Spatial Optimization of Primary School Campuses from the Perspective of Children’s Emotional Behavior: A Deep Learning and Machine Learning Approach

Abstract

From the perspective of children’s emotional behavior, this study constructs a multidimensional indicator framework—“spatial elements-spatial typologies-spatial color-emotion and behavior.” Integrating behavior mapping, we employ deep- and machine-learning models to quantify the pathways through which primary-school campus spaces shape children’s emotional and behavioral responses. The results indicate that: (1) individual external spatial elements exert a more pronounced influence on children’s emotions; (2) different spatial typologies show marked disparities in emotional activation, characterized by polarization and clustering at low levels, revealing common shortcomings in current campus construction; (3) the emotional effects of spatial color diverge systematically by gender and age, with differentiation intensifying as age increases; and (4) overlay analyses of behavior maps corroborate associations between external natural spaces, key internal functional zones, and children’s behavioral patterns and affective responses. Building on these findings, the study proposes targeted optimization strategies oriented toward children’s emotional experience and behavioral development, providing data-driven support for the affective design of primary-school campuses.

1. Introduction

In recent years, the popularization and expansion of primary education worldwide have led to a significant increase in school enrollments. This trend is particularly evident across many countries and regions. As key settings for children’s learning and development, the spatial design of primary school campuses, and its research significance, has become increasingly prominent. Although growth rates vary across countries and regions, the optimization and renovation of primary school campus spaces has become a widely discussed concern.

Over the past five years, China’s primary school enrollment has increased by 6.3%. Among 32 surveyed cities, 28 exceeded the national growth rate, and 18 recorded an increase of 20% or more. Changsha led the country in 2022, recording a growth rate of 41.9%. These figures underscore the research importance and practical value of optimizing primary school campus spaces.

Traditional primary school campus planning has emphasized spatial layout and functional programming. However, it often neglects children’s subjective emotional experiences and behavioral characteristics, leaving substantial room for evidence-based campus spatial improvement. In recent years, integrating deep land machine learning for data analysis and pattern recognition has offered new perspectives and methods to investigate the relationships among children’s emotions, behaviors, and the objective physical environment.

Existing research indicates that spatial elements [1], spatial types [2], and spatial colors [3] exert varying degrees of influence on children’s emotional states [4]. Furthermore, the effects of objective physical spaces vary systematically across gender and age groups [5]. These findings suggest that campus space planning should better account for the diversity and complexity of children’s emotional experiences [6].

1.1. Campus and Students’ Mental Health

The campus, which serves as a crucial entry point for examining the physical environment [7], shapes learning efficiency and mental health through perceptual, cognitive, and affective pathways.

The spatial elements of a campus directly influence students’ psychological perception. Studies based on psychometric scales suggest that the visual characteristics of campus spaces significantly affects individuals’ physical health, emotional recovery, and spatial experience [8]. Additionally, research employing photo-questionnaires and affective-evaluation methods has examined the impact of spatial elements—such as plants, buildings, roads, and water bodies—on landscape experience [9]. Findings indicate that natural elements, particularly plants, play the most significant role in enhancing spatial pleasure [10].

Attention restoration capacity is equally critical to students’ learning efficiency and mental health. Campus spaces with high restorative potential typically feature openness and a balanced integration of natural and artificial elements [11]. Moreover, spaces with well-developed pedestrian systems, high visibility, and well-organized distributions of natural and artificial elements enhance attention restoration [12,13]. Research on restorative properties in primary school campuses has emphasized the importance of multisensory experiences [14], leading to design-optimization principles centered on “naturalness,” “multisensory engagement,” and “future-oriented design” [15]. These principles align with the PAD affective model (Pleasure-Arousal-Dominance) adopted in this study: Pleasure denotes emotional valence, Arousal reflects activation, and Dominance indicates a perceived quantitative entry point for evaluating a campus’s capacity to support students’ mental health and are consistent with the three design principles for primary school environments.

Specific spatial elements play a crucial role in enhancing positive emotions and behaviors, thereby supporting perception and cognitive functions. Previous studies have used environmental variables—such as the Green View Index (GVI), Sound Environment Index (SEI), and Visual Complexity Index (SVI)—in multiple regression models to show that certain spatial configurations significantly improve emotional states [16]. Findings indicate that walking spaces with high GVI and SEI effectively stimulate positive emotions [17], whereas spaces with high SVI and Attention Load Index (AFI) substantially increase negative emotional experiences [18]. These results further support the cognitive dimension of the attention-load theory in campus environments [19]. Learning, leisure, and activity zones—as well as interior versus exterior spaces—differ markedly in cognitive load and social cues. Learning zones typically require configurations that support high levels of sustained focus, whereas activity zones prioritize dynamic settings that foster high-arousal social interaction. Accordingly, it is necessary to examine, at the level of spatial typologies, the distribution of affect across scenarios and the potential for polarization in emotional responses. This study simplified the relevant expressions of the SAM scale and conducted practice trials and comprehension checks.

Mobile-sensing surveys introduce a novel data collection approach for analyzing campus space utilization. By leveraging activity trajectory analysis [20], time window assessments [21], and emotion mapping [22], researchers can identify students’ spatial usage patterns and formulate optimization strategies. This approach enhances the quantitative analysis of campus space usage [23], broadening the scope and accuracy of data collection. This advancement supports robust associations between objective spatial environments and subjective emotional responses, providing a scientific basis for campus planning, design, and optimization strategies.

1.2. Campus Basic Theory

Emotional attachment theory, attentional load theory, and environmental psychology collectively the theoretical framework for this research. Emotional attachment theory emphasizes the emotional bonds that children establish with their environment, shaping how they perceive and interact in campus settings. Attentional load theory articulates links between space design and children’s behavioral health and examines how environmental complexity affects cognition and behavior from psychological and neuroscientific perspectives [24,25]. Environmental psychology investigates the interplay between individuals and their physical and social surroundings, focusing on how context shapes behavior, emotions, and cognition [26]. Given ongoing cognitive and neurological development, children are particularly sensitive to environmental stimuli. Overly complex conditions—such as crowding, harsh lighting, and loud noise—substantially increase cognitive and attentional load [27], leading to reduced attention spans and, at times, emotional disturbances [12].

Place attachment theory underscores the profound influence of place on behavior and emotional development [28]. Originally articulated by Williams et al. in 1989, the theory integrates concepts from psychology and geography, and posits that people form emotional and cognitive bonds with specific places [29]. It comprises two key components: place dependence and place identity [30]. Place dependence concerns functional reliance on a space to meet particular needs [31], whereas place identity refers to an emotional sense of belonging and identification with place [32].

Place attachment theory offers a critical perspective for examining children’s emotions and behaviors [33], as their emotional ties to school grounds directly shape their behavioral patterns [34]. By analyzing how children establish subjective emotional attachments to schools under the influence of objective physical factors—such as spatial elements, spatial colors, and spatial types [35]—researchers gain a theoretical basis for understanding the mechanisms through which the objective physical environment affects children’s emotional and behavioral responses. Attachment theory, attentional/cognitive load theory, and environmental psychology provide the study’s cognitive framework. In primary-school settings, maintaining a balance among “restoration-activation-control” is the central mandate of a mentally healthy campus. To translate children’s affect-behavior health into verifiable evidence, we (i) employ AI-based methods to obtain repeatable measurements of the objective physical environment, and (ii) use the PAD affect model together with children’s behavior maps to capture both subjective emotion and actual patterns of use. Linked through machine-learning analyses, these data identify dominant factors, heterogeneous effects, and potential thresholds, from which we propose actionable spatial optimization and color strategies.

1.3. Research on School Space in Primary Schools

The shapes, combinations, and proportions of design elements exert varying influences on children’s emotions and behaviors [36]. Survey evidence indicates that campus greenery is positively correlated with children’s well-being and perceived quality of life [37,38,39]. Moreover, design features such as desks, chairs, decorative fixtures, doors, windows, suspended ceilings, walls, and floors affect children’s stress and learning behaviors, contingent on the selected colors, materials, and coverage areas [40,41,42,43,44,45,46].

Studies of Canadian and European university campuses suggest that student well-being and satisfaction are associated with campus location, public art, and the availability of essential amenities [47,48]. Another study reported that adding cartoon decorations to indoor settings increased the duration and frequency of children’s attention and reduced anxiety about medical visits [49,50]. These findings imply that appropriate interior decorations [51] can help create a comfortable indoor environment and stimulate positive emotions in children.

Given the strong link between physical activity and overall health [52,53], sports field design plays a pivotal role in children’s development by providing spaces necessary for growth [54]. Informal outdoor areas enable creative activity [55] and facilitate physical and cognitive development through movement and play in natural settings [56,57].

Leveraging semantic segmentation in deep learning [58], this study categorizes campus spatial design elements [59] into two primary groups: indoor and outdoor [60]. The indoor category comprises nine sub-elements: tables and chairs, cabinets and furniture, floor coverings, ceilings, enclosing walls, doors and windows, facilities and decorations, interior landscaping, and building elevations. The outdoor category comprises eight sub-elements: floor coverings, road paths, playgrounds, building elevations, enclosing constructions, facility guiding systems, green landscaping, and sky view [61].

Color [62,63] and material [64] can significantly affect individuals’ mental state and perception [65]. Studies on color perception suggest that red or orange interiors typically evoke stronger positive affect than purple or blue interiors [66]. Lighter colors are perceived as friendlier, brighter, and more uplifting, making everyday activities feel easier and more enjoyable [67]. Similar color schemes may yield comparable benefits for children, enhancing positive moods and stimulating constructive cognitive activity. Experimental evidence indicates that altering interior materials has notable effects; for example, adding wooden components to learning spaces reduces fatigue, increases pleasure, and improves the capacity to refocus [68]. Thus, introducing additional wooden materials may improve learning environments for school students.

This study follows established indicators for color in architectural spaces [69] and their corresponding calculation methods [70], just as the indicators shown (

Table 1. Indicators of Spatial Color in Elementary School Campuses.

Target Layer	Guideline Layer	Factor Layer
Elementary school campus space	Color richness B1	Number of colors C1
		Primary color ratio C2
		Color Harmony Type C3
	Visual Impact B2	Hue Contrast C4
		Saturation Contrast C5
		Brightness Contrast C6
	Color Performance B3	Hue Index C7
		Saturation Index C8
		Brightness Index C9
		Color warmth and coolness C10

).

To quantitatively assess how children’s emotions are influenced by different spatial forms of campus environments [71], this study introduces the Pleasure-Arousal-Dominance (PAD) emotion model [72] to analyze emotional states along multiple dimensions. Drawing on Osgood’s research [73,74], emotional experiences are evaluated along three key dimensions: evaluation, potency, and activity [75]. building on this framework, Mehrabian and Russell proposed a three-dimensional model of emotional states [76]. These dimensions correspond to experiential needs in campus spaces: restoration, activation, and control [77,78,79].

By quantifying children’s emotional perceptions of campus space [80] through the PAD model, this study systematically evaluates the effects of primary school campus environments on children’s emotions [81,82]. Building on previous research, it categorizes children’s emotions into Arousal, Dominance, and Pleasure [83,84,85]. The study quantifies children’s emotional appraisal of different spatial scenarios using PAD scores and cross-validates these with the spatiotemporal usage patterns derived from behavior maps. This approach enables an examination of how primary-school campus spaces shape children’s emotions and behaviors, while testing for heterogeneity by gender and age. Continuing the three-stage framework of “emotion recognition-emotion processing-emotion expression,” emotions are represented along three dimensions—Pleasure, Arousal, and Dominance.

Children’s emotional needs vary across spatial types [86], shaping distinct patterns of behavior [87]. Campus public spaces, such as green spaces, corridors, and classroom areas, serve different emotional requirements and thus affect children’s behavior in diverse ways [88,89,90]. Therefore, differentiating these spaces is essential for precise quantitative analysis [91,92].

To systematically analyze how spatial environments influence on children’s emotional responses, this study categorizes campus spaces into two primary categories: internal and external.

Internal space comprises three functional zones:

(i)

Study areas: library, study classroom, art classroom, multifunctional classroom, and lecture hall.

(ii)

Living and leisure areas: restroom, cafeteria, atrium, auxiliary area.

(iii)

Activity areas: sports field, gallery space, planting garden, stairwell, and shared activity space.

(iv)

External spaces include building facades (inner courtyards, activity areas, athletic areas, elevated areas, outdoor character areas), enclosure components, utilities, exercise paths, and temporary features [93].

The innovations fall into two aspects: perspective and methodology.

(i)

Perspective: This study adopts a user-centered approach, emphasizing children’s emotional development and behavioral performance within the school environment. This perspective addresses the paucity of systematic research on elementary school campuses that explicitly considers children’s experiences [94]. By integrating spatial elements, spatial types, and color characteristics from the objective physical environment with students’ subjective emotional perceptions and behavioral patterns, the study constructs a comprehensive influence mechanism model [95]. This approach overcomes the limitations of prior studies that examined these factors in isolation.

(ii)

Methodology: The study employs deep learning and machine learning techniques [96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103] to establish relational models linking emotion and behavior. This approach provides empirical support and practical guidance for campus space design, enhancing the accuracy and applicability of the findings.

2. Methods

2.1. Date

This study examines Yuying Huizhan Primary School, Shazitang Primary School, and Bai Ruo Pu Guangming Primary School as case schools. These three public elementary schools in Changsha, Hunan Province, have strong educational resources and follow widely adopted, representative educational practices. Geographically, they are located in distinct areas of Changsha—Yuhua District, Changsha County, and Wangcheng District—thereby reflecting the city’s diversity in elementary education.

The study ran from 1 September 2024 to 20 January 2025, using both online and offline methods. A total of 390 students participated: 194 boys (49.74%) and 196 girls (50.26%). To ensure stable in emotional responses and reliable data, participants had to have lived in Changsha for ≥6 months and attended school for >3 months, ensuring familiarity with the school environment.

The research comprised three components: Affective questionnaire, Virtual simulation experiment, and behavior map monitoring. In total, 3850 comparative data sets were collected for the three affective indicators—pleasure, arousal, and dominance—yielding 11,550 pairwise comparisons. The questionnaire assessed how school spaces affect children’s emotions and behaviors by comparing and contrasting choices across the PAD dimensions. The survey used simplified language and visual contrast diagrams to enhance comprehension. Data were collected online and offline with assistance from teachers, principals, and volunteers.

2.2. Framework

This study investigates the mechanisms linking children’s emotions and behaviors with the objective built environment, integrating two dimensions: the objective built environment, which encompasses spatial elements, spatial types, and spatial colors, and subjective behavioral experiences, which pertain to children’s emotional responses and behavioral patterns. The research systematically examines three key aspects: how the objective built environment affects children’s on-campus emotions; correlations among spatial elements in the built environment; and superimposed analysis of built environment elements with children’s behaviors.

The study comprises four stages (Figure 1). First, during data collection, fixed-position indoor and outdoor cameras capture spatial information, and surveillance records plus photographic observations document behavioral data. Second, during data processing, color correction is performed via automatic white balance (AWB) in OpenCV, and deep learning semantic segmentation is used to extract spatial elements and compute spatial and color indices. Third, during quantification, children’s emotional and behavioral data are analyzed: choice-based emotional tendencies are mapped to the PAD dimensions, and quantified by recoding activity type, duration, and frequency in specific spaces through observation. Finally, based on the findings, targeted spatial strategies are developed to optimize spatial types, spatial elements, and spatial colors, and these are superimposed on behavior maps to provide practical design guidance for campus planning.

2.3. Methodology

(1)

Semantic segmentation based on deep learning

The study employs the Segment Anything Model (SAM) to perform semantic segmentation on real-world campus imagery, automatically identifying indoor and outdoor spatial elements. In artificial intelligence, the Segment Anything Model (SAM) is a major segmentation, exhibiting strong adaptability across diverse tasks. Built on Transformer-based architecture, SAM achieves pixel-level segmentation using a large-scale training corpus (Figure 2).

In this study, SAM enables fine-grained segmentation of spatial elements by accurately identifying components such as interior spaces, home decorations, and window assemblies. Its standardized segmentation performance ensures consistency across images, making it well suited to processing large-scale building image datasets.

(2)

Machine Learning-Based Modeling of Influence Mechanisms

Random forest regression was used to model, separately, the effects of spatial elements, typologies, and color on the three PAD dimensions. This approach accommodates nonlinearity and interactions, while providing feature importance and response profiles to identify key factors and threshold ranges. The random forest model demonstrated strong performance and high predictive accuracy in both training and prediction phases. The Random Forest Regression (RFR) is used to learn a predictive mapping that links objective physical environment to children’s subjective emotions in primary school campuses. This approach seeks to uncover relationships among spatial elements, spatial types, and color characteristics and children’s emotional responses.

In this study, spatial elements and color characteristics, extracted via semantic segmentation serve as independent variables, whereas the three PAD dimensions serve as dependent variables to construct a spatial-emotional model for elementary school campuses. To enhance stability, hyperparameter optimization are optimized and k-fold cross-validation is conducted to improve out-of-sample generalization. Results indicate that the RFR achieves strong performance for modeling and predicting of children’s emotional responses.

(3)

Behavioral map observation based on video images

Behavior maps were constructed using video footage and systematic time-interval sampling to identify spatial-use patterns—including time, location, participants, frequency, and duration—which were cross-validated against the PAD results.

This study analyzed children’s behaviors during the first two weeks of November 2024 using video recordings to conduct behavioral map observations. Recording sessions were scheduled during stable, sunny periods to minimize temperature fluctuations. Observations spanned seven consecutive days and focused on elementary school recess periods; typical spatial locations were selected for analysis. Behaviors lasting ≥3 s were recorded [12], and repeated behaviors separated by ≥30 s were classified as new to ensure methodological rigor.

To enhance accuracy, the study used timed sampling with 10-min sessions. Manual recording and video playback analysis were used to compile detailed statistics on behavior types and frequencies [11]. To reduce stochastic variation, each space was observed across 10 consecutive intervals, and results from multiple recordings were averaged to improve stability and representativeness.

Observers were assigned to each site to record children’s outdoor activities, including participant gender, activity duration, and stay points. Additionally, fixed cameras were installed at observation sites to assist behavioral recording and ensure comprehensive data capture.

The final mean count of recorded behaviors was 884, with 412 behaviors occurring in external spaces and 472 in internal spaces. These data (

Table 2. Composition of types of children’s campus indoor and outdoor space behaviors.

		Static Behavior		Dynamic Behavior		Individual Behavior		Group Behavior		Total
		Total	Percentage	Total	Percentage	Total	Percentage	Total	Percentage
Outside space		173	41%	239	51%	203	49%	209	44%	412
Internal space	Learning Zone	123	29%	36	8%	70	17%	89	19%	159
	Recreational areas	33	8%	64	14%	31	8%	66	14%	97
	Active Area	90	21%	126	27%	108	26%	108	23%	216
Total		419		465		412		472		884

) reveal the spatial distributions of children’s behaviors and provide empirical support for understanding how elementary school campus space influence students’ emotions and behaviors.

3. Results

3.1. Influence of Spatial Elements on Children’s Emotions

Children’s emotional responses vary markedly across indoor and outdoor spatial elements (Figure 3).

Arousal is strengthened most by targeted spatial interventions and broader sightlines; indoors, cabinets and floor finishes exert strong effects, with ceilings and seating also contributing, underscoring the cumulative role of interior detailing. By contrast, outdoor elements such as sky and greenery show weaker arousal, likely due to their indirect engagement and field-of-view/distance constraints.

Dominance increases with definition and visibility cues: seating ranks first (24.10%), and doors/windows also contribute, indicating that furniture configuration and openings enhance children’s perceived control and spatial belonging, whereas wayfinding systems play a secondary role.

Pleasantness is driven primarily by indoor elements; ceilings have the largest effect (21.20%), followed by enclosing walls and seating, suggesting that large-scale interior components more strongly shape a warm, pleasant atmosphere. Outdoor paths and sports fields display diffuse, non-dominant effects.

It is evident that elementary school campus building space design should adhere to three key principles:

(i)

Prioritize high-impact elements: Treat components that influence multiple emotional dimensions as primary design targets.

(ii)

Layer functions of spatial elements: Because elements contribute differently to emotional responses, define their functional hierarchy and coordinate design according to their roles within each dimension.

(iii)

Integrated across factors: No single element can meet children’s emotional needs; therefore, employ multi-factor, synergistic strategies to optimize the overall emotional experience.

3.2. Influence of Space Type on Children’s Emotions

Children’s emotions vary by campus spatial type (

Table 3. Distribution of children’s emotions in different elementary school campus spaces.

	Distribution of Space
Arousal
Dominance
Pleasure

).

Interior study spaces show low arousal and pleasure with polarized dominance, indicating monotony and insufficient stimuli for engagement and emotional diversity.

Leisure and living areas also skew toward lower emotional levels, reflecting simple layouts that limit expressive behavior and social interaction, thereby weakening emotional participation.

Activity areas exhibit a bimodal distribution (both high and low), but with notably higher pleasantness, suggesting designs that prioritize interaction and flexibility, which support emotional well-being despite some residual spatial constraints.

The study’s findings focus on the PAD arousal dimension rather than overall affect: data show that external natural elements (sky view, distant greenery) are associated with lower arousal but not lower pleasure, which aligns with restorative theories in environmental psychology—these theories hold that nature tends to calm rather than excite people. In outdoor spaces, arousal and pleasure remain low while dominance is strongly polarized, implying that current configurations do not effectively elicit participation or interest.

The dominance polarization further signals limited autonomy and control, likely arising from irrational layouts, inappropriate color use, and excessive fixed or overly enclosed elements that reduce flexibility.

Overall, external spatial elements and color schemes in the surveyed Changsha schools are insufficiently stimulating, underscoring the need for targeted improvements to align campus design with children’s emotional and psychological needs.

3.3. Influence of Spatial Color on Children’s Emotions

(1)

Gender-Based Characteristics of Children’s Emotional Responses

Color indicators affect the three emotional dimensions differently for girls and boys (Figure 4).

For arousal, girls are more sensitive to saturation (C8) and hue contrast (C4), whereas boys respond more to luminance/brightness contrast (C6); color warmth–coolness exerts little influence on boys’ arousal.

On the arousal dimension, for girls, hue contrast (C4), hue index (C7), and luminance (C9) show stronger effects, indicating that primary hue choices and overall luminance shape perceived control. Boys show a marked preference for luminance (C9) and a more even response across indices, suggesting broader tolerance to color variations when establishing control.

For pleasantness, girls show heightened sensitivity to hue (C7), luminance contrast (C6), and hue contrast (C4), implying that soft, layered color schemes most effectively enhance pleasantness. Boys’ pleasantness is influenced by C4, C6, C5 (saturation contrast), and, to a lesser extent, C7 and C8, indicating benefits from vivid, well-defined tonal atmospheres.

Warm–cool tendency contributes to ambience but has weak, non-specific effects on discrete emotional expressions for both genders.

Tailor interior color strategies by gendered sensitivity profiles—emphasizing hue layering and saturation for girls, and luminance/contrast and vivid tonal structure for boys—while de-emphasizing warmth–coolness as a primary lever for specific emotions.

(2)

Children’s Emotional Characteristics by Age

Figure 5 contrasts color–emotion associations across ages 7–8, 9–10, and 11–12.

Children aged 7–8 show immediate, high-arousal responses driven by color expressiveness (B3) and brightness index (C9), amplified by dominant-color count (C1) and ratio (C2); this rapid engagement likely elevates attentional load and may impede restoration. Dominance is comparatively stable and shaped by visual impact (B2), while pleasantness tracks hue, saturation, and brightness contrasts (C4–C6).

Among 9–10-year-olds, responses diversify: arousal becomes more sensitive to Brightness Index (C9) and saturation (C8), whereas the effects of C1, C2, and C6 weaken relative to ages 7–8; pleasantness increasingly reflects atmospheric qualities captured by B2 and B3 and benefits from richer combinations rather than greater quantity.

By ages 11–12, patterns appear more mature: arousal is driven by primary color ratio (C2), hue contrast (C4), and luminance contrast (C6), and the influence of color richness (B1) strengthens, indicating more sophisticated appraisal that balances aesthetics with comfort.

Overall, with age the role of color shifts from provoking immediate stimulation to supporting multidimensional appraisal, regulation, and self-adaptation at the level of spatial atmosphere and function.

3.4. Correlation Between Spatial Elements and Spatial Color

A Pearson correlation analysis was conducted to examine the relationship between internal and external spatial elements and color indicators in primary school campuses (

Table 4. Correlation between color indicators and spatial elements.

	Number of Colors C1	Main Color Proportion C2	Color Harmony Type C3	Hue Contrast C4	Saturation Contrast C5	Luminance Contrast C6	Hue Index C7	Saturation Index C8	Brightness Index C9	Color Warmth and Coolness C10
Table and chair appliance	0.164 (0.000 ***)	−0.035 (0.002 ***)	−0.049 (0.000 ***)	−0.233 (0.000 ***)	−0.021 (0.071 *)	−0.08 (0.000 ***)	−0.238 (0.000 ***)	−0.056 (0.000 ***)	0.219 (0.000 ***)	−0.077 (0.000 ***)
Cabinet furniture	−0.128 (0.000 ***)	−0.075 (0.000 ***)	0.039 (0.001 ***)	−0.115 (0.000 ***)	−0.046 (0.000 ***)	−0.178 (0.000 ***)	−0.186 (0.000 ***)	0.207 (0.000 ***)	0.258 (0.000 ***)	0.244 (0.000 ***)
Floor paving	−0.264 (0.000 ***)	−0.125 (0.000 ***)	−0.414 (0.000 ***)	−0.286 (0.000 ***)	−0.366 (0.000 ***)	−0.227 (0.000 ***)	−0.407 (0.000 ***)	−0.385 (0.000 ***)	0.04 (0.000 ***)	0.106 (0.000 ***)
ceiling	−0.02 (0.080 *)	0.344 (0.000 ***)	−0.177 (0.000 ***)	−0.248 (0.000 ***)	−0.192 (0.000 ***)	−0.072 (0.000 ***)	−0.293 (0.000 ***)	−0.234 (0.000 ***)	−0.019 (0.100 *)	0.119 (0.000 ***)
Enclose the wall elevation	−0.122 (0.000 ***)	−0.119 (0.000 ***)	−0.419 (0.000 ***)	−0.377 (0.000 ***)	−0.14 (0.000 ***)	−0.258 (0.000 ***)	−0.449 (0.000 ***)	−0.051 (0.000 ***)	0.261 (0.000 ***)	0.018 (0.114)
Door and window construction	−0.201 (0.000 ***)	−0.02 (0.076 *)	−0.338 (0.000 ***)	−0.239 (0.000 ***)	−0.271 (0.000 ***)	−0.203 (0.000 ***)	−0.297 (0.000 ***)	−0.228 (0.000 ***)	0.179 (0.000 ***)	0.025 (0.027 **)
Facilities and decor	−0.017 (0.141)	0.318 (0.000 ***)	−0.052 (0.000 ***)	−0.209 (0.000 ***)	0.149 (0.000 ***)	0.122 (0.000 ***)	−0.225 (0.000 ***)	0.362 (0.000 ***)	0.011 (0.334)	0.306 (0.000 ***)
Indoor greening	0.524 (0.000 ***)	0.167 (0.000 ***)	0.324 (0.000 ***)	−0.079 (0.000 ***)	0.463 (0.000 ***)	−0.025 (0.025 **)	0.061 (0.000 ***)	−0.002 (0.891)	0.091 (0.000 ***)	0.064 (0.000 ***)
Building elevation	−0.09 (0.000 ***)	0.091 (0.000 ***)	0.009 (0.426)	−0.016 (0.157)	0.005 (0.661)	−0.12 (0.000 ***)	−0.003 (0.784)	−0.054 (0.000 ***)	0.038 (0.001 ***)	0.204 (0.000 ***)
Floor paving	−0.12 (0.000 ***)	−0.145 (0.000 ***)	0.253 (0.000 ***)	0.166 (0.000 ***)	0.208 (0.000 ***)	0.08 (0.000 ***)	0.168 (0.000 ***)	−0.023 (0.041 **)	−0.046 (0.000 ***)	0.047 (0.000 ***)
Road path	0.133 (0.000 ***)	0.112 (0.000 ***)	0.255 (0.000 ***)	0.11 (0.000 ***)	−0.066 (0.000 ***)	0.025 (0.030 **)	0.49 (0.000 ***)	−0.081 (0.000 ***)	−0.24 (0.000 ***)	−0.17 (0.000 ***)
playground	0.049 (0.000 ***)	−0.129 (0.000 ***)	0.218 (0.000 ***)	0.237 (0.000 ***)	0.32 (0.000 ***)	0.026 (0.023 **)	0.169 (0.000 ***)	0.011 (0.336)	−0.094 (0.000 ***)	0.025 (0.026 **)
Building elevation	0.34 (0.000 ***)	0.094 (0.000 ***)	−0.025 (0.031 **)	0.29 (0.000 ***)	0.063 (0.000 ***)	0.407 (0.000 ***)	0.311 (0.000 ***)	0.085 (0.000 ***)	−0.115 (0.000 ***)	−0.27 (0.000 ***)
Enclosure construction	−0.084 (0.000 ***)	−0.165 (0.000 ***)	0.362 (0.000 ***)	0.357 (0.000 ***)	0.063 (0.000 ***)	−0.033 (0.003 ***)	0.406 (0.000 ***)	−0.005 (0.664)	−0.188 (0.000 ***)	−0.037 (0.001 ***)
Facilities guide system	−0.019 (0.102)	−0.083 (0.000 ***)	−0.132 (0.000 ***)	0.075 (0.000 ***)	−0.028 (0.013 **)	0.511 (0.000 ***)	0.051 (0.000 ***)	0.058 (0.000 ***)	0.046 (0.000 ***)	−0.148 (0.000 ***)
Green landscape	−0.05 (0.000 ***)	−0.08 (0.000 ***)	0.301 (0.000 ***)	0.334 (0.000 ***)	−0.062 (0.000 ***)	0.296 (0.000 ***)	0.523 (0.000 ***)	0.058 (0.000 ***)	−0.267 (0.000 ***)	−0.289 (0.000 ***)
Sky view	0.158 (0.000 ***)	−0.074 (0.000 ***)	0.523 (0.000 ***)	0.566 (0.000 ***)	0.329 (0.000 ***)	0.196 (0.000 ***)	0.49 (0.000 ***)	0.006 (0.600)	−0.087 (0.000 ***)	−0.225 (0.000 ***)

Note: ***, **, * represent 1%, 5%, and 10% significance levels, respectively.

). This section is only used as an exploratory descriptive screening for the study’s variable selection, and the study’s claims do not rely on p-values. This study examines nine internal spatial elements, including tables and chairs, cabinet furniture, floor pavement, ceiling, enclosed wall facade, door and window construction, facilities and decoration, indoor greening, and building facade, as well as eight external spatial elements, including ground pavement, road path, sports field, building facade, enclosure construction, facility guide system, green landscape, and sky vision, in relation to ten color indicators. The findings indicate that spatial color influences children’s visual perception and directly shapes their emotional responses.

Hierarchical adaptation of color complexity to children’s emotional needs is evident in how specific spatial elements interact with color attributes. Tables and chairs show significant negative correlations with hue contrast C4 and brightness contrast C6, suggesting that low-contrast color schemes attenuate visual stimulation, thereby creating a calmer and more stable atmosphere. Cabinet furniture shows positive correlations with the saturation index C8 and brightness index C9, suggesting that its color design enhances visual richness and improves color differentiation within the space.

The identification of spatial elements and their role in defining emotional needs can be interpreted through place attachment theory, which emphasizes the connection between spatial recognizability and children’s emotional attachment. Doors and windows show significant negative correlations with color quantity C1, color harmony type C3, and brightness contrast C6, and a positive correlation with color warmth C10. These findings suggest that warmer color schemes in doors and windows contribute to a more inviting and comfortable spatial atmosphere. However, current color applications for doors and windows remain monotonous and insufficiently consider how different colors influence children’s spatial perception. Reduced color diversity weakens visual guidance by doors and windows, whereas color contrast diminishes spatial layering, making the environment appear dull and less engaging. Balancing minimalist design, spatial recognizability, and functional definition remains essential for optimizing current school spaces.

The systematic coupling of color attributes with emotional dimensions underscores the importance of brightness and saturation in children’s emotional responses. An increase in the brightness index C9 was associated with significantly higher pleasantness, reinforcing a strong association between brightness and emotional experience. According to environmental psychology and behavioral research, bright hues can enhance positive emotions, whereas excessive brightness may include inattention and visual fatigue in some children. Therefore, efforts to improve spatial pleasantness should also mitigate potential adverse effects of excessive brightness to support emotional stability. Future research should further investigate strategies for balancing color intensity to optimize emotional engagement and environmental comfort for children.

3.5. Overlay Analysis of Children’s Behavioral Maps

(1)

Campus external space

Using aligned overlays of behavior maps, activity modes/frequencies, and the proportional composition of spatial elements for each setting (

Table 5. Behavior Map of Children’s Campus Exterior Building Space.

Space		Behavioral Mapping	Activity Frequency/Spatial Elements
Building facade	Inner court area
	Motor area
	Activity area
	Overhead area
	Outdoor characteristics district
Enclosed member
Motion path
Public sports facilities
Unsteady embellishment

), we identify latent associations among children’s activity types, spatial behavior patterns, spatial elements, and color features in outdoor campus areas.

Sports zones and public activity spaces show high rates of sport and group interaction, where sky view, greenery, and ground paving predominate. Overhead and outdoor feature areas are characterized by observation, strolling, and small-group socializing, with architectural façades and sports grounds forming the principal elements. These patterns indicate that functional orientation and environmental quality directly shape behavioral choices and participation: open sightlines and sports facilities promote physical and social activity, whereas richer landscapes and sheltered spaces foster close interaction and individualized use.

Across settings, seating/furniture, floor paving, and enclosing components significantly influence both activity type and behavioral intensity. Inner courtyards with strong enclosure encourage focused play, quiet rest, and brief retreats; in sports areas and along sports paths, pavement quality correlates with the occurrence and frequency of sport. Conversely, in overhead zones and some public spaces, insufficient public facilities and decorative elements constrain opportunities for outdoor learning and exploration.

In the behavior map, children’s behavior symbols are represented as follows:

Sitting and resting:

Observing and waiting:

Reading alone:

Walking with companions:

Playing games:

Spectating (onlookers):

Discussing with teachers:

Reading with peers:

Sports activities:

(2)

Campus internal learning space

By superimposing behavior maps from libraries, learning classrooms, and multifunctional rooms, we find that children’s behavioral patterns in internal learning spaces are tightly linked to spatial elements and color configurations (

Table 6. Spatial Behavior Map of Learning Area in Children’s Campus Building.

Space		Behavioral Maps	Activity Frequency/Spatial Features
Learning area	Library
	Study classroom
	Multifunctional classroom
	Lecture hall

).

Libraries and multifunctional rooms exhibit high shares of quiet behaviors—reading, discussion in low voices, resting, quiet reflection, and observation—dispersed across discrete zones. This pattern suggests that comfortable, low-noise layouts with clear visual foci foster immersive learning; these spaces typically feature high-quality seating/furniture and acoustic tile ceilings that enhance both function and aesthetics. In learning classrooms, discussion and interactive behaviors concentrate in central areas or around group seating, indicating that flexible desk–chair arrangements support teacher–student communication and collaborative learning.

Linking spatial elements to emotion, floor finishes and ceiling systems coincide with hotspots for reading and discussion, implying that soft palettes or localized accents can improve comfort and concentration. Moreover, moderate transparency or strategic partitioning in walls and windows supports differentiated emotional needs across learning activities. Finally, peer walking and game breaks are infrequent within learning spaces, indicating a lack of designated relaxation zones and a corresponding gap in meeting diverse emotional needs during breaks.

(3)

Living and leisure space inside campus

A superposition analysis of behavior maps for living and leisure areas (

Table 7. Spatial Behavior Map of Living and Leisure Areas inside Children’s Campus Buildings.

Behavioral Map		Behavior Map	Activity Frequency	Spatial Elements
Leisure area	Restrooms
	Cafeteria
	Atrium space

) shows three high-frequency patterns: short stays, social interaction, and walking/observation.

Toilets and adjacent zones function primarily as transit spaces with minimal dwelling or conversation, indicating fulfillment of physiological needs but limited psychological comfort; color palettes are monotonous, and although privacy, ventilation, and lighting meet basic requirements, emotional support is underprovided.

The canteen, dominated by enclosing façades and floor finishes, supports seated resting and peer conversation, effectively facilitating group dining and socialization but offering insufficient provision for quiet individual activities, small games, or reading.

By contrast, the atrium, with its open layout and high permeability, elicits exploratory and interactive behaviors (walking with peers, informal play), reflecting strong environmental stimulation and elevated movement-based and social activity.

Across living and leisure settings, watching, solitary reading, and other individualized uses remain scarce, suggesting a need for designated quiet/independent zones and richer, child-oriented color and detail strategies to broaden emotional engagement.

(4)

Internal Activity Spaces

Overlaying behavior maps for five indoor activity settings—plantation, sports field, corridor, stairwell, and shared activity space (

Table 8. Spatial Behavior Map of Activity Areas in Children’s Campus Buildings.

Behavioral Map		Behavior Map	Activity Frequency/Spatial Elements
Activity area	Plantation
	Playground
	Corridor space
	Stairwells
	Shared Activity Space

)—shows that these environments stimulate curiosity and social interaction but also demand strong cues for safety and spatial legibility.

The sports field yields the highest rates of leisure sport and peer play, indicating that open, dynamic layouts promote fitness and cooperation. The plantation encourages observation and hands-on planting, but affords limited in-depth teacher–student interaction, suggesting scope for instructional features within nature-based areas. Corridors and stairwells, as semi-open and vertical circulation zones, support strolling, observing, and brief play; elongated corridors with appropriate color, floor markings, and wayfinding enhance interest and exploration, whereas poor permeability and guidance shorten dwell time. Given their role in movement, these zones also require improved visibility, elimination of blind spots, and other safety measures. The shared activity space accommodates discussion, play, solitary reading, and relaxation/exercise, demonstrating the value of flexible layouts and adaptable furniture; however, high traffic necessitates carefully planned circulation routes and clearer spatial markers. Monotonous color schemes and weak color-based zoning reduce functional clarity and can trigger behavioral overlap, limiting exploratory and social engagement.

4. Discussion

4.1. Recommendations from Spatial Elements

Different spatial elements play multidimensional roles in children’s emotional experiences, influencing the three key emotional dimensions in distinct ways. Accordingly, we advocate enhancing the target affective dimensions while controlling extraneous load, thereby avoiding the dual risks of “overstimulation” and “understimulation.”

(1)

Affective calibration and load management of key spatial elements.

In early design, priority should be given to spatial elements that effectively elevate emotional arousal, consistent with attentional load theory and environmental psycho-behavioral theory. Emphasis should be placed on cabinetry and floor finishes, using color contrasts and salient visual focal points to help children engage quickly without undue attentional load.

To foster dominance and belonging, defining elements such as tables, chairs, doors, and windows should be prioritized. These features reinforce spatial legibility and security, mitigating cognitive fatigue associated with environmental disorganization. Well-structured layouts enhance children’s emotional stability and support an engaging learning environment.

(2)

Functional stratification and coordinated configuration of spatial elements.

Different spatial elements play distinct roles in children’s emotional experiences and cognitive load management. In overall design, indoor and outdoor components should be layered and integrated according to their functions. Indoors, ceilings, walls, and furniture can form an emotionally stimulating subsystem, whereas outdoor spaces should function as an auxiliary system characterized by openness and landscape coherence. Cohesive integration of color, material, and form is essential to harmonize these subsystems and to prevent unintended overload of children’s cognitive resources from overstimulating individual elements. The goal is to establish a dynamic equilibrium between emotional engagement and cognitive stability.

Additionally, modular design can accommodate children’s diverse needs while avoiding attentional instability and emotional exhaustion caused by excessive layering of spatial elements. This approach keeps the built environment adaptive and stimulating without overwhelming children’s cognitive capacities. Introduce micro-restoration units at locations prone to sustained cognitive load to mitigate fatigue accumulation. Use modular construction to enable rapid reconfiguration across grades and time periods, providing differentiated affective support without increasing environmental complexity.

(3)

Adopting a Comprehensive Strategy of Multi-Scale and Multi-Scene Design

A balanced spatial strategy should serve both focused learning and restorative areas, enabling seamless transitions between concentration and recovery. Consistent with attentional load theory and environmental psychology, classrooms should incorporate soft color palettes, localized accents, and designated microl-rest areas. These features help maintain attention while enabling rapid state shifts, thereby reducing cognitive fatigue from prolonged high-load tasks.

In activity areas, design should accommodate locomotor play and social interactions. Clear circulation zoning, salient wayfinding cues, and dynamic spatial markers can guide children toward diverse physical and social engagements. This approach helps children maintain optimal attentional load while sustaining appropriate arousal, fostering active participation and well-regulated affect.

4.2. Suggestions from Space Type

According to developmental and behavioral psychology, children’s emotional needs and behavioral patterns across developmental stages are closely linked to the functional organization of their environments. During elementary school years (ages 6 to 12), children accumulate experiences, consolidate self-awareness, and increasingly differentiate attributes and affective cues across campus spaces.

(1)

Learning zones: coordinating sustained focus and controllability

The primary goal of learning zones is to sustain stable concentration alongside a sense of control. From a cognitive-load perspective, extraneous stimuli should be minimized to prevent inefficient use of attentional resources. From environmental psychology, predictable interface rhythms and a consistent cue system reduce uncertainty and anxiety. Accordingly, low-saturation, low-contrast palettes with a controlled number of color categories are recommended to keep visual information “necessary and sufficient,” thereby suppressing extraneous load.

In terms of Dominance, variation in learning zones often stems from differences in children’s control over personal territory. Clarifying individual boundaries and operational cues enhances place control and self-management, strengthening positive attachment. Micro-restoration nodes embedded at corridor ends and corners can interrupt sustained cognitive load through attentional recovery, supporting emotional reset between classes and mitigating exhaustion and attachment erosion associated with prolonged study.

(2)

Leisure and living zones: social activation with low-load pleasure

Leisure zones aim to support peer interaction through low-load pleasurable experiences. Based on cognitive-load theory, compositions should combine focal high-salience points with low-salience backgrounds: localized theme corners and participatory installations provide attraction and organizational structure, while background surfaces remain subdued to avoid over-arousal. Environmental psychology highlights the role of affordances in initiating social behavior: components that are sit-able, reliable, and manipulable offer clear scripts for interaction, lowering barriers to engagement, fostering positive peer experiences, and accumulating place-based emotional attachment.

(3)

Activity zones: order and safety within high arousal

Activity zones are inherently high-arousal settings and therefore require ordering cues to prevent overload and conflict. A triadic system of circulation-zoning-signage should be established: clear pathways link subzones of varying intensity and function, supported by hierarchical functional colors/symbols to reduce aimless traversing and mutual interference. This ensures that high arousal does not devolve into cognitive congestion or negative effects. To address time-specific crowding, incorporate adjustable boundaries—such as soft partitions and mobile elements—as safety buffers and flow-management tools. Predictable control over rhythm and boundaries strengthens children’s sense of dominance and situational safety, enabling high-arousal experiences to coexist with positive attachment.

(4)

Outdoor spaces: enhancing participation and perceived controllability

Outdoor spaces often present higher participation thresholds and fewer controllability cues. Environmental psychology suggests lowering entry barriers through behavioral gradients: along continuous paths, provide nodes for pausing, playing, and observing so that “passing by” naturally transitions into participation. Regarding scale and enclosure, avoid overly hard or closed forms; use visible edges and soft delineation to create legible, safe boundaries without suppressing exploration. This supports a positive experiential pathway that is visible, approachable, and controllable. As cycles of lingering, interaction, and revisiting become established, positive emotional memories consolidate at specific nodes, gradually strengthening children’s attachment to outdoor areas and increasing perceived dominance.

For instance, a transitional zone between study and leisure areas enables gradual emotional shifts; soft color palettes and calming accents facilitate psychological adjustment. Similarly, in activity areas, distinct color boundaries and furniture configurations help maintain functional independence, establishing a well-defined, layered, and complementary spatial hierarchy. Systematic zoning supports children’s emotional stability, cognitive focus, and social engagement, fostering a holistic, enriching campus environment.

4.3. Suggestions from Space Color

Spatial color and spatial elements do not operate independently in shaping children’s emotional and behavioral patterns; instead, they interact across multiple dimensions to form a complementary, tightly coupled system. Therefore, their integration should be addressed systematically in overall design to enhance cognitive and emotional engagement.

(1)

Matching Space Function with Color Characteristics

The match between space functions and color characteristics should reflect each space’ attributes to determine an appropriate color index scheme. To stimulate vitality and encourage social interaction, color contrast can be increased to promote active participation and group engagement. Conversely, in immersive areas, low saturation and soft contrast should be used to minimize visual noise and enhance concentration. Additionally, research in developmental and environmental psychology indicates that zoning should account for age and gender related differences. In lower-grade teaching areas and public corridors, more salient colors can capture attention, whereas in upper-grade spaces, contrast should be moderately reduced and layered palettes introduced to balance functional demands with emotional regulation and aesthetic quality.

(2)

Coupling Spatial Elements with Color Design

Coupling spatial elements with color should prioritize components that strongly affect children’s emotions while aligning with age-specific spatial and color preferences of achieve joint optimization of function and emotion. For instance, tables and chairs influence children’s sense of dominance and emotional stability; therefore, high-lightness moderately saturated colors can create a lively but non-overstimulating atmosphere. Additionally, large-scale elements such as ceilings play a critical role in emotional stimulation. Accordingly, incorporating attentional load theory, spatial emotional demands, and children’s behavioral characteristics can guide color zoning and patterning, ensuring that visual focal points are placed effectively within decorative elements. Effective integration of spatial elements and color indices enhances the practical application of campus design and supports long-term visual adaptation and balance, fostering an environment that sustains children’s emotional and cognitive well-being.

4.4. Suggestions from the Behavior Map

The behavior map offers critical insights into children’s activity patterns and emotional responses across functional areas, enabling targeted spatial optimization to address their diverse physical and psychological needs. Children’s interactions with the built environment are shaped not only by the allocation of spatial elements, color coordination, and functional cohesion, but also by place attachment to the campus. Strengthening this attachment through design can enhance children’s sense of belonging and active engagement, fostering a supportive, enriching school environment.

(1)

Emotive renewal of high-frequency nodes.

In social hubs such as cafeterias and atria, use moderate color temperatures and a restrained palette to reduce extraneous load, and provide sit-able, reliable, and participatory installations with unobtrusive wayfinding to establish clear social affordances. In restrooms, employ bright directional cues and soft décor to lessen avoidance. Meanwhile, organize “pause-and-restart” paths along the main circulation spine: embed “micro-narrative nodes”—including graphic markers, small themed corners, and micro-greening lean-points—to support brief restoration and orientation. These interventions convert repetitive passage into positive memory and place attachment, while concurrently elevating Pleasure and Dominance.

(2)

Enhancing Functional Layers and Decorative Elements in Living and Leisure Spaces

To optimize the functional structure and aesthetic quality of living and leisure areas, fostering an engaging social emotional atmosphere in high-traffic spaces such as canteens and atriums is essential. This can be achieved through playful interventions and strategically placed color accents that encourage peer interaction and social bonding. Additionally, warm lighting schemes and dynamic accents should be integrated into basic functional spaces to provide physiological comfort and emotional security. Consistent with place attachment theory, outdoor emotional engagement should be reinforced via multifunctional activity installations and nature-based experience zones, enabling children to develop positive emotional associations with the campus. Through repeated exposure and interaction, children gradually cultivate deeper attachment and long-term emotional connection to their school surroundings.

(3)

Strengthening Spatial Flexibility and Visual Guidance in Activity Areas

To improve spatial adaptability and wayfinding in activity areas, a flexible, responsive design strategy should be prioritized to support children’s engagement in sports, exploratory play, and group interactions. Legibility and emotional resonance can be enhanced by strategic wayfinding systems, including clear signage, spatial markers, and color-coded elements in corridors, stairwells, and shared activity zones. Adopt a hierarchical signage system—Level 1: Direction, Level 2: Function, and Level 3: Detail—to ensure progressive legibility and mitigate negative affect arising from disorientation and congestion. This multisensory guidance, integrating visual, cognitive, and emotional stimuli, fosters positive place attachment and reinforces the campus long-term educational and developmental role in the children’s holistic growth.

5. Conclusions

The study investigates the mechanisms linking the objective physical environment of elementary school campuses with children’s subjective emotional experiences and behavioral patterns, using deep learning and machine learning methods. We conducted a systematic analysis to examine how spatial elements, spatial types, and spatial colors shape children’s emotional development and behavioral responses. By overlaying findings with behavioral maps, the study examines how school environments meet children’s emotional and behavioral needs, and identifies disparities and opportunities for improvement.

The findings are organized across four levels.

Element level. Large-scale interior elements exert a more direct influence on Pleasure and Arousal, while defining elements such as doors and windows more strongly enhance Dominance. A layered optimization strategy—define-engage-control—is recommended to foreground operable, participatory interfaces and facilities.

Type level. Learning zones tend to show low stimulation and low emotional arousal. Activity and living zones can elicit positive emotions when they are semi-enclosed and allow adjustable intensity. External spaces show clear deficits in participatory potential and perceived control. We recommend refined affective zoning: create focused learning scenes with low saturation, low contrast, and predictable rhythms, and strengthen participation and controllability in external spaces.

Color level. There are gender- and age-related differences. Girls are more sensitive to hue and saturation, while boys are more sensitive to lightness and contrast. With age, preferences shift from high-stimulus palettes to multi-layered, composite needs. A grade and gender responsive scheme is advised, following function first, clear hierarchy, and moderate contrast.

Behavioral integration. Behavior maps indicate that linking external nature with internal transitional spaces, and organizing nodes along the sequence path-pause-re-engage, improves behavioral flexibility and emotional recovery. We recommend implementing this spatial continuity in parallel with the element, type, and color strategies.

This study has several limitations. The sample was drawn from three primary schools in Changsha, and data collection was concentrated in a single stable-weather week in November, which constrains external validity. Future research should conduct longitudinal surveys across multiple cities and climate zones, spanning seasons and times of day; integrate sensor-based data with behavior tracking; and iteratively validate findings through real-world retrofits and post-occupancy evaluation to enhance generalizability and transferability.