University common spaces and students’ psychological restoration: a scoping review of environmental characteristics, restorative outcomes, and potential pathways

Background University common spaces are important settings where university students spend time, move between destinations, relax, and interact socially. Their environmental characteristics may influence attention restoration, stress reduction, and emotion regulation. Methods Following the PRISMA-ScR reporting guidelines for scoping reviews, we systematically searched the relevant literature, and conducted a narrative synthesis of 52 studies that met the inclusion criteria. The synthesis characterized the current state of research on how university common spaces promote psychological restoration among university students, including the influencing factors, psychologically restorative outcomes, and potential pathways underlying these effects. Results The results showed the following: (1) Existing studies have focused primarily on campus landscape green spaces, particularly vegetated spaces and waterfront spaces, whereas architectural-environmental and facility-support factors have received relatively little attention. (2) University students’ psychological restoration has mainly been assessed using five categories of indicators: attention restoration, stress reduction, regulation of negative emotions, vitality restoration, and reduced loneliness. All five indicators are influenced, to varying degrees, by the characteristics of university common spaces and their constituent elements. (3) The characteristics and constituent elements of university common spaces may influence university students’ psychological restoration both directly and indirectly, with the latter effects mediated by attitudinal perceptions and behavioral support, including perceived restorativeness, environmental satisfaction, spatial preference, place attachment, physical activity, and social interaction. Conclusion Overall, university common spaces have the potential to promote psychological restoration among university students; however, existing studies remain limited by insufficient coverage of space types, a lack of systematic measurement of constituent elements, a lack of standardized restoration outcomes, and limited evidence on underlying mechanisms. Future research should compare multiple types of university common spaces, integrate outcome measures, identify pathways, and quantify spatial elements to provide more actionable evidence for designing restorative environments on university campuses.