natural lighting, due to its uncontrollability, makes it more urgent for users to have personal control and the ability to adjust artificial light sources.
Temperatures above the comfort zone (25 °C) can significantly negatively impact learners’ learning performance [15], and changes in outdoor temperatures during different seasons require learners to have the autonomy to adjust artificial temperatures according to their needs in order to arrive at a comfortable temperature zone for learning.
Flexible and movable furniture can be used to meet the changing needs of users’ learning or social activities and enhance the user’s sense of domain over the learning space, thus creating an overall atmosphere of comfort [9]. The lightness and mobility of the furniture also promote flexibility in the use of the space, allowing learners to quickly and autonomously modify the layout of the learning space to meet the needs of different learning activities and improve their space use experience.
- E2: Physical environment comfort
For users, a learning space that provides continuous and prolonged open services enhances their learning experience [5]. When natural lighting is insufficient, adequate artificial lighting can be used to meet the learners’ lighting needs. By contrast, when the natural lighting is adequate, it provides a comfortable lighting environment. An appropriate number of power outlets can also extend the length of time learners spend using electronic devices and enhance their space learning experience. Good ventilation in the room can improve air quality, which is positive for learners’ health and concentration [13]. Providing sufficient storage space enables learners to have a place where they can store their belongings, which improves the orderliness of the learning space and facilitates the learning experience. An adequate supply of tables and chairs can increase the number of learners coming to the library and provide learners with the freedom to use the tables and chairs at their will. The 21st century learning environment is closely linked to wireless broadband (Wi-Fi) networks and mobile communication devices [18]. Accordingly, a library with high-quality Wi-Fi provides flexibility and choice for learners to engage in different learning activities.
- E3: Aesthetics of indoor space
The indoor greenery arrangement can have a soothing effect on the spirits of space users [23]. Different colors have different effects on the psychological perception of learners, and appropriate interior coloring can promote learners’ positive learning emotions [32]. A beautiful view through a window near a study seat can also have a positive impact on students’ physiological and psychological states. Furthermore, a well-designed interior creates a relaxed and comfortable learning environment and improves the learning experience for learners. Again, adequate natural lighting ensures that learners have a comfortable light environment.
- E4: Indoor acoustic comfort
Background noise can weaken learners’ concentration [11]. A quiet acoustic environment can thus reduce the external environment’s interference in the learning process of library users. Furthermore, having access to an acoustic environment that provides privacy to its users can motivate the engagement in different learning activities, such as group discussions; this is because, in such environments, users need not worry about the sound from their learning activities disturbing other learners.
- E5: Indoor space comfort
Providing learners with various study spaces in the library enables meeting different needs and increasing their frequency of visits. Furthermore, a comprehensive range of services and facilities associated with the library provides learners with a better library learning experience [4].
- E6: Flexibility in the use of interior space
Library space design is gradually moving toward the trend of being “rearrangeable” [27]. In other words, the space layout should be flexible and changeable to meet the needs of learners. Users can also perceive that the learning behavior of others promotes learning at the individual level.
- E7: Complete guidance and equipment
With the development of Internet technology, library users have started to increase their demands for computers, scanners, printers, and copiers [33]. Well-equipped facilities can improve the quality of library services and support more learning activities for students. A clear guidance system in the library can also improve the legibility and accessibility of the space and improve the learners’ perceptions of space use.
5.1.2. Influence of Spatial Factors on Frequency of Visits and Length of Time in the Library
Our findings show that, first, physical environment comfort (E2) and interior acoustic environment comfort (E4) promote the frequency of student visits to the library. This result reaffirms that enhancing the physical elements of the learning environment, such as light and appropriate background sound, can enhance the space’s attraction for students [5].
Second, physical and indoor acoustic comfort can encourage students to spend longer periods in the library to study or engage in other activities. As with the results of frequency of visits, the lighting [12], temperature [15], and ventilation [13] of the space may also encourage users to spend more time in the library once they visit it. Meeting the needs of students in the library for adequate power outlets and good Wi-Fi signal [34] can extend the length of time users study in the library. Furthermore, we confirm Harrop and Turpin’s [5] study of student demand for open hours: if the library has longer and continuous opening hours, it may be able to meet the needs of a wider range of users for longer periods. Less background noise can also improve the concentration of users in the library.
Our findings also showed that the aesthetics of the interior space negatively affect the frequency and length of visits to the library. These results are inconsistent with the findings of prior studies, which have shown that elaborate interior decoration [35,36] and beautiful overall colors [32] positively affect learners. The reasons for this may be because first, sophisticated decoration may attract more learners to the library, and excessive numbers of people create noise and other distractions that can affect individual learning experience [37]. Second, the two Chinese university libraries included in this study did not use a diverse range of colors, implying that learners may lack experience in the relationship between color and the learning experience. Third, the artificial lighting in Chinese libraries tends to be continuous and sufficient. Natural light that is too direct may cause glare and disrupt the learning experience. Fourth, indoor greenery may attract insects and emit odors, affecting students’ learning experience. Fifth, the changing landscape outside the window may interfere with the learning state of indoor users.
5.2. Strengths and Limitations
One of the strengths of this study is that it was conducted in two representative university libraries in Wuhan. Our findings support some conclusions from previous literature that physical space comfort can attract learners to the library [12] and indoor acoustic comfort can promote a better learning experience [10]. Furthermore, space layout accessibility and longer hours of operation can encourage more frequent visits to the library. These findings enrich the literature by providing suggestions as to what should be prioritized in library space reengineering endeavors.
We also adopted the user learning experience as a new entry point for assessing the value of library learning spaces. Using this approach, this study quantitatively demonstrates that the Internet and electronic devices play an important role in users’ learning experience in the 21st century, as well as that the location of the library on the campus can influence the frequency of visits to the library.
This research also has some limitations. First, the questionnaires were primarily administered to university students, so the opinions and comments of faculty and librarians were not collected. Second, the study was limited to the main libraries of two universities, so further research is needed to investigate more related settings. These future studies will allow us to have a more accurate assessment of the impact of variables related to library space on the user learning experience.
6. Conclusions
Through empirical research, we have appropriate evidence to identify the elements of university library space transformation that impact the user learning experience (Figure 6). This quantitative study determined seven first-level design elements of university library spaces that may influence user learning experience. Results showed that physical environment comfort (E2) and interior acoustic environment comfort (E4) of university libraries were positively correlated with the frequency and length of visits to the library. Therefore, in the process of space reengineering for university libraries, the following two suggestions are made: (1) improve the comfort of the physical space and (2) improve the indoor acoustic environment of the library.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, L.P. and W.W.; first draft framework construction work: Y.G.; methodology, W.W. and L.P.; software, R.J.; validation, L.P. and R.J.; formal analysis, L.P. and W.W.; investigation, W.W.; data curation, W.W., L.P. and R.J.; writing—original draft preparation, W.W., L.P. and R.J.; writing—review and editing, L.P. and R.J.; visualization, R.J.; supervision, L.P. and R.J.; project administration, L.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript and contributed equally to this work.
Funding
This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, grant number 51978294.
Institutional Review Board Statement
The study was approved by the ethics committee of the Tongji Medical College of Huazhong University of Science and Technology (2022-S052), Wuhan, China.
Informed Consent Statement
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement
Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A
University library space user experience questionnaire:
Hello, we are the research group of “Research on the value of university library space based on user experience.” The purpose of this questionnaire is to understand your needs and satisfaction with the library learning space from the perspective of user experience and provide reference for optimizing the space design of university libraries. We make a solemn commitment to you and hope you can fill this questionnaire out with confidence!
This survey is anonymous. The questionnaire information you will fill in will be used for academic research purposes only and will be kept strictly confidential.
[single-choice question] Question 1. Your gender is:
- □
- Male
- □
- Female
[single-choice question] Question 2. You are a:
- □
- Undergraduate student
- □
- Postgraduate student
- □
- Doctoral candidate
- □
- Faculty and researcher
[single-choice question] Question 3. Subject of your major:
- □
- Law, philosophy, and economics
- □
- Pedagogy, literature, and history
- □
- Science, engineering, agriculture, and medicine
- □
- Military science, management science, and art science
[single-choice question] Question 4. On average, how often have you been going to the library in this semester:
- □
- Every day
- □
- Weekly
- □
- Monthly
- □
- Quarterly
- □
- Basically not going
- □
- Others
Please specify: …
[single-choice question] Question 5. On average, the time you spend in the library in each visit is about:
- □
- Less than 30 minutes
- □
- 30 minutes to 1 hour
- □
- 1–3 hours
- □
- More than 3 hours
- □
- Others
Please specify: …
[multiple-choice question] Question 6. Your main purpose for going to the library is to/for:
- □
- Study alone
- □
- Complete group work
- □
- Borrow and return books
- □
- Endorsement, speech practice
- □
- Use electronic resources in the library for learning
- □
- Communication, interaction, and other social activities
- □
- Entertainment (watching movies, listening to music, playing games, etc.)
- □
- Others
Please specify: …Your opinion about the extent to which the following elements contribute to your learning experience is:
| Evaluation Dimension | Evaluation Factor | Your Comments | ||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| Strongly Unaffected | Somewhat Unaffected | Neither Affected or Unaffected | Somewhat Affected | Strongly Affected | ||
| Question 7. the elements influence your learning experience is | 7.1. High physical environment comfort (lighting, illumination, ventilation, room temperature, etc.) | |||||
| 7.2. Highly refined interior decoration (decorative materials, color matching, greenery arrangement, etc.) | ||||||
| 7.3. Library adjacent to dormitory and canteen | ||||||
| 7.4. The library is open continuously and for long hours | ||||||
| 7.5. High number of service facilities (storage space, Internet/power supply, printers, copiers, etc.) | ||||||
| 7.6. Sufficient supply of tables and chairs | ||||||
| 7.7. Diversified learning space types (individual, group, casual learning areas, etc.) | ||||||
| 7.8. Good learning atmosphere | ||||||
| Question 8. Physical environment | 8.1. There is sufficient natural lighting in the pavilion | |||||
| 8.2. Adequate artificial lighting in the pavilion | ||||||
| 8.3. Good ventilation in the pavilion | ||||||
| 8.4. The temperature inside the pavilion is suitable (warm in winter and cool in summer) | ||||||
| 8.5. There is a beautiful view outside the window | ||||||
| Question 9. Interior decoration | 9.1. The overall interior decoration is exquisite | |||||
| 9.2. Beautiful overall interior coloring | ||||||
| 9.3. Interior greenery is properly arranged | ||||||
| Question 10. Service facility availability | 10.1. There is sufficient storage space in the pavilion | |||||
| 10.2. Good Wi-Fi signal quality in the pavilion | ||||||
| 10.3. There is a sufficient number of power outlets in the pavilion | ||||||
| 10.4. Electronic equipment, such as for printing and copying, are available | ||||||
| 10.5. There are computer workstations in the pavilion | ||||||
| 10.6 Clear signage in the pavilion | ||||||
| 10.7. Drinks and light snacks are available in the pavilion | ||||||
| Question 11. Study in the reading room or study room of the library | 11.1. The learning space is open and transparent | |||||
| 11.2. Low background noise | ||||||
| 11.3. The furniture is comfortable and ergonomic | ||||||
| 11.4. The tables and chairs provide some visual shading | ||||||
| 11.5. I can perceive the learning behavior of others | ||||||
| Question 12. Study in the library’s personal study space (personal study bin, personal study room, etc.) | 12.1. Adjustable light level | |||||
| 12.2. Adjustable temperature level | ||||||
| 12.3. The acoustic environment is private enough | ||||||
| 12.4. Personal study space is visible from the outside line of sight | ||||||
| Question 13. Study in the library’s group study spaces (collaborative group discussion rooms, small seminar rooms, etc.) | 13.1. Adjustable light level | |||||
| 13.2. Adjustable temperature level | ||||||
| 13.3. The acoustic environment is sufficiently private | ||||||
| 13.4. Group study space is visible from the outside line of sight | ||||||
| 13.5. Space layout can be changed flexibly | ||||||
| 13.6. The furniture is light and flexible and can be moved | ||||||
| Question 14. Study in the library’s relaxed study area (lobby, atrium, cafe, etc.) | 14.1. The furniture is casual and comfortable | |||||
| 14.2. The furniture is lightweight, flexible, and movable | ||||||
| 14.3. Space provides opportunities for social interaction | ||||||
| 14.4. The space provides an atmosphere of mental relaxation | ||||||
Question 15. Your overall satisfaction with the space of the library on the main campus of Huazhong University of Science and Technology is:
- □
- Very dissatisfied
- □
- Somewhat dissatisfied
- □
- Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
- □
- Somewhat satisfied
- □
- Very satisfied
References
- Liu, J. On the spatial reengineering of libraries. Libr. World. 2017, 5, 45–49. [Google Scholar]
- Massis, B. The user experience (UX) in libraries. Inf. Learn. Sci. 2018, 119, 241–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liddle, D. Best value—The impact on libraries: Practical steps in demonstrating best value. Libr. Manag. 1999, 20, 206–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zeivots, S.; Schuck, S. Needs and expectations of a new learning space: Research students’ perspectives. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 2018, 34, 27–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Harrop, D.; Turpin, B. A study exploring learners’ informal learning space behaviors, attitudes, and preferences. New Rev. Acad. Librariansh. 2013, 19, 58–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Thorpe, A.; Lukes, R.; Bever, D.J.; He, Y. The impact of the academic library on student success: Connecting the dots. Libr. Acad. 2016, 16, 373–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jamieson, P. Designing more effective on-campus teaching and learning spaces: A role for academic developers. Int. J. Acad. Dev. 2003, 8, 119–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lam, E.W.M.; Chan, D.W.M.; Wong, I. The architecture of built pedagogy for active learning—A case study of a university campus in Hong Kong. Buildings 2019, 9, 230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Thaler, M.; Burke-Vigeland, M.; Hickson, K.; Broz, D.; Anderson, A.; Barber, C. Why Do Students Really Go to the Library? 2014. Available online: http://www.gensler.com/design-thinking/research/future-of-the-academic-library (accessed on 17 March 2014).
- Gifford, R. Environmental Psychology: Principles and Practice, 5th ed.; Optimal Books: Colville, WA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Venetjoki, N.; Kaarlela-Tuomaala, A.; Keskinen, E.; Hongisto, V. The effect of speech and speech intelligibility on task performance. Ergonomics 2006, 49, 1068–1091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Samani, A.S. The impact of indoor lighting on students’ learning performance in learning environments: A knowledge internalization perspective. Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2012, 3, 127–136. [Google Scholar]
- Daisey, J.M.; Angell, W.J.; Apte, M.G. Indoor air quality, ventilation and health symptoms in schools: An analysis of existing information. Indoor Air 2003, 13, 53–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mendell, M.J.; Heath, G.A. Do indoor pollutants and thermal conditions in schools influence student performance? A critical review of the literature. Indoor Air 2005, 15, 27–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Seppänen, O.; Fisk, W.J.; Faulkner, D. Cost Benefit Analysis of the Night-Time Ventilative Cooling in Office Building. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Healthy Buildings, National University of Singapore, Singapore, 7–11 December 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Riddle, M.D.; Souter, K. Designing informal learning spaces using student perspectives. J. Learn. Spaces 2012, 1, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Lam, P.; Fox, B.; Ho, E. Informal Learning Space Study Report—1/F, Esther Lee Building; Working Paper 5; Centre for Learning Enhancement and Research, The Chinese University of Hong Kong: Hong Kong, China, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Fisher, K.; Newton, C. Transforming the twenty-first-century campus to enhance the net-generation student learning experience: Using evidence-based design to determine what works and why in virtual/physical teaching spaces. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 2014, 33, 903–920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramu, V.; Taib, N.; Massoomeh, H.M. Informal academic learning space preferences of tertiary education learners. J. Facil. Manag. 2021. ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar]
- Burn, K.; Cunningham, M.; Waller, L.; Walton, E.; Walton, G. Capturing the student user experience (UX) in York and Loughborough University Library buildings. Perform. Meas. Metrics 2016, 17, 175–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Earthman, G.; Lemasters, L. Review of Research on the Relationship between School Buildings, Student Achievement, and Student Behavior. In Proceedings of the International Annual Meeting of the Council of Educational Facilities Planners, Tarpon Springs, FL, USA, 8 October 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Shandrow, K.L. How the Color of Your Office Impacts Productivity (Infographic). Entrepreneur Asia Pacific 9 March 2015. Available online: https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/243749 (accessed on 3 October 2019).
- Bringslimark, T.; Hartig, T.; Patil, G. The psychological benefits of indoor plants: A critical review of the experimental literature. J. Environ. Psychol. 2009, 29, 422–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andrews, C.; Wright, S.E.; Raskin, H. Library learning spaces: Investigating libraries and investing in student feedback. J. Libr. Adm. 2016, 56, 647–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mairaj, M.I.; Naseer, M.M. Library services and user satisfaction in developing countries: A case study. Health Inf. Libr. J. 2013, 30, 318–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Freeman, G.T. The Library as Place: Changes in Learning Patterns, Collections, Technology, and Use. In Library as Place: Rethinking Roles, Rethinking Space, 1st ed.; Council on Library and Information Resources: Washington, DC, USA, 2005; pp. 1–9. Available online: http://www.clir.org/pubs/abstract/pub129abst.html (accessed on 5 December 2021).
- Foster, N.F.; Gibbons, S. (Eds.) Studying Students: The Undergraduate Research Project at the University of Rochester; Association of College and Research Libraries: Chicago, IL, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Gayton, J.T. Academic libraries: “Social” or “Communal?”. The nature and future of academic libraries. J. Acad. Librariansh. 2008, 34, 60–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holder, S.; Lange, J. Looking and listening: A mixed-methods study of space use and user satisfaction. Evid. Based Libr. Inf. Pract. 2014, 9, 4–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Beckers, R.; van der Voordt, T.; Dewulf, G. Why do they study there? Diary research into students’ learning space choices in higher education. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 2016, 35, 142–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mott, M.S.; Robinson, D.H.; Walden, A.; Burnette, J.; Rutherford, A.S. Illuminating the effects of dynamic lighting on student learning. SAGE Open 2012, 2, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hawkins, H. The Environment for Learning. In Guide for Planning Educational Facilities; Moore, D.P., Ed.; Council of Educational Facility Planners: Columbus, OH, USA, 1991; pp. 141–155. [Google Scholar]
- Gibbons, S. Why Do Students Want to Be in the Library If They Aren’t Using the Books? In Upstate New York Science Librarians Conference. 2010. Available online: https://surface.syr.edu/nyscilib/40/ (accessed on 15 February 2022).
- DeFrain, E.; Hong, M. Interiors, affect, and use: How does an academic library’s learning commons support students’ needs? Evid. Based Libr. Inf. Pract. 2020, 15, 42–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lippincott, J.K. Linking the information commons to learning. In Learning Spaces; EDUCAUSE: Washington, DC, USA, 2006; Available online: https://www.educause.edu/research-and-publications/books/learning-spaces/chapter-7-linking-information-commons-learning (accessed on 2 November 2021).
- Taylor, S.S. Effects of studio space on teaching and learning: Preliminary findings from two case studies. Innov. High. Educ. 2009, 33, 217–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mehrabian, A. Individual differences in stimulus screening and arousability. J. Pers. 1977, 45, 237–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1.
Research framework.
Figure 2.
Scree Plot.
Figure 3.
Visits’ frequency of sample distribution.
Figure 4.
Visits’ length of sample distribution.
Figure 5.
Contribution of spatial factors.
Figure 6.
Empirical research conclusion.
Table 1.
Spatial design features of learning spaces that affect user experience based on available literature.
Table 1.
Spatial design features of learning spaces that affect user experience based on available literature.
| Space Design Features | Sources |
|---|---|
| Sound; lighting (natural, artificial light); ventilation; temperature | [5,10,11,12,13,14,15] |
| Storage; power and outlet configurations; network and Wi-Fi quality; electronic equipment configurations such as printers, copiers, etc.; food availability; open hours; directional signage | [4,5,16,17,18,19] |
| Diversity of space types; individual study spaces; group discussion rooms | [5,20] |
| Decorative sophistication; colors; indoor greenery | [8,21,22,23] |
| Diversity of furniture types; home comfort; furniture flexibility | [24,25,26] |
| The geographically centralized location of the library | [27] |
Table 2.
Checklist for assessing the university library space user experience.
| Primary Assessment Element | Secondary Assessment Element |
|---|---|
| a. Physical space environment | Interior acoustic environment |
| Interior lighting status (natural/artificial lighting) | |
| Interior ventilation status | |
| Interior temperature status | |
| b. Supporting facilities and services | Storage space |
| Amount of power supply and outlet configuration | |
| Quality of the network and Wi-Fi signal in the building | |
| Configuration of electronic equipment such as printers and copiers | |
| Light refreshment supply | |
| Library opening hours | |
| Guiding signs | |
| c. Space availability | Supply of tables and chairs for study and reading rooms |
| Supply of individual study rooms | |
| Supply of group seminar rooms | |
| Supply of open, collaborative spaces | |
| Supply of leisure study spaces | |
| Supply of diversified learning spaces | |
| d. Interior decoration | Interior decoration refinement |
| Interior decoration color aesthetics | |
| Interior greenery configuration | |
| e. Furniture type and comfort | Diversification of furniture types |
| Furniture comfort | |
| Furniture flexibility | |
| f. Space layout accessibility | Nearby residence |
| Library cafeteria |
Table 3.
Basic information about the libraries of the two universities.
| School Name | Basic Information | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Site | Total Floor Area | Completion Date | Date of Expansion/Construction | |
| Wuhan University | Core area of the campus teaching area | 35,548 | 1981 | 2014 |
| Wuhan University of Technology | West of the teaching | 48,800 | 2016 | / |
Table 4.
Distribution of learning space types in the two universities.
| School Name | Partial Learning Space Distribution | Type of Learning Space | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reading or Study | Personal | Group | Leisure | ||
| Wuhan University |  |  |  |  |  |
| Wuhan University of Technology |  |  |  |  |  |
Table 5.
Reliability statistics for the university library space user experience questionnaire.
| Cronbach’s Alpha | Cronbach’s Alpha Based on Standardized Items | Number of Items |
|---|---|---|
| 0.950 | 0.954 | 42 |
Table 6.
Results for deleted items of the university library space user experience questionnaire.
| Item-Total Statistics | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scale Mean If Item Deleted | Scale Variance If Item Deleted | Corrected Item-Total Correlation | Cronbach’s Alpha If Item Deleted | |
| Question 7.3. Library adjacent to dormitory and cafeteria | 163.46 | 546.305 | 0.354 | 0.950 |
| Question 12.4. Personal study space is visible from the outside line of sight | 164.00 | 543.909 | 0.381 | 0.950 |
| Question 13.4. Group study space is visible from the outside line of sight | 163.93 | 543.267 | 0.379 | 0.950 |
Table 7.
Descriptive statistics for all participants (n = 428, Wuhan, China, 2021–2022).
| Variable | Option | Frequency | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 232 | 54.2 |
| Female | 196 | 45.8 | |
| Degree | Undergraduate | 199 | 46.5 |
| Master’s | 186 | 43.5 | |
| Doctorate | 35 | 8.2 | |
| Faculty and Researchers | 7 | 1.6 | |
| Other | 1 | 0.2 | |
| Major | Philosophy, economics, law | 49 | 11.4 |
| Pedagogy, literature, history | 84 | 19.6 | |
| Science, engineering, agriculture, medicine | 246 | 57.5 | |
| Military science, management science, science of art | 49 | 11.4 |
Table 8.
Descriptive statistics of frequency and length of visits to the library.
| Variable | Option | Frequency | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Frequency of visits to the library | Daily | 31 | 7.2 |
| Weekly | 197 | 46.0 | |
| Monthly | 105 | 24.5 | |
| Quarterly | 32 | 7.5 | |
| Hardly | 60 | 14.0 | |
| Others | 3 | 0.7 | |
| Length of visits to the library | Less than 30 min | 46 | 10.7 |
| 30–60 min | 31 | 7.2 | |
| 1–3 h | 154 | 36.0 | |
| More than 3 h | 197 | 46.0 |
Table 9.
Descriptive statistics of the purpose for visiting the library.
| Variable | Option | Frequency | Percent | Percentage of Cases |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The purpose of visiting the library | Study alone | 364 | 40.5% | 85.0% |
| Complete group work | 106 | 11.8% | 24.8% | |
| Borrow and return books | 187 | 20.8% | 43.7% | |
| Endorsement, speech practice | 40 | 4.4% | 9.3% | |
| Use electronic resources in the library | 114 | 12.7% | 26.6% | |
| Communication, interaction, and other social activities | 58 | 6.5% | 13.6% | |
| Entertainment (watching movies, listening to music, playing games, etc.) | 18 | 2.0% | 4.2% | |
| Others | 12 | 1.3% | 2.8% | |
| Total | 899 | 100.0% | 210.0% |
Table 10.
Results of the Kaiser-Meyer–Olkin and Bartlett’s Test.
| KMO and Bartlett’s Test | ||
|---|---|---|
| Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy | 0.938 | |
| Bartlett’s test of sphericity | Approximate chi-square value | 10,996.908 |
| Degree of freedom (df) | 741 | |
| Significance level (p-value) | 0.000 | |
Table 11.
Exploratory factor analysis results for the university library space user experience questionnaire: total variance results.
Table 11.
Exploratory factor analysis results for the university library space user experience questionnaire: total variance results.
| Total Variance Explained | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Component | Initial Eigenvalues | Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings | Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings | ||||||
| Total | % of Variance | Cumulative % | Total | % of Variance | Cumulative % | Total | % of Variance | Cumulative % | |
| 1 | 14.771 | 37.875 | 37.875 | 14.771 | 37.875 | 37.875 | 5.963 | 15.289 | 15.289 |
| 2 | 3.348 | 8.584 | 46.459 | 3.348 | 8.584 | 46.459 | 4.708 | 12.073 | 27.362 |
| 3 | 2.340 | 5.999 | 52.457 | 2.340 | 5.999 | 52.457 | 3.840 | 9.846 | 37.207 |
| 4 | 1.474 | 3.779 | 56.236 | 1.474 | 3.779 | 56.236 | 3.221 | 8.260 | 45.468 |
| 5 | 1.346 | 3.451 | 59.687 | 1.346 | 3.451 | 59.687 | 2.756 | 7.065 | 52.533 |
| 6 | 1.222 | 3.134 | 62.821 | 1.222 | 3.134 | 62.821 | 2.609 | 6.691 | 59.224 |
| 7 | 1.087 | 2.788 | 65.608 | 1.087 | 2.788 | 65.608 | 2.490 | 6.385 | 65.608 |
Table 12.
Exploratory factor analysis for the university library space user experience questionnaire: rotated component matrix.
Table 12.
Exploratory factor analysis for the university library space user experience questionnaire: rotated component matrix.
| Rotated Component Matrix | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Component | |||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | |
| Q13.1 | 0.854 | ||||||
| Q12.1 | 0.833 | ||||||
| Q12.2 | 0.778 | ||||||
| Q13.2 | 0.764 | ||||||
| Q14.1 | 0.654 | ||||||
| Q14.2 | 0.527 | ||||||
| Q11.1 | 0.523 | ||||||
| Q14.3 | 0.517 | ||||||
| Q7.7 | 0.701 | ||||||
| Q7.3 | 0.659 | ||||||
| Q8.2 | 0.656 | ||||||
| Q10.3 | 0.622 | ||||||
| Q8.4 | 0.621 | ||||||
| Q8.3 | 0.568 | ||||||
| Q10.1 | 0.547 | ||||||
| Q7.5 | 0.520 | ||||||
| Q10.2 | 0.518 | ||||||
| Q7.1 | |||||||
| Q9.3 | 0.812 | ||||||
| Q9.2 | 0.745 | ||||||
| Q8.5 | 0.731 | ||||||
| Q9.1 | 0.707 | ||||||
| Q8.1 | 0.509 | ||||||
| Q11.4 | |||||||
| Q12.3 | 0.660 | ||||||
| Q13.3 | 0.553 | ||||||
| Q11.3 | 0.530 | ||||||
| Q11.2 | 0.515 | ||||||
| Q14.4 | |||||||
| Q7.6 | 0.707 | ||||||
| Q7.4 | 0.596 | ||||||
| Q7.2 | 0.561 | ||||||
| Q10.7 | |||||||
| Q13.5 | 0.753 | ||||||
| Q13.4 | 0.721 | ||||||
| Q11.5 | 0.561 | ||||||
| Q10.5 | 0.775 | ||||||
| Q10.6 | 0.697 | ||||||
| Q10.4 | |||||||
Table 13.
Spatial factors that influence the university library space user experience.
| Primary Assessment Element | Secondary Assessment Element |
|---|---|
| Physical environment self-control | Adjustable light level |
| Adjustable temperature level | |
| Casual and comfortable furniture | |
| Furniture is lightweight, flexible, and movable | |
| Sight lines | |
| Space provides opportunities for social interaction | |
| Physical environment comfort | Good learning atmosphere |
| Library has continuous and long opening hours | |
| Sufficient artificial lighting in the library | |
| Sufficient power outlets in the library | |
| Temperature inside the library is suitable (warm in winter and cool in summer) | |
| Library has good ventilation | |
| Adequate storage space in the library | |
| Adequate supply of tables and chairs | |
| Good quality Wi-Fi signal in the building | |
| Interior space aesthetics | Interior greenery is properly arranged |
| Beautiful overall interior coloring | |
| Beautiful view outside the window | |
| Overall interior decoration is exquisite | |
| Ample natural light inside the building | |
| Interior acoustic environment comfort | Acoustic environment is sufficiently private |
| Low background noise | |
| Interior space use comfort | Various types of learning spaces |
| Abundant service facilities | |
| Interior space use flexibility | Layout of the space can be flexibly changed |
| Perceive the learning behavior of others | |
| Complete guidance and equipment | Computer workstations in the pavilion |
| Clear signage in the pavilion |
Table 14.
Hosmer and Lemeshow test results.
| Hosmer and Lemeshow Test | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Step | Chi-Square | df | Sig. |
| 1 | 13.491 | 8 | 0.096 |
Table 15.
Results of logistic regression analysis for frequency of visits to the library.
| 95% CI for Exp (B) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B | S.E. | Wald | df | Sig. | Exp (B) | Lower | Upper | |
| E1 | −0.230 | 0.242 | 0.900 | 1 | 0.343 | 0.795 | 0.494 | 1.278 |
| E2 | 0.779 | 0.226 | 11.868 | 1 | 0.001 | 2.179 | 1.399 | 3.393 |
| E3 | −0.520 | 0.164 | 10.093 | 1 | 0.001 | 0.594 | 0.431 | 0.819 |
| E4 | 0.445 | 0.213 | 4.363 | 1 | 0.037 | 1.560 | 1.028 | 2.368 |
| E5 | −0.012 | 0.146 | 0.007 | 1 | 0.932 | 0.988 | 0.743 | 1.314 |
| E6 | −0.115 | 0.152 | 0.571 | 1 | 0.450 | 0.891 | 0.662 | 1.201 |
| E7 | 0.020 | 0.116 | 0.029 | 1 | 0.864 | 1.020 | 0.813 | 1.280 |
| Constant | −1.795 | 0.790 | 5.163 | 1 | 0.023 | 0.166 | ||
Note. E1: physical environment self-control; E2: physical environment comfort; E3: interior space aesthetics; E4: interior acoustic environment comfort; E5: interior space use comfort; E6: interior space use flexibility; E7: complete guidance and equipment.
Table 16.
Hosmer and Lemeshow test results.
| Hosmer and Lemeshow Test | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Step | Chi-Square | df | Sig. |
| 1 | 5.096 | 8 | 0.747 |
Table 17.
Results of logistic regression analysis of length of visit to the library.
| 95% CI for Exp (B) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B | S.E. | Wald | df | Sig. | Exp (B) | Lower | Upper | |
| E1 | 0.174 | 0.339 | 0.263 | 1 | 0.608 | 1.190 | 0.612 | 2.314 |
| E2 | 0.613 | 0.286 | 4.595 | 1 | 0.032 | 1.846 | 1.054 | 3.233 |
| E3 | −0.702 | 0.237 | 8.777 | 1 | 0.003 | 0.496 | 0.312 | 0.789 |
| E4 | 0.993 | 0.291 | 11.667 | 1 | 0.001 | 2.700 | 1.527 | 4.773 |
| E5 | 0.093 | 0.185 | 0.250 | 1 | 0.617 | 1.097 | 0.763 | 1.576 |
| E6 | −0.395 | 0.232 | 2.897 | 1 | 0.089 | 0.674 | 0.427 | 1.062 |
| E7 | −0.295 | 0.179 | 2.714 | 1 | 0.099 | 0.745 | 0.525 | 1.058 |
| Constant | −1.244 | 0.818 | 2.314 | 1 | 0.128 | 0.288 | ||
Note. E1: physical environment self-control; E2: physical environment comfort; E3: interior space aesthetics; E4: interior acoustic environment comfort; E5: interior space use comfort; E6: interior space use flexibility; E7: complete guidance and equipment.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Peng, L.; Wei, W.; Gong, Y.; Jia, R. University Library Space Renovation Based on the User Learning Experience in Two Wuhan Universities. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 10395. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191610395
AMA Style
Peng L, Wei W, Gong Y, Jia R. University Library Space Renovation Based on the User Learning Experience in Two Wuhan Universities. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(16):10395. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191610395
Chicago/Turabian StylePeng, Lei, Wenli Wei, Yichen Gong, and Ruiying Jia. 2022. "University Library Space Renovation Based on the User Learning Experience in Two Wuhan Universities" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 16: 10395. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191610395
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
