EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 343 (2025) EPJ Web Conf., 343 (2025) 03011 References
Open Access
Issue
EPJ Web Conf.
Volume 343, 2025
1st International Conference on Advances and Innovations in Mechanical, Aerospace, and Civil Engineering (AIMACE-2025)
Article Number 03011
Number of page(s) 11
Section Civil Engineering & Infrastructure Development
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/epjconf/202534303011
Published online 19 December 2025
  1. Z. Liu, W. Xu, Z. Liu, W. Xu, Unveiling the power of social interactions: A systematic review of student experiences in informal learning space. Environ. Soc. Psychol. 9, 1867 (2023). https://doi.org/10.54517/ESP.V9I1.1867 [Google Scholar]
  2. S. H. Kang, Dynamically adaptive materials. MRS Bull. 49, 1121–1126 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1557/S43577-024-00798-3 [Google Scholar]
  3. G. Sart, Sustainable campus design in universities. IGI Global, 121–135 (n.d.). https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-8356-5.ch006 [Google Scholar]
  4. X. Wu, Z. Kou, P. Oldfield, T. Heath, K. Borsi, Informal learning spaces in higher education: Student preferences and activities. Build. 11, 252 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11060252 [Google Scholar]
  5. C. Whitchurch, Rehabilitating third space professionals in contemporary higher education institutions. Work. J. Acad. Labor 33, 24–35 (2023). [Google Scholar]
  6. A. Harrison, L. Hutton, Design for the changing educational landscape: Space, place and the future of learning (Routledge, London, 2014). [Google Scholar]
  7. T. Delbert, K. Stepansky, J. C. Bucey, D. Goodman-Schiller, Growing sustainable therapeutic third spaces: A therapeutic sensory garden's impact on university student self-reported quality of life and affect. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-05-2024-0313 [Google Scholar]
  8. Khalkho, A., & Devi, T. S. (2024). A place of interaction and learning at design college. International Journal of Scientific Research in Engineering and Management, 8(6), 1–X. https://doi.org/10.55041/IJSREM35718 [Google Scholar]
  9. Wan Ahmad Kamil, W. S., Mohamad, N., Mohd Rahim, M. F. H., & Mohd Rayme Anang Masuri, M. (2025). Sustainable co-working spaces in education institutions: A data-driven analysis of attributes influencing human interaction. Semarak International Journal of Applied Psychology. [Google Scholar]
  10. Al-Ramahi, A., Iranmanesh, A., & Denerel, S. B. (2023). Well-being as an effective aspect in the perception of vital in-between spaces within art and architecture faculties. Buildings, 13(6), 1467. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13061467 [Google Scholar]
  11. Wu, X., Law, S., Heath, T., & Borsi, K. (2017). Spatial configuration shapes student social and informal learning activities in educational complexes. In Proceedings of the 11th International Space Syntax Symposium (pp. 33.1–33.9). Lisbon, Portugal. Retrieved February 9, 2025, from http://www.11 ssslisbon.pt/proceedings/ [Google Scholar]
  12. Maciuliené, M., Guleviciuté, G., & Skarzauskiené, A. (2024). Beyond the lecture hall: Exploring informal learning spaces as catalysts for interpersonal relationships, student well-being and campus satisfaction in higher education institutions. Participatory Educational Research, 11(2), 37–56. https://doi.org/10.17275/PER.24.18.1L2 [Google Scholar]
  13. Aguilar-Carrasco, M. T., Dominguez-Amarillo, S., Acosta, I., & Sendra, J. J. (2021). Indoor lighting design for healthier workplaces: Natural and electric light assessment for suitable circadian stimulus. Optics Express, 29(19), 29899–29917. https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.430747 [Google Scholar]
  14. Zaman, S., & Afroz, D. (2024). Informal learning space in university campus: Students' perception and application. About Campus, 29 (5), 21–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/10864822241284629 [Google Scholar]
  15. Halaszova, I., & Kozlovska, M. (2024). Perception of a remodular sustainable building unit used in a university campus environment: A questionnaire survey. E3S Web of Conferences, 550, 01021. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202455001021 [Google Scholar]
  16. Lam, E., Wong, I., & Chan, D. (2018). Impacts of space and furniture design on student learning. In Conference on Striving for Quality Education - FSTE (Hong Kong, China). https://www.fste.edu.hk/conference/2018/files/201822.pdf [Google Scholar]
  17. New York Post. (2018, September 13). New York's modular building revolution is here. Retrieved February 9, 2025, from https://nypost.com/2018/09/13/new-yorks-modular-building-revolution-is-here/ [Google Scholar]
  18. Xu, S. (2024). Future-oriented trends in intelligent building materials and applications. Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Sciences, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.2478/AMNS-2024-2220 [Google Scholar]
  19. Ortiz, D., & Jiménez, T. A. C. (2023). Digital wall: A reflective tool for students' self-regulating online learning within a problem-solving approach. In North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME-NA). [Google Scholar]
  20. Laushkina, A. A., Roslyakova, S. V., & Smirnov, A. V. (2020). Implementation of adaptive lighting systems to reduce stressful situations in multi-user spaces. Research Result: Information Technologies, 5(4). https://doi.org/10.18413/2518-1092-2020-5-4-0-9 [Google Scholar]
  21. Gandasari, I., Hotimah, O., & Miyarsah, M. (2020). Green campus as a concept in creating sustainable campuses. KnE Social Sciences, 4(14), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v4i14.7853 [Google Scholar]
  22. Juhara, S., Saripuddin, S. M., Nokeo, R., Ruskardi, R., & Pasambuna, B. (2024). The role of smart materials, sustainable engineering practices, and IoT integration in advancing engineering solutions. The Journal of Academic Science, 1 (2), 96–102. https://doi.org/10.59613/3ERDZS77 [Google Scholar]
  23. Abdelaal, M. S. (2019). Biophilic campus: An emerging planning approach for a sustainable innovation-conducive university. Journal of Cleaner Production, 215, 1445–1456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.185 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  24. Leong, J., Wang, Y., Sayah, R., Rossikopoulou Pappa, S., Perteneder, F., & Ishii, H. (2019). SociaBowl: A dynamic table centerpiece to mediate group conversations. In Proceedings of CHI '19 Extended Abstracts. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290607.3312775 [Google Scholar]
  25. Harvard Innovation Labs. (n.d.). Retrieved February 9, 2025, from https://innovationlabs.harvard.edu/ [Google Scholar]
  26. Cornell Atkinson Center for Sustainability. (n.d.). Engineered living materials for indoor air quality control. Retrieved February 9, 2025, from https://atkinson.cornell.edu/award/engineered-living-materials-for-indoor-air-quality-control/ [Google Scholar]
  27. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar]
  28. Middle Tennessee State University. (n.d.). Middle Tennessee State University | Case study | SageGlass [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved February 9, 2025, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BobbXnXAuFA [Google Scholar]
  29. Jalia, A., Bakker, R., & Ramage, M. (2019). The edge, Amsterdam: showcasing an exemplary IoT building. Department of Architecture, University of Cambridge. 2018. https://www.cdbb.cam.ac.uk/system/files/documents/TheEdge%5FPaper%5FLOW1.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  30. Delft University of Technology. (n.d.). A modern trombe wall saves loads of energy. Retrieved February 9, 2025, from https://www.tudelft.nl/en/stories/articles/a-modern-trombe-wall-saves-loads-of-energy [Google Scholar]
  31. The University of Tokyo Institute for Future Initiatives. (n.d.). The future of washing initiative. Retrieved February 9, 2025, from https://ifi.u-tokyo.ac.jp/en/unit-news/3757/ [Google Scholar]
  32. Fang, Y., Chen, G., Bick, M., & Chen, J. (2021). Smart textiles for personalized thermoregulation. Chemical Society Reviews, 50(17), 9357–9374. https://doi.org/10.1039/D1CS00003A [Google Scholar]
  33. Sciberras, M., & Dingli, A. (2023). Quantitative research. In Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, 568, 43–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19900-4_11 [Google Scholar]
  34. Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 22(140), 1–55. [Google Scholar]
  35. Joshi, A., Kale, S., Chandel, S., & Pal, D. (2015). Likert scale: Explored and explained. British Journal of Applied Science & Technology, 7(4), 396–103. https://doi.org/10.9734/BJAST/2015/14975 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  36. Etikan, I. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  37. Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2019). Social research methods (p. 436). [Google Scholar]
  38. Evans, J. R., & Mathur, A. (2018). The value of online surveys: A look back and a look ahead. Internet Research, 28(4), 854–887. https://doi.org/10.1108/INTR-03-2018-0089 [Google Scholar]
  39. Field, A. P. (2024). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (p. 1110). [Google Scholar]
  40. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.