Sensory and Interactive Architectural Design Strategies for Inclusive Early Childhood Learning Environments Supporting Neurodevelopmental Diversity

Abstract

This study examines the perceived impact of sensory and interactive architectural design in inclusive learning environments on the sensory–emotional responses and behavioral–academic outcomes of children with neurodevelopmental disorders—namely Autism Spectrum Disorder, Down Syndrome, and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder—during early childhood within the Egyptian educational context. Adopting a perception-based, non-causal analytical perspective, a descriptive–analytical, survey-based design was implemented using a validated questionnaire developed from an architectural–educational conceptual framework grounded in relevant literature. The study involved (N = 202) parents, teachers, therapists, and caregivers who evaluated the perceived influence of environmental design elements on children’s sensory responses, behavior, social interaction, and academic performance, based on observational and experiential assessments rather than objective environmental performance measurements. The results indicated high perceived impacts on sensory–emotional responses (84.8%) and behavioral–academic outcomes (82.0%). Movement–spatial attributes showed the strongest influence, followed by balanced natural lighting, calming colors, natural materials, and low-noise acoustic conditions, while natural elements and sensory gardens played a regulatory role in supporting emotional stability and social interaction. The study concludes that sensory- and emotionally responsive architectural design, when understood as a supportive component of the educational experience rather than an independent causal factor, and integrated with appropriate pedagogical practices, contributes to inclusive learning environments accommodating neurodevelopmental diversity, while informing the development of an applied, evidence-informed architectural design framework that translates perceptual–correlational findings into structured and operational design guidelines adaptable to the Egyptian educational context.

1. Introduction

In recent decades, growing attention has been directed toward neurocognitive developmental diversity in children, including neurodevelopmental disorders such as Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), alongside genetic and developmental conditions such as Down syndrome (DS), within the framework of contemporary approaches to inclusive education. The literature indicates that these groups constitute a notable proportion of the global child population, with prevalence estimates varying according to cultural and educational contexts. Many of these children experience difficulties interacting with conventional learning environments, particularly during early childhood (ages 3–8)—a critical developmental stage for sensory, emotional, and cognitive growth [1].

The educational environment plays a pivotal role as an active spatial mediator of learning and emotional regulation. Poorly adapted environments may increase stress and exacerbate stereotypical behaviors, whereas clear, predictable, and structured environments can foster a sense of safety and control [2]. Within the Egyptian context, despite national efforts to support inclusive education, the Egyptian building code for persons with disabilities remains primarily focused on physical accessibility related to motor impairments, with limited integration of sensory and emotional considerations relevant to children with neurodevelopmental disorders in educational settings. This gap may negatively influence children’s behavior and learning processes [3]. Official data indicate that the prevalence of ASD among children aged 1–12 years in Egypt is estimated at approximately 1% [4]. However, national epidemiological studies based on population screening suggest that the proportion of children at risk of ASD may be higher, reflecting a gap between early screening and confirmed diagnosis. This occurs in the context of limited, scientifically published national data concerning DS and ADHD [5], underscoring persistent data limitations related to these conditions.

The literature confirms that sensory and interactive architectural design of educational environments contributes significantly to supporting learning, enhancing attention, and promoting emotional regulation among children with neurodevelopmental disorders. Study [3] demonstrated the impact of multi-sensory interior design on improving social and cognitive skills in children with ASD. Moreover, research evidence indicates that clear, well-organized classrooms that carefully address lighting quality and acoustic conditions help reduce attention difficulties and improve behavioral regulation among children with attention-related disorders. These findings highlight the direct influence of the physical educational environment on cognitive, behavioral, and social capacities during early childhood [6,7,8,9]. In this context, the World Health Organization has emphasized the importance of involving children and their families in the design of inclusive and supportive educational environments [10].

Despite this growing body of research, existing studies remain limited in scope, as most have focused predominantly on ASD, particularly through the lens of multi-sensory rooms [3,11], while Down syndrome and ADHD have received comparatively less attention—especially in relation to shared educational environments accommodating these groups together. Although ASD, DS, and ADHD differ in their developmental profiles, children within these groups share core environmental challenges, including difficulty concentrating in highly stimulating settings, reduced social interaction, and heightened sensitivity to environmental stimuli [12,13,14,15]. This underscores the need for flexible and adaptable learning environments capable of providing adjustable levels of sensory stimulation within the same educational space, thereby reinforcing the role of architecture as a supportive tool for behavioral regulation, cognitive development, and social inclusion [1,11,16].

Accordingly, the research problem addressed in this study lies in the absence of integrated sensory and interactive architectural design strategies for educational environments in Egypt that adequately support sensory–emotional learning among children with ASD, DS, and ADHD during early childhood, particularly when these groups are considered collectively within the same learning environment. Despite ongoing initiatives, prevailing design practices continue to lack sufficient attention to sensory and emotional dimensions, which may adversely affect children’s behavior, communication, and learning capacity. Although prior studies have examined specific environmental elements or focused predominantly on single conditions—especially ASD—they have not articulated a comprehensive and operational architectural framework capable of structuring and integrating sensory–interactive strategies across multiple neurodevelopmental profiles within shared inclusive settings. In particular, existing sensory-design approaches tend to remain condition-specific or descriptive, rather than empirically structuring architectural variables into an integrated relational model linking spatial design to sensory–emotional and behavioral–academic dimensions within a unified, inclusive early-childhood context.

In this context, the study is guided by the following main research question: How can sensory and interactive architectural design strategies be employed as supportive tools for learning and emotional regulation in creating educational environments that accommodate children with ASD, DS, and ADHD together during early childhood in Egypt?

This central question is further elaborated through a set of sub-questions addressing the sensory and emotional characteristics associated with interaction within learning environments, the nature of the relationship between environmental design elements and sensory–emotional responses, and the extent to which these responses are associated with behavior, social interaction, academic performance, and learning motivation. Additional attention is given to the role of low-stimulation interactive solutions and tools in supporting self-regulation and attention, based on the perspectives and field-based evaluations of direct users of educational environments.

The research contribution of this study lies in the development of a sensory and interactive architectural design framework grounded in perceptual evaluation of direct user experiences, treating ASD, DS, and ADHD as distinct neurodevelopmental conditions that share fundamental sensory and emotional environmental needs during early childhood. The study addresses a notable research gap concerning the scarcity of design frameworks targeting these groups collectively within a single educational environment, particularly within the Egyptian context, while offering applied and adaptable design guidelines for comparable inclusive educational settings.

2. Conceptual Background

2.1. Early Childhood Development and the Importance of Learning Environments

Early childhood, spanning from birth to eight years—particularly the period between 3 and 8 years—is a critical phase for neural development and the formation of cognitive, social, and emotional capacities, as the literature highlights its heightened sensitivity to brain growth and neural connectivity, with direct implications for learning patterns, behavioral regulation, social skill development, and the long-term reduction in maladaptive behaviors [17,18,19,20,21]. Empirical research further underscores the significance of structured early education in enhancing cognitive performance; a study by Koshy [22] demonstrated that children who received organized educational input for 18–24 months showed significant improvements in general intelligence, processing speed, and language and mathematical skills compared to their peers. Within this developmental context, learning environments play a pivotal role in supporting growth and classroom engagement, as environmental qualities—such as spatial clarity and reduced sensory overload—are closely associated with children’s ability to concentrate, feel secure, and adapt to learning activities. This relationship is particularly critical for children with neurodevelopmental disorders, given their distinct sensory processing profiles and heightened sensitivity to environmental stimuli, including lighting, sound, color, and tactile characteristics, positioning the provision of supportive learning environments as a fundamental architectural–educational approach rather than an optional design choice in inclusive early childhood settings [23,24].

2.2. Sensory and Emotional Needs in Children with Neurodevelopmental Disorders

Children with neurodevelopmental disorders demonstrate diverse patterns of sensory perception and emotional regulation, making the understanding of these needs essential for the design of effective and inclusive learning environments. Although ASD, DS, and ADHD differ in their developmental characteristics, children within these groups share core environmental challenges in educational settings, including heightened sensitivity to sensory stimuli, difficulties with attention, and increased demands for emotional regulation [13,14]. This shared vulnerability underscores the role of architectural design as an active mediator supporting adaptation, engagement, and stability within learning spaces. Accordingly, environments that regulate sensory input, reduce overstimulation, and enhance predictability are consistently linked to improved behavioral and emotional outcomes across neurodevelopmental profiles.

ASD is commonly associated with impairments in social interaction, communication, and behavioral flexibility, alongside heightened sensitivity to visual, auditory, and tactile stimuli [25,26,27,28]. Research indicates that visually clear, spatially organized, and sensorially controlled environments—particularly those that carefully manage lighting, colors, visual cues, and acoustics—can reduce stress, improve emotional regulation, and enhance attention, especially when supported by flexible layouts and natural elements [3,9,14,29]. In the case of DS, a prevalent chromosomal condition characterized by delays in cognitive, linguistic, and motor development, children often rely more heavily on visual and kinesthetic learning modalities, highlighting the importance of clear visual cues, legible spatial organization, and movement-safe environments while avoiding glare and excessive noise [27,30,31,32,33,34]. ADHD, one of the most common neurodevelopmental and behavioral disorders, is marked by inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity, which are exacerbated by high noise levels, visual clutter, and dynamic stimuli [35,36,37,38]. In this context, recent reviews indicate that auditory and visual distractions within classrooms negatively affect attention and performance among children with ADHD, further supporting the need for visually structured, low-noise environments, integrated with solutions that enable safe, organized movement and designated calming spaces [39]. Collectively, addressing this range of sensory and emotional needs within shared learning environments requires flexible, adjustable design strategies that provide visual clarity, calming zones, and graduated sensory modulation, reinforcing architecture’s role as a supportive framework for attention, emotional regulation, and social interaction in inclusive early childhood education [1,11,14].

2.3. Sensory and Interactive Architectural Design Foundations for Neurodevelopmental Learning Environments

Within the context of early childhood development and the documented sensory and emotional needs of children with neurodevelopmental disorders, understanding how these considerations translate into architectural design elements within educational environments is essential. Existing literature indicates that the physical learning environment does not operate as a neutral setting; instead, it plays a formative role in shaping attention, emotional regulation, behavior, and social interaction within classroom contexts [12,40]. This role becomes particularly significant for children with ASD, DS, and ADHD, who exhibit diverse sensory processing patterns and heightened sensitivity to environmental stimuli. Accordingly, architectural environments are increasingly framed as active spatial components that support learning and behavioral regulation, rather than as passive containers, highlighting the relevance of sensory- and interaction-oriented design foundations in educational settings serving neurodevelopmental diversity [11,15,40].

2.3.1. Sensory and Interactive Architectural Design: Concept and Core Principles

Sensory and interactive architectural design refers to an integrated design approach aimed at creating educational environments that respond to children’s needs through the regulation of sensory elements—such as lighting, color, acoustics, materials, and olfactory conditions (air quality and odor control)—while selectively incorporating interactive tools when necessary. This approach seeks to enhance perception, attention, emotional regulation, and social interaction within adaptable and controllable spatial settings [41,42]. Robinson and Pallasmaa [43] emphasize that architecture has the capacity to generate sensory experiences that extend beyond aesthetics to directly influence perception and behavior, while Finnigan [1] highlights that children with neurodevelopmental disorders exhibit diverse sensory needs, necessitating carefully designed environments that account for individual differences in sensory processing.

The literature consistently identifies a set of core design principles underpinning supportive educational environments for children with ASD, DS, and ADHD. These principles include: (1) sensory control and neuro-sensory balance, achieved by reducing excessive stimuli such as harsh fluorescent lighting and noise and replacing them with adjustable natural lighting, calming colors, and warm natural materials to mitigate sensory overload [7]; (2) architectural flexibility and adaptability, through movable furniture and controllable lighting, ventilation, and acoustics, enabling environmental adjustment in response to children’s emotional states without compromising educational function [29,40]; (3) sensory comfort and safety, ensured through the use of safe materials, clear sightlines, adequate ventilation, regulated olfactory conditions, and controlled exposure to indoor and external odor sources—particularly for children with heightened sensory sensitivity—given evidence linking indoor environmental quality and air-related factors to perceptual and behavioral responses in sensory-sensitive populations [14]; (4) sensory and emotional engagement, via the integration of calming colors, natural light, and functional spatial zones that support mood regulation, reduce stress, and encourage engagement in daily learning activities [1,6]; and (5) cognitive support and emotional regulation, through the provision of sensory rooms, flexible nature-based spaces, and predictable, legible layouts incorporating clear pathways, visual cues, and transitional zones that enhance attention, neuro-regulation, perceived safety, and adaptive capacity [43,44,45].

2.3.2. Key Environmental Design Constructs Shaping Neurodevelopmental Learning Experiences

The literature consistently indicates that environmental design elements are not neutral learning backdrops but active sensory–cognitive inputs that directly shape children’s perception, emotional regulation, behavior, and social interaction, particularly within stimulus-sensitive learning environments for children with ASD, DS, and ADHD [39,46]. Given their strong association with diverse sensory processing patterns, these elements can be conceptualized as measurable design constructs and were therefore adopted as perceptual indicators forming the basis of the questionnaire dimensions in this study.

Lighting is widely recognized as a critical environmental determinant due to its close relationship with attention, stress reduction, and circadian regulation. Prior studies stress the need to avoid glare, flicker, and fluorescent lighting systems that may generate visual noise and induce distraction or anxiety, while emphasizing the importance of controllable lighting systems that allow adaptation to individual sensory needs [30,36,47]. Similarly, color functions as an emotional and behavioral regulator and as a perceptual cue for functional zoning within educational spaces. The literature recommends the use of calm, neutral color palettes with carefully controlled contrasts, particularly for children with heightened sensory sensitivity, as a means of enhancing psychological comfort, reducing distraction, and supporting sustained attention [47,48,49,50,51].

Materials and finishes further shape the learning experience through tactile qualities, visual reflectance, safety, and indoor emissions. Natural, visually subdued materials are generally preferred, while reflective, heavily patterned surfaces and materials that negatively affect indoor air quality are discouraged, given their potential to increase sensory overload and perceptual confusion [42,45]. Acoustics constitute another highly sensitive environmental construct, as excessive noise levels are strongly linked to distraction, anxiety, and over-arousal, especially among children with auditory processing difficulties. This underscores the importance of sound absorption, spatial zoning based on stimulation intensity, and careful control of noise levels in activities requiring focused attention [52,53].

Ventilation, air quality, and odors are addressed in the literature as sensory–health factors that significantly influence concentration and behavioral adaptation, particularly for children with olfactory sensitivities. Studies highlight the need to isolate learning spaces from strong odor sources and to optimize ventilation systems in order to minimize unwanted stimuli that may impair cognitive and emotional performance [54,55,56,57]. In contrast, natural elements and sensory gardens are increasingly identified as restorative and regulatory mediators, especially when integrated through safe, graded sensory experiences connected to educational spaces, contributing to stress reduction, enhanced engagement, and improved social interaction [30,58].

Spatial organization, sensory zoning, flexibility, and the provision of calming spaces represent central design constructs for reducing anxiety and distraction. Clear spatial routines, controlled stimulation gradients, reduced classroom density, and the inclusion of low-stimulation transitional zones are repeatedly shown to support emotional stability and self-regulation [59,60,61]. Within this framework, wayfinding and circulation play a complementary role in promoting independence and reducing anxiety through visual clarity, spatial continuity, color coding, and the avoidance of excessive visual or spatial complexity that may overwhelm children with ASD, DS, and ADHD [48,61].

Furniture and fixtures are similarly conceptualized as sensory–organizational structures that support attention and participation by minimizing visual clutter and enabling flexibility, safety, and adaptive seating and storage solutions aligned with diverse learner needs [51,60]. At the same time, art and interactive technologies may be employed as supportive sensory–educational channels to facilitate expression, reduce negative behaviors, and enhance social interaction, provided that stimulation levels are carefully controlled and that technological integration does not override the primacy of low-stimulation spatial interaction [62,63,64,65].

Finally, safety and security are presented as enabling conditions that balance independence with risk prevention. This is achieved through enhanced visual supervision, avoidance of hidden or ambiguous areas, and the selection of safe materials and furniture appropriate to children’s sensory and motor characteristics, thereby reinforcing a stable and supportive educational environment [59,61,66].

2.4. Operationalizing the Conceptual Framework

Building on the proposed conceptual framework, sensory and interactive architectural design elements are conceptualized as integrated, observable, and assessable design domains directly associated with children’s sensory–emotional, behavioral, and academic responses within educational environments. The literature identifies lighting, color schemes, acoustics, materiality, indoor air quality, spatial organization, calming zones, wayfinding systems, furniture, interactive technologies, and safety measures as key environmental determinants influencing sensory comfort, attention, emotional regulation, and behavioral and social interaction patterns among children with neurodevelopmental disorders [3,6,11,15,40]. Accordingly, these theoretical constructs were translated into perceptually measurable analytical dimensions, forming the basis for a validated questionnaire targeting stakeholders most closely involved in children’s daily educational experiences. As illustrated in Figure 1, these elements function as interrelated environmental structures rather than isolated components, shaping sensory–emotional responses in association with behavior, social interaction, and academic performance. This operationalization supports perception-based evaluation rather than direct physical measurement and underpins the development of evidence-informed design guidelines applicable to the Egyptian context, contributing to inclusive learning environments accommodating children with ASD, DS, and ADHD within shared educational settings.

3. Methodology

3.1. Research Design

This study adopted a descriptive–analytical, survey-based research design to investigate the perceptions and evaluations of stakeholders most closely involved in children’s daily educational experiences—namely parents, teachers, and therapists/caregivers—regarding the impact of educational environmental design characteristics on sensory, emotional, behavioral, and academic responses among children in early childhood. The analysis was based on quantitative data collected through a validated measurement instrument developed in alignment with a conceptual framework derived from the literature on sensory architectural design, inclusive learning environments, and the needs of children with neurodevelopmental disorders.

This research design focuses on assessing the perceived impact of educational environmental elements as observed and evaluated by participants within real-use learning settings, positioning perception-based architectural assessment as a complementary approach to experimental studies. Accordingly, the design does not assume direct physical environmental measurements or experimental behavioral assessments, nor does it involve manipulation of variables or inference of causal relationships. This approach is consistent with the nature of perception-based survey studies in supportive architecture and inclusive education research [67,68]. It is therefore well suited to the study’s objectives, as it enables the examination of architectural–educational phenomena within their real-world context, the analysis of user perspectives, and the evaluation of inclusive learning environments from the standpoint of stakeholders directly engaged in children’s everyday educational experiences.

While this perception-based approach enables contextual and experience-driven evaluation, it inherently reflects subjective assessments and does not replace objective environmental performance measurements. In addition, the use of non-probability convenience sampling limits statistical generalizability beyond the defined study population; therefore, findings are interpreted within the exploratory and perception-oriented scope of the study.

3.2. Questionnaire Development and Structure

The study instrument was developed in the form of a validated questionnaire designed to measure the perceived impact of educational environmental design elements on the responses of children with neurodevelopmental disorders (ASD, DS, and ADHD), based on the study’s conceptual framework and a comprehensive review of relevant literature. The questionnaire was structured to translate environmental design components into perceptual and behavioral indicators that can be evaluated from the perspectives of those most directly involved in children’s daily educational experiences—namely, parents, teachers, and therapists/caregivers—thereby enabling the operationalization of the conceptual framework within a real-world applied context. The questionnaire was administered in Arabic using clear and simplified language appropriate to the professional and educational backgrounds of the participants. Complex technical terminology was intentionally avoided to enhance comprehensibility, response accuracy, and the instrument’s face validity, while minimizing interpretation bias and maintaining consistency with the operational definitions of the dimensions derived from the literature.

In its final form, the questionnaire comprised four interrelated sections. The first section collected demographic and contextual information related to both the participant and the child, including participant role, geographic location, years of experience, type of neurodevelopmental disorder, level of disability, and the child’s age, gender, and skill level. The second section focused on assessing the impact of educational environmental design on children’s sensory and emotional responses and included (22) items measuring core sensory responses (visual, tactile, auditory, olfactory, and movement–spatial) using a five-point Likert scale (1 = never, 5 = always), in addition to (7) items addressing supportive environmental factors, such as natural elements, sensory gardens, and safety and security considerations, using the same scale. The third section assessed the perceived impact of educational environmental design on child behavior, social interaction, academic performance, and learning motivation through (13) items measured on a five-point Likert scale reflecting quality of impact (1 = very weak, 5 = excellent), explicitly framed as a perceptual evaluation of impact quality rather than a direct experimental measurement. The fourth section included optional open-ended questions to allow for supportive qualitative comments, without subjecting these responses to independent qualitative analysis.

The instrument was designed to follow a logical sequence from environmental inputs to sensory responses and subsequently to behavioral and academic outcomes, ensuring structural consistency with the conceptual framework. Questionnaire items were formulated using clear, non-assumptive statements to reduce response guidance and minimize conceptual redundancy. Although several items were phrased directionally (e.g., “improves,” “calmer”) to enhance clarity and contextual relevance, the potential influence of acquiescence or leading-item effects was considered during instrument evaluation and data analysis. Item-level response distributions were reviewed to identify excessive ceiling clustering or uniform agreement patterns. The presence of meaningful variability in standard deviation values across items, together with differentiated correlation patterns between dimensions, indicates that responses were not uniformly affirmative.

Table 1. Distribution of Questionnaire Items.

Dimensions		Number of Items
Impact on Child’s Sensory and Emotional Responses	Basic Sensory Responses	22
	Supportive Environmental Factors	7
Impact on Child Behavior, Social Interaction, and Academic Performance		13
Total		42

presents the distribution of questionnaire items across the different dimensions, with a total of 42 items.

Before the final administration of the questionnaire, a pilot test was conducted with a small sample of (n = 15) participants drawn from the study’s target groups (parents, teachers, and therapists). The pilot aimed to assess the clarity of questionnaire items, the appropriateness of the Arabic wording, the logical flow of sections, response time, and the presence of any potential ambiguity or conceptual redundancy among items. Based on the pilot results, minor editorial revisions were implemented, including simplifying selected linguistic formulations, improving the clarity of a limited number of items, and making slight adjustments to item ordering to enhance the overall logical flow of the questionnaire. No modifications were made to the instrument’s overall structure, conceptual dimensions, or core measurement domains. Responses obtained from the pilot sample were excluded from the final statistical analysis to ensure the independence of the primary dataset used for analysis (N = 202) and to maintain the methodological rigor of the study.

3.3. Validity and Reliability

To establish content validity, the questionnaire in its preliminary form was reviewed by ten experts specializing in architectural design, early childhood education, and special education. The expert review aimed to assess the relevance of the items to the study objectives, the clarity of wording, and the adequacy of coverage of the key design dimensions under investigation. The experts’ agreement rates ranged from 80% to 100%, with an overall mean agreement of 95.027%, indicating that the instrument adequately represents the intended measurement domains and providing strong evidence of content validity based on the expert agreement rate.

Instrument reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha and the split-half method. The results demonstrated high levels of internal consistency across all dimensions, with Cronbach’s alpha values of α = 0.954 for sensory and emotional responses, α = 0.951 for supportive environmental factors, and α = 0.952 for behavior, social interaction, and academic performance, while the overall reliability coefficient reached α = 0.955. Although high reliability coefficients may, in some contexts, suggest conceptual overlap among items, the distribution of items across theoretically derived and independent sub-dimensions reduces the likelihood of redundant wording and reflects strong internal consistency while maintaining construct differentiation, as presented in

Table 2. Reliability coefficients for questionnaire dimensions using Cronbach’s alpha and split-half reliability.

Dimensions		Cronbach’s Alpha	Split-Half
Impact on Child’s Sensory and Emotional Responses	Basic Sensory Responses	0.954	0.932
	Supportive Environmental Factors	0.951	0.925
Impact on Child Behavior, Social Interaction, and Academic Performance		0.952	0.929
Total		0.955	0.938

. It should be noted that the present study does not aim to develop an independent psychological scale, but rather to operationalize an applied architectural framework. Accordingly, the current validity and reliability procedures are considered sufficient, with the potential for further enhancement of construct validity through supportive factor analyses in future studies involving larger samples or repeated applications.

3.4. Study Population, Data Collection and Ethical Considerations

The study population comprised parents, teachers, and therapists/caregivers, as they represent the groups most directly involved in the daily educational experiences of children with neurodevelopmental disorders. The final sample (N = 202) consisted of 84 teachers (41.6%), 86 therapists or rehabilitation specialists (42.6%), 28 parents (13.9%), and 4 inclusion/special education specialists (2.0%). The children represented in these evaluations were diagnosed with ASD (36.6%), ADHD (30.7%), and DS (31.7%), with moderate levels of disability being the most prevalent (49.5%). The sample was selected using a convenience sampling approach, which was considered appropriate given the exploratory nature of the study and the practical difficulty of accessing this research population through random sampling methods.

A total of 202 valid responses were obtained from eligible participants during the data collection period, and all complete submissions were included in the analysis. No a priori fixed sample size was imposed, as the study follows an exploratory, perception-based correlational design, and no centralized national registry exists to define a finite and accessible sampling frame for this specific participant group. Accordingly, the obtained sample size was considered methodologically appropriate for descriptive and non-parametric correlational analyses without aiming at probabilistic generalization to the broader national population. The sample covered a geographically diverse range within Egypt, reflecting varied educational contexts. The highest proportions were reported in the Delta region and Alexandria/North Coast (23.8% each), followed by Greater Cairo (19.8%), Upper Egypt (16.8%), and the Canal/Sinai/Red Sea region (12.9%), with the remaining percentage distributed across other governorates at lower rates. This geographical distribution supports the representation of diverse educational settings within the Egyptian context, without claiming comprehensive statistical representativeness.

The questionnaire was directed to parents, teachers, and specialists working within or affiliated with educational and rehabilitation institutions that provide services to the target group of children, ensuring that responses were based on experience with educational environments rather than general impressionistic judgments. Data were collected between May and November 2025 using an online questionnaire, which was made available through electronic links and distributed via email and social media platforms to the targeted participant groups within the relevant educational institutions.

The study protocol and submitted questionnaire were reviewed and formally approved by the Subcommittee for Research Ethics, Faculty of Engineering, Mansoura University. The research was classified as minimal risk due to its non-interventional survey design and the absence of identifiable personal data. Participation was voluntary, informed consent was obtained electronically prior to questionnaire completion, and responses were collected anonymously and stored securely for research purposes only.

3.5. Data Analysis and Methodological Alignment

Descriptive statistics were employed to analyze the data, including means, standard deviations, frequencies, and percentages, to describe the level of perceived impact of environmental design elements. Higher mean values were interpreted as indicators of general perceptual trends rather than as direct objective measures of environmental or behavioral performance, with due consideration given to the potential ceiling effect associated with Likert-scale responses. Accordingly, the interpretation of results was carefully bounded within this perceptual framework. Mean values were also converted into percentages (Mean/5 × 100) for descriptive and comparative purposes only, without implying any form of objective physical performance.

For inferential analysis, Spearman’s rank-order correlation coefficient was used due to its suitability for ordinal data and its non-reliance on assumptions of normal distribution. This analysis examined the relationships between the perceived impact of environmental design on sensory–emotional responses and its perceived influence on behavior, social interaction, and academic performance. Statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics (version 26; IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA), with a significance level set at (p ≤ 0.05), and stronger associations highlighted at (p ≤ 0.01). In addition to statistical significance, the strength of correlations was interpreted using conventional effect-size thresholds (weak, moderate, strong) to allow evaluation of practical relevance rather than relying solely on p-values. Given the correlational nature of the analysis and the multiple relationships examined, statistical significance was interpreted with caution, without inferring direct causal relationships.

This analytical framework ensures methodological alignment between the architectural–sensory conceptual framework, the measurement instrument, and the applied statistical techniques, thereby supporting the extraction of results that are interpretable from both architectural and educational perspectives and that can be translated into practical, perception-based design priorities within the defined scope of the study.

To assess potential common-method bias arising from the measurement method, Harman’s single-factor test was conducted by entering all questionnaire items into an exploratory factor analysis without rotation. The first unrotated factor accounted for 36.7% of the total variance, which is below the commonly accepted threshold of 50%, suggesting that common method variance did not constitute a substantial statistical concern in this study [69]. In addition to this statistical check, procedural remedies were implemented at the questionnaire design stage to reduce method-related bias, including anonymity assurance, voluntary participation, and the separation of conceptual constructs across distinct sections of the instrument to minimize response pattern consistency. Potential social-desirability effects were further mitigated by clarifying that responses would not be linked to institutional evaluation or individual performance outcomes.

4. Results

The descriptive results indicated a relatively high overall trend in participants’ perceptions of the impact of educational environment design on children’s sensory–emotional responses and behavioral–academic outcomes. These findings are interpreted within the framework of perceived impact, as derived from participants’ direct experiences with the actual use of educational environments, rather than as objective measurements of the physical performance of the built environment or experimentally measured behavioral outcomes. At the same time, the reported standard deviation values reveal noticeable variability across responses, indicating that perceptions were not fully homogeneous across children or educational settings. This variability is interpreted as reflecting differences in educational contexts and individual differences among children in terms of characteristics and sensory needs.

4.1. Sample Characteristics

The socio-demographic and clinical characteristics of the study sample (N = 202) are summarized in

Table 3. Socio-demographic and clinical characteristics of the study sample (N = 202).

Variables		Frequency	Percent
Gender	Male	120	59.4
	Female	82	40.6
Your Relationship with the Child	Teacher	84	41.6
	Parent	28	13.9
	Therapist or Rehabilitation Specialist	86	42.6
	Special Education Expert and Inclusion Class Supervisor	2	1.0
	Other	2	1.0
Years of Experience do you have dealing with Children with Special Needs	0–5 years	68	33.7
	6–10 years	64	31.7
	11–15 years	44	21.8
	Over 15 years	26	12.9
Category to which the Child Belongs	Autism Spectrum Disorder	74	36.6
	Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)	62	30.7
	Down Syndrome	64	31.7
	Other (please specify)	2	1.0
Level of Disability According to Child Assessments	Mild	38	18.8
	Moderate	100	49.5
	Severe	40	19.8
	Very Severe	24	11.9
Child’s Age	3–5 years	98	48.5
	6–8 years	104	51.5
Verbal Communication Skills	Does not speak	32	15.8
	Few words	54	26.7
	Simple sentences	72	35.6
	Advanced sentences	44	21.8
Level of Motor Mobility	Independent	130	64.4
	Requires minimal assistance	60	29.7
	Requires assistive equipment	10	5.0
	Relies entirely on a wheelchair	2	1.0
Does the Child have any known? Sensory Disturbances?	Yes	150	74.3
	No	52	25.7

. The sample reflects perspectives from key participant groups directly engaged in early childhood educational environments for children with ASD, ADHD, and Down syndrome. The distribution of diagnoses was relatively balanced, with moderate levels of disability most frequently reported. The age range (3–8 years) aligns with the study’s early childhood focus. Notably, a substantial proportion of children were reported to experience sensory processing difficulties, underscoring the relevance of sensory-responsive environmental design within inclusive educational settings.

4.2. Impact of Learning Environment Design on Children’s Sensory and Emotional Responses

The descriptive analysis revealed a high overall perceived impact of learning environment design on children’s sensory and emotional responses (overall mean = 4.24), corresponding to the response level “always” (

Table 4. Means, standard deviations, and percentage scores for the impact of learning environment design on children’s sensory and emotional responses (N = 202).

s	Items	Mean	SD	Percent	Level
First: Basic sensory responses
Visual Response (Lighting/Colors)
1	Children feel comfortable and active when there is balanced natural lighting in the classroom.	4.05	0.83	81.00	Often
2	They become calmer when flickering and strong, direct lighting are minimized.	4.00	0.94	80.00	Often
3	Calming colors (blue, green, nature colors) help soothe them and make them feel comfortable.	4.15	0.80	83.00	Often
4	They become less distracted and anxious when bright or contrasting colors (strong red/yellow) are avoided.	4.10	0.88	82.00	Often
5	Simple colors or patterns on floors and walls help children move around, understand directions, and distinguish between rooms.	4.26	0.76	85.20	Always
Average for Visual Response (Lighting/Colors)		4.11	0.58	82.20	Often
Tactile Response/Materials
6	The child feels more comfortable on soft, safe flooring (carpets, foam, cork).	4.34	0.65	86.80	Always
7	Natural and familiar materials (wood, cotton) support their sense of comfort more than cold plastic or metal.	4.03	0.83	80.60	Often
8	Choosing comfortable materials that are neither rough nor cold promotes their acceptance of the space.	4.17	0.86	83.40	Often
9	Avoiding shiny or textured surfaces helps their comfort and reduces overstimulation.	3.86	0.96	77.20	Often
Average for Tactile Response/Materials		4.13	0.61	82.60	Often
Auditory Response/Sounds
10	The child is calmer in an environment isolated from external noise or the constant sounds of appliances (such as an air conditioner or fan).	4.17	0.80	83.40	Often
11	Their anxiety decreases when loud or sudden noises (bell, shouting, sudden movement) are avoided.	4.35	0.77	87.00	Always
12	They feel more comfortable when they hear natural sounds (water, birds) or soft music.	3.69	0.76	73.80	Often
Average for Auditory Response/Sounds		4.08	0.63	81.60	Often
Olfactory/Ventilation Response
13	The child feels comfortable in well-ventilated, fresh air.	4.56	0.71	91.20	Always
14	The child becomes calmer when the environment is free of strong odors (cleaners, food, perfumes) or sudden changes in smell.	4.11	1.02	82.20	Often
15	Pleasant, natural scents (flowers, herbs) support their mood.	3.39	0.89	67.80	Sometimes
Average for Olfactory/Ventilation Response		4.02	0.70	80.40	Often
Motor/Spatial Response
16	Flexible (movable) furniture helps him regulate his movement.	4.17	0.79	83.40	Often
17	Kinetic tools and furniture (such as balls, active seats, rocking chairs, and swings) help the child regulate his energy.	4.13	0.91	82.60	Often
18	A tidy and visually clear classroom increases his sense of stability and security.	4.58	0.72	91.60	Always
19	Providing short breaks for movement during activities helps him maintain his calm and emotional regulation.	4.50	0.70	90.00	Always
20	Having a quiet corner or retreat area within the classroom helps the child calm down and regulate his emotions when he is overstimulated.	4.24	0.69	84.80	Always
21	Dividing the space into a quiet area for learning and a separate area for play reduces his anxiety and supports his stability.	4.35	0.77	87.00	Always
22	He feels comfortable when there are clear, direct, and uncomplicated paths, which reduce his confusion while moving around.	4.50	0.77	90.00	Always
Average for Motor/Spatial Response		4.35	0.58	87.00	Always
Average for Basic sensory responses		4.17	0.51	83.4	Often
Second: Supportive Environmental Factors
Natural Elements/Sensory Gardens
23	A child feels comfortable in a safe garden or outdoor space.	4.44	0.68	88.80	Always
24	They react positively (smiling/relaxing) to natural elements (water, sand, plants, bird/tree sounds) and prefer playing in stimulating environments.	4.24	0.78	84.80	Always
Average for Natural Elements/Sensory Gardens		4.34	0.66	86.80	Always
Safety and security
25	His anxiety decreases when doors and windows are secure (safe glass, appropriate locks).	4.52	0.87	90.40	Always
26	Slip-resistant flooring makes him feel more secure while moving around.	4.54	0.89	90.80	Always
27	Safe, enclosed play areas support his sensory and emotional balance.	4.40	0.87	88.00	Always
28	Good visual supervision and minimizing hidden spaces increase his sense of security.	4.49	0.83	89.80	Always
29	A hazard-free environment (no sharp edges, visual clutter) enhances his calmness.	4.63	0.74	92.60	Always
Average for Safety and Security		4.52	0.73	90.40	Always
Average for Supportive Environmental Factors		4.47	0.66	89.4	Always
Average for the impact of the learning environment design on the child’s sensory and emotional responses		4.24	0.51	84.80	Always

). This pattern reflects a consistent perceptual trend among participants derived from daily engagement with educational environments rather than an objective assessment of physical building performance. Variability across items indicates that responses were not fully homogeneous, suggesting context-dependent and child-specific differences in sensory regulation needs. Movement–spatial features emerged as the most influential sensory domain, suggesting the importance of spatial clarity, functional zoning, and movement accommodation as primary regulators of emotional stability within early childhood settings. In contrast, auditory and olfactory dimensions demonstrated comparatively more variable perceptions, reinforcing the multidimensional nature of sensory responsiveness rather than indicating uniform design effects. Figure 2 illustrates the relative distribution across sensory–emotional dimensions, with the ranking of dimensions representing general perceptual trends among participants rather than a fixed causal or normative hierarchy.

4.3. Impact of Learning Environment Design on Child Behavior, Social Interaction, and Academic Performance

The results indicated a notable perceived impact of learning environment design on behavioral and learning-related outcomes (overall mean = 4.10), corresponding to the level “good” (

Table 5. Means, standard deviations, and percentage scores for the impact of learning environment design on child behavior, social participation, and academic performance (N = 202).

s	Items	Mean	SD	Percent	Level
Child’s Behavior and Concentration
1	A child’s concentration improves when lighting can be adjusted (curtains, adjustable lighting).	4.10	0.85	82.00	Good
2	A child’s concentration improves in quiet or low-noise areas.	4.18	0.80	83.60	Good
3	Their concentration and behavior improve when activities are organized in a clear sequence (quiet → active → quiet).	4.25	0.88	85.00	Excellent
4	Positive behaviors (calmness/cooperation/discipline) increase in a quiet environment.	4.19	0.92	83.80	Good
5	A child exhibits calmer and more balanced behavior when excessive environmental stimuli are minimized.	4.31	0.82	86.20	Excellent
6	A child can calm down when a quiet space is available.	4.20	0.84	84.00	Excellent
Average for Child’s Behavior and Concentration		4.20	0.72	84.00	Excellent
Social Participation and Interaction
7	The child participates better in structured activities (drawing/movement/sensory games) when provided with a suitable environment.	4.07	0.95	81.40	Good
8	Their ability to interact socially (group play, sharing, eye contact) improves when provided with a suitable environment.	3.73	1.01	74.60	Good
9	Their social interactions improve when spending time in a sensory garden or natural outdoor spaces.	4.04	0.95	80.80	Good
Average for Social Participation and Interaction		3.95	0.88	79.00	Good
Academic Performance
10	His academic performance improves in clear, visually organized, and clutter-free classrooms.	4.06	1.00	81.20	Good
11	He participates better when the furniture is arranged in an organized manner and supports eye contact.	3.99	0.95	79.80	Good
12	The child shows greater motivation to learn when using interactive tools (smart boards, sensory toys).	4.03	0.91	80.60	Good
13	The child benefits from interactive sensory rooms or tools and alternative communication applications.	4.17	0.83	83.40	Good
Average for Academic Performance		4.09	0.80	81.80	Good
Average for the impact of learning environment design on child behavior, social interaction, and academic performance		4.10	0.72	82.00	Good

). As this dimension was assessed using a “quality of impact” scale, the reported mean values are interpreted within a perceptual framework reflecting the perceived quality of influence rather than direct measurement of actual behavioral or academic change. Overall patterns suggest that behavioral regulation and attentional control were perceived as more directly supported by environmental design than broader social and academic outcomes, reflecting the more immediate role of spatial and sensory conditions in attention and behavioral regulation. In contrast, social participation and academic performance appear to remain influenced by additional pedagogical and contextual variables. Figure 3 summarizes the relative impact levels across behavioral–academic dimensions and their overall composite, noting that social outcomes may be shaped by broader contextual and interactional factors beyond the physical learning environment alone.

4.4. Associations Between Sensory–Emotional Responses and Behavioral–Academic Outcomes

Spearman’s rho analysis revealed statistically significant positive associations between sensory–emotional responses and behavioral–academic outcomes (

Table 6. Spearman’s rank correlations between sensory–emotional responses and behavioral–academic outcomes (N = 202).

Variables		Impact on Child Behavior, Social Interaction, and Academic Performance
		Child’s Behavior and Concentration	Social Participation and Interaction	Academic Performance	Total
Basic Sensory Responses	Visual Response (Lighting/Colors)	0.660 **	0.226 **	0.423 **	0.514 **
	Tactile Response/Materials	0.547 **	0.239 **	0.410 **	0.465 **
	Auditory Response/Sounds	0.514 **	0.087	0.307 **	0.374 **
	Olfactory/Ventilation Response	0.613 **	0.237 **	0.496 **	0.547 **
	Motor/Spatial Response	0.572 **	0.295 **	0.499 **	0.521 **
	Total	0.702 **	0.268 **	0.519 **	0.585 **
Supportive Environmental Factors	Natural Elements/Sensory Gardens	0.518 **	0.562 **	0.532 **	0.598 **
	Safety and security	0.621 **	0.397 **	0.546 **	0.590 **
	Total	0.609 **	0.534 **	0.580 **	0.646 **
Impact on Child’s Sensory and Emotional Responses		0.718 **	0.326 **	0.550 **	0.620 **

(**) denotes statistical significance at the p ≤ 0.01 level, as indicated by the analysis results.

). Across dimensions, stronger associations were observed with behavioral regulation and attention, while comparatively moderate relationships emerged for academic performance and social participation. Supportive environmental factors likewise demonstrated consistent positive associations with the overall behavioral–academic composite, indicating that sensory–emotional regulation and supportive spatial conditions appear as interrelated perceptual constructs within the educational environment. These correlation coefficients are interpreted in terms of effect size rather than causation, whereby moderate to strong values reflect meaningful statistical co-variation among perceptually measured variables. Accordingly, the findings suggest a coherent pattern of statistically significant associations among environmental perception, sensory–emotional responses, and behavioral–academic outcomes, without implying that modification of a single design element would independently determine behavioral or academic change. Figure 4 provides a graphical illustration of the relationship between the two composite dimensions to support visual interpretation, while emphasizing that correlation strength does not equate to individual-level predictability without additional contextual information.

5. Discussion

This study interprets the perceived impact of learning environment design on the sensory–emotional and behavioral–academic outcomes of children with neurodevelopmental disorders, drawing on architectural and educational literature and the experiential perspectives of teachers, therapists, and parents. The findings indicate a generally high perceived impact with variation across sensory and behavioral dimensions, supporting an understanding of architectural design as an active contributor to the inclusive educational experience rather than a neutral spatial backdrop, without assuming direct causality and in alignment with the survey-based research design.

Interpreting the High Perceived Impact in Light of Sample Characteristics and Perception-Based Measurement: The high perceived impact observed for both sensory–emotional responses (84.8%) and behavioral–academic outcomes (82.0%) can be explained in relation to the characteristics of the study sample, particularly given that a substantial proportion of the children (74.3%) were reported to experience sensory processing difficulties. This finding aligns with the literature indicating heightened environmental sensitivity among children with ASD, ADHD, and DS, for whom the physical environment functions as an active factor shaping behavior and emotional regulation rather than a neutral backdrop [7,15]. Accordingly, the elevated mean scores should be interpreted as a logical reflection of the sensory profiles of the target population and their daily environmental experiences, rather than as an overestimation of impact or a normative judgment of the quality of specific learning environments. This interpretation is further supported by the perception-based nature of the measurement, which captures perceived impact rather than direct physical environmental performance or experimentally measured outcomes. Moreover, the observed variability in standard deviations indicates non-homogeneous experiences across children and educational settings, consistent with differences in sensory processing profiles, levels of disability, and contextual educational conditions.

5.1. The Most Influential Sensory Responses and Their Interpretive Mechanisms

Movement–spatial responses as the most influential sensory dimension: The results show that movement–spatial responses achieved the highest mean among the sensory dimensions (M = 4.35), aligning with the literature that emphasizes spatial organization, clear circulation paths, functional zoning, and the provision of calming spaces as key elements for supporting self-regulation and reducing anxiety among children with neurodevelopmental disorders [38,39,70]. The high ratings of items such as “a visually orderly and clearly organized classroom” and “a quiet corner” further support the premise that reducing sensory load through clear and predictable spatial environments enhances feelings of safety and stability, which in turn positively affects attention and behavioral regulation. This interpretation is consistent with studies highlighting visual clutter, open storage, and excessive decoration as sources of distraction, in contrast to visual order as a primary design lever [6,53]. Accordingly, spatial predictability may operate as an indirect regulatory mechanism that supports calming and attentional control without the need for direct behavioral intervention.

Visual and tactile responses and their role in sensory comfort: The results revealed relatively high levels of perceived impact, as balanced lighting, avoidance of flicker and glare, calming color schemes, and comfortable material finishes were associated with improved sensory comfort and reduced distraction and sensory discomfort among children. This indicates that design support is not limited to reducing the intensity of environmental stimuli but extends to regulating their quality and sensory characteristics. This interpretation is consistent with the literature emphasizing the use of calming colors, balanced natural lighting, and non-glossy, tactually safe materials, while prioritizing the principle of “sensory control” rather than “sensory enrichment” within inclusive learning environments [42,47,48,49].

The acoustic environment between noise reduction and stimulus control: A high perceived impact was observed for avoiding continuous noise and sudden sounds, whereas lower mean values were reported for natural sounds or soft music. This pattern reflects a shared perception that auditory support is achieved primarily through minimizing acoustic disturbance rather than introducing additional stimuli. This finding aligns with the literature, indicating that supportive educational environments for children with neurodevelopmental disorders emphasize noise reduction and careful regulation of sound timing and intensity [7,11].

Ventilation and olfactory conditions between sensory support and overstimulation avoidance: The ventilation and indoor air quality dimension recorded among the highest mean values (M = 4.56), reflecting a nuanced awareness among participants, whereby fresh air and adequate ventilation are perceived as essential conditions for sensory comfort. In contrast, natural scents received lower ratings, suggesting that olfactory neutrality may be more supportive than intentional scenting for some children with heightened olfactory sensitivity. This observation is consistent with the principle of minimizing unpredictable sensory stimuli within inclusive educational environments [3,7].

5.2. Supportive Environmental Factors as Sensory–Emotional Regulators

Natural elements as a supportive sensory–emotional mediator: The results confirm the regulatory role of natural elements, as the nature/sensory gardens dimension recorded a high mean (M = 4.34), accompanied by noticeable improvements in behavior and interaction when children spent time in natural settings. These findings indicate that nature does not function merely as an aesthetic or recreational feature, but rather as a supportive regulatory component that contributes to stress reduction, emotional calming, and enhanced readiness for interaction and learning. This interpretation is consistent with the literature on emotional restoration and the reduction in sensory–cognitive load, and studies linking natural lighting, windows, and natural materials to principles of biophilic design, provided that such elements are applied in a balanced manner that maintains a graduated level of stimulation and avoids sensory overstimulation [1,8,41,51].

Safety and security as a fundamental emotional regulator: This dimension ranked highest overall (M = 4.52), indicating that safety is perceived as a core psychological–emotional regulator that reduces anxiety and enhances feelings of containment, rather than merely a technical or constructional requirement. The study’s findings further support this perspective through strong associations with behavioral–academic outcomes [28,59,70], highlighting safety as a structural component of emotional regulation rather than an isolated functional consideration.

5.3. Interpreting Differences Between Behavior and Attention Versus Social Interaction and Academic Performance

The findings suggest that the perceived impact of environmental design on behavior and attention is stronger than its impact on social interaction and academic performance because architectural design intervenes more directly in regulating sensory stimuli, whereas social interaction remains largely shaped by broader pedagogical, therapeutic, and contextual factors. This interpretation is consistent with the literature, which emphasizes that improvements in social interaction require an integrated approach combining the physical environment with teaching strategies, the use of interactive technologies, and targeted behavioral support [3,25,33,71]. Accordingly, the fact that this dimension remained at a “good” level reflects the realism of the results rather than indicating a design-related shortcoming.

5.4. Implications of Statistical Associations Within the Limits of the Survey Design

The statistical associations (Spearman’s rho) indicate strong positive relationships between sensory–emotional responses and behavior and attention (ρ = 0.718), and moderate associations with academic performance, alongside strong relationships between supportive environmental factors, social participation, and the overall outcome score. These patterns support an interpretive pathway linking improvements in sensory–emotional experience to behavioral and cognitive regulation, while explicitly avoiding assumptions of direct causality, in line with the constraints of the survey-based design [11,14,29].

5.5. Open-Ended Responses as Qualitative Interpretive Support

The open-ended responses emphasized environmental clarity, spatial organization, and the reduction in unnecessary stimuli as key factors in improving emotional regulation and reducing episodes of stress and stereotypical behaviors. Parents highlighted the role of visual predictability—such as clear circulation paths, comprehensible spatial divisions, and designated calming corners—in soothing children and stabilizing daily routines. Teachers and inclusion specialists noted that furniture flexibility, clear zoning of functional areas (learning–play–relaxation), and adjustable lighting facilitate transitions between activities and reduce distraction. Therapists stressed the therapeutic value of sensory–spatial elements—such as movement-supportive furniture, sensory regulation tools, and acoustic quality—in enhancing concentration within well-organized environments. Although these inputs were not subjected to an independent qualitative analysis, they provide interpretive support that strengthens the credibility of the quantitative findings without exceeding the scope of the descriptive–analytical methodology.

In summary, the findings confirm that sensory- and emotionally responsive educational environment design constitutes a structural architectural approach for supporting behavior and learning among children with neurodevelopmental disorders. The strongest effects emerge when design is addressed as an integrated system encompassing spatial organization, safety, flexibility, and control of sensory stimuli. The study’s applied value lies in prioritizing design considerations that can be translated into architectural and operational decisions within inclusive educational settings, within the limits of perceptual evaluation and correlational analysis, and in laying the groundwork for the development of evidence-based design guidelines.

6. Applied Design Framework and Evidence-Informed Guidelines

This section presents an applied framework that translates the statistical and correlational findings into sensory and interactive design guidelines suitable for implementation in inclusive educational settings. The guidelines are framed as evidence-informed architectural recommendations grounded in perceived impact patterns and statistically identified correlational associations between environmental design variables and children’s sensory–emotional responses and behavioral–academic dimensions, as captured through the questionnaire. These guidelines do not aim to establish experimental causal relationships or to replace direct physical measurements or standardized behavioral observations; rather, they are intended to support architectural and operational decision-making and to prioritize low-stimulation interventions. The framework explicitly distinguishes between practical applicability and experimental validation, presenting the guidelines as adaptive priorities that can be adjusted according to individual child characteristics, institutional contexts, and available resources.

Although the empirical data were collected within a specific socio-cultural setting, the framework is anchored in broader theoretical principles of sensory load regulation, spatial predictability, environmental modulation, and graduated stimulation control. These principles are not inherently culture-bound; however, their architectural translation—including material selection, color application, spatial configuration, and environmental detailing—must be contextually adapted in response to local cultural norms, climatic conditions, educational systems, regulatory frameworks, and resource availability. Accordingly, the framework is transferable at the level of design logic and regulatory principles, while remaining intentionally flexible in its contextual implementation across different regions and socio-cultural environments. The framework also highlights the need for subsequent research—such as Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE), longitudinal studies, or quasi-experimental interventions—to assess effectiveness, contextual responsiveness, and diagnostic-specific adaptability under varied institutional and cultural conditions. The operational structure of the proposed framework, including design dimensions, environmental elements, supporting empirical evidence, perceived impact patterns, and corresponding applied recommendations, is systematically presented in

Table 7. Applied design framework, translating study findings into evidence-informed architectural guidelines.

Design Dimension	No.	Environmental Element	Evidence from Study Results and Participants’ Feedback	Perceived Sensory–Emotional and Behavioral Impact	Applied Design Guidelines
Lighting and Windows	1	Balanced natural lighting	High levels of comfort, vitality, and improved concentration are associated with balanced daylight	Reduced visual fatigue, enhanced emotional stability, improved attention	Design openings that provide diffuse and evenly distributed natural light; avoid sharp light–shadow contrasts within the child’s visual field; provide adjustable shading to reduce glare.
	2	Reducing flicker and direct lighting	Improved calmness and attention when flicker and strong direct lighting are minimized	Reduced sensory stress and impulsive behaviors	Use indirect lighting strategies; eliminate high-intensity and especially flickering light sources to prevent sensory over-stimulation.
	3	Lighting control	Clear improvement in focus and behavior when the lighting is adjustable	Support for self-regulation and sustained attention	Provide multi-level lighting control (blinds/dimming/scenarios) while avoiding sudden changes in intensity.
Colors and Visual Patterns	4	Calming color palettes	High evaluations of calming colors in supporting emotional regulation	Visual comfort and anxiety reduction	Adopt calm, neutral, nature-inspired palettes (blues/greens/soft neutrals) consistently within primary learning areas.
	5	Avoidance of vivid colors	Reduced distraction and stress when contrasting or vivid colors are avoided	Reduced sensory overload	Avoid intense colors (red/yellow) and sharp contrasts in learning zones; restrict strong colors to limited wayfinding cues only.
	6	Simple visual patterns	Easier movement and spatial understanding	Enhanced sense of control and predictability	Use simple floor and wall patterns; minimize decorative complexity and visual texture to maintain perceptual clarity and spatial predictability.
Materials and Finishes	7	Soft, safe flooring	Greater comfort and reassurance compared to hard flooring	Motor safety, tactile comfort, and reduced anxiety during movement	Apply soft, safe flooring (low-pile carpet/foam/cork) in learning and play areas; use impact-reducing materials in movement zones.
	8	Natural and familiar materials	Clear preference for natural/familiar materials over cold synthetic ones	Improved spatial acceptance and reduced tactile aversion	Prioritize wood, cotton textiles, and warm materials; minimize cold metals and plastics to reduce tactile discomfort.
	9	Avoidance of glossy surfaces	Higher comfort with matte surfaces and reduced overstimulation	Reduced visual irritation	Use matte or semi-matte finishes; minimize reflective surfaces; test reflections under natural and artificial lighting to prevent glare.
	10	Material consistency within space	Material consistency is associated with increased stability and sensory clarity	Enhanced sensory predictability and self-regulation	Maintain material consistency within each space; avoid abrupt material transitions unless functionally or visually justified.
Acoustic Environment	11	Noise insulation	Improved calmness and focus when noise and equipment sounds are reduced	Enhanced attention, reduced anxiety, and impulsivity	Isolate noise sources (corridors/HVAC/equipment); use sound-absorbing materials; orient classrooms away from noise; prioritize noise reduction over adding stimuli.
	12	Avoidance of loud or sudden sounds	Reduced anxiety and defensive behaviors when loud/sudden sounds are avoided	Reduced defensive responses and increased sense of safety	Regulate alarms, equipment sounds, and door movement; replace or supplement with low-intensity or visual alerts; minimize auditory surprises.
	13	Natural sounds	Relatively lower ratings due to variability in auditory sensitivity	Selective calming effect for some children	Use optionally at low intensity and short durations with immediate stop options; avoid as a permanent feature when auditory sensitivity is present.
Ventilation and Odors	14	Air quality and ventilation	Highest sensory comfort ratings	General comfort and support for emotional regulation and attention	Provide stable natural/mechanical ventilation without sudden air currents; ensure continuous air renewal to support comfort and focus.
	15	Odor-neutral environments	Strong preference for odor-free spaces	Reduced olfactory overstimulation	Minimize perfumes and strong cleaning agents; implement an “odor-neutral policy” within classrooms.
	16	Natural scents	Lower relative ratings	High olfactory sensitivity among some children	Avoid scents in indoor spaces, or apply with extreme caution, intermittently, and with individual sensitivity in mind.
Spatial Organization	17	Clear circulation paths	Strongest impact among movement–spatial dimensions	Reduced confusion and enhanced safety	Design simple, direct, non-intersecting circulation paths; clearly mark beginnings and ends; reduce visual ambiguity to support independent navigation.
	18	Functional zoning	High ratings for separating learning/play/calming areas	Support for stability and self-regulation	Clearly separate learning, play, and calming zones; organize activities according to a logical gradient of stimulation.
	19	Calming corners	Improved emotional regulation with withdrawal spaces	Reduced stress episodes	Provide a calming corner in every classroom for self-withdrawal without social isolation; equip it with low-stimulation elements.
	20	Sensory gradation between spaces	Preference for sequencing activities from calm to active and back	Reduced sensory load and improved self-regulation	Arrange spatial sequences progressively (calm → active → calming); avoid abrupt shifts in stimulation density between spaces.
	21	Low-stimulation transition zones	Improved focus and behavior during organized transitions	Reduced emotional escalation	Provide short, low-stimulation transition zones before/after active tasks; minimize noise and visual clutter; use simple cues to indicate “what’s next.”
	22	Reduction in visual clutter	Visual order associated with increased calmness	Reduced sensory load and distraction	Use closed storage; limit unnecessary displays; introduce materials gradually to maintain low-clutter visual fields.
Movement Flexibility	23	Flexible furniture	Improved energy regulation and attention	Support for positive behavior and stress reduction	Use lightweight, reconfigurable furniture and movement-supportive seating with organizational controls to prevent disorder.
	24	Furniture arrangement supporting eye contact without pressure	Improved participation with organized layouts supporting visual contact	Enhanced interaction and engagement	Arrange tables in small groups or semi-circles; maintain clear circulation; avoid crowding; ensure visual connection without excessive social pressure.
	25	Movement tools	Role of movement tools in energy regulation	Reduced hyperactivity and improved focus	Provide light movement tools (balls/wobble seats) in a controlled manner with clear usage rules to prevent distraction.
	26	Movement breaks	Improved calmness with short movement breaks	Regulation of motor energy	Integrate short, structured movement breaks into daily schedules and link them to activity transitions.
Natural Elements	27	Indoor plants	High ratings for nature’s role in comfort and positive affect	Reduced stress and improved mood	Integrate low-stimulation indoor plants in locations that do not obstruct movement; maintain visual simplicity.
	28	Sensory gardens	Improved social interaction in outdoor natural spaces	Support for social interaction and emotional stability	Design safe sensory gardens with graded stimulation; provide clear paths and seating/calming areas.
	29	Natural views	Improved emotional responses with visible natural elements	Sensory calming and psychological restoration	Orient classrooms toward gardens or natural views where possible; otherwise, provide low-stimulation natural visual substitutes.
Interactive Technology	30	Low-stimulation interactive tools	Improved motivation and attention with simple interactive media	Support for learning and self-regulation	Use low-stimulation tools by reducing flicker and avoiding sudden audio effects; control sound/light intensity; limit duration with a clear stop option.
Safety and Security	31	Slip-resistant flooring	Strong association between safety and emotional calmness	Reduced anticipatory anxiety	Apply slip-resistant flooring, especially in movement areas; remove obstacles to facilitate safe navigation.
	32	Visual supervision	Increased sense of safety with good visual oversight	Enhanced containment and reassurance	Strengthen sightlines and reduce hidden areas; maintain supportive transparency without oppressive surveillance or perceived threat.
	33	Hazard-free environment	Highest levels of calmness and behavioral regulation	Behavioral and emotional stability	Avoid sharp edges and operational hazards; reduce motor and visual clutter to ensure a safe and predictable environment.

.

This framework offers a practical translation of the study findings into low-stimulation design priorities, demonstrating that supportive environments are achieved not by adding stimuli, but by controlling and organizing them within a clear, safe, and predictable system. The proposed guidelines constitute an applied contribution for architects and decision-makers, framed within the limits of perceived impact and observed correlational trends, explicitly avoiding causal inference, and allowing phased implementation beginning with the highest-impact priorities.

To enhance practical usability, the proposed framework is translated into an implementation matrix that organizes design strategies (

Table 8. Implementation Matrix for the Proposed Sensory–Interactive Architectural Framework.

Clustered Design Strategy	Priority Level *	Implementation Scope	Cost Level	Minimum Specification (Baseline Action)	Enhanced Option (Extended Application)	Empirical Basis from Study
Spatial Organization (Clear Circulation Paths + Functional Zoning + Calming Corners + Sensory Gradation + Reduction in Visual Clutter)	High	Both (Existing and New-Build)	Low–Moderate	Simplify circulation paths; clearly define learning/play/calming zones; apply closed storage systems to limit visual clutter; integrate a designated low-stimulation calming corner within each classroom using soft seating and partial visual screening.	Comprehensive spatial reconfiguration incorporating graduated sensory sequencing (calm → active → calming) and, where feasible, provision of a dedicated sensory-regulation room with controlled lighting and acoustic conditions.	Highest movement–spatial mean values with consistent moderate-to-strong correlational associations across behavioral indicators, including high independent ratings for calming corners (Items 17–22).
Lighting and Windows (Balanced Natural Lighting + Lighting Control + Reduction in Flicker)	High	Both	Moderate	Provide diffuse natural light; introduce blinds/dimming; reduce flicker and high-intensity direct lighting	Integrated multi-level lighting control system with adjustable intensity scenarios	Strong mean scores and moderate-to-strong correlations with attention-related variables (Items 1–3)
Acoustic Environment (Noise Insulation + Avoidance of Loud or Sudden Sounds)	High	Both	Moderate	Install sound-absorbing materials; isolate mechanical noise sources; regulate sudden sound exposure	Comprehensive acoustic enhancement, including zoning and vibration mitigation	Consistent associations with behavioral regulation and reduced anxiety indicators (Items 11–12)
Ventilation and Odors (Air Quality + Odor-Neutral Environments)	High	Both	Low–Moderate	Ensure stable ventilation and continuous air renewal; implement odor-neutral classroom policy	Mechanical ventilation upgrades with filtered airflow systems	Highest sensory comfort mean values (Items 14–15)
Materials and Finishes (Soft Flooring + Natural Materials + Matte Surfaces + Material Consistency)	High	Both	Moderate	Apply impact-reducing flooring; use natural/warm materials; avoid glossy surfaces; maintain material consistency within space	Comprehensive material-coordination strategy across spatial zones	Moderate-to-strong associations with tactile comfort and sensory predictability (Items 7–10)
Movement Flexibility (Flexible Furniture + Movement Tools + Movement Breaks)	Moderate	Both	Low–Moderate	Introduce lightweight, reconfigurable furniture; provide structured movement tools; schedule short movement breaks	Fully integrated movement-supportive classroom layout	Moderate associations with attention and behavioral regulation (Items 23–26)
Natural Elements (Indoor Plants + Sensory Gardens + Natural Views)	Moderate	Retrofit (limited)/New-Build (optimal)	Moderate–High	Introduce low-stimulation indoor plants and visible natural elements	Purpose-designed sensory garden incorporating graded stimulation and clear circulation	Moderate associations with mood and social participation variables (Items 27–29)
Interactive Technology (Low-Stimulation Interactive Tools)	Selective/Context-Dependent	Both	Low–Moderate	Use low-flicker, low-audio interactive tools with controlled duration	Adaptive interactive systems with adjustable sensory parameters	Variable perceptual associations depending on sensory sensitivity (Item 30)
Safety and Security (Slip-Resistant Flooring + Visual Supervision + Hazard-Free Environment)	Foundational/Mandatory	Both	Low	Install slip-resistant flooring; remove hazards; maintain clear sightlines and supportive supervision	Spatial redesign enhancing visibility while preserving psychological comfort	Strong and consistent associations with behavioral stability indicators (Items 31–33)

* Priority levels derived from relative mean rankings and strength of perceptual associations identified in the statistical analysis.

) according to relative priority, cost implications, and applicability in retrofit versus new-build contexts. Priority levels are derived from comparative mean values and the relative strength of perceptual associations identified in the statistical analysis, without implying causal hierarchy. Specifically, priority classification was determined through comparative ranking of dimension-level mean scores and the relative consistency of correlational strength across sensory–emotional and behavioral–academic variables, allowing strategies demonstrating higher perceptual impact and stronger relational patterns to be categorized as high priority. This matrix is intended to support phased, context-sensitive applications within inclusive early-childhood educational environments.

7. Study Limitations

Despite the applied value of the findings, this study is subject to several methodological limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results. First, the study relied on a perception-based assessment derived from the responses of parents, teachers, and therapists, without conducting direct physical measurements of environmental attributes or standardized experimental behavioral observations. Consequently, the findings reflect lived user experiences rather than objective measurements of environmental performance. Second, given the adoption of a cross-sectional descriptive–analytical design, the results should be interpreted as correlational relationships within a specific context, without inferring direct causal effects, and may be influenced by intervening educational, therapeutic, and contextual factors. Third, qualitative inputs obtained from open-ended questions were used as supportive interpretive evidence for the quantitative findings without being subjected to an independent qualitative analysis, which limits the generalizability of their analytical implications and positions them as complementary interpretive indicators rather than standalone qualitative results.

8. Future Research Directions

This study recommends that future research adopt experimental or quasi-experimental designs capable of capturing behavioral and emotional changes before and after the implementation of specific design interventions, while integrating objective measurement tools—such as noise levels, lighting intensity, and indoor air quality—to bridge perception-based assessments with actual environmental performance and reduce the gap between them. It also emphasizes the importance of testing the proposed applied framework across diverse cultural and institutional contexts, particularly to examine the extent to which the identified sensory-regulatory design principles retain their relevance under varying socio-cultural, climatic, and educational conditions. In addition, future studies should examine differences across neurodevelopmental disorder categories, levels of disability, and sensory sensitivity profiles, rather than treating these groups as homogeneous. Finally, there is a need to develop flexible design models that can be aligned with educational quality and academic accreditation frameworks, achieving a balance between standardized design guidance and individualized adaptation within inclusive learning environments, while ensuring contextual responsiveness to local regulatory and cultural settings.

9. Conclusions

This study confirms that sensory- and emotionally responsive educational environment design constitutes a core structural component in supporting behavior, self-regulation, interaction, and academic performance among children with neurodevelopmental disorders, rather than a supplementary element of the educational process. The findings reveal a consistently high perceived impact of environmental design across sensory–emotional and behavioral–academic dimensions, alongside clear variation in effect magnitude among design elements. This variation reflects the heterogeneity of sensory needs within this population and underscores the importance of adaptive design approaches over standardized solutions that assume uniform developmental responses. Spatial–motor dimensions, clear spatial organization, and calming zones emerged as the most influential in supporting emotional stability and behavioral attention, while balanced natural lighting, windows, and natural materials contributed to improved visual and tactile comfort, reduced distraction, and greater spatial acceptance through qualitative regulation of sensory stimuli rather than mere quantitative reduction.

The study further highlights the regulatory and therapeutic role of natural elements and sensory gardens, where the integration of nature—through views, indoor plants, or carefully designed outdoor spaces—was associated with improved emotional responses and enhanced social interaction, and with the provision of less stressful and more flexible learning environments compared to enclosed interiors. These benefits, however, are contingent upon a balanced gradient of stimulation that prevents sensory overload and maintains sensory stability. Results also indicate that environmental design exerts a stronger influence on behavior and attention than on social participation and academic achievement, reflecting the direct role of architectural interventions in regulating sensory input, while social interaction and academic outcomes remain shaped by a broader integration of physical environment, pedagogical strategies, and therapeutic support. Correlational analysis supports a coherent interpretive pathway linking improved sensory–emotional experience to enhanced behavioral and cognitive outcomes, without implying causality within the limits of the survey-based design.

The principal scientific and applied contribution of this study lies in presenting an evidence-informed applied framework that translates empirical findings into actionable architectural priorities for inclusive educational environments. Within the limits of a perception-based, cross-sectional design, the findings should be interpreted as indicative of statistically significant associations rather than experimentally verified causal effects. From a research perspective, the study establishes a structured basis for cross-context validation, experimental testing, and diagnosis-specific refinement of sensory–interactive architectural strategies. From a practical standpoint, the proposed framework offers architects and educational planners a regulation-oriented design logic that can inform both new constructions and the adaptive reuse or retrofitting of existing facilities. At a broader societal level, the findings support the advancement of inclusive educational policies that recognize the built environment as an active determinant of emotional well-being and learning quality for children with neurodevelopmental diversity.

In conclusion, adopting a sensory–emotional, evidence-based design approach not only enhances learning outcomes but also improves the overall educational quality of life for children with neurodevelopmental disorders, supporting the advancement of inclusive, humane, and individually responsive educational environments.