Undergraduates’ Campus Space Satisfaction and Sense of Belonging in China: From Exploratory Correlation Analysis to Design of Educational Environment

Abstract

In university campus design, the relationship between spatial elements and students’ sense of belonging has attracted growing interest. However, existing research tends to examine isolated space types rather than the integrated psychological experience of the campus as a whole. To holistically understand how campus space influences belonging, it is essential to investigate how—and to what extent—campus spatial satisfaction shapes students’ sense of belonging. The prevalent semi-enclosed management model of most Chinese university campuses offers a distinct context for examining how satisfaction with functional spaces affects this sense of belonging. This study investigates the relationship between students’ satisfaction with functional spaces and their sense of campus belonging through a multidimensional evaluation framework and comparative quantitative analysis. The findings demonstrate that (1) campus belonging is influenced not by the simple accumulation of satisfaction with individual space types but by four underlying behavioral dimensions—diversity of extended activities, residential comfort, learning convenience, and transportation comfort—which collectively explain approximately 50% of the variance in belonging; (2) the overall campus spatial layout significantly moderates the satisfaction–belonging relationship, with integrated residential-activity configurations promoting spontaneous use and strengthening belonging; and (3) among personal attributes, behavioral factors such as internet usage and physical activity patterns exhibit stronger effects than demographic variables. These results highlight the importance of a holistic, behavior-oriented approach to campus planning to enhance students’ psychological adaptation and sense of belonging.

1. Introduction

As China’s higher education enters the stage of massification, the psychological well-being and campus adaptation of college students have become issues of growing concern. According to the National Mental Health Development Report (2023–2024) released by the Institute of Psychology of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, mental health problems among Chinese college students aged 15–26 are prominent, with nearly half at risk for anxiety and over 20% at risk for depression [1]. In response, a growing body of research has begun to explore the relationship between the university campus environment and students’ mental health [2,3]. This focus is particularly relevant in the Chinese context, where most higher education institutions adopt a semi-closed or fully closed management model—a distinctive feature that sets them apart from the open campuses typical of many Western countries [4]. Most of the students’ daily activities, including studying, dining, and even purchasing daily necessities and medical services, take place within the clearly defined campus boundaries. This characteristic reached its peak during the COVID-19 pandemic, when students were prohibited from leaving campus for several months.

As a critical indicator of the emotional bond between students and their campus, a sense of belonging demonstrates significant value on multiple fronts. Individually, it directly impacts students’ psychological well-being and academic performance [5,6]. Collectively, it engages in a positive feedback loop with campus culture: a rich cultural heritage enhances students’ sense of belonging, which in turn motivates them to identify with and carry forward that culture [4]. Ultimately, this dynamic forms a core competitive advantage for higher education institutions, providing endogenous momentum for their sustainable development [7].

Research on the sense of belonging can be traced back to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, specifically the need for belongingness and love, which reflects humans’ innate desire to establish emotional connections [8]. The concept was later introduced into the educational context, where it was defined as the degree to which students feel accepted, respected, supported, and included in the school environment, termed “school belongingness” [9]. Subsequent studies have indicated that school belongingness depends on perceived social support within the campus [10], satisfaction with social connections and interactions [11], and active engagement with peers, teachers, and campus activities [12]. At the individual level, factors such as academic performance [13], social skills [14], mental health [15], and gender [16] influence this sense of belonging. In contrast, at the institutional level, it is related to policy environment, cultural atmosphere [17,18], and teacher–student relationships [18]. Among these factors, the physical campus environment plays a significant role [19,20].

Existing research predominantly focuses on how various subsystems of campus space directly impact students’ sense of belonging. For example, one study simplified the influence of campus space on students’ satisfaction with the natural environment, planning layout, and campus greening, purification, and beautification, examining their effects on belongingness [6]. Another line of argument posits that satisfaction with extracurricular activity environments affects belongingness [21], while other research has emphasized students’ satisfaction with facilities and venues [22]. The impact of physical living spaces, such as dormitories, apartments, and halls, has also been highlighted [23]. It is evident that most scholars agree that campus space influences students’ sense of belonging primarily through their functional experiences within these environments. Methodologically, research often employs questionnaires to quantify students’ satisfaction with functional spaces, thereby measuring these experiential factors.

Studies on campus space satisfaction generally fall into two categories. The first evaluates the overall or parts of the campus environment through dimensions such as students’ sense of security and comfort, focusing on the quality of specific functional services and their influencing factors. Examples include how microclimate conditions affect outdoor spatial activities [24,25] or how enclosure and security facilities influence perceived safety [26]. It has been observed that physical factors in learning spaces affect learner satisfaction [27], and a significant positive correlation between facility layout and learning efficiency has been demonstrated [28]. The second category investigates how specific functional spaces or facilities affect overall or localized satisfaction. For instance, well-designed library environments can strengthen students’ identification with academic zones [29], and landscape elements along with spatial arrangement patterns significantly impact outdoor campus environments [30,31]. Collectively, these studies affirm that university spatial environments should accommodate diverse student activities and enhance the experiential quality of these activities. However, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs [32] places functional satisfaction at the foundational level, while the sense of belonging pertains to higher-level psychological needs. Given that much spatial satisfaction is evaluated from a functional perspective, the extent to which it influences a sense of belonging remains unclear.

Furthermore, students’ sense of belonging to their university is a holistic concept. In contemporary universities, the relationship between functional spaces and behavioral activities is not strictly one-to-one, although it may have been in early campus designs. Chinese university planning has its roots in a direct inheritance from 19th- and 20th-century U.S. and Soviet models, characterized by clear functional zoning—typically into teaching, student living, and faculty residential areas—and the symmetrical axial arrangement of main buildings. These principles profoundly shaped campus design in China prior to the reform and opening-up era [33]. Since the early 1990s, Chinese university campus planning has exhibited a trend toward partial functional integration [34], exemplified by teaching complexes primarily dedicated to instruction or experimentation, with other functions serving as supplementary facilities [35]. Additionally, spaces such as dormitories, dining halls, student activity areas, and commercial zones have been integrated into comprehensive living communities [36]. Consequently, a specific functional space within a campus may support one or more particular behavioral activities; however, this does not preclude other activities occurring within the same space. This complexity indicates that overall satisfaction with campus functional spaces cannot be reduced to the sum of satisfaction levels for individual, decomposed functional zones.

Since research on campus belongingness predominantly originates from psychology and sociology, there is a lack of detailed analysis of the campus spatial environment. Conversely, in the field of architecture, given significant differences across campus functional spaces, studies tend to focus on the isolated impact of specific space types on student satisfaction. Consequently, the nature of the relationship between students’ satisfaction with different campus functional spaces and their sense of campus belonging remains an area requiring further in-depth investigation.

This study, therefore, seeks to address the following research questions:

(1)

As a foundational issue, is students’ overall satisfaction with campus space merely an additive result of their satisfaction with individual functional zones?

(2)

As the core focus, to what extent and how does students’ satisfaction with campus functional spaces influence their sense of campus belonging?

(3)

As an applied objective, what planning and design implications can be derived from the findings to enhance campus spatial layouts and student belonging?

2. Materials

2.1. Study Sample

This survey aims to gather opinions and experiences regarding the impact of campus function satisfaction on campus belongingness among Chinese university students. The study employs an online questionnaire to investigate three geographically distant universities in Fujian Province, Hainan, and Heilongjiang: HQ University, HN University, and HE University. The campuses vary in size, with HQ covering approximately 7.14 hectares, HN approximately 18 hectares, and HE approximately 12.56 hectares. The campuses of these three universities were constructed in the 1950s, 1980s, and early 21st century, respectively, aligning with three peak periods of university development in China. They reflect distinct planning and layout characteristics: influenced by the Soviet model, shaped by Western modernism following the reform and opening-up, and adopting a more flexible and open approach in the new century. Additionally, two of these three institutions are classified as “Project 211” universities in China, while the other is a Tier 1 institution that recruits students nationwide and internationally, with its student body coming from various regions across the country. This gives the sample data collected in this study a relatively broad geographical representativeness. Satellite imagery and functional distribution maps of the campuses will be provided in subsequent sections.

2.2. Questionnaire and Participants

The problem formulation comprises three components.

(1) Data collection on individual social attributes and campus living environment characteristics:

This section is designed to collect data on individual social attributes and campus living environment characteristics, with variable selection grounded in the existing literature. The duration of enrollment is included, as extended residence has been shown to strengthen social integration and a sense of belonging in community settings [37,38]. Students’ daily living expenses are recorded as a proxy for socioeconomic background, reflecting the documented—though complex—relationship between income and community attachment [39,40]. Internet usage frequency is incorporated due to its dual role: while it supports campus engagement through information access, excessive use may weaken offline social ties [41,42]. Dormitory conditions, including occupancy density and desk availability per student, are assessed based on evidence linking perceived crowding to belongingness [43]. Additionally, sports participation type and frequency are surveyed as indicators of social integration.

A total of 399 valid questionnaires were collected across the three institutions: 164 from HQ University, 127 from HN University, and 108 from HE University. Demographic characteristics of the respondents are summarized in Table 1. Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to the survey. The study complies with the Declaration of Helsinki and China’s “Ethical Review Measures for Life Science and Medical Research Involving Humans” (National Health Science Education Development [2023] No. 4), meets the criteria for ethical exemption, and has received formal exemption approval.

Table 1. Basic demographic data of respondents.

		HQ		HN		HE
		Frequency	Percentage	Frequency	Percentage	Frequency	Percentage
Gender	Male	74	45.1	43	33.9	88	81.5
	Female	90	54.9	84	66.1	20	18.5
Duration of Enrollment	1 year (and less)	111	67.7	68	53.5	21	19.4
	2 years	25	15.2	38	29.9	39	36.1
	3 years	7	4.3	6	4.7	27	25.0
	4 years	10	6.1	8	6.3	13	12.0
	5 years and above	11	6.7	7	5.5	8	7.4

(2) Data collection on the frequency of use and satisfaction with various functional spaces on campus:

To explore the relationship between functional spaces and campus belonging, it is necessary to categorize campus spaces. As specialized communities, university campuses can adopt urban planning classifications that divide city functions into residential, recreational, work, and transportation categories [44]. Teaching functions resemble urban work zones, while recreational functions include leisure, sports, and group activity spaces. Based on this, campus functional spaces are classified into six categories (Table 2):

Table 2. Distribution of various functional spaces on campus corresponding to actual functional buildings.

Space Types and Corresponding Functional Structures	Space Types and Corresponding Functional Structures
Educational Spaces (ESs): General classrooms, specialized classrooms, laboratories, libraries, study rooms, and others.	General classrooms, specialized classrooms, laboratories, libraries, study rooms, and others.
Transportation Spaces (TSs): Motor vehicle lanes, non-motorized vehicle lanes, pedestrian walkways, parking lots, and others.	Motor vehicle lanes, non-motorized vehicle lanes, pedestrian walkways, parking lots, and others.
Residential Spaces (RSSs): Dormitories and others.	Dormitories or other forms of residences on campus
Leisure Spaces (RCSs): Dining areas, various green spaces, commercial zones, and others.	Dining areas, various green spaces, commercial zones, and others.
Sports Spaces (SSs): Track and field facilities, basketball courts, tennis courts, sports halls, small plazas, and others.	Track and field facilities, basketball courts, tennis courts, sports halls, small plazas, and others.
Group Activity Spaces (CASs): Playgrounds, cultural and sports centers, multi-purpose classrooms, plaza green areas, club activity centers, and others.	Playgrounds, cultural and sports centers, multi-purpose classrooms, plaza green areas, club activity centers, auditoriums, exhibition halls, and others.

Initially, students estimate their usage frequency of these spaces. Subsequently, they evaluate overall satisfaction and rate the spaces across eleven specific aspects. The questionnaire development involved expert panel discussions to assess the need to comprehensively evaluate each functional space, leading to the screening and refinement of questions to streamline the survey instrument (Table 3).

Table 3. Questionnaire design for assessing satisfaction with the utilization of various functional spaces on campus.

Question	Educational Space (ES)		Transportation Space (TS)		Residential Space (RSS)		Recreational Space (RCS)		Sports Space (SS)		Communal Activity Space (CAS)
	Inclusion	Item No.	Inclusion	Item No.	Inclusion	Item No.	Inclusion	Item No.	Inclusion	Item No.	Inclusion	Item No.
Overall satisfaction with this type of space	●	a0	●	b0	●	c0	●	d0	●	e0	●	f0
Comfortable environment with indoor temperature, humidity, lighting, and ventilation	●	a1	Not Set	Not Set	●	c1	●	d1	●	e1	●	f1
Outdoor climate contributes to comfort	●	a2	●	b2	Not Set	Not Set	●	d2	●	e2	●	f2
The space evokes a lush, green atmosphere	●	a3	●	b3	●	c3	●	d3	●	e3	●	f3
Accessibility to the space via transportation is convenient	●	a4	Not Set	Not Set	●	c4	●	d4	●	e4	●	f4
Directions to reach the space are easily identifiable	●	a5	Not Set	Not Set	●	c5	●	d5	●	e5	●	f5
The space provides a high level of privacy	●	a6	Not Set	Not Set	●	c6	●	d6	●	e6	●	f6
The supporting infrastructure, such as toilets and water dispensers, is fully equipped	●	a7	●	b7	●	c7	●	d7	●	e7	●	f7
The cleanness of the environment	●	a8	●	b8	●	c8	●	d8	●	e8	●	f8
Good public security management	●	a9	●	b9	●	c9	●	d9	●	e9	●	f9
Feel the significant negative impact of noise	●	a10	●	b10	●	c10	●	d10	●	e10	●	f10
Excessive density of space personnel	●	a11	●	b11	●	c11	●	d11	●	e11	●	f11

● means that this factor was included in the questionnaire to describe the level of satisfaction with the space.

(3) Data Collection on University Students’ Sense of Campus Belonging

This study developed a questionnaire based on existing research on campus belongingness [45,46,47], comprising four dimensions: a sense of ownership towards the university, recognition and affection for the institution, fulfillment of social needs, and fulfillment of esteem needs, totaling 16 items (Table 4).

Table 4. Index system of the sense of belonging to the campus.

Question Domain (Dimensions)	Definition	Question Setting (Variable)
A sense of ownership in the school	The degree to which students identify with the school and feel responsible for it is demonstrated through active participation and positive emotional attachment to the campus community, its functions, and culture.	1. I am proud to belong to this school.
		2. I am willing to contribute ideas and strategies to promote the development of the school.
		3. You are willing to actively participate in activities organized by the school.
Recognition and affection for school	Students’ emotional connection to the school manifests as a sense of responsibility, active participation, and supportive peer relationships that foster acceptance and security.	4. Studying at the school can help me better achieve my learning goals.
		5. The school can stimulate your interest in learning.
		6. The school can better promote the development of social skills beyond learning.
		7. You are satisfied with the current learning atmosphere in the school.
		8. The school’s living service platform is relatively well-developed.
		9. The school’s employment service platform is relatively well-developed.
		10. In this school, I feel that there is a rich diversity among teachers and students.
Fulfillment of social needs	The extent to which supportive peer relationships provide essential social support and emotional security, helping students cope with challenges and fostering a sense of acceptance.	11. If you encounter difficulties, at least one classmate or teacher is available for you to confide in.
		12. The school can promote emotional exchange between you and the teachers.
		13. The school can promote emotional exchange between you and your classmates.
Fulfillment of needs must be respected	The fulfillment of a student’s need for respect through an internal sense of self-worth and external validation or recognition from others.	14. You believe that you receive the same respect as other classmates.
		15. In this school, I can truly do what I want to do.
		16. Classmates in the school seriously accept your opinions.

2.3. Data Collection and Indicator Selection

The questionnaire data are first examined for validity using the KMO measure and Bartlett’s test in SPSS 28.0; a KMO coefficient above 0.70 indicates high construct validity. Following this, factor analysis is applied to assess the dimensional structure of the campus sense of belonging items, informing revisions to the questionnaire. The KMO value for the campus belonging scale is 0.968 (Table 5), and since all validity tests were passed, factor analysis was conducted.

Table 5. KMO test for the satisfaction evaluation of functional spaces in three schools.

	ES	TS	RSS	RCS	SS	CAS
HQ	0.858	0.712	0.891	0.882	0.896	0.885
HN	0.749	0.701	0.857	0.885	0.864	0.836
HE	0.879	0.842	0.867	0.905	0.904	0.916

Factor analysis employing principal component analysis is conducted on the sense of belonging evaluation indicators within an exploratory four-dimensional framework (Table 6). The analysis reveals that Item 1, initially hypothesized to load with Items 2 and 3 in a single dimension, actually loads onto separate principal components, leading to the removal of these items. Furthermore, Item 8 (“The school’s life service platform is relatively well-developed”) demonstrates high cross-loadings across two principal components. In contrast, Item 10 (“In this school, I perceive a rich diversity among teachers and students”) shows similar loadings across three components. This pattern suggests ambiguous respondent interpretations of these statements, and consequently, both items are excluded from the subsequent analysis.

Table 6. Results of principal component analysis for the first attributional sense evaluation metric.

Variable	Component
	1	2	3	4
I am proud to belong to this school.	0.707
I am willing to contribute ideas and strategies to promote the development of the school.			0.761
You are willing to actively participate in activities organized by the school.			0.727
Studying at the school can better achieve my learning goals.	0.744
The school can stimulate your interest in learning.	0.782
The school can better promote the development of social skills beyond learning.	0.71
You are satisfied with the current learning atmosphere in the school.	0.73
The school’s living service platform is relatively well-developed.	0.61	0.515
The school’s employment service platform is relatively well-developed.	0.68
In this school, I feel that there is a rich diversity among teachers and students.	0.52		0.458	0.419
If you encounter difficulties, at least one classmate or teacher is available for you to confide in.				0.846
The school can promote emotional exchange between you and the teachers.	0.424			0.567
The school can promote emotional exchange between you and your classmates.				0.611
You believe that you receive the same respect as other classmates.		0.728
In this school, I can truly do what I want to do.	0.459	0.605
Classmates in the school seriously accept your opinions.		0.639	0.415

Factor analysis is performed on the remaining 13 items. The results show a KMO value of 0.957 and a significant Bartlett’s test result, both exceeding the threshold of 0.9, confirming that the questionnaire retains construct validity following the removal of the previous items. As presented in Table 7, the principal component analysis yields components that align with the predefined four-dimensional structure.

Table 7. Results of principal component analysis for the second sense of belongingness evaluation index.

Variable	Component
	Recognition and Affection for School	Fulfillment of Social Needs	Fulfillment of Needs Must Be Respected	A Sense of Ownership in the Schools
I am willing to contribute ideas and strategies to promote the development of the school.				0.793
You are willing to actively participate in activities organized by the school.				0.733
Studying at the school can better achieve my learning goals.	0.736
The school can stimulate your interest in learning.	0.807
The school can better promote the development of social skills beyond learning.	0.746
You are satisfied with the current learning atmosphere in the school.	0.755
The school’s employment service platform is relatively well-developed.	0.684
If you encounter difficulties, at least one classmate or teacher is available for you to confide in.			0.852
The school can promote emotional exchange between you and the teachers.			0.591
The school can promote emotional exchange between you and your classmates.			0.604
You believe that you receive the same respect as other classmates.		0.757
In this school, I can truly do what I want to do.		0.658
Classmates in the school seriously accept your opinions.		0.68

Subsequently, the weights of individual indicators are determined by calculating the influence coefficients of the dominant factors within each principal component, followed by renumbering (Table 8). Based on these weights, a comprehensive evaluation score for each sample across various dimensions is computed for subsequent analysis. The final distribution of students’ sense of belonging across different dimensions in each institution is presented in Table 9.

Table 8. Evaluation index system and weights for college students’ sense of belonging on campus after screening.

Dimensions	No.	Variable	Weight
A sense of ownership in the school	U1	I am willing to contribute ideas and strategies to promote the development of the school.	51.97%
		You are willing to actively participate in activities organized by the school.	48.03%
Recognition and affection for school	U2	Studying at the school can better achieve my learning goals.	19.74%
		The school can stimulate your interest in learning.	21.65%
		The school can better promote the development of social skills beyond learning.	20.01%
		You are satisfied with the current learning atmosphere in the school.	20.25%
		The school’s employment service platform is relatively well-developed.	18.35%
Fulfillment of social needs	U3	If you encounter difficulties, at least one classmate or teacher is available for you to confide in.	41.62%
		The school can promote emotional exchange between you and the teachers.	28.87%
		The school can promote emotional exchange between you and your classmates.	29.51%
Fulfillment of needs to be respected	U4	You believe that you receive the same respect as other classmates.	36.13%
		In this school, I can truly do what I want to do.	31.41%
		Classmates in the school seriously accept your opinions.	32.46%

Table 9. Mean and standard deviation of perceived sense of belonging across all dimensions in the three schools.

Dimensions	HQ Sense of Belonging		HN Sense of Belonging		HE Sense of Belonging
	Mean Values	Standard Deviations	Mean Values	Standard Deviations	Mean Values	Standard Deviations
A sense of ownership in the school	3.96	0.78	3.87	0.73	4.24	0.68
Recognition and affection for school	3.84	0.79	3.61	0.77	4.07	0.77
Fulfillment of social needs	3.82	0.81	3.61	0.78	4.04	0.78
Fulfillment of needs must be respected	3.90	0.78	3.71	0.80	4.09	0.71

2.4. Procedure

To address the three research questions in a logically structured manner, this study employs a sequential, exploratory analytical approach, given the complexity of the relationship between spatial satisfaction and campus belonging. The statistical procedures are designed to build upon prior results, rather than being predetermined.

Step 1: Aggregation and Validation of Spatial Satisfaction Indicators

To examine whether overall spatial satisfaction is merely an additive outcome of satisfaction with individual functional zones, factor analysis with weighting methods is applied to aggregate satisfaction scores for each space type. The distribution of these aggregated scores is then compared with the direct survey-based overall satisfaction scores. The measure exhibiting lower dispersion is selected for subsequent analysis, ensuring a more robust and representative satisfaction indicator.

Step 2: Control Variable Analysis

Before modeling the core relationship between satisfaction and belonging, t-tests and ANOVA are used to assess the potential influence of personal social attributes and campus living environments on both satisfaction and belongingness. This step helps identify and account for significant background variables prior to further regression modeling.

Step 3: Core Relational Modeling

Correlation and multiple regression analyses are employed to evaluate the extent to which functional space satisfaction influences sense of belonging. Importantly, principal component analysis (PCA) is not applied universally; it is only used when significant partial correlations are detected among satisfaction variables, indicating potential multicollinearity. In such cases, PCA is performed on overall satisfaction data—incorporating spatial distribution and usage frequency—to derive interpretable components that are then used as predictors in the regression model. This conditional use of PCA ensures dimensionality reduction is both meaningful and context-driven.

Step 4: Comparative Spatial Analysis

Finally, a comparative analysis is conducted across the three case universities to examine relationships among spatial layouts, satisfaction patterns, and belonging outcomes. This analysis is informed by Lynchian mapping [48] to interpret spatial configurations and their perceptual impacts. However, as translating analytical findings into concrete design practice requires more complex interdisciplinary reasoning and falls outside the core scope of this study, this step is presented in the discussion rather than as a primary analytical phase. This synthesis directly supports the applied objective of deriving planning and design implications for campus spatial optimization.

3. Results

3.1. Evaluation Metrics Weights for University Students’ Campus Space Satisfaction and Overall Satisfaction Calculation

Although the overall satisfaction of university students with various functional spaces has been directly assessed through questionnaire surveys, a more precise characterization of overall satisfaction requires consideration of the contributions of factors influencing each functional space. Given differences in the actual layouts and compositions of spaces across the three institutions, this study calculates the weights for space satisfaction indicators for each university to account for these variations. For each space, data are standardized, weights are derived via factor analysis, and overall satisfaction scores for each functional space are computed. The mean and standard deviation of these results are presented in Table 10.

Table 10. Mean and standard deviation of overall satisfaction scores for functional spaces across the three institutions.

Space Type	HQ Overall Satisfaction with Each Functional Space		HN Overall Satisfaction with Each Functional Space		HE Overall Satisfaction with Each Functional Space
	Mean Values	Standard Deviations	Mean Values	Standard Deviations	Mean Values	Standard Deviations
ES	3.4284	0.54880	3.3595	0.56670	3.5239	0.50849
TS	3.5229	0.48676	3.3192	0.55479	3.4548	0.51441
RSS	3.5080	0.46902	3.3691	0.56537	3.5185	0.54193
RCS	3.5265	0.53431	3.4650	0.60788	3.5470	0.51469
SS	3.5809	0.51118	3.4161	0.59852	3.5340	0.53877
CAS	3.6426	0.49587	3.4728	0.59986	3.5805	0.52566

The three-school data are consolidated, and the overall satisfaction levels for various spatial categories, calculated using the aforementioned methods, are compared with those obtained from student surveys (Table 11). The analysis reveals that, aside from teaching and sports spaces, the mean rankings of the two datasets show minimal differences. This indicates that both the scores obtained through direct questionnaire assessment and the overall scores calculated through optimization demonstrate a high degree of credibility. Additionally, the standard deviations of the computed data are generally smaller than those of the survey data, indicating greater convergence in the calculated results. Consequently, the overall satisfaction scores derived from the computational method are used for subsequent analyses.

Table 11. Comparison of overall satisfaction metrics with survey data.

Space Type	Total Sample Size	Data Analysis		Survey Data
		Mean Values	Standard Deviations	Mean Values	Standard Deviations
ES	399	3.7323	0.66425	3.9634	0.7169
TS	399	3.7424	0.62109	3.7134	0.8983
RSS	399	3.6033	0.69664	3.5610	1.0461
RCS	399	3.7699	0.73195	3.8110	0.8405
SS	399	3.8114	0.67656	3.7988	0.8376
CAS	399	3.7916	0.66827	3.8598	0.7421

3.2. Analysis of the Impact of Individual Social Attributes on Campus Life Environment

The influence of individual attributes on satisfaction with functional spaces and campus belonging is analyzed using t-tests and ANOVA (see Appendix A and Appendix B for details). Analysis reveals no significant differences based on students’ campus residence duration or monthly living expenses. However, gender shows a significant effect on transportation space satisfaction, with male students reporting slightly higher satisfaction. Internet usage time also exhibits a notable influence: as daily usage increases, overall satisfaction declines. Students who use the internet for less than four hours daily maintain stable satisfaction levels, while those who exceed eight hours report the lowest satisfaction levels. Physical activity preferences also correlate with satisfaction. Students who prefer indoor exercise report lower satisfaction with educational, transportation, and sports facilities than those who favor outdoor or mixed activities. Higher exercise frequency is associated with decreased satisfaction in these domains. In living spaces, fewer occupants correlate with higher satisfaction, which declines markedly when the number of desks per person exceeds 1.33.

Regarding campus belonging, no significant differences are identified across gender, living expenses, or dormitory occupancy levels. However, the duration of enrollment shows an association with school recognition and affection, which rise initially before declining, peaking among students enrolled for three years. Internet usage time again emerges as a significant factor: all dimensions of campus belonging generally decrease as daily online time increases. The fulfillment of respect needs varies with the average number of desks per person in dormitories, showing an initial rise followed by a decline. Social need fulfillment differs by physical activity preferences: students who favor outdoor or mixed activities report higher social fulfillment than those who prefer indoor-only exercise. Furthermore, as exercise frequency decreases, average scores for school ownership, social need fulfillment, and respect need fulfillment also decline.

Overall, demographic characteristics such as gender and age have limited influence on spatial satisfaction or sense of belonging, whereas factors that directly shape daily behaviors—such as internet usage patterns, physical activity preferences, and living conditions—emerge as stronger predictors.

3.3. The Impact of Overall Satisfaction with Campus Functional Spaces on Campus Sense of Belonging

3.3.1. Correlation Analysis Between Overall Satisfaction with Campus Functional Spaces and Campus Sense of Belonging

As shown in Table 12, Table 13 and Table 14, the satisfaction levels across various functional spaces in the three universities are significantly correlated with the four dimensions of campus sense of belonging. This provides direct evidence that students’ satisfaction with campus functional spaces influences their sense of belonging to the university.

Table 12. Correlation analysis between overall satisfaction with functional spaces and sense of belonging to campus at HQ University.

	ES	TS	RSS	RCS	SS	CAS	U1	U2	U3	U4
ES	1	0.748 **	0.749 **	0.752 **	0.688 **	0.750 **	0.524 **	0.602 **	0.488 **	0.506 **
TS		1	0.708 **	0.803 **	0.719 **	0.774 **	0.451 **	0.539 **	0.472 **	0.503 **
RSS			1	0.796 **	0.696 **	0.740 **	0.553 **	0.685 **	0.614 **	0.630 **
RCS				1	0.790 **	0.845 **	0.582 **	0.621 **	0.540 **	0.539 **
SS					1	0.856 **	0.543 **	0.582 **	0.537 **	0.549 **
CAS						1	0.570 **	0.613 **	0.542 **	0.553 **

** At the 0.01 significance level (two-tailed), the correlation is statistically significant.

Table 13. Correlation analysis between overall satisfaction with functional spaces and sense of belonging to campus at HN University.

	ES	TS	RSS	RCS	SS	CAS	U1	U2	U3	U4
ES	1	0.717 **	0.661 **	0.566 **	0.625 **	0.493 **	0.358 **	0.576 **	0.508 **	0.536 **
TS		1	0.650 **	0.662 **	0.661 **	0.677 **	0.433 **	0.589 **	0.461 **	0.502 **
RSS			1	0.669 **	0.630 **	0.670 **	0.356 **	0.558 **	0.434 **	0.517 **
RCS				1	0.729 **	0.781 **	0.418 **	0.617 **	0.520 **	0.581 **
SS					1	0.734 **	0.468 **	0.567 **	0.526 **	0.584 **
CAS						1	0.450 **	0.588 **	0.499 **	0.493 **

** At the 0.01 significance level (two-tailed), the correlation is statistically significant.

Table 14. Correlation analysis between overall satisfaction with functional spaces and sense of belonging to campus at HE University.

	ES	TS	RSS	RCS	SS	CAS	U1	U2	U3	U4
ES	1	0.868 **	0.792 **	0.852 **	0.820 **	0.853 **	0.556 **	0.654 **	0.616 **	0.582 **
TS		1	0.786 **	0.862 **	0.852 **	0.854 **	0.609 **	0.676 **	0.653 **	0.599 **
RSS			1	0.820 **	0.810 **	0.813 **	0.545 **	0.698 **	0.602 **	0.621 **
RCS				1	0.893 **	0.908 **	0.662 **	0.743 **	0.685 **	0.670 **
SS					1	0.922 **	0.660 **	0.714 **	0.706 **	0.687 **
CAS						1	0.686 **	0.733 **	0.708 **	0.705 **

** At the 0.01 significance level (two-tailed), the correlation is statistically significant.

Given the high intercorrelation observed among satisfaction levels across different functional spaces, it becomes methodologically challenging to identify which specific space type most strongly influences sense of belonging through simple comparison of correlation coefficients. This multicollinearity among predictor variables necessitates a more integrated analytical approach. Therefore, principal component analysis (PCA) is employed to derive composite indicators from the overall satisfaction data, reducing dimensionality while preserving essential information from the interrelated spatial satisfaction variables.

3.3.2. Principal Component Analysis of Overall Satisfaction with Campus Functional Spaces

As shown in Table 15, the overall satisfaction data for various functional spaces at each university passed the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) test, confirming the suitability for PCA. Additionally, exploratory attempts revealed that when extracting four principal components from the overall satisfaction data, the cumulative variance explained exceeded 90%. Consequently, in SPSS, four components were extracted using the maximum variance (varimax) rotation method. The resulting principal component matrices and total variance explained for each university are presented in Table 16, Table 17 and Table 18.

Table 15. KMO test for overall satisfaction with functional spaces at the three universities.

	KMO
HQ school	0.914
HN school	0.869
HE school	0.928

Table 16. Principal component matrix of overall satisfaction with functional spaces at HQ University.

	Principal Component 1	Principal Component 2	Principal Component 3	Principal Component 4
ES				0.808
TS			0.809
RSS		0.826
RCS	0.549	0.523	0.511
SS	0.855
CAS	0.745

Total variance explained: 95.27%.

Table 17. Principal component matrix of overall satisfaction with functional spaces at HN University.

	Principal Component 1	Principal Component 2	Principal Component 3	Principal Component 4
ES		0.843
TS		0.451		0.766
RSS			0.829
RCS	0.749
SS	0.824	0.494
CAS	0.759

Total variance explained: 93.13%.

Table 18. Principal component matrix of overall satisfaction with functional spaces at HE University.

	Principal Component 1	Principal Component 2	Principal Component 3	Principal Component 4
ES			0.746
TS	0.463			0.715
RSS		0.814
RCS	0.694
SS	0.774
CAS	0.757

Total variance explained: 97.07%.

Based on the definition of functional spaces as the spatial environments where functional activities occur, the derived principal components should be interpreted as composite constructs of interrelated functional space groupings. This intrinsic link can be understood from two perspectives: First, in practical scenarios, a single space may accommodate multiple activities, for example, a cafeteria serving both as a leisure area and a social interaction space among students. Therefore, when different types of functional spaces spatially overlap significantly, they may be grouped into a single component. Second, many student activities involve a sequence of interactions across multiple functional spaces; even spatially separated functions can be associated through common behavioral patterns, collectively forming the spatial context of specific activity experiences.

The order of the principal components reflects their relative influence on students’ satisfaction with campus functional spaces, with the loadings indicating the degree to which each functional space contributes to that component. For clarity, factor loadings below 0.45 have been omitted in the tables.

Among the three institutions, the first principal component derived from the analysis is predominantly influenced by satisfaction with the sports and recreational spaces, with additional contributions from group activity spaces. These three functional space categories encompass the majority of behavioral activities beyond accommodation, study, and transportation, thereby exemplifying the diversification of campus spatial functions. In the case of HE University, the influence coefficient of transportation space satisfaction within the first principal component ranges from 0.4 to 0.5, indicating that although transportation space is not the primary factor, it exerts a significant impact. A comparative analysis of the spatial distribution of leisure, sports, and group activity areas across the three universities reveals that HE University allocates a substantial proportion of its campus to these spaces, with a relatively uniform distribution. This results in a high degree of spatial overlap with transportation corridors, facilitating students’ access to leisure, sports, or group activity spaces from any main campus thoroughfare—whether by visual contact or physical entry. Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3 present a visual representation of the spatial locations and frequencies mentioned in the questionnaire. Although it does not reflect the actual frequency of such activities in space, it can still roughly indicate the spatial locations where they occur. Consequently, the first principal component across all three institutions can be characterized as representing the expansion of activity diversity.

Figure 1. Comparison of recreation space layout and frequency among the three universities.

Figure 2. Comparison of sports space layout and frequency among the three universities.

Figure 3. Comparison of group activity space layout and frequency among the three universities.

In the principal component analysis of HQ School’s Component 2, HE School’s Component 3, and HN School’s Component 2, residential space satisfaction exerts an overwhelmingly dominant influence. Notably, in HQ School’s Component 2, the influence coefficient of leisure space satisfaction exceeds 0.5, indicating a substantial association between leisure spaces and this component. Consequently, this component can be characterized as reflecting aspects related to recreational and entertainment activities within the residential environment. Therefore, these principal components can be defined as indicators of residential comfort.

Furthermore, Principal Component 4 of HQ School, Principal Component 2 of HN School, and Principal Component 3 of HE School are primarily driven by satisfaction with teaching spaces. Specifically, in HN School’s Component 2, the influence coefficients for satisfaction with transportation and sports spaces range from 0.4 to 0.5. Although these factors do not dominate this component, their impact is notably significant. After analyzing the functional-area spatial layouts of these three schools, it was found that on the HN School campus, the route students take from their dormitories to the teaching buildings is the longest. Most students will pass through the main sports areas on their way to the learning facilities (Figure 4 and Figure 5). This phenomenon in HN School’s Component 2 can be interpreted as a consequence of learning-related commuting behaviors linking these spaces. These components can thus be characterized as indicators of the convenience of learning activity.

Figure 4. Comparison of living space layout and frequency among the three universities.

Figure 5. Comparison of teaching space layout and frequency among the three universities.

The third principal component of HQ School and the fourth principal component of HN and HE Schools are predominantly characterized by transportation spatial satisfaction. Notably, in the third principal component of HQ School, the influence coefficient of leisure space satisfaction exceeds 0.5. A separate analysis of leisure space satisfaction at HQ School reveals high influence coefficients across Principal Components 1, 2, and 3, which may be attributed to the relatively uniform distribution of leisure spaces, preventing any single component from dominating but still exerting significant influence. Consequently, the third principal component of HQ School and the fourth principal component of HN and HE Schools are defined as indicators of transportation behavior comfort.

The analyses in Section 3.3.1 and this subsection demonstrate that students’ overall satisfaction with campus spaces is not a simple summation of satisfactions across functional types but is defined by the collective capacity of these spaces to support four critical dimensions: diverse activities, residential comfort, learning convenience, and transportation efficiency.

3.3.3. Regression Analysis of Overall Satisfaction with Campus Functional Spaces on Sense of Belonging

Based on the principal component analysis results from the previous step, the factor scores for each of the three schools were calculated separately, as shown in Formula (1).

$${\mathrm{S}}_{\mathrm{j}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{n}}}·\sum _{\mathrm{i}=1}^{\mathrm{n}}{{\mathrm{A}}_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{i}}\mathrm{X}}_{\mathrm{i}}$$

(1)

where S_j represents the score of the sample on the j-th principal component of functional space satisfaction, and A_ji represents the influence coefficient of the j-th functional space satisfaction on the i-th principal component. X_i represents the value of the i-th functional space satisfaction, and n represents the number of functional space satisfaction types, that is, n = 6.

Furthermore, regression analysis is performed to examine the relationships between the principal components of functional space satisfaction and the four dimensions of sense of belonging, as well as their total composite score. This includes both a combined analysis of the three universities’ data and separate regression analyses for each institution.

The results for the total sense of belonging score are presented in Table 19. For the combined dataset, the regression model yields an R² value of 0.451, suggesting that while satisfaction with campus functional spaces is not the sole determinant of campus belonging, it does show a substantial relationship and accounts for 45.1% of the variance in belongingness. Among the predictors, the diversity of extended activities shows the largest absolute coefficient, followed by residential comfort, learning convenience, and, finally, transportation comfort. This order reflects the relative influence of each principal component on campus belonging. This pattern remains consistent in the regression results for both HN University and HE University. However, HQ University presents a different pattern, with residential comfort exhibiting the largest coefficient among the components.

Table 19. Regression analysis coefficient of the total value of college students’ sense of belonging to campus.

	R2	Diversity of Extended Activities		Comfort of Living Behavior		Convenience of Study Behavior		Comfort of Traffic Behavior
		Standardization Coefficient	Coefficient Order	Standardization Coefficient	Coefficient Order	Standardization Coefficient	Coefficient Order	Standardization Coefficient	Coefficient Order
	0.451	0.454	1	0.389	2	0.237	3	0.224	4
HQ	0.508	0.410	2	0.488	1	0.269	3	0.164	4
HN	0.441	0.481	1	0.337	2	0.252	3	0.231	4
HE	0.576	0.628	1	0.336	2	0.225	3	0.216	4

The analysis of the sense of belonging and school ownership is presented in Table 20. Overall, the regression results indicate that the diversity coefficient of extracurricular activities has the greatest impact across all three schools; however, the rankings of the other coefficients vary. For HQ and HE schools, residential comfort has a greater influence on behavioral factors than other variables, whereas for the HN school, transportation comfort exerts a greater influence than the other two variables.

Table 20. Regression coefficients for the sense of belonging and ownership among university students within the campus environment.

	R2	Diversity of Extended Activities		Comfort of Living Behavior		Convenience of Study Behavior		Comfort of Traffic Behavior
		Standardization Coefficient	Coefficient Order	Standardization Coefficient	Coefficient Order	Standardization Coefficient	Coefficient Order	Standardization Coefficient	Coefficient Order
HQ	0.370	0.403	1	0.365	2	0.250	3	0.130	4
HN	0.229	0.392	1	0.129	4	0.206	3	0.211	2
HE	0.466	0.613	1	0.224	2	0.183	4	0.213	3

The analysis of school recognition and affinity, as shown in Table 21, indicates that for HN and HE schools, the regression results identify the diversification of extracurricular activities as the most significant factor influencing sense of belonging. Conversely, for HQ school, residential comfort has a greater impact than the variety of extracurricular activities.

Table 21. Regression coefficients for campus belongingness, institutional recognition, and affinity among university students.

	R2	Diversity of Extended Activities		Comfort of Living Behavior		Convenience of Study Behavior		Comfort of Traffic Behavior
		Standardization Coefficient	Coefficient Order	Standardization Coefficient	Coefficient Order	Standardization Coefficient	Coefficient Order	Standardization Coefficient	Coefficient Order
HQ	0.489	0.363	2	0.488	1	0.303	3	0.166	4
HN	0.457	0.438	1	0.310	3	0.318	2	0.292	4
HE	0.584	0.559	1	0.414	2	0.249	3	0.210	4

The analysis of social belongingness needs, as presented in Table 22, indicates that the diversity of extracurricular activities at HN and HE schools significantly enhances students’ sense of campus belonging. Conversely, for students at HQ school, the comfort of the residential environment exerts a greater influence on their sense of belonging than the variety of extracurricular activities.

Table 22. Regression coefficients for the realization of social needs related to campus belongingness among university students.

	R2	Diversity of Extended Activities		Comfort of Living Behavior		Convenience of Study Behavior		Comfort of Traffic Behavior
		Standardization Coefficient	Coefficient Order	Standardization Coefficient	Coefficient Order	Standardization Coefficient	Coefficient Order	Standardization Coefficient	Coefficient Order
HQ	0.395	0.353	2	0.449	1	0.197	3	0.135	4
HN	0.329	0.431	1	0.318	2	0.194	3	0.176	4
HE	0.507	0.597	1	0.283	2	0.227	4	0.243	3

The analysis of the realization of the need for a sense of belonging, as shown in Table 23, indicates that the regression results still demonstrate the highest coefficient for residential comfort at HQ School. Conversely, HN School and HE School exhibit the highest coefficients in the diversity of extracurricular activities.

Table 23. Regression coefficients for the realization of university students’ campus belongingness and respect needs.

	R2	Diversity of Extended Activities		Comfort of Living Behavior		Convenience of Study Behavior		Comfort of Traffic Behavior
		Standardization Coefficient	Coefficient Order	Standardization Coefficient	Coefficient Order	Standardization Coefficient	Coefficient Order	Standardization Coefficient	Coefficient Order
HQ	0.392	0.351	2	0.447	1	0.217	3	0.159	4
HN	0.400	0.453	1	0.354	2	0.261	3	0.147	4
HE	0.496	0.590	1	0.332	2	0.181	3	0.142	4

Based on the comprehensive analyses in Section 3, this study provides a definitive answer to Research Question 2 regarding the extent to which students’ satisfaction with campus functional spaces influences their sense of campus belonging.

The regression analyses demonstrate that satisfaction with campus functional spaces explains 45.1% of the variance in students’ overall sense of campus belonging (R² = 0.451), representing a substantial though not deterministic relationship. This influence manifests through four principal components, with extended activity diversity emerging as the strongest predictor across the combined dataset and two of the three institutions, followed by residential comfort, learning convenience, and transportation comfort.

However, in the comparative analysis of the three universities, the relationship between functional space satisfaction and overall campus sense of belonging, as well as scores across various dimensions of campus belonging, is more pronounced at HE University than at the other two institutions, with HQ University and HN University following. Among the four factors of functional space satisfaction, although the diversity of expansion activities generally exerts a greater influence on campus belonging than the other three factors across the overall data, in the case of HQ University, the regression analyses of overall belonging, as well as “school recognition and affection,” “social needs fulfillment,” and “respect needs fulfillment,” reveal that the coefficient for “residential comfort” exceeds those of the other factors. In the regression analyses of other campus belonging dimensions, the influence rankings of the four satisfaction factors vary across universities. This contextual variation indicates that the mechanism through which spatial satisfaction translates into belonging is institution-specific, potentially reflecting differences in campus design, student demographics, or institutional culture.

4. Discussion and Conclusions

4.1. Enlightenment Based on Association with Spatial Imagery

Given the minimal variation in the actual facilities across the three universities, a plausible hypothesis is that distinct functional layout patterns exert a significant influence on the relationship between functional space satisfaction and the sense of belonging on campus.

We have systematically identified the corresponding functional buildings and facilities on campus and accompanied them with a schematic map (Figure 6) that illustrates their spatial distribution. The map categorizes zones by the primary function of each area: service centers, academic spaces, residential spaces, and sports facilities—a classification method commonly used in Chinese university campus planning [49]. Among them, green spaces, regardless of their size, are generally regarded as transitional areas between the main land use and other functional areas within the land. Therefore, they are not included in the functional structure. Some of the more significant landscape green spaces usually appear in an axial form. Therefore, in this diagram, the axial lines of the landscapes are represented by dotted lines.

Figure 6. Campus function distribution plan and function structure analysis diagram.

The campus of HQ University is characterized by a concentration of sports facilities within a designated zone, with a minority dispersed throughout residential and academic areas. Three main thoroughfares traverse the residential and academic zones, two of which pass through the service center and intersect with zonal main roads, forming a grid pattern. One primary arterial road originates from the Student Services Center, passing through the residential and academic zones to reach the main entrance, thereby establishing the institution’s principal visual axis.

The campus layout of HN University features a centralized sports facility zone, with a service hub at its core, extending outward in concentric layers that comprise residential, sports, and educational areas. The main thoroughfares effectively delineate functional zones while extending within each area to form a grid pattern. Green spaces and lake views are strategically positioned on the eastern and western sides of the educational area, with the larger eastern lakeside facilities, including the library, closely integrated to create a primary landscape feature that mirrors the campus’s eastern main entrance.

HE University has significantly more athletic facilities than both HQ and HN Universities. The campus organization centers around a sports field and an adjacent service center, forming two relatively autonomous community-like functional clusters around the sports area. The primary teaching zones are situated between these clusters and traversed by a main thoroughfare, which, together with two peripheral roads, forms an H-shaped network. Research laboratory clusters are located on the western side of this network, while the eastern side features a concentrated array of sports facilities that constitute the main athletic zone. This zone aligns along the axis of the campus’s historic main buildings, establishing it as a central landscape element.

Multivariate regression results indicate that at HQ University, “residential comfort” demonstrates the strongest impact coefficients on overall campus belonging and its dimensions, a pattern not observed at HN and HE Universities. This phenomenon is attributed to HQ University’s campus layout, in which activity facilities are not fully integrated into students’ daily pathways, potentially limiting spontaneous participation in extended activities and, consequently, affecting both satisfaction and belonging. In contrast, HN University’s design facilitates student passage through activity facilities when moving between residential and academic zones, increasing interaction opportunities and positively influencing spatial satisfaction. HE University employs a cluster-based layout that centrally positions activity facilities within groups, enhancing accessibility during daily activities and potentially boosting satisfaction. As Japanese architect Fumihiko Maki proposes in his concept of “uncertain space,” spatial design should accommodate human behavioral factors—including incidental and random behaviors—by stimulating new activities through spatial planning, thereby creating multifunctional environments that are more vibrant and dynamic.

Furthermore, at HE University, the diversity of extension activities significantly influences students’ overall sense of belonging and its various dimensions more than other factors, a distinctive phenomenon not observed at the other two institutions. This suggests that the campus’s overall functional layout shapes students’ perceptions of campus identity, consequently affecting their sense of belonging. As Kevin Lynch establishes in his seminal work, the five fundamental elements—paths, boundaries, districts, nodes, and landmarks—play crucial roles in constructing mental maps of environments, with equal applicability to campus settings. HE University’s north–south axial layout, integrating residential, academic, and extension zones, fosters close connections among these areas, enhancing students’ perceptions of key campus imagery and strengthening a sense of belonging. Conversely, HN University’s layout, centered on the east gate, East Slope Lake, and the library, shows insufficient connectivity among other functional zones, resulting in weaker inter-zone links. Similarly, HQ University’s south gate and academic zone-centered layout exhibits limited integration with other functions. These variations in axial orientation and the integration of extension facilities distinctly influence students’ campus belonging.

4.2. Conclusions

The key insights derived from this study are as follows:

(1) The sense of campus belonging among university students requires consideration of the mobility characteristics inherent to the student community. During the selection of indicators for the campus sense of belonging questionnaire, it was found that items such as “I am proud to belong to this university,” “The campus service platform is relatively comprehensive,” and “Within this university, I perceive teachers and students as highly diverse” are unsuitable for measuring university campus belonging. This may be due to the unique community nature of university campuses, characterized by high mobility; students typically graduate after a four- to five-year period, and such frequent personnel turnover may impact the development of a sense of belonging.

(2) This study confirms that satisfaction with campus functional spaces accounts for approximately 50% of the variance in students’ overall campus belonging, indicating a close relationship between functional space quality and belonging. These four dimensions significantly influence both the overall and individual dimensions of campus belonging, with regression analyses showing that each dimension’s explanatory power exceeds that of the overall belonging measure, illustrating that the psychological process from functional space satisfaction to campus belonging is holistic; the absence of any dimension may trigger a “bucket effect.” And the pivotal link connecting campus spatial satisfaction with a sense of belonging lies in four sets of behavioral needs among students. This is reflected not only in the widespread covariance among various types of spatial satisfaction but also in the greater influence of behavioral characteristics within personal social attributes on the sense of belonging.

(3) Based on the comparative analysis of functional space distribution across the three universities, it is further proposed that the overall campus layout should prioritize proximity or integration of residential areas with expansion facilities. Such arrangements facilitate spontaneous participation in activities, increase utilization rates, and enrich students’ extracurricular life. Additionally, academic zones and transportation infrastructure should be linked with activity facilities to enable convenient access during daily movement, thereby encouraging more frequent engagement and social interaction. Integrating expansion facilities with campus visual axes or core areas—such as sports fields and student activity centers—can reinforce their role within campus culture and daily life, enhancing the environment’s vitality and cohesion.

4.3. Limitations and Future Perspectives

Although prior research has extensively examined the impact of specific space types—such as residential areas, green landscapes, and libraries—on user satisfaction, and established connections between spatial elements and psychological perceptions to inform design strategies, we believe spatial satisfaction serves only as a precursor to belonging, thus positioning this study’s core focus on the relationship between satisfaction and belonging rather than on physical space alone. Accordingly, this investigation aligns more closely with psychological research, while its implications for spatial design are drawn primarily from questionnaire-based findings.

Unlike studies that correlate isolated functional spaces with satisfaction, this study underscores the role of campus space as an integrated system. Practically, it suggests that campus planning should adopt a systematic approach to layout and optimization based on behavioral needs. However, following this line of thinking, could the relationship between the university campus and its external environment also influence students’ spatial satisfaction and sense of belonging? For instance, aspects such as campus spatial openness and the relationship with surrounding urban functions warrant consideration. During the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous studies indicated that the closure of community spaces led to various psychological challenges [50,51]. Although the pandemic has subsided, the degree of campus openness remains a relevant factor. Furthermore, many urban functions surrounding campuses provide services that support students’ daily lives or academic activities. These external amenities may be internalized into students’ perceptions of the school.

Several limitations should be noted. First, the sample is restricted to three geographically dispersed Tier 1 universities in China, thereby excluding elite institutions such as Tsinghua University and Peking University. While Tier 1 enrollment generally reflects stronger academic preparedness and socioeconomic background, and no current evidence ties academic ability directly to spatial perception, this potential influence warrants further study. Moreover, regional cultural and lifestyle variations across sample sites may affect belonging, a factor not controlled for in the analysis.

Methodologically, the reliance on questionnaires, though flexible for exploratory analysis, offers limited granularity for examining specific spatial attributes. This study does not conduct detailed correlation analyses among spatial elements, structural features, and belonging, thereby limiting its utility for generating concrete design strategies. Nonetheless, a deeper understanding of the psychological pathway from spatial satisfaction to belonging remains essential for developing targeted design approaches. This study provides directional guidance for incorporating quantitative analytical techniques, such as space syntax, to conduct more detailed spatial analysis, thereby charting a path for methodological refinement in future research.